Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Objective

The term open has become popularly used to describe a variety of objects (software and technology, educational resources, education, etc.). Ambiguity exists in the meaning of open, for example open education where anyone can enroll with the only requirement a fee, or open education that is available to anyone, and without a cost. In addition to the ambiguity of open (what it enables), there is also ambiguity with how organizations might operate to allow openness.

The Openness Index attempts to define open attributes and a means to assess the type of openness within the community of practice responsible for the design, development, and distribution of the open artifact.

Importantly, the Openness Index is not designed to assess the "openness" of an artifact (object, software, OER, etc.) claimed to be open–there are plenty of licenses which can be used to assess the openness of an object–rather, the model assess the openness of the organization/community that creates and manages artifact.

Meetings

Educause 2012

Implementations (Reference Implementations)

The following have expressed interest in applying the Open Index to their organizations. As a working project, the Openness Index can be informed through actual use, iterating through development as information is learned in its application. These initial tests will provide the Openness Index with reference models for refinement and enhancement. The results of these initial assessments are not intended to provide an actual index of the organizations reviewed, rather provide direction for further development efforts. The 2-3-98 project is extremely grateful for this early participation from interested organizations, without whom the project could not advance.

  • Apereo Foundation (website)
    The Apereo Foundation assists and facilitates educational organizations which collaborate to foster, develop, and sustain open technologies and innovation to support learning, teaching, and research.
  • Open Education Resource Foundation (website)
    The Open Education Resource Foundation is an independent, not-for-profit organisation that provides leadership, international networking and support for educators and educational institutions to achieve their objectives through Open Education. 
  • Project Kaleidoscope (website)
    Project Kaleidoscope is implementing a set of fully open general education courses across eight colleges serving predominantly at-risk students. The project will dramatically reduce textbook costs and allow collaborative improvement of course design to improve student success.

Traditional Maturity Model Definition:

There are five levels defined along the continuum of a maturity model

  1. Initial (chaotic, ad hoc, individual heroics) - the starting point for use of a new or undocumented repeat process.
  2. Repeatable - the process is at least documented sufficiently such that repeating the same steps may be attempted.
  3. Defined - the process is defined/confirmed as a standard business process, and decomposed to levels 0, 1 and 2 (the latter being Work Instructions).
  4. Managed - the process is quantitatively managed in accordance with agreed-upon metrics.
  5. Optimizing - process management includes deliberate process optimization/improvement.

"Opening" the Maturity Model Definition:

Using the above as a framework, the following can be applied to access the maturity of an open project:

  1. Initial/Aware: (chaotic, ad hoc, individual heroics) - the starting point for use of a new or undocumented open project.
  2. Repeatable - openness is at least documented sufficiently such that repeating the same steps toward openness may be attempted.
  3. Defined - openness is defined/confirmed as a standard business process, and decomposed to levels 0, 1 and 2 (the latter being Work Instructions).
  4. Managed - openness is quantitatively managed in accordance with agreed-upon metrics (those of the OMM)
  5. Optimizing - openness management includes deliberate principle/process/practice optimization/improvement.

Openness Values

Courage: Courage is sufficient to participate in openness, however participants may be motivated by other causes, such as: a condition of employment; direction from a supervisor; peer pressure; or, a hidden agenda—perhaps to influence (or sabotage) direction.

 Individual Courage: The willingness to proclaim oneself, or a project, open.
  • Initial: An interest/desire has been expressed in being open or joining an open initiative
    • Evidence: Artifacts citing the individual's interest in being open or joining an open initiative.
    • Example: The individual has joined an open community of practice; the individual has written (documented) their interests in openness or an open community of practice.
  • Repeatable: The individual understands and has expressed the values of openness.
    • Evidence: Artifacts documenting the individual's descriptions of principles and practices commonly associated with openness.
    • Examples: Wiki, blog posts or emails describing principles and practices commonly associated with openness.
  • Defined: The benefit(s) of openness for the individual has been articulated.
    • Evidence: Artifacts describing how open principles and practices contribute to an individual's body of work or a community of practice.
    • Example: The individual has submitted for consideration a document describing the "benefits" of open source software in reducing costs or increasing quality.
  • Managed: Expectations of openness for the individual have been established.
    • Evidence: Artifacts describing how open principles and practices contribute to the individual's own body of work or interests.
    • Example: Documentation describing how the individual can apply open principles and practices to their specific work/interests.
  • Optimizing: The individual continually updates the previous.
 Organizational Courage: The willingness to declare an organization or project open.
  • Initial: An initial interest/desire has been expressed in being open or joining an open initiative.
  • Repeatable: The organization understands and has expressed the value of openness.
  • Defined: The benefit(s) of openness for the organization has been articulated.
  • Managed: Expectations of openness for the organization has been established.
  • Optimizing: The organization continually updates the previous.

