Abstract
Maturity models are widespread in research and in particular, IT practitioner communities. However, theoretically sound, methodologically rigorous and empirically validated maturity models are quite rare. This systematic mapping paper focuses on the challenges faced during the development of maturity models. More specifically, it explores the literature on maturity models and standard guidelines to develop maturity models, the challenges identified and solutions proposed. Our systematic mapping revealed over six hundred articles on maturity models. Extant literature reveals that researchers have primarily focused on developing new maturity models pertaining to domain-specific problems and/or new enterprise technologies. We find rampant re-use of the design structure of widely adopted models such as Nolan’s Stage of Growth Model, Crosby’s Grid, and Capability Maturity Model (CMM). We also identify three dominant views of maturity models and provide guidelines for various approaches to constructing maturity models with a standard vocabulary. We finally propose using process theories and configurational approaches to address the main theoretical criticisms with regard to maturity models and conclude with some recommendations for maturity model developers.
Highlights
Maturity can be understood as a state or condition that is explicitly defined, managed, measured, and controlled ([CMMI 2010], [Mettler, Rohner and Winter 2010])
Some examples can be placed in this category: (a) CMM-Capability Maturity Model and CMM-based, such as MPS.BR; (b) SCPM3 (Supply Chain Process Management Maturity Model); (c) OPM3 (Organizational Project Management Maturity Model); (d) PMMM (Project Management Maturity Model) ([Crosby 1980] [Bessant, Caffyn and Gallagher 2001] [Garrett and Rendon 2005] [Lockamy and McCormack 2004] [McCormack et al 2009])
The systematic mapping was conducted by two researchers from the area and follows the guidelines presented in [Kitchenham 2004], which are composed of three phases: iSys: Revista Brasileira de Sistemas de Informação http://seer.unirio.br/index.php/isys/
Summary
Maturity can be understood as a state or condition that is explicitly defined, managed, measured, and controlled ([CMMI 2010], [Mettler, Rohner and Winter 2010]). Maturity models are used to facilitate benchmarking of internal and/or external organizational processes, providing guidelines for corporate growth and often present levels or stages for future improvements. Maturity models usually follow a stage growth approach, presenting maturity levels in a linear and unidirectional path, from the lowest to the highest [Duane and OReilly 2012]. They can be used in different domains, generally used for the systems evolution understanding and processes. Maturity models are used to facilitate the benchmarking of internal and/or external organizational processes and can provide guidelines for corporate growth. Some examples can be placed in this category: (a) CMM-Capability Maturity Model and CMM-based, such as MPS.BR; (b) SCPM3 (Supply Chain Process Management Maturity Model); (c) OPM3 (Organizational Project Management Maturity Model); (d) PMMM (Project Management Maturity Model) ([Crosby 1980] [Bessant, Caffyn and Gallagher 2001] [Garrett and Rendon 2005] [Lockamy and McCormack 2004] [McCormack et al 2009])
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
