Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Maturity model

A maturity model is a that outlines a sequence of discrete maturity levels for organizational processes or capabilities within a specific , serving as a to assess current and guide progressive improvements toward higher and effectiveness. These models typically feature staged or continuous representations of evolution, often spanning aspects such as business processes, technology adoption, and human factors, with the goal of transforming ad-hoc practices into optimized, predictable operations. The concept of maturity models traces its origins to Philip B. Crosby's Quality Management Maturity Grid (QMMG), introduced in his 1979 book Quality Is Free, which provided an early matrix for evaluating an organization's quality management progression across five stages from uncertainty to wisdom. This idea gained prominence in software engineering through the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), developed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University starting in 1986 and first published in 1987 as a framework to enhance software process maturity. The CMM evolved into the more comprehensive Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) in 2000, administered by the CMMI Institute, which integrates best practices across disciplines like systems engineering, software development, and service management to reduce risks and improve outcomes. Key examples include the CMM's five levels—Initial (ad-hoc), Repeatable (basic project management), Defined (standardized processes), Managed (measured and controlled), and Optimizing (continuous improvement)—a structure adapted in various sectors. Maturity models have since proliferated across fields, including (e.g., the Business Process Maturity Model), cybersecurity (e.g., the Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model by the U.S. Department of Energy), and healthcare, where they help identify gaps, prioritize enhancements, and measure progress empirically. Their benefits encompass boosted productivity, better , and sustained performance gains, though limitations include potential overemphasis on linear progression and challenges in empirical validation.

Overview

Definition

A maturity model is a structured designed to assess and enhance the maturity of processes, capabilities, or organizations within a specific , often delineating progressive stages that evolve from initial, chaotic conditions to optimized, sustainable . These models provide a systematic approach to evaluating how well-defined, managed, and refined an entity's practices are, enabling identification of current strengths and gaps for targeted advancement. Originating from principles, they emphasize ordinal scales of maturity, where levels represent a logical sequence of development rather than arbitrary benchmarks. Key characteristics of maturity models include their focus on evolutionary improvement through staged progression, fostering continuous refinement over time, and their versatility in application across scales—from individuals and teams to entire organizational functions or systems. For instance, they employ multi-level hierarchies, typically comprising four to five stages, each with defined descriptors that guide maturation paths and ensure intersubjective verifiability in assessments. This scalability allows adaptation to diverse contexts, such as personal skill development in the or process optimization in broader enterprise settings. Maturity models can be distinguished as descriptive or prescriptive: descriptive variants primarily gauge the existing state of maturity against established criteria, offering a diagnostic snapshot without explicit improvement directives, while prescriptive models extend this by incorporating actionable guidance, such as specific measures and decision frameworks, to propel advancement to higher levels. In practice, these models support general use cases like against industry best practices to align operations with proven standards, thereby facilitating strategic and resource allocation for sustained enhancement. For example, organizations might use such frameworks to compare their process maturity to global benchmarks, as seen in models like the (CMMI).

Purpose and Benefits

Maturity models serve as structured frameworks for organizations to identify gaps in their processes, capabilities, and performance, enabling a systematic of current states against desired outcomes. By assessing these gaps, organizations can prioritize targeted improvements, allocate resources effectively, and develop actionable roadmaps for progression through defined stages of maturity. This approach facilitates against industry standards or peers, allowing for objective comparisons that inform strategic adjustments. For instance, in contexts, such models help pinpoint inefficiencies in operational processes without delving into specific implementations. The primary benefits of adopting maturity models include enhanced through optimized processes, reduced risks by mitigating potential failures at higher maturity stages, and improved supported by data-driven insights. Organizations often experience increased competitiveness as mature processes enable faster to changes and better resource utilization, leading to measurable returns on (ROI) via staged advancements. In , these models play a crucial role by aligning organizational processes with overarching business goals, such as achieving or fostering , thereby ensuring sustained growth and adaptability. Empirical evidence underscores the correlation between higher maturity levels and positive performance outcomes, including cost savings and quality enhancements. A study of Indian software firms implementing the (CMM) found that higher levels significantly improved , , and project efficiency, with active participation leading to notable cost reductions. Similarly, case studies from the report substantial ROI across organizations, such as a 5:1 return from quality activities at and a 33% decrease in defect correction costs at , alongside over 50% reductions in defects per million lines of code at . These results demonstrate how maturity models drive tangible improvements in predictability and overall organizational performance.

History

Origins in Quality Management

The concept of maturity models in emerged during the late 1970s and 1980s as part of the broader shift toward (TQM) principles, which emphasized organization-wide commitment to quality improvement and customer satisfaction. TQM, drawing from post-World War II practices, gained traction in Western industries amid competition from efficiency, promoting systematic processes over ad-hoc fixes. A pivotal development was Philip B. Crosby's introduction of the Maturity Grid (QMMG) in his book Quality Is Free, recognized as the first explicit maturity model for assessing organizational quality practices. The grid outlines five progressive stages: (where quality is viewed reactively and inconsistently), Awakening (initial recognition of quality problems and sporadic fixes), (adoption of prevention-based approaches and basic systems), (integration of quality into daily operations with proactive management), and (full embedding of quality as a strategic, error-free norm). Crosby's framework used a 5x6 matrix to evaluate maturity across dimensions like management attitude, problem-solving approach, cost measurement, and quality organization, enabling to guide improvement. This model was heavily influenced by the foundational quality principles of and , who advocated and the for identifying vital quality issues, respectively, while stressing prevention over inspection. Deming's Plan-Do-Check-Act () cycle and Juran's quality trilogy (, , ) laid the groundwork for structured progression in quality practices, which Crosby adapted into staged maturity. Additionally, the emphasis on continuous —echoing Japanese philosophy, which promoted incremental, ongoing enhancements in processes—reinforced the model's focus on evolutionary advancement toward defect-free operations. Initially applied in manufacturing sectors like automotive and to standardize and defect prevention, the QMMG was subsequently extended to such as and healthcare, helping organizations and elevate processes against reactive firefighting. These early uses demonstrated the model's value in fostering cultural shifts toward proactive integration, serving as a precursor to broader maturity assessments in later domains.

Evolution in Software and Beyond

The (CMM) was introduced in 1987 by the (SEI) at , under sponsorship from the U.S. Department of Defense, to address inconsistencies in processes among defense contractors. This model established a framework with five progressive maturity levels—Initial, Repeatable, Defined, Managed, and Optimizing—enabling organizations to systematically improve their practices through structured assessments and process enhancements. In the , maturity models began expanding beyond initial software applications, integrating with broader process improvement initiatives. This culminated in the release of the (CMMI) in 2000 by the SEI, which consolidated multiple discipline-specific models into a unified framework applicable to software, systems, and acquisition processes, facilitating cross-functional maturity assessments. By the early 2000s, the approach influenced , as seen in the Project Management Institute's (PMI) Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) introduced in 2003, which extended maturity concepts to organizational-level project, program, and portfolio practices. From the 2000s onward, maturity models proliferated across diverse domains, adapting to emerging needs in cybersecurity, , and . A notable example is the U.S. Department of Energy's Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2) released in 2012, which applies maturity levels to evaluate and strengthen cybersecurity programs in sectors. Similarly, frameworks for maturity, such as Gartner's 2008 Web Analytics Maturity Model, provided universal tools for organizations to gauge and advance their data-driven decision-making capabilities across industries. In , models like those developed in the by consulting firms assessed HR maturity to align with organizational goals. Key milestones in this evolution reflect a shift from software-specific models to versatile, cross-domain frameworks, driven by alignments with international standards like ISO 9001 for and ISO/IEC 27001 for , as well as integrations with agile methodologies to accommodate iterative and flexible process improvements. This progression enabled maturity models to support adaptive strategies in dynamic environments, emphasizing continuous optimization over rigid hierarchies.

General Structure

Maturity Levels

Maturity models typically feature a staged progression of levels that represent increasing degrees of process sophistication and organizational capability. The most widely adopted structure consists of five levels, originally developed in the (CMM) for software processes by the (SEI) at . These levels form an ordinal scale, where each higher level presupposes the successful implementation of the previous ones, enabling a cumulative buildup of maturity. At Level 1: Initial (or ), processes are unpredictable, poorly controlled, and reactive, often driven by individual heroics rather than systematic approaches, resulting in inconsistent outcomes. Progressing to Level 2: , basic practices are introduced to track cost, schedule, and functionality, allowing processes to be performed by the same group on similar projects. Level 3: Defined establishes standardized processes across the organization, documented and integrated into a cohesive that ensures repeatability and addresses common issues proactively. At Level 4: Managed, detailed measures of the software and product quality are collected, with processes and products measured and controlled within predictable limits. Finally, Level 5: Optimizing focuses on continuous improvement through innovation and refinement, where processes are dynamically adjusted based on quantitative to achieve higher efficiency and adaptability. While the five-level model is standard and influential across domains, variations exist to suit specific contexts; some models employ three levels for simplicity (e.g., basic, intermediate, advanced) or up to six for finer granularity, but they maintain the ordinal progression where advancement requires mastering prior stages. For example, the successor (CMMI) renames Level 2 as "Managed" and Level 4 as "Quantitatively Managed" to reflect integrated best practices across disciplines. Progression between levels is determined by criteria such as enhanced process capability (the ability to perform tasks reliably), achievement of performance metrics (e.g., defect rates or cycle times), and organizational enablers including supportive , , and tools that facilitate . Conceptually, these levels emphasize key attributes: predictability emerges at lower stages through repeatability, while higher stages prioritize optimization via measurement and innovation, providing a framework for benchmarking and guiding incremental improvements without implying a one-size-fits-all path.

