IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v11y2021i3p21582440211037303.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of the Maturity Level of Business Processes for Science and Technology Parks

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Maria Magalhães Correia
  • Claudimar Pereira da Veiga
  • Carlos Otávio Senff
  • Luiz Carlos Duclós

Abstract

This research analyzes the maturity level of business processes with the application of the Process and Enterprise Maturity Model (PEMM) in the light of Enterprise Architecture (EA). This is qualitative research, cross-sectional, and in the form of a multiple case study performed in science and technology parks in Brazil. A questionnaire conducted by semi-structured interviews, non-participant observations, and document analysis to gather information on the processes was applied to achieve the proposed objective. The finding revealed that 75% of the analyzed parks show signs that processes’ maturity results in optimal performance (Level 3) and can be integrated with other internal processes, maximizing the performance of these parks. Only one park was at Level 2, indicating that business processes led to better results when implemented from one organization. This study shows that even when enterprise capability is at Level 3, this does not help the process enablers rise from Level 2 to Level 3. This study’s originality lies in its showed that the maturity level of the analyzed parks and in making comparisons to identify discrepancies and future actions, considering their responsibility to transfer knowledge from science and technology institutions to the public and private sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana Maria Magalhães Correia & Claudimar Pereira da Veiga & Carlos Otávio Senff & Luiz Carlos Duclós, 2021. "Analysis of the Maturity Level of Business Processes for Science and Technology Parks," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:3:p:21582440211037303
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440211037303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440211037303
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440211037303?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guadix, José & Carrillo-Castrillo, Jesús & Onieva, Luis & Navascués, Javier, 2016. "Success variables in science and technology parks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 4870-4875.
    2. Qamar Farooq & Xuan Liu & Peihua Fu & Yunhong Hao, 2020. "Volunteering sustainability: An advancement in corporate social responsibility conceptualization," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 2450-2464, November.
    3. Joan Bellavista & Luis Sanz, 2009. "Science and technology parks: habitats of innovation: introduction to special section," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(7), pages 499-510, August.
    4. Jan Jonker & David Foster, 2002. "Stakeholder excellence? Framing the evolution and complexity of a stakeholder perspective of the firm," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 187-195, December.
    5. Bilopolsky M. G. & Kharchenko V. A., 2014. "Characteristics of enterprise development," Економічний вісник Донбасу Экономический вестник Донбасса, CyberLeninka;Институт экономики промышленности НАН Украины, issue 1 (35), pages 148-156.
    6. Ana Maria Magalhães Correia & Clarissa Figueredo Rocha & Luiz Carlos Duclós & Claudimar Pereira da Veiga, 2021. "Integration of Business Processes With Activities and Information: Evidence From Brazil," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440211, March.
    7. Aydiner, Arafat Salih & Tatoglu, Ekrem & Bayraktar, Erkan & Zaim, Selim & Delen, Dursun, 2019. "Business analytics and firm performance: The mediating role of business process performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 228-237.
    8. Carvalho, João Vidal & Rocha, Álvaro & van de Wetering, Rogier & Abreu, António, 2019. "A Maturity model for hospital information systems," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 388-399.
    9. Dima Jamali, 2008. "A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: A Fresh Perspective into Theory and Practice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 213-231, September.
    10. Ana Maria Magalhães Correia & Claudimar P. da Veiga, 2019. "Management model by processes for science parks," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 1580121-158, January.
    11. Pontus Johnson & Robert Lagerström & Per Närman & Mårten Simonsson, 2007. "Enterprise architecture analysis with extended influence diagrams," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 163-180, July.
    12. Henriques, Iago Cotrim & Sobreiro, Vinicius Amorim & Kimura, Herbert, 2018. "Science and technology park: Future challenges," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 144-160.
    13. Morteza Alaeddini & Sepideh Salekfard, 2013. "Investigating the role of an enterprise architecture project in the business-IT alignment in Iran," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 67-88, March.
    14. A. Van Looy & M. De Backer & G. Poels, 2011. "Defining Business Process Maturity. A Journey towards Excellence," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 11/725, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    15. Dykan V. L. & Dmytriienko S. V., 2014. "Estimation of quality enterprise''s labor force," Вісник економіки транспорту і промисловості, CyberLeninka;Украинская государственная академия железнодорожного транспорта, issue 48, pages 9-12.
    16. Arno Kourula & Guillaume Delalieux, 2016. "The Micro-level Foundations and Dynamics of Political Corporate Social Responsibility: Hegemony and Passive Revolution through Civil Society," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(4), pages 769-785, June.
