Uflewska, Olga

Previously held under moratorium from 6th October 2021 until 6th October 2023.Capability development (i.e. capability maturity) processes in research centre environment have notbeen sufficiently examined in the literature. The literature review suggested that most relevantstudies tend to focus either on academic theories that discuss improvement of industrial capabilities,or processes, validated in an industrial environment. Furthermore, literature is unclear on definition,importance and work of research centres (i.e. a clear lack of uniformity). Even though, researchcentres contribute to technological innovations, they have not received the same level of attention.That is why it was important to identify challenges relevant to research centres. For example, nothaving a standard process tailored to research centres’ needs in order to evaluate maturity of theirinternal capabilities. That knowledge gap was captured through three phases of interviews: 1)Exploratory study, 2) Framework development, 3) Framework modifications. Those phases werecrucial as they helped to design, developed and validate Capability Maturity Framework, whichintroduces a standardised process for research centre.Phase 1) started with exploratory interviews to understand why existing solutions cannot be appliedto research centres and also what are research centres requirements (that have not been met so farby existing solutions). The interviews involved ten practitioners from four research centres as well asthree participants from two industrial manufacturing companies. Results from Phase 1) fed intoPhase 2): Framework development. Interviews with sixteen practitioners from seven research centresin the UK were conducted during Phase 2). Those interviews helped to define structure of CapabilityMaturity Framework. That led to Phase 3): framework modifications. Phase 3 of interviews wasorganised to understand what format (of the framework) would be the most user-friendly and whatleast user-friendly aspects should be avoided. Eighteen practitioners from different teams across aresearch centre took part in Phase 3).Once Phases 1-3 were completed, Capability Maturity Framework was evaluated by participantsfrom various research centres, and a few who work in industrial companies but have a closerelationship with a research centre. In total 34 participants reviewed the framework. Validationfindings provided evidence that the need for such a framework exist and has not been fulfilled yetby any other existing solutions. The framework not only offers new maturity scale for a researchcentre’ capabilities, but also transparency of information across a centre. Results from validationstage showed that there is a need for a solution that captures capability maturity in research centres,and that Capability Maturity Framework could fill that gap. Nonetheless, some findings suggest thatCapability Maturity Framework could be further enhanced especially having a more robust processto manage input data. Validation findings also provided insightful foundation for improvements ofCapability Maturity Framework, and for new areas of investigation.The biggest contribution of this study is the Capability Maturity Framework for research centres inthe manufacturing sector. This study presents how the framework was developed and how variousinformation sources (i.e. literature findings, interviews) influenced the design of the framework.Capability development (i.e. capability maturity) processes in research centre environment have notbeen sufficiently examined in the literature. The literature review suggested that most relevantstudies tend to focus either on academic theories that discuss improvement of industrial capabilities,or processes, validated in an industrial environment. Furthermore, literature is unclear on definition,importance and work of research centres (i.e. a clear lack of uniformity). Even though, researchcentres contribute to technological innovations, they have not received the same level of attention.That is why it was important to identify challenges relevant to research centres. For example, nothaving a standard process tailored to research centres’ needs in order to evaluate maturity of theirinternal capabilities. That knowledge gap was captured through three phases of interviews: 1)Exploratory study, 2) Framework development, 3) Framework modifications. Those phases werecrucial as they helped to design, developed and validate Capability Maturity Framework, whichintroduces a standardised process for research centre.Phase 1) started with exploratory interviews to understand why existing solutions cannot be appliedto research centres and also what are research centres requirements (that have not been met so farby existing solutions). The interviews involved ten practitioners from four research centres as well asthree participants from two industrial manufacturing companies. Results from Phase 1) fed intoPhase 2): Framework development. Interviews with sixteen practitioners from seven research centresin the UK were conducted during Phase 2). Those interviews helped to define structure of CapabilityMaturity Framework. That led to Phase 3): framework modifications. Phase 3 of interviews wasorganised to understand what format (of the framework) would be the most user-friendly and whatleast user-friendly aspects should be avoided. Eighteen practitioners from different teams across aresearch centre took part in Phase 3).Once Phases 1-3 were completed, Capability Maturity Framework was evaluated by participantsfrom various research centres, and a few who work in industrial companies but have a closerelationship with a research centre. In total 34 participants reviewed the framework. Validationfindings provided evidence that the need for such a framework exist and has not been fulfilled yetby any other existing solutions. The framework not only offers new maturity scale for a researchcentre’ capabilities, but also transparency of information across a centre. Results from validationstage showed that there is a need for a solution that captures capability maturity in research centres,and that Capability Maturity Framework could fill that gap. Nonetheless, some findings suggest thatCapability Maturity Framework could be further enhanced especially having a more robust processto manage input data. Validation findings also provided insightful foundation for improvements ofCapability Maturity Framework, and for new areas of investigation.The biggest contribution of this study is the Capability Maturity Framework for research centres inthe manufacturing sector. This study presents how the framework was developed and how variousinformation sources (i.e. literature findings, interviews) influenced the design of the framework

Development of capability maturity framework for manufacturing research centres

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

STAX (Strathclyde Repository)