Assessment and Evaluation Methods

Assessment and evaluation methods for maturity models provide structured approaches to gauge an organization's progress across defined maturity levels, enabling identification of strengths, weaknesses, and pathways for improvement. These methods typically integrate qualitative insights from stakeholder feedback with quantitative metrics to ensure a holistic view of capabilities. Primary techniques encompass self-assessments, where internal teams apply guided tools to introspectively review processes; third-party audits, involving external experts who validate claims through evidence review and interviews; surveys distributed to employees and partners for broad perceptual data; and maturity matrices, which visually align organizational practices against level-specific descriptors to facilitate comparison. Key performance indicators (KPIs) and benchmarks form the backbone of these evaluations, offering objective yardsticks such as cycle times, compliance rates, or efficiency ratios tailored to the model's domain. For example, benchmarks derived from industry standards allow organizations to contextualize their performance relative to peers, highlighting deviations that inform targeted enhancements. The Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (), a widely adopted , exemplifies this by combining document reviews, interviews, and demonstrations to rate processes against capability profiles. The evaluation process unfolds through sequential steps designed to translate assessment data into actionable outcomes. It begins with , systematically contrasting current-state practices with the criteria of desired maturity levels to pinpoint discrepancies in processes, resources, or outcomes. This is followed by scoring, where assessors assign numerical or ordinal ratings—often on a 0-5 scale—to each element based on , aggregating scores to determine an overall maturity position. Finally, roadmap creation synthesizes findings into a strategic plan, prioritizing initiatives, assigning responsibilities, and setting milestones for advancing to higher levels, ensuring alignment with organizational goals. Supporting tools enhance the accuracy and efficiency of these methods. Questionnaires, often standardized and scalable, collect granular data on process attributes, while diagnostic frameworks like those outlined in ISO/IEC 15504-5 enable conformant assessments by defining indicators for capability determination. Software platforms, such as automated maturity trackers, further streamline operations by integrating data inputs, generating visualizations, and facilitating longitudinal monitoring to track progress over time. Evaluating maturity models is not without hurdles, which can undermine reliability if unaddressed. Subjectivity arises from assessor biases or interpretive variances in qualitative judgments, potentially skewing scores despite standardized criteria. Resource intensity poses another barrier, as comprehensive audits demand substantial investments in time, personnel, and expertise, often straining smaller organizations. Moreover, the need for ongoing monitoring underscores a critical challenge: without sustained vigilance, organizations risk maturity due to evolving external demands or internal complacency.

Notable Maturity Models by Domain

Quality Management Models

Quality management models represent foundational frameworks for assessing and advancing organizational quality practices, with a particular emphasis on systematic defect reduction and process enhancement. One seminal model is Philip Crosby's Maturity Grid (QMMG), introduced in 1979, which outlines five progressive stages of quality maturity: , where quality is viewed as an inspection function with high costs from defects; Awakening, marked by recognition of quality issues and initial management involvement; , involving systematic planning and error prevention; , characterized by defect prevention as a core operation and cost-of-quality measurement; and , achieving through ingrained quality attitudes and advanced prevention techniques. This grid emphasizes shifting from reactive inspection to proactive defect prevention, promoting a "" philosophy to minimize nonconformities and associated costs. The Total Quality Management (TQM) Maturity Model builds on these principles by evaluating an organization's progression toward holistic quality integration, often aligning with standards like ISO 9001 to ensure process standardization and customer focus. It features five levels: Initial/Beginner (ad-hoc processes with minimal TQM adoption); Managed/Committed (basic structured quality management); Defined/Improver (standardized processes yielding consistent benefits); Quantitatively Managed/Proficient (data-driven enhancements and strong quality culture); and Optimizing/Mature (proactive, continuous optimization for sustained excellence). ISO 9001 certification serves as an entry point, facilitating TQM by mandating documented processes, customer satisfaction monitoring, and continual improvement, though full maturity requires exceeding these requirements for comprehensive stakeholder engagement. The model prioritizes customer satisfaction as a core outcome, measuring it through feedback mechanisms to exceed expectations and drive process standardization across operations. Another prominent framework is the Maturity Model, which assesses organizational adoption of methodologies to achieve near-perfect quality through . It includes five levels: Launch (initial project deployment); Early Success (demonstrated project wins and training); Scale/Replication (widespread application and infrastructure); Institutionalization (embedded in operations with metrics tracking); and Culture Transformation (quality ingrained in decision-making). Aligned with the (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) cycle, the model measures progress via defect rates, targeting 3.4 (DPMO) at higher maturity stages to ensure process capability and variability reduction. This quantitative focus enables organizations to sigma levels, from reactive firefighting at lower stages to optimized, predictive quality at advanced ones. These models find primary application in and sectors, supporting process (e.g., via ISO 9001) and fostering continuous improvement to enhance , reduce , and boost customer loyalty. In , they guide defect prevention in production lines, while in s, they standardize delivery processes for consistent quality outcomes.

