1.
Web Maturity Models IA SUMMIT 2008 Vera Rhoads April 13, 2008

2.
<ul><li>One cannot value what one cannot measure </li></ul>

3.
<ul><li>What gets measured </li></ul><ul><li>gets done </li></ul>

4.
<ul><li>Maturity Model Frameworks are used to understand, control and improve a product or a process </li></ul>

5.
Outline <ul><li>The Research Problem </li></ul><ul><li>The Goal </li></ul><ul><li>Attributes of Maturity Frameworks </li></ul><ul><li>Other Existing Models – CMMI, IPMM, People CMM, eBusiness Maturity </li></ul><ul><li>Factors for Consideration </li></ul><ul><li>Web Maturity Model Presented </li></ul><ul><li>Research and Industry Benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Application Roadmap </li></ul>

6.
The problem <ul><li>Lack of consistency in assessments of web excellence. </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of one consistent and agreed and upon classification. </li></ul><ul><li>Classifications evolve with technology and user disruptions. </li></ul>

7.
The goal <ul><li>The overarching objective is to enhance the understanding of the interrelations and specific dependencies between multitude of factors (socio-economic, technical, etc.) that contribute to the success of a web property. </li></ul>

8.
The goal <ul><li>develop and present a hierarchical, evolutionary model with distinctly defined stages of existence and a methodology for applying the model. </li></ul>

9.
The goal <ul><li>Develop a toolkit with applicable action, budget and policies and standards template with extended application within the web properties field. </li></ul>

10.
Maturity Frameworks Explained <ul><li>Three Key attributes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge Element </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assessment Element – methods, processes and procedure that can be used to self-assess </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improvement Element </li></ul></ul>

11.
Innovation Theory Dissemination <ul><li>Innovation Defined as “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” </li></ul>

12.
Innovation: five perceived attributes <ul><li>Relative Advantage </li></ul><ul><li>Compatibility </li></ul><ul><li>Complexity </li></ul><ul><li>Trialability </li></ul><ul><li>Observability </li></ul>

13.
Innovation Lifecycles <ul><li>Stage One: Entry </li></ul><ul><li>Stage Two: Adoption </li></ul><ul><li>Stage Three: Adaptation </li></ul><ul><li>Stage Four: Appropriation </li></ul><ul><li>Stage Five: Invention </li></ul>

14.
Maturity Frameworks Explained <ul><li>Standard Capability Maturity Methodology: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Five Levels Traditionally identified: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Initial – Ad hoc, no control </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Repeatable – Stable process </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Defined – Consistent implementation, improved understanding of the process </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Managed </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Optimizing – a foundation is established for the continued improvement and optimization of process </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>

15.
Traditional Frameworks <ul><li>The KPAs – key process areas </li></ul><ul><li>These identify the changes the organizations need to make in order to advance to a higher level </li></ul><ul><li>Web Accelerants – attributes you need to possess to move from one level to the next </li></ul>

16.
CMM Model <ul><li>Level 1. Initial – Ad hoc: the organization has no control at all. </li></ul><ul><li>Level 2. Repeatable – The organization has achieved a stable process with a Repeatable level of statistical control by initiating rigorous project management of commitments, cost, schedule, and change </li></ul><ul><li>Level 3. Defined – The organization has defined the process to ensure consistent implementation and to provide a basis for improved understanding of the process </li></ul><ul><li>Level 4. Managed – The organization has initiated comprehensive process measurements beyond those of cost and schedule performance </li></ul><ul><li>Level 5. Optimizing – The organization now has a foundation for continued improvement and optimization of the process </li></ul>

17.
Why bother? <ul><li>The Web Maturity Model helps assess where organizations are </li></ul><ul><li>What is the recommended level </li></ul><ul><li>What key web accelerants they need to take to get there </li></ul>

18.
The Planning Process Black Box View

19.
Expected Applicability <ul><li>Business </li></ul><ul><li>ROI – Return on Investment </li></ul><ul><li>Comparative Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Unified, objective method of measuring </li></ul><ul><li>Research </li></ul><ul><li>Repeatable framework </li></ul><ul><li>Ability to instruct into what is considered best practices </li></ul>

20.
Benefits <ul><li>Provide an assessment methodology </li></ul><ul><li>Develop an extensive benchmarking tool, </li></ul><ul><li>P roactively assist in planning, budgeting and forecasting </li></ul><ul><li>Provide a Road Map for success tailored within the appropriate category </li></ul><ul><li>Provide tools for enhanced strategic planning </li></ul>

21.
Model Creation and Its Components <ul><li>Company Categorization Taxonomy </li></ul><ul><li>Inputs </li></ul><ul><li>Model Engine </li></ul><ul><li>Outputs </li></ul><ul><li>The Toolkit </li></ul>

22.
Company Categorization <ul><li>Size – In terms of sized companies are viewed as small, medium and large – based on factors such as number of employees, revenue and number of geographical locations. </li></ul><ul><li>Business Model – Profit, Non-Profit, Government </li></ul><ul><li>Web Property Existence – is there a web site or not </li></ul><ul><li>P recedence – did the company precede the web property creation or did the web property precede or came in existence simultaneously with the company </li></ul><ul><li>Strategic Prioritization – is the web property viewed as a strategic priority. </li></ul><ul><li>Availability of Sufficient Funding – this category is self-explanatory. </li></ul>

