Maturity Models For Information Systems - A State of The Art PDF

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 100 (2016) 1042 – 1049
Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems / International Conference on Project

MANagement / Conference on Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies,
CENTERIS / ProjMAN / HCist 2016, October 5-7, 2016
Maturity Models for Information Systems - A State of the Art

Diogo Proençaa,b*, José Borbinhaa,b
a
INESC-ID, Rua Alves Redol 9, 1000-029 Lisboa, Portugal
b
Instituto Superior Tlcnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
Abstract
A Maturity Model is a widely used technique that is proved to be valuable to assess business processes or certain aspects of
organizations, as it represents a path towards an increasingly organized and systematic way of doing business. A maturity
assessment can be used to measure the current maturity level of a certain aspect of an organization in a meaningful way, enabling
stakeholders to clearly identify strengths and improvement points, and accordingly prioritize what to do in order to reach higher
maturity levels. This paper collects and analyzes the current practice on maturity models, by analyzing a collection of maturity
models from literature.
©©2016
2016The
TheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of SciKA - Association for Promotion and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CENTERIS 2016
Keywords: Maturity Model, Maturity Assessment, State of the Art.
1. Introduction
A Maturity Model (MM) is a technique that has been proved to be valuable in measuring different aspects of a
process or an organization. It represents a path towards increasingly organized and systematic way of doing business
in organizations. A MM consists of a number of “maturity levels”, often five, from the lowest to the highest, Initial,
Managed, Defined, Quantitatively Managed and Optimizing (however, the number of levels can vary, depending on
the domain and the concerns motivating the model). This technique provides organizations: (1) A measuring for
auditing and benchmarking; (2) A measuring of progress assessment against objectives; (3) An understanding of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +351213100300; fax: +351213145843.

