This document introduces MATURETM, a new knowledge maturity model. It begins with an abstract noting that while KM models were initially basic, modern models need to be more robust and prescriptive. It then outlines the presentation, which will disclose MATURETM and how it can be used as both an in-house strategic tool and for organizational certifications. The document provides background on early KM maturity models and discusses issues like models being over-simplified and not accounting for the continuous nature of KM implementation. It proposes that the ideal model would include multiple strategic factors beyond just KM, be both diagnostic and prescriptive, and be evidence-based. An exercise is suggested to design threads of such an optimal model

1. MATURE™
Finally, a Robust Maturity Model
1

2. Finally, a Robust Maturity Model (MATURE)™
We need much more than ad hoc/
anecdotal approaches to K-Age
organizational transformation.
Douglas Weidner
Exec. Chairman, Chief CKM Instructor
KM Institute
douglas.weidner@kminstitute.org 2

3. Abstract (Quick Intro):
Despite a very slow start, KM is finally showing early hints of eventual maturation. And, the
ability to prove and expedite such growth is not far behind. Robust, evidence-based maturity
models, now just emerging, will be instrumental.
At KM’s outset maturity models were basic, anecdotal/ad hoc assessment tools. They provided
initial diagnostics. But, modern models must be more than diagnostic: they must be prescriptive
-- robust enough to track the prognosis, grounded in management science/analytics.
There’s another critically important discriminator: most models focus merely on KM, but there
are many essential strategic factors that are key to determine organizational performance and
maturity, and ultimate K-Age health and sustainability.
Example: Will your organization need to focus on ISO30401:2018 compliance?
What other factors are K-Age essentials? Are you ready to bring science (analytics) to KM?
This presentation will disclose MATURE™, a new K-Age method/tool for the essential
transformation of your organization into a high performing, healthy and sustainable K-Age entity.
3

4. In order to appreciate future possibilities, we need to have a sense of the recent history
of maturity models, since the SEI-CMM® -- what our military friends might call Situational
Awareness.
But, there have been many Complications, that have and continue to keep us from fully
exploiting the power of maturity models, including primarily a diagnostic/assessment
orientation, and a primary focus on just KM to the exclusion of other essential ingredients
for performance, health and sustainability in the Knowledge Age.
Solutions: We must dramatically expand our maturity model orientation and perspectives --
to fully include the new functionality, which we will discuss today, specifically:
1. Both Diagnostic and Prescriptive models
2. Leverage multiple threads vs. just KM-oriented views
3. Transform from just ad hoc/anecdotal KM to include emerging research results
(aka Operations Research/Management Science/Analytics)
4. How to use MATURE™. CKMers - as an in-house, strategic KM tool;
or, as consultants - for organizational certifications.
MATURE™ Outline
4

5. Situational Awareness
 Example: Software Engineering Institute – Capability Maturity Model (CMM)® -
late 1990s, driver for maturity models to became popularized.
 Then, with that overall understanding, we’ll quickly highlight some background theory
v-v designing a robust maturity model.
 Other KM Models that immediately followed – 1999, and early 2000s as examples.
Finally, we’ll do an in-class exercise – practice designing some maturity model
components (threads), no doubt relevant to you.
Heads up! What’s coming in this initial, brief section.
5

6. INTRO: SEI-CMM® Maturity Model
Disciplined
Process
Standard
Consistent
Process
Predictable
Process
Continuously
Improving
Process
“specific process of explicitly defining,
managing, measuring, controlling the
evolutionary growth of an entity in
capability, consistency of execution.”
CMM®
Situational
Awareness
6

7. Factors to Consider – The Theory Stuff *
* Excellent references: Klimko, 2001; Kulkari, 2003, Kruger, 2007.
Maturity Modeling – a generic approach describing
development of an entity over time,
progressing through levels toward an idealistic ultimate state,
e.g., Maslow’s 1943 Hierarchy of Needs (Self-Actualization).
Traditional guidelines:
• Simple – limited number of maturity levels (4 – 6).
Able to be understood/easily used.
• Requirements – defined by level to assess attainment.
• Order – typically sequential (‘staged’)
• Development – Orderly progress from one stage to next
(consider human maturity: birth, childhood, adulthood, …)
Situational
Awareness
7

