pms03 - creative maturity

Creative Maturity - Resolving the Organizational Maturity Conflict

Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP CEO, SysComp International (Pvt.) Ltd.

Abstract With OPM3 breaking away from the conventional bounds of maturity models, a new dimension has been added to the stereo-typed but simplistic approach of CMMI. New maturity models coming up in various areas tend to incline towards either of the two approaches but there still remains a lot of un-chartered territory needing exploration. This paper will indicate the design approach to the conflict of organizational maturity. Last year at the Project Management Institute (PMI) Global Congress Asia Pacific 2005, it was agreed during the discussion after my paper presentation A Unified Strategic View of Organizational Maturity, that there is a need for SEI and PMI to sit together to come up with an organizational maturity model. Both approaches being unique but diverse, and only looks at organizational maturity from respective perspective of Quality or Project Management. PMI has taken a leap forward by touching on the delicate subject of organizational maturity but it still remains widely Project Management biased. Creative Maturity at Organizational level would not be a compromise but an altogether a new design with all maturity models forming bodies as its stakeholders. If all such bodies can take a Top-Down view of Organizational Maturity and stop finding their way up, it is assured that we will not only have a holistic view of the whole thing but will also be able to remove biases. It would definitely not be possible for various maturity models to agree on one standard organizational maturity model and therefore a third party will have to be introduced to help them design it. If we keep going the way we are going, we will never be able to break free of the boxed approach we are bound to follow as it seems the only logical way. We need to innovate and think creatively to invent the concept of Creative Maturity for Organizations.

Introduction Existence of conflict is normal and natural. Sometimes it may not be dominantly visible but the simmering effect can be felt by observing market forces. As highlighted in an earlier paper (Iqbal, 2005), there are currently over 40 maturity models in market bracketed by CMMI on one end and OPM3 on other. Both approaches being different, all maturity models are either trying to imitate CMMI or developing multi-dimensional models like OPM3. An organization trying to catch up with quality on one end and project management on other, finds it hard to believe which model is giving the correct assessment of maturity. Other maturity models addressing important areas like Risk and Human Resources also pose a similar threat to the organization. Each of these models is logically perfect addressing its domain area but at organizational level, there is a need to have a holistic view considering all important players in maturity. This maturity conflict needs to be resolved in a creative way, not by compromise or consensus, but by designing our way out of the conflict. This paper will highlight ways to resolving this conflict by design approach by bringing all stakeholders on one table with a third party overseeing and designing the all-acceptable Organizational Maturity Model. It is anticipated that with this design approach to conflict resolution, we will be able to bring up the concept of Creative Maturity and come up with a perfect Organizational Maturity Model. This issue is not classically academic but more down to earth as we will have to break free of the conventional norms of vertical thinking and will have to think laterally or even in parallel. Learning Objectives

Realize the vast gap in the various maturity models available in market and feel the need to resolve this organizational maturity conflict.

Understand the need for design approach over compromise and consensus and be introduced to various design approaches to organizational maturity.

Be able to understand Creative Maturity and a need for an Organizational Maturity Model.

2006, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP - 1 - Originally published as a part of 2006 PMI Global Congress Asia Pacific Proceedings Bangkok

