Public Service ICT Partnership

Maturity Model

Contents Maturity Model............................................................................................................1 Contents.....................................................................................................................2 Introduction.................................................................................................................3 Public Service ICT Partnership Maturity Model...........................................................3 Methodology............................................................................................................3 Levels of the Model.................................................................................................4 1. Priority setting ........................................................................................................4 2. Standardising .........................................................................................................4 3. Delivering ...............................................................................................................6 4. Performing .............................................................................................................6 5. Transforming ..........................................................................................................7 Recommendations......................................................................................................8 Apply this maturity model as a method:...................................................................8 Use the methodology:..............................................................................................8 Extend this maturity model:.....................................................................................8

Introduction
It was proposed to map a selection of public service technology partnerships to understand what lessons can be learned in developing and managing these. The outcome of this research is the development of a Public Service ICT Partnership Maturity Model. This was produced based on a Benchmarking of Best Practices (attached as a separate document) which provides examples on each of the areas of the model. Recommendations for next steps are described on how Kent Connects can use this approach.

Public Service ICT Partnership Maturity Model

Methodology
Maturity models1 are increasingly used in the development & management of IT organisations. The maturity model enclosed at the end of this document has been adapted from the Software Engineering Institutes Maturity Model2. This can help partnerships improve their processes by measuring how well they can and do perform on the areas selected below. Using the Benchmarking of Best Practices, they can also benchmark themselves against other partnerships. Partnerships can use this maturity model in the following contexts: 1. Strategic planning Situations where this may occur include developing a business plan for the partnership, reviewing its progress over the year or in appraising the professional development of the partnership team. o o Developing high maturity in a particular area: Ensuring that it has achieving all of the processes for that particular area (A-H3) Aiming to reach a higher maturity level as a partnership: Ensuring it has achieved all of the processes for that particular level (1-54)

2. Project planning Situations where this may occur include reviewing a programme to produce recommendations for the next phase or in developing project plans for specific priorities within its strategy (i.e. public service redesign).

1 2

http://ivi.nuim.ie/itcmf.shtml http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/ 3 See the Maturity Model section 4 See the Levels of the Model section

o o

Coordinating an appraisal of an IT function: Selecting targets to move up a maturity level in types of IT function (i.e. infrastructure) Producing recommendations for improvement: Setting targets to consolidate maturity levels in areas and move up levels in others

Levels of the Model

The maturity model is based on five levels of maturity described below. What follows is the description of each level of the model.

1. Priority setting
This is a process that achieves the work needed to define the objectives of the partnership and the processes that enable the delivery of the activities required to meet them. Typical partnership at this level: o o o A shared strategy is developed to outline the priorities to guide future operational decisions and agree to use external standards. Processes are set out to scope out the development of locally developed architectures and infrastructures, creating sub-groups to initiate this process. Investment is used in an ad-hoc way monitored by generic indicators.

The distinction between priority setting and standardising processes is around the level of institutionalisation of the processes.

2. Standardising
This is a process that is planned and delivered according to the partnerships objectives. This includes institutionalising, resourcing and monitoring its processes, groups and activities. Typical partnership at this level: o o o Issues are mapped to develop shared priorities and inform how investment is allocated to projects supported by the partnership. Standardised processes and infrastructure are implemented to support partners to reach an agreed level of maturity in core areas (i.e. procurement). Funding works on a co-financing basis to ensure commitment by individual partners in projects.

The distinction between standardising and delivering processes is around the scope of standards, processes & procedures.

3. Delivering
This is a process that is tailored from the partnerships standard processes to a particular activity. This includes creating the processes, policies & resources specific to that field. Typical partnership at this level: o Rationales for delivery in targeted areas of work are clarified. This informs setting of funding and targets for development of specific projects (such as a particular service to share, process to re-engineer or system to implement). Through this level of prioritisation, support is provided by the partnership to develop common processes in those areas, particularly where compliance is required or where there is a need to transition to new models. This is often supported by bespoke training or experts and monitored by indicators designed specifically for that field.

The distinction between delivering and performing processes is how systematic the creation and management of processes is to specific activities.

4. Performing
This is a process that establishes quantitative objectives for managing and monitoring the quality and performance of partnership activities. Typical partnership at this level: o o o o Information and performance systems are developed and financed to systematically analyse needs and opportunities partners need to focus on. As partnerships progress through this level of maturity, they move to more real-time analysis of evidence to iterate responses to emerging demands. This can be supplemented by providing experts to help partners understand how to optimise the use of business intelligence to forecast future trends. This evidence-based approach drives the development of strategy and investment in its delivery, as well as quality assurance of performance of systems and auditing to identify opportunities for re-using existing solutions.

The distinction between performing and transforming processes is how much the partnership applies the analysis of performance to develop improved processes and activities.

