1. Public Service ICT Partnership
Maturity Model

2. 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
2

3. 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 Institute’s 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 Developing high maturity in a particular area: Ensuring that it has
achieving all of the processes for that particular area (A-H3)
o 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
http://ivi.nuim.ie/itcmf.shtml
2
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/
3
See the “Maturity Model” section
4
See the “Levels of the Model” section
3

4. o Coordinating an appraisal of an IT function: Selecting targets to move up
a maturity level in types of IT function (i.e. infrastructure)
o 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 A shared strategy is developed to outline the priorities to guide future
operational decisions and agree to use external standards.
o Processes are set out to scope out the development of locally developed
architectures and infrastructures, creating sub-groups to initiate this process.
o 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 partnership’s
objectives. This includes institutionalising, resourcing and monitoring its processes,
groups and activities.
Typical partnership at this level:
o Issues are mapped to develop shared priorities and inform how investment is
allocated to projects supported by the partnership.
o Standardised processes and infrastructure are implemented to support
partners to reach an agreed level of maturity in core areas (i.e. procurement).
o Funding works on a co-financing basis to ensure commitment by individual
partners in projects.
4

5. The distinction between standardising and delivering processes is around the scope
of standards, processes & procedures.
5

6. 3. Delivering
This is a process that is tailored from the partnership’s 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).
o 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.
o 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 Information and performance systems are developed and financed to
systematically analyse needs and opportunities partners need to focus on.
o As partnerships progress through this level of maturity, they move to more
real-time analysis of evidence to iterate responses to emerging demands.
o This can be supplemented by providing experts to help partners understand
how to optimise the use of business intelligence to forecast future trends.
o 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.
6

7. 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.
o Savings and income generation drive investment to manage risk of any future
budgetary pressures and move towards alternative commercial models.
o 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.
o Common principles are developed by partners and applied systematically in
projects that redesign online services to meet customer needs.
o Professional development and performance management are extended to
include change management to support the transformation needed to deliver
the strategic vision of the partnership.
It’s 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.
7

8. 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 Of benchmarking Kent Connects to other partnerships on a specific function
or priorities from its strategy or business plan
o 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 By adding features (i.e. professional development required) that can help
partnerships move up levels of the maturity model
o 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)
8

9. Type Priority Setting Standardising Delivering Performing Transforming
A. How do technology Outlining priorities in shared ICT Analysing and attempting to reach Clarifying rationales for shared Pooling efforts to research Moving from supporting delivery
partnerships define their strategy consensus on which level - services and development of new issues, map assets and develop of services to building the
priorities? borough/local/regional - current infrastructure / architecture and systems to monitor performance capacity of local authorities to sell
problems and future challenges scoping most suitable areas for services and use market analysis
can be tackled by different delivery to rationalise & joint procure
partners
B. How is partnership Funding agreed in strategy in Funding based on priorities & Funding divided up into areas of Funding based on multi-criteria Funding from savings from joint
funding allocated to advance approved by board and managed work with specific objectives, analysis (ROI, payback, etc) and procurement or e-auctions to
delivering its priorities? by partnership office in response budget lines & metrics for those CEO commitment to sponsor implement transformational
to calls for proposals areas projects 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 Provision of health check to Development of a single
external architecture (such as PS defined infrastructure (such as selected geographical or service identify any security infrastructure across the local
ICT Information Architecture) to PSN) areas (i.e. digital districts) vulnerabilities associated with area to facilitate integrated
scope opportunities for shared devices managed by partners on provision and shared services
infrastructure shared infrastructure that can produce significant
savings
Services Development of shared services Establishment of service Development of tools to help Development of asset and Development of online portal
board to provide forum for framework contracts for shared partners work through the services register so partners can service & functionality to enable
partners to explore opportunities services that can quantify business case and work through identify opportunities for reusing other partnerships to implement
for collaboration expected savings different shared services models existing ICT solutions or sharing and manage their own online
services
Procurement Developed of shared Development of management Development of shared Development of online Development of joint venture to
procurement strategy with agreed information system to manage procurement in specific areas expenditure analysis dashboard provide a managed transactional
standards collaborative contracts to enable managers to have service for buying and selling
access to statistics & quantify the services with an integrated
performance of their processes service catalogue
Customer Insight Development of common Development of academy Development of project with Implementation of systems to Development of online dashboard
approach, with guidance, providing training in research / government agency to simplify a manage information and data as to enable residents to access and
templates & worked examples analytical techniques business process well as joint strategic needs visualise information to identify
assessments or audits of opportunities for improvement
software assets
Self Service / New Channels Development of shared customer Development of online tools with Implementation of a common, Integration of metrics into every Development of self reporting tool
services workflow and other partners to introduce self scalable self service portal for a level of their operation to relate by several partners, accompanied
architecture service or new channels to specific service information to industry wide by a system to monitor cost
citizens benchmarks & iterate efforts in savings & better cross agency
responses to user needs resolution
9

