SpringerLink
Log in

Maturity models: identifying the state-of-the-art and the scientific gaps from a bibliometric study

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Maturity model has been increasingly approached by several researchers from various research areas in order to develop models that could assess the strengths and weaknesses of a system and/or a process, and to develop scripts for improvement. Additionally, they pursue the development of a process with desirable goals, such as a set of resources or practices, resulting in a more mature organization or system. This study provides an overview of the maturity models’ literature and their main features while employing bibliometric analyses of publications from 2004 through 2014 aiming to identify scientific gaps that would serve as guides for future research. The analyses’ results reveal that maturity models are highly applied in project management seeking for processes and/or systems improvement, and they can also be described as adaptable models which could be used in various research areas, as can be seen in the scientific gaps section. Therefore, the main contribution of this paper is to make the evolution of this subject and its importance better known, thus encouraging the use of maturity model in future researches, seeking the improvement of the current model.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

(Source ** et al. 2014)

Fig. 2

(Source ** et al. 2014)

Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albu, E., & Panzar, C. (2010). A new tool for assessing maturity aligment: The enterprise maturity matrix. Performance Improvement, 49(9), 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blagus, R., Leskošek, B. L., & Stare, J. (2015). Comparison of bibliometric measures for assessing relative importance of researchers. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1743–1762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York: McGrawHill Companies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809–1831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsevier. (2015). http://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus. Accessed 03 Sept 2015.

  • Fischer, D. (2004). The business process maturity model: A practical approach for identifying opportunities for optimization. Resource document. BPTrends. http://www.bptrends.com/bpt/wp-content/publicationfiles/10-04%20ART%20BP%20Maturity%20Model%20-%20Fisher.pdf. Accessed 06 June 2016.

  • Garzás, J., et al. (2013). A maturity model for the Spanish software industry based on ISO standards. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 35(6), 616–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golev, A., Corder, G. D., & Giurco, D. P. (2015). Barriers to industrial symbiosis: Insights from the use of a maturity grid. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(1), 141–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorschek, T. (2012). Introduction of a process maturity model for market-driven product management and requirements engineering. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 24, 83–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, P. (2004). Evaluating an organization’s business process maturity. Business Process Trends Newsletter, 2(3), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • **, D., Chai, K., & Tan, K. (2014). New service development maturity model. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 24(1), 86–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, F., et al. (2007). Lean maturity, lean sustainability. Advances in Production Management Systems, 246, 371–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • León, H., et al. (2011). Lean product development research: Current state and future directions. Engineering Management Journal, 23(1), 29–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liker, J., & Morgan, J. (2011). lean product development as a system: A case study of body and stam** development at Ford. Engineering Management Journal, 23(1), 16–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, A. M., Moultrie, J., & Clarckson, P. J. (2012). Assessing organizational capabilities: Reviewing and guiding the development of maturity grids. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(1), 138–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, F., Wortmann, F., & Mayer, J. H. (2012). A maturity model for management control systems five evolutionary steps to guide development. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 4(4), 193–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ngai, N. W. T., et al. (2013). Energy and utility management maturity model for sustainable manufacturing process. International Journal of Production Economics, 146, 453–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulk, M. C., et al. (1993). Capability maturity model, version 1.1. IEEE Software, 10(4), 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pigosso, D. C. A., Rozenfeld, H., & McAloone, T. C. (2013). Ecodesign maturity model: A management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, 160–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poppendieck, M. (2004). The lean maturity measure assessment and implementation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3134, 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randeree, K., Mahal, A., & Narwani, A. (2012). A business continuity management maturity model for the UAE banking sector. Business Process Management Journal, 18(3), 472–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, K. A., Saldanha, I. J., & Mckoy, N. A. (2011) Frameworks for determining research gaps during systematic reviews. Resource document. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62478/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK62478.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2016.

  • Rubem, A. P. S., Moura, A. L., & Mello, J. C. C. B. S. (2015). Comparative analysis of some individual bibliometric indices when applied to groups of researchers. Scientometrics, 102(1), 1019–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmietendorf, A., Scholz, A., & Rautenstrauch, C. (2000) Evaluating the performance engineering process. WOSP2000: Second International Workshop on Software and Performance, doi:10.1145/350391.350413.

  • Souza, T. F., & Gomes, C. F. S. (2015). Assessment of maturity in project management: A bibliometric study of main models. Procedia Computer Science, 55, 92–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanyi, A. (2004) Beyond process maturity to process competence. Resource document. BPTrends. http://www.bptrends.com/bpt/wp-content/publicationfiles/06-04%20ART%20Dev%20Business%20Process%20Competence%20-%20Spanyi.pdf. Accessed 04 June 2016.

  • Uriona-Maldonado, M., Santos, R. N. M., & Varvakis, G. (2012). State of the art on the systems of innovation research: A bibliometrics study up to 2009. Scientometrics, 91(3), 977–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, L., et al. (2013). Global trends of solid waste research from 1997 to 2011 by using bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 96, 133–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhuang, Y., et al. (2013). Global remote sensing research trends during 1991–2010: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 96, 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the permission given by Emerald Publisher for we use Figs. 1 and 2 in our text.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. São Paulo State University - UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil

    Thalita Laua Reis, Maria Augusta Siqueira Mathias & Otavio Jose de Oliveira

Authors
  1. Thalita Laua Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Augusta Siqueira Mathias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Otavio Jose de Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Otavio Jose de Oliveira.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reis, T.L., Mathias, M.A.S. & de Oliveira, O.J. Maturity models: identifying the state-of-the-art and the scientific gaps from a bibliometric study. Scientometrics 110, 643–672 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2182-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2182-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation