Skip to main content
No Access

Maturity assessment models: a design science research approach

Published Online:pp 81-98https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSS.2011.038934

In order to ascertain and measure dedicated aspects of social and technical systems ‘maturity’, a wide range of maturity assessment models have been developed by both, practitioners and academics over the past years. In spite of its broad proliferation, the concept has not been untroubled by criticism. Unnecessary bureaucracy, poor theoretical foundation, and the impression of a falsified certainty to achieve success are just a few examples for that.

As there is still a significant lack of knowledge on how to design theoretically sound and widely accepted maturity assessment models, it is the aim of this paper to discuss the typical phases of maturity model development and application by taking a design science research perspective.

Given that both, development and application are intimately connected, different decision parameters are identified that are relevant in respect to rigour and relevance of the maturity assessment model.

Keywords

assessment models, change engineering, design decisions, design principles, design science research, maturity models

References

  • 1. Aggestam, L. (2006). ‘Towards a maturity model for learning organizations – the role of knowledge management’. Paper presented at the 17th International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications, August 31–September 4, 2006, Krakow, Poland, 141-145 Google Scholar
  • 2. Ahern, D.M. , Clouse, A. , Turner, R. (2004). CMMI Distilled: A Practical Introduction to Integrated Process Improvement. 2nd edition, Boston, London:Addison-Wesley Google Scholar
  • 3. Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge:Harvard University Press Google Scholar
  • 4. Bach, J. (1994). ‘The immaturity of CMM’. American Programmer. 7, 9, 13-18 Google Scholar
  • 5. Becker, J. , Knackstedt, R. , Pöppelbuß, J. (2009). ‘Entwicklung von Reifegradmodellen für das IT-Management: Vorgehensmodell und praktische Anwendung’. Wirtschaftsinformatik. 51, 3, 249-260 Google Scholar
  • 6. Biberoglu, E. , Haddad, H. (2002). ‘A survey of industrial experiences with CMM and the teaching of CMM practices’. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges. 18, 2, 143-152 Google Scholar
  • 7. Braun, C. , Wortmann, F. , Hafner, M. , Winter, R. (2005). ‘Method construction: a core approach to organizational engineering’. Paper presented at the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, March 13–17, 2005, Santa Fe, USA, 1295-1299 Google Scholar
  • 8. Brinkkemper, S. (1996). ‘Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools’. Information and Software Technology. 38, 4, 275-280 Google Scholar
  • 9. Burton, J. , McCaffery, F. , Richardson, I. (2006). ‘A risk management capability model for use in medical device companies’. Paper presented at the 2006 International Workshop on Software Quality, May 21–21, 2006, Shanghai, China, 3-8 Google Scholar
  • 10. Conwell, C.L. , Enright, R. , Stutzman, M.A. (2000). ‘Capability maturity models support of modeling and simulation verification, validation, and accreditation’. Paper presented at the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference, December 10–13, 2000, San Diego, USA, 819-828 Google Scholar
  • 11. Crosby, P.B. (1979). Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain. New York:McGraw-Hill Google Scholar
  • 12. Cross, N. (2001). ‘Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science’. Design Issues. 17, 3, 49-55 Google Scholar
  • 13. de Bruin, T. , Rosemann, M. (2005). ‘Understanding the main phases of developing a maturity assessment model’. Paper presented at the 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, November 30–December 2, 2005, Sydney, Australia Google Scholar
  • 14. Fraser, M.D. , Vaishnavi, V.K. (1997). ‘A formal specifications maturity model’. Communications of the ACM. 40, 12, 95-103 Google Scholar
  • 15. Fraser, P. , Moultrie, J. , Gregory, M. (2002). ‘The use of maturity models/grids as a tool in assessing product development capability’. Paper presented at the IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, August 18–20, 2002, Cambridge, UK, 244-249 Google Scholar