Information Technology and Software Models

Maturity models in information technology and software engineering provide structured frameworks to assess and enhance processes critical to development, testing, and service management. These models emphasize iterative improvements in operational efficiency, quality assurance, and alignment with business objectives, particularly in dynamic environments like software lifecycles. Originating from foundational work at institutions such as the Software Engineering Institute (SEI), they have evolved to address modern challenges in IT operations. The (CMMI), developed by SEI at , evolved from the original (CMM) introduced in 1987 to consolidate multiple discipline-specific models into a unified framework. CMMI features five maturity levels—Initial, Managed, Defined, Quantitatively Managed, and Optimizing—that guide organizations in progressing from ad-hoc practices to optimized, data-driven processes. It covers key areas including development (CMMI-DEV for product and ), services (CMMI-SVC for service delivery and ), and acquisition (CMMI-ACQ for supplier ), enabling comprehensive process improvement across IT and software domains. Appraisals are conducted using the Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (), a rigorous, team-based evaluation that identifies strengths, weaknesses, and maturity ratings to inform targeted enhancements. The Testing Maturity Model (TMM), pioneered by Ilene Burnstein and colleagues at the Illinois Institute of Technology, specifically targets software testing processes to elevate them from reactive to proactive paradigms. TMM outlines five maturity levels—Initial, Definition, Integration, Management and Measurement, and Optimization—that assess aspects such as test planning, execution, defect tracking, and quality control. At the highest level, Optimization emphasizes defect prevention through continuous process refinement and predictive analytics, reducing testing defects and improving software reliability. This model integrates with broader development practices by aligning testing maturity with overall software engineering goals, fostering measurable improvements in test coverage and efficiency. The ITIL Maturity Model, part of the IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) framework managed by AXELOS, evaluates (ITSM) capabilities to ensure alignment with organizational value creation. It assesses maturity across core ITIL practices grouped into the service value system, including strategy (for service portfolio management), design (for architecture and transitions), transition (for change and ), operation (for incident and problem resolution), and continual improvement (for ongoing enhancements). The model defines five capability levels—from (ad-hoc practices) to Integrating (holistic, optimized operations)—allowing organizations to benchmark ITSM effectiveness and prioritize improvements in service delivery. Modern iterations of these models, particularly CMMI Version 3.0 released in 2023, incorporate agile methodologies and principles to support faster, more collaborative IT and software practices. For instance, CMMI now includes guidance on integrating / () pipelines and agile ceremonies, enabling organizations to achieve higher maturity without sacrificing flexibility. Similarly, updated ITIL assessments emphasize integration for seamless service operations, while TMM adaptations promote automated testing in agile environments to enhance defect prevention at scale. These evolutions ensure the models remain relevant for contemporary IT challenges, such as rapid deployment and cross-functional collaboration.

Project Management Models

Project management maturity models provide frameworks for organizations to evaluate and enhance their capabilities in delivering projects, programs, and portfolios effectively, emphasizing , processes, and alignment with . These models typically feature progressive levels of maturity, enabling systematic improvements in project success rates and resource utilization across various industries. Unlike domain-specific models, they focus on overarching project lifecycle management, including standardization of practices and performance metrics. The Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3), developed by the () and first published in 2003, assesses maturity across three core domains: portfolio management, program management, and . It structures improvement through a four-stage —Standardize, Measure, Control, and Improve (SMCI)—that guides organizations in establishing consistent processes, evaluating performance, maintaining controls, and driving continuous enhancements. OPM3 incorporates over 600 best practices, derived from PMI standards such as the PMBOK Guide, to benchmark capabilities and outcomes, with more than 3,000 capabilities and 4,000 relationships identified to support strategic alignment. This model has been updated in subsequent editions, including the third in 2013, to reflect evolving practices in organizational enablers like competency management and process improvement. The Maturity Model (PMMM), introduced by PM Solutions in 2002 and refined in later editions, outlines five evolutionary maturity levels adapted from the (CMM): Initial Process, Structured Process and Standards, Organizational Standardization and Measurement, Managed and Measured, and Optimization. It emphasizes key focus areas including governance for strategic alignment, standardized methodologies integrated with PMBOK knowledge areas, and performance measurement across 10 PMI domains to quantify project delivery effectiveness. Organizations use PMMM to identify gaps in infrastructure, such as inconsistent tools or metrics, and to roadmap advancements toward optimized, data-driven decision-making. The Portfolio, Programme, and Maturity Model (P3M3), owned by AXELOS and originally developed by the Office of Commerce, evaluates maturity in three interrelated sub-models: portfolio, programme, and , across seven perspectives including organizational , benefits management, , and . It defines five levels— (Level 1), Repeatable (Level 2), Defined (Level 3), Managed (Level 4), and Optimised (Level 5)—where higher levels indicate consistent processes, proactive monitoring, and adaptive optimization to meet strategic goals. Particularly applied in and large settings, P3M3 supports of tools, competencies, and systems to enhance of complex initiatives. These models are applied to align project portfolios with organizational objectives, fostering higher success rates by identifying maturity gaps and prioritizing improvements in and execution. For instance, organizations leveraging OPM3 or P3M3 have reported enhanced strategic execution, with maturity assessments leading to measurable increases in on-time project delivery and benefit realization in diverse sectors.

Security and Risk Models

Maturity models in security and provide structured frameworks for organizations to assess, improve, and maintain their cybersecurity postures, emphasizing proactive threat detection, , and operational resilience against evolving digital threats. These models help entities in critical sectors, such as and , benchmark their capabilities, identify gaps, and implement progressive enhancements to mitigate risks like data breaches and cyber intrusions. By focusing on integrated processes rather than isolated controls, they enable risk-informed decision-making and alignment with standards like ISO 27001. The Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2), developed by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2012, is a widely adopted tool for evaluating and strengthening cybersecurity in organizations. It organizes over 350 practices into 10 domains, including , Incident Response and Management, and Threat and Vulnerability Management, which collectively address key areas like asset protection and risk. Each domain's practices are assessed across four Maturity Indicator Levels (MILs): MIL0 (not performed), MIL1 (initial/), MIL2 (documented and repeatable), and MIL3 (managed, measured, and aligned with policy). This progression supports enhanced threat detection through consistent monitoring and resilience via formalized incident response, with many energy sector firms using it to comply with federal guidelines. Building on the (CSF) introduced in 2014, the CSF's maturity tiers offer a tiered approach to cybersecurity , progressing from (Partial: informal, reactive practices with limited risk awareness) to Tier 4 (Adaptive: proactive, innovative processes with continuous threat intelligence integration). These tiers evaluate how organizations govern and manage risks across CSF functions like Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover, emphasizing in dynamic environments. For instance, higher tiers promote advanced threat detection via automated tools and compliance with evolving regulations, enabling adaptive responses to sophisticated attacks. Updated in CSF 2.0 (2024), the model now includes a Govern function to oversee risk-informed decisions organization-wide. The Open Information Security Management Maturity Model (O-ISM3), released by The Open Group in 2011, provides a process-oriented framework aligned with ISO 27001 for maturing systems (). It defines maturity across five levels—Initial (), Repeatable (basic processes in place), Defined (standardized across the ), Managed (measured and controlled), and Optimized (continuous improvement integrated with goals)—applied to 10 core processes grouped into four components: Plan, Deliver, Control, and Manage. This structure facilitates compliance with ISO 27001 by embedding security governance, , and into operations, enhancing through metrics-driven threat detection and . O-ISM3 is particularly useful for large enterprises seeking to evolve from fragmented security efforts to holistic, integrated programs.

