Focus Area Maturity Models: A Comparative Review

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


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.


Maturity Literature review Focus area maturity models 



Industrial Doctorates Plan - Generalitat de Catalunya.


  1. 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 2011Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß, J., Becker, J.: Maturity models in business process management. Bus. Process Manag. J. 18, 328–346 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 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 2010Google Scholar
  5. 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 2007Google Scholar
  6. 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. 7.
    Tarhan, A., Turetken, O., Reijers, H.A.: Business process maturity models: a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 75, 122–134 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 9.
    Wendler, R.: The maturity of maturity model research: a systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 1317–1339 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 2010Google Scholar
  11. 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. 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 2009Google Scholar
  13. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mettler, T.: Maturity assessment models: a design science research approach. Int. J. Soc. Syst. Sci. 3, 81–98 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. 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 2001Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ofner, M., Otto, B., Österle, H.: A maturity model for enterprise data quality management. Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Archit. 8, 4–24 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koomen, T., Pol, M.: Test Process Improvement: A Practical Step-By-Step Guide to Structured Testing. Addison-Wesley, Harlow (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koomen, T., Pol, M.: Improvement of the Test Process using TPI. Sogeti Nederland B.V., Diemen (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 2014Google Scholar
  28. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 2012Google Scholar
  30. 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. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rowe, F.: What literature review is not: diversity, boundaries and recommendations. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 23, 241–255 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schryen, G.: Writing qualitative IS literature reviews–guidelines for synthesis, interpretation and guidance of research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 37, 286–325 (2015)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 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. 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. 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 2009Google Scholar
  37. 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 2009Google Scholar
  38. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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. 40.
    van Steenbergen, M.: Maturity and effectiveness of enterprise architecture (2011).
  41. 41.
    Bekkers, W.: Situational Process Improvement in Software Product Management (2012).
  42. 42.
    Andersin, J.: TPI–a Model for Test Process Improvement. University of Helsinki (2004)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    van de Kerkhof, J.: Social media: towards a social media maturity model (2012).
  44. 44.
    Wikipedia: Implementation maturity model assessment.
  45. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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. 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. 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 2010Google Scholar
  49. 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. 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. 51.
    Slooten, R.: Software release planning: Investigating the use of an advanced assessment instrument and evaluating a novel maturity framework (2012).
  52. 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. 53.
    Spruit, M., Pietzka, K.: MD3M: The master data management maturity model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 51, 1068–1076 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pietzka, K.: MD3M Master Data Management Maturity Model - Developing an Assessment to Evaluate an Organization’s MDM Maturity (2012).
  55. 55.
    Alemão Alves, J.F.: Finding Maturity Evolution Paths for Organisational use of Information. A Moviflor Case Study (2013).
  56. 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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sprockel, Y.H.B.: The impact of Software Product Lines from a Product Management perspective (2013).
  58. 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. 59.
    Hermanns, T.I.: Towards an IT maturity model for general practice information systems (2014).
  60. 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 2015Google Scholar
  61. 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 2014Google Scholar
  62. 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 2014Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Slot, G.C.A.: Towards Rule-based Information Security Maturity. The Next Level (2015).
  64. 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 2015Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Willems, T.: Supporting the Enterprise in Implementing a Global Vehicle Software Management Strategy (2016).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Open University of Catalunya (UOC)BarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Seidor SBS Learning ServicesBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Technical University of Catalonia (UPC)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations