Capability Maturity Models
10
Nov
2015
APS Human Capital Matters: Capability Maturity Models
December, 2015, Issue 11
Editor’s Note to Readers
Welcome to the penultimate edition of Human Capital Matters (HCM) for 2015—the digest for
leaders and practitioners with an interest in human capital and organisational capability. Human
Capital Matters seeks to provide Australian Public Service leaders and practitioners with easy access
to the issues of contemporary importance in public and private sector human capital and
organisational capability. It has been designed to provide interested readers with a monthly guide to
the national and international ideas that are shaping human capital thinking and practice. The
inclusion of articles is aimed at stimulating creative and innovative thinking and does not in any way
imply that the Australian Public Service Commission endorses service providers or policies.
Thank you to those who took the time to provide feedback on earlier editions of Human Capital
Matters. Comments, suggestions or questions regarding this publication are always welcome and
should be addressed to: humancapitalmatters@apsc.gov.au. Readers can also subscribe to the
mailing list through this email address.
This edition reviews available material on Capability Maturity Models (CMM). The review started
from the premise posited by Schmidtchen and Cotton in their paper to the Australian and New
Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) in 2014:
Business process management is central to organisational capability and organisations
need to build, maintain, and continuously improve their organisational capability.
Central to this is the ability to accurately assess organisational capability. A common
mechanism for this is through the use of a maturity model
CMM were originally developed as tools for objective assessment of software implementation. It is
derived from work described by Watts Humphrey in 1989, based on his career with IBM.
Though developed for the field of software development, CMM can also be used to aid other
business processes. The term ‘maturity’ refers to the degree of formality and optimisation of
processes—from ad hoc through formally defined steps and metrics, to active optimisation of
processes.
A maturity model can be thought of as a set of structured levels that describe how likely the
behaviours, practices and processes of an organisation can reliably and sustainably produce required
outcomes. CMM can be used as a benchmark for comparison purposes.
List of articles:
The first article is the seminal paper by Paulk, Curtis, Chrissis and Weber from 1993 which draws on
the original work by Humphrey. The authors believe that the ‘simple’ maturity questionnaire
originally developed by Humphrey was intended to help organisations identify how their (software)
processes might be improved and that a structured review of processes, beyond just the
questionnaire, also offered an opportunity to explore process maturity
2
The second article is the paper presented by Schmidtchen and Cotton in 2014. The paper describes
the application of a business process maturity model in the Australian Public Service (APS) and
outlines its use for comparative purposes. It provides comment on the applications and limitations of
maturity models.
The third article by Rölinger, Pöppelbuß and Becker discusses the limitations of CMM. These
limitations are discussed by Schmidtchen and Cotton to explore a CMM for the APS.
The fourth article by McCormack and others investigates turning points in the maturation process.
The paper provides quantitative evidence of the critical maturity components associated with each
level of maturity.
The fifth article is the Administrative and Support Services Benchmarking Report for 2012/13 from
the New Zealand Treasury. This paper is included to demonstrate the internal benchmarking
properties afforded by comparisons over time according to a structured framework such as a
capability maturity model.
3
Paulk, M. C., Curtis B., Chrissis, M.B. & Weber, C.V. Capability Maturity Model for
Software, Version 1.1 Software Engineering Institute, Pennsylvania, USA, 1993
The book by Paulk et al is about software development processes and provides the original thinking
behind the development of capability maturity models for other business processes. In the five
chapters of the book the authors define and describe: the concepts necessary to understand the CMM
and the motivation and purpose of the CMM; the five levels of the model and the principles that
underlie them; how the model is structured into key process areas, organised by common features
and key practices; a high-level overview of how the model provides guidance for software process
assessments, capability evaluations and process improvements; and finally, the book concludes with
possible future directions for the CMM and related products.
This technical report was produced for the SEI Joint Program Office, ESC/AVS Hanscomb AFB, MA
and was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense
Return to list of articles
Schmidtchen, D. & Cotton, T. Comparative application of a business process maturity model
in the public sector. Paper presented to the 28th Australian and New Zealand Academy of
Management in 2014
According to Schmidtchen and Cotton, organisational capability in the APS has been defined as the
combination of people, processes, systems, structures and culture that contribute to continuously
improving performance in APS departments and agencies. The paper focuses on the use of a
maturity model as a comparative tool within the APS.
Two methods of assessing capability have been used in the APS since 2010. The interdependent
methods are firstly, the capability review model which focuses on leadership, strategic and delivery
capabilities. The second and complementary method is the CMM in which APS agencies use a
standard maturity model to assess a range of organisational capabilities such as stakeholder
engagement, strategic planning, risk management, change management, workforce planning and
performance management.
