Objective
The term open has become popularly used to describe a variety of objects (software and technology, educational resources, education, etc.). Ambiguity exists in the meaning of open, for example open education where anyone can enroll with the only requirement a fee, or open education that is available to anyone, and without a cost. In addition to the ambiguity of open (what it enables), there is also ambiguity with how organizations might operate to allow openness.
The Openness Maturity Model attempts to define open attributes and a means to assess the type of openness within the community of practice responsible for the design, development, and distribution of the open artifact.
Other possible dimensions or indicators to potentially throw into the mix and organize:
OER/OCW
- accessibility of material formats (PDF vs RTF, etc.)
- licensing (CC vs. copyright, etc.)
- portability/interoperability (scorm, cartridges, IMS, etc.
Also, looking again at emm and Ken's comment above- going to enter those process categories at least preliminarily into the above doc.
1. Process Categories
2. Processes
Organization Processes
| Criteria | Definition | Metrics |
|---|---|---|
- The Artifacts Created During Participation in an Open Course
- Pedagogical Intent
- Learning Activities
- Assessments
- Assessment
- Externally Used Resources
- Credentialing (course and program level)
- Course Content
- Access Dimensions: non-discriminatory: open to everyone–non restrictive.
- Licensing Dimensions:
- Use
- Reuse
- Derivative Works
- Economic Access (open to everybody irrespective of their financial means)
- Learning Design
- Instruction and Support
- Delivery Technology
Resources Processes
| Criteria | Definition | Metrics |
|---|---|---|
- Open Access - publishing of research data
- Externally Used Resources
- Licensing Dimensions:
- Use
- Reuse
- Derivative Works
- Economic Access (open to everybody irrespective of their financial means)
- Software used
- Public Contribution
- Public comment
- Interoperability - resources are distributed with cross-platform interoperability in mind (for example RTF vs. PDF)
Processes
| Resources | Processes surrounding the creation and maintenance of resources |
|---|---|
| R1. | |
| R2. | |
| R3. | |
| R4. | |
| R5. |
| Support | Processes surrounding the oversight and management of community/institutional support |
|---|---|
| S1. | |
| S2. | |
| S3. | |
| S4. | |
| S5. |
| Evaluation | Processes surrounding the evaluation and quality control |
|---|---|
| E1. | |
| E2. | |
| E3. | |
| E4. | |
| E5. |
| Organization | Processes associated with institutional planning and management |
|---|---|
| O1. | |
| O2. | |
| O3. | |
| O4. | |
| O5. |
(perhaps the indicators below would be represented by individual items under each process category?)
Key Indicators | Brief Description |
|---|---|
| Values, Principles | courage, participation, honesty, maturity, humility, communication, transparency, self-organization, collaboration, evidence-based decision-making |
| Objectives | simplicity, emergence |
| Practices | incremental development, rapid feedback, continuous feedback |
Assessment Table
The "assessment table" becomes a matrix with each category of behavior assessed on a dimension:
- Delivery
- Planning
- Definition
- Management
- Optimization
So an evaluator/participant seeks evidence that the maturity element is being delivered, the evaluator seeks evidence of a planning process, evidence that the organization defines the element, manages it (including measurement), and has a process in which the element is assessed against standards and improved (reflective practice).
Each of these dimensions are then assessed in terms of openness. The dimensions and openness rating taken together forms a matrix. In the eMM model, adequacy is represented by color, making it pretty easy to identify in which areas on which dimensions the organizations exhibits various levels of maturity.
Process Dimensions
each process is examined based on dimensions of the process capability:
| Delivery | Planning | Definition | Management | Optimization | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Process |
|
|
|
|
|
Openness Key:
| Fully Open |
| Largely Open |
| Partially Open |
| Not Open |
| Not assessed |
Practices
(This section would go in depth into each process and define the practices for each dimension of the Assessment Table. Further, this section would define the adequacy level for each practice.)
L1 Practices
| Delivery |
|
|---|---|
| Practice #1 is defined here. | |
| Fully Open - (definition of fully Open practice goes here) |
| Largely Open - (definition of largely Open practice goes here) |
| Partially Open - (definition of partially Open practice goes here) |
| Not Open - (definition of inOpen practice goes here) |
| Not assessed |
| Practice 2 is defined here | |
| Fully Open - (definition of fully Open practice goes here) |
| Largely Open - (definition of largely Open practice goes here) |
| Partially Open - (definition of partially Open practice goes here) |
| Not Open - (definition of inOpen practice goes here) |
| Not assessed |
| Practice 3 is defined here | and so on. |
| Planning |
|
|---|---|
| Practice #1 is defined here. | |
| Fully Open - (definition of fully Open practice goes here) |
| Largely Open - (definition of largely Open practice goes here) |
| Partially Open - (definition of partially Open practice goes here) |
| Not Open - (definition of inOpen practice goes here) |
| Not assessed |
| Practice 2 is defined here | |
| Fully Open - (definition of fully Open practice goes here) |
| Largely Open - (definition of largely Open practice goes here) |
| Partially Open - (definition of partially Open practice goes here) |
| Not Open - (definition of inOpen practice goes here) |
| Not assessed |
| Practice 3 is defined here | and so on. |
References:
Masson, P. (2011) Open Governance in Higher Education: Extending the Past to the Future. Educause Review. Available from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM1112.pdf.
Marshall, S. (2007) eMM Version 2.3 Process Descriptions. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Available from http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/research/emm/Publications.shtml
Waugh P. & R. Metcalfe (2007) The Foundations of Openness. What are we doing today, brain? Available from http://pipka.org/blog/2008/07/23/the-foundations-of-openness/