E-mail address: diogo.proenca@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
1877-0509 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CENTERIS 2016
doi:10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.279
Diogo Proença and José Borbinha / Procedia Computer Science 100 (2016) 1042 – 1049 1043
strengths, weaknesses and opportunities (which can support decision making concerning strategy and project portfolio
management).
In 2 maturity is defined as a specific process to explicitly define, manage, measure and control the evolutionary
growth of an entity. In turn, in 3 maturity is defined as a state in which an organization is perfectly able to achieve the
goals it sets itself. In 5 and 6 it is suggested that maturity is associated with an evaluation criterion or the state of being
complete, perfect and ready and in 7 as being a concept which progresses from an initial state to a final state (which is
more advanced), that is, higher levels of maturity. Similarly, in 4 maturity is related with the evolutionary progress in
demonstrating a particular capacity or the pursuit of a certain goal, from an initial state to a final desirable state. Still,
in 11 it is emphasized the fact that this state of perfection can be achieved in various ways. The distinction between
organizations with more or less mature systems relates not only to the results of the indicators used, but also with the
fact that mature organizations measure different indicators when comparing to organizations which are less mature 12.
While the concept of maturity relates to one or more items identified as relevant14, the concept of capability is
concerned only with each of these items.
In 1 maturity models are defined as a series of sequential levels, which together form an anticipated or desired
logical path from an initial state to a final state of maturity. In 9 maturity models are defined as tools used to evaluate
the maturity capabilities of certain elements and select the appropriate actions to bring the elements to a higher level
of maturity. Conceptually, these represent stages of growth of a capability at qualitative or quantitative level of the
element in growth, in order to evaluate their progress relative to the defined maturity levels.
Some definitions found involve organizational concepts commonly used, such as the definition of 8 in which the
authors consider a maturity model as a "... a framework of evaluation that allows an organization to compare their
projects and against the best practices or the practices of their competitors, while defining a structured path for
improvement." This definition is deeply embedded in the concept of benchmarking. In other definitions, such as in
the presented by 10 there appears the concern of associating a maturity model to the concept of continuous
improvement. In 14, the maturity models are particularly important for identifying strengths and weaknesses of the
organizational context to which they are applied, and the collection of information through methodologies associated
with benchmarking.
2. Maturity Models Analysis
This section provides a synthesis of the analysis of a set of maturity models. The references used for this section
were found after searches on several services, such as, Google; Google Scholar; IEEE Xplore; ACM Digital Library;
Springer Link; CiteSeerX. The search terms included the keywords maturity, ͒maturity model, capability maturity,
capability maturity model, stages theory, process maturity, among others. The search resulted in an initial set of
papers, of which the references were analysed and selected, if relevant. ͒In this section, we are analysing maturity
models from the most diverse domains, from software engineering to asset management and information governance.
The goal here was to select different maturity models that reflect the most diverse approaches, some influenced by
other maturity models, others with no name for the maturity levels, others that have a level 0, without focusing on just
one domain.
In 14 it is summarized the major features of various maturity models. According to these authors, the maturity
models can be classified according to several items the most important being the number of maturity levels that make
up the model, its discrete or continuous nature, if the results obtained are quantitative or not, and if they adopt a
philosophy of continuous improvement. In addition to the inherent characteristics of the model design the authors
refer to characteristics that influence model applicability and dispersion. In particular, the associated costs, ease of
use, simplicity of interpretation, consistency in terms of continuity between model versions arising from its iterative
nature and the relative difficulty of the necessary training 15.
Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 synthesize the information collected through the selected literature sources in a way
that eases the analysis and according to the variables detailed in 14 and 4. The simplicity associated with the
development and use of maturity models has its "price", and several authors point out some limitations to maturity
models 16, 12, for example: (1) Overly simplistic in relation to reality; (2) Lack of fundamentals; (3) They focus on a
single path to reach maturity, neglecting potentially advantageous alternative paths; (4) Its applicability may be
constrained by internal factors (available technology, intellectual property, supplier relations) or external factors
1044 Diogo Proença and José Borbinha / Procedia Computer Science 100 (2016) 1042 – 1049
(market conditions); (5) There are multiple identical maturity models; (6) Lack of information regarding the maturity
model development method. Minimizing the limitations pointed to maturity models can be achieved by ensuring a
continuous and iterative evaluation, as well as a comparison with other models used for the same purpose 16, 17.
2.1. Model Structure
The model structure analysis focuses on the structural aspects of the maturity model. We analyze the number of
levels, the name and number of attributes, whether the model provides a maturity definition and the practicality of the
model. Table 1 synthetizes the analyzed maturity models regarding the model structure. It uses a set of variables
selected from 14 and 4. The following variables were selected:
1. Name of the Maturity Model: The name of the maturity model and the main references;
2. Number of Levels: The quantity of maturity levels of the model;
3. Name of the attributes: The name of attributes the maturity model uses, there are several attributes being used.
The attributes aim at three things, (1) Decompose the Maturity Model into easily understandable sections; (2)
Aggregate several business processes into process areas that aggregate processes meeting the same business goal
and (3) Provide different viewpoints of the maturity level subject;
4. Number of Attributes: The number of attributes used by the maturity model;
5. Maturity Definition: Shows if the maturity model contains a definition of maturity;
6. Practicality: Details if the practicality of the recommendations is problem-specific or general in nature.
2.2. Model Assessment
The model assessment analysis focuses on the application of the maturity model. In order to measure the maturity
level of a certain reality there must be available a way to calculate the maturity levels. This can be done by following
a self-assessment questionnaire or by following a full-fledged maturity assessment method. Table 2 synthetizes the
analyzed maturity models regarding the model assessment. It uses a set of variables selected from 14 and 4. The
following variables were selected:
2. Assessment Method Described: Details if the maturity model has an associated assessment method or not;
3. Assessment Cost: Shows the degree of expenditure of an assessment project;
4. Strong/Weak Points Identification: Details if the maturity model identifies weaknesses and strong points of
the organization;
5. Continuous Assessment: Shows if the maturity model strives for a continuous assessment;
6. Improvement Opportunities Prioritization: Details if the maturity model determines a priority of
improvement in the organization.
2.3. Model Support
The model support analysis focus on the support to the model provided by the maturity model authors or stewards.
The analysis focus on whether training is available, what is the availability of the author regarding model support,
whether there is continuity from different versions of the model, what is the origin of the model, as well as, the
accessibility of the model. Table 3 synthetizes the analyzed maturity models regarding the model support. It uses a set
of variables selected from 14 and 4. The following variables were selected:
2. Training Available: Details if there is training available for the maturity model, in order to become an expert
on the model or an assessor;
3. Author Support Availability: Shows the degree of the support the author provides for the maturity model;
4. Continuity from different versions: Details, when there is more than one version of the maturity model, if there
is continuity between different versions of the model. This is important to show if the model is adaptable or not;
5. The origin of the model: Whether it originated in the academia or from practitioners;
6. Accessibility: Whether there is documentation readily available for free or not.
Table 1. Synthesis of the Analysed Maturity Models regarding Model Structure