23.
Web Properties Categorization <ul><li>Existing Categorizations: </li></ul><ul><li>By content orientation – information </li></ul><ul><li>By transactional complexity </li></ul><ul><li>By size </li></ul><ul><li>By channel orientation </li></ul><ul><li>By target audience </li></ul>

24.
Web Properties Categorization <ul><li>Size </li></ul><ul><li>Business Model </li></ul><ul><li>Web Property Existence </li></ul><ul><li>Precedence </li></ul><ul><li>Strategic Prioritization </li></ul><ul><li>Availability and Allocation of Sufficient Funding </li></ul>

25.
The Study Itself <ul><li>Stages within the study </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Survey Instrument Creation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Delphi Study – </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Survey Instrument Verification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Survey Distribution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Survey Processing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Results Analysis </li></ul></ul>

26.
Expected Further Work <ul><li>Scope extensions: </li></ul><ul><li>Run a six month validity check </li></ul><ul><li>Extend the study to a broader audience </li></ul><ul><li>Extend the study to an international audience </li></ul>

27.
Anatomy of the Study <ul><li>Profile of Recipients </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Selection Methodology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Professional Affiliations and Job Titles </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Profile of Companies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Selection Methodology and Rationale </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Profile of responses received </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Types of Companies </li></ul></ul>

28.
Challenges of the Study-Lessons Learned <ul><li>Area </li></ul><ul><li>Distribution </li></ul><ul><li>Participant Solicitation </li></ul><ul><li>Participant Responses </li></ul><ul><li>Survey Validity </li></ul><ul><li>Valuable Lesson </li></ul><ul><li>Attachments can be problematic </li></ul><ul><li>Language needs to be as non-technical as possible </li></ul><ul><li>Persistence, Persistence, Persistence </li></ul>

29.
Findings of the Study <ul><li>Distribution of Companies </li></ul>

30.
Findings of the Study <ul><li>Historical Perspective – Year of Emergence </li></ul>

31.
Findings of the Study <ul><li>Rankings of the Companies by the Researcher </li></ul><ul><li>Rankings of the Companies Themselves – TBD </li></ul><ul><li>Rankings of the Companies by the Model </li></ul><ul><li>Comparative Analysis </li></ul>

32.
Preliminary Rankings Overall Distribution by Model Level

33.
The WPQE Model

34.
Inputs and Outputs <ul><li>INPUTS </li></ul><ul><li>1.Budget and Financial Factors </li></ul><ul><li>2. Social and Political Factors </li></ul><ul><li>3. Technology Acceptance </li></ul><ul><li>4. Innovation Levels </li></ul><ul><li>5. Usability </li></ul><ul><li>6. Priority Allocation </li></ul><ul><li>7. Industry Positioning </li></ul><ul><li>OUTPUTS </li></ul>

35.
Outputs <ul><li>L evel 1 - Presence and Established Information Delivery – At this stage the company has made its foray into the Internet, put a stake in the ground. From a historical perspective this is the earliest </li></ul><ul><li>Level 2 - Information Processing </li></ul><ul><li>Level 3 - Knowledge Creation </li></ul><ul><li>Level 4 - Business Value clearly identified and derived </li></ul><ul><li>Level 5 - True Excellence through an Integrated, Personalized and Collaborative environment </li></ul>

36.
Evolutionary Stages

37.
Measurement Tools <ul><li>One cannot value what one cannot measure </li></ul>

38.
Inside the Model Engine Size Factors 1, 2, 6 Environment Financial Factors Corporate Vision factors

39.
Ultimate Evolutionary Paths <ul><li>Large for Profit </li></ul>Year pre- 1995 1997 2000-02 2005 2007

40.
Ultimate Evolutionary Paths <ul><li>Medium Non for Profit and Government </li></ul>Year 1995 1999 2004 2006 2008

41.
Ultimate Evolutionary Paths <ul><li>Small for Profit </li></ul>Year 1995 1999 2001 2003-2007 2009-11

42.
The Toolkit <ul><li>Standard Templates </li></ul><ul><li>All inclusive, detailed </li></ul><ul><li>Frequently updated </li></ul><ul><li>Continuous Feedback Loop </li></ul>

43.
Conclusions <ul><li>Evolutionary Steps are concrete and measurable </li></ul><ul><li>A system can be devised to represent these </li></ul><ul><li>There is applicability to the model </li></ul><ul><li>There is more consistency related to size and leadership than to any other category </li></ul>

44.
Web Maturity Model

45.
Governance Models <ul><li>Centralized </li></ul><ul><li>Decentralized </li></ul><ul><li>Federated </li></ul><ul><li>Hybrid </li></ul>Sample Governance Models: http://www.usa.gov/webcontent/governance/models.shtml Garth A. Buchholz has a great PDF in Google Base www.google.com/base/a/1572395/D1118754386065475693

46.
Implications for Future Research <ul><li>Conduct a broader study </li></ul><ul><li>Internationalize the sample </li></ul><ul><li>Generate universal validity of the model </li></ul>

47.
Questions?