Just of late I've encountered a number of capability maturity models aimed at knowledge management. Capability maturity models have been around for a while in other disciplines, most notably in software development projects. Almost all of the models owe their origins to the collaboration between the US Department of Defense and the Software Engineering Institute of Carnegie Mellon University. The Capability Maturity Model was originally a tool to assess processes - in particular the processes of a contracted third party. In that sense its intent was to reduce risk.

Capability models now abound and even have been internationally standardised as part of ISO 15504 . ISO 15504 sets six levels of capability maturity as follows:

• Level 5 - Optimising Process,
• Level 4 - Predictable Process, 
• Level 3 - Established Process,
• Level 2 - Managed Process, 
• Level 1 - Performed Process, and
• Level 0 - Incomplete Process. 

Notice anything here? It's all about process. Putting aside definitional issues, last time I looked knowledge management was about people, process, technology, and content. Capability maturity models are about process, so it begs the question "Does knowledge management really need a maturity model"?

It has been a busy week again, but a thoroughly enjoyable and productive one. On Wednesday and Thursday I attended the ‘Promoting a Culture of Knowledge in the Public Service’ conference in Sydney, which was organised by the Ark Group . On Friday I helped to run two post-conference workshops with my business partner Patrick Byrne .