Open Framework, Information Management Strategy & Collaborative Governance | Data & Social Methodology - MIKE2.0 Methodology
Wiki Home
Collapse Expand Close

Collapse Expand Close

To join, please contact us.

In other languages
Collapse Expand Close
Improve MIKE 2.0
Collapse Expand Close
Need somewhere to start? How about the most wanted pages; or the pages we know need more work; or even the stub that somebody else has started, but hasn't been able to finish. Or create a ticket for any issues you have found.

Information Maturity Model

From MIKE2.0 Methodology

Jump to: navigation, search

The Information Maturity Model (IMM) is at the core of the MIKE2.0 approach to Data Investigation. The IMM was defined by the Meta Group and proposes five levels of maturity that an organisation may be assessed at based on their information management practices. Other experts in the field, such as Larry English, have defined similar five-stage models. These models are meant to provide an information-oriented equivalent to the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), which is used to assess an enterprise’ software development maturity level.

The following table contains the IMM Capability Matrix that describes the five stages of IMM initially outlined by Meta Group. This model was then extended significantly and then published as part of an initial assessment task in MIKE2.0. The 5 levels of information maturity, which can be summarized as follows:

The Information Maturity Model
  • A Level 1 organisation has no common information practices. Any pockets of information management maturity that the organization has are based on the experience and initiatives of individuals.
  • A Level 2 organisation has little in the way of enterprise information management practices. However, certain departments are aware of the importance of professionally managing information assets and have developed common practices used within their projects. At the enterprise level, a level 2 organization reacts to data quality issues as they arise.
  • A Level 3 organisation has a significant degree of information management maturity. Enterprise awareness, policies, procedures, and standards exist and are generally utilized across all enterprise projects. At level 3, the information management practices are sponsored by and managed by IT.
  • A Level 4 organisation manages information as an enterprise asset. The business is heavily engaged in information management procedures and takes responsibility for the quality of information that they manage. A level 4 organisation has many mature and best-in-class practices and utilizes audits to ensure compliance across all projects.
  • A Level 5 organisation considers information to be as much an enterprise asset as financial and material assets. A level 5 organisation has best-in-class information management practices that are utilized across all enterprise projects. The distinguishing characteristic of a level 5 organisation is the focus on continuous improvement. At level 5, all data management practices and assets are regularly measured and the results are analysed as the basis for process improvement.

Note that the maturity levels as defined here do not correlate in full to the Meta-defined IMM capabilities. The 5 levels of information maturity as summarized here form the basis of the Information Maturity QuickScan.

The Meta-defined IMM capabilities were used to inspire these definitions. These definitions may evolve in the future as part of the MIKE2.0 initiative. At present, the definitions of the 5 maturity levels listed above combined with the IM QuickScan model (described below), form the basis for the information maturity assessment model.

The ECM Maturity Model (ecm3) which assesses the maturity of Enterprise Content Management in an organization defines the following levels of maturity:

  • Level 1: Unmanaged
  • Level 2: Incipient
  • Level 3: Formative
  • Level 4: Operational
  • Level 5: Pro-Active

An alternative, but compatible, approach to measuring the governance aspects of information maturity has been proposed by the IBM sponsored InfoGov Community. If this approach is used, the results should still be applied at the same points in the MIKE2.0 WBS.

Wiki Contributors
Collapse Expand Close

View more contributors