university of innsbruck '09 - mature ip · university of innsbruck school of management...

University of InnsbruckSchool of Management

Information SystemsUniversitaetsstrasse 15

6020 InnsbruckAustria

Understanding Maturity ModelsResults of a Structured Content Analysis

Michael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann

'09

Agenda

Maturity Models and their relevance to BIS

Method: Structured Content Analysis

Execution of the analysis

Implications for Maturity Modelling

• Concepts of maturity

• Domains that use maturity

• Former Work

• Process flow of the analysis

• Iterative Coding Process

• Approximation of the population

• Model sampling

• Sample of 16 selected models

3Michael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann | I-KNOW'09 | Understanding Maturity Models

Maturity Models and their relevance for BIS

• Concept of maturing is used in different ways,

– analytical– explanatory– normative

• and in many disciplines[Greenberg, et al. 1974]

– biology– sociology– psychology– business information systems and

computer science (74 models discovered)• Few explicit definitions of maturity

concepts taken up in the IS community e.g., [Ahleman, et al. 2005, 15]

• Reflection and reassessment of concept of maturity modelling seemed necessary


Knowledge Maturing – MATURE-IP

• Contribution to the state of the art report of maturity modelling to characterise the knowledge maturing model [Maier & Schmidt 2007] – Where are similarities/differences to existing models?

– Which scopes have already been exploited?

• Objective: give a foundation for refinement of the knowledge maturing model (v1.0)


What we aimed at - Research Objectives

• Get an approximation for the population of IS related maturity models and give an overview of different concepts of maturing

• Get a deeper understanding of the nature of maturity modelling

• Inform future (re-)developments of maturity models with a special focus on the field of knowledge management i.e. knowledge maturing


Method

• Large quantity of data, i.e. scientific papers available

• No ex ante hypotheses to test inductive procedure

• some findings from the literature review exists

• Structured content analysis [Mayring 2008, 82pp]– Inductive/hypotheses building approach [Schambach-Hardtke

2005, 18]

– offers possibility to integrate existing theories and findings

– analysis guided by research question and action plan

– build structuring system which targets research question

Process Flow of Structured Content Analysis


preparationphase

predefine analysis

item

define structuring dimension

define categories

describe categories

work through material and mark findings

extract findings

into structure

rework category system

codingphase

format results

concluding phase

1

2

3

4 5 6

7

[Mayring 2008, 84]


Iterative Coding Processorienting phase

– first categories emerge (number grows rapidly)fluctuating phase

– adding and generalising categories (number grows slowly)stabilizing phase

– condensing categories (number declines)

~13% 50% 100% ofmaterial coded

0%

B) fluctuating phase

C) stabilizing phase

A) orienting phase[Hädrich 2008, 223]


Approximation of Population• population of maturity models was approximated by Internet search• models were clustered concerning maturing elements using

differentiation of knowledge media

social systemmaturity models

objectmaturity models

personmaturity models

N = 46~ N = 22~ N = 8~


Model Sampling

• sample of an identical number of models was drawn from each subset• selection was based on number of search results of Google Scholar

N = 46n = 5 (6)

~ N = 22n = 5

~ N = 8n = 5

~

social systemmaturity models

objectmaturity models

personmaturity models


Sample of 16 selected Models

model subset acronymapproximated diversification

source ofinformation

person

PSP 2,120 [Humphrey, et al. 2005]

PCMM 561 [Curtis, et al. 1995]

SFIA 70 [SFIA 2007]

Dreyfus Model 31 [Dreyfus et al. 1988]

Cross Model 0 [Cross 2007]

object

SPICE 971 [Coletta 1995]

UMM 138 [Earthy 1999]

EMM 77 [Marshall, et al. 2004]

SMMM 40 [April, et al. 2005]

bIMM 19 [Chamoni et al. 2004]

socialsystem

CMM 13,600 [Paulk, et al. 1993]

CObIT 830 [ITGI 2007]

Nolan Model 602 [Nolan 1979]

TMM 184 [Burnstein, et al. 1998]

CM3 84 [Kajko-Mattson 2002]

OIMM 37 [Clark, et al. 2001]


Coding Example

What are features of

maturity models?

