Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Focus Area Maturity Models: A Comparative Review

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Information Systems (EMCIS 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 299))

Abstract

Focus area maturity models (FAMMs) have been presented as a good alternative to traditional approaches of continuous or staged maturity models (MMs). FAMMs differ from previous approaches by defining a specific number of maturity levels for a set of focus areas, which embrace concrete capabilities to be developed in order to achieve maturity in a targeted domain. Due to the uninterrupted emergence of new MMs, several literature reviews have been conducted to increase transparency and facilitate understandability on existing MMs. However, none of them has been directly focused on FAMMs. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to provide a first structured review on such specific models. A total of 16 different FAMMs are identified and compared from a structural point of view. Results suggest that FAMMs are still an under-researched topic. Suggestions for future research are provided in order to foster recognition and acceptance of such MMs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Van Looy, A., De Backer, M., Poels, G.: Questioning the design of business process maturity models. In: Proceedings of the 6th SIKS Conference on EIS, pp. 51–60, Delft, The Netherlands, 31 October 2011

    Google Scholar 

  2. Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß, J., Becker, J.: Maturity models in business process management. Bus. Process Manag. J. 18, 328–346 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. van Steenbergen, M., van den Berg, M., Brinkkemper, S.: A balanced approach to developing the enterprise architecture practice. In: Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J., Cardoso, J. (eds.) ICEIS 2007. LNBIP, vol. 12, pp. 240–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88710-2_19

    Google Scholar 

  4. van Steenbergen, M., Bos, R., Brinkkemper, S., van de Weerd, I., Bekkers, W.: The design of focus area maturity models. In: Proceedings of the 5th SIKS/BENAIS Conference on EIS, pp. 17–19, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 16 November 2010

    Google Scholar 

  5. van Steenbergen, M., van den Berg, M., Brinkkemper, S.: An instrument for the development of the enterprise architecture practice. In: Proceedings of the ICEIS 2007, pp. 14–22, Funchal, Portugal, 12–16 June 2007

    Google Scholar 

  6. van Steenbergen, M., Bos, R., Brinkkemper, S., van de Weerd, I., Bekkers, W.: Improving IS functions step by step: the use of focus area maturity models. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 25, 2 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tarhan, A., Turetken, O., Reijers, H.A.: Business process maturity models: a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 75, 122–134 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Poeppelbuss, J., Niehaves, B., Simons, A., Becker, J.: Maturity models in information systems research: literature search and analysis. Comm. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 29, 505–532 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wendler, R.: The maturity of maturity model research: a systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 1317–1339 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Becker, J., Niehaves, B., Pöppelbuß, J., Simons, A.: Maturity models in IS research. In: Proceedings of the ECIS 2010, Pretoria, South Africa, 7–9 June 2010

    Google Scholar 

  11. Van Looy, A.: Business Process Maturity. A Comparative Study on a Sample of Business Process Maturity Models. Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kohlegger, M., Maier, R., Thalmann, S.: Understanding maturity models. Results of a structured content analysis. In: Proceedings of I-KNOW 2009 and I-SEMANTICS 2009, pp. 51–61, Graz, Austria, 2–4 September 2009

    Google Scholar 

  13. Patas, J., Pöppelbuß, J., Goeken, M.: Cherry picking with meta-models: a systematic approach for the organization-specific configuration of maturity models. In: Brocke, J., Hekkala, R., Ram, S., Rossi, M. (eds.) DESRIST 2013. LNCS, vol. 7939, pp. 353–368. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38827-9_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Mettler, T.: Maturity assessment models: a design science research approach. Int. J. Soc. Syst. Sci. 3, 81–98 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lahrmann, G., Marx, F.: Systematization of maturity model extensions. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 522–525. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, J.: Developing maturity models for IT management: a procedure model and its application. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 1, 213–222 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fraser, P., Moultrie, J., Gregory, M.: The use of maturity models/grids as a tool in assessing product development capability. In: Proceedings of the IEMC 2002 IEEE International Conference, pp. 244–249 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Klimko, G.: Knowledge management and maturity models: building common understanding. In: Proceedings of the ECKM 2002, pp. 269–278, Bled, Slovenia, 8–9 November 2001