What this organization might look like...

The organization regularly articulates the promise of openness, but does not allow those outside of the original founders or invited guests to participate. For example, a personal blog on openness.

Participation: Participation is necessary in order to contribute. While there is no guarantee the contributions will be honest, one must participate in order to offer a honest contribution.

 Individual Participation: Involvement with or within an organization that has identified itself to be open.
  • Initial: The individual has publicly associated themselves with an organization.
    • Evidence: Membership, attendance, presence within an open community of practice.
    • Example: Signed up for SourceForge; attended a Moodle Conference; joined the Educause Openness CG ListServ.
  • Repeatable: The individual engages consistently with the organization and consistently references their involvement.
    • Evidence: Activity and interactivity within an open community of practice.
    • Example: Facilitated a open community's conference session; engaged on the ListServ of an open community.
  • Defined: The individual has established a specific role with or within the organization.
    • Evidence: Participation is defined/confirmed as a standard business process.
    • Example: The individual holds a recognized role within an open community of practice;
  • Managed: The individual has undertaken specific responsibilities with the organization.
    • Evidence: Participation is quantitatively managed in accordance with agreed-upon metrics.
  • Optimizing: The individual assesses and validates/redefines their role and responsibilities in the organization.
    • Evidence: Participation management includes deliberate participation optimization/improvement.
 Organizational Participation: The willingness to invite and admit any individual or other organization to engage with the organization
  • Initial: The organization has publicly declared anyone can engage with it.
  • Repeatable: The organization engages consistently with any interested party, and consistently declares the ability for engagement of interested parties.
  • Defined: the organization recognizes standard roles within the organization
  • Managed: the organization has established responsibilities associated with roles.
  • Optimizing: The individual assesses and validates/redefines their role and responsibilities in the organization.

What this organization might look like...

The organization has in practice decision making processes that allow anybody to provide input and publicly render an opinion on the topic and the process. For example, decisions for procurement of goods and investments in initiatives.

Honesty: Honesty requires sincerity, directness and specificity, where actions and statements are free from bias or dogma and motivated to achieve the goals and objectives of the initiative. Reflection (assessment) of one's ideas and self can only be genuine if one is honest.

 Individual: Participants engage directly (i.e. straightforwardly), truthfully and authentically with the organization.
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:
 Organizational: The organization engages directly (i.e. straightforwardly), truthfully and authentically with the participants.
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:

What this organization might look like...

 

Reflection: Knowing one's limits or failures is fundamental to acknowledging them, however recognizing one's limitations does not mean one would admit to them or correct them. Humility accepts that current ideas, drivers, approaches, expectations, values might change and readily accepts those.

 Individual: Participants reflect on, assess and reconsider, both their own and others, current and previous engagements.
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:
 Organizational: The Organization reflects on, assesses and reconsiders, both their own and others, current and previous engagements.
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:

What this organization might look like...

 

Humility:  The scope of competency and capacity.

 Individual: The individual understands how they can--and cannot--contribute to a project and what that contribution provides them.
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:
 Organizational: The organization understands how it can--and cannot--contribute to an objective and what that contribution provides them.
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:

What this organization might look like...

 

Principles

Communication: Communication is necessary for transparency in openness. While some individuals/organizations may provide communication, this may be promotional, marketing or spin rather than actual policies, processes and practices. Yet in order for transparency to exist at all in openness, some form of communication must take place that conveys information and exposes organizational artifacts.

 Individual: Participants actively share information with the organization.
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:
 Organizational: The organization actively shares information with the participants.
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:

What this organization might look like...

 

Transparency: Transparency, or access to and discover-ability, of information, contributes to the development of affinity groups (self-organizing, self-interested, self-motivated, self-directed). If an organization provides access to information, individuals can find topics of interest and others who share those interests. Groups cannot effectively organize or contribute without knowing organizational details.

