Company Maturity Matrix

Authors

  • Olga Eckardt Independent Researcher

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/emaj.2018.148

Keywords:

Anti-Fragile, Company Maturity Matrix, Sustainable Business, Model Development, Company Life-Cycle

Abstract

The paper presents a Company Maturity Matrix as the possible interaction between two critical variables in management science: “Anti-Fragile” introduced by Nasim Taleb and measurement of cumulative experience as ability to manage company effectiveness and efficiency. The approach is to develop and represent a model as matrix coming from Boston Group Matrix. Both of variables are known and widely discussed, but the “Anti-Fragile” concept after its introduction has been isolated from other approaches, tools and measurements as a single research field. The aim of this research is to develop a simple framework (model) that could help to deeply understand the maturity level of a company, and use this matrix as the tool to develop different aspects of management in the company. On the next step, this theoretical framework can be used in empirical validation, which will lead to the building of a company life-cycle management. 

References

Ansoff, H. I. (1957). Strategies for diversification. Harvard business review, 35(5), 113-124.

Aven, T. (2015). The concept of antifragility and its implications for the practice of risk analysis. Risk analysis, 35(3), 476-483.

Corbin, J. M. and Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3-21.

Crawford, J. K. (2006). Project management maturity model. Auerbach Publications.

De Bruin, T. and Rosemann, M. (2005). Towards a business process management maturity model.

Derbyshire, J. and Wright, G. (2014). Preparing for the future: development of an ‘antifragile’methodology that complements scenario planning by omitting causation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 215-225.

Henderson, B. D. (1979). The product portfolio: growth share matrix of the Boston Consulting Group. The strategy process: Concepts, contexts, cases, 678-680.

Hillson, D. A. (1997). Towards a risk maturity model. The International Journal of Project & Business Risk Management, 1(1), 35-45.

Jones, K. H. (2014). Engineering antifragile systems: A change in design philosophy. Procedia computer science, 32, 870-875.

Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Harvard Business Press.

Lockamy III, A., and McCormack, K. (2004). The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(4), 272-278.

Monperrus, M. (2017, April). Principles of antifragile software. In Companion to the first International Conference on the Art, Science and Engineering of Programming (p. 32). ACM.

Paulk, M. (1993). Capability maturity model for software. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering.

Pickton, D. W. and Wright, S. (1998). What's swot in strategic analysis?. Strategic change, 7(2), 101-109.

Pöppelbuß, J. and Röglinger, M. (2011, June). What makes a useful maturity model? a framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management. In ECIS (p. 28).

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Inc.

Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: how to live in a world we don't understand (Vol. 3). London: Allen Lane.

Taleb, N. N. and Douady, R. (2013). Mathematical definition, mapping, and detection of (anti) fragility. Quantitative Finance, 13(11), 1677-1689.

White, L. H. (2013). Antifragile banking and monetary systems. Cato J., 33, 471.

Downloads

Published

2018-08-17

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 1 (2018)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.