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ofner, M., Otto, B., Österle, H.: A maturity model for enterprise data quality management. Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Archit. 8, 4–24 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Baars, T., Mijnhardt, F., Vlaanderen, K., Spruit, M.: An analytics approach to adaptive maturity models using organizational characteristics. Decis. Anal. 3(1), 5 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Koomen, T., Pol, M.: Test Process Improvement: A Practical Step-By-Step Guide to Structured Testing. Addison-Wesley, Harlow (1999)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Koomen, T., Pol, M.: Improvement of the Test Process using TPI. Sogeti Nederland B.V., Diemen (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Boell, S.K., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D.: A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 34, 257–286 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lasrado, L.A., Vatrapu, R., Andersen, K.N.: Maturity models development in IS research. In: Selected Papers of the IRIS, Oulu, Finland (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rosemann, M., vom Brocke, J.: The six core elements of business process management. In: Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 1. IHIS, pp. 105–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-45100-3_5

    Google Scholar 

  26. von Wangenheim, C.G., Hauck, J.C.R., Salviano, C.F., von Wangenheim, A.: Systematic literature review of software process capability/maturity models. In: Proceedings of the SPICE 2010, Pisa, Italy (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Albliwi, S.A., Antony, J., Arshed, N.: Critical literature review on maturity models for business process excellence. In: IEEM 2014 IEEE International Conference, pp. 79–83, Malaysia, 9–12 December 2014

    Google Scholar 

  28. Saavedra, V., Dávila, A., Melendez, K., Pessoa, M.: Organizational maturity models architectures: a systematic literature review. In: Mejia, J., Muñoz, M., Rocha, Á., San Feliu, T., Peña, A. (eds.) Trends and Applications in Software Engineering. AISC, vol. 537, pp. 33–46. Springer, Cham (2017). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-48523-2_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. García-Mireles, G.A., Moraga, M.Á., García, F.: Development of maturity models: a systematic literature review. In: Proceedings of the EASE 2012, pp. 279–283. IET, Ciudad Real, 14–15 May 2012

    Google Scholar 

  30. van Steenbergen, M., Bos, R., Brinkkemper, S., van de Weerd, I., Bekkers, W.: The design of focus area maturity models. In: Winter, R., Zhao, J.L., Aier, S. (eds.) DESRIST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6105, pp. 317–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_22

    Google Scholar 

  31. Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., Kitsiou, S.: Synthesizing information systems knowledge: a typology of literature reviews. Inf. Manag. 52, 183–199 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rowe, F.: What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 23, 241–255 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Schryen, G.: Writing qualitative IS literature reviews–guidelines for synthesis, interpretation and guidance of research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 37, 286–325 (2015)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26, xiii–xxiii (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bandara, W., Furtmueller, E., Gorbacheva, E., Miskon, S., Beekhuyzen, J.: Achieving rigor in literature reviews: insights from qualitative data analysis and tool-support. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 37, 879–910 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  36. vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R., Cleven, A.: Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. In: Proceedings of the ECIS 2009, Verona, Italy, 8–10 June 2009

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rudolph, S., Krcmar, H.: Maturity model for it service catalogues. An approach to assess the quality of IT service documentation. In: Proceedings of the AMCIS 2009, p. 750, San Francisco, California, 6–9 August 2009

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mantovani, R., Meyer Jr., V., Reinehr, S., Malucelli, A.: Progressive outcomes: a framework for maturing in agile software development. J. Syst. Softw. 102, 88–108 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Salleh, H., Alshawi, M., Sabli, N.A.M., Zolkafli, U.K., Judi, S.S.: Measuring readiness for successful information technology/information system (IT/IS) project implementation: a conceptual model. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 5, 9770–9778 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  40. van Steenbergen, M.: Maturity and effectiveness of enterprise architecture (2011). https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/205434

  41. Bekkers, W.: Situational Process Improvement in Software Product Management (2012). https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/256455

  42. Andersin, J.: TPI–a Model for Test Process Improvement. University of Helsinki (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  43. van de Kerkhof, J.: Social media: towards a social media maturity model (2012). https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/242246

  44. Wikipedia: Implementation maturity model assessment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation_maturity_model_assessment

  45. van Steenbergen, M., Schipper, J., Bos, R., Brinkkemper, S.: The dynamic architecture maturity matrix: instrument analysis and refinement. In: Dan, A., Gittler, F., Toumani, F. (eds.) ICSOC/ServiceWave -2009. LNCS, vol. 6275, pp. 48–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16132-2_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Bekkers, W., Spruit, M.: The Situational Assessment Method put to the test. Improvements based on case studies. In: WSPM 2010 International Workshop, pp. 7–16. IEEE (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Bekkers, W., van de Weerd, I.: SPM Maturity Matrix. Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Bekkers, W., Spruit, M., van de Weerd, I., van Vliet, R., Mahieu, A.: A situational assessment method for software product management. In: Proceedings of the ECIS 2010, Pretoria, South Africa, 7–9 June 2010

