{
 "blyg": "0.3",
 "id": "6dsf3bgar0an6g3dsh3kd1w2cf",
 "kind": "thread",
 "origin": "https://npc.here.now/protocolvision/blyg/",
 "page": "t/6dsf3bgar0an6g3dsh3kd1w2cf/",
 "author": {
  "name": "Protocols for Business SIG"
 },
 "created": "2026-09-27T04:52:49Z",
 "updated": "2026-09-27T04:52:49Z",
 "version": 1,
 "content_md": "# SIGPfB: LLM Adoption Capability Maturity Models and Protocol Evolution\n\n*Session of 11 August 2025.* Participants: timber1997, _vgr, rafa_0x, sachbenny, anurajenp.\n\nThe SIGPfB group engaged in an extended discussion about developing a comprehensive Capability Maturity Model (CMM++) specifically designed to describe how organizations mature in their adoption and integration of Large Language Models. Rather than treating LLM adoption as a generic management trend, participants analyzed how protocols and practices must evolve at different organizational maturity levels, using a framework that captures technical capability, political dimensions, and business unbundling/disruption dynamics.\n\n**Key points**\n\n- Organizations are adapting workflows to match LLM capabilities rather than forcing LLMs into existing processes—teams switching from PowerPoint to memos because LLMs excel at memo generation rather than slide design.\n- A CMM++ framework should include political dimensions and (un)bundling dynamics beyond traditional capability maturity, with each level defining key tensions, emerging protocols, and organizational states.\n- Levels 1-3 represent an 'uncanny valley' where organizations appear to be using AI but haven't fundamentally transformed, while levels 4-6 represent genuine discontinuous organizational performance shifts similar to continuous deployment adoption.\n- Regulatory frameworks (state strength vs. law strength) will determine whether organizations face predatory pricing pressure, state control, or compliance-driven maturation in AI model selection and deployment.\n- Political alignment among human participants within organizations matters more than AI alignment itself, as it determines which AI models are adopted and how organizational culture constrains AI tool selection.\n\nSource: [Protocol Institute meeting archive](https://protocol-institute.org/sigs/sigpfb/2025-08-11-llm-adoption-capability-maturity-models-and-protocol-ev) · [PI website commit f48390c](https://github.com/Protocol-Institute/website/blob/f48390cd7948bcdd0514ecd2cd8ef88d0a477843/sigs/sigpfb/2025-08-11-llm-adoption-capability-maturity-models-and-protocol-ev/index.html). Summarized by c3po, the Protocol Institute's session pipeline, from the session's Discord thread.\n",
 "content_html": "<h1>SIGPfB: LLM Adoption Capability Maturity Models and Protocol Evolution</h1>\n<p><em>Session of 11 August 2025.</em> Participants: timber1997, _vgr, rafa_0x, sachbenny, anurajenp.</p>\n<div class=\"blyg-tk-gen\"><p>The SIGPfB group engaged in an extended discussion about developing a comprehensive Capability Maturity Model (CMM++) specifically designed to describe how organizations mature in their adoption and integration of Large Language Models. Rather than treating LLM adoption as a generic management trend, participants analyzed how protocols and practices must evolve at different organizational maturity levels, using a framework that captures technical capability, political dimensions, and business unbundling/disruption dynamics.</p>\n<p><strong>Key points</strong></p>\n<ul>\n<li>Organizations are adapting workflows to match LLM capabilities rather than forcing LLMs into existing processes—teams switching from PowerPoint to memos because LLMs excel at memo generation rather than slide design.</li>\n<li>A CMM++ framework should include political dimensions and (un)bundling dynamics beyond traditional capability maturity, with each level defining key tensions, emerging protocols, and organizational states.</li>\n<li>Levels 1-3 represent an 'uncanny valley' where organizations appear to be using AI but haven't fundamentally transformed, while levels 4-6 represent genuine discontinuous organizational performance shifts similar to continuous deployment adoption.</li>\n<li>Regulatory frameworks (state strength vs. law strength) will determine whether organizations face predatory pricing pressure, state control, or compliance-driven maturation in AI model selection and deployment.</li>\n<li>Political alignment among human participants within organizations matters more than AI alignment itself, as it determines which AI models are adopted and how organizational culture constrains AI tool selection.</li>\n</ul></div>\n<p>Source: <a href=\"https://protocol-institute.org/sigs/sigpfb/2025-08-11-llm-adoption-capability-maturity-models-and-protocol-ev\">Protocol Institute meeting archive</a> · <a href=\"https://github.com/Protocol-Institute/website/blob/f48390cd7948bcdd0514ecd2cd8ef88d0a477843/sigs/sigpfb/2025-08-11-llm-adoption-capability-maturity-models-and-protocol-ev/index.html\">PI website commit f48390c</a>. Summarized by c3po, the Protocol Institute's session pipeline, from the session's Discord thread.</p>",
 "content_hash": "sha256:17486be31e1aeb38e771bcf5d8f075467cd512990e2996c69fb57b2b859ec349",
 "media": [],
 "transclusions": [],
 "generated": [
  {
   "sources": [],
   "model": "c3po (Protocol Institute session pipeline)",
   "at": "2026-09-27T04:52:49Z"
  }
 ],
 "changelog": [
  {
   "version": 1,
   "at": "2026-09-27T04:52:49Z",
   "note": "blyg: import all 39 archived SIG sessions from the Protocol Institute archive"
  }
 ]
}