Maturity Model Number of levels Name of the Number of Maturity
Practicality
attributes Attributes Definition
6 Process Groups 9 Yes Specific improvement
ISO/ IEC 1550435 activities
5 Process Areas 22 Yes Specific improvement
Software Engineering Institute activities
Capability Model Integration
(CMMI)34
5 MDD Practices 3 No General
Model-driven Development recommendations
(MDD) Maturity Model26
5 Fundamental 4 No Specific improvement
Metrics Based Verification and Factors activities
Validation Maturity Model
(MB-V2M2)24
4 - - No General
Documentation Process recommendations
Maturity Model23
5 Elements 4 No General
Business Process Maturity recommendations
Model (BPMM)25
5 Process Areas 30 No Specific improvement
OMG Business Process activities
Maturity Model18
6 Critical Success 6 No Specific improvement
Gartner BPM Maturity Model19 Factors activities
6 Dimension / Sub- 3/6 No General
Group IT Controlling (GITC) dimension recommendations
Maturity Model37
5 Process Areas 4 Yes Specific improvement
IT Capability Model activities
Framework (IT-CMF)39
5 Key Process 5 No General
Business-IT Alignment Areas recommendations
Maturity Model20
5 Categories / 3 / 13 No General
The IT Service CMM21 Dimensions recommendations
5 Categories / 4 / 15 No General
Records Management Maturity Dimensions recommendations
Model30
5 Dimensions / 4 No General
Gartner Enterprise Information Category recommendations
Management Maturity Model22
5 IT-business 6 No General
Research Data Management alignment criteria recommendations
(RDM) Maturity Model38
5 Process Areas 21 No General
Enterprise Content recommendations
Management (ECM) Maturity
Model32
4 Section 9 No General
Digital Asset Management recommendations
(DAM) Maturity Model31
6 - - No General
Asset Management Maturity recommendations
Model29
4 Attributes 4 No General
Risk Maturity Model27 recommendations
6 Attributes 6 Yes Specific improvement
COBIT Maturity Model40 activities
5 Principles 8 No Specific improvement
Information Governance activities
Maturity Model33
5 Dimensions 3 No Specific improvement
Stanford Data Governance activities
Maturity Model28
Table 2. Synthesis of the Analysed Maturity Models regarding Model Assessment

Maturity Model Assessment Assessment Strong/Weak Continuous Improvement
Method Cost Points Assessment Opportunities
Described Identification Prioritization
Yes High Yes Yes Yes
ISO/ IEC 1550435
Software Engineering Institute
(CMMI)34
No ? Yes ? ?
Model-driven Development
Yes ? Yes ? ?
Metrics Based Verification and
(MB-V2M2)24
Yes ? No No ?
Documentation Process
Maturity Model23
No ? Yes ? ?
Business Process Maturity
Model (BPMM)25
No Medium Yes Yes ?
OMG Business Process
Maturity Model18
No Low Yes ? ?
Gartner BPM Maturity Model19
No ? No ? ?
Group IT Controlling (GITC)
Maturity Model37
IT Capability Model
No ? No ? ?
Business-IT Alignment
Maturity Model20
No ? No ? ?
The IT Service CMM21
Yes ? No ? ?
Records Management Maturity
Model30
Yes ? No ? ?
Gartner Enterprise Information
Yes ? Yes ? ?
Research Data Management
No ? No No ?
Enterprise Content
Model32
Yes ? No No No
Digital Asset Management
No Low Yes Yes ?
Asset Management Maturity
Model29
Yes ? No No No
Risk Maturity Model27
COBIT Maturity Model40
No Medium Yes Yes ?
Information Governance
Maturity Model33
Yes ? Yes ? ?
Stanford Data Governance
Maturity Model28
Table 3. Synthesis of the Analysed Maturity Models regarding Model Support

