数据管理能力成熟度模型比较研究与启示

目的/意义] 对比分析数据管理能力成熟度模型,为图书馆选择与应用数据管理能力成熟度模型提供参考方案。方法/过程] 通过模型文本的研究,介绍各模型的结构。采用比较分析法从评价维度（功能域）的设置、模型的组织体系、评价标准与规则、可操作性、公开度等5个方面对7个数据管理能力成熟度模型进行评析。结果/结论] 每个模型具有其特色功能。CMMI、DMM、DCAM和中国DCMM的评价维度较为全面,中国DCMM即中国-数据中心服务能力成熟度模型具有较强的操作性,且其定量与定性相结合的评价方法值得借鉴。研究数据管理的能力成熟度模型（雪城大学秦健教授团队）和研究数据管理能力成熟度模型（澳大利亚ANDS）考虑图书馆数据管理的实际情况,可作为首选模型。基于各模型的对比与评析结果,形成3种适应不同情境的图书馆选择与应用数据管理能力成熟度模型的方案。

The Comparative Research and Reference on Capability Maturity Models for Data Management

Purpose/significance] This paper compares the main capability maturity models (CMM thereafter) for data management in order to provide references for libraries to select and use such a model.Method/process] The structure of each model was introduced through a literature review and content analysis. The comparative analysis method was also used to evaluate 7 CMMs for data management from 5 aspects, including evaluation dimensions, organizational system, evaluation rules, operability, and openness.Result/conclusion] Each model has its own features. The evaluation dimensions of CMMI DMM, DCAM, and DCMM are relatively comprehensive. Service capability maturity model of data center has strong operability, and its quantitative and qualitative evaluation method is worth learning from. CMMs for RDM(QIN J) and CMMs for RDM(ANDS) consider the actual situation of data management in libraries and can be used as preferred models. Based on the comparison of each model, three schemes have been formed for libraries in selecting and application of CMMs for data management.