public service partnership maturity model
TRANSCRIPT
Public Service ICT Partnership
Maturity Model
Contents
Maturity Model ............................................................................................................ 1 Contents ..................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3 Public Service ICT Partnership Maturity Model ........................................................... 3
Methodology ............................................................................................................ 3 Levels of the Model ................................................................................................. 4
1. Priority setting ........................................................................................................ 4 2. Standardising ......................................................................................................... 4 3. Delivering ............................................................................................................... 6 4. Performing ............................................................................................................. 6 5. Transforming .......................................................................................................... 7 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 8
Apply this maturity model as a method: ................................................................... 8 Use the methodology: .............................................................................................. 8 Extend this maturity model: ..................................................................................... 8
2
Introduction
It was proposed to map a selection of public service technology partnerships to understand what lessons can be learned in developing and managing these.
The outcome of this research is the development of a Public Service ICT Partnership Maturity Model.
This was produced based on a Benchmarking of Best Practices (attached as a separate document) which provides examples on each of the areas of the model.
Recommendations for next steps are described on how Kent Connects can use this approach.
Public Service ICT Partnership Maturity Model
Methodology
Maturity models1 are increasingly used in the development & management of IT organisations. The maturity model enclosed at the end of this document has been adapted from the Software Engineering Institute’s Maturity Model2.
This can help partnerships improve their processes by measuring how well they can and do perform on the areas selected below. Using the Benchmarking of Best Practices, they can also benchmark themselves against other partnerships.
Partnerships can use this maturity model in the following contexts:
1. Strategic planning
Situations where this may occur include developing a business plan for the partnership, reviewing its progress over the year or in appraising the professional development of the partnership team.
o Developing high maturity in a particular area: Ensuring that it has achieving all of the processes for that particular area (A-H3)
o Aiming to reach a higher maturity level as a partnership: Ensuring it has achieved all of the processes for that particular level (1-54)
2. Project planning
Situations where this may occur include reviewing a programme to produce recommendations for the next phase or in developing project plans for specific priorities within its strategy (i.e. public service redesign).
1 http://ivi.nuim.ie/itcmf.shtml2 http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/3 See the “Maturity Model” section4 See the “Levels of the Model” section
3
o Coordinating an appraisal of an IT function: Selecting targets to move up a maturity level in types of IT function (i.e. infrastructure)
o Producing recommendations for improvement: Setting targets to consolidate maturity levels in areas and move up levels in others
Levels of the Model
The maturity model is based on five levels of “maturity” described below. What follows is the description of each level of the model.
1. Priority setting
This is a process that achieves the work needed to define the objectives of the partnership and the processes that enable the delivery of the activities required to meet them.
Typical partnership at this level:
o A shared strategy is developed to outline the priorities to guide future operational decisions and agree to use external standards.
o Processes are set out to scope out the development of locally developed architectures and infrastructures, creating sub-groups to initiate this process.
o Investment is used in an ad-hoc way monitored by generic indicators.
The distinction between priority setting and standardising processes is around the level of institutionalisation of the processes.
2. Standardising
This is a process that is planned and delivered according to the partnership’s objectives. This includes institutionalising, resourcing and monitoring its processes, groups and activities.
Typical partnership at this level:
o Issues are mapped to develop shared priorities and inform how investment is allocated to projects supported by the partnership.
o Standardised processes and infrastructure are implemented to support partners to reach an agreed level of maturity in core areas (i.e. procurement).
o Funding works on a co-financing basis to ensure commitment by individual partners in projects.
4
The distinction between standardising and delivering processes is around the scope of standards, processes & procedures.
5
3. Delivering
This is a process that is tailored from the partnership’s standard processes to a particular activity. This includes creating the processes, policies & resources specific to that field.
Typical partnership at this level:
o Rationales for delivery in targeted areas of work are clarified. This informs setting of funding and targets for development of specific projects (such as a particular service to share, process to re-engineer or system to implement).
o Through this level of prioritisation, support is provided by the partnership to develop common processes in those areas, particularly where compliance is required or where there is a need to transition to new models.
o This is often supported by bespoke training or experts and monitored by indicators designed specifically for that field.
The distinction between delivering and performing processes is how systematic the creation and management of processes is to specific activities.
4. Performing
This is a process that establishes quantitative objectives for managing and monitoring the quality and performance of partnership activities.
Typical partnership at this level:
o Information and performance systems are developed and financed to systematically analyse needs and opportunities partners need to focus on.
o As partnerships progress through this level of maturity, they move to more real-time analysis of evidence to iterate responses to emerging demands.
o This can be supplemented by providing experts to help partners understand how to optimise the use of business intelligence to forecast future trends.
o This evidence-based approach drives the development of strategy and investment in its delivery, as well as quality assurance of performance of systems and auditing to identify opportunities for re-using existing solutions.
The distinction between performing and transforming processes is how much the partnership applies the analysis of performance to develop improved processes and activities.
