Understanding the Maturity of Sustainable ICT

Chapter

Abstract

Sustainable ICT (SICT) can develop solutions that offer benefits both internally in IT and across the extended enterprise. However, because the field is new and evolving, few guidelines and best practices are available. There is a need to improve the SICT behaviours, practices and processes within organizations to deliver greater value from SICT. To address the issue, a consortium of leading organizations from industry, the nonprofits sector, and academia decided to develop a framework for systematically assessing and improving SICT capabilities. The SICT Capability Maturity Framework (SICT-CMF) gives organizations a vital tool to manage their sustainability capability. The framework provides a comprehensive value-based model for organizing, evaluating, planning, and managing SICT capabilities. Using the framework, organizations can assess the maturity of their SICT capability and systematically improve capabilities in a measurable way to meet the sustainability objectives including reducing environmental impacts and increasing profitability. The core of SICT-CMF is a maturity model for SICT which provides a management system with associated improvement roadmaps that guide senior IT and business management in selecting strategies to continuously improve, develop, and manage the sustainable IT capability. This chapter describes the SICT-CMF and the use of it to determine the maturity of sustainable IT capability within a number of leading organisations. The chapter highlights the challenges in managing SICT and motivates the benefit of maturity models. The development process for the SICT-CMF is discussed and the role of Design Science in the development cycle is explored. The application of the resulting model and its use to measure SICT maturity is discussed together with an analysis of the average results for organisations using the model. The chapter concludes with practical insights gained from the assessments.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to recognise the contribution of the members of the Innovative Value Institute’s Sustainable Information and Communication Technology (SICT) working group. Enterprise Ireland funded part of the work presented in this chapter under Grant CC/2009/0801.

References

  1. Boudreau, M.-C., Chen, A. J., & Huber, M. (2008). Green IS: Building sustainable business practices. In R. T. Watson (Ed.), Information systems (pp. 247–261). Athens, GA: Global Text Project.Google Scholar
  2. Bratteteig, T. (2007). Design research in informatics. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 65–74.Google Scholar
  3. Brinkkemper, S. (1996). Method engineering: Engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology, 38(4), 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlsson, S. D. (2010). Design science research in information systems: A critical realist approach. In A. Hevner & S. Chatterjee (Eds.), Design science research in information systems: Theory and practice, Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Curley, M. (2004). Managing information technology for business value. Hillsboro, OR: Intel Press.Google Scholar
  6. Donnellan, B., Sheridan, C., & Curry, E. (2011). A capability maturity framework for sustainable information and communication technology. IT Professional, 13(1), 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Enkvist, P., Naucler, T., & Rosander, J. (2007, February). A cost curve for greenhouse gas reduction. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1–11.Google Scholar
  8. Gutzwiller, T. A. (1994). Das CC RIM-Referenzmodell für den Entwurf von betrieblichen, transaktionsorientierten Informationssystemen. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.Google Scholar
  10. March, S. T., & Smith, G. G. (1995). Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(4), 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mettler, T., & Rohner, P. (2009). Situational maturity models as instrumental artefacts for organizational design. Paper presented at the DESRIST’09, Malvern, PA.Google Scholar
  12. Molla, A., Cooper, V., Corbitt, B., Deng, H., Peszynski, K., Pittayachawan, S., & Teoh, S. Y. (2008). E-readiness to G-readiness: Developing a green information technology readiness framework. ACIS 2008 Proceedings. Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  13. Murugesan, S. (2008). Harnessing Green IT: Principles and practices. IT Professional, 10(1), 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. O’Flynn, A. (2010). Green IT: The global benchmark. Fujitsu: White paper.Google Scholar
  15. Paulk, M. C., Weber, C. V., Curtis, B., & Chrissis, M. B. (1993). Capability maturity model for software (version 1.1) (Tech. Rep. No. CMU/SEI-93-TR-024 ESC-TR-93-177). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  16. Punter, T., & Lemmen, K. (1996). The META-model: Towards a new approach for method engineering. Information and Software Technology, 38(4), 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosemann, M., & de Bruin, T. (2005, February). Application of a holistic model for determining BPM maturity. BPTrends, 2004, 1–20.Google Scholar
  18. Webb, M. (2008). Enabling the low carbon economy in the information age: The climate group. 21st Feb 2012 Retrieved from http://www.smart2020.org/_assets/files/02_Smart2020Report.pdf 21st Feb 2012

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Digital Enterprise Research InstituteNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  2. 2.National University of IrelandMaynoothIreland

Personalised recommendations