Creative Maturity and Conflict Creative Maturity Age and maturity brings in a new level of passion, ability and insight for creative expression. Although some areas that depend on physical performance, or accumulating and processing vast amounts of information, may become less easy or available, many creative endeavours flourish with increasingly varied life experience and the kind of vitality adult development can nurture (Eby & Douglas. 2005). Organizations mature with time and measurement tools like maturity models help them shape up and mature better and earlier, learning for the best practices in the marketplace. A young organization may feel satisfied by a single maturity model but with time the realization of looking at various other aspects of organizational maturity may highlight the need to try out other maturity models. This is the time when conflict arises and the organization in question is unable to make a sane decision. To help resolve this conflict, a creative approach to conflict resolution amongst various maturity models is suggested in this paper. Innovation and Creativity Before we can discuss creativity, let us first see how we can differentiate and relate innovation and creativity. In 20th century, the well-known economist Schumpeter ([1912] 1934), described innovation as the creation of new combinations. These new combinations can be a new product, a new technology for an existing application, a new application of a technology, the development or opening of new markets, or the introduction of new organizational forms or strategies to improve results. An important innovation need not always be the result of a spectacular new technology is demonstrated by the fact that it was a distribution innovation, namely the introduction of the container (Rosenberg 2001), that led to the greatest cost reduction in the transport sector. Innovation processes that go beyond the individual company are also called institutional or system innovations. Cerami, Joseph R. (2000), quotes Prather, Gundry and Humphery to define the difference between Innovation and Creativity. Prather and Gundry define innovation as the implementation of viable business ideas that result from an organization's creativity-supporting culture and structures (Prather & Gundry, 1995, p. 12). Organization theorist and engineer Watts Humphrey also views innovation from a whole-system perspective. He distinguishes between creativity and innovation (Humphrey, 1997, p. 137). For Humphrey, creativity is thinking up new things -- innovation is doing new things or turning a new idea into a business success. In Humphrey's conception, the role of innovation is to economically couple creative technology to the needs of the marketplace. Thus, innovation is viewed as a process that occurs in each phase of production -- from research and development, through projects and program development, through manufacturing, to marketing. Prather and Gundry also present innovation as a journey, or process, that proceeds in stages from market and customer-based needs assessments, to idea generation, project development, and production, or new product launch (Prather & Gundry, 1995, p. 86). Conflicts, Conflict Resolution and De-Confliction In political terms, "conflict" refers to an ongoing state of hostility between two groups of people. Conflict as taught for graduate and professional work in conflict resolution commonly has the definition: "when two or more parties, with perceived incompatible goals, seek to undermine each other's goal-seeking capability". Edward de Bono (1990) explains the conflict as a clash of interests, values, actions or directions. According to him conflict refers to the existence of that clash. Conflict resolution is the process of resolving a dispute or a conflict, by providing each side's needs, and adequately addressing their interests so that they are satisfied with the outcome. Conflict resolution aims to end conflicts before they start or lead to physical fighting. Resolution methods can include conciliation, mediation, arbitration or litigation. Edward de Bono (1990) introduces a new term De-Confliction. Where Confliction is the process of setting up, promoting, encouraging and designing conflict, de-confliction refers to the designing away or dissipation of the basis for the conflict. De-confliction does not refer to negotiation or bargaining or even to the resolution of conflicts, it is the effort required to evaporate a conflict.


Gaps in Various Maturity Models

Agree to Disagree To agree to disagree is used (particularly in North America) to describe remaining friendly while holding differing opinions. As such, it is a misleading phrase: it would be better stated as recognizing that they disagree. There are some circumstances, such as in a democracy, where a conscious decision to agree to disagree may be desirable, thus enabling important issues to be exposed to others who need to consider them for themselves. Maturity Models pose a very interesting scenario. With the inclusion of few new maturity models like Knowledge Management Maturity Model (K3M) (WisdomSource, 2004), and Organizational Interoperability Maturity Model for C2 (Command and Control), the list of maturity models (Iqbal, 2005) extends to over 40. None of the maturity models defy other models but each presents a separate approach to measuring and improving an organizations maturity. Where most of the maturity models follow the CMMI layered approach, some maturity models have come up with three dimensional approach, similar to OPM3. The best part is that each of these maturity models is tapping its own market and they never try to contradict each other, but still offer a different solution to organizations. Essentially, we can observe that the developers of these maturity models have agreed to disagree. The Two Extremes Where CMMI offers a layered approach, OPM3 came up with a three-dimensional approach. Both of these maturity models are widely used and have been very successful in their own right. CMMI addresses project management in its own way and OPM3 touches upon the process capability and quality from project management perspective. If we try to use them together as suggested by Tom Keuten (2005), we probably will be going for a lose-lose scenario of conflict resolution, in which both maturity models will probably have to sacrifice something to gain consensus. Using Edward de Bonos (1990) approach of designing our way out of conflict, we would rather be working towards a win-win scenario. The CMMI has been criticized for being overly bureaucratic and for promoting process over substance. In particular, for emphasizing predictability over service provided to end users. More commercially successful methodologies have focused not on the capability of the organization to produce software to satisfy some other organization or a collectively-produced specification, but on the capability of organizations to satisfy specific end user "use cases". The CMMI's division into six levels has also been criticized in that it ignores the possibility that a single group may exhibit all of the behaviours and may change from behaviour to behaviour over time. There is also the implication that a group must move from step to step and that it is impossible for a project group to move from one to five without going through intermediate steps. OPM3 splits the broad concept of organizational project management into three domains - project management, program management, and portfolio management. On the other two axis, we have the five process groups and SMCI Standardize, Measure, Control, Improve. Model components include best practices, capabilities, outcomes and key performance indicators. (Keuten, 2005) Why Design Approach? The usual negotiating methods in the West are compromise and consensus. Compromise suggests that both sides give up something in order to gain something, and Consensus means staying with that part of the proposal on which everyone is agreed - the lowest common denominator. Edward de Bono puts forward an approach that involves making a map of the conflict 'terrain' and then using lateral thinking to generate alternative solutions. There are only three roads to conflict resolution: fight/litigate, negotiate/bargain and design a solution. The design approach demands looking at the situation from the viewpoint of the third party. This third party is neither judge nor negotiator but a creative designer.