Maturity Model Author Training Continuity
Support Available Origin Accessibility from different
Availability versions
High Yes Academic Charged Yes
ISO/ IEC 1550435
High Yes Academic Free Yes
Software Engineering Institute
(CMMI)34
Low No Academic Free No
Model-driven Development
Metrics Based Verification and
(MB-V2M2)24
Documentation Process
Maturity Model23
Business Process Maturity
Model (BPMM)25
Medium No Practitioner- Free No
OMG Business Process based
Maturity Model18
Gartner BPM Maturity Model19 based
Medium No Academic Free No
Group IT Controlling (GITC)
Maturity Model37
High Yes Academic Charged Yes
IT Capability Model
Business-IT Alignment
Maturity Model20
The IT Service CMM21
Records Management Maturity based
Model30
Low No Practitioner- Free No
Gartner Enterprise Information based
Research Data Management
Enterprise Content based
Model32
Digital Asset Management based
Asset Management Maturity based
Model29
Risk Maturity Model27
High Yes Practitioner- Charged Yes
COBIT Maturity Model40 based
High Yes Practitioner- Charged No
Information Governance based
Maturity Model33
Stanford Data Governance
Maturity Model28
3. Conclusions and Future Work
This work presented a state of the art on the subject of maturity models. Future research will help Maturity Models
become more relevant for both academia and industry. In this paper we also described the concepts which form the
foundation of maturity models. A description of the different aspects of current maturity models was presented,
combining knowledge from the different domains analyzed.
As future work resulting from this paper, we concluded that current maturity assessment methods focus on highly
complex and specialized tasks being performed by competent assessors in an organizational context 36. These tasks
mainly focus on manually collecting evidence to substantiate the maturity level calculation 34. Because of the
complexity of these methods, maturity assessment becomes an expensive and burdensome activity for organizations.
As such, one major area to invest is to develop methods and techniques to automate maturity assessment. Due to
the wide spread of modeling practices of business domains, assisted by modeling tools, makes it possible to have
access, for processing, to the data created and managed by these tools. Also, the recent state of the art41 demonstrating
how business processes and Enterprise Architecture models in general can be represented as ontologies has raised the
potential relevance of the semantic techniques for the automated processing of these models. As such, the objective is
to analyze the potential, and the main limitations, of the existing semantic techniques to automate methods for the
assessment of MM through the analysis of an existing model representation of a reality.
There are several examples of models used to represent an organization architecture, such as, Archimate44, BPMN43
or UML45. These models are descriptive and can be detailed enough to allow to perform, to some extent, maturity
assessment. However, in order for these models to become relevant for maturity assessment there should be a formal
representation for both MMs and model representations. One hypothesis is that building on the knowledge of
ontologies from the computer science and information science domains, these can be used to represent MMs and
model representations. This can be achieved by developing a generic ontology that expresses all these core concepts
(or at least a relevant group of them) and relationships among them, as also the rules for a generic maturity assessment
accordingly Then, by representing MMs and models representations of concrete organizational scenarios using
ontologies we can verify if an organization models representations matches the requirements to reach a certain
maturity level using ontology query and reasoning techniques, such as SPARQL and Description Logics46 inference.
The final objective is thus to identify how these methods and techniques can be used in existing maturity assessment
methods36,42, so that they can be proven as relevant to enable the automation of certain aspects of maturity assessment,
such as, the maturity level determination. In order to do this, there should be an exploration of what types of analysis
can be performed using the information on model representations that is relevant in a maturity assessment effort.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) with reference