8. List of Early Maturity Models
• Siemens AG KMMM® (1999) – 5 levels, 8 Key Areas (use of Radar diagram
to graphically depict assessment results)
• Weidner KMM™ (1999) – 5 levels of a K-Creating Entity
• KM Landscape (Microsoft 1999) – Four stages using KM Tools
• KM Formula-KMf (Gallagher & Hazlett 1999) – 4 levels, 3 factors (Culture, Infrastructure,
Technology)
• Knowledge Journey (KPMG 2000) – 5 levels, 4 factors (People/Process/Tech/Content)
• Klimko Model (2001) – 5 levels
• KM Maturity Matrix (US Gov 2001-2002) – 4 levels, 4 capabilities with much text
description.
• Kruger Model (2007) - 6 phases
• KM Maturity Model and Framework (PwC 2006-8) – 5 levels,
Let’s view a few samples – some pretty, some not.
Situational
Awareness
8

9. History: SEI-CMM® Maturity Model and Beyond
Early KM maturity models emerged in 1999, after the US
government published the Capability Maturity Model (CMM)®.
Siemens registered a KM Maturity Model (KMMM)®.
Weidner was next, but needed to opt for a Knowledge Maturity
Model (KMM)™, i.e., just Knowledge, not full KM. That was less
insightful than fortuitous.
Consider this…is an organization’s performance and ultimate
health/sustainment a function of just KM?
Or, is it rather a proper focus on all essential K-based functions,
enriched by KM methods, and other, proven keys to success?
If the latter is true -- it’s more than just KM,
then how should an organization proceed?
After viewing a few models as a warmup, we’ll see what it takes
for a maturity model to be a invaluable tool.
Situational
Awareness
9

10. Siemens AG KMMM® - 1999 – First to trademark, good analysis (radar) model.
10

11. Knowledge Maturity Model (KMM)™
Douglas Weidner, 1999
11

12. Kruger/Snyman 6-Phase Model (2004)
Guide
Know
Enable
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 PHASE 6
ICT as an enabler
of Knowledge
Management
Decide on
KM Principles
The ability to
formulate an
organization-wide
Knowledge Policy
Building
Knowledge
Policies
Formulation of
Knowledge Mgt
Strategies
Ubiquitous
Knowledge
Knowledge
Culture
Maturity
Accomplishing
the Knowledge
Vision
Kruger/Snyman 6-Phase Model (2004)

13. Kruger/Snyman 6-Phase Model (2004)
Guide
Know
Enable
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 PHASE 6
ICT as an enabler
of Knowledge
Management
Decide on
KM Principles
The ability to
formulate an
organization-wide
Knowledge Policy
Building
Knowledge
Policies
Formulation of
Knowledge Mgt
Strategies
Ubiquitous
Knowledge
Knowledge
Culture
Maturity
Accomplishing
the Knowledge
Vision
Kruger/Snyman 6-Phase Model (2004)
Initial Aware Manage Optimise