 Individual: Information created by or managed by participants is discoverable by the organization.
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:
 Organizational: Information created by or managed by the organization is discoverable by participants.
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:

What this organization might look like...

 

Self-organization: A group of at least two people is sufficient for collaboration in openness. However collaboration can occur outside of self-organizing groups, such as committees, departments, etc. who collaborate as part of their jobs or who may have been appointed, rather than based on an affinity for the topic.

 Participation, roles and direction is based on personal or professional affinity
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:
 Participation, roles and direction is based on personal or professional affinity
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:

What this organization might look like...

 

Collaboration: Collaboration contributes to evidence-based decision-making but is not necessary. Individuals can use evidence in governance.

 Click here to expand...
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:
 Click here to expand...
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:

What this organization might look like...

 

Evidence-based decision-makingEvidence-based decision making provides a rationale for organisational investment in, and the prioritisation of actions and behaviours (initiatives). The effect(iveness) of evidence-based decision making is in part a function of communication and transparency, without which organisational participants may not undertand why or how a variety of decisions are made reducing their ability to effectively participate. The notion of evidence-based decision making is tied closely to outcomes monitoring and analysis, and underpins the organisation's ability to function as a meritocracy.

 Click here to expand...
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:
 Click here to expand...
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:

What this organization might look like...

 

MeritocracyMeritocracy allows the separation of title, role and other personal and professional trappings from ideas. The individual, under particular circumstances is measured by the merit of their idea, and the idea is judged by the circumstances under which is is being considered. It is virtually impossible to achieve this form of meritocracy without an organisational culture that values humility.

 Click here to expand...
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:
 Click here to expand...
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:

What this organization might look like...

 

Objectives

Simplicity Simplicity refers to the state of an organisation and the practice of selecting processes, language, and outcomes that have the lowest concept, administration, and work burdon that meet requirements. Simplicity reduces barriers to understanding and overhead costs, allowing more resources to be invested in the goals of the community. 

 Click here to expand...
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:
 Click here to expand...
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:

What this organization might look like...

 

EmergenceFrom simplicity emerges complexity. Emergence is the creation of outcomes that are irreducible to its constituant parts - that is, it is the creation of something new and more complex that the constituents without a formal externally imposed plan. Through emergence, organisations can expect:

    • radical novelty through the appearance of  characteristics and qualities that were not previously observed in the organisation;
    • coherence or correlation, providing stable and integrated wholes that maintain themselves over some period of time;
    • the benefits of evolutionary dynamic processes and outcomes that by definition are suited to and a reflection of their environment;
    • the benefits of supervenience, is which the nature of emergent outcomes are influenced by the organisational culture, but are not reducible. (reference to Emergence as a Construct: History and Issues, by Jeffrey Goldsteinhttp://www.anecdote.com.au/papers/EmergenceAsAConsutructIssue1_1_3.pdf)

Through emergence, the organisation can enjoy the complexity of sophisticated outcomes, while managing simplicity.

 Click here to expand...
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:
 Click here to expand...
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:

What this organization might look like...

 

Incremental DevelopmentEngaging in discovery, design, and creation of any artefact, pattern, or idea in simple discreet iterative cycles, such that mesurable outcomes may be assessed at a reasonably small level of granularity.  As such, incremental development allows for adjustments to desired outcomes, expectations, prioritisation, processes, and workload at a level that promotes organisational effectiveness and efficiency.

 Click here to expand...
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:
 Click here to expand...
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:

What this organization might look like...

 

Rapid FeedbackRapid feedback is essential to incremental development and allows for relevant, timely, and working products, which enhances productivity, a sense of clear direction, and improves alignment with changing requirements.

 Click here to expand...
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:
 Click here to expand...
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:

What this organization might look like...

 

Continuous FeedbackContinuous feedback supports continuous improvement and enhances the likelihood that requirements are met as they evolve with low relative investments in rework.

 Click here to expand...
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:
 Click here to expand...
  • Initial:
  • Repeatable:
  • Defined:
  • Managed:
  • Optimized:

What this organization might look like...

