Suggestion in line with the Google Discussion

Jump to: navigation, search

Hi Peter & Randy

Yeah -- we said in our guiding principles that quality is an illusive and complex topic <smile>.

What I like about maturity models is:

  • the underpinning logic that an organization or community's quality achievements are closely linked with the capability of the orginisation/community to implement quality processes;
  • the notion maturation, so for example WE can compare how our community is maturing in comparison to previous years or in comparison with other OER communities.
  • maturity models can be used to visualize capability in core processes (that enable organisations/institutions to scale up operations so that quality is promoted across the project rather than pockets of innovation). This visualization will help the community determine where we need to expend effort on becoming "more mature"

Specifically, I think eMM is an excellent starting point. Apart from its solid foundations -- the model and its documentation are available under a CC-BY-SA license which means we can adapt, refine and reuse the model without restriction.

Two thoughts:

  1. In many respects, WE is an organization (albeit a social self-organizing system.) -- So while WE is not an organization in the physical sense -- I do think WE can assess its own capability and maturity as an entity or community. Of course eMM would need to be refined and adapted to take into account the unique features of a social network and self organizing system.
  2. We need to think carefully about the distinction between a capability maturity model and the actual processes of QA review. Our processes and procedures we adopt for QA and review will mature over time. The maturity model is the vehicle for us to asses the maturation of our processes overtime -- in other words the maturity model doesn't express a value judgment on the quality of the materials.
Mackiwg (talk)04:57, 7 May 2008