WHAT MAKES A USEFUL MATURITY MODEL? A FRAMEWORK OF GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR MATURITY MODELS AND ITS DEMONSTRATION IN BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT

Since the Software Engineering Institute has launched the Capability Maturity Model almost twenty years ago, hundreds of maturity models have been proposed by researchers and practitioners across multiple application domains. With process orientation being a central paradigm of organizational design and continuous process improvement taking top positions on CIO agendas, maturity models are also prospering in business process management. Although the application of maturity models is increasing in quantity and breadth, the concept of maturity models is frequently subject to criticism. Indeed, numerous shortcomings have been disclosed referring to both maturity models as design products and the process of maturity model design. Whereas research has already substantiated the design process, there is no holistic understanding of the principles of form and function – that is, the design principles – maturity models should meet. We therefore propose a pragmatic, yet well-founded framework of general design principles justified by existing literature and grouped according to typical purposes of use. The framework is demonstrated using an exemplary set of maturity models related to business process management. We finally give a brief outlook on implications and topics for further research

Improving IS Functions Step by Step: the Use of Focus Area Maturity Models

With new technologies developing rapidly and becoming more common, organizations need to keep up their IS capabilities. Maturity models are designed as a means to support capability development. The existing literature is strongly dominated by studies of fixed-level maturity models, i.e. maturity models that distinguish a limited set of generic maturity levels, such as the well-known CMM. We argue that, while fixed-level maturity models may be well-suited to assessing the maturity of IS capabilities, another form of maturity model, the focus area maturity model, is better suited to supporting incremental improvement. In this paper we define the concept of focus area maturity model. We use a design-science research method, basing our work on both extensive industry experience and scientific investigation

Maturity model for DevOps

Businesses today need to respond to customer needs at unprecedented speed. Driven by this need for speed, many companies are rushing to the DevOps movement. DevOps, the combination of Development and Operations, is a new way of thinking in the software engineering domain that recently received much attention. Since DevOps has recently been introduced as a new term and novel concept, no common understanding of what it means has yet been achieved. Therefore, the definitions of DevOps often are only a part relevant to the concept. When further observing DevOps, it could be seen as a movement, but is still young and not yet formally defined. Also, no adoption models or fine-grained maturity models showing what to consider to adopt DevOps and how to mature it were identified. As a consequence, this research attempted to fill these gaps and consequently brought forward a Systematic Literature Review to identify the determining factors contributing to the implementation of DevOps, including the main capabilities and areas with which it evolves. This resulted in a list of practices per area and capability that was used in the interviews with DevOps practitioners that, with their experience, contributed to define the maturity of those DevOps practices. This combination of factors was used to construct a DevOps maturity model showing the areas and capabilities to be taken into account in the adoption and maturation of DevOps.Hoje em dia, as empresas precisam de responder às necessidades dos clientes a uma velocidade sem precedentes. Impulsionadas por esta necessidade de velocidade, muitas empresas apressam-se para o movimento DevOps. O DevOps, a combinação de Desenvolvimento e Operações, é uma nova maneira de pensar no domínio da engenharia de software que recentemente recebeu muita atenção. Desde que o DevOps foi introduzido como um novo termo e um novo conceito, ainda não foi alcançado um entendimento comum do que significa. Portanto, as definições do DevOps geralmente são apenas uma parte relevante para o conceito. Ao observar o DevOps, o fenómeno aborda questões culturais e técnicas para obter uma produção mais rápida de software, tem um âmbito amplo e pode ser visto como um movimento, mas ainda é jovem e ainda não está formalmente definido. Além disso, não foram identificados modelos de adoção ou modelos de maturidade refinados que mostrem o que considerar para adotar o DevOps e como fazê-lo crescer. Como consequência, esta pesquisa tentou preencher essas lacunas e, consequentemente, apresentou uma Revisão sistemática da literatura para identificar os fatores determinantes que contribuem para a implementação de DevOps, incluindo os principais recursos e áreas com os quais ele evolui. Isto resultou numa lista de práticas por área e por capacidade, que foi utilizado como base nas entrevistas realizadas com peritos em DevOps que, com a sua experiência, ajudaram a atribuir níveis de maturidade a cada prática. Esta combinação de fatores foi usada para construir um modelo de maturidade de DevOps mostrando as áreas e as capacidades a serem levados em consideração na sua adoção e maturação