Designing out of Organizational Maturity Conflict Conflict Factors The four conflict factors analyzed by Dr. Edward de Bono (1990) are Fear, Force, Fair and Funds. We will try to apply these factors to the Organizational Maturity conflict as to see if it is possible to design our way out of this conflict. Considering CMMI and OPM3 again, we find that CMMI was developed by the initiative of public sector whereas OPM3 was a completely volunteer effort organized by PMI. We are referring to only these two standards, being symbolically variant and bracketing all other maturity models on a continuum. When CMM was first introduced, it was only meant for the software industry and did not cater for other aspects like human resource, project management and the likes. Later, fear of being overrun by new maturity models addressing other areas, caused SEI to introduce P-CMM and project management section in CMMI. Each of the maturity model is trying its level best to keep its uniqueness which is vital for its existence in the market. SEI played the role of innovator in maturity models, being first to introduce CMM. Having patronage from the government and a wide customer base already in the IT industry, they were able to force their maturity model. Now the force is being interrupted by opportunities to introducing new trends in organizational maturity. Here the third conflict factor, fair, comes into play. Other maturity models think it unfair for organizations not being able to consider other areas of organizational maturity and therefore introduced new models. Peer pressure and public opinion plays a great role in ascertaining the fairness of the situation. Organizations need to realize that they need a top-down view of their maturity rather than addressing any one of the aspects. Lastly funds, the last conflict factor, brings to light the cost of the conflict. Currently, it seems there is no conflict as the cost of conflict has not escalated to that level where an aggressive competition starts amongst various maturity models. Existing Conflict Resolution Structures It must be noted that the existing structures for resolution of this organizational maturity conflict may not be sufficient. Firstly, it would be next to impossible to bring all the 40+ maturity models on one table for consensus or compromise, because they are not even ready to recognize the existence of any conflict as yet. Moreover, even if we can get them together, it will still not solve the problem, as we will either be targeting a win-lose or a lose-lose scenario. Currently it might be in the interest of most of the parties to prolong the conflict and see who survives the conflict. The one affected by the existence of these maturity models is the organization, which is continuously juggling with one model or the other. So far there is no realization of developing a peer pressure or market demand for a single maturity model which can look at all aspects of an organizations maturity. It is not going to be long when this realization will take root and developers of maturity models will have to sit together to find a solution. The point which has to be brought up here is that these structures will not be sufficient to find a win-win solution to the problem and there will be a need to design a way out of this conflict. This wont be possible without the intervention of a neutral party, which will not resolve the issue but design the conflict exit. Design Methodology We are taking on a difficult job of trying to proactively design a solution mechanism for a problem, which has by itself yet not surfaced and has never been realized as a problem as such. The very step is to highlight it as a problem and then to recognize it as a potent conflict situation needing to be resolved. This will require aggressive and active surveying of market data and use of numerous statistical tools. Even if we are successful in realizing it as a problem, we still need to wait for the problem to boil to the level where it needs to be resolved. As we are taking the proactive approach, we will simulate the problem escalation process and will try to visualize the situation when we need to resolve it.


