Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model

Practitioners and academics have developed numerous maturity models for many domains in order to measure competency. These initiatives have often been influenced by the Capability Maturity Model. However, an accumulative effort has not been made to generalize the phases of developing a maturity model in any domain. This paper proposes such a methodology and outlines the main phases of generic model development. The proposed methodology is illustrated with the help of examples from two advanced maturity models in the domains of Business Process Management and Knowledge Management.

Towards a Business Process Management Maturity Model

Business Process Management (BPM) has been identified as the number one business priority by a recent Gartner study (Gartner, 2005). However, BPM has a plethora of facets as its origins are in Business Process Reengineering, Process Innovation, Process Modelling, and Workflow Management to name a few. Organisations increasingly recognize the requirement for an increased process orientation and require appropriate comprehensive frameworks, which help to scope and evaluate their BPM initiative. This research project aims toward the development of a holistic and widely accepted BPM maturity model, which facilitates the assessment of BPM capabilities. This paper provides an overview about the current model with a focus on the actual model development utilizing a series of Delphi studies. The development process includes separate studies that focus on further defining and expanding the six core factors within the model, i.e. strategic alignment, governance, method, Information Technology, people and culture.

The Queensland study of melanoma : Environmental and genetic associations (Q-MEGA); Study design, baseline characteristics, and repeatability of phenotype and sun exposure measures

Cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) is a major health issue in Queensland, Australia, which has the world’s highest incidence. Recent molecular and epidemiologic studies suggest that CMM arises through multiple etiological pathways involving gene-environment interactions. Understanding the potential mechanisms leading to CMM requires larger studies than those previously conducted. This article describes the design and baseline characteristics of Q-MEGA, the Queensland Study of Melanoma: Environmental and Genetic Associations, which followed up 4 population-based samples of CMM patients in Queensland, including children, adolescents, men aged over 50, and a large sample of adult cases and their families, including twins. Q-MEGA aims to investigate the roles of genetic and environmental factors, and their interaction, in the etiology of melanoma. Three thousand, four hundred and seventy-one participants took part in the follow-up study and were administered a computer-assisted telephone interview in 2002-2005. Updated data on environmental and phenotypic risk factors, and 2777 blood samples were collected from interviewed participants as well as a subset of relatives. This study provides a large and well-described population-based sample of CMM cases with follow-up data. Characteristics of the cases and repeatability of sun exposure and phenotype measures between the baseline and the follow-up surveys, from 6 to 17 years later, are also described.

CDKN2A mutation in a non-FAMMM kindred with cancers at multiple sites results in a functionally abnormal protein

The CDKN2A gene encodes p16 (CDKN2A), a cell-cycle inhibitor protein which prevents inappropriate cell cycling and, hence, proliferation. Germ-line mutations in CDKN2A predispose to the familial atypical multiple-mole melanoma (FAMMM) syndrome but also have been seen in rare families in which only 1 or 2 individuals are affected by cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM). We therefore sequenced exons 1alpha and 2 of CDKN2A using lymphocyte DNA isolated from index cases from 67 families with cancers at multiple sites, where the patterns of cancer did not resemble those attributable to known genes such as hMLH1, hMLH2, BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53 or other cancer susceptibility genes. We found one mutation, a mis-sense mutation resulting in a methionine to isoleucine change at codon 53 (M531) of exon 2. The individual tested had developed 2 CMMs but had no dysplastic nevi and lacked a family history of dysplastic nevi or CMM. Other family members had been diagnosed with oral cancer (2 persons), bladder cancer (1 person) and possibly gall-bladder cancer. While this mutation has been reported in Australian and North American melanoma kindreds, we did not observe it in 618 chromosomes from Scottish and Canadian controls. Functional studies revealed that the CDKN2A variant carrying the M531 change was unable to bind effectively to CDK4, showing that this mutation is of pathological significance. Our results have confirmed that CDKN2A mutations are not limited to FAMMM kindreds but also demonstrate that multi-site cancer families without melanoma are very unlikely to contain CDKN2A mutations.

