Rather than a maturity model, DORA use metrics and a capability model. The idea is you use the metrics to decide on which capabilities to focus on. This tailoring to your context is the great thing about it - it's what you mention when you talk about determining the capabilities per-org... that's why you'd choose a capability model, not a maturity model. Maturity models seek to standardize the practices globally, rather than leaving room for customization.

I guess... we're pretty much in agreement - except perhaps over the definition of the two types of model :)

> If you have a good maturity model (e.g. for DevOps one based on DORA metrics) then the capabilities needed to arrive at a higher level can be determined per-org.

How do metrics like deployment frequency and lead time for changes can have an impact on "the capabilities needed" by an org?

Honestly, your comment reads a bit like machine learning generated buzzword bingo.

> How do metrics like deployment frequency and lead time for changes can have an impact on "the capabilities needed" by an org?

Hitting tighter metrics is going to need more advanced capabilities.

I would encourage you to read the book "Accelerate" which was at the source of the DORA metrics, as it clearly advocate for a capability model, not a maturity one.

Do you have book ISBN? Thanks!

Accelerate: The science of Lean Software and DevOps

Nicole Forsgren, PhD, Jez Humble, Gene Kim

IT Revolution

ISBN 978-1-942788-33-1

The article is basically a summary of the book "Accelerate." The main issue with the book is the conclusions about the connection between DORA metrics and team's performance; these four metrics might not actually cause the success of the "high-performers" in the survey. The book literally shows that when companies learn about these metrics, they can improve them but not always their performance. The research method, based only on surveys, is also questionable.

While I think it's an interesting read, we should take it with a grain of salt.