Claims:We Claim
1. A system for assessment of an organisational maturity (100), said system (100) comprising:
a memory (101) and at least one processor (102) in communication with the memory (101), said memory (101) comprising a maturity assessment module (103) that is executable by the processor (102), said maturity assessment module (103) comprising a people maturity assessment module (104) that is configured to ascertain a people maturity score for one or more pre-defined parameters in relation to the people within an organization, a process maturity assessment module (105) that is configured to ascertain a process maturity score for one or more pre-defined parameters in relation to the processes within an organization, a technology maturity assessment module (106) that is configured to ascertain a technology maturity score in relation to the technologies used within an organization, and a training intervention module (107) that is configured to develop a training strategy and customise a training intervention based on the people maturity score, the process maturity score, and the technology maturity score.

2. A system for assessment of an organisational maturity (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the people maturity assessment module (104) is configured to ascertain the people maturity score based on an educational background that is specific to the organization.

3. A system for assessment of an organisational maturity (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the people maturity assessment module (104) is configured to ascertain the people maturity score based on domain knowledge.

4. A system for assessment of an organisational maturity (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the people maturity assessment module (104) is configured to ascertain the people maturity score based on technical skills.

5. A system for assessment of an organisational maturity (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the people maturity assessment module (104) is configured to ascertain the people maturity score based on an employee’s experience.

6. A system for assessment of an organisational maturity (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the people maturity assessment module (104) is configured to ascertain the people maturity score based on operational and management skills that are specific to managerial roles.

7. A system for assessment of an organisational maturity (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the people maturity assessment module (104) is configured to ascertain the people maturity score based on soft skills.

8. A system for assessment of an organisational maturity (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the people maturity assessment module (104) is configured to ascertain the people maturity score based on relevant exposure to multicultural nuances.

9. A system for assessment of an organisational maturity (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the people maturity assessment module (104) is configured to ascertain the people maturity score based on the comprehensiveness and the relevance of an internal training program that the organization has in developing various skills.

10. A system for assessment of an organisational maturity (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the people maturity assessment module (104) is configured to ascertain the people maturity score based on an attitude that defines an agile, confident and motivated nature of the workforce.

11. A system for assessment of an organisational maturity (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the process maturity assessment module (105) is configured to ascertain the process maturity score based on the processes related to project objectives.

12. A system for assessment of an organisational maturity (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the process maturity assessment module (105) is configured to ascertain the process maturity score based on the processes related to project execution.

13. A system for assessment of an organisational maturity (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the process maturity assessment module (105) is configured to ascertain the process maturity score based on the processes related to total quality management framework.

14. A system for assessment of an organisational maturity (100) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the technology maturity assessment module (106) is configured to ascertain the technology maturity score on a five level maturity model. , Description:TITLE OF THE INVENTION: SYSTEM FOR ASSESSMENT OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL MATURITY
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present disclosure generally relates to the management of organizational practices. The present disclosure particularly relates to a system for assessment of an organizational maturity.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Successful organizations demonstrate the ability to create an ecosystem for learning and development that supports individualized training needs.
Training programs conducted by both Government and Private organizations do not have a Targeted approach. The identification and prioritization of training initiatives are faulty leading to a lot of wastage in spending on not-important aspects. The investments in training people when done wrongly lead to sub-optimal results for any organization (irrespective of whether the company is a Government based organization or a Private company) and a lot of revenue leakage.
Most of the training interventions attract diverse audiences, but the best training interventions ‘Target’ a specific need that is specific to an organization at a given point in time. Finding the right Targeted Training Need(s) and further customizing the training interventions such that specific levers are leveraged is a challenge that every organization grapples with. There is an unmet need when assessing what training intervention needs to be prioritized first and where is the likely business impact that will yield maximum return on investment.
Organizations have relied on conducting surveys and in-person interviews to come up with Training needs that warrant training interventions.
Typically, Employee Satisfaction Surveys are rolled out online wherein an employee fills out answers to questions that are based on his/her experience with the organization. This includes aspects that are related to how he/she is kept updated informed about organizational goals for the year, value system, mission etc. These surveys also focus on capturing how the relation is with immediate reporting manager and superiors. Issues relating to clarity of role, responsibilities, performance appraisal, merit planning and a host of other team engagement aspects are sought feedback on. A scoring system captures feedback that is both Quantitative and Qualitative. From these feedbacks the management sits down and decides what the focus areas needing immediate attention. Of the many focus areas there are some that warrant Training and Up-skilling. These are then graded as per importance to the organization and then the training needs are drawn out. Once the training needs are known, the organization can conduct training on a specific subject.
The feedback that the employees give is basis the questions asked. If the questions do not evoke interest or are not candidly asking for feedback to a problem that is potentially hidden, there will always be biased answers hence inaccurate results. This results to the inaccurate identification of training needs.
Further, planning, conducting, analysing surveys is a painstaking task that requires lots of time often running into weeks together. Such an exercise poses challenge to a limited resource like time which can be invested on other tasks that will likely yield business for the company.
There is, therefore, a need in the art for a system for assessment of an organization maturity that is capable to identify the best training interventions which ‘Target’ a specific need that is specific to an organization at a given point in time.
There is, therefore, a need in the art for a system for assessment of an organization maturity that is capable to identify the training needs of an organization in accurate manner in short period of time.
There is, therefore, a need in the art for a system for assessment of an organization maturity that is more effective in finding the right Targeted Training Need(s) and customizing the training interventions which creates business impact that yields maximum return on investment.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
A system for assessment of an organisational maturity is disclosed. The system comprises a memory and at least one processor in communication with the memory, said memory comprising a maturity assessment module that is executable by the processor, said maturity assessment module comprising a people maturity assessment module that is configured to ascertain a people maturity score for one or more pre-defined parameters in relation to the people within an organization, a process maturity assessment module that is configured to ascertain a process maturity score for one or more pre-defined parameters in relation to the processes within an organization, a technology maturity assessment module that is configured to ascertain a technology maturity score in relation to the technologies used within an organization, and a training intervention module that is configured to develop a training strategy and customise a training intervention based on the people maturity score, the process maturity score, and the technology maturity score.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING
Figure 1 illustrates a block diagram of an embodiment of a system for assessment of an organizational maturity.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
Throughout this specification, the use of the word "comprise" and variations such as "comprises" and "comprising" may imply the inclusion of an element or elements not specifically recited.
Throughout this specification the use of the term ‘maturity’ refers to an organization's readiness and experience with regards to its three core pillars: People, Processes, and Technology.
Throughout this specification, the use of the term “maturity score” is to be construed as people maturity score, process maturity score, and/or technology maturity score, depending on whether the description pertains to the people maturity assessment module, the process maturity assessment module, and/or the technology assessment module
