An Analysis of Enterprise Architecture Maturity

Frameworks

Martin Meyer1, Markus Helfert1, and Conor O’Brien2

1
Dublin City University, Dublin Ireland
{mmeyer,markus.helfert}@computing.dcu.ie
2
Innovation Value Institute,Maynooth Ireland
[email protected]

Abstract. 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.

Keywords: Enterprise Architecture, Maturity Model, Maturity Framework

Analysis.

1 Introduction
Capturing the complexities of today’s enterprises poses an immense challenge since it
involves in-depth knowledge of the organizations, processes, and stakeholders as well
as their relations to each other. This is especially true for large enterprises. To support
the documentation and management of enterprise IT, many frameworks have been
proposed from industry and academia. This is where we enter the realm of Enterprise
Architecture (EA) which is the “the fundamental organization of a system embodied
in its components, their relationships to each other, and to the environment, and the
principles guiding its design and evolution.” [1].
Companies adapting EA in their enterprise functions need to be aware of the scope
and impact by doing so. Furthermore, EA must continuously evolve and therefore we
need to somehow measure the progress. For this purpose, the concept of maturity was
employed for EA which assigns different levels of achievement by means of a
maturity assessment to artifacts, processes, or characteristics respectively. These
levels indicate how advanced such entities are in their current stage of evolvement. In
the end, a higher maturity is sought after in order to increase the value creation from

J. Grabis and M. Kirikova (Eds.): BIR 2011, LNBIP 90, pp. 167–177, 2011.
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
168 M. Meyer, M. Helfert, and C. O’Brien

IT assets. The aim of this paper is to provide a scheme to analyze such EA Maturity
models, frameworks or approaches by means of adequate key characteristics.
The rest of this work is organized as follows: Section 2 covers EA Maturity after
which we have our selection of EA Maturity frameworks and inspect their scope in
section 3. Then, in section 4 we provide the framework analysis and finally conclude
and give directions for future research in section 5 and 6 respectively.

2 Enterprise Architecture Maturity

Maturity in the IT domain is often seen as part of Quality Management. More mature
solutions possess better quality in terms of operational efficiency. Typically, maturity
models are designed for a specific domain in order to measure the current state the
achieved level of competence by means of a maturity assessment [2]. Consequently,
when speaking of maturity we refer to a measure. An EA Maturity level is a value
obtained through the aggregation of assessing different enterprise components. EA
Maturity models support the improvement of the EA domain. Assessing EA maturity
still poses a great challenge for industry and academia. It is critical to choose the
adequate characteristics of a good EA and how to match those [3]. Specific EA
maturity approaches are still a scarce resource in literature and therefore there is not a
common definition available [4]. EA Maturity, as an approach, delivers a measure to
indicate the enterprises’ current stage of development in terms of IT capabilities
relevant for the scope of EA.

2.1 EA Maturity Objectives

The purpose of maturing the EA is the same as maturing any other domain for which a
maturity model was developed. It is to increase its performance and effectiveness upon
achieving a higher maturity. The objectives which are sought-after by enterprises when
using maturity models or frameworks respectively can be summarized as follows:
• Increase in performance, effectiveness, efficiency, and value generation in terms of
planning, development, and operation according to the strategy
• Decrease the expenditure of costs and time in terms of development and operation
• Obtain better understanding and knowledge of the enterprise and its structures as
well as their evolvement, e.g. the organizational structure and the corresponding
communications
From these objectives, we can derive three perspectives or dimensions respectively
containing several focus areas which are in general interest for companies when using
a maturity approach:
• Strategy: Sets the direction of the business and IT in a top-down approach, e.g.
Strategic Planning, Finance, Governance
• Architecture1: Comprises the Business-, Application-, and Technology Architecture

1
The Information Architecture is part of the Application Architecture.
 An Analysis of Enterprise Architecture Maturity Frameworks 169

• Operations: The daily work with the IT systems, e.g. Project Management, IT
Service Management, Quality Management
Within these perspectives, maturity frameworks leave their footprint by assessing the
status quo and providing the necessary steps in order to improve the maturity. We will
use these perspectives in the course of our scope analysis in section 3.1.

2.2 EA Maturity Method

The EA Maturity method determines the structure, roles, activities and results of the
maturity assessment, i.e. or in other words how to use the maturity model in order to
exploit its sought-after benefits. Several types of assessment methods can be found in
literature for various maturity models. In most cases, the maturity level is determined
by a Likert-like questionnaire, i.e. the actual level assignment is done on a textual
basis. Other ways include expert interviews or quantitative analysis, and combinations
thereof.

2.3 EA Maturity Model Types

A possible way to differ between architecture maturity models is given in [5] where
three types are identified upon number of levels and focus areas. In our opinion, a
core feature of every maturity model is the assignment of maturity levels, and in some
cases, even capability levels [6]. The important question is now to which enterprise
objects, such as processes, organizations, or structures, or, more abstractly, to which
characteristic, category or capability the maturity level is assigned. From the major
maturity models we have examined, we can derive two different types of EA maturity
models. Process-based EA Maturity frameworks assign maturity levels to processes
within the enterprise. Hence, they measure a set of activities performed by various
stakeholders. When frameworks are centered on processes, they usually provide an in-
depth description of these including inputs, outputs and goals. Characteristics-based
EA Maturity assesses different characteristics, criteria, categories, or attributes
respectively. Although some characteristics-based frameworks consider processes as
distinct characteristic, we refer to it as a set of attributes which describe the domain
and focus area in an appropriate way. In contrast to the process-based types, the
assessment is unlike more difficult, since processes are often well supported by
software applications and therefore easier to govern and monitor, especially in terms
of quantitative evaluation.

3 EA Maturity Models, Frameworks and Approaches

We will now take a look at a selection of frameworks developed for supporting the
evolvement of EA and which are part of our framework analysis. The selection is
summarized in Table 1.
Further maturity models can be found in industry and literature, e.g. an algorithm-
based maturity model which generates the model out of questionnaire data which
170 M. Meyer, M. Helfert, and C. O’Brien

Table 1. Selected EA Maturity frameworks

Framework Publisher Type

IT-CMF [7] IVI Process-/Characteristics-based
EAMM [8] NASCIO Characteristics-based
SAMM [9][10] Luftmann Characteristics-based
CMMI [11] SEI Carnegie Mellon Process-based
University
ACMM [12] U.S. DoC Characteristics-based
EAMMF/EAAF [13][14] U.S. GAO, U.S. OMB Characteristics-based
COBIT/ValIT [15][16] ITGI Process-based

follows an inductive design approach [17]. The assignment of maturity levels is still
done for different characteristics and processes. In [5], a matrix-based maturity model
defining 18 architecture practice focus areas is presented, which supports up to 13
maturity levels to allow a finer level of detail during assessments. Bringing alignment
and maturity for architecture together in a multi-dimensional model is done in [18] by
identifying six key variables that explain them both. The IT Infrastructure Library
(ITIL) [19] is the de-facto standard for IT Service Management. It offers the Process
Maturity Framework (PMF) which is aligned with the CMMI.

Table 2. Scores for the EA Maturity Framework scope

Frameworks
Dimension COBIT/
EAMM SAMM CMMI ACMM EAMMF IT-CMF
(Focus Areas) ValIT
Strategy
• Planning Low High Med Med High High High
• Finance Low Med Med Med Med High High
• Governance High High Med High Med High High
Architecture
• Business Med High Med Med High High High
• Application Low Med High Med High High High
• Technology Low Low Low Low High Low High
Operations
• Project Mgmt Low Low High Low Low High High
• Service Mgmt Low Med High Med Med High High
• Quality Mgmt Low Low High Low Med High Med

3.1 Scope of EA Maturity Frameworks

Based on the dimensions outlined in section 2.1, we analyze the scope of the selected
frameworks (cf.Table 2). For this purpose, we assigned a score to each focus area for
every framework, i.e. a high score indicates that the focus area and the corresponding
maturity levels are covered in more detail by the assessment types (processes or
characteristics). Surprisingly, the strategy dimension generates the highest scores (cf.
 An Analysis of Enterprise Architecture Maturity Frameworks 171

Fig.1) which stems from the fact that Governance is best covered by those
frameworks. Most notably, COBIT together with ValIT and the IT-CMF possess the
best overall scores, although there is only one framework capable of serving an
overarching maturity purpose for a value-driven enterprise, namely the IT-CMF for it
offers far more detailed maturity models for focus areas even beyond the three
dimensions. Needless to say, that this is a high-level inspection to give a general idea
of what an overarching maturity framework should be capable of in terms of the
selected focus areas.

Fig. 1. Scope of EