Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “maturity model”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Smart manufacturing maturity models and their applicability: a review

The purpose of this paper is to review existing smart manufacturing (SM) maturity models' dimensions and maturity levels to assess their applicability and drawbacks. There are many maturity models available but many of them have not been validated or do not provide a useful guide or tool for applications. This gap creates the need for a review of the existing maturity model's applicability. Nineteen peer-reviewed maturity models related to “Digital Transformation,” “Industry 4.0” or “Smart Manufacturing” were selected based on a systematic literature review and five consulting firm models were selected based on the author's industry knowledge. The chosen models were analyzed to determine 10 categories of dimensions. Then they are assessed on a 1–5 scale for how applicable they are in the 10 categories of dimensions. The five “consulting firm” models have a first-mover advantage, are more widely used in industry and are more applicable, but some require payment, and they lack published details and validation. The 19 “peer reviewed” models are not as widely used, lack awareness in the industry and are not as easy to apply because of no web tool for self-assessment, but they are improving. The categories defined to characterize the models and facilitate comparisons for users include “Information Technology (IT) and Cyber-Physical System (CPS) and Data,” “Strategy and Organization,” “Supply Chain and Logistics,” “Products and Services,” “Culture and Employees,” “Technology and Capabilities,” “Customer and Market,” “Cybersecurity and Risk,” “Leadership and Management” and “Governance and Compliance.” The analyzed maturity models were particularly weak in the areas of cybersecurity, leadership and governance. Researchers and practitioners can use this review with consideration of their specific needs to determine if a maturity model is applicable or if a new model needs to be developed. The review can also aid in the development of maturity models through the discussion of each of the dimension categories. Finally, compared to existing reviews of SM maturity models, this research determines comprehensive dimension categories and focuses on applicability and drawbacks.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2023

User Guide to the Facility Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (F-C2M2) Assessment

The Facility Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (F-C2M2) assessment was designed to help facilities address their unique cybersecurity challenges. Building upon the foundational principles of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2), the F-C2M2 was explicitly tailored for federal facilities to help evaluate, benchmark, and enhance the cybersecurity capabilities of both their information technology (IT) and operational technology (OT) environments. This user guide was developed to facilitate a thorough understanding of the tool. Whether users are familiar with the original C2M2 or are new to the maturity model concept, this guide was designed to offer clarity, direction, and support.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2020

APPLICATION OF MATURITY MODELS FOR EVALUATING CYBERSECURITY PROGRAMS AT NUCLEAR AND RADIOLOGICAL FACILITIES

Maturity models can be used to provide government agencies, industry associations, and organizations operating nuclear facilities with the ability to quickly evaluate the maturity of their cybersecurity programs and identify areas to prioritize for improvement. The Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2) was developed by the U.S. Department of Energy to allow organizations in the energy sector to evaluate the programmatic capabilities of their cybersecurity programs in a consistent manner, communicate programmatic maturity information, prioritize cybersecurity investments in targeted areas of concern, and track how the maturity of their cybersecurity program evolves over time. The C2M2 is designed for use by any critical infrastructure organization regardless of ownership, structure, or size. The C2M2 can be easily fine-tuned to access the maturity of nuclear cybersecurity programs and their application at individual facilities. Built on a foundation of existing cybersecurity standards, frameworks, programs, and initiatives, the model features 10 security domains. Performance in each security domain is characterized using a structured set of cybersecurity practices that represent activities an organization can perform to improve cybersecurity in their domain. Each practice can be quickly evaluated as being either fully, largely, partially, or not implemented. Once practices are evaluated for each security domain, the model defines four maturity indicator levels that apply independently to each domain in the model. To earn a maturity level in a given domain, an organization must adequately perform all the practices for that maturity level and its predecessor level(s). A small assessment team can conduct a C2M2 assessment in a single day. A screening version of the C2M2 allows an initial look at the maturity of nuclear cybersecurity programs that could be completed in under an hour.

Cyber security, Nuclear security, maturity model↗
DOE OSTI2020

Electricity Subsector Transmission Resilience Maturity Model (TRMM) User Guide

The electric transmission sector is facing a range of threats to its functionality that are either new, more severe than experienced in earlier years, or more well understood. Such threats include more frequent and more severe extreme weather events, wildfires, droughts, and human-caused physical and cyberattacks. They also include geological, electromagnetic, and biological events. The novelty or increasing severity of these threats creates a significant need for transmission owners to implement programs to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from such incidents. The national and economic security of the United States depends on the reliable functioning of the Nation’s critical infrastructure in the face of such threats, and the transmission networks are essential components of that infrastructure. The Electricity Subsector Transmission Resilience Maturity Model (TRMM) is a tool that a transmission organization can use to objectively evaluate and benchmark its currently established transmission resilience strategies, programs, policies, and investments, in order to target and prioritize enhancements where needed. The TRMM was developed to address the unique characteristics of the transmission system. The model can enable users to: • evaluate and benchmark their organization’s resilience capabilities, effectively and consistently • prioritize actions and investments to improve the resilience of their systems • share transmission-related knowledge, best practices, and relevant references within their organization and with business partners as a means to improve resilience capabilities • contribute to increasing the overall resilience of the Nation’s transmission systems. The TRMM provides descriptive rather than prescriptive industry-focused guidance. The model content is presented at a high level of abstraction so that it can be interpreted by transmission organizations of various types, structures, and sizes. The model is designed to an be easy-to-use, self-assessment tool.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2020

Secure Design and Development Cyber Security Capability Maturity Model” (SD2-CM2)

The "Secure Design and Development Cyber Security Capability Maturity Model" (SD2-CM2) allows electrical system managers to assess the maturity of their cybersecurity systems, including designs reflecting internet of things devices (IOT). The content provides best practices in the field and users can assess the level of their designs. Modules are "Content" and "Infrastructure"