Figure 1 is a block diagram that illustrates a system (100) for assessment of an organization maturity with respect to people, process, and technology, in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure. The system (100) comprises a memory (101) and at least one processor (102) in communication with the memory (101). The memory (101) of the system (100) comprises a maturity assessment module (103) that is executable by the processor (102), said maturity assessment module (103) being configured to assess the maturity of an organization with respect to people, process and technology.
The maturity assessment module (103) comprises a people maturity assessment module (104), a process maturity assessment module (105), a technology maturity assessment module (106) and a training intervention module (107).
The people maturity assessment module (104) measures people maturity score to assess the gaps in understanding human capital (people). The human workforce is assessed on a five-point maturity scale across an array of evaluation parameters. The parameters include Chaotic and Inconsistent, Standardized and Repeatable, Structured and Competent, Aligned and Predictable, and Agile and Evolved.
The people maturity assessment module (104) facilitates the assessment and improving of processes for managing and developing an organization’s human workforce. The utilization of a structured approach in identifying and addressing the gaps in the development of human workforce ensures that organizations can establish maturity levels of the people, channel their resources to address crucial and urgent areas of improvement, weave a continuous culture of talent development, and overall build a culture of excellence that leads to a higher maturity of people.
The people maturity assessment module (104) allows the assessment of people across an array of parameters, including educational background that is specific to the organization, domain knowledge, the technical skills that form part of the products and services offerings, the experience that the people have as an asset that is relevant to the job, managing teams through operational and management skills that are specific to managerial roles, the soft skills that make client engagement a success, the relevant exposure to multicultural nuances via global exposure that the team members have, the comprehensiveness and the relevance of an internal training program that the organization has in developing various skills, and the attitude that defines an agile, confident and motivated nature of the workforce.
The measurement of people maturity score on educational background that is specific to the organization is done by comparing the actual split (distribution pattern) of the employee's educational background against the ideal split that the organisation's management deems right for the organisation. The deviation in % terms is measured and then graded for a score on a scale that has been specially devised for this parameter. The weighted average is applied to arrive at a score that is specific to this parameter.
In an embodiment, the ideal split may be Ph.D. 20%, CA 10%, MBA 40%, and B.Com 30%, whereas the actual split may be Ph.D. 15%, CA 15%, MBA 30%, B.Com 40%.
The people maturity assessment module (104) is configured to ascertain at what levels an organisation would like to have their people spread over various Domain and Technical skills. With ‘Beginner,' ‘Intermediate’ and ‘Expert’ level ratings, the organization is very quickly able to assess their current state of maturity and compare this with an ideal mix of various Domain and Technical skills. The measurement of People Maturity Score on 'Domain Knowledge and the Technical Skills’ is done by assessing each of the employee's Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary skills on three levels namely 'High,' 'Medium', and 'Low.' Once the Domain and Technical skills are assessed on which level they fall, a weighted average is applied to arrive at an overall score.
The measurement of People Maturity Score on 'The Experience That People have as an Asset that is Relevant to the Job’ is done in stages.
Stage 1: the organisation decides how many years of experience will corroborate to an employee being 'Beginner,' 'Intermediate,' & 'Experienced.' As an example, A Beginner may be an employee with less than two years of experience.
Stage 2: the organisation decides the Tier to which a competitor company belongs. This is done so that employees who come with experience gained in a competitor company are bucketed under a specific Tier. For example, a Competitor A, may be placed as a Tier 1 company and another competitor company may belong to Tier 2 or 3.
Stage 3: categorizing the employees as per the experience level (beginner, Intermediate or Experienced) and the Tier level together. Every employee is categorized on a grid which summarises the experience level and tier level.
Stage 4: rating on a special scale that gives importance to Experience and Tier of past company in which the experience has been gained. The special scale rates any employee who has high experience in a top Tier company as one with a higher level of maturity. Conversely, an employee with a low amount of experience, said experience being gained in low Tier companies, is granted a lower maturity score.
Once the Stage 3 employee categorization is ready along with Stage 4 scale, the corresponding employee count from stage 3 is multiplied by the Stage 4 maturity scores to come up with a weighted score that is used to determine the overall maturity score.
The Maturity assessment of 'Managing Teams through Operational and Management Skills that are Specific to Managerial Roles' is done on a universe of Managers who have one or more than one employee reporting to them. These Managers form the denominator for all calculations under this parameter.
The people maturity assessment module (104) measures the Trained and Certified fraction of the Managerial layer within an organization. This fraction of the Trained Managers as a percentage is compared with the reference maturity scale to ascertain the maturity score for this parameter.
The people maturity assessment module (104) assesses the ability of the organizational workforce to Communicate, Collaborate, Create and Think Critically. Each of these soft skills is rated on a scale of 'Low', Medium' and 'High' for every employee. The resultant employee count is then multiplied by a weigh maturity score devised especially for soft skills to get weighted maturity score for each of the soft skills.