As sufficiently explained earlier, we cannot go for a compromise or even a consensus, as none of these approaches would get us into a win-win situation. We need to have an independent third party, not for conflict resolution but designing our way out of the conflict. Before we can start identifying the third party, we still have a problem identifying the key players in this conflict. We have developers of maturity models and user organizations as the main parties in conflict. The complication is that even these two parties do not have any consensus amongst themselves. Before we can start working on design approach, we first need to resolve the conflict amongst the various maturity models. The other player, user organization, may be simpler to handle as the conflict here is more logical to understand and they can easily be categorized according to size, industry or their need. So we can have several parts to this design, de-confliction of maturity model developers, categorization of maturity models, and then designing the overall solution for the whole industry. The approach to the overall solution can be much simpler but very rigorous. The key to design would be a top-down approach rather than a bottom-up approach currently being exercised by various maturity models. It is understood that any maturity model before getting developed is thoroughly study for prevalent standards and maturity models in vogue. The only difference between the analysis carried out by a single developer and the third party we are suggesting, would be the impartiality. The survey and analysis in our design approach would be much more thorough and elaborate, consequently resulting in an impartial solution for organizational maturity. Now coming to the question of an impartial third party and its role, we may consider the approach CMM and OPM3 has taken. Where CMM was catalyzed by Government intervention, OPM3 was a completely volunteer effort. Both approaches being poles apart, carry their own individual benefits. Going by the definition of standards and regulations as described in A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (2003) and Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3 ) Knowledge Foundation (2003), a maturity model is supposed to be a standard and must be developed by consensus by the industry itself. To enforce this standard, we may later require Government support. It is therefore apparent that Government cannot play an effective role as third party here. The only option left is an independent and impartial body of volunteers dedicated to organization standard making. It is suggested to form an independent volunteer body with volunteers from user organizations and various developers of maturity models. This body has to be completely impartial and must act as a unit, a third party which will actively participate to design the solution while working with the two main parties, the maturity model developers and user organizations. Expertise of creative thinkers can be sought in this third party to make it more effective and to make it remain impartial.

Conclusion This paper may seem to be focusing on a far-fetched idea, which may not be very pressing at the moment, but it is going to be a major issue for organizations in near future. An organization already evaluated for maturity by CMM may be considering other maturity models cynically, but will eventually see benefits of other maturity models and will somehow try to get measurements from other models as well. What if this organization can have a single platform for measuring organizational maturity? The design approach suggested in this paper is opening a new door towards the concept of Creative Maturity. Further research is being carried out to relate individual competencies with the maturity of organizations and creativity tools are being used to strengthen this relationship. Once the concept is well understood, research can enter survey phase for more analytical work as the current status is more focused to concept formulation.

References Adams-Price, C. E. (1998), Creativity and Successful Aging: Theoretical and Empirical Approaches, New York,

NY: The Springer Publishing Company. Bantel, K. & Jackson, S. (1989), Top Management and Innovations in Banking: Does the Composition of the Top

Team Make a Difference?, Strategic Management Journal 10: 107-124 Benzel, R. (2005), Inspiring Creativity: An Anthology of Powerful Insights and Practical Ideas to Guide You to

Successful Creating, Creativity Coaching Association Press. Bono, E. de (1990), Conflicts: A Better Way to Resolve Them. Intl Center for Creative Thinking (June, 1990)


Bono, E. de (1970), Lateral Thinking: A Textbook of Creativity. Intl Center for Creative Thinking (June, 1970) Cerami, J. R. (2000), Research in Organizational Design: The Capacity for Innovation in Large, Complex

Organizations, The Innovation Journal, Published November 7, 2000, Updated Aug 12, 2001, http://www.innovation.cc/discussion-papers/organizational-design.htm, last accessed o Dec 9, 2005.