5. Transforming
This is a process that is continually improved based on an evidence-based understanding of its needs & resources. This includes the development of new processes & activities that support the change required. Typical partnership at this level: o Information systems enable partners to use the evidence base to move from delivery of services to strategic management of the public service ICT marketplace of their local area. Savings and income generation drive investment to manage risk of any future budgetary pressures and move towards alternative commercial models. Shared infrastructure and architecture are developed to streamline processes across all priorities of the partnership and aligned to locally agreed architectures in relevant areas such as customer services or procurement. Common principles are developed by partners and applied systematically in projects that redesign online services to meet customer needs. Professional development and performance management are extended to include change management to support the transformation needed to deliver the strategic vision of the partnership.

o o

o o

Its important to note that partnerships will not necessarily fit into a particular level across all its areas of work. Typical partnerships are described to help people situate where their partnership broadly sits. There may partnerships which could identify as being firmly on a particular level (i.e. Level 1 - Priority setting) but also demonstrating examples from a much higher level (i.e. Level 3 - Delivering). They would focus on the intermediate level (i.e. Level 2 Standardising) to then be able to reinforce their processes at the higher level.

Recommendations
The following recommendations provide options of how this maturity model could be applied to meet Kent Connects strategic and project planning objectives:

Apply this maturity model as a method:

o o Of benchmarking Kent Connects to other partnerships on a specific function or priorities from its strategy or business plan Of appraising how future Kent Connects projects perform across the criteria to identify and capture good practices in a standardised way

Use the methodology:

o To produce maturity models for priority areas from the PS ICT Strategy (i.e. information governance, customer service) or future research requirements

Extend this maturity model:

o o By adding features (i.e. professional development required) that can help partnerships move up levels of the maturity model By exploring the feasibility of benchmarking it to other recognised maturity models of specific ICT functions (i.e. SFIA Skills Framework) or of sectors Kent Connects works with (i.e. Health Informatics Capability Maturity Model)

Type

Priority Setting

Standardising

Delivering

Performing

Transforming
Moving from supporting delivery of services to building the capacity of local authorities to sell services and use market analysis to rationalise & joint procure

A. How do technology Outlining priorities in shared ICT Analysing and attempting to reach partnerships define their strategy consensus on which level priorities? borough/local/regional - current problems and future challenges can be tackled by different partners B. How is partnership Funding agreed in strategy in Funding based on priorities & funding allocated to advance approved by board and managed delivering its priorities? by partnership office in response to calls for proposals

Clarifying rationales for shared Pooling efforts to research services and development of new issues, map assets and develop infrastructure / architecture and systems to monitor performance scoping most suitable areas for delivery

Funding divided up into areas of work with specific objectives, budget lines & metrics for those areas

Funding based on multi-criteria analysis (ROI, payback, etc) and CEO commitment to sponsor projects

Funding from savings from joint procurement or e-auctions to implement transformational projects

C. How effective are technology partnerships (TP) at supporting shared or collaborative:

Infrastructure

Agreement on common use of Implementation of nationally Development of infrastructure in external architecture (such as PS defined infrastructure (such as selected geographical or service ICT Information Architecture) to PSN) areas (i.e. digital districts) scope opportunities for shared infrastructure Development of shared services board to provide forum for partners to explore opportunities for collaboration Establishment of service Development of tools to help framework contracts for shared partners work through the services that can quantify business case and work through expected savings different shared services models

Provision of health check to identify any security vulnerabilities associated with devices managed by partners on shared infrastructure Development of asset and services register so partners can identify opportunities for reusing existing ICT solutions or sharing services

Development of a single infrastructure across the local area to facilitate integrated provision and shared services that can produce significant savings Development of online portal service & functionality to enable other partnerships to implement and manage their own online Development of joint venture to provide a managed transactional service for buying and selling services with an integrated service catalogue Development of online dashboard to enable residents to access and visualise information to identify opportunities for improvement Development of self reporting tool by several partners, accompanied by a system to monitor cost savings & better cross agency resolution

Services

Procurement

Developed of shared Development of management Development of shared Development of online procurement strategy with agreed information system to manage procurement in specific areas expenditure analysis dashboard standards collaborative contracts to enable managers to have access to statistics & quantify the performance of their processes Development of common Development of academy Development of project with Implementation of systems to approach, with guidance, providing training in research / government agency to simplify a manage information and data as templates & worked examples analytical techniques business process well as joint strategic needs assessments or audits of software assets Development of shared customer Development of online tools with Implementation of a common, services workflow and other partners to introduce self scalable self service portal for a architecture service or new channels to specific service citizens Integration of metrics into every level of their operation to relate information to industry wide benchmarks & iterate efforts in responses to user needs