The people maturity assessment module (104) assesses the maturity score on 'The Relevant Exposure to Multicultural Nuances via Global Exposure that the team members have’ by assigning a weight to the period that the organization deems apt for an employee staying abroad to learn global ways of conducting himself/herself as a professional. Periods may vary between organizations depending on the services or products offered by a particular organization. A relevant Global exposure period is multiplied by the weight score to come up with a weighted maturity score. An employee with a high exposure and large exposure duration is rated with a high maturity score.
The people maturity assessment module (104) evaluates various training initiatives deployed by the organization. The evaluation takes into account the Schedule of Activities with the Training Goals, Learning Objectives, Subject Areas, Methods Used, Trainers, Trainees, Methods of Assessment and Locations. Hence the module (104) allows organizations to ascertain whether their training ecosystem is Comprehensive, is Continuously Updated, and has a Structured Way of Evaluation, can Grade and Categorize Training Initiatives by Hard skills and Soft skills and Provide Various Certification Levels to the employees.
Similarly, the people maturity assessment module (104) is configured to evaluate the ‘Motivational Levels’ of each employee of an organization and assigns a maturity score for each of the employee.
The First score corresponding to each parameter which is generated by the people maturity assessment module (104) in an organization is termed as the ‘Baseline Maturity Scores’.
In an embodiment, the maturity score against the baseline score is monitored over the period of 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months.
In yet another embodiment, the maturity score against the baseline score is monitored over the period an organization deems to be apt to conduct the maturity assessment.
The process maturity assessment module (105) is configured to ascertain how close a process is to be complete and capable of continual improvement through ‘Qualitative’ & ‘Quantitative’ measures and feedback. This module (105) provides a roadmap for making the process improvements needed to raise the organizational process maturity and thereby the success of the organization.
The important parameters that get assessed and quantified by the process maturity assessment module (105) include, but are not limited to:
Processes related to Project Objectives such as Requirements Gathering, Understanding of the complete scope of the project, Defining and Agreeing on the project scope, and Effort estimation;
Processes related to Project Execution such as Assumption/ Hypothesis building, Validation of Assumptions, Data analysis, Tool functionality testing, Test Status reporting, Defect logs, Root Cause Analysis, Test Closure Reporting, and Defect Summary; and
Processes related to Total Quality Management Framework such as Standard Operating Procedures, Checklist Based Reviews, Quality Audits involving Data Quality Check, Sense Checks, Random QC, and Compliance with the set Processes.
The technology maturity assessment module (106) is configured to ascertain the maturity of technology on a Five-level Maturity Model.
Level 1 is 'Inconsistent', which refers to the Technology product being ready from a Proof of concept standpoint.
Level 2 is 'Repeatable', which in Technology assessment terms means Technology that has been found stable and has been tested over and over again.
Level 3 is 'Competent', which corresponds to the Technology that has been validated and has been delivering value to the users.
Level 4 is 'Predictable', which in Technology Terms means that the Technology is a repeatable system for scale up.
Level 5 is 'Evolved', which in Technology terms implies that Technology has reached a stage which is stable for use in providing value at scale. This Maturity Stage also refers to continuous improvement.
In an embodiment, the technology maturity assessment module (106) takes a ‘Technology’ that is acclaimed as a reference standard.
Based on the maturity scores of the people maturity assessment module (104), the process maturity assessment module (105) and the technology maturity assessment module (106), the training intervention module (107) develops a ‘Training Strategy’ which focuses on critical and most important parameters that will impact the business favourably. Further, the training intervention module (107) suggests the right Targeted Training Need(s) and customises the training interventions which create business impact that yields maximum return on investment in short period of time.
In specific embodiments of the invention, the system (100) disclosed herein provide for a maturity assessment of an organization that measures the organizational maturity of people, processes, and technology: the three ingredients blended with, business strategies and learning objectives to create a strategy that is 'tailored' and useful in a real-world scenario. Additionally, the system (100) calculates metrics performance for each of the types such as people, process and technology. As a result of the maturity level calculation for each type, embodiments of the invention provide for an overall maturity level/score. Based on this score/maturity level the training intervention module (107) suggests the right Targeted Training Need(s) and customises the training interventions which create business impact that yields maximum return on investment in short period of time.
In an embodiment the system (100) is a standalone computer.
In another embodiment the system (100) is a network server.
In yet another embodiment the system (100) is an internet server.
In yet another embodiment the system (100) is a cloud server.
It will be apparent to a person skilled in the art that the above description is for illustrative purposes only and should not be considered as limiting. Various modifications, additions, alterations and improvements without deviating from the spirit and the scope of the disclosure may be made by a person skilled in the art. Such modifications, additions, alterations and improvements are to be construed as being within the scope of this disclosure.
List of Reference Numerals:
100 – System for assessment of an organizational maturity
101 – Memory
102 – Processor
103 –Maturity assessment module
104 – People maturity assessment module
105 – Process maturity assessment module
106 – Technology maturity assessment module
107 – Training intervention module