Abstract
In this chapter, the author examines maturity models from archival literature, addressing first and foremost the preservation of (digital) archival materials. Next, the author analyzes selected capability and maturity instruments from the author's own experience. All those models from literature and practice are problem-oriented, so they do not apply to all situations in archives. Subsequently, the author addresses the need to develop a more extensive maturity model for archives management by employing methods that combine recent approaches to designing maturity models and then undertakes the first phase of developing such a tool. The author demonstrates how maturity models can support improvement work (on the example of the model from literature and the digital archival system from practice). Finally, the author announces further development of the proposed extensive maturity model for archives management.
TopBackground
Maturity “implies an evolutionary progress […] of a specific ability or in the accomplishment of a target from an initial to a desired […] stage” (Mettler, Rohner, & Winter, 2009, p. 343). Maturity models are intellectual tools, the purpose of which is to “facilitate internal and/or external benchmarking while also showcasing future improvement and providing guidelines through the evolutionary process of organizational development and growth” (Lasrado, Vartapu, & Andersen, 2005). Maturity evaluations have the purpose of informing organizations about their position so that they could move toward the more mature state. For an organization that uses a maturity model, it is possible to reach “a mature state of continuous experimentation and improvement” (Katuu, 2018, p.108).
Maturity models “consist of a sequence of maturity levels for a class of objects. [A maturity model] represents an anticipated, desired, or typical evolution path of these objects shaped as discrete stages.” (Becker, Knackstedt, & Pöppelbuß, 2009, p. 213). Maturity models have (1) maturity levels, (2) categories (wide dimensions), and (3) dimensions. Researchers differentiate descriptive or diagnostic models, prescriptive models for reaching aimed maturity, and comparative or benchmarking models (Pöppelbuß & Röglinger, 2011; de Bruin et al., 2005). These tools pertain to various domains and problems, with past examples of maturity models, from Nolan’s maturity model of data processing systems (Nolan, 1979; Hollyhead & Robson, 2012) or earlier examples in Röglinger, Pöppelbuß, and Becker (2012), to recent examples of matureness assessments of criminal groups (Gottschalk 2016). Certain international standards (Table 1) serve as a framework for the development, management, improvement, and assessment of information technology processes, and provide a reference for the respective maturity models.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Central Maturity Constructs: A set of maturity levels, components (criteria), and sub-components (dimensions), as well as their descriptors.
Preservation Metadata Implementation Strategies (PREMIS): A metadata standard developed to facilitate digital preservation.
Digital Archives: A system or a repository developed for archiving born-digital or digitized materials.
Processing: Processes associated with storage, arrangement, and description of archival materials.
Finding Aid: A tool that facilitates archives management and access functions.
Archives Management Maturity Assessment (AMMA): A proposed extensive model for the evaluation of archives management functions.
Digital Preservation: The process of preserving archival material over the long-term that includes planning and protective activities.
Open Archival Information System: An institution or a system/repository that preserves content over the long-term for its community, built upon reference model and recommendations dedicated to digital preservation.
Archives Management: A set of processes in institutions possessing archival holdings or repositories and performed on archival materials (historical records).