**ITAM Capability Maturity Models**

The concept of a capability maturity model is steeped in the belief that
with a conscious effort toward achieving well-defined goals and with a
clear understanding of the baseline upon which one is making
improvements, organizations can make and measure progress over time.

Typically maturity models are based on conceptual building blocks,
ascending tiers toward evolving organizational processes. Each tier of
the structure typically denotes a descriptive state of operational
conditions, while also designating measures that can be taken to ascend
to higher rungs that represent more evolved states of maturity.

There are many maturity models that have been introduced in the realm of
Information Technology Asset Management (ITAM). Some models focus on the
maturity of the IT assets themselves--- a cradle to grave treatment from
asset purchase to retirement. Other models focus on the maturity-level
of the organization toward successfully managing its IT assets. This
latter genre of models is more informative to the vision and objectives
of a federal-wide ITAM program.

This document features three (3) ITAM Capability Maturity Models of this
latter genre, offering them as guides that federal agencies might
consider in their IT asset management efforts.

The first featured model is the ***SAM Optimization Model***. KPMG
recommends this model which it says is an adaptation of one originally
introduced by Microsoft. The SAM Optimization Model outlines four stages
of maturity: *basic, standardized, rationalized and optimized.* As ITAM
maturity models go, this model is among the most comprehensive and
integrative in that it incorporates standards promoted by the
International Organization for Standardization. It allows an
organization to track its maturity level based on its competency across
10 critical areas outlined by ISO 19770-1.

The second model included in this document is the ***Process Maturity
Model for IT Asset Management***. Proposed by Patricia Adams of Gartner
(2003), it is perhaps the most popularly cited model across ITAM
literature. It describes five levels of maturity and the attributes and
goals of each: *chaotic, reactive, proactive, service-oriented, and
value creation.*

The third model included in this document is a ***Model of Maturity
Levels and Attributes*** proposed by Irv Brownstein of TPG: The
Productivity Group (2004). This model is discussed in an article
published in the *Software Manager* monthly newsletter on ECPweb.com. It
outlines five levels of maturity and describes the attributes of each
level in terms of processes, tools, learning culture, levels of
sponsorship, and estimated savings. The five levels of maturity it
describes are: *chaotic, progressive, business integration, optimized,
and transformation.*

**Model-1: The SAM (Software Asset Management) Optimization Model**

The first featured model, shown below, is the ***SAM Optimization
Model***. It outlines four stages of maturity: *basic, standardized,
rationalized and optimized.* As ITAM maturity models go, this model is
among the most comprehensive and integrative in that it incorporates
standards promoted by the International Organization for
Standardization. It allows an organization to track its maturity level
based on its competency across 10 critical areas outlined by ISO
19770-1. Other facets of the model follow on the next two pages of the
document.

![](media/image1.png){width="6.367361111111111in"
height="4.3597222222222225in"}

Figure 1. The SAM (Software Asset Management) Optimization Model

The chart below displays critical areas of ISO 19770-1 (Organizational
Management; SAM Core Inventory; SAM Core Verification; SAM Core
Operations Management and Interfaces; and Life-cycle Process
Interfaces). It maps each of these ISO areas to 10 Key SAM Competency
Areas---1) SAM throughout the Organization; 2) SAM Self Improvement
Plan; 3) Hardware and Software Inventory; 4) Accuracy of Inventory; 5)
License Entitlement Records; 6) Periodic Self Evaluation; 7) Operations
Management Records Interfaces; 8) Acquisition Process; 9) Deployment
Process; and 10) Retirement Process.

![](media/image2.png){width="7.370138888888889in"
height="5.503472222222222in"}

Figure 2. SAM Optimization Model Competencies

![](media/image3.png){width="8.127777777777778in"
height="5.479861111111111in"}

Figure 3. Key Performance Indicators for each SAM Competency

**SOURCES:** KPMG SAM Maturity Survey presented at the SAM Summit
Chicago IL (June 16-17, 2008) &
<http://www.kpmg.ca/en/industries/ice/software/software_asset.html> &
<http://www.kpmg.ca/en/industries/ice/software/documents/KPMGSAMMaturitySurveyOct08.pdf>

Model originator cited by source: Microsoft

**Model-2: The Process Maturity Model for IT Asset Management**

The second featured model, shown below, is the ***Process Maturity Model
for IT Asset Management***. Proposed by Patricia Adams of Gartner
(2003), it is perhaps the most popularly cited model across ITAM
literature. It has five levels of maturity: *chaotic, reactive,
proactive, service-oriented, and value creation.*