UID/CEC/50021/2013, and by the European Commission under the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme
2007-2013, E-ARK – Grant Agreement no. 620998 under the Policy Support Programme. The authors are solely
responsible for the content of this paper.
References
1. M. Röglinger, J. Pöppelbuß, “What makes a useful maturity model? A framework for general design principles for maturity models and its
demonstration in business process management,” In proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland,
June. 2011.
2. M. Paulk, B. Curtis, M. Chrissis, C. Weber, “Capability Maturity Model for software,” Version 1.1 CMU/SEI-93-TR-24, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, USA, Carnegie Melon University. 1993.
3. E. Anderson, S. Jessen, “Project Maturity in Organizations,” International Journal of Project Management Accounting, Vol. 21, pp. 457-461.
2003.
4. T. Mettler, “A design science research perspective on maturity models in information systems,” St. Gallen: Institute of Information Management,
Universtiy of St. Gallen. 2009.
5. Franz, “Proposta de um modelo para avaliação e ações de melhoria na gestão da segurança e saúde no trabalho,” Tese de doutoramento, Escola
de Engenharia, Universidade Federal de Rio Grande do Sul. 2009.
6. R. Fitterer, P. Rohner, “Towards assessing the networkability of health care providers: a maturity model approach,” Information Systems E-
business Management, Vol. 8, pp. 309-333. 2010.
7. A. Sen, K. Ramammurthy, A. Sinha, “A model of data warehousing process maturity,” In IEEE Transactions of Software Engineering. 2011.
8. A. Korbel, R. Benedict, “Application of the project management maturity model to drive organisational improvement in a state owned
corporation,” In proceedings of 2007 AIPM Conference, Tasmania, Australia, 7-10, October. 2007.
9. M. Kohlegger, R. Maier, S. Thalmann, “Understanding maturity models: Results of a structured content analysis,” In proceedings of the I-KNOW
’09 and I-SEMANTICS ’09, 2-4 September 2009, Graz, Austria. 2009.
10. G. Jia, Y. Chen, X. Xue, J. Chen, J. Cao, K. Tang, “Program management organization maturity integrated model for mega construction
programs in China,” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29, pp. 834-845. 2011.
11. A. Amaral, M. Araújo, “The organizational maturity as a conductive field for germinating business sustainability,” In proceedings of Business
Sustainability I Conference, Póvoa do Varzim, Portugal. 2008.
12. T. Cooke-Davies, A. Arzymanowc, “The maturity of project management in different industries: An investigation into variations between
project management models,” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, No 6, pp. 471-478. 2003.
13. D. Hillson, “Maturity - good or bad?,” Project Manager Today, March, pp. 14. 2008.
14. M. Koshgoftar, O. Osman, “Comparison between maturity models,” In proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Computer
Science and Information Technology, Vol. 5, pp. 297-301. 2009.
15. L. Bourne, A. Tuffley, “Comparing maturity models: CMMI, OPM3 and P3M3,” In proceedings of the PMOZ Conference, 28-31 August.
2007.
16. J. Becker, R. Knackstedt, J. Pöppelbuβ, “Developing maturity models for IT management: A procedure model and its application,” Business
and Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 3, pp 213-222. 2009.
17. Y. Helgesson, M. Höst, K. Weyns, “A review of methods for evaluation of maturity models for process improvement,” Journal of Software
Maintenance and Evaluation Research and Practice, Vol. 24, No 4, pp. 436 -454. 2012.
18. Open Management Group, “Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM) - Version 1.0,” 2008.
19. M. J. Melenovsky, J. Sinur, “BPM Maturity Model Identifies Six Phases for Successful BPM Adoption,” Gartner, 2006.
20. J. Luftman, “Assessing Business-IT Alignment Maturity,” In Strategies for Information Technology Governance, Idea Group Publishing, 2004.
21. F. Niessink, V. Clerc, H. Vliet, “The IT Service Capability Maturity Model,” IT Service CMM Release L2+3-0.3, 2002.
22. D. Newman, D. Logan, “Gartner Introduces the EIM Maturity Model,” Gartner, 2008.
23. M. Visconti, C. R. Cook, “Evolution of a maturity model - critical evaluation and lessons learned,” Software Quality Journal, vol. 7, pp. 223-
237, 1998.
24. J. Jacobs, J. Trienekens, “Towards a Metrics Based Verification and Validation Maturity Model,” In Proceedings of the 10th International
Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice, pp. 123-128, 2002.