14. Areas Sub Areas
Baseline Initial Transitional Advanced
Capability is defined as the
present state of KM within an
organization and its readiness to
adopt KM best practices.
Knowledge is not managed. The
process is characterized as ad hoc,
and occasionally even chaotic.
Organizational emphasis is on access
to data not knowledge. Knowledge
sharing is not promoted or enabled.
Few processes are defined, and
success depends on individual
initiative.
Knowledge sharing emerging as a
business rule, but not yet nurtured.
Basic KM processes for capture are
established. Organizational emphasis
is on technology (e.g., storing, retriev-
ing, managing) and access (e.g.,
databases, files)
Knowledge sharing is a business rule.
The process is documented/integrated
into the overall business process.
Cultural changes & mgmnt actions
support collaboration, knowledge base
building, access to knowledge.
Measures of process and product
quality are collected, understood, and
controlled.
KM is becoming a transparent activity.
Simply considered a part of doing
business. Supports all internal and
external business needs. Continuous
process improvement enabled by
quantitative and qualitative feedback.
Knowledge Use
Data/information are used to make
incremental changes to existing norms,
values, and processes, e.g., automating
a previously manual process.
Knowledge is used to make incremental
changes to existing norms, values,
and processes.
Knowledge is used to shift to different
known assumptions and modes of
operation (paradigms).
Knowledge is used to reflect on, and
change if needed, existing assumptions,
processes, operating norms, structures.
Workforce Socialization
Physical and/or geographical
boundaries. Limited interaction among
colleagues across functional and
organizational areas of expertise
and across experience levels.
Socialization among physically
and/or geographically co-located
individuals, but typically w/in functional
and organizational areas of expertise
and similar experience levels.
Active involvement of work-force across
physical and geographical boundaries.
Highly socialized, highly connected
workforce through physical or virtual
mechanisms. Unrestricted, no-penalty
communication across experience and
management levels.
Workforce Collaboration
Stovepiped organization. Projects,
products, and new business developed
independently within organizational
groups. Limited cross-matrixing of
staff expertise. Limited leveraging of
past or on-going related efforts across
the organization.
Sharing of expertise and products
upon completion. Limited attempts
to identify related efforts within
organization prior to new starts.
Regularly scheduled opportunities to
share on-going and future efforts
across organizational boundaries,
e.g., business development opportun-
ities, new tasks, new hires,
organizational partners
Org-wide interaction & collaboration
through physical or virtual interaction;
cross-functional matrixing; no-blame
environment (reward vs. penalize);
active CoPs in all areas of vital business
interests. Org’l "centers of excellence"
available to all staff and their customers.
Capability
CapabilityDefinitionCapabilityDefinitionCultureCulture
US Gov KM Matrix (2002) – No graphic, but some good text detail.

15. Here’s some quick history/theory stuff, which is essentially self-explanatory.
Also, it is a transition to Complications.
The original purpose of maturity models is best described by CMM® - growing
capability and consistency of operations. A few other design considerations are
worthwhile. They are fully introduced in the next few slides.
But, consider this. The problem is that most all practitioners have focused on
maturity models as only diagnostic/assessment tools.
Typically, a sound diagnosis must lead to a prescription, then follow up – the
outcome/prognosis. But, that proven healthcare process is seldom followed by
KMers.
Note Also: Though essential to health, prescriptions are an entirely different
science than diagnoses, and in practice far more complex than just assessing your
present state, aka a K Audit. 15

16. Critical Issues – “Barriers to Success”, aka Complications
• Superficiality – Most are just a Roadmap only, over-simplified.
Not a sufficient, robust tool for CMM equivalent objectives:
• improved organizational capability especially,
• consistency of execution (In KM jargon, a Learning Organization.)
• Reality – Misunderstand nature of KM implementation, specifically:
• Staged: progress sequentially – one level to next – typical model.
• Continuous: able to develop simultaneously, but at different pace
in different areas -- a more realistic KM scenario.
• Flexibility – different development tracks possible.
“Five levels, but only achievement of initial
two levels required, then alternative” tracks
(Venkatraman – 1995) 16

17. Consider these Critical Issues and Barriers to Success
v-v maturity models.
They are seldom understood, even by proponents.
Hence, unfortunately, these cautions are seldom heeded.
Result: Faulty models.
Simplicity is good, but superficiality is definitely not.
Though a staged approach seems logical – child to adult,
in reality business organizational maturity needs to be more multiplexed,
especially if prescriptive and multithreaded.
Complications
17

18. Let’s study/create together a future (next-generation), maturity model.
It will have multiple threads or factors (not just KM).
It will focus on both diagnostic & prescriptive outcomes, and be fact/evidence-based:
Multiple Threads – Not just a KM maturity model, but must include other essential
threads/factors as well.
Question: What critical factors, besides KM, are essential to your own organization’s success?
Prescriptive – Based on diagnosis, makes prescriptions/monitors prognosis toward a
healthy/thriving/sustainable, Learning Organization.
Evidence Based – Not just ad hoc/anecdotal, but prescriptions based on fact-based research -
best practices by experts/firms.
These ingredients will eventually enable artificial intelligence (AI) to be used for business
optimization, to complement maturity models, in the K Age.
Design Ultimate K-Age Maturity Model
Call it the K Maturity Model or MATURE™.
Solutions
(Keys to Success)
18