… … Where do assessment data

come from?

interviews documents questionnaire data

… …

question

sub-cluster

code


Implications for Maturity Modelling (1/4)

What does maturing mean?

KMM: Maturing means a change in several dimensions including formality, distribution, commitment, legitimation, understandability and teachability of the maturing subject, i.e. of socially constructed knowledge in an organisation.



What is the maturing subject?

KMM: The maturing subject is a knowledge area in the sense of a chunk of knowledge in a socially distributed activity system.

?



What is the model used for?

KMM: The knowledge maturing model can be used as an analytic model to help structure the analysis of existing organisational and technical infrastructures in support of goal-directed learning on a collective level and can be further enhanced to help design such infrastructures with respect to their ability to guide knowledge maturing.



Who uses the model?

KMM: The knowledge maturing model can be used by members of organisations taking on the role of guides helping to foster and reduce barriers for knowledge maturing.

?


Definition

A maturity model conceptually represents

• phases of increasing quantitative or qualitative capability changes

• of a maturing element

• in order to assess its advancement

• with respect to a defined focus area.– Phases are commonly separated by non-metric trigger

conditions

– Element has to fullfill conditions of all lower stages and the actual stage

– Used descriptive or normative


Thank You for Your Attention

References


[Ahlemann, Schroeder and Teuteberg 2005] F. Ahlemann, C. Schroeder and F. Teuteberg: "Kompetenz- und Reifegradmodelle für das Projektmanagement. Grundlagen, Vergleich und Einsatz"; ISPRI - Forschungszentrum für Informationssysteme in Projekt- und Innovationsnetzwerken Osnabrück (2005).[April et.al. 2005] A. April and J.-M. Desharnais: "Software Maintenance Maturity Model (SMMM): A Software Maintenence Process Model"; Statistic Canada Conference, Ottawa (2005),[Burnstein et.al. 1998] I. Burnstein, A. Homyen, R. Grom and C. Carlson: "A Model to Assess Testing Process Maturity"; Crosstalk. The journal of defenseSOftware Engineering, 1998, November (1998),[Chamoni et.al. 2004] P. Chamoni and P. Gluchowski: "Integrationstrends bei Business-Intelligence-Systemen, Empirische Untersuchung auf Basis des Business Intelligence Maturity Model"; Wirtschaftsinformatik, 46, 2 (2004), 119-128.[Clark and Moon 2001] T. Clark and T. Moon: "Interoperability for Joint and Coalition Operations"; Australian Defence Force Journal, 115, (2001), 23-36.[Coletta 1995] A. Coletta: "The Spice Project: An internal Standard for Software Process Assessment, Improvement and Capability Determination"; In: Objective Software Quality, (ed), Springer, Heidelberg (1995).[Cross 2007] J. Cross: "Informal Learning. Rediscovering the Natural Pathways That Inspire Innovation and Performance"; Pfeiffer, San Francisco (2007).[Curtis et.al. 1995] B. Curtis, W. Hefley and S. Miller: "Overview of the People Capability Maturity Model"; Software Engineering Institute (1995).[Dreyfus et.al. 1988] H. L. Dreyfus and S. E. Dreyfus: "Mind over Machine. The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer"; Free Press, New York (1988).[Earthy 1999] J. Earthy: "Usability Maturity Model: Process"; Information Engineering Usability Support Centres 2.2, (1999).[Greenberg et al. 1974] E. Greenberg and A. Sørensen: "Towards a Concept of psychosocial maturity"; Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3, 4 (1974), 329-358.[Hädrich 2008] T. Hädrich: „Situation-Oriented Provision of Knowledge Services“. Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftsinformatik und Betriebliches Informationsmanagement. Halle-Wittenberg, Martin-Luther-Universität (2008).[Humphrey et.al. 2005] W. Humphrey, M. Pomeroy-Huff, R. Coannon and M. Seburn: "The Personal Software Process (PSP) Body of Knowledge"; Software Engineering Institute 1.0, (2005).[ITGI 2007] ITGI: "Cobit 4.1"; Information Technologie Gouvernance Institute Rolling Meadows (2007).[Kajko-Mattsson 2002] M. Kajko-Mattsson: "Corrective Maintenance Maturity Model: Problem Management"; 18th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, IEEE Computer Society, Kyoto (2002), 486-491.[Maier 2007] R. Maier: "Knowledge Management Systems"; Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2007).[Maier et al. 2007] R. Maier and A. Schmidt: "Characterizing Knowledge Maturing"; Professional Knowledge Management, Gito, Potsdam, Germany (2007),[Marshall et.al. 2004] S. Marshall and G. Mitchell: "Applying SPICE to e-Learning: An e-Learning Maturity Model?"; Australasien Computing Education Conference, Dunedin (2004),[Mayring 2008] P. Mayring: "Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken"; Beltz, Weinheim und Basel (2008).[Nolan 1979] R. Nolan: "Managing the Crisis in Data processing"; Harvard Business Review, 57, 2 (1979), 115-126.[Paulk et al. 1993] M. Paulk, B. Curtis, M. B. Chrissis and C. Weber: "Capability Maturity Model for Software"; Software Engineering Institute 1.1, Pittsburgh (1993).[Schambach-Hardtke 2005] L. Schambach-Hardtke: "Theoretische Hintergründe Sozialwissenschaftlicher Forschungsmethoden"; In: Einführung in das Methodenspektrum sozialwissenschaftlicher Forschung, S. Gahleitner, S. Gerull, B. Petuya-Ituarte, L. Schambach-Hardtke and C. Streblow (ed), Schibri-Verlag, Milow (2005).[SFIA 2007] SFIA: "Framework reference SFIA"; SFIA Foundation 3, (2007).


