Documentation/Maturity model for MediaWiki technical documentation

Overview
This page contains a tentative outline, research and citations for a maturity model for the MediaWiki / Wikimedia technical documentation organization and content. The maturity model is intended to guide assessments about the quality of the existing organizational structure, processes for producing technical documentation and assessing the quality of technical documentation content on MediaWiki and across Wikimedia projects. and help set standards for planning future technical documentation on MediaWiki / WikiMedia projects.

This is a current Q3 (Jan/Feb/March 2019) for the Wikimedia Developer Advocacy team.

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T212003

Benefits of maturity models
According to the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon:

""Using a maturity model as the foundation for improving processes, practices, and performance provides organizations and communities the ability to:

Benchmark internal performance. Using a standard measurement approach based on the model content, organizations can determine where they are in their improvement journey and set targets for future investments in performance improvement. Different operating units in the same organization can also use the benchmark to compare performance, particularly when similar functions are performed in the operating units.

Catalyze performance improvement. By taking measurements against the model over a period of time, organizations can use the model as the basis for continuous performance improvement. And, because the model reflects the best practices of the domain or discipline, it can be used as the basis for developing action plans to close performance gaps and improve maturity.

Catalyze improvements in community performance. Because the model and measurement approach tie the community together, organizations can not only compare their performance against peer organizations but also determine a “community” performance profile. Creating such a profile may spur additional community investment in common and shared challenge problems.

Create and evolve a common language. Maturity models often create a consistent way of thinking and communicating about a domain that is embodied in model language or taxonomy. Consistent language and communication helps domains of knowledge evolve into disciplines where a common language can translate into repeatable, consistent, and predictable performance over time""

History: capability maturity model levels
Capability maturity models became the basis for many other types of maturity models including those for information management.

There are five levels defined along the continuum of the model and, according to the SEI: "Predictability, effectiveness, and control of an organization's software processes are believed to improve as the organization moves up these five levels. While not rigorous, the empirical evidence to date supports this belief." The progression of levels outlined in the capability maturity model provide a framework for creating maturity models in other disciplines.


 * 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
 * 4) Capable - the process is quantitatively managed in accordance with agreed-upon metrics.
 * 5) Efficient - process management includes deliberate process optimization/improvement.

Learn more about the capability maturity model.

Information process maturity model levels
The information process maturity model speaks to how information is produced within the organization. This can be applied to the technical documentation / communication organization within the context of the larger organization.

The following descriptions are specific to Mediawiki / Wikimedia organizational structure and resources, specific to technical documentation and communication:


 * 1) Ad Hoc: (Needs Improvement): Characterized by lack of uniform practices. Lone technical writers/communicators managed by non-technical writers/communicators; volunteer technical writers/communicators with varying skill sets. Processes are unique to individual technical writers/communicators, rather than standard, agreed upon across the organization or community. Lack of formal method for prioritizing projects. No clear understanding of scope and scale of existing technical documentation, future needs for technical documentation, or overall quality of content collections. No clear understanding of users or mechanisms for user feedback.
 * 2) Rudimentary: (Needs improvement): Rudimentary standards and processes are being implemented under the guidance of a technical writing/communication professional. Style guides and standards are introduced. Formal processes for managing technical documentation are discussed with attempts at implementation. Early formal processes may include, quality assurance, peer review, copy and developmental editing. However, implementation of processes is not prioritized. Support or resources (time, money, staff) may not be committed. Processes still lack consistency in implementation.
 * 3) Organized and repeatable: (Baseline) Under strong leadership, staff and community agree on uniform processes and are committed to following them. Uniform tools, standards and templates are used. Audience / user needs take priority and inform technical documentation content and organization. Documentation projects are identified by priority and scoped; planning and quality assurance are recognized as key elements to their success. Qualified technical writers/communicators guide this process. At this stage, staff and volunteers may recognize technical content collections in need of redesign and revision. User research is identified as essential to successful quality technical documentation. Technical writers/communicators are working across teams in the organization to surface shared needs, establish benchmarks and identify projects.
 * 4) Managed and sustainable: (Superior) This organization is well-managed and has made a strong commitment to follow through on practices and practices outlined in level three. These process and practices (and with them the quality of technical documentation) will not suffer from changes to management or overturning staff or volunteers. Planning and training would continue. More specialized staff members are hired with a focus on specific aspects of technical writing / communication: document managers, writers, designers, user researchers, etc. An increased focus on user experience takes place at this level. The organization is committed to understanding its users needs and implementing strategies for improvements to technical documentation that best suit these needs. The organization focuses on ways to widen the scope of its technical documentation and training and engage new audiences.
 * 5) Optimizing: (Superior) A self-actualized organization with the maturity to evaluate its own established practices with quality and innovation in mind, an agile organization that can respond to the needs of users and technical collaborators swiftly, as they arise. An organization that seeks improvement and alignment with the strategic direction of the larger organization. Staff members are experienced and knowledgeable; they collaborate effectively with the community and seek to understand the needs of users. They encourage and guide volunteer contributions and work to build sustainable relationships and partnerships with community members who have technical writing / communication skill sets or who wish to grow their skill sets in the context of the movement. This organization looks to similar organizations to evaluate its practices and standards. This organization seeks to be a standard barer and example of excellence within the context of similar organizations.

