A monthly e-newsletter from the Center for Information-Development Management (CIDM)
If you would like to receive the CIDM e-newsletter in plain-text format, visit http://www.infomanagementcenter.com/subscribe.htm and choose the plain-text format.
Are Process Maturity and Content Management Linked?
Managers are struggling to identify the changes that are needed in their organizations if they are going to be successful in implementing a content-management solution. Some insist that they can incorporate content management without making significant changes in the roles and responsibilities of staff members. Most of these managers decide to pursue a rudimentary level of single sourcing. Staff members add conditional text to FrameMaker book sections to accommodate differences in software or hardware product versions or other similarly well-structured variables. We refer to this practice as stage 1 single sourcing.
Other managers recognize that they need a more sophisticated form of content management to achieve their goals for reusing content and meeting a wide variety of customer requirements. They encourage staff members to investigate levels of single sourcing that require a complete restructuring of existing information, the use of content-management tools to help track and reassemble content, and links to Web content-management systems that enable dynamic output and customer personalization. Their organizations begin to pursue stage 2 single sourcing (components of content are reassembled into collections by staff members), stage 3 single sourcing (components of content are targeted for automatic assembly into customer-focused collections), and stage 4 single sourcing (components of content are reassembled by customers for their own personal use).
What enables one organization to take a more sophisticated approach to the design and development of its information and another to create a simple reuse design? In part, the answer is size and funding. Larger organizations are more likely to have management support to fund the acquisition and implementation of content-management systems. But size is not, in my observation, the defining factor. I argue that the more mature an organization is, the more likely it will be able to pursue successful development of a content-management solution that enables dynamic publishing.
Process Maturity: Expanding to New Disciplines
You are probably familiar with the concept of process majority as promoted by JoAnn Hackos. Some of you may have had process maturity audits done for your information-development department. JoAnn has emphasized that although good writing can come out of any kind of environment, good, repeatable documentation requires a level of management maturity within the department.
JoAnn developed her ideas about the Information Development Process Maturity Model (IPMM) as an analogy to the Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model (CMM). A process maturity model for outsourcing, the Outsourcing Management Maturity Model (OMMM), has been defined by Wissam Raggoul and was first published by the Meta Group on February 8, 2002.
What do these process maturity models have in common and what are their differences? Is there some commonality of all process maturity models that we might call the General Process Maturity Model (GPMM)?
Best Practices 2002
Examine the best practices of more than 20 companies or showcase your own in a poster session highlighting how industry leaders have excelled in communicating information, serving customer needs, building a more effective operation, creating a stronger team, and many more best practices.
It’s not too late to enter your organization into this exciting session.