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.

Business process management : theory on progression and maturity

Business Process Management (BPM) is a topic that continues to grow in significance as organisations seek to gain and sustain competitive advantage in an increasingly global environment. Despite anecdotal evidence of organisations improving performance by pursuing a BPM approach, there is little theory that explains and substantiates this relationship. This study provides the first theory on the progression and maturity of BPM Initiatives within organisations and provides a vital starting block upon which future research in this area can build. The Researcher starts by clearly defining three key terms (BPM Initiative, BPM Progression and BPM Maturity), showing the relationship between these three concepts and proposing their relationship with Organisational Performance. The Researcher then combines extant literature and use of the Delphi Technique and the case study method to explore the progression and measurement of the BPM Initiatives within organisations. The study builds upon the principles of general theories including the Punctuated Equilibrium Model and Dynamic Capabilities to present theory on BPM Progression and BPM Maturity. Using the BPM Capability Framework developed through an international Delphi study series, the Researcher shows how the specific organisational context influences which capability areas an organisation chooses to progress. By comparing five separate organisations over an extended time the Researcher is able to show that, despite this disparity, there is some evidence of consistency with regard to the capability areas progressed. This suggests that subsequent identification of progression paths may be possible. The study also shows that the approach and scope taken to BPM within each organisation is a likely predictor of such paths. These outcomes result in the proposal of a formative model for measuring BPM Maturity.

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

Gaining a competitive edge in the area of the engagement, success and retention of commencing students is a significant issue in higher education, made more so currently because of the considerable and increasing pressure on teaching and learning from the new standards framework and performance funding. This paper introduces the concept of maturity models (MMs) and their application to assessing the capability of higher education institutions (HEIs) to address student engagement, success and retention (SESR). A concise description of the features of maturity models is presented with reference to an SESR-MM currently being developed. The SESR-MM is proposed as a viable instrument for assisting HEIs in the management and improvement of their SESR activities.

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?

While the engagement, success and retention of first year students are ongoing issues in higher education, they are currently of considerable and increasing importance as the pressures on teaching and learning from the new standards framework and performance funding intensifies. This Nuts & Bolts presentation introduces the concept of a maturity model and its application to the assessment of the capability of higher education institutions to address student engagement, success and retention. Participants will be provided with (a) a concise description of the concept and features of a maturity model; and (b) the opportunity to explore the potential application of maturity models (i) to the management of student engagement and retention programs and strategies within an institution and (ii) to the improvement of these features by benchmarking across the sector.

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

Revealing performance heterogeneity through knowledge management maturity evaluation : a capability-based approach

The dynamic capabilities view (DCV) focuses on renewal of firms’ strategic knowledge resources so as to sustain competitive advantage within turbulent markets. Within the context of the DCV, the focus of knowledge management (KM) is to develop the KMC through deploying knowledge governance mechanisms that are conducive to facilitating knowledge processes so as to produce superior business performance over time. The essence of KM performance evaluation is to assess how well the KMC is configured with knowledge governance mechanisms and processes that enable a firm to achieve superior performance through matching its knowledge base with market needs. However, little research has been undertaken to evaluate KM performance from the DCV perspective. This study employed a survey study design and adopted hypothesis-testing approaches to develop a capability-based KM evaluation framework (CKMEF) that upholds the basic assertions of the DCV. Under the governance of the framework, a KM index (KMI) and a KM maturity model (KMMM) were derived not only to indicate the extent to which a firm’s KM implementations fulfill its strategic objectives, and to identify the evolutionary phase of its KMC, but also to bench-mark the KMC in the research population. The research design ensured that the evaluation framework and instruments have statistical significance and good generalizabilty to be applied in the research population, namely construction firms operating in the dynamic Hong Kong construction market. The study demonstrated the feasibility of quantitatively evaluating the development of the KMC and revealing the performance heterogeneity associated with the development.

Using a maturity model to move student engagement practices beyond the generational approach

This paper proposes that the generational approach to conceptualising first year student learning behaviour, while it has made a very useful contribution to understanding that behaviour, can be expanded upon. The generational approach has an explicit focus on student behaviour and it is suggested that a capability maturity model interpretation may provide a complementary extension of that as it allows an assessment of institutional capability to initiate, plan, manage and evaluate institutional student engagement practices. The development of a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM) is discussed along with Australasian FYE generational data and Australian SESR-MM data.

The place of higher education institutions in assessing student engagement, success and retention : a maturity model to guide practice

The perennial issues of student engagement, success and retention in higher education continue to attract attention as the salience of teaching and learning funding and performance measures has increased. This paper addresses the question of the responsibility or place of higher education institutions (HEIs) for initiating, planning, managing and evaluating their student engagement, success and retention programs and strategies. An evaluation of the current situation indicates the need for a sophisticated approach to assessing the ability of HEIs to proactively design programs and practices that enhance student engagement. An approach—the Student Engagement Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM)—is proposed and its development, current status, and relationship with and possible use in benchmarking are discussed.