6
5. Transforming
This is a process that is continually improved based on an evidence-based understanding of its needs & resources. This includes the development of new processes & activities that support the change required.
Typical partnership at this level:
o Information systems enable partners to use the evidence base to move from delivery of services to strategic management of the public service ICT marketplace of their local area.
o Savings and income generation drive investment to manage risk of any future budgetary pressures and move towards alternative commercial models.
o Shared infrastructure and architecture are developed to streamline processes across all priorities of the partnership and aligned to locally agreed architectures in relevant areas such as customer services or procurement.
o Common principles are developed by partners and applied systematically in projects that redesign online services to meet customer needs.
o Professional development and performance management are extended to include change management to support the transformation needed to deliver the strategic vision of the partnership.
It’s important to note that partnerships will not necessarily fit into a particular level across all its areas of work. Typical partnerships are described to help people situate where their partnership broadly sits.
There may partnerships which could identify as being firmly on a particular level (i.e. “Level 1 - Priority setting”) but also demonstrating examples from a much higher level (i.e. “Level 3 - Delivering”). They would focus on the intermediate level (i.e. “Level 2 - Standardising”) to then be able to reinforce their processes at the higher level.
7
Recommendations
The following recommendations provide options of how this maturity model could be applied to meet Kent Connects’ strategic and project planning objectives:
Apply this maturity model as a method:
o Of benchmarking Kent Connects to other partnerships on a specific function or priorities from its strategy or business plan
o Of appraising how future Kent Connects projects perform across the criteria to identify and capture good practices in a standardised way
Use the methodology:
o To produce maturity models for priority areas from the PS ICT Strategy (i.e. information governance, customer service) or future research requirements
Extend this maturity model:
o By adding features (i.e. professional development required) that can help partnerships move up levels of the maturity model
o By exploring the feasibility of benchmarking it to other recognised maturity models of specific ICT functions (i.e. SFIA Skills Framework) or of sectors Kent Connects works with (i.e. Health Informatics Capability Maturity Model)
8
Type Priority Setting Standardising Delivering Performing Transforming
A. How do technology partnerships define their priorities?
Outlining priorities in shared ICT strategy
Analysing and attempting to reach consensus on which level - borough/local/regional - current problems and future challenges can be tackled by different partners
Clarifying rationales for shared services and development of new infrastructure / architecture and scoping most suitable areas for delivery
Pooling efforts to research issues, map assets and develop systems to monitor performance
Moving from supporting delivery of services to building the capacity of local authorities to sell services and use market analysis to rationalise & joint procure
B. How is partnership funding allocated to delivering its priorities?
Funding agreed in strategy in advance
Funding based on priorities & approved by board and managed by partnership office in response to calls for proposals
Funding divided up into areas of work with specific objectives, budget lines & metrics for those areas
Funding based on multi-criteria analysis (ROI, payback, etc) and CEO commitment to sponsor projects
Funding from savings from joint procurement or e-auctions to implement transformational projects
C. How effective are technology partnerships (TP) at supporting shared or collaborative:
Infrastructure Agreement on common use of external architecture (such as PS ICT Information Architecture) to scope opportunities for shared infrastructure
Implementation of nationally defined infrastructure (such as PSN)
Development of infrastructure in selected geographical or service areas (i.e. digital districts)
Provision of health check to identify any security vulnerabilities associated with devices managed by partners on shared infrastructure
Development of a single infrastructure across the local area to facilitate integrated provision and shared services that can produce significant savings
Services Development of shared services board to provide forum for partners to explore opportunities for collaboration
Establishment of service framework contracts for shared services that can quantify expected savings
Development of tools to help partners work through the business case and work through different shared services models
Development of asset and services register so partners can identify opportunities for reusing existing ICT solutions or sharing services
Development of online portal service & functionality to enable other partnerships to implement and manage their own online
Procurement Developed of shared procurement strategy with agreed standards
Development of management information system to manage collaborative contracts
Development of shared procurement in specific areas
Development of online expenditure analysis dashboard to enable managers to have access to statistics & quantify the performance of their processes
Development of joint venture to provide a managed transactional service for buying and selling services with an integrated service catalogue
Customer Insight Development of common approach, with guidance, templates & worked examples
Development of academy providing training in research / analytical techniques
Development of project with government agency to simplify a business process
Implementation of systems to manage information and data as well as joint strategic needs assessments or audits of software assets
Development of online dashboard to enable residents to access and visualise information to identify opportunities for improvement
Self Service / New Channels Development of shared customer services workflow and architecture
Development of online tools with other partners to introduce self service or new channels to citizens
Implementation of a common, scalable self service portal for a specific service
Integration of metrics into every level of their operation to relate information to industry wide benchmarks & iterate efforts in responses to user needs
Development of self reporting tool by several partners, accompanied by a system to monitor cost savings & better cross agency resolution