 

 

Potential Openness Key:

1:

Optimized
Managed
Defined
Repeatable
Initial
Not assessed

2:

Fully Open
Largely Open
Partially Open
Not Open
Not assessed

 

References:

Laffan, Liz. (2011) A New Way of Measuring Openness, from Android to WebKit: The Open Governance Index [Updated]. VisionMobile, 29 July 2011. Web. 30 July 2012. Available from http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2011/07/the-open-governance-index-measuring-openness-from-android-to-webkit/

Marshall, S. (2007) eMM Version 2.3 Process Descriptions. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Available from http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/research/emm/Publications.shtml

Masson, P. (2009) Agile Causality. Available from http://openmasters.wordpress.com/agile-causality/

Masson, P. (2011) Open Governance in Higher Education: Extending the Past to the Future. Educause Review. Available from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM1112.pdf

Waugh P. & R. Metcalfe (2007) The Foundations of Openness. What are we doing today, brain? Available from http://pipka.org/blog/2008/07/23/the-foundations-of-openness/

 


Legacy Notes

  • The Artifacts Created During Participation in an Open Course
  • Pedagogical Intent
  • Learning Activities
  • Assessments
  • Assessment
  • Externally Used Resources
  • Credentialing (course and program level)
  • Course Content
    • Access Dimensions: non-discriminatory: open to everyone–non restrictive.
    • Licensing Dimensions:
      • Use
      • Reuse
      • Derivative Works
      • Economic Access (open to everybody irrespective of their financial means)
  • Learning Design
  • Instruction and Support
  • Delivery Technology

  • Open Access - publishing of research data
  • Externally Used Resources
  • Licensing Dimensions:
    • Use
    • Reuse
    • Derivative Works
    • Economic Access (open to everybody irrespective of their financial means)
  • Software used
  • Public Contribution
  • Public comment
  • Interoperability - resources are distributed with cross-platform interoperability in mind (for example RTF vs. PDF)


 



18 Comments

  1. Wow, sorry for the thing about the comments--I didn't realize they couldn't be edited. I have a few more things to add and am wondering if it is best to send them to you directly.  I'm not confident enough to put them directly into the wiki (especially if they can't be edited).

    One of the things I'm toying with is the concept of pedagogical openness. The Guidelines for OER Assessment, put out by the Open Education Resource Framework for Europe, defines them like this:

    low–"closed one way, transmissive and reproductive approaches to teaching and learning
    medium-"objectives are predetermined...methods of teaching and learning...encourage dialogue oriented forms of learning or problem based learning focusing on dealing with developing 'Knowhow'"
    high-"objectives...are determined by learnings, and teachers facilitate through open and experience oriented methods which accommodate different learning pathways"


    Thoughts?

  2. Ellen - sorry for the confusion. I will differentiate between "comments" (our discussion down here) - which can currently be edited by author only - and are currently not removable; and the "document" at the top of this page - in which you are certainly free to add, edit, insert inline comments, (I liked how you added a comment in a unique color) etc...

    Apparently there's a plugin for Confluence which allows Google Docs-like comments that float along the side of the document - which is what Confluence needs so that all the comments are just totally separate at the bottom of the page!

    Anyway, I love the idea of including pedagogical openness - brilliant! In addition, perhaps we can get something into the technology/LMS section that is similar - different levels of openness in the LMS - are students able to do anything in the course besides reply to discussion posts and submit documents? Can they create their own quizzes and learning artifacts and easily share them with others in the class? Could they add a new discussion forum or wiki to the course to start a study group if they wanted? 

    1. I love the idea of applying pedagogical openness to the LMS, and would suggest we also do this with ePortfolios (smile)

      1. I don't think we want to drill down into various applications of openness and try to identify specific qualities for those, e.g. pedagogical openness related to the LMS or e-portfolios (sorry to pick on you Ellen). I think we should abstract the OMM so that it is applicable to any project/initiative/discipline. For example, if we agree "transparency" or "self-organization" are attributes or qualities found within open projects/artifacts, then anything that calls itself an "open" something, like open pedagogies would have to have these present. How does open pedagogies provide transparency or self-organization?

  3. I think this points to artifacts rather than specific processes. That is the process of doing something is an artifact (evidence) that the attribute of openness is present. For example, if we think transparency is an attribute that creates some level of openness and leads to greater openness, then we would want to see evidence (process/artifacts) like a wiki, or videos of all board meetings, etc.