Other Domain-Specific Models

The Analytics Maturity Model, developed by , provides a for organizations to assess their progression in leveraging for across four stages. In the descriptive stage, organizations focus on historical to understand what has happened, often using dashboards and basic metrics. The diagnostic stage advances to analyzing why events occurred, incorporating techniques like drill-downs and . Predictive analytics represents the third stage, employing statistical models and to forecast future outcomes based on trends. Finally, the prescriptive stage involves advanced optimization and simulation to recommend specific actions that optimize results. Human Resources Maturity Models evaluate the evolution of HR functions from administrative support to strategic business integration, typically spanning five levels. At the basic or transactional level, HR handles routine tasks such as and with minimal strategic input. The managed level introduces standardized processes for and employee relations. In the defined stage, HR policies align with organizational goals, emphasizing development. The integrated level sees HR collaborating cross-functionally on and culture building. The strategic level positions HR as a proactive , driving strategies that support overall objectives like and . The Maturity Model (BPMM), standardized by the , offers a framework applicable across industries to mature process orchestration through five levels. Level 1 (Initial) features ad-hoc, inconsistent processes with unpredictable outcomes. Level 2 (Managed) establishes repeatable processes with basic management and measurement. Level 3 (Standardized) defines organization-wide standards and integrates processes for consistency. Level 4 (Predictable) enables quantitative prediction and control using statistical methods. Level 5 (Innovating) supports continuous improvement and innovation through proactive process optimization. Digital Maturity Models assess an organization's readiness for , often featuring progressive stages that encompass technology adoption, culture, and operations. Deloitte's model, for instance, categorizes maturity into levels such as digitally behind, developing, maturing, and advanced, evaluating factors like , operational processes, and business models to guide holistic transformation efforts. In specialized sectors, domain-specific models address unique challenges. The HIMSS Electronic Medical Record Adoption Model (EMRAM) for healthcare progresses through seven stages, from limited paper records to fully optimized clinical decision support systems that leverage for outcomes. Supply chain maturity models, such as Deloitte's assessment framework, typically include four to five levels, advancing from reactive planning to integrated, resilient networks that incorporate for end-to-end visibility and risk mitigation.

Limitations and Criticisms

Common Challenges

One prominent challenge in implementing maturity models is their inherent rigidity, which assumes a linear progression through predefined levels that often overlooks organizational context, unique capabilities, and non-sequential development paths. This structured approach can hinder adaptability, particularly in dynamic environments where capabilities evolve iteratively rather than in discrete stages. High implementation costs represent another significant barrier, as maturity models typically demand substantial investments in training, process redesign, and ongoing assessments, which can strain resources without immediate returns. These expenses include not only direct financial outlays but also indirect costs related to reallocating personnel and disrupting operations during adoption. Resistance to change is frequently encountered, stemming from employee apprehension about altered workflows and cultural shifts required to align with model practices. This aversion can manifest as reluctance to adopt new processes, exacerbated by insufficient leadership buy-in or communication of benefits. Maturity models often overemphasize compliance with standardized processes at the expense of fostering , leading to a "checklist" mentality that prioritizes documentation and audits over . Such a focus can stifle and discourage experimentation, particularly in knowledge-intensive domains. Assessment processes in maturity models suffer from subjectivity, as evaluations rely heavily on qualitative judgments by appraisers, which can introduce and inconsistency across organizations. Quantifying intangible benefits, such as improved collaboration or cultural enhancements, poses further difficulties, as these outcomes resist straightforward metrics and long-term tracking. Scalability issues arise for small organizations, where the resource-intensive nature of full model deployment becomes disproportionate to their size and operational scope, often rendering comprehensive adoption impractical. Many traditional maturity models, developed prior to the widespread adoption of agile methodologies and paradigms, exhibit dated aspects that necessitate updates to accommodate iterative practices and rapid technological shifts. This can limit their in modern contexts, where flexibility and continuous improvement supersede staged progression.