The first method requires a team of independent assessors on-site for an extended period. The second
requires an agency to make two self-assessments: the agency’s current maturity status against
specified capabilities and secondly, its required (or perhaps aspirational) status in regard to the same
target capabilities. The assessments are provided by way of a survey delivered as part of the State of
the Service annual census of APS agencies.
In the second method, the CMM method, the targeted APS agencies rate their current and required
capabilities in a maturity model structure of five levels from ad hoc (immature) to optimised
(mature). The levels are hierarchical. Progression from immature to mature is seen as an
evolutionary progression through: awareness (immature); general acceptance (defined by tools and
databases); managed (with a more centralised, strategic approach); to finally, regular integration of
lessons learned and feedback loops resulting in measurable benefits (mature).
The authors define APS agencies by five functional types: policy, large operational, small
operational, regulatory and specialist. Capabilities for functional groups can be compared within and
against other functional types though the critical measurements are the gaps between current and
4
required capabilities for individual agencies. In this way agencies are able to see increases in current
and required capabilities over time and, a reduction in the capability gap over time. As stated in the
discussion:
By comparing current capability over time, an assessment of whether agency capability
has actually ‘matured’; that is, has increased, can be made; this allows agencies to
evaluate the progress of earlier capability investments. By comparing their required level
of capability maturity over time, agencies are able to identify how their changing
business context has influenced their capability requirements; it assists agencies make a
critical assessment of their likely future business and what this means for investment
decisions in their business processes
More importantly, by examining the gap between current and future requirements,
agencies can determine where they might most profitably invest their resources to
improve capability across their business processes. This assumes a different view of
‘maturity’ in that business process maturity is not affected by simple constant
improvement, but rather by accurately assessing business needs and matching business
process maturity to actual business need. This then allows agencies to evaluate how
effective their efforts have been at improving their business processes where the need is
greatest. When looked at across an industry, in this case the APS, it assists in identifying
systemic areas of weakness to which resources can be allocated with greatest effect – in
the APS one area where this can be seen is in the workforce planning capability
While the authors note the limitations of CMM (which will be discussed in the next abstract) they
conclude that the CMM offers insights into organisational capability, especially when capability is
tracked over time.
At the time of this paper both authors were employed by the Australian Public Service Commission,
Commonwealth of Australia Canberra, Australia. Dr David Schmidtchen is the corresponding
author
Return to list of articles
Rölinger M, Pöppelbuß J, & Becker J (2012) Maturity models in business process
management, Business Process Management Journal, 18(2): 328–46.
Rölinger, Pöppelbuß and Becker reviewed the research community’s criticism of maturity models on
the basis that ‘scholars struggle with the conceptual enhancement of maturity models’. They note
that the ‘basic purpose of maturity models is to outline the stages of maturation paths’ which can be
applied for descriptive, prescriptive and comparative purposes. It is descriptive when describing an
‘as-is’ or current status/assessment. It is prescriptive ‘if it indicates how to identify desirable future
maturity levels and provides guidance on how to implement improvement measures’. It serves a
comparative purpose if it allows for internal and external benchmarking.
Criticisms (summarised by Schmidtchen and Cotton) include technical issues such as a lack of
validation in the development of the models (Wendler, 2012), limited guidance to improve
performance (Becker et al., 2009; Iversen et al., 1999), and step-by-step process ‘recipes’ that lack a
5
robust empirical foundation (Benbasat et al., 1984; King and Kraemer, 1984; de Bruin et al., 2005;
McCormack et al., 2009).
Maturity models are seen to offer a highly prescriptive improvement path that neglects alternative
approaches (Teo and King, 1997). They provide only a narrow definition of business process factors
that ignore internal or external forces that might influence process improvement (Mettler and
Rohner, 2009). Others have suggested that they focus on a predefined ‘end state’ instead of the
factors that actually influence evolution and change through to the application (King and Kraemer,
1984).
There has also been consistent concern over the non-reflective application of maturity models as a
substitute for engagement with the issues associated with business process improvement (Becker et
al., 2009, 2010; Iversen et al., 1999). Rölinger, Pöppelbuß and Becker analysed a sample of business
process management maturity models and found that while they adequately addressed the basic
development and descriptive design principles, the criteria for prescriptive use were rarely met.
Consequently, the models provided limited guidance for implementing improvement measures.
This article has additional value for those readers who wish to consider the differences between
business process management models (BPM) and process maturity models—a distinction that lacks
clarity, even in the academic literature. Rölinger, Pöppelbuß and Becker argue that more clarity is
needed concerning the concepts or entities that are the subject of the assessment models.
Dr Maximilian Rölinger (corresponding author) FIM Research Center Finance and Information
Management, University of Augsburg, Germany. Jens Pöppelbuß, European Research Center for
Information Systems, University of Münster, Germany. Professor Dr Jörg Becker, European Center
for Information Systems, University of Münster, Germany
Return to list of articles
McCormack K, Willems J, van den Bergh J, Deschoolmeester D, Willaert P, Indihar
Štemberger M,Škrinjar R, Trkman P, Ladeira M B, Valadares de Oliveira M P, Vuksic V B &
Vlahovic N,(2009) A global investigation of key turning points in business process maturity,
Business Process Management Journal, 15(5): 792–815.
This research focuses on improving the quality of maturity models for managers. Specifically, the
authors invite teams and leaders to use suggested guide-posts, milestones and measures to help
address their current level of capability maturity and how they might proceed to the next level. Key
turning points are conceptualised by the authors as components of business process management
(BPM) that become stable and lead to the next maturity level.
McCormack et al provide definitions for four stages of organisational maturity similar to those
already posited: ad hoc, defined, linked and integrated. Linked is seen as the ‘breakthrough’ level of
maturity in which managers employ process management with strategic intent and a view to results.
The basic components of the model are:

Process view in which steps, activities and tasks are documented in formats that allow people
across the organisation to communicate using the same vocabulary. There is broad
understanding of the processes across the organisation
6


Process jobs which require horizontal rather than vertical responsibility for which people
participate and take ownership
Process measurement and management systems which include measurement systems,
rewards for process improvement, outcome measurements, customer-driven and team-driven
measures and rewards
These are supported by process structure components which are designed to break down
functional compartments and which include horizontal teams and shared ownership. They are
also supported by customer-focused process values, and beliefs which ‘energise’ the
organisation.
The key turning points for transition to higher levels are, in order of transition from lower to
higher levels of maturity:








The customer needs and preferences are known
Teamwork and multi-skilling are endorsed
Process measurement and management are defined
Process metrics are used consistently
Job roles have been expanded to allow insight about links to outcomes
Process measures and management are accompanied by training and learning
Integration and the underlying ‘process-oriented culture’ are evident through everyday
use of common process language (e.g., input, output, process)
Finally, at the highest levels, process analytics and automated processes are important
Kevin McCormack, DRK Research, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. Willems, van den Bergh,
Deschoolmeester and Willaert, Vlerick Leuven Ghent Management School, Ghent, Belgium.
Stemberger, Skrinjar and Trkman, Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Ladeira and de Oliveira, Departmento de Ciencias Administrativas, CEPEAD, Universidade
Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Vuksic and Vlahovic, Faculty of Economics and
Business, University of Agreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Return to list of articles
The Treasury New Zealand, Administrative & Support Services Benchmarking Report for the
Financial Year 2012/13
This is the fourth annual Benchmarking of Administrative & Support Services (BASS)
Benchmarking Report provided by the New Zealand Treasury. A BASS report for 2015 exists
though the 2014 report goes into more detail about the use of a capability maturity models.
Capability maturity models are provided for each of: Human Resources; Finance; Procurement;
Communications; and, Legal. Each is described according to progressive maturity levels: lagging,
achieving, exceeding and leading.
In this report and similar reports for the three previous annual reports, capability maturity is only one
metric used. Metric descriptions for each function were originally based on the UK Audit Agencies
but have been refined so that they are now based on a range of international benchmarking best
practices. These include The Hackett Group, APQC and the Australian NSW ICT Benchmarking.
7
Each function is assessed against a range of metrics which include current and future aspiration
capability maturity. For example, for HR, eight metric definitions include two for HR CMM (current
and aspirational): capability maturity score for ten selected leading HR practices undertaken by the
function are averaged (1-4: lagging achieving, exceeding and leading) across the ten questions. The
same process of selecting 10 leading practices (and associated questions and average of four-point
score) within the function is applied to all functions, except ICT.
Using HR again as an example, the descriptions of the 10 leading practices assessed by way of CMM
(on the four-point scale) are:
Ref
Category
Capability element description
1
capability
developing people skills of managers
2
operations
strategic workforce planning (SWP) reporting and
analytics
3
4
5
operations
operations
operations
performance management
rewards strategy
staff engagement
6
resources
staff technology capability and process improvement skills
7
strategy
SWP data and capability
8
strategy
executive leadership in governance
9
strategy
linkage of HR policies and practices to broader
HR/Business goals
10
technology
automation and self-service delivery
To contrast and demonstrate the fit-for-purpose nature of the NZ capability maturity models used in
the public sector, the Procurement CMM is shown below:
Ref
Category
Capability element description
1
Influence
the profile of procurement in the organisation
2
supplier management
outcome focus
supplier relationship management
3
4
5
influence
people
procurement strategy alignment with agency key result
areas
procurement function engage with agency stakeholders
management of people and skills development
6
governance
governance and organisation of the procurement function
7
suppliers
sourcing and collaboration
8
technology
use of technology processes and tools
8
9
people
knowledge and performance management
10
governance
alignment with policy and processes
9