  4. Enabled greater permissions for users (remove comments and attachments, remove/restrict pages)

  5. Yeah the original idea for this was based on the existing use/recognition of maturity models, but I think Ellen's point is a good one. We do not want to propose open is the best way, we simply want to provide those who do want to work openly a way to assess the organization they are looking at. Look at this thing I just found: Wealthy Affiliate University, The Open Education Project (http://www.wealthyaffiliate.com/). Nothing else to date, for me, provides better evidence that a project like ours is needed.

    So I am all for taking the value judgment out of the name and language. That means we should probably not use "rating" either.

    How about, "Open Index?" Index means: Something that serves to guide, point out, or otherwise facilitate reference.

    Then we can use the symbols as Ellen mentions. I would say we would also need to avoid using numbers which inherently convey value (1 is best, of 5 is more "something" than a 3). We could try and do something akin to the CC licenses, "BY" "SA" "NC" etc. Looking at the above maybe we just put the first letter, "P" = a "participatory" organization, "R" = a "reflective" organization (of course with two "H's" we would need to rename one. The we would have something like:

    RS

    R

    Using colors too might convey value (red = bad, yellow = warning, green = good). What about if we used the letters, then super scripted the position of that quality in the index. While I agree we do not want to place a value on the organization based on the openness present within the organization, another purpose here is to provide a path toward more openness (if folks want it). This was originally a causality map, that is a set of attributes and activities an organization must undertake to reach the next set of attributes and activities, e.g. only if an organization communicates can it be transparent. So what about something like this:

    R3S3R4

    Patrick

    1. I spent some time reading "scam" reviews and real reviews of the Wealthy Affiliate University, and the fact that they call this "The Open Education Project" is extremely distressing! Talk about fraud!

      I like the idea of using a model similar to CC licencing. I also like the idea of using a letter with a superscript. I do think that 3Rs might be confusing though, so maybe we can come up with a replacement for one of them.

    2. This sounds reasonable to me - though what about Openness Index vs. Open Index? I think I'd prefer Openness Index.

      The red/yellow/green thing is also pretty universal which is good, but not very universal design/accessible (at least for the color blind) so there would have to be something in addition to just the color differentiation. I'd go with red= largely closed?, yellow = partially open, green = open ? Or actually - we could still borrow from the eMM - and have more levels as above: fully open, largely open, partially open, not open, not assessed... - and could use a similar color scale: but i'd go with white = open, and each shade darker moves toward black - closed (kind of the opposite of eMM - working toward the light (smile)

      http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/sites/default/files/u14/EMM.jpg

       

      1. Would the gray scale also imply a ranking? I like Openness Index as well. I thought I should search around to see if there was already an "openness index." I found this:

        A Call for Education

        What the mobile industry needs is not more marketing hype around the benefits of openness, but more education and clarity on governance models. The industry also needs a benchmark - a sort of openness index - for determining the true dynamics of an open source product, and for pushing the corporate sponsors to play fair. At VisionMobile we have been quietly working towards developing an openness index and are keen to hear from companies who want to make this happen. - http://timreview.ca/article/330

        Let's contact them. I will email him, and copy you two?

  6. Below are the key governance criteria from the OGI. How might these map to what is above? Some are clear, such as transparency, but what about others? And in looking, it seems that one rating for each of the openness values/principles, etc. above might not be enough. For example, transparency of documentation, vs. transparency of governance, vs. of community, vs. of other areas may vary widely. Similarly, thinking of licensing, this is a large area as we've seen recently in the Openness CG conversations.

    OGI Key Governance Criteria

    Access

    1. Is source code freely available to all developers, at the same time? (Transparency)

    2. Is source code available under a permissive OSI-approved license?

    3. Developer support mechanisms – are project mailing lists, forums, bug-tracking databases, source

      code repositories, developer documentation and developer tools available to all developers? (Transparency)

    4. Is the project roadmap available publicly? (Transparency)

    5. Transparency of decision mechanisms – are project meeting minutes/discussions publicly

      available such that it is possible to understand why and how decisions are made relating to the project? (Transparency)

    Development

    1. Transparency of contributions and acceptance process – is the code contribution and acceptance process clear, with progress updates of the contribution provided (via Bugzilla or similar)? (Transparency)

    2. Transparency of contributions to the project – can you identify from whom source code contributions originated? (Transparency)

    3. Accessibility to become a committer – are the requirements and process to become a committer documented, and is this an equitable process (i.e., can all developers potentially become committers?). Note that a “committer” is a developer who can ‘commit’ code to the open source project. The terms ‘maintainer’ and ‘reviewer’ are also used as alternatives by some projects.