9
Type Priority Setting Standardising Delivering Performing Transforming
D. To what extent do TPs help their members?
Exploit opportunities for shared services
Development of shared service principles
Development of programme with senior managers to rationalise systems in particular service areas to reduce costs
Development of tool to show partners how to make the transition to a new commercial model
Market analysis of demand for services offered by partnership
Provision of support to partners to develop business cases to support shared services with forecast savings
Standardise processes for more efficient delivery
Establishment of a common framework to inform the business case for joint investment in future shared capabilities
Development of toolkit with providers to demonstrate benefits of a common approach
Development & implementation of common standards which support interoperability with other systems on a particular area (i.e. ePetitions)
Development of common office to share comparable performance & value for money data
Development of a suite of mandatory, technical standards, access to frameworks and develop joint requirements
Support their members to be able to adapt to external factors
Review corporate ICT strategies to inform development of shared partnership strategy
Organise workshops with decision makers & external experts around scheduled themes to develop a programme of work
Development of toolkit to enable a particular group of users (i.e. carers) to teach each other ICT skills
Developing a prototype to enable local authorities to adapt methods from other areas to their local needs
Development of a lab to organise study exchanges on specific priorities to identify improvements and incubate new services
E. How do technology partnerships:
Work with individual or clustered partners
Enable partners to share good practice & participate in a nationally accredited network
Create thematic groups to provide a collective voice for partners
Development of tool to show partners how to make the transition to a new commercial model
Work with analytics specialists to provide advanced visualisations of statistical data to predict demand of partners’ services
Work with specialists to enable partners to inform & redesign their services
Aim to work with prospective partners
Listing of core services offered to partners
Form sub-regional groupings to test whether shared services can offer source of savings
Organise seminars on its priority areas to showcase its work to prospective partners
Work with support organisations to develop training on how to work in public-private collaborations
Development of joint venture with company to provide a managed service with commercial exclusivity in specialist areas
10
Type Priority Setting Standardising Delivering Performing Transforming
F. To what extent do technology partnerships (TP) translate their priorities into the development of:
Shared ICT operating model & architecture
Establishment of area-wide strategy to better identify & remove cost and duplication supported by use of national ICT information architecture
Development of target operating model and associated architecture which all organisations can transition to in line with local requirements
Development of shared operating model workflow on one of the layers of the enterprise architecture
Development of an action plan to deliver objectives of the strategy supported by common infrastructure for shared delivery and systems for monitoring performance
Development of shared infrastructure (i.e. CRM) that conforms to shared data, technical & security architecture
Shared targets / processes Shared agreement to comply with government technical, data and security standards
Standardisation of processes through sign up by partners to locally developed agreements (i.e. data sharing)
Development of guidance, templates & worked examples on how to comply in a particular area (i.e. open data)
Development of common office to share comparable performance & value for money data
Development of systems that use audit of assets to make the sharing, buying and selling of services more efficient
Shared training / development programmes
Development of common approach to a particular area of development (i.e. project management)
Development of tool to show partners how to make the transition to a new commercial model
Development of academy providing training in a particular specialism (i.e. business process re-engineering)
Support to partners to develop evidence-based propositions to support shared services or develop new business models
Design of accredited programme to develop local leadership
G. What type of resources do TPs have to support their work?
Staff Roles Consultancy and project management provided by resource team
Capability managers for each sub group, as well as project managers for specific projects
In house team supported by category experts as required (i.e. secondments from partners)
Consultants responsible for facilitating the creation and optimisation of priority projects across the partnership
Joint venture / managed service with private company
Funding Subscriptions, corporate sponsorship or government grants
Co-financing on a project by project basis
Consultancy fees for specific work partnership can add value to (i.e. R&D)
Savings from eAuctions or joint procurement
Sale of products & services
11
Type Priority Setting Standardising Delivering Performing Transforming
H. How do technology partnerships evaluate and manage performance?
Design indicators to monitor the successful delivery of projects
Savings identified as single indicator for measuring success
Split of efficiency / improvement indicators to evaluate effectiveness of projects on different objectives
Indicators created and monitored for each priority area (i.e. shared services, infrastructure)
Analysis of return on investment of projects funded by partnership
Cost-benefit analysis factoring in investment in change management required
Share lessons learned & review business processes
Develop R&D programmes for each priority theme
Development of network, organising seminars & events to tackle priorities
Development of academy providing training on a particular field
Baselining services across the partnership, developing an assessment process for projects, developing a comparable approach to key metrics to measure progress
Immersive research within the partners’ user sites to plan development of projects to improve change processes
Audit assets owned by partners to identify potential for sharing
Development of shared approach to audit assets
Development of management information system to manage collaborative contracts or audit assets
Monitoring usage data through a system to identify behavioural changes in a particular field (i.e. home energy use)
Development of online expenditure analysis dashboard to enable managers to have access to statistics & quantify the performance of their processes
Integration of shared financial management system with marketplace facility to simplify purchasing process
12
13