Prolegomenon to the study of the concepts of maturity and maturity model : from Black Horse to White Knight?

This paper takes its root in a trivial observation: management approaches are unable to provide relevant guidelines to cope with uncertainty, and trust of our modern worlds. Thus, managers are looking for reducing uncertainty through information’s supported decision-making, sustained by ex-ante rationalization. They strive to achieve best possible solution, stability, predictability, and control of “future”. Hence, they turn to a plethora of “prescriptive panaceas”, and “management fads” to bring simple solutions through best practices. However, these solutions are ineffective. They address only one part of a system (e.g. an organization) instead of the whole. They miss the interactions and interdependencies with other parts leading to “suboptimization”. Further classical cause-effects investigations and researches are not very helpful to this regard. Where do we go from there? In this conversation, we want to challenge the assumptions supporting the traditional management approaches and shed some lights on the problem of management discourse fad using the concept of maturity and maturity models in the context of temporary organizations as support for reflexion. Global economy is characterized by use and development of standards and compliance to standards as a practice is said to enable better decision-making by managers in uncertainty, control complexity, and higher performance. Amongst the plethora of standards, organizational maturity and maturity models hold a specific place due to general belief in organizational performance as dependent variable of (business) processes continuous improvement, grounded on a kind of evolutionary metaphor. Our intention is neither to offer a new “evidence based management fad” for practitioners, nor to suggest research gap to scholars. Rather, we want to open an assumption-challenging conversation with regards to main stream approaches (neo-classical economics and organization theory), turning “our eyes away from the blinding light of eternal certitude towards the refracted world of turbid finitude” (Long, 2002, p. 44) generating what Bernstein has named “Cartesian Anxiety” (Bernstein, 1983, p. 18), and revisit the conceptualization of maturity and maturity models. We rely on conventions theory and a systemic-discursive perspective. These two lenses have both information & communication and self-producing systems as common threads. Furthermore the narrative approach is well suited to explore complex way of thinking about organizational phenomena as complex systems. This approach is relevant with our object of curiosity, i.e. the concept of maturity and maturity models, as maturity models (as standards) are discourses and systems of regulations. The main contribution of this conversation is that we suggest moving from a neo-classical “theory of the game” aiming at making the complex world simpler in playing the game, to a “theory of the rules of the game”, aiming at influencing and challenging the rules of the game constitutive of maturity models – conventions, governing systems – making compatible individual calculation and social context, and possible the coordination of relationships and cooperation between agents with or potentially divergent interests and values. A second contribution is the reconceptualization of maturity as structural coupling between conventions, rather than as an independent variable leading to organizational performance.

Using a Capability Maturity Model to build on the generational approach to student engagement practices

The generational approach to conceptualising first year student learning behaviour has made a useful contribution to understanding student engagement. It has an explicit focus on student behaviour and we suggest that a capability maturity model interpretation may provide a complementary extension of that understanding as it builds on the generational approach by allowing an assessment of institutional capability to initiate, plan, manage, evaluate and review institutional student engagement practices. The development of a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM) is discussed along with its application in an Australian higher education institution. In this case study, the model identified first, second and third generation approaches and in addition achieved a ‘complementary extension’ of the generational approach, building on it by identifying additional practices not normally considered within the generational concept and indicating the capability of the institution to provide and implement the practices.

Towards an integrated maturity model of asset management capabilities

Asset service organisations often recognize asset management as a core competence to deliver benefits to their business. But how do organizations know whether their asset management processes are adequate? Asset management maturity models, which combine best practices and competencies, provide a useful approach to test the capacity of organisations to manage their assets. Asset management frameworks are required to meet the dynamic challenges of managing assets in contemporary society. Although existing models are subject to wide variations in their implementation and sophistication, they also display a distinct weakness in that they tend to focus primarily on the operational and technical level and neglect the levels of strategy, policy and governance as well as the social and human resources – the people elements. Moreover, asset management maturity models have to respond to the external environmental factors, including such as climate change and sustainability, stakeholders and community demand management. Drawing on five dimensions of effective asset management – spatial, temporal, organisational, statistical, and evaluation – as identified by Amadi Echendu et al. [1], this paper carries out a comprehensive comparative analysis of six existing maturity models to identify the gaps in key process areas. Results suggest incorporating these into an integrated approach to assess the maturity of asset-intensive organizations. It is contended that the adoption of an integrated asset management maturity model will enhance effective and efficient delivery of services.