19. So, what should an optimum design look like?
Many graphic shapes could work.
More importantly, what should it include?
Let’s find out.
Design Ultimate K-Age Maturity Model
Call it the K Maturity Model or MATURE™.
Solutions
(Keys to Success)
19

20. Hypothetical Questions: What specific design factors/features
would you include to create the ultimate K-Age KM System?
Why?
Let’s design a possible, ultimate K maturity model, then compare
three existing models: a CoP Model, APQCs Model, and KMI’s
Knowledge Maturity Model (aka MATURE™).
Our Learning Objective – Decide our own way forward.
Solutions
(Keys to Success)
20

21. THREADS
In the design of a robust K Maturity Model,
multiple strategic factors (Threads) are key to determine
organizational maturity – its ultimate success.
Assume this next graphic represents a consensus
of research and expert opinions, which it does.
List four possible maturity model threads, derived from this research.
(Note: One might be emerging or Disruptive).
Solutions
(Keys to Success)
21

22. What Factors should be organizational
maturity ‘THREADS’?

23. THREADS:
So, we’ve seen some possible generic, strategic threads, in addition to KM:
Human Capital, Customer Satisfaction, Innovation, Analytics, etc.
Are there any other threads that are unique or could be essential in your
own specific organization? Note them. We’ll come back to them.
The requirement to have a number of various strategic threads is essential,
once you accept that KM maturity is about more than just KM.
Do you accept that assumption?
23

24. Two Types of Factors:
Organizational Maturity Factors
Community Specifc Factors
Leadership
Culture
CoP Mgmt
Content
Governance
Tools
Metrics
http://community-roundtable.com/2009/06/the-community-maturity-model/
Strategy
24

25. APQC’s Stages of KM Maturity
25
e

26. APQC’s Stages of KM Maturity, Hubert & Lemons, 2013.
Developing a Roadmap to KM Maturity Level 5, 2019.
“APQC’s Levels of KM Maturity™ is a framework designed
to help orgs determine the sophistication of their KM
programs and the ROI from their KM efforts.”
26

27. APQC’s KM Assessment is used as a consultative tool.
Here, Deloitte evaluated its KM program and got a high
maturity level – 4. (See last bar – Overall Maturity.)
Evaluate/Discuss (time permitting).
27

28. Four Categories (Strategy, People,
Process and IT),with 2 - 4 topics each.28

29. Let’s create a maturity
model thread.
29

30. What if your organization is likely to focus on ISO 30401:2018 compliance, as many will do?
Let’s define a process to do that, and together create an ISO-oriented maturity model.
This process can serve as a method for you to create
a new model, or a single thread within a model.
Here’s an outline of the modeling process:
1. Determine the underlying maturity model to use.*
For many reasons, we will use MATURE™, including:
• Design: it is compatible with a transformational,
approach in the context of the emerging Knowledge Age.
• Foundation: it has a rich combination of process,
methodology, and evidence-based support, for it’s
many Levels, to substantially increase likelihood of success.
*..Think of doing ongoing financial analyses.
You will need a spreadsheet tool, such as Excel.
Think of MATURE™ as your maturity modeling tool. 30

31. 2. Determine the domain/sector that you want to track v-v maturity, such as ISO.
For that domain, will you need to choose a comprehensive single thread (e.g., is this one domain
of many such domains, such as HC, Innovation, and others, etc.,)?
Or, do you intend a single model (e.g., ISO, KM, change management, etc.) with multiple threads
for each component of that domain. For instance, let’s review ISO 30401:2018, which has many
possible categories worth monitoring if doing a complete model for that domain:
ISO Category Probable MATURE™ Levels
0.2 Importance of KM #2 Aware/Awareness Campaign
0.3 Guiding principles #2 Aware/Awareness Campaign
3 Terms/definitions #1 Methodology – Map Way Forward
4 Context of the organization #2 Aware/Awareness Campaign
5 Leadership #3 Transformational – Leadership/Strategy
6 Planning #4 Underwrite – Implementation Plan
7 Support #1 Methodology - #5 Results – Document
8 Operation #4 Underwrite – Implementation Plan
9 Performance evaluation #1–Methodology, #5Results–Document.
10 Improvement #6 Excellence – Continuously Improve 31