IT Service Management Maturity Model

Yrityksien tietohallinto on toiminnaltaan muuttunut vuosien saatossa vahvasti palveluntuottajan asemaan tarkoituksena tuottaa arvoa yrityksen liiketoimintaan, kuunnellen liiketoiminnan tarpeita. Tämän myötä IT-palveluiden tehokkaista prosesseista, jatkuvasta kehittämisestä ja asiakaslähtöisestä toiminnasta on tullut entistä tärkeämpää IT organisaatiolle. Tähän IT-palveluhallinnan konseptin tukemiseen on aikojen saatossa luotu erilaisia IT-palveluhallintamalleja, joista ITIL on yksi käytetyimmistä menetelmistä. Tämän tutkimuksen tavoitteena on luoda IT-palveluhallinnan tason mittaamiseen sopiva mittaristo suunnittelutiedettä hyödyntäen. Pohjana mittariston luomisessa käytetään vuonna 2019 päivitettyä ITIL versio 4 mallia sekä olemassa olevaa tutkimusmateriaalia IT-palveluhallinnan mittareista. Mittariston tavoitteena on ilmentää yritykselle, miten voidaan IT palveluprosesseja arvioida ITIL versio 4 mukanaan tuomat arvoa tuottavan toiminnan näkökulmat huomioiden. Kirjallisuuskatsaus kattaa IT palveluhallinnan, ITIL mallin kuvauksen, IT- palveluhallinnan kypsyysmittarit sekä katsauksen käytettyyn suunnittelutiede tutkimusmenetelmään. Suunnittelutiedettä mallintaen ITIL versio 4 kanssa yhteensopiva maturiteettimalli luotiin. Pohjana käytettiin kirjallisuuskatsauksen tieteellisiä artikkeleita ja ITIL 4 kirjallisuutta. Tämän kyseisen artefaktin testaamisessa käytettiin kahta eri ITIL 4 palvelunhallintamenetelmää joita testattiin muutaman eri IS palvelun yhteydessä arviointilomakkeen ja haastatteluiden avulla. Tätä kautta kerättiin tuloksia mallin toimivuudesta IT palveluhallinnan mittaamiseen. Tutkimuksen tuotoksena on IT-palveluhallinnan mittaamiseen sopiva maturiteettimalli, kun halutaan käyttää näkökulmana ITIL versio 4 IT palveluhallintamallia. Koska aikaisempia ITIL versio 4 malliin luotuja, tai sitä vasten tehtyjä maturiteettimalleja, saati tutkimuksia ei löytynyt, kerättiin palautetta mallin toimivuudesta ennen kaikkea edellä mainituiden käytännön testaamisten kautta. Malli koettiin toimivaksi ja ennen kaikkea johdon tuki osoittautui tärkeäksi painopisteeksi onnistuneen IT palveluhallinnan arvioinnin mahdollistamisessa. Tutkimuksessa kerättiinkin myös yhteen suosituksia huomioon otettavista asioista ennen kuin IT-palveluhallinnan mittaamista lähdetään toteuttamaan

The development and technology transfer of software engineering technology at NASA. Johnson Space Center

The United State's big space projects of the next decades, such as Space Station and the Human Exploration Initiative, will need the development of many millions of lines of mission critical software. NASA-Johnson (JSC) is identifying and developing some of the Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE) technology that NASA will need to build these future software systems. The goal is to improve the quality and the productivity of large software development projects. New trends are outlined in CASE technology and how the Software Technology Branch (STB) at JSC is endeavoring to provide some of these CASE solutions for NASA is described. Key software technology components include knowledge-based systems, software reusability, user interface technology, reengineering environments, management systems for the software development process, software cost models, repository technology, and open, integrated CASE environment frameworks. The paper presents the status and long-term expectations for CASE products. The STB's Reengineering Application Project (REAP), Advanced Software Development Workstation (ASDW) project, and software development cost model (COSTMODL) project are then discussed. Some of the general difficulties of technology transfer are introduced, and a process developed by STB for CASE technology insertion is described