Induction of new Codes

• Coding process– was started with 17 codes | 05 sub-cluster | 4 questions

– was ended with 64 codes | 23 sub-cluster | 4 questions

Mod

el n

ame

Text

1

Text

2

Nature of maturing Subject of maturing What are the main features of MM? Further questions of interest

A1 A2 A3

Pers

on

Obj

ect

Soci

al S

yste

m

C1 C2 C3

How has the model been constructed? Way of assessing maturity

D1 D2 D5 D7

C51 C52 C53Stage quantity Level contain …

C61 C62C54 C541 C543 C544 C545 C546 C547

How

do

elem

ents

ch

ange

in t

ime?

Wha

t mea

ns m

atur

ing?

Dire

ctio

n of

cha

nge

Wha

t mat

ures

?

Conc

eptu

al M

othe

r M

odel

Mod

el U

ser

Com

plem

ente

d M

odel

Mod

el d

esig

n

How

do

leve

ls b

uilt

on

othe

r lev

els

How

to c

ome

from

one

Le

vel t

o an

othe

r?

Num

ber o

f sta

ges

Is th

ere

a "n

ot e

xist

ent"

st

age?

Wha

t do

leve

ldes

crip

tion

s in

clud

e?

Deg

ree

of d

etai

l

Leve

l ski

ppin

g

Are

ther

e pa

ralle

l m

atur

ing

proc

esse

s po

ssib

le fo

r one

uni

t

Num

ber o

f Goa

l Lev

els

met

hod

of g

oal

benc

hmar

king

Whe

re d

o as

sesm

ent

data

com

e fr

om

Mod

el u

se

Tool

sup

port

Wha

t is

the

mod

el

desc

riptio

n ba

sed

on

Cert

ifica

tion

avai

labl

e?