    Google Scholar 

  49. van de Weerd, I., Bekkers, W., Brinkkemper, S.: Developing a maturity matrix for software product management. Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Bekkers, W., Brinkkemper, S., van den Bemd, L., Mijnhardt, F., Wagner, C., van de Weerd, I.: Evaluating the software product management maturity matrix. In: Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2012, 20th IEEE International, pp. 51–60 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Slooten, R.: Software release planning: Investigating the use of an advanced assessment instrument and evaluating a novel maturity framework (2012). https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/47035156/731255-1.pdf

  52. Jagroep, E., van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S., Dobbe, T.: Software Product Portfolio Management: Towards improvement of current practice. Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Spruit, M., Pietzka, K.: MD3M: The master data management maturity model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 51, 1068–1076 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Pietzka, K.: MD3M Master Data Management Maturity Model - Developing an Assessment to Evaluate an Organization’s MDM Maturity (2012). http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/255375

  55. Alemão Alves, J.F.: Finding Maturity Evolution Paths for Organisational use of Information. A Moviflor Case Study (2013). https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/395145528220/DMEIC-57552-Joana-Alves.pdf

  56. Duncan, J., Xu, W., Narus, S.P., Clyde, S., Nangle, B., Thornton, S., Facelli, J.: A focus area maturity model for a statewide master person index. Online J. Public Health Inform. 5, 210 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sprockel, Y.H.B.: The impact of Software Product Lines from a Product Management perspective (2013). http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/276057

  58. Van der Waldt, G.: Disaster risk management: disciplinary status and prospects for a unifying theory: original research. Jamba J. Disaster Risk Stud. 5, 1–11 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Hermanns, T.I.: Towards an IT maturity model for general practice information systems (2014). http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/294630

  60. Smits, D., van Hillegersberg, J.: IT Governance maturity: developing a maturity model using the Delphi method. In: 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2015), pp. 4534–4543. IEEE, Hawaii, 5–8 January 2015

    Google Scholar 

  61. Smits, D., van Hillegersberg, J.: The development of an IT governance maturity model for hard and soft governance. In: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on IS Management and Evaluation (ECIME 2014), pp. 347–355, Ghent, Belgium, 11–12 September 2014

    Google Scholar 

  62. Spruit, M., Röling, M.: ISFAM: the information security focus area maturity model. In: Proceedings of the ECIS 2014, Tel Aviv, Israel, 9–11 June 2014

    Google Scholar 

  63. Slot, G.C.A.: Towards Rule-based Information Security Maturity. The Next Level (2015). https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/315919

  64. Pflügler, C., Böhm, M., Krcmar, H.: Coping with IT carve-out projects-towards a maturity model. In: Proceedings der 12, Internationalen Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI 2015), pp. 1664–1678, Osnabrück, Germany, 4–6 March 2015

    Google Scholar 

  65. Willems, T.: Supporting the Enterprise in Implementing a Global Vehicle Software Management Strategy (2016). http://dspace.ou.nl/handle/1820/7189

Download references

Acknowledgments

Industrial Doctorates Plan - Generalitat de Catalunya.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Open University of Catalunya (UOC), Barcelona, Spain

    Felix Sanchez-Puchol & Joan A. Pastor-Collado

  2. Seidor SBS Learning Services, Barcelona, Spain

    Felix Sanchez-Puchol

  3. Technical University of Catalonia (UPC), Barcelona, Spain

    Joan A. Pastor-Collado

Authors
  1. Felix Sanchez-Puchol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joan A. Pastor-Collado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felix Sanchez-Puchol .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Digital Systems, University of Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece

    Marinos Themistocleous

  2. Department of Management and Technology, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy

    Vincenzo Morabito

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Sanchez-Puchol, F., Pastor-Collado, J.A. (2017). Focus Area Maturity Models: A Comparative Review. In: Themistocleous, M., Morabito, V. (eds) Information Systems. EMCIS 2017. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 299. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65930-5_42

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65930-5_42

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-65929-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-65930-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation