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.

Traditional Definition:

There are five levels defined along the continuum of the a maturity model

1. Initial (chaotic, ad hoc, individual heroics) - the starting point for use of a new or undocumented repeat process.
2. Repeatable - the process is at least documented sufficiently such that repeating the same steps may be attempted.
3. Defined - the process is defined/confirmed as a standard business process, and decomposed to levels 0, 1 and 2 (the latter being Work Instructions).
4. Managed - the process is quantitatively managed in accordance with agreed-upon metrics.
5. Optimizing - process management includes deliberate process optimization/improvement.

These five levels can be applied to each attribute

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.

Values

Courage: Initial, Repeatable, Defined, Managed, Optimizing

• Individual: "The willingness to proclaim oneself or a project open."
  • Initial: An initial interest has been expressed in being open or joining an open initiative.
  • Repeatable: The individual understands and has expressed the value of openness.
  • Defined: The benefit(s) of openness for the individual has been articulated.
  • Managed: Expectations of openness for the individual have been established.
  • Optimizing: The individual continually updates the previous.
• Organizational: "The willingness to declare an organization or project open."
  • Initial: An initial interest has been expressed in being open or joining an open initiative.
  • Repeatable: The organization understands and has expressed the value of openness.
  • Defined: The benefit(s) of openness for the organization has been articulated.
  • Managed: Expectations of openness for the organization has been established.
  • Optimizing: The organization continually updates the previous.
  
  
  

Participation

• Individual: "The active involvement with an organization that has identified itself to be open."
• Organizational: "The willingness to invite and admit any individual or other organization to engage with the organization"

Honesty

• Individual: "Participants engage directly (i.e. straightforwardly), truthfully and authentically with the organization."
• Organizational: "The organization engages directly (i.e. straightforwardly), truthfully and authentically with the participants."

Maturity:

• Individual: "Participants reflect on, assess and reconsider, both their own and others, current and previous engagements"
• Organizational: "The Organization reflects on, assesses and reconsiders, both their own and others, current and previous engagements"

1. Process Categories

Processes

(perhaps the indicators below would be represented by individual items under each process category?)

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:

Openness Key:

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

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/

Agile causality http://openmasters.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/causality.png?w=768&h=1024