The assessment of quality maturity levels in Nigerian university libraries

Abstract

Purpose -Organizations constantly evaluate their activities to ensure that they are attaining their management goals. Maturity assessment enables organisations to examine their capabilities, support innovation and evaluate development. This paper evaluates the maturity statuses of a selection of Nigerian university libraries in a study to investigate their quality management (QM) approaches. The study provides recommendations for means to attain the required statuses in academic library development.Design/methodology/approach -The study involved a multisite case study in which interviews were conducted with 15 university librarians (or their representatives) and 10 focus groups were conducted with non-management library staff. The resulting qualitative data was analyzed using an aspect of framework analysis -charting, while a maturity model from the field of project management (Prince 2 Maturity Model, P2MM) was used to assess maturity in QM of the libraries.Findings -The results of the maturity assessment indicate a basic knowledge of the concept of QM implementation amongst the libraries. The scores obtained on the P2MM capability scale placed the libraries studied mainly on Level 1(awareness level) of the model. Practical implications -This paper demonstrates that the culture of QM in academic libraries in Nigeria isat a low level with considerable potential for development. It is suggested that future adoption of quality maturity models to assess performance and organisational effectiveness would aid improvements for valueadded services.Originality/value -This is the first study to attempt the assessment of quality maturity levels in Nigerian academic libraries for identification of the organization's positioning in QM and strategy.

Maturitas Inovasi di Pusat Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia Aparatur (PPSDMA)

“…Banyak organisasi dalam membangun kematangan inovasi di organisasinya terjebak dalam perangkap R&D sehingga dibutuhkan matrik kematangan inovasi yang lebih sederhana (Egberongbe et al, 2017). Menurut (Demir, 2018) Demir mendasarkan pada CMMI sehingga dibutuhkan penyederhanaan lebih lanjut (Babaei & Aghdassi, 2020).…”

The Library Assessment Capability Maturity Model: A Means of Optimizing How Libraries Measure Effectiveness

“…An early version of the QMM was applied by Tang (2012) in benchmarking quality assurance practices of university libraries in the Australian Technology Network. Egberongbe and Willett (2017) refer to an assessment of quality maturity level in Nigerian university libraries that applied the Prince 2 Maturity Model from the field of project management. Similarly, within a university library in Sri Lanka, Wijetunge (2012) reported using a version of a knowledge management maturity model; however, like Willett (2017), this also did not apply a CMM in its development.…”

Paving the way for industry 4.0 maturity of construction enterprises: a state of the art review

“…Santos-Neto and Costa (2019) pointed out that some notable fields where maturity models have been applied are the medical sector (Mccarthy et al. , 2014), supply chain management (Lockamy and Mccormack, 2004), education (Egberongbe et al. , 2017), e-governance (Misra and Dhingra, 2002), project management (Grant and Pennypacker, 2006), knowledge management (Serenko et al.…”

“…Maturity models emerged from software engineering, but their usage has crossed industry boundaries. Santos-Neto and Costa (2019) pointed out that some notable fields where maturity models have been applied are the medical sector (Mccarthy et al, 2014), supply chain management (Lockamy and Mccormack, 2004), education (Egberongbe et al, 2017), e-governance (Misra and Dhingra, 2002), project management (Grant and Pennypacker, 2006), knowledge management (Serenko et al, 2016) and enterprise interoperability (Campos et al, 2013). Prominent earlier researchers in construction management and economics also have adopted maturity models for their studies (Sarshar et al, 1999;Ruikar et al, 2006;Alshawi, 2007;Bew and Richards, 2008;Succar, 2009).…”