25. J. Lee, D. Lee, S. Kang, “An overview of the Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM),” In Proceedings of the APWeb/WAIM 2007
International Workshops, pp. 384-395, 2007.
26. E. Rios, T. Bozheva, A. Bediaga, N. Guilloreau, “MDD Maturity Model: A Roadmap for Introducing Model-Driven Development,” In
Proceedings of the Second European Conference ECMDA-FA 2006, pp. 78-89, 2006.
27. D. A. Hillson, “Towards a Risk Maturity Model,” The International Journal of Project & Business Risk Management, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 35-45,
1997.
28. Stanford University, “Data Governance Maturity Model.” [Online]. Available: http://web.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/cgi-bin/dg/wordpress/
29. T. Lei, A. Ligtvoet, L. Volker, P. Herder, “Evaluating Asset Management Maturity in the Netherlands: A Compact Benchmark of Eight Different
Asset Management Organizations,” In Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of Engineering Asset Management, 2011.
30. JISC InfoNet, “Records Management Maturity Model.” [Online]. Available: http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/tools/maturity-model/
31. Real Story Group, DAM Foundation, “The DAM Maturity Model.” [Online]. Available: http://dammaturitymodel.org/
32. A. Pelz-Sharpe, A. Durga, D. Smigiel, E. Hartmen, T. Byrne, J. Gingras, “Ecm Maturity Model - Version 2.0,” Wipro - Real Story Group -
Hartman, 2010.
33. ARMA International, “Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles - Information Governance Maturity Model.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.arma.org/principles
34. CMMI Product Team, “CMMI for development, version 1.3,” Software Engineering Institute - Carnegie Mellon University, Tech. Rep.
CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033, 2010.
35. ISO/IEC 15504:2004, “Information technology - Process assessment,” International Organization for Standardization and International
Electrotechnical Commission Std. 2004.
36. ISO/IEC 15504-3:2004, “Information technology - Process assessment - Part 3: Guidance on performing an assessment,” International
Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission Std. 2004.
37. F. Hamel, T. P. Herz, F. Uebernickel, W. Brenner, “IT Evaluation in Business Groups: A Maturity Model,” In Proceedings of the 28th
Symposium on Applied Computing, 2013.
38. Syracuse University, “A Capability Maturity Model for Research Data Management.” [Online]. Available:
http://rdm.ischool.syr.edu/xwiki/bin/view/Main/
39. Innovation Value Institute, “The IT-CMF Framework.” [Online]. Available: http://ivi.nuim.ie/it-cmf.
40. IT Governance Institute, “COBIT 4.1 – Framework, Control Objectives, Management Guidelines, Maturity Models,” 2007.
41. G. Antunes, “Analysis of Enterprise Architecture Models: An Application of Ontologies to the Enterprise Architecture Domain,” PhD Thesis,
University of Lisbon, 2015.
42. SCAMPI Upgrade Team, “Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) A, Version 1.3: Method Definition
Document,” Software Engineering Institute - Carnegie Mellon University, Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-2011-HB-001, 2011.
43. Object Management Group, Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), Version 2.0, OMG Standard, formal/2011-01-03, 2011.
44. The Open Group. ArchiMate 2.0 Specification, Van Haren Publishing, 2012.
45. Object Management Group, “OMG Unified Modelling Language (OMG UML), Version 2.5.” 2015.
46. R. Vaculin, Process Mediation Framework for Semantic Web Services. PhD thesis, Department of Theoretical Computer Science and
Mathematical Logic, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, 2009.

Maturity Models For Information Systems - A State of The Art PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maturity Models For Information Systems - A State of The Art PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems / International Conference on Project

Maturity Models for Information Systems - A State of the Art

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +351213100300; fax: +351213145843.

2. Maturity Models Analysis

2.1. Model Structure

2.2. Model Assessment

2.3. Model Support

Table 1. Synthesis of the Analysed Maturity Models regarding Model Structure

Table 2. Synthesis of the Analysed Maturity Models regarding Model Assessment

Table 3. Synthesis of the Analysed Maturity Models regarding Model Support

3. Conclusions and Future Work

You might also like