Alternatives and Future Directions

While traditional maturity models provide structured, level-based assessments for organizational processes, alternatives emphasize iterative, flexible, or outcome-oriented approaches that avoid rigid staging. Continuous improvement () implementation models, derived from frameworks like (), , and , offer phased guidance for deploying improvements across organizational dimensions without predefined maturity levels. These models focus on actionable steps, readiness factors, and sustainability, differing from maturity models by prioritizing dynamic learning and process adaptation over static capability measurement. In software and IT domains, Agile methodologies serve as prominent alternatives to capability maturity models like CMMI, promoting iterative development, adaptability, and customer collaboration over linear progression through maturity stages. Comparative analyses highlight that Agile addresses CMMI's perceived rigidity by enabling rapid response to change, though integration of both is sometimes explored for hybrid benefits. For low-maturity processes, non-model-specific techniques such as , process mapping via , and events facilitate quick stabilization and refinement without invoking maturity hierarchies. Looking ahead, future directions in maturity model research advocate for more dynamic, context-aware frameworks that incorporate organizational contingencies and empirical validation to overcome current limitations like oversimplification and lack of prescriptiveness. Scholars propose integrating maturity assessments with , such as and digital twins, to create adaptive models for domains like and , emphasizing sociotechnical factors and . Additionally, longitudinal studies on economic impacts and guidelines for higher-level improvements, including corporate culture and metrics, are recommended to enhance practical .