Dougherty, D. (1996), Organizing for Innovation., In Clegg, Stewart R., Hardy, Cynthia and Nord, Walter R. Handbook of Organization Studies, London: SAGE Publications

Downs, G. W., Jr. & Mohr L. B (1976), Conceptual Issues in the Study of Innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (December): 700-714

Eby, D. (2005), Creativity and Maturity (Aug 17, 2005), Creativity Portal, http://www.creativity-portal.com/bc/other/maturity.creativity.html and http://talentdevelop.com/MatCreat.html, last accessed Dec 9, 2005.

Humphrey, W. S. (1997), Managing Technical People: Innovation, Teamwork, and the Software Process. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Iqbal, S. (2005), A Strategic View of Organizational Maturity, Proceedings of PMI Global Congress Asia Pacific 2005 Proceedings, Singapore, and PMI Global Congress EMEA 2005 Proceedings, Edinburgh, Scotland.

John-Steiner, V., Moran, S., Sternberg, R. J., et al (2003), Creativity and Development. Oxford University Press. Kerzner, H., (2001), Strategic planning for project management using a project management maturity model.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley Keuten, T. (2005), CMMI and OPM3: A Powerful Combination for Increasing Organizational Maturity, Project

Magazine, http://www.projectmagazine.com/v5i4/cmmi.html, last accessed on Dec 9, 2005. Miller M. E., Cook-Greuter, S. R. (1999), Creativity, Spirituality, and Transcendence : Paths to Integrity and

Wisdom in the Mature Self. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing Mohr, L.B. (1982), Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers Morgan, G. (1997), Images of Organization, Second Edition. London: SAGE Publications Morris, W. (2005), Organisational Creativity the Top Ten Enablers (Oct 17, 2005), Creativity Portal,

http://www.creativity-portal.com/bc/other/organizational.creativity.html, last accessed on Dec 9, 2005. Nord, W.R. and Tucker, S. (1987), Implementing Routine and Radical Innovations. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and

Company Omta, S.W.F. (2002), Innovation in chains and networks, Journal on Chain and Network Science, volume 2, number

2, 2002. Plenty, J. (2005), 10 Ways to boost your Creativity, Project Magazine,

http://www.projectmagazine.com/v5i4/creativity.html, last accessed on Dec 9, 2005. PMI (2003) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) 3rd Ed, Newtown Square:

Project Management Institute PMI (2003) Organisational Project Management Maturity Model Knowledge Foundation (OPM3), Newtown

Square: Project Management Institute Prather, C. W. & Gundry, L. K (1995), Blueprints for Innovation: How Creative Processes Can Make You and Your

Company More Competitive. New York: American Management Association, Membership Publications Division

Rogers, E. M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press Rosenberg, N. (2001), Challenges to the social sciences in the new millennium. Tokyo Social Science and

Innovation Workshop, OECD, pp. 7-27. Roth, G. and Kleiner, A. (2000), Car Launch: the Human side of Managing Change. New York: Oxford University

Press Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.). Senge, P. M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization. New York:

Doubleday/Currency Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith B. J. (1994), The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies

and Tolls for Building a Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency Stewart, J., (2004) Promoting Project Management Maturity with an Enterprise Project Management Methodology,

Proceedings of the PMI Global Congress 2004 North America (Anaheim, CA) Tushman, M.l L. & OReilly III, C. A. (1997), Winning Through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading

Organizational Change and Renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press WisdomSource News (2004), Measuring & Improving Organizational Effectiveness: The WisdomSource Knowledge

Management Maturity Model (K3M)TM,( 2)1, Monday, May 31, 2004, http://www.wisdomsource.com/tf/wisdomsource.asp?a=236, last accessed on Dec 9, 2005.


Creative Maturity - Resolving the Organizational Maturity ConflictSuhail Iqbal, PE, PMPCEO, SysComp International (Pvt.) Ltd.AbstractIntroductionLearning Objectives

Creative Maturity and ConflictCreative MaturityInnovation and CreativityConflicts, Conflict Resolution and De-Confliction

Gaps in Various Maturity ModelsAgree to DisagreeThe Two ExtremesWhy Design Approach?

Designing out of Organizational Maturity ConflictConflict FactorsExisting Conflict Resolution Structures Design Methodology

Close:

pms03 - creative maturity

Documents