Descriptions here are specific to technical documentation content collections and articles:


 * 1) Ad Hoc: (Needs Improvement): Everyone agrees that somebody should do something about documentation, but no one is responsible for establishing or guiding a process. No one is responsible for clarifying or answering questions users may have about documentation. Documentation is created on the spot or as an afterthought, rather than a priority. If technical documentation exists, content collections are disorganized. Information is hard to find. Wikipages are created as containers for information that needs to be somewhere, but organization and layout are not a consideration. No one knows exactly what is documented or where. Information may be duplicative across collections or projects. There are no standard templates for creating different genres (walk-throughs, recipes, FAQs, reference guides, etc) and the document may have elements of all of these. The purpose of a technical document is often unclear. It may cover many topics or just one topic. Information maybe outdated or missing. Similar pages or complementary resources are not linked. There is no clear process for requesting new documentation or requesting updates. There is no process for formally peer editing or testing the technical documentation. Audience is not considered. The style guide, if it exists, is not followed, as a standard.
 * 2) Rudimentary: (Needs improvement):
 * 3) Organized and repeatable: (Baseline)
 * 4) Managed and sustainable: (Superior)
 * 5) Optimizing: (Superior)

At the organizational level:

 * Does the organization support its staff and the community, within the reporting structure and through concentrated efforts to promote efforts to produce and maintain high quality, current technical documentation to technical collaborators? Are there adequate resources (people and funding)? Is there support from the leadership team?
 * Is there an established planning process to for MediaWiki technical documentation, to ensure proper coverage of timely, quality technical documentation, which meets the needs of the intended audience?
 * Is there a system for peer reviewing and editing technical documentation to ensure quality and accuracy?
 * Are the tools and methods used for technical documentation and content managment agreed upon and consistently employed by staff and community members across the organization?
 * Does the organization have the ability to estimate the time or cost (in staff and volunteer hours) of specific technical documentation projects? Is the organization able to effectively judge whether there is value in concentrating efforts on specific technical content or if resources would be more effectively directed elsewhere?
 * Is there appropriate staffing to undertake technical documentation projects that produce quality content? Are there sufficient resources and support for volunteers in the community who wish to work on these projects?
 * Does the organization actively promote activities (training, write-a-thons/hack-a-thons, conference attendance, community outreach) to demonstrate interest and support for technical documentation efforts?
 * Does the organization actively support efforts to understand audience/user needs in order to ensure technical documentation is appropriate and usable?
 * Are technical communicators and writers collaborating to improve quality and consistency of technical documentation across the organizations projects?
 * Is there a solid, supported strategy for working with the community on technical documentation projects?
 * Are the technical documentation/communication organizations content and community strategies aligned fully with the movement strategy?
 * Is improved technical communication a priority for and measurably supported by management and senior leadership, at the organization?

At the technical documentation article level

 * What are the top success measures for this documentation as defined by its audience? Does this documentation meet those success measures?
 * Were usability requirements defined for this document prior to creating it? Were they met?
 * Is the documentation accurate and up-to-date?
 * Is the purpose of the documentation clear?
 * Is the audience for the documentation well-defined?
 * Is the genre of the document appropriate for its content? Was the appropriate template used to create the document?
 * Does the structure and layout of the document facilitate easy information flow and access?
 * Does the documentation meet the standards outlined in the MediaWiki Style Guide? Is the  documentation error-free?
 * Has the documentation been reviewed and tested for usability?
 * Is the community conversation / discussion about the document healthy and productive?

What does mature technical documentation look like?
What does mature technical documentation look like?

Analyzing and measuring measuring improvements to technical documentation

 * Identify the main business goals for improving technicaldocumentation content. Where is the organization meeting these? Where is the organization falling short?
 * What are the main community / user identified success measures? Where is the organization meeting these? Where is the organization falling short?
 * Is it possible to measure increased effectiveness/productivity/satisfaction for users who find information and are able to implement it with more ease?
 * What does user feedback look like over time?
 * Are you documenting process improvements?
 * Perform periodic content and community audits

Citations, resources, readings

 * J. Hackos, Managing Your Documentation Projects. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1993
 * J. Hackos, Information Process Maturity Model, 017 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm), 2017
 * S. Huang, S. Tilley, Towards a documentation maturity model, SIGDOC '03 Proceedings of the 21st annual international conference on Documentation, 2003
 * A. Gentle, Conversation and Community: The Social Web for Documentation, 2nd ed, California: XML Press, 2012
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maturity_model
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model
 * Maturity Models 101 - Carnegie Mellon SEI:
 * Measurement and Analysis in Capability Maturity Model Integration Models and Software Process Improvement
 * https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?assetid=11965
 * https://opensource.com/open-organization/17/10/readme-maturity-model
 * http://www.contentstrategyinc.com/understanding-content-maturity-model/