References

  1. [1]
    Maturity assessment and maturity models in health care - NIH
    In a more general view, a maturity model (MM) is a conceptual framework that consists of a sequence of discrete maturity levels for a class of processes in one ...
  2. [2]
    [PDF] A History of the Capability Maturity Model for Software
    The model was initially published in 1987 as a software process maturity framework that briefly described five maturity levels. The model was formalized as the ...
  3. [3]
    Transforming Software Quality Assessment
    The SEI's publication of the Software Capability Maturity Model in 1991 provided an objective standard for software development and changed the view in ...
  4. [4]
    CMMI Institute - Home
    The Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) is a proven set of best practices that helps organizations understand their current level of capability and ...Solutions · CMMI Levels of Capability and... · About ISACA · Sign In
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Capability Maturity Model for Software (Version 1.1)
    Humphrey brought this maturity framework to the Software Engineering. Institute in 1986, added the concept of maturity levels, and developed the foundation for ...
  6. [6]
    https://www.omg.org/spec/BPMM/1.0/PDF/
  7. [7]
    Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2)
    The Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2) is a free tool to help organizations evaluate their cybersecurity capabilities and optimize security ...
  8. [8]
    Maturity Models for Information Systems - A State of the Art
    A maturity model is a widely used technique that is proved to be valuable to assess business processes or certain aspects of organizations.
  9. [9]
    (PDF) What makes a useful maturity model? A framework of general ...
    A pragmatic, yet well-founded framework of general design principles justified by existing literature and grouped according to typical purposes of use.
  10. [10]
    0 - CMMI Institute
    CMMI is an integrated performance solution consisting of 5 components that, when used together, provide a clear and proven path to achieving your business ...What is CMMI? · CMMI Development · CMMI Model Viewer · CMMI Data<|separator|>
  11. [11]
    (PDF) Linking Benefits to Maturity Models - ResearchGate
    Maturity models help integrate traditionally separate organizational functions, set process improvement goals and priorities, provide guidance for quality ...Missing: scholarly | Show results with:scholarly
  12. [12]
    Maturity model implementation and use - PMI
    The five levels of the model, from Level 1 up to Level 5, were characterized as Ad Hoc/Informal, Reactive/ Tracked, Tactical/Defined, Strategic/Controlled and ...
  13. [13]
    A Systematic Review of the Application of Maturity Models in ... - MDPI
    A maturity model is a tool that describes and analyzes the behaviors, practices and processes that enable an organization to reach reliable and sustainable ...
  14. [14]
    An Exploratory Study of the Impact of the Capability Maturity Model ...
    Aug 6, 2025 · ... An Exploratory Study of the Impact of the Capability Maturity Model on the Organizational Performance of Indian Software Firms. Taylor ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] Why Make the Switch? Evidence about the Benefits of CMMI - DTIC
    Why Do We Need Objective. Evidence? Increasing numbers of organizations are considering using. CMMI models. Trustworthy evidence is essential for. • Addressing ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] The History of Quality in Industry - UNT Digital Library
    Planning and Analysis in 1970. Total Quality Management (TQM), the American response to the Japanese economic threat, arose in the 1980s as a result of the ...
  17. [17]
    The History of Quality Management System - Juran Institute
    Mar 4, 2020 · Quality management systems, as we now think of them, first started to be developed in the 1920s, as statistical sampling techniques were introduced into ...Missing: Kaizen | Show results with:Kaizen
  18. [18]
    Quality Management Maturity Grid (QMMG) - CIO Wiki
    May 12, 2024 · Crosby in his book "Quality Is Free," published in 1979. It is designed to help organizations assess their maturity level in quality management.Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
  19. [19]
    [DOC] HOW TO DEVELOP A MATURITY GRID: - University of Cambridge
    ... Maturity Grid (QMMG) is an organizational maturity matrix conceived by Philip B. Crosby first published in his book Quality is Free in 1979. The QMMG is ...Missing: Phillip | Show results with:Phillip
  20. [20]
    The Use of Maturity Models/Grids as a Tool in Assessing Product ...
    This paper traces the origins of the maturity grid and reviews methods of construction and application.
  21. [21]
    How Kaizen evolved - PEX Network
    Jul 14, 2021 · Kaizen started as a company improvement effort, born in production before expanding into supply chain. Nowadays, it is entering the business growth areas.Kaizen Generation One... · Kaizen Generation Two... · Kaizen Generation Three...
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Maturity Model Concepts for Sustainable Manufacturing
    The pioneering use of maturity grids was proposed by Crosby (1979) for assessing quality management practices in an organization.
  23. [23]
    Capability Maturity Model for Software (Version 1.1)
    Feb 1, 1993 · In September 1987, the SEI released a brief description of the process maturity framework and a maturity questionnaire (CMU/SEI-87-TR-023).
  24. [24]
    Overview: Introduction to the Gartner Maturity Model for Web Analytics
    Jul 3, 2008 · Overview: Introduction to the Gartner Maturity Model for Web Analytics. Published: 03 July 2008. Summary. Gartner has created a maturity model ...Access Research · Gartner Research: Trusted... · Actionable InsightsMissing: date | Show results with:date
  25. [25]
    Agile & Maturity Model Research: A Systematic Literature Review
    Aug 7, 2025 · The trend in adopting Agile approaches in project management is also impacting or clashing with high maturity levels [5] . Agile-oriented ...
  26. [26]
    CMMI Levels of Capability and Performance
    Maturity levels represent a staged path for an organization's performance and process improvement efforts based on predefined sets of practice areas.Cmmi Levels Of Capability... · Capability Levels · Maturity Levels
  27. [27]
    Appraisal Method - CMMI Institute
    The CMMI Appraisal Method is the official ISACA method to evaluate processes, identify strengths/weaknesses, and link business performance, focusing on process ...
  28. [28]
    Methods and techniques for maturity assessment - ResearchGate
    Jun 30, 2025 · A maturity model is a widely used technique that is proved to be valuable to assess business processes or certain aspects of organizations.
  29. [29]
    ISO/IEC 15504-5:2012 - Process assessment
    ISO/IEC 15504-5:2012 provides an example of a Process Assessment Model for use in performing a conformant assessment in accordance with the requirements of ISO ...
  30. [30]
    [PDF] Maturity Models in the Software Engineering Literature - CSC Journals
    Resource Constraints: Implementing a maturity model, including self-assessment and continuous improvement based on the model, can be resource-intensive.
  31. [31]
    the art of making quality certain : Crosby, Philip B : Free Download ...
    Oct 7, 2010 · Publication date: 1979 ; Topics: Quality assurance, Assurance qualité, Kwaliteitszorg, Qualitätskontrolle ; Publisher: New York : McGraw-Hill.Missing: original | Show results with:original
  32. [32]
    [PDF] The use of a system dynamics approach for modelling maturity of ...
    Table ‎3-3: Five levels of TQM maturity model ... indicating the different stages of TQM maturity level as shown in Table 3-3. More stages of transition ...
  33. [33]
    Maturity Model Describes Stages of Six Sigma Evolution - iSixSigma
    Feb 26, 2010 · Level 1: Launch · Level 2: Early Success · Level 3: Scale/Replication · Level 4: Institutionalization · Level 5: Culture Transformation · The Value ...
  34. [34]
    Where are you on the Quality Management Maturity Grid? - Cognidox
