Re: Professional Services KM Framework (Software Industry) #metrics #maturity


Thomas Blumer
 

Dear Jim,
 
Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you that such a research blunder in a peer-reviewed journal is a kind of shocking. I have not noticed the inappropriate APQC rating/comments in the meta-analysis I've sent out till you mention it. Believe me, it was not my intention to put the APQC model in a bad light. I think the model is actually pretty good and Cara was one of the person who inspired me to become more involved with KM in the first place. In addition, the KM Institute ranked the APQC model as a well balanced methodology, the initial model was maybe too focused on best practices and left out areas like new knowledge creation. To my knowledge, the new model addresses these areas now, is that correct?
 
Best regards,
 
Thomas Blumer
 
 
 
 


On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Lee, Jim <jlee@...> wrote:
 

As a provider of maturity models, I have intentionally only lurked in this thread instead of mentioning APQC’s Levels of KM Maturity for concerns of appearing to “sell” our model in lieu of simply sharing knowledge. However, gross mis-statements about our model leads me to respond. In the paper cited, http://www.tlainc.com/articl263.htm the authors state the following deficiencies in Table 1, item 2 (APQC’s model) as:

 

No Key Areas.

No Assessment methodology.

No validation.

No Extended organizational maturity

 

Each of those observations and assertions are unequivocally in error, and show a severe lack of understanding regarding our model and process for validation. Each of the listed areas are in fact addressed by our model and methodology. While I suspect that no harm has come of listing our model in this journal article, setting the record straight is the intent of my post.

 

In fact, I suspect that the authors’ only information about our model comes from reading a brief whitepaper since they indicate our authors as Hubert and Lemons (authors of the whitepaper only). In fact, our model was developed with the expertise of six leading firms from around the world, our own KM thought leader Dr. Carla O’Dell, and even co-developer of the original SEI CMMI maturity model, Dr. Bill Curtis in a thorough, months long development collaborative study. It is they who should be credited with authorship.

 

As a former academician myself, I understand the use of “surveys” of existing models to be useful during the literature search, but this lack of understanding leaves me wondering about the quality of the research in general. For that reason, I would encourage anyone interested in using any of the models cited to do their own due diligence.

 

To date, we’ve conducted more than 170 assessments—and validations—and are confident that it fulfills the needs of our users as many have used the results to inform their KM strategies and activities. To the participants of this forum, I apologize for this lengthy rant, but when a peer-reviewed journal publishes factual errors, I believe it is owed a correction to advance the state of research.

----------------------------------

Jim Lee

KM Senior Advisor, APQC

+1-713-685-4764 – vmail (office)

+1-216-338-3548 – mobile (direct)

jlee@...

www.apqc.org

Make Best Practices Your PracticesSM

 


Join main@SIKM.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.