Greg Charest, Raoul Sevier, Harvard University
J.J. du Chateau, University of Wisconsin
Maher Shinouda, University of Waterloo
Piet Niederhausen, University of Washington (scribe)
Roll call
Work on attribute brainstorming and clarify issues
Next steps
Clarified that on the Strategy row, while project and product strategy can be part of a more mature practice, we think it would tend toward portfolios of projects and products rather than focusing just on individual ones
We restated and clarified some of our assumptions about the model:
Increasing maturity does not necessary doing more different things in a quantitative -- for example, covering more domains in Coverage, or using more methods in Mechanisms
Rather, increasing maturity means, for example, having clarity in each selected area of scope, getting more repeatable at extending coverage to new domains; or using each method most effectively, and getting repeatable at using it, training others in it, etc.
Everyone on the call filled in ideas using virtual stickies in the Attribute Brainstorming grid.
We discussed our additions. This resulted in:
We saw that governance cropped up repeatedly and decided that Governance should be its own attribute -- at least for now. We used the Other column for this purpose. Considerations are:
Governance is a very important topic for EA practitioners, at multiple levels, and it could make sense for it to be highly visible in the maturity model
On the other hand, as we discuss further, if it turns out that governance is more of a means to an end, then possibly it should not be its own category
We considered combining Coverage and Engagement but decided not to for now (the rationale for doing this would be that the degree of Engagement EA has in a domain is a measure of its maturity in Coverage in the domain)
Action items