  • 16. Gericke, A. , Winter, R. (2008). ‘Entwicklung eines Bezugsrahmens für Konstruktionsforschung und Artefaktkonstruktion in der gestaltungsorientierten Wirtschaftsinformatik’. Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen, Working paper Google Scholar
  • 17. Gericke, A. , Rohner, P. , Winter, R. (2006). ‘Vernetzungsfähigkeit im Gesundheitswesen – Notwendigkeit, Bewertung und systematische Entwicklung als Voraussetzung zur Erhöhung der Wirtschaftlichkeit administrativer Prozesse’. HMD – Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik. 251, 20-30 Google Scholar
  • 18. Gibson, C.F. , Nolan, R.L. (1974). ‘Managing the four stages of EDP growth’. Harvard Business Review. 2, 1, 76-88 Google Scholar
  • 19. Gregor, S. , Jones, D. (2007). ‘The anatomy of a design theory’. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 8, 5, 312-335 Google Scholar
  • 20. Haase, V. , Messnarz, R. , Koch, G. , Kugler, H.J. , Decrinis, P. (1994). ‘Bootstrap: fine-tuning process assessment’. IEEE Software. 11, 4, 25-35 Google Scholar
  • 21. Hakes, C. (1996). The Corporate Self Assessment Handbook. 3rd Edition, London:Chapman & Hall Google Scholar
  • 22. Hayes, W. , Zubrow, D. (1995). ‘Moving on up: data and experience doing CMM-based software process improvement’. Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, Working paper Google Scholar
  • 23. Herbsleb, J.D. , Goldenson, D.R. (1996). ‘A systematic survey of CMM experience and results’. Paper presented at the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering, March 25–29, 1996, Berlin, Germany, 323-330 Google Scholar
  • 24. Hevner, A.R. , March, S.T. , Park, J. , Ram, S. (2004). ‘Design science in information system research’. MIS Quarterly. 28, 1, 75-101 Google Scholar
  • 25. Höhnel, W. , Krahl, D. , Schreiber, D. , Fettke, P. Loos, P. (2007). ‘Lessons learned in reference modeling’. Reference Modelling for Business Systems Analysis. Hershey:Idea Group Publishing , 355-371 Google Scholar
  • 26. Järvinen, P. (2007). ‘On reviewing of results in design research’. Paper presented at the 15th European Conference on Information Systems, June 7–9, 2007, St. Gallen, Switzerland, 1388-1397 Google Scholar
  • 27. Knackstedt, R. , Pöppelbuß, J. , Becker, J. (2009). ‘Vorgehensmodell zur Entwicklung von Reifegradmodellen’. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Business Informatics, February, 25–27, 2009, Vienna, Austria, 535-544 Google Scholar
  • 28. Kuvaja, P. (1999). ‘BOOTSTRAP 3.0 – a spice conformant software process assessment methodology’. Software Quality Control. 8, 1, 7-19 Google Scholar
  • 29. March, S.T. , Smith, G.G. (1995). ‘Design and natural science research on information technology’. Decision Support Systems. 15, 4, 251-266 Google Scholar
  • 30. McKay, J. , Marshall, P. (2007). ‘Science, design, and design science: seeking clarity to move design science research forward in information systems’. Paper presented at the 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems Science, Design and Design Science, December 5–7, 2007, Toowoomba, Australia, 604-614 Google Scholar
  • 31. Mettler, T. (2009). ‘A design science research perspective on maturity models in information systems’. St. Gallen:Universtiy of St. Gallen , Working paper Google Scholar
  • 32. Mettler, T. (2010). ‘Supply management im Krankenhaus: Konstruktion und Evaluation eines konfigurierbaren Reifegradmodells zur zielgerichteten Gestaltung’. St. Gallen:University of St. Gallen , PhD thesis Google Scholar
  • 33. Mettler, T. , Rohner, P. (2009). ‘Situational maturity models as instrumental artifacts for organizational design’. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, May 7–8, 2009, Philadelphia, USA, 1-9 Google Scholar
  • 34. Montoya-Weiss, M.M. , Calantone, R.J. (1994). ‘Determinants of new product perfomance: a review and meta-analysis’. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 11, 5, 397-417 Google Scholar
  • 35. Mylopoulos, J. , Loucopoulos, P. Zicari, R. (1992). ‘Conceptual modelling and telos’. Conceptual Modelling, Databases and Case. New York:John Wiley and Sons , 49-68 Google Scholar
  • 36. Nielsen, P.A. , Pries-Heje, J. , Mathiassen, L. Pries-Heje, J. Ngwenyama, O. (2001). ‘A framework for selecting an assessment strategy’. Improving Software Organizations: from Principles to Practice. Upper Saddle River:Addison-Wesley , 185-198 Google Scholar