Towards Maturity Models as Methods to Manage IT for Business Value – A Resource-based View Foundation

For more than three decades business value of IT attracts attention in Information Systems Research (ISR) and practice. Despite the fact, that corporate management considers enterprise IT increasingly as a strategic factor, the question on how to manage IT effectively for business value remains widely unsolved. With the goal to support this management task we suggest maturity models (MMs) as a new method. We found MMs in the resource-based view in order to provide maturity models with a theoretical basis in general and to lay out the feasibility of MMs as methods to manage IT resources for business value in particular. To accomplish these goals, we conduct an in-depth analysis using an argumentative-deductive research approach. We contribute to the knowledge base by adopting a well-proven approach, transferring it to a new application domain, and grounding it in theory. Taking an example from corporate management research we illustrate our findings schematically

Do Procedure Models Actually Guide Maturity Model Design? A Citation Analysis

More than a decade ago, guidelines for the development of maturity models were proposed in the form of procedure models. In theory, such procedure models provide scholars with guidance, but does the scientific community actually use them according to their intended purpose. This paper conducts a citation analysis and identifies an impressive number of citations. However, it is noteworthy that the publications are mainly cited for other reasons, such as the components or the general purposes of maturity models. The analysis also provides indications that many maturity models are developed without using a procedure model. Despite the fact that methodological rigor is considered a crucial criterion for publishing articles, maturity model designers might have concerns about using domain-specific procedure models. Future studies should address the reasons for this reluctance

The quality maturity model: assessing organisational quality culture in academic libraries

This thesis was submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and awarded by Brunel UniversityAcademic libraries operate in a fluid environment, where they must provide, and demonstrate that they provide, a high quality service that is focussed on customers’ needs. It is broadly accepted that the way to provide a high quality service responsive to customers’ needs is to have a culture of quality that underpins all the organisation’s efforts, i.e. TQM. The literature on how to improve the service quality of libraries in particular, and organisations in general, is extensive and varied. But it is not informative to practitioners who wish to know what to do to improve the quality culture of their library. The literature provides many examples of what a high quality organisation looks like, and, by inference, what a low quality organisation looks like. However, anyone who has worked in an organisation knows that quality culture is not binary but is instead a developmental process. This disconnection between the published research and known practice has led libraries to avoid attempts to measure, and therefore improve, their culture of quality. The purpose of this research is to facilitate engagement by directors of academic libraries with issues of quality culture. This is achieved by producing a new representation of the concept of quality culture, the Quality Maturity Model. The QMM enables library directors to assess their location on a roadmap to a culture of quality, guides them as to the next step forwards, enables them to measure their progress over time, and enables them to compare themselves to others and so learn from best practice. The characteristics of the research problem suggest the use of Design Science Research as the most appropriate research paradigm. This is a novel paradigm for library and information science research; one that has the potential to bridge the research-practice gap prevalent in this field. Design Science is iterative, creative and evaluative in the process of devising useful artefacts to attain specified goals. This research applies the Design Science Research Methodology (Peffers et al., 2008) as a framework and uses interpretive synthesis and grounded theory methods to create the Quality Maturity Model consistent with both theory and practice. Practice was identified via interviews with a cross-section of staff at ten academic library and information services in the UK. The QMM delineates 40 elements of quality culture, grouped into eight facets: Management of the organisation; environmental sensing; learning organisation attributes; attitude to change; attitude to quality; leadership; investment in staff; and alignment. The QMM has five maturity levels describing the progression from low quality maturity to high quality maturity for each of the elements. As a companion to the QMM, this research applied standard survey design methods to develop the Quality Culture Assessment Instrument. The QCAI enables library directors to self-assess the location of their library on the QMM using feedback from their library staff. The QMM rubric then enables library directors to identify what the next level of maturity looks like for each element. The evaluation of these artefacts demonstrates that they fulfil the aims of this research: changed the representation of quality culture and so promote engagement with such issues by academic library directors