+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **Step** | **Attributes**                    | **Goals**             |
+==========+===================================+=======================+
| **1.     | No processes, dedicated people or | "Just want to know    |
| C        | tools                             | what we own, where it |
| haotic** |                                   | is, and who is using  |
|          | No assigned accountability or     | it"                   |
| Unco     | accounting for changes            |                       |
| ntrolled |                                   | One-time activity     |
| env      | Unpredictable services, support   | rather than           |
| ironment | and costs                         | systematic process    |
|          |                                   |                       |
| *30% of  | Purchasing is ad hoc              |                       |
| ente     |                                   |                       |
| rprises* | Unused hardware and software are  |                       |
|          | not controlled                    |                       |
|          |                                   |                       |
|          | Success depends on quality of     |                       |
|          | people, not processes             |                       |
|          |                                   |                       |
|          | Sub-optimization of efforts       |                       |
|          | occurs                            |                       |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **2.     | Focus is on asset counting        | Perform annual        |
| Re       |                                   | physical inventory    |
| active** | Employs physical inventory and    | and periodic spot     |
|          | some auto discovery recorded on   | audits                |
| Limited  | spreadsheets or in a database     |                       |
| accoun   |                                   | Report on asset       |
| tability | Accountability lies with IS       | counts, but cannot    |
|          | organization but there is         | produce solid detail  |
| 45% of   | ineffective change accounting     | data to identify and  |
| ent      |                                   | resolve problems      |
| erprises | Hardware and software viewed      |                       |
|          | separately, not as single complex |                       |
|          | asset                             |                       |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **3.     | There is an IT Asset Program and  | "Clearly defined      |
| Pro      | manager with dedicated staff that | processes with        |
| active** | reports to IS and finance         | accountability that   |
|          | organizations.                    | detail the practical  |
| Life     |                                   | application of        |
| cycle    | ITAM with auto discovery tools is | people, processes and |
| focus    | integrated with service desk      | tools that support    |
|          |                                   | the ITAM Program"     |
| *20% of  | Use of cross-functional teams for |                       |
| ente     | major asset management projects   | Effective change and  |
| rprises* |                                   | configuration         |
|          | Life cycle management process     | management processes  |
|          | goes from requisition, to         |                       |
|          | deployment, to retirement         | ITAM projects use     |
|          |                                   | repeatable processes  |
|          | Inventory system linked to        | that are well         |
|          | financial and contractual data    | defined, adhered to,  |
|          |                                   | reviewed, and         |
|          |                                   | re-engineered when    |
|          |                                   | necessary.            |
|          |                                   |                       |
|          |                                   | ITAM operations       |
|          |                                   | manual with asset     |
|          |                                   | taxonomy produced and |
|          |                                   | maintained            |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **4.     | Metrics are available to measure  | Create SLAs for asset |
| Service  | program value                     | management and use    |
| Or       |                                   | them as a basis for   |
| iented** | Services are delivered according  | planning              |
|          | to SLA-based plans                |                       |
| Service  |                                   | Conduct periodic      |
| level    | TCO processes in place            | reviews of service    |
| ma       |                                   | delivery quality      |
| nagement | Automated requisition is          |                       |
|          | integrated with purchasing and    | Institute an          |
| *5% of   | ERP systems                       | enterprise technology |
| ente     |                                   | refresh plan for      |
| rprises* | Just in time inventory practices  | replacement and       |
|          | used                              | retirement of         |
|          |                                   | equipment             |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **5.     | There is a cost recovery process  | Continuous process    |
| Value    |                                   | improvement with      |
| Cr       | Repository, auto discovery and    | improving metrics     |
| eation** | asset-usage tools all in place    |                       |
|          |                                   | ITAM data used for    |
| Cost     | Seamless integration with         | problem prevention    |
| recovery | strategic systems like HR,        |                       |
|          | accounting, ERP, purchasing,      | ITAM is a core        |
| \< 1% of | network and systems management,   | business process and  |
| ent      | IT service desk, problem and      | business enabler      |
| erprises | change management tools, and      |                       |
|          | business continuity process       | Measurement of        |
|          |                                   | efficiency (employee  |
|          | Decision support and analytic     | productivity) and     |
|          | tools available for mining asset  | effectiveness         |
|          | information                       | (customer             |
|          |                                   | satisfaction) of      |
|          |                                   | business processes    |
|          |                                   | across all IT assets  |
|          |                                   | in the enterprise.    |
+----------+-----------------------------------+-----------------------+

**SOURCE:**
<http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/ITIP/docs/ArchCh6_AssetMgt_v1_0.doc>
pp. 3-5 (March 2004)

Author cited by source: Patricia Adams of Gartner (Sep 10, 2003) in
article: *"Management Update: IT Asset Management Stages Form the
Stairway to Success"*

**Model-3: A Model of Maturity Levels and Attributes**

The third featured model, shown below, is a ***Model of Maturity Levels
and Attributes.*** It outlines five levels of maturity and describes the
attributes of each level in terms of processes, tools, learning culture,
levels of sponsorship, and estimated savings. The five levels of
maturity are: *chaotic, progressive, business integration, optimized,
and transformation.*

![](media/image4.png){width="7.690277777777778in"
height="5.071527777777778in"}

Figure 4. Model of Maturity Levels and Attributes

**SOURCES:** [http://www.ECPweb.com](http://www.ECPweb.com/) (April
2004) & <http://www.ecpmedia.com/products/sam_survey.html>

Author cited by source: Irv Brownstein who can be reached at
<Irv.Brownstein@SAMbenchmark.com>