  • 37. Nonaka, I. (1994). ‘A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation’. Organization Science. 5, 1, 14-37 Google Scholar
  • 38. OECD (1997). The Oslo Manual: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data. Paris:OECD Google Scholar
  • 39. Paulk, M.C. , Curtis, B. , Chrissis, M.B. , Weber, C.V. (1993). ‘Capability maturity model, version 1.1’. IEEE Software. 10, 4, 18-27 Google Scholar
  • 40. Peffers, K. , Tuunanen, T. , Gengler, C.E. , Rossi, M. , Hui, W. , Virtanen, V. , Bragge, J. (2006). ‘The design science research process: a model for producing and presenting information systems research’. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Design Science in Information Systems and Technology, February 24–25, 2006, Claremont, USA, 83-106 Google Scholar
  • 41. Pfeffer, J. , Sutton, R. (1999). ‘Knowing “what” to do is not enough: turning knowledge into action’. California Management Review. 42, 1, 83-108 Google Scholar
  • 42. Pries-Heje, J. , Baskerville, R. (2003). ‘Improving software organizations: an analysis of diverse normative models’. Paper presented at the EuroSPI Conference, December 10–12, 2003, Graz, Austria, 1-17 Google Scholar
  • 43. Pries-Heje, J. , Baskerville, R. , Venable, J. (2008). ‘Strategies for design science research evaluation’. Paper presented at the 16th European Conference on Information Systems, June 9–11, 2008, Galway, Ireland, 255-266 Google Scholar
  • 44. Purao, S. (2002). ‘Design research in the technology of information systems: truth or dare’. (accessed on 09/10/2009), available at http://purao.ist.psu.edu/working-papers/dare-purao.pdf Google Scholar
  • 45. Rogers, E.M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. New York:Free Press Google Scholar
  • 46. Seidel, S. , Rosemann, M. , Hofstede, A. , Bradford, L. (2006). ‘Developing a business process reference model for the screen business: a design science research case study’. Paper presented at the 17th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, December 6–8, 2006, Adelaide, Australia, 1-10 Google Scholar
  • 47. Simon, H.A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press Google Scholar
  • 48. Soanes, C. , Stevenson, A. (2006). ‘The concise Oxford english dictionary’. (accessed on 09/10/2009), available at http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t23.e34538 Google Scholar
  • 49. Utterback, J.M. (1971). ‘The process of technological innovation within the firm’. Academy of Management Journal. 14, 1, 75-88 Google Scholar
  • 50. Utterback, J.M. , Abernathy, W.J. (1975). ‘A dynamic model of process and product innovation’. Omega. 3, 6, 639-656 Google Scholar
  • 51. Vahidov, R. (2006). ‘Design researcher’s IS artifact: a representational framework’. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, February 24–25, 2006, Claremont, USA, 19-33 Google Scholar
  • 52. Venable, J. (2006a). ‘A framework for design science research activities’. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Information Resources Management Association International Conference, May 21–24, 2006, Washington D.C., USA, 184-187 Google Scholar
  • 53. Venable, J. (2006b). ‘The role of theory and theorising in design science research’. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Design Science in Information Systems and Technology, February 24–25, 2006, Claremont, USA, 1-18 Google Scholar
  • 54. vom Brocke, J. , Fettke, P. Loos, P. (2007). ‘Design principles for reference modelling: reusing information models by means of aggregation, specialisation, instantiation, and analogy’. Reference Modelling for Business Systems Analysis. Hershey:Idea Group Publishing , 47-75 Google Scholar
  • 55. Walls, J. , Widmeyer, G. , El Sawy, O. (1992). ‘Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS’. Information Systems Research. 3, 1, 36-59 Google Scholar
  • 56. Wand, Y. , Monarchi, D.E. , Parsons, J. , Woo, C.C. (1995). ‘Theoretical foundations for conceptual modelling in information systems development’. Decision Support Systems. 15, 4, 285-304 Google Scholar
  • 57. Wang, J. (2008). ‘Sustain, Nourish and improve our society’. International Journal of Sustainable Society. 1, 1, 1-3 Google Scholar
  • 58. Weinberg, G.M. (1992). Quality Software Management: Systems Thinking. New York:Dorset House Publishing Google Scholar