32. ISO 30401:2018 9 Performance evaluation
9.1 Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation
The organization shall evaluate the knowledge performance and effectiveness of the KM system
to determine: what needs to be monitored and measured (including conformity with the
requirements of this document); evidence of added value to the relevant stakeholders; the
methods, as applicable, to ensure valid results; when to be performed; and, when the results shall
be analysed and evaluated. The organization shall retain appropriate documented information as
evidence of the results.
9.2 Internal audit
9.2.1 The organization shall conduct regular internal audits to provide information on whether
the KM system conforms to the organization’s own requirements for its KM system and the
requirements of this document. The audit shall conform to 9.2.2.
9.3 Management review
Top mgmt shall periodically review the organization's KM system to ensure its continuing
suitability, adequacy and effectiveness, including: the status of actions from previous mgmt
reviews; changes in external and internal issues that are relevant to the knowledge mgmt system;
information on the KM performance, including trends in nonconformities and corrective actions;
monitoring and measurement results; audit results; and opportunities for continual improvement.
32

33. ISO Category #9 Performance evaluation, has many activities spanning multiple likely maturity
levels (1 – 6). Here’s a sampling of shalls:
9.1 Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation. Organization shall determine:
• What/when to monitor/measure
• Methods – ensure valid results
• Were monitor/analysis done effectively?
• Also, retain appropriate documented info v-v evidence of results
All the above for evaluating performance of a KM system, plus:
9.2 Internal audits - setup and used.
9.3 Management reviews – done, and have results created continuous improvements?
Result: diagnostic maturity model for an ISO thread #9.
33

34. Let’s create a maturity
model thread.
34

35. Here’s a draft maturity thread, by level, for the full ISO 9 Performance evaluation.
It is based on ISO requirements expressed as 10 Qs mapped to level.
I. Methodology – Map Way Forward (Learning Plan)
1. Have the what/when to measure been defined?
2. Have the measurement methods been validated?
3. Has an effective Internal Audit Plan been established?
II. Aware – Map Way Forward (Learning Plan)
4. Have the Performance Evaluation rqmts/methods been effectively communicated?
III. Transform – Leadership & Strategy
5. Have effective Management Reviews (monitoring) taken place as planned?
IV. Underwrite – Implementation Plan (ROI)
6. Have internal audits been performed/results reported, input to implementation plans?
V. Results – Document and Iterate
7. Were relevant measurements taken as planned?
8. Were effective analyses & evaluations performed?
9. Have relevant measurement documents v-v results been retained/archived?
VI. Excellence – Continuously Improve - Learning Organization.
10. Have Mgmt. Rvws. provided continuing improvements?
List Maturity Levels
List relevant Qs by
Maturity Levels
35

36. Sample – Maturity Model Development
If you have both a maturity model, and an ISO thread with such defined ISO activities, you can
probably allocate the thread’s activities across all the model’s six levels.
Result: Diagnostic maturity model for an ISO thread #9.
Implementation Process: Assess the actual rigor of the activities being done at each maturity
level on a Likert Scale 1 - 5. The Likert Scale responses vary from (1) strongly disagree to (5)
strongly agree. This determines maturity for that specific level.
For example: If Level II’s activities are being done quite well (score >4 of 5),
you are mature for that activity at that level.
Or, for that specific thread at that level II, if the model is a multi-threaded one.
But, what if not adequately doing that activity (score is <4)?
Then you need research-based prescriptions.
Research-Based Methodology and Prescriptions needed!
That’s beyond the scope of this talk, but here’s some ‘teasers’. 36

37. Learning plan/skills:
2.4 - 3.2x
more likely
to succeed.
Leverage influencers: 3.8x.
Both performance &
health visions are clear vs.
only one: 1.8x,
or neither: 3.0x.
Strong top-mgmt. commitment: 2.6x.
Cascade change story: 5.5x.
KM team governance
(charter/adaptive): 4.6x.
Performance metrics/
track progress: 7.3x.
Transparency/two-way
communications: 4.0x.
Establish a continuous learning process: 2.6x.
Incorporate K sharing (BP, LL): 4.2x.
37
In the period 1995-2010,
large-scale change success
was estimated at 30%, Kotter.
Est. now 79%, especially if
techniques as these are
used as prescriptions.

38. Questions?
38