Moving beyond transition pedagogy: Maturity models and student engagement

Australian higher education institutions (HEIs) have entered a new phase of regulation and accreditation which includes performance-based funding relating to the participation and retention of students from social and cultural groups previously underrepresented in higher education. However, in addressing these priorities, it is critical that HEIs do not further disadvantage students from certain groups by identifying them for attention because of their social or cultural backgrounds, circumstances which are largely beyond the control of students. In response, many HEIs are focusing effort on university-wide approaches to enhancing the student experience because such approaches will enhance the engagement, success and retention of all students, and in doing so, particularly benefit those students who come from underrepresented groups. Measuring and benchmarking student experiences and engagement that arise from these efforts is well supported by extensive collections of student experience survey data. However no comparable instrument exists that measures the capability of institutions to influence and/or enhance student experiences where capability is an indication of how well an organisational process does what it is designed to do (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005). This paper proposes that the concept of a maturity model (Marshall, 2010; Paulk, 1999) may be useful as a way of assessing the capability of HEIs to provide and implement student engagement, success and retention activities. We will describe the Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM), (Clarke, Nelson & Stoodley, 2012; Nelson, Clarke & Stoodley, 2012) we are currently investigating. We will discuss if our research may address the current gap by facilitating the development of an SESR-MM instrument that aims (i) to enable institutions to assess the capability of their current student engagement and retention programs and strategies to influence and respond to student experiences within the institution; and (ii) to provide institutions with the opportunity to understand various practices across the sector with a view to further improving programs and practices relevant to their context. The first aim of our research is to extend the generational approach which has been useful in considering the evolutionary nature of the first year experience (FYE) (Wilson, 2009). Three generations have been identified and explored: First generation approaches that focus on co-curricular strategies (e.g. orientation and peer programs); Second generation approaches that focus on curriculum (e.g. pedagogy, curriculum design, and learning and teaching practice); and third generation approaches—also referred to as transition pedagogy—that focus on the production of an institution-wide integrated holistic intentional blend of curricular and co-curricular activities (Kift, Nelson & Clarke, 2010). The second aim of this research is to move beyond assessments of students’ experiences to focus on assessing institutional processes and their capability to influence student engagement. In essence, we propose to develop and use the maturity model concept to produce an instrument that will indicate the capability of HEIs to manage and improve student engagement, success and retention programs and strategies. References Australian Council for Educational Research. (n.d.). Australasian Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/research/ausse/background Clarke, J., Nelson, K., & Stoodley, I. (2012, July). The Maturity Model concept as framework for assessing the capability of higher education institutions to address student engagement, success and retention: New horizon or false dawn? A Nuts & Bolts presentation at the 15th International Conference on the First Year in Higher Education, “New Horizons,” Brisbane, Australia. Kift, S., Nelson, K., & Clarke, J. (2010) Transition pedagogy - a third generation approach to FYE: A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), pp. 1-20. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (n.d.). The University Experience Survey. Advancing quality in higher education information sheet. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Policy/Documents/University_Experience_Survey.pdf Marshall, S. (2010). A quality framework for continuous improvement of e-Learning: The e-Learning Maturity Model. Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 143-166. Nelson, K., Clarke, J., & Stoodley, I. (2012). An exploration of the Maturity Model concept as a vehicle for higher education institutions to assess their capability to address student engagement. A work in progress. Submitted for publication. Paulk, M. (1999). Using the Software CMM with good judgment, ASQ Software Quality Professional, 1(3), 19-29. Wilson, K. (2009, June–July). The impact of institutional, programmatic and personal interventions on an effective and sustainable first-year student experience. Keynote address presented at the 12th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference, “Preparing for Tomorrow Today: The First Year as Foundation,” Townsville, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers09/ppts/Keithia_Wilson_paper.pdf

Verifying a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM): A reality check of the model using data derived from three universities

