Erasmo Leite Monteiro
ABSTRACT
Maturity models have been used in several domains to evaluate system maturity according to specific aspects. Despite their popularity, maturity models have been criticized due to lack of empirical validation and effective methods to aid in their definition. This paper presents our efforts to systematize the development of maturity models towards a methodology. In this direction, tasks, artifacts, methods, and tools related to maturity model definition were proposed and organized as an initial methodology to support developers. In addition, a maturity model, named Amortisse was developed applying the proposed methodology. The results of this investigation show the Amortisse Maturity Model and the methodology are feasible. We hope this methodology can help the definition of maturity models in different domains contributing to maturity models standardization.
- Fikri Akbarsyah Anza, Dana Indra Sensuse, and Arief Ramadhan. 2017. Developing E-government maturity framework based on COBIT 5 and implementing in city level: Case study Depok city and South Tangerang city. In 2017 4th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computer Science and Informatics (EECSI). IEEE, 1–6.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Camlon H Asuncion. 2011. Pragmatic Interoperability in the Enterprise-A Research Agenda.. In CAiSE (Doctoral Consortium). 3–14.Google Scholar
- Andrea Back and Christopher Haager. 2011. Assessing Degrees of Web-2.0-ness for Websites: Model and Results for Product Websites in the Pharmaceutical Industry. In Bled eConference. 48.Google Scholar
- Victor BASILI and G CALDEIRA. 1994. Goal question metric paradigm. 1994. Citado na (1994), 46.Google Scholar
- Jörg Becker, Ralf Knackstedt, and Jens Pöppelbuß. 2009. Developing maturity models for IT management. Business & Information Systems Engineering 1, 3 (2009), 213–222.Google ScholarCross Ref
- João Vidal Carvalho, Álvaro Rocha, Rogier van de Wetering, and António Abreu. 2019. A Maturity model for hospital information systems. Journal of Business Research 94 (2019), 388–399.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. V. Carvalho, Á. Rocha, A. Abreu, and A. Afonso. 2017. Development methodology of the HISMM Maturity Model. In 2017 12th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI). 1–7. https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI.2017.7975998Google ScholarCross Ref
- Correa. 2012. Metodologia para aferição do nível de maturidade associado à interoperabilidade técnica nas áreas de Governo Eletrônico. Master’s thesis. http://tede.bibliotecadigital.puc-campinas.edu.br:8080/jspui/handle/tede/525 CEATEC - Centro de Ciências Exatas, Ambientais e de Tecnologias.Google Scholar
- Philip B Crosby. 1979. Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. Vol. 94. McGraw-hill New York.Google Scholar
- Tonia de Bruin, Ronald Freeze, Uday Kulkarni, and Michael Rosemann. 2005. Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model. Australasian Conference on Information Systems (01 2005).Google Scholar
- Aidan Maurice Duane and Philip OReilly. 2012. A conceptual stages of growth model for managing an organization’s social media business profile (SMBP). (2012).Google Scholar
- Andy Field. 2013. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. sage.Google Scholar
- CY Nolan Gibson and R Nolan. [n.d.]. R.(1974):“Managing the four stages of EDP growth”. Harvard Business Review, January-February([n. d.]), 76–88.Google Scholar
- Sally Godfrey. 2008. What is CMMI. NASA presentation (2008).Google Scholar
- Alan R Hevner, Salvatore T March, Jinsoo Park, and Sudha Ram. 2004. Design science in information systems research. MIS quarterly (2004), 75–105.Google Scholar
- Gerrit Lahrmann, Frederik Marx, Tobias Mettler, Robert Winter, and Felix Wortmann. 2011. Inductive design of maturity models: applying the Rasch algorithm for design science research. In International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems. Springer, 176–191.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Xiufeng Liu. 2010. Using and developing measurement instruments in science education: A Rasch modeling approach. Iap.Google Scholar
- Anja Maier, James Moultrie, and P John Clarkson. 2009. Developing maturity grids for assessing organisational capabilities: Practitioner guidance. In 4th International Conference on Management Consulting: Academy of Management.Google Scholar
- Tobias Mettler, Peter Rohner, and Robert Winter. 2010. Towards a classification of maturity models in information systems. In Management of the interconnected world. Springer, 333–340.Google Scholar
- Erasmo Leite Monteiro and Rita S Pitangueira Maciel. 2020. Maturity Models Architecture: A large systematic mapping. iSys-Revista Brasileira de Sistemas de Informação 13, 2(2020), 110–140.Google Scholar
- Frâncila Weidt Neiva, José Maria N David, Regina Braga, and Fernanda Campos. 2016. Towards pragmatic interoperability to support collaboration: A systematic review and mapping of the literature. Information and Software Technology 72 (2016), 137–150.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shervin Ostadzadeh and Fereidoon Shams. 2014. Towards a software architecture maturity model for improving ultra-large-scale systems interoperability. arXiv preprint arXiv:1401.5752(2014).Google Scholar
- David Raber, Felix Wortmann, and Robert Winter. 2013. Situational business intelligence maturity models: An exploratory analysis. In 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, 3797–3806.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jaco Renken. 2004. Developing an IS/ICT management capability maturity framework. In Proceedings of the 2004 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT research in developing countries. 53–62.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Elivaldo Lozer Fracalossi Ribeiro, Erasmo Leite Monteiro, Daniela Barreiro Claro, and Rita Suzana Pitangueira Maciel. 2019. A Conceptual Framework for Pragmatic Interoperability. In Proceedings of the XV Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems(SBSI’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 36, 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3330204.3330246Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andreas Tolk. 2006. What comes after the semantic web-PADS implications for the dynamic web. In 20th Workshop on Principles of Advanced and Distributed Simulation (PADS’06). IEEE, 55–55.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Charles D Turnitsa. 2007. Applying the levels of conceptual interoperability model in support of integratability, interoperability, and composability for system-of-systems engineering. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (2007).Google Scholar
- Marlies van Steenbergen, Rik Bos, Sjaak Brinkkemper, Inge van de Weerd, and Willem Bekkers. 2013. Improving IS Functions Step by Step: the Use of Focus Area Maturity Models.Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 25, 2 (2013), 2.Google Scholar
- Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C Ohlsson, Björn Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. 2012. Experimentation in software engineering. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarCross Ref
Recommendations
Lean Software Development: A Tutorial
“Lean Software Development” has become a popular term over the last few years. This tutorial describes where it comes from, what it means, how it relates to well-known agile development practices, and how it will evolve in the future.
A Maturity Model for Scaling Agile Development
SEAA '15: Proceedings of the 2015 41st Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced ApplicationsAlthough the agile software development approaches have gained wide acceptance in practice, the concerns regarding the scalability and integration of agile approaches in traditional system development organizations have remained. The difficulty of ...
The design of focus area maturity models
DESRIST'10: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Global Perspectives on Design Science ResearchMaturity models are a well-known instrument to support the improvement of functional domains in IS, like software development or testing While maturity models may share a common structure, they have to be developed anew for each functional domain Focus ...
Comments