Gourisetti, Sri Nikhil Gupta↗
DOE OSTI2025

Moving Beyond Direct Load Control: A Maturity Model for Realizing the Promise of Demand Flexibility

This report discusses a new maturity model that regulators and utilities can use to guide and expand demand flexibility programs and enable the resources to provide more grid services. The model has six demand flexibility categories: planning and design; customer engagement; program operations; evaluation, measurement and verification; distributed energy resource orchestration; and data infrastructure. Within each category, capabilities are identified and described on a maturity scale that ranges from performing below expectations to improving on best practices.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2023

Predictive Capability Maturity Model Demonstration for Cylindrical Cavity Coupling Using Gemma in the Next Generation Workflow

The predictive capability maturity model (PCMM) uses the expert elicitation process to generate credibility evidence for a particular analysis. To ensure Gemma has the capability to efficiently produce this credibility evidence, next generation workflows (NGW) are created for the solution verification, calibration/validation, and input uncertainty quantification portions of the PCMM assessment. These workflows are then used on the Higgins cylinder problem, which is representative of applications involving external-to-internal electromagnetic field coupling through a slot. The uncertainties calculated using these workflows are then used to calculate the validation comparison error and the validation uncertainty for the model following the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) verification and validation (V&V) 20 standard. These workflows will enable analysts to iterate each element of PCMM more efficiently than if completed without using a NGW workflow. An example of this iterative process is shown in Section 7.2.

42 ENGINEERING↗
NASA NTRS2000

Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for Software Process Improvements

This slide presentation reviews the Avionic Systems Division's implementation of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for improvements in the software development process. The presentation reviews the process involved in implementing the model and the benefits of using CMM to improve the software development process.

Ling, Robert Y.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Interoperability Maturity Model

This document presents the relevant concepts for specifying criteria that support a grid modernization strategic vision for interoperability. It focuses on the ways to assess levels of interoperability. The assessment of interoperability needs to clearly show the relationship to interoperability and provide the necessary data to create a roadmap for how to improve interoperability. A key point to understand is that interoperability has several crucial elements, any of which may have areas for improvement. To measure interoperability, it is helpful to focus on specific areas based on the objectives of the stakeholders that are initiating the desired interoperability advancement. The measurement tool for interoperability allows the measurement tool and the area to which it is being applied to be segmented and applied in various ways. The measurement tool is based on, and developed from, the GridWise® Architecture Council’s (GWAC’s) Beta release of its Interoperability Maturity Model (GWAC 2011). As such, it represents an evolution of that approach, so the working name used in this document is IMM.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
NASA NTRS2002

ISO 9000 and/or Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model?

For businesses and organizations to remain competitive today they must have processes and systems in place that will allow them to first identify customer needs and then develop products/processes that will meet or exceed the customers needs and expectations. Customer needs, once identified, are normally stated as requirements. Designers can then develop products/processes that will meet these requirements. Several functions, such as quality management and systems engineering management are used to assist product development teams in the development process. Both functions exist in all organizations and both have a similar objective, which is to ensure that developed processes will meet customer requirements. Are efforts in these organizations being duplicated? Are both functions needed by organizations? What are the similarities and differences between the functions listed above? ISO 9000 is an international standard of goods and services. It sets broad requirements for the assurance of quality and for management's involvement. It requires organizations to document the processes and to follow these documented processes. ISO 9000 gives customers assurance that the suppliers have control of the process for product development. Systems engineering can broadly be defined as a discipline that seeks to ensure that all requirements for a system are satisfied throughout the life of the system by preserving their interrelationship. The key activities of systems engineering include requirements analysis, functional analysis/allocation, design synthesis and verification, and system analysis and control. The systems engineering process, when followed properly, will lead to higher quality products, lower cost products, and shorter development cycles. The System Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SE-CMM) will allow companies to measure their system engineering capability and continuously improve those capabilities. ISO 9000 and SE-CMM seem to have a similar objective, which is to document the organization's processes and certify to potential customers the capability of a supplier to control the processes that determine the quality of the product or services being produced. The remaining sections of this report examine the differences and similarities between ISO 9000 and SE-CMM and make recommendations for implementation.

Sampson E. Gholston↗
NASA NTRS2011

The Legacy of Space Shuttle Flight Software

The initial goals of the Space Shuttle Program required that the avionics and software systems blaze new trails in advancing avionics system technology. Many of the requirements placed on avionics and software were accomplished for the first time on this program. Examples include comprehensive digital fly-by-wire technology, use of a digital databus for flight critical functions, fail operational/fail safe requirements, complex automated redundancy management, and the use of a high-order software language for flight software development. In order to meet the operational and safety goals of the program, the Space Shuttle software had to be extremely high quality, reliable, robust, reconfigurable and maintainable. To achieve this, the software development team evolved a software process focused on continuous process improvement and defect elimination that consistently produced highly predictable and top quality results, providing software managers the confidence needed to sign each Certificate of Flight Readiness (COFR). This process, which has been appraised at Capability Maturity Model (CMM)/Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 5, has resulted in one of the lowest software defect rates in the industry. This paper will present an overview of the evolution of the Primary Avionics Software System (PASS) project and processes over thirty years, an argument for strong statistical control of software processes with examples, an overview of the success story for identifying and driving out errors before flight, a case study of the few significant software issues and how they were either identified before flight or slipped through the process onto a flight vehicle, and identification of the valuable lessons learned over the life of the project.

Hickey, Christopher J.↗
NASA NTRS2010

NASA Experience with CMM and CMMI

This slide presentation reviews the experience NASA has had in using Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). In particular this presentation reviews the agency's experience within the software engineering discipline and the lessons learned and key impacts from using CMMI.

Crumbley, Tim↗