Australian higher education institutions (HEIs) have entered a new phase of regulation and accreditation which includes performance-based funding relating to the participation and retention of students from social and cultural groups previously underrepresented in higher education. However, in addressing these priorities, it is critical that HEIs do not further disadvantage students from certain groups by identifying them for attention because of their social or cultural backgrounds, circumstances which are largely beyond the control of students. In response, many HEIs are focusing effort on university-wide approaches to enhancing the student experience because such approaches will enhance the engagement, success and retention of all students, and in doing so, particularly benefit those students who come from underrepresented groups. Measuring and benchmarking student experiences and engagement that arise from these efforts is well supported by extensive collections of student experience survey data. However no comparable instrument exists that measures the capability of institutions to influence and/or enhance student experiences where capability is an indication of how well an organisational process does what it is designed to do (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005). We have proposed that the concept of a maturity model (Marshall, 2010; Paulk, 1999) may be useful as a way of assessing the capability of HEIs to provide and implement student engagement, success and retention activities and we are currently articulating a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM), (Clarke, Nelson & Stoodley, 2012; Nelson, Clarke & Stoodley, 2012). Our research aims to address the current gap by facilitating the development of an SESR-MM instrument that aims (i) to enable institutions to assess the capability of their current student engagement and retention programs and strategies to influence and respond to student experiences within the institution; and (ii) to provide institutions with the opportunity to understand various practices across the sector with a view to further improving programs and practices relevant to their context. Our research extends the generational approach which has been useful in considering the evolutionary nature of the first year experience (FYE) (Wilson, 2009). Three generations have been identified and explored: First generation approaches that focus on co-curricular strategies (e.g. orientation and peer programs); Second generation approaches that focus on curriculum (e.g. pedagogy, curriculum design, and learning and teaching practice); and third generation approaches—also referred to as transition pedagogy—that focus on the production of an institution-wide integrated holistic intentional blend of curricular and co-curricular activities (Kift, Nelson & Clarke, 2010). Our research also moves beyond assessments of students’ experiences to focus on assessing institutional processes and their capability to influence student engagement. In essence, we propose to develop and use the maturity model concept to produce an instrument that will indicate the capability of HEIs to manage and improve student engagement, success and retention programs and strategies. The issues explored in this workshop are (i) whether the maturity model concept can be usefully applied to provide a measure of institutional capability for SESR; (ii) whether the SESR-MM can be used to assess the maturity of a particular set of institutional practices; and (iii) whether a collective assessment of an institution’s SESR capabilities can provide an indication of the maturity of the institution’s SESR activities. The workshop will be approached in three stages. Firstly, participants will be introduced to the key characteristics of maturity models, followed by a discussion of the SESR-MM and the processes involved in its development. Secondly, participants will be provided with resources to facilitate the development of a maturity model and an assessment instrument for a range of institutional processes and related practices. In the final stage of the workshop, participants will “assess” the capability of these practices to provide a collective assessment of the maturity of these processes. References Australian Council for Educational Research. (n.d.). Australasian Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/research/ausse/background Clarke, J., Nelson, K., & Stoodley, I. (2012, July). The Maturity Model concept as framework for assessing the capability of higher education institutions to address student engagement, success and retention: New horizon or false dawn? A Nuts & Bolts presentation at the 15th International Conference on the First Year in Higher Education, “New Horizons,” Brisbane, Australia. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (n.d.). The University Experience Survey. Advancing quality in higher education information sheet. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Policy/Documents/University_Experience_Survey.pdf Kift, S., Nelson, K., & Clarke, J. (2010) Transition pedagogy - a third generation approach to FYE: A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), pp. 1-20. Marshall, S. (2010). A quality framework for continuous improvement of e-Learning: The e-Learning Maturity Model. Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 143-166. Nelson, K., Clarke, J., & Stoodley, I. (2012). An exploration of the Maturity Model concept as a vehicle for higher education institutions to assess their capability to address student engagement. A work in progress. Submitted for publication. Paulk, M. (1999). Using the Software CMM with good judgment, ASQ Software Quality Professional, 1(3), 19-29. Wilson, K. (2009, June–July). The impact of institutional, programmatic and personal interventions on an effective and sustainable first-year student experience. Keynote address presented at the 12th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference, “Preparing for Tomorrow Today: The First Year as Foundation,” Townsville, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers09/ppts/Keithia_Wilson_paper.pdf

The mouse model of Chlamydia genital tract infection: a review of infection, disease, immunity and vaccine development

Chlamydia trachomatis is the most common sexually transmitted bacterial infection worldwide. The impact of this pathogen on human reproduction has intensified research efforts to better understand chlamydial infection and pathogenesis. Whilst there are animal models available that mimic the many aspects of human chlamydial infection, the mouse is regarded as the most practical and widely used of the models. Studies in mice have greatly contributed to our understanding of the host-pathogen interaction and provided an excellent medium for evaluating vaccines. Here we explore the advantages and disadvantages of all animal models of chlamydial genital tract infection, with a focus on the murine model and what we have learnt from it so far.

Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies five new susceptibility loci for cutaneous malignant melanoma

Thirteen common susceptibility loci have been reproducibly associated with cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM). We report the results of an international 2-stage meta-analysis of CMM genome-wide association studies (GWAS). This meta-analysis combines 11 GWAS (5 previously unpublished) and a further three stage 2 data sets, totaling 15,990 CMM cases and 26,409 controls. Five loci not previously associated with CMM risk reached genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10−8), as did 2 previously reported but unreplicated loci and all 13 established loci. Newly associated SNPs fall within putative melanocyte regulatory elements, and bioinformatic and expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) data highlight candidate genes in the associated regions, including one involved in telomere biology.