    4. Transparency of committers – can you identify who committers to the project are? (Transparency)

    5. Does the contribution license require a copyright assignment, a copyright license or patent grant?

    Derivatives

    1. Are trademarks used to control how and where the platform is used via enforcing a compliance process prior to distribution?

    2. Are go-to-market channels for applications derivatives constrained by the project in terms of approval, distribution or discovery?

    Community Structure

    13. Is the community structure flat or hierarchical (i.e., are there tiered rights depending on membership status?)

    1. It looks like the OGI is set up to measure specific artifacts and activities (e.g. code repositories and meetings). I think these might be evidence for transparency (or actually communications), but not every project would output or participate in the same artifacts or activities. I think the above examples might be evidence for transparency. So if you do release code, can anyone access it? For 2-3-98 we would make this wiki available to all at the same time. I suppose there is a presumption that governance requires a certain set of attributes: the group needs meetings. I don't want to presume that any organization must operate in any way. Rather, there should be a way to assess the way they do operate.

      I think the OSI is a good reference for us. It might be that we ask organizations to list all of the artifacts/activities that are produced as part of their operations (governance), then they assess transparency against each:

      • List of artifacts produced in governance/operations: meeting minutes, wiki pages, emails, list servs, etc.
      • Assessment criteria: Transparency
      • Index: Initial, Repeatable, Defined, Managed, Optimized:
      TransparencyMeeting MinutesWiki PagesEmailsListServs
      InitialNotes are kept at one/some meetings on one person's computer. They will be shared if asked for.A wiki for the organization exists.All members of the organization is given an email account to use.A ListServ exists.
      RepeatableNotes are kept at each meeting. They will be shared if asked for.The organization's secretary adds content to the wiki.Several members of the organization use email to communicate.ListServ use is uncommon.
      Defined

      Notes will be taken through TitianPad. Anyone at the meeting may contribute to the notes during the meeting. TitanPad Notes will be posted in real time to Confluence. The notes page in Confluence will remain open to anyone for viewing and commenting.

      There are no standards for using or accessing the wikiEach member of the organization is required to use only the organization's email service for organizational communications.There are defined practices for ListServ use.
      ManagedThe secretary of the organization will ensure that the defined process occurs for each meeting.There is no over site of the wiki to enforce standardsThere is no oversight in place to asses email use or practices.There is no oversight of ListServ use.
      OptimizedEach month the meeting minutes process is reviewed by the Board of Directors.There are no discussions about how to improve the wikiThere are no ongoing discussions about email use or practices.There is no discussions about the use/refinement of ListServ use.
  7. I think an index needs to quickly answer the questions an individual might have with regards to Openness, and those questions are related to the intent of the project in the first place: should I do business with this entity based on my own needs and philosophy. With licensing options, it tells individuals exactly how they can use that artifact, which provides them with the information they need to decide whether or not they want to use that artifact (benefit vs cost). So, as I look at using OERs, for example, I"m concerned with the type of license that OER has applied to it–can I use it as I need to use it without violating the license.  If I turned this into questions: I would want to know is there a cost associated with using it? If I use it do I need to cite the source and if so who/what do I cite? Can I use this in a course? If I need to edit the original, so that it fits my needs, can I use it and under what conditions? etc. The CC license is designed to quickly answer those questions for me.

    I think the same needs to be true of this. Who is our audience, who needs to know about the Openness Index and what questions should this answer quickly for them?  The VisionMobile report asks these questions:

    Who decides on the project roadmap?

    How transparent are the decision-making processes?

    Can anyone follow the discussions and meetings taking place in the community?

    Can anyone create derivatives based on the project?

    What compliance requirements are there for creating derivative handsets or applications, and how are these requirements enforced?

    I would boil that down to these areas (and I'm sure I've missed some):

    1. Transparency: to what level is information about process, projects, procedures, etc transparent
    2. Community: on what level can an individual/organization participate in the organization
    3. Decision-making or Effect: on what level are decisions made and how are they made, to what level can I affect the decisions
    4. Derivatives: who can create derivatives and under what conditions.
    1. Ellen - I think you hit on something important here.  Who is the Openness Index for?  I will point to two other projects (one has closed) both are maturity models, but are positioned for different audiences.

