An Analysis of Enterprise Architecture Maturity Frameworks

  • Martin Meyer
  • Markus Helfert
  • Conor O’Brien
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 90)


Enterprise Architecture (EA) has gained a lot of attention in literature and industry in recent years since it serves as valuable instrument to guide the enterprise through the transformation from a current to a future state by means of providing standardization, rules and principles. This ensures currently the best known way to achieve flexibility, reusability and a common understanding of the enterprise and its functions within the IT domain. The evolvement of EA is best captured by employing a maturity model which indicates the status quo of the EA and provides a means of further improving this evolvement. Several frameworks and approaches have been proposed throughout the years and we conducted an analysis of selected of EA Maturity frameworks in terms of five – in our opinion crucial - key characteristics. Moreover, as EA covers the enterprise IT holistically on a high level of abstraction, we found an overarching framework available for assessing all of the critical IT functions.


Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model Maturity Framework Analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ISO/IEC 42010 - IEEE Std 1471-2000: Systems and software engineering. IEEE (July 2007) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Bruin, T., Freeze, R., Kulkarni, U., Rosemann, M.: Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity. In: ACIS, Proceedings (2005) Paper 109Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lagerström, R., Franke, U., Johnson, P., Ullberg, J.: A Method for Creating Enterprise Architecture Metamodels - Applid to Systems Modifiability Analysis. International Journal of Computer Science and Applications 6(5), 89–120 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaisler, S., Armour, F., Valivullah, M.: Enterprise Architecting: Critical Problems. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Steenbergen, M., Berg, M., Brinkkemper, S.: A Balanced Approach to Developing the Enterprise Architecture Practice. In: Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J., Cardoso, J. (eds.) Enterprise Information Systems. LNBIP, vol. 12, pp. 240–253. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    SEI Carnegie Mellon University: Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), Version 1.3 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Curley, M.: An IT Value Based Capability Maturity Framework. MIT Sloan CISR VI(2D) (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Association of State Chief Information Officers. Enterprise Architecture Maturity Model, (accessed, December 2003)
  9. 9.
    Luftman, J.: Assessing Business-IT Alignment Maturity. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 4(1), Article 14 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luftman, J. (ed.): Competing in the Information Age: Align in the Sand, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    SEI Carnegie Mellon University: Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI), Version 1.3 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Department of Commerce (DoC). ACMM Enterprise Architecture Capability Maturity Model, (accessed 2007)
  13. 13.
    U.S. Government of Accountability Office: Organizational Transformation: A Framework for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 2.0),
  14. 14.
    U.S. Office of Management and Budget: Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework (EAAF),
  15. 15.
    IT Governance Institute: Control Objectives for Information and related Technology (COBIT) (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    IT Governance Institute: ValIT, Version 2.0 (2008) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lahrmann, G., Marx, F., Mettler, T., Winter, R., Wortmann, F.: Inductive design of maturity models: Applying the rasch algorithm for design science research. In: Jain, H., Sinha, A.P., Vitharana, P. (eds.) DESRIST 2011. LNCS, vol. 6629, pp. 176–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Raadt, B., Hoorn, J.F., van Vliet, H.: Alignment and maturity are siblings in architecture assessment. In: Pastor, Ó., Falcão e Cunha, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3520, pp. 357–371. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Office of Government Commerce: IT Infrastructure Library. The Stationary Office, London (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khoshgoftar, O.: Comparison of maturity models. In: 2nd IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology ICCSIT, pp. 297–301 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herz, T., Hamel, F., Uebernickel, F., Brenner, W.: Towards a Multisourcing Maturity Model as an Instrument of IT Governance at a Multinational Enterprise. In: Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1–10 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Welke, R., Hirschheim, R., Schwarz, A.: Service-Oriented Architecture Maturity. IEEE Computer 44(2), 61–67 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McGarry, F., Decker, B.: Attaining Level 5 in CMM Process Maturity. IEEE Software 19(6), 87–96 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Solingen, R.: Measuring the ROI of Software Process Improvement. IEEE Software 21(3), 32–38 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walker, A.J.: Enterprise Maturity Models: Have We Lost the Plot? Computer 41(11), 96–98 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    The Open Group: The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) Version 9. (2009) Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    The Open Group: ArchiMate 1.0 Specification (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schekkerman, J.: How to Survive in the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks: Creating or Choosing an Enterprise Architecture Framework, 3rd edn. Trafford (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, J.: Developing Maturity Models for IT Management. Business & Information Systems Engineering 1(3), 213–222 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schöenherr, M.: Towards a common terminology in the discipline of enterprise architecture. In: Feuerlicht, G., Lamersdorf, W. (eds.) ICSOC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5472, pp. 400–413. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rosemann, M., de Bruin, T.: Towards a Business Process Management Maturity Model. In: ECIS 2005 Proceedings (2005)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jugdev, K., Thomas, J.: Project Management Maturity Models: The Silver Bullets of Competitive Advantage? Project Management Journal 33(4) (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    U.S. Office of Management and Budget: Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Meyer
    • 1
  • Markus Helfert
    • 1
  • Conor O’Brien
    • 2
  1. 1.Dublin City UniversityDublinIreland
  2. 2.Innovation Value InstituteMaynoothIreland

Personalised recommendations