Enhancing a Capability Maturity Model for the Smartification of Products by a Generic Approach and a Third Dimension

S. Frings, H. Kett, Jürgen Falkner
{"title":"Enhancing a Capability Maturity Model for the Smartification of Products\n by a Generic Approach and a Third Dimension","authors":"S. Frings, H. Kett, Jürgen Falkner","doi":"10.54941/ahfe1002907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since decades, two-dimensional capability as well as maturity model\n (CMM) based approaches next to the simpler version of readiness checks are a\n common and structured method – within the specific focus subject and its\n thematic indicators (1st CMM dimension) – to determine the approximate\n current maturity, competence and/or capability level (2nd CMM dimension) of\n an organization. Hundreds of CMMs have been developed – all being made up of\n indicators to be fulfilled on a certain level – shown in numerous CMM\n literature review publications let alone in 2022 (Hoang 2022, Ünal 2022,\n Mirihagalla 2022). This indicates the diversity but also relevance and\n importance of their application domains of identifying optimization\n potentials (SEI 2010, Becker 2009) and delivering a structured way for\n transformation and change. Nevertheless, the situation with most academic\n two-dimensional CMMs today, is that the models 1) are very general for the\n subject at hand; 2) usually do not deliver understandable guidance how to\n define which level it needed for the intended change; 3) usually do not\n deliver specific measures to reach the next levels; 4) are mostly designed\n in such a way, that the user is not able to use them without external\n support; and, most importantly for this paper, 5) mix the process, human,\n and technology related base capability criteria within the capabilities\n necessary for the subject at hand. They are not separated enough which blurs\n the assessment result.When developing a new CMM-based method to support SMEs\n in the strategic decision process of the currently not very widespread\n subject of smartifying products, a well-balanced approach is required which\n also takes into account the explicitness and definiteness of the underlying\n dimensions as well as an acceptable effort needed for their specification.\n Further requirements towards such an approach are already outlined within\n our previous work (Frings 2021). For this paper, we focus on the need for\n explicitness and introduce a third dimension in our CMM. We separate the\n thematic aspects defined within the 11 areas of action within smartification\n (Frings 2022) from the cross-sectoral base capabilities grouped into general\n process-, human- and technology-oriented criteria – these coming from the\n corresponding core components of organizations. For each of the derived base\n capabilities which include business process integration, human competencies\n and capacities, as well as technological capabilities and capacities, we\n defined specific criteria, i. e. documentation/reporting, responsibilities\n and governance, rules and guidelines (compliance), and scalability. The\n paper will give insights into these criteria and their six different\n assessment levels – both specifically formulated for the smartification\n intent of the SME.This multi-dimensional approach contributes to more\n transparency in the assessment result, being able to derive more specific\n and appropriate measures, deliver input for completeness of the assessment\n topics, as well as underlines the modular approach of the smartification\n tool kit (Frings 2021). Our work will bring SMEs a large step closer to\n their strategic decisions by considering the integration of people and\n intelligent systems in a competitive manner to develop future service\n business and make more use of the advantages of the digital transformation.","PeriodicalId":269162,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Human Systems Integration (IHSI 2023) Integrating People and Intelligent Systems, February 22–24, 2023, Venice, Italy","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Human Systems Integration (IHSI 2023) Integrating People and Intelligent Systems, February 22–24, 2023, Venice, Italy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1002907","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since decades, two-dimensional capability as well as maturity model (CMM) based approaches next to the simpler version of readiness checks are a common and structured method – within the specific focus subject and its thematic indicators (1st CMM dimension) – to determine the approximate current maturity, competence and/or capability level (2nd CMM dimension) of an organization. Hundreds of CMMs have been developed – all being made up of indicators to be fulfilled on a certain level – shown in numerous CMM literature review publications let alone in 2022 (Hoang 2022, Ünal 2022, Mirihagalla 2022). This indicates the diversity but also relevance and importance of their application domains of identifying optimization potentials (SEI 2010, Becker 2009) and delivering a structured way for transformation and change. Nevertheless, the situation with most academic two-dimensional CMMs today, is that the models 1) are very general for the subject at hand; 2) usually do not deliver understandable guidance how to define which level it needed for the intended change; 3) usually do not deliver specific measures to reach the next levels; 4) are mostly designed in such a way, that the user is not able to use them without external support; and, most importantly for this paper, 5) mix the process, human, and technology related base capability criteria within the capabilities necessary for the subject at hand. They are not separated enough which blurs the assessment result.When developing a new CMM-based method to support SMEs in the strategic decision process of the currently not very widespread subject of smartifying products, a well-balanced approach is required which also takes into account the explicitness and definiteness of the underlying dimensions as well as an acceptable effort needed for their specification. Further requirements towards such an approach are already outlined within our previous work (Frings 2021). For this paper, we focus on the need for explicitness and introduce a third dimension in our CMM. We separate the thematic aspects defined within the 11 areas of action within smartification (Frings 2022) from the cross-sectoral base capabilities grouped into general process-, human- and technology-oriented criteria – these coming from the corresponding core components of organizations. For each of the derived base capabilities which include business process integration, human competencies and capacities, as well as technological capabilities and capacities, we defined specific criteria, i. e. documentation/reporting, responsibilities and governance, rules and guidelines (compliance), and scalability. The paper will give insights into these criteria and their six different assessment levels – both specifically formulated for the smartification intent of the SME.This multi-dimensional approach contributes to more transparency in the assessment result, being able to derive more specific and appropriate measures, deliver input for completeness of the assessment topics, as well as underlines the modular approach of the smartification tool kit (Frings 2021). Our work will bring SMEs a large step closer to their strategic decisions by considering the integration of people and intelligent systems in a competitive manner to develop future service business and make more use of the advantages of the digital transformation.
用通用方法和三维方法增强产品智能化的能力成熟度模型
几十年来,基于二维能力和成熟度模型(CMM)的方法,仅次于简单版本的准备检查,是一种常见的结构化方法——在特定的焦点主题及其主题指标(第一个CMM维度)中——确定组织的当前成熟度、能力和/或能力水平(第二个CMM维度)。已经开发了数百个CMM -所有这些都是由要在一定水平上实现的指标组成-在许多CMM文献综述出版物中都有显示,更不用说在2022年(Hoang 2022, Ünal 2022, Mirihagalla 2022)。这表明了识别优化潜力(SEI 2010, Becker 2009)和为转型和变革提供结构化方式的应用领域的多样性,但也具有相关性和重要性。然而,目前大多数学术上的二维三坐标测量机的情况是,模型1)对手头的主题非常通用;2)通常不提供可理解的指导,如何定义预期变更所需的级别;3)通常不提供达到下一个水平的具体措施;4)大多是这样设计的,没有外部支持,用户无法使用它们;并且,对于本文来说最重要的是,5)将过程、人力和技术相关的基本能力标准与手头主题所需的能力相结合。它们的分离不够,模糊了评价结果。当开发一种新的基于cmm的方法来支持中小企业在当前不太广泛的智能产品主题的战略决策过程中,需要一种平衡良好的方法,它还考虑到潜在维度的明确性和确定性,以及它们的规格所需的可接受的努力。我们之前的工作已经概述了对这种方法的进一步要求(Frings 2021)。在本文中,我们主要关注对显式的需求,并在我们的CMM中引入第三个维度。我们将智能中的11个行动领域(Frings 2022)中定义的主题方面从跨部门基础能力中分离出来,这些基础能力分为一般流程,以人为本和以技术为导向的标准,这些标准来自组织的相应核心组件。对于每个派生的基本功能(包括业务流程集成、人的能力和能力,以及技术能力和能力),我们定义了特定的标准,即文档/报告、职责和治理、规则和指导方针(遵从性),以及可伸缩性。本文将深入探讨这些标准及其六个不同的评估水平,这两个标准都是专门为中小企业的智能化意图而制定的。这种多维方法有助于提高评估结果的透明度,能够得出更具体和适当的措施,为评估主题的完整性提供输入,并强调智能化工具包的模块化方法(Frings 2021)。我们的工作将使中小企业更接近他们的战略决策,以竞争的方式考虑人与智能系统的整合,以发展未来的服务业务,并更多地利用数码转型的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信