10. Type Priority Setting Standardising Delivering Performing Transforming
D. To what extent do TPs help their members?
Exploit opportunities for Development of shared service Development of programme with Development of tool to show Market analysis of demand for Provision of support to partners to
shared services principles senior managers to rationalise partners how to make the services offered by partnership develop business cases to
systems in particular service transition to a new commercial support shared services with
areas to reduce costs model forecast savings
Standardise processes for Establishment of a common Development of toolkit with Development & implementation of Development of common office to Development of a suite of
more efficient delivery framework to inform the business providers to demonstrate benefits common standards which support share comparable performance & mandatory, technical standards,
case for joint investment in future of a common approach interoperability with other value for money data access to frameworks and
shared capabilities systems on a particular area (i.e. develop joint requirements
ePetitions)
Support their members to be Review corporate ICT strategies Organise workshops with decision Development of toolkit to enable Developing a prototype to enable Development of a lab to organise
able to adapt to external to inform development of shared makers & external experts around a particular group of users (i.e. local authorities to adapt methods study exchanges on specific
factors partnership strategy scheduled themes to develop a carers) to teach each other ICT from other areas to their local priorities to identify improvements
programme of work skills needs and incubate new services
E. How do technology partnerships:
Work with individual or Enable partners to share good Create thematic groups to provide Development of tool to show Work with analytics specialists to Work with specialists to enable
clustered partners practice & participate in a a collective voice for partners partners how to make the provide advanced visualisations partners to inform & redesign
nationally accredited network transition to a new commercial of statistical data to predict their services
model demand of partners’ services
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 Development of joint venture with
partners partners test whether shared services can areas to showcase its work to to develop training on how to company to provide a managed
offer source of savings prospective partners work in public-private service with commercial
collaborations exclusivity in specialist areas
10

11. 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 Development of target operating Development of shared operating Development of an action plan to Development of shared
architecture strategy to better identify & model and associated model workflow on one of the deliver objectives of the strategy infrastructure (i.e. CRM) that
remove cost and duplication architecture which all layers of the enterprise supported by common conforms to shared data,
supported by use of national ICT organisations can transition to in architecture infrastructure for shared delivery technical & security architecture
information architecture line with local requirements and systems for monitoring
performance
Shared targets / processes Shared agreement to comply with Standardisation of processes Development of guidance, Development of common office to Development of systems that use
government technical, data and through sign up by partners to templates & worked examples on share comparable performance & audit of assets to make the
security standards locally developed agreements how to comply in a particular area value for money data sharing, buying and selling of
(i.e. data sharing) (i.e. open data) services more efficient
Shared training / development Development of common Development of tool to show Development of academy Support to partners to develop Design of accredited programme
programmes approach to a particular area of partners how to make the providing training in a particular evidence-based propositions to to develop local leadership
development (i.e. project transition to a new commercial specialism (i.e. business process support shared services or
management) model re-engineering) develop new business models
G. What type of resources do TPs have to support their work?
Staff Roles Consultancy and project Capability managers for each sub In house team supported by Consultants responsible for Joint venture / managed service
management provided by group, as well as project category experts as required (i.e. facilitating the creation and with private company
resource team managers for specific projects secondments from partners) optimisation of priority projects
across the partnership
Funding Subscriptions, corporate Co-financing on a project by Consultancy fees for specific Savings from eAuctions or joint Sale of products & services
sponsorship or government project basis work partnership can add value to procurement
grants (i.e. R&D)
11

12. 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
the successful delivery of indicator for measuring success indicators to evaluate for each priority area (i.e. shared of projects funded by partnership investment in change
projects effectiveness of projects on services, infrastructure) management required
different objectives
Share lessons learned & review Develop R&D programmes for Development of network, Development of academy Baselining services across the Immersive research within the
business processes each priority theme organising seminars & events to providing training on a particular partnership, developing an partners’ user sites to plan
tackle priorities field assessment process for projects, development of projects to
developing a comparable improve change processes
approach to key metrics to
measure progress
Audit assets owned by Development of shared approach Development of management Monitoring usage data through a Development of online Integration of shared financial
partners to identify potential to audit assets information system to manage system to identify behavioural expenditure analysis dashboard management system with
for sharing collaborative contracts or audit changes in a particular field (i.e. to enable managers to have marketplace facility to simplify
assets home energy use) access to statistics & quantify the purchasing process
performance of their processes
12

13. 13