chan

ge in

num

ber

chan

ge in

nat

ure

chan

ge in

qua

lity

chan

ge in

cap

abili

ty

chan

ge in

ris

k

othe

r cha

nge

incr

easi

ng c

hang

e

decr

easi

ng c

hang

e

com

pete

nce

docu

men

t

infr

astr

uctu

re

prod

uct

serv

ice

grou

p

team

com

mun

ity

proc

ess

rout

ine

stru

ctur

e

has n

o co

ncep

tual

mot

her

mod

el

CMM

SPIC

E

Oth

er m

odel

Org

anis

atio

n in

tern

al a

sses

smen

t te

am

Org

anis

atio

n ex

tern

al a

sses

smen

t te

am

mod

el is

not

use

d pr

actic

ally

no m

odel

is c

ompl

emen

ted

CMM

itera

tive

(one

pat

h)

cycl

ical

(man

y tu

rns)

uppe

r le

vel c

ompr

isie

s lo

wer

leve

l

uppe

r le

vel i

s ne

w c

once

pt

defin

ed g

oals

hav

e to

be

fullf

illed

mat

ures

impl

icit

met

ric

valu

e

ther

e is

a "

not

exis

ting"

sta

ge

ther

e is

no

"not

exi

stin

g" s

tage

trig

gerd

escr

iptio

ns

activ

ity d

escr

ipti

ons

(tas

ks,

proc

esse

s)

conc

eptu

al le

vel d

escr

iptio

n

one

trig

ger p

er s

tage

man

y tr

igge

rs p

er s

tage

no t

rigge

rs p

er s

tage

expl

icitl

y al

low

ed

not r

ecom

men

ded

para

llel m

atur

ing

is p

ossi

ble

para

llel m

atur

ing

is n

ot p

ossi

ble

met

ric

valu

es

met

ric b

ased

non-

met

ric b

ased

inte

rvie

ws

docu

men

ts

ques

tiona

irs

data

conc

eptu

al m

odel

appl

ied

mod

el

supp

orte

d by

ass

essm

ent m

odel

supp

orte

d by

sof

twar

e to

ol

not s

uppo

rted

by

tool

expe

rienc

e fr

om p

raxi

s

stan

dard

s

liter

atur

e (e

.g.,

othe

r mod

els)

cert

ifica

tion

is a

vaila

ble

no c

ertif

icat

ion

avai

labl

e

Business Intelligence Maturity Model (bIMM) 16a 16b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Capability Maturity Model (CMM) 06a 06b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Controlll Objectives for Information Technology (CObIT) 05a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Corrective Maintenance Maturity Model (CM3) 03a 03b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Dreyfus model of skill acquisition (DMSA) 14a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

E-Learning Maturity Model (EMM) 09a 09b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Cross Learning Model 12a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Nolans Stage Model (NSM) 01a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Organisational Interoperability Maturity Model (OIMM) 04a 04b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

People Capability Maturity Model (PCMM) 13a 13b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Personal Software Process (PSP) 11a 11b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Skills framework for the information age (SFIA) 15a 15b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Software Maintenance Maturity Model (SMMM) 10a 10b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Software Process Improvement and Capability

Determination (SPICE)07a 07b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Testing Maturity Model (TMM) 02a 02b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Usability Maturity Model (UMM) 08a 08b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Knowledge Maturity Model (KMM) 17a 17b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Frequency (ABS)

Mea

n

3 8 4 8 1 3 13 1 5 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 5 0 1 7 7 2 2 13 5 3 11 4 16 0 11 3 12 3

5,50

5 11 9 9 14 0 11 2 2 3 8 6

1,17

4 12 3 1 2 1 5 11 7 1 4 6 2 11 3 7

Frequency (REL) 0,27 0,73 0,25 0,50 0,06 0,19 0,93 0,07 0,31 0,00 0,06 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,31 0,00 0,06 0,39 0,39 0,11 0,11 0,62 0,24 0,14 0,73 0,27 1,00 0,00 0,79 0,21 0,80 0,20 0,31 0,69 0,28 0,28 0,44 0,00 0,85 0,15 0,40 0,60 0,57 0,43 0,25 0,75 0,43 0,14 0,29 0,14 0,31 0,69 0,58 0,08 0,33 0,32 0,11 0,58 0,30 0,70

Sum of relative Frequencies 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00

13% 13% 37% 50%

Development of Codes


71

74

64

num

ber o

f cod

es

time

50% 100%

RC RC RC

orientingphase

fluctuatingphase

stabilizingphase

17

university of innsbruck '09 - mature ip · university of innsbruck school of management...

Documents