Infrastructure Management Process Maturity Model: Development and Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To better serve society, infrastructure organizations must manage their civil infrastructure systems effectively and efficiently, employing best practices in infrastructure management and relevant information systems. As information systems mature, communications follow a general trend away from informal human-to-human communications towards computer-to-computer information exchange. For efficient implementation of computer-based exchange of information, these communications must be formally described. As part of a larger study into the formalization of communications within the infrastructure industry, this paper examines the level to which work processes and communications are formalized and designed at present within the domain of infrastructure management. The research adopts a maturity model approach. There are many maturity models available in different industries, but their focus is on the maturity of the way work processes and communication are operated and managed, not the way these work processes and communications are formalized and designed. To address the issue, an Infrastructure Management-Process Maturity Model (IM-PMM) is developed to assess the degree to which work processes and communications are formalized within a specific engineering domain, namely infrastructure management. A five-step approach is used to develop the IM-PMM: define the problem, compare existing maturity models, develop the model, apply the model, and evaluate the maturity model. This paper describes the development and application of the Infrastructure Management-Process Maturity Model (IM-PMM) that can benchmark the current level of maturity of work processes and communications in the domain of infrastructure management. The proposed IM-PMM uses a scale of five levels of maturity (stages) and uses three core elements (i.e. process/transaction map definition, actor/role definition, and information definition) to benchmark existing work processes, plus one additional element (message definition) to benchmark existing communications. The proposed model has been applied and tested in the domain of infrastructure management using a structured interview approach. The resulting data show that existing work processes and communications are typically accomplished in an ad hoc manner, emphasizing the need for further improvements in the way that work processes and communications are defined if infrastructure organizations intend to deploy advanced information systems. The proposed IM-PMM would help the transaction development personnel (including transaction analysts, transaction designers, software developers, process modellers, and industry experts) to assess and benchmark the maturity of the work processes and communications in the domain of infrastructure. As part of the evaluation, the proposed IM-PMM is verified through testing and applying it in the domain of infrastructure management; future work will conduct validation through industry expert review.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".