• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Mm@iknow09
 

Mm@iknow09

on

  • 389 views

Presentation was held at the I-KNOW'09 conference in Graz.

Presentation was held at the I-KNOW'09 conference in Graz.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
389
Views on SlideShare
359
Embed Views
30

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 30

http://www.kohlegger.com 30

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Mm@iknow09 Mm@iknow09 Presentation Transcript

    • University of Innsbruck 09 School of Management Information Systems Universitaetsstrasse 15 6020 Innsbruck AustriaUnderstanding Maturity Models Results of a Structured Content Analysis Michael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann
    • Agenda Maturity Models and their relevance to BIS Method: Structured Content Analysis Execution of the analysis Implications for  Maturity Modelling • Concepts of maturity Approximation of the population Process flow of the analysis • Domains that use maturity Model sampling Iterative Coding Process • Former Work Sample of 16 selected 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  necessaryMichael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 3
    • 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)Michael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 4
    • 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 maturingMichael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 5
    • 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 questionMichael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 6
    • Process Flow of Structured Content Analysis preparation coding concluding  phase phase phase 2 define  structuring 1 dimension 4 5 work  6 extract  predefine  through  describe  findings  format  analysis  material  3 categories into  results item and mark  structure define  findings categories 7 rework category system [Mayring 2008, 84]Michael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 7
    • Iterative Coding Process orienting phase – first categories emerge (number grows rapidly) fluctuating phase – adding and generalising categories (number grows slowly) stabilizing phase – condensing categories (number declines) 0% ~13% 50% 100% of material coded C) stabilizing phase B) fluctuating phase[Hädrich 2008, 223] A) orienting phase Michael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 8
    • Approximation of Population• population of maturity models was approximated by Internet search• models were clustered concerning maturing elements using  differentiation of knowledge media ~ = 46 N ~ = 22 ~=8 N N social system object person maturity models maturity models maturity modelsMichael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 9
    • 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 ~ = 46 N ~ = 22 ~=8 N N n = 5 (6) n=5 n=5 social system object person maturity models maturity models maturity modelsMichael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 10
    • Sample of 16 selected Models approximated  source of model subset acronym diversification information PSP 2,120 [Humphrey, et al. 2005] PCMM 561 [Curtis, et al. 1995]person SFIA 70 [SFIA 2007] Dreyfus Model 31 [Dreyfus et al. 1988] Cross Model 0 [Cross 2007] SPICE 971 [Coletta 1995] UMM 138 [Earthy 1999]object EMM 77 [Marshall, et al. 2004] SMMM 40 [April, et al. 2005] bIMM 19 [Chamoni et al. 2004] CMM 13,600 [Paulk, et al. 1993] CObIT 830 [ITGI 2007]social Nolan Model 602 [Nolan 1979]system TMM 184 [Burnstein, et al. 1998] CM3 84 [Kajko‐Mattson 2002] OIMM 37 [Clark, et al. 2001]Michael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 11
    • Coding Example What are  question features of  maturity models? sub‐cluster code … … Where do  … … assessment data  come from? questionnair interviews documents data eMichael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 12
    • 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.Michael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 13
    • Implications for Maturity Modelling (2/4)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.Michael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 14
    • Implications for Maturity Modelling (3/4)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.Michael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 15
    • Implications for Maturity Modelling (4/4)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.Michael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 16
    • DefinitionA 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 normativeMichael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 17
    • Thank You for Your AttentionMichael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 18
    • 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 CanadaConference, 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 desBusiness 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"; FreePress, 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 BetrieblichesInformationsmanagement. 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"; SoftwareEngineering 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 SoftwareMaintenance, 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 EducationConference, 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 dasMethodenspektrum 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). Michael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 19
    • 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 Nature of maturing Subject of maturing What are the main features of MM? Further questions of interest Social System How has the model been constructed? Way of assessing maturity Person Object A1 A2 A3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D5 D7 Stage quantity Level contain … C51 C52 C53 C61 C62 C54 C541 C543 C544 C545 C546 C547 What means maturing?  How to come from one  Is there a "not existent" How do levels built on  Certification available? Complemented Model Number of Goal Levels Where do assesment  description based on  Conceptual Mother  maturing processes  possible for one unit Direction of change What is the model  How do elements  Level to another?  Are there parallel  leveldescriptions  Number of stages What matures?  method of goal  Degree of detail change in time? data come from benchmarking Level skipping Model design other levels  Tool support Model User Model use What do  include? Model  stage? Model name Text 1 Text 2 Organisation external assessment  Organisation internal assessment  upper level comprisies lower level defined goals have to be fullfilled has no conceptual mother model supported by assessment model parallel maturing is not possible there is no "not existing" stage literature (e.g., other models) there is a "not existing" stage model is not used practically conceptual level description activity descriptions (tasks,  parallel maturing is possible no model is complemented supported by software tool upper level is new concept no certification available certification is available many triggers per stage experience from praxis not supported by tool one trigger per stage cyclical (many turns) no triggers per stage change in capability iterative (one path) triggerdescriptions not recommended decreasing change change in number conceptual model increasing change non‐metric based explicitly allowed change in quality change in nature matures implicit applied model infrastructure metric values change in risk other change metric based metric value Other model competence questionairs community documents processes) interviews document standards structure product process routine service group SPICE CMM CMM team team team data Business Intelligence Maturity Model (bIMM) 16a 16b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Capability 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 1Controlll 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 1Organisational 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 1 Software Process Improvement and Capability  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 Determination (SPICE) 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) 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 11 9 9 14 0 11 2 2 3 8 6 4 12 3 1 2 1 5 11 7 1 4 6 2 11 3 7 Mean 5,50 1,17 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 Michael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 20
    • Development of Codesnumber of codes 74 time 71 64 17 orienting fluctuating stabilizing phase phase phase 13% 13% 37% 50% 50% 100% RC RC RC Michael Kohlegger, Ronald Maier, Stefan Thalmann  |  I‐KNOW09  |  Understanding Maturity Models 21