Customer Insight

Self Service / New Channels

Type

Priority Setting

Standardising

Delivering

Performing

Transforming

D. To what extent do TPs help their members?

Exploit opportunities shared services

for Development of shared service Development of programme with principles senior managers to rationalise systems in particular service areas to reduce costs for Establishment of a common Development of toolkit with framework to inform the business providers to demonstrate benefits case for joint investment in future of a common approach shared capabilities

Development of tool to show Market analysis of demand for partners how to make the services offered by partnership transition to a new commercial model Development & implementation of Development of common office to common standards which support share comparable performance & interoperability with other value for money data systems on a particular area (i.e. ePetitions) Development of toolkit to enable a particular group of users (i.e. carers) to teach each other ICT skills Developing a prototype to enable local authorities to adapt methods from other areas to their local needs

Provision of support to partners to develop business cases to support shared services with forecast savings Development of a suite of mandatory, technical standards, access to frameworks and develop joint requirements

Standardise processes more efficient delivery

Support their members to be Review corporate ICT strategies Organise workshops with decision able to adapt to external to inform development of shared makers & external experts around factors scheduled themes to develop a partnership strategy programme of work

Development of a lab to organise study exchanges on specific priorities to identify improvements and incubate new services

E. How do technology partnerships:

Work with individual clustered partners

or Enable partners to share good Create thematic groups to provide Development of tool to show practice & participate in a a collective voice for partners partners how to make the nationally accredited network transition to a new commercial model

Work with analytics specialists to Work with specialists to enable provide advanced visualisations partners to inform & redesign of statistical data to predict their services demand of partners services Development of joint venture with company to provide a managed service with commercial exclusivity in specialist areas

Aim to work with prospective Listing of core services offered to Form sub-regional groupings to Organise seminars on its priority Work with support organisations partners partners test whether shared services can areas to showcase its work to to develop training on how to offer source of savings prospective partners work in public-private collaborations

10

Type

Priority Setting

Standardising

Delivering

Performing

Transforming

F. To what extent do technology partnerships (TP) translate their priorities into the development of:

Shared ICT operating model & Establishment of area-wide architecture strategy to better identify & remove cost and duplication supported by use of national ICT information architecture

Development of target operating model and associated architecture which all organisations can transition to in line with local requirements

Development of shared operating model workflow on one of the layers of the enterprise architecture

Development of an action plan to deliver objectives of the strategy supported by common infrastructure for shared delivery and systems for monitoring performance

Development of shared infrastructure (i.e. CRM) that conforms to shared data, technical & security architecture

Shared targets / processes

Shared agreement to comply with Standardisation of processes government technical, data and through sign up by partners to security standards locally developed agreements (i.e. data sharing)

Development of guidance, Development of common office to templates & worked examples on share comparable performance & how to comply in a particular area value for money data (i.e. open data) Development of academy providing training in a particular specialism (i.e. business process re-engineering)

Development of systems that use audit of assets to make the sharing, buying and selling of services more efficient

Shared training / development Development of common Development of tool to show programmes approach to a particular area of partners how to make the development (i.e. project transition to a new commercial management) model

Support to partners to develop Design of accredited programme evidence-based propositions to to develop local leadership support shared services or develop new business models

G. What type of resources do TPs have to support their work?

Staff Roles

Consultancy management resource team

and project Capability managers for each sub In house team supported by Consultants responsible for Joint venture / managed service provided by group, as well as project category experts as required (i.e. facilitating the creation and with private company managers for specific projects secondments from partners) optimisation of priority projects across the partnership corporate Co-financing on a project by Consultancy fees for specific Savings from eAuctions or joint Sale of products & services government project basis work partnership can add value to procurement (i.e. R&D)

Funding

Subscriptions, sponsorship or grants

11

Type

Priority Setting

Standardising

Delivering

Performing

Transforming

H. How do technology partnerships evaluate and manage performance?

Design indicators to monitor Savings identified as single Split of efficiency / improvement Indicators created and monitored Analysis of return on investment Cost-benefit analysis factoring in indicators to evaluate for each priority area (i.e. shared of projects funded by partnership investment in change the successful delivery of indicator for measuring success effectiveness of projects on services, infrastructure) management required projects different objectives Share lessons learned & review Develop R&D programmes for Development of network, Development of academy Baselining services across the business processes each priority theme organising seminars & events to providing training on a particular partnership, developing an tackle priorities field assessment process for projects, developing a comparable approach to key metrics to measure progress Audit assets owned by Development of shared approach Development of management partners to identify potential to audit assets information system to manage for sharing collaborative contracts or audit assets Monitoring usage data through a system to identify behavioural changes in a particular field (i.e. home energy use) Development of online expenditure analysis dashboard to enable managers to have access to statistics & quantify the performance of their processes Immersive research within the partners user sites to plan development of projects to improve change processes

Integration of shared financial management system with marketplace facility to simplify purchasing process

12

13