    17. Rajagopal, 2014. "Architecting Enterprise," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-137-36678-8.
    18. Chebanova N. V., 2014. "Theoretical and practical aspects of enterprise risk," Вісник економіки транспорту і промисловості, CyberLeninka;Украинская государственная академия железнодорожного транспорта, issue 47, pages 151-154.
    19. Xie, Kefan & Song, Yu & Zhang, Weiyong & Hao, Jiahui & Liu, Zimei & Chen, Yun, 2018. "Technological entrepreneurship in science parks: A case study of Wuhan Donghu High-Tech Zone," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 156-168.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alberto Albahari & Andrés Barge-Gil & Salvador Pérez-Canto & Paolo Landoni, 2023. "The effect of science and technology parks on tenant firms: a literature review," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1489-1531, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jose‐Manuel Prado‐Lorenzo & Isabel Gallego‐Alvarez & Isabel M. Garcia‐Sanchez, 2009. "Stakeholder engagement and corporate social responsibility reporting: the ownership structure effect," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 94-107, March.
    2. Lei Wang & Heikki Juslin, 2013. "Corporate Social Responsibility in the Chinese Forest Industry: Understanding Multiple Stakeholder Perceptions," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 129-145, May.
    3. Saurav Dutta & Raef Lawson & David Marcinko, 2012. "Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications of Management Theory," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 1-10, January.
    4. Eduardo Cadorin & Magnus Klofsten & Hans Löfsten, 2021. "Science Parks, talent attraction and stakeholder involvement: an international study," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 1-28, February.
    5. Soomro, Zahoor Ahmed & Shah, Mahmood Hussain & Ahmed, Javed, 2016. "Information security management needs more holistic approach: A literature review," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 215-225.
    6. Taiane Quaresma Leite & André Luis Silva & Joaquim Ramos Silva & Sérgio Evangelista Silva, 2023. "A Multilevel Analysis of the Interaction Between Science Parks and External Agents: a Study in Brazil and Portugal," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(2), pages 1790-1829, June.
    7. Laspia, Alessandro & Sansone, Giuliano & Landoni, Paolo & Racanelli, Domenico & Bartezzaghi, Emilio, 2021. "The organization of innovation services in science and technology parks: Evidence from a multi-case study analysis in Europe," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    8. Gong, Yiwei & Janssen, Marijn, 2019. "The value of and myths about enterprise architecture," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 1-9.
    9. Ana Maria Magalhães Correia & Clarissa Figueredo Rocha & Luiz Carlos Duclós & Claudimar Pereira da Veiga, 2021. "Integration of Business Processes With Activities and Information: Evidence From Brazil," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440211, March.
    10. T. Theeranattapong & D. Pickernell & C. Simms, 2021. "Systematic literature review paper: the regional innovation system-university-science park nexus," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 2017-2050, December.
    11. Qamar Farooq & Jie Hao & Xuan Liu & Di Xiao & Yunhong Hao, 2020. "Social and environmental development: Fresh concepts and soft measures towards sustainable development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 1796-1803, November.
    12. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1059 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Rajko Novak & Aleksander Janes, 2017. "Merjenje zrelosti procesne usmerjenosti," UPP Monograph Series, University of Primorska Press, number 978-961-7023-55-8.
    14. Shanwei Li & Yongchang Wu & Qi Yu & Xueyuan Chen, 2023. "National Agricultural Science and Technology Parks in China: Distribution Characteristics, Innovation Efficiency, and Influencing Factors," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-26, July.
    15. Erik G. Hansen & Stefan Schaltegger, 2018. "Sustainability Balanced Scorecards and their Architectures: Irrelevant or Misunderstood?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(4), pages 937-952, July.
    16. Jolanta MAJ, 2015. "Diversity Management’S Stakeholders And Stakeholders Management," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(1), pages 780-793, November.
    17. Satyajit Majumdar & Gordhan K. Saini, 2016. "CSR in India: Critical Review and Exploring Entrepreneurial Opportunities," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 2(1), pages 56-79, January.
    18. Mahabubur Rahman & M. Ángeles Rodríguez-Serrano & Mary Lambkin, 2019. "Brand equity and firm performance: the complementary role of corporate social responsibility," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(6), pages 691-704, November.
    19. Dima Jamali, 2010. "MNCs and International Accountability Standards Through an Institutional Lens: Evidence of Symbolic Conformity or Decoupling," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 95(4), pages 617-640, September.
    20. Isabel-María García-Sánchez & Cristina Aibar-Guzmán & Carmen Serrano-Valdecillos & Beatriz Aibar-Guzmán, 2022. "Analysis of the Dialogue with Stakeholders by the IBEX 35 Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-26, February.
    21. María Lourdes Arco-Castro & María Victoria Lopez-Pérez & Sara Rodriguez-Gomez & Raquel Garde-Sánchez, 2020. "Do Stakeholders Modulate Philanthropic Strategy? Corporate Philanthropy as Stakeholders’ Engagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-18, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:3:p:21582440211037303. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.