    Jul 18, 2023 · The grid is a simple 5 x 6 matrix that shows different stages of a company's journey towards quality maturity within six different categories.
  35. [35]
    Background to Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)
    Oct 9, 2025 · CMMI began in 1987 as the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), a Software Engineering Institute (SEI) project at Carnegie Mellon University. The ...
  36. [36]
    [PDF] Developing a Testing Maturity Model : Part I - Semantic Scholar
    The TMM will contain a set of maturity levels through which an organization can progress toward testing process maturity, an set of recommended practices at ...Missing: original | Show results with:original
  37. [37]
    Test Maturity Model - Software Testing - GeeksforGeeks
    Jul 23, 2025 · The Test Maturity Model (TMM) is a framework designed to assess and improve the maturity of an organization's software testing processes.Missing: seven | Show results with:seven
  38. [38]
    Axelos: Powering Best Practice | ITIL®, PRINCE2® and MSP®
    Axelos launches new ITIL Maturity Model. Axelos has launched a new digital version of the ITIL Maturity... September 27. Axelos launches updated Portfolio ...
  39. [39]
    Powering Best Practice | ITIL®, PRINCE2® and MSP® | Axelos
    For each practice, the ITIL maturity model defines criteria for every capability level from level 2 to level 5. These criteria can be used to assess the ...
  40. [40]
    https://www.theoris.com/unlocking-the-power-of-cmmi-version-3-0-a-framework-for-organizational-performance/
  41. [41]
    [PDF] Release: V3.0, 6 April 2023 - CMMI Institute
    Apr 6, 2023 · Global Changes. • Minor updates for grammar, formatting, plain language, translatability, clarity, and consistency with the CMMI Style Guide ...
  42. [42]
    Unlocking The Power of CMMI Version 3.0: A Framework ... - Theoris
    Jun 18, 2025 · CMMI Version 3.0 has evolved to focus on business outcomes, enhance agility, and integrate with modern practices.
  43. [43]
    None
    Summary of each segment:
  44. [44]
    Cybersecurity Framework | NIST
    The Profile is structured around the NIST CSF 2.0 Functions: Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover.CSF 1.1 Archive · Updates Archive · CSF 2.0 Quick Start Guides · CSF 2.0 Profiles
  45. [45]
    [PDF] The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0
    Feb 26, 2024 · Selecting Tiers helps set the overall tone for how an organization will manage its cybersecurity risks. Fig. 4. CSF Tiers for cybersecurity risk ...
  46. [46]
    The Open Group Releases Maturity Model for Information Security ...
    Apr 11, 2011 · O-ISM3 focuses on common information security processes that the majority of organizations share so operational metrics can be applied to ...
  47. [47]
    Analytics Maturity Model: Elevate Your Data Strategy - Supermetrics
    Oct 31, 2023 · The analytics maturity model is a framework that helps businesses determine how they can use their data to find insights and make decisions.<|separator|>
  48. [48]
    Gartner's Analytics Maturity Model | Blog - Digital.ai
    Sep 3, 2019 · Gartner ranks data analytics maturity based on a system's ability to not just provide information, but to directly aid in decision-making.Missing: introduction | Show results with:introduction
  49. [49]
    HR Maturity Model: A Practical Guide - AIHR
    An HR maturity model is a strategic framework that outlines the progression of an organization's HR function through different levels of development, from basic ...Missing: transactional | Show results with:transactional
  50. [50]
    https://www.himss.org/maturity-models/
  51. [51]
    Digital maturity index - Deloitte
    A Digital Maturity Index (DMI) that assesses organizations across 90 operational and strategic parameters to determine where they fall within six digital ...
  52. [52]
    Explore Digital Maturity Models for Healthcare - HIMSS
    Better systems save lives. From analytics to infrastructure, our eight-stage maturity models support every part of your digital health transformation.Infrastructure Adoption Model · Analytics (AMAM) Our... · Emram
  53. [53]
    Supply chain maturity assessment - Deloitte
    The assessment uses industry-standard methodologies and best practices to identify vulnerabilities and deliver actionable recommendations to improve your supply ...Let's Make This Work · This Is How Your Assessment... · Assessing Your Current...<|control11|><|separator|>
  54. [54]
    [PDF] Why Use Maturity Models to Improve Cybersecurity
    One of the biggest challenges for maturity models is defining the transition between maturity levels. Effective models have measurable transitions that are ...
  55. [55]
    Project management maturity in project-based organizations
    Oct 14, 2025 · In the second step, the goals of the maturity model are identified, including whether the institution seeks to use the maturity model to achieve ...
  56. [56]
    [PDF] Smart Manufacturing Maturity Models and Their Applicability
    The challenges facing SM transformation include inadequacy of current information technology (IT) technologies, lack of knowledge, and high investment costs in ...
  57. [57]
    [PDF] Exploring the 5 Levels of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM ... - IJESI
    Apr 25, 2023 · Organizations may face resistance to change, as adopting the CMM framework requires a shift in mindset and commitment from all levels of the ...
  58. [58]
    [PDF] Maturity Model Implementation & Use: A Case Study
    One common mistake in using maturity models is attempting to create the model and conduct assessments without the proper level of executive com- mitment.
  59. [59]
    [PDF] Capability and maturity models in business process management
    Aug 13, 2024 · We consider a maturity model as a conceptual model that consists of a sequence of discrete maturity levels for a class of capabilities (or ...
  60. [60]
    Perspectives from CMMI High Maturity Organizations and Appraisers
    Failure to use process performance models and baselines in the initial contract bid process. ... not have been. Explaining this level of inconsistency is an on- ...
  61. [61]
    Accenture: An Automation Maturity Journey
    Jul 29, 2021 · Accenture, an early adopter of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) frame-work, faced numerous challenges related to a rapidly ...<|separator|>
  62. [62]
    [PDF] The Implementation of CMMI Practices by Agile Methods
    Jun 5, 2010 · CMMI as a model asks for “roles” and “tasks”, which may be implemented by the ScrumMaster, team and product owner. ▫ In addition, CMMI ...Missing: challenges | Show results with:challenges
  63. [63]
    Full article: Continuous improvement implementation models
    The purpose of this paper is to review and aggregate the guidance for continuous improvement (CI) implementation from existing implementation models.
  64. [64]
    A Comparative Analysis of Agile Methods and the Capacity Maturity ...
    Aug 10, 2025 · Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), CMMI is a widely recognized framework designed to assess and enhance the maturity of software ...
  65. [65]
    Improving Low-maturity Processes Takes Special Approach
    Jun 18, 2023 · Create a detailed process map · Remove reasons for lack of process discipline · Establish a rudimentary continuous improvement cycle. Make ...
  66. [66]
    Exploring the Limitations of Business Process Maturity Models
    Mar 20, 2024 · Process maturity enables organizations to improve operational efficiency through reduced throughput times, resource efficiency, and increased ...Missing: quantifying scalability
  67. [67]
    Trends and Recommendations for Enhancing Maturity Models in ...
    Based on these trends and research gaps, this study proposes five recommendations for future developments that benefit both academics and practitioners. These ...
  68. [68]
    Digital health and capability maturity models—a critical thematic ...
    A literature review of capability maturity models (MMs) to inform the conceptualization, development, implementation, evaluation, and mainstreaming of MMs ...
  69. [69]
    Assessment of Project Management Maturity Models Strengths and ...
    The purpose of this article is to analyze the most popular maturity models in order to identify their strengths and weaknesses.