      Open BRR is a maturity model meant to be used by prospective "users/purchasers) of software.  It is a way for somebody to make a more informed procurement/adoption decision based on the maturity of an OSS project. 

      eMM is a maturity model intended for internal maturity assessment and continuous improvement (as an aside, it can also be used for benchmarking).  In this case "managers" might use the eMM metrics to help them understand their current level and engagement in a cycle of capacity investment based on measurable behaviors.

      I think that the Openness Index would be most useful as a tool for organizational self-assessment and improvement (as an aside, it could be used for benchmarking as well).  If the Index goes this way, we will need reflective questions to guide data collection (evidence) of capacity that effectively supports open practice.

      Thoughts?

       

      Ken

       

       

  8. Hello All - I am struggling a little here.  In the eMM model the dimensions

    • Dimension 1 (Delivery) is concerned with the creation and delivery of process outcomes. Assessments of this dimension are aimed at determining the extent to which the process is seen to operate within the institution. It is important to emphasise that institutions can have extremely effective processes operating within this dimension, but in the absence of capability in other dimensions there is risk of failure or unsustainable delivery and wasting resources through needless duplication.
    • Dimension 2 (Planning) assesses the use of predefined objectives and plans in conducting the work of the process. The use of predefined plans potentially makes process outcomes more able to be managed effectively and reproduced if successful.
    • Dimension 3 (Definition) covers the use of institutionally defined and documented standards, guidelines, templates and policies during the process implementation. An institution operating effectively within this dimension has clearly defined how a given process should be performed. This does not mean that the staff of the institution follows this guidance.
    • Dimension 4 (Management) is concerned with how the institution manages the process implementation and ensures the quality of the outcomes. Capability within this dimension reflects the extent of measurement and control of the outcomes and the way in which the practices of the process are performed by the staff of the institution.
    • Dimension 5 (Optimisation) captures the extent an institution is using formal approaches to improve capability measured within the other dimensions of this process. Capability of this dimension reflects a culture of continuous improvement.

    are applied to processes that are included in process categories:

    • Learning
    • Development
    • Support
    • Evaluation
    • Organization

     

    What we have here in the Openness Index are Values, Principles, and Objectives.  Do we need processes?  That is, do we need things that we can "mature."

     

    Objectives (Organizational / Strategic)

    My feeling is that we could judge the "quality" of a process based on its Objective.  Does the process lead to or support:

      • Simplicity
      • Emergence
      • Incremental Development
      • Rapid Feedback
      • Continuous Feedback

    if so, then it is a process that merits inclusion in the Openness Index.

    Principles (Administrative / Tactical)

    Is the process administered such that the principles of

      • Communication
      • Transparency
      • Self-Organization
      • Collaboration
      • Evidence-Based Decision Making
      • Meritocracy

    are evident?

    Values (Individual / Operational)

    In practice do actors exhibit the values of

      • Courage
      • Participation
      • Honesty
      • Reflection
      • Humility

    while engaging in the process?

     

    I think that we would have to start by identifying generic organizational function and through a bunch of iterations, break them down into processes that we can apply the Dimensions at the appropriate levels.

    Objectives = Evidence of Organizational Intent

    Principles = Evidence of Administrative Outcomes

    Values = Evidence of Individual Behaviors

     

    What am I missing?  Am I in left field?  -Ken

  9. Good day all,

    Thank you for the opportunity. I would like to know the present status of the Openness Index. Is the index done, tested and ready for use? Thank you for your time.

    Babasile Daniel

  10. Hello and thanks for asking.

    The Openness Index is still currently in development.

    The Openness Index currently serves as a reference for continued discussions around measuring the authenticity of openness within organizations. Due to limited inputs, there may not be sufficient perspectives to further the Index. So while the Index can serve as a framework for continued development, it cannot be completed without more contributions from other communities of practice (i.e. open educational resources, open access journals, open content, open research, open source projects, etc.).

    The Index's current state should be sufficient to:

    • Convey the purpose and need of such an approach
    • Describe the value of such an approach
    • Suggest a framework of such an approach
    • Offer initial criteria and assessments for such an approach

    Additional work is needed to build out each criterion's maturity model as well as examples that embody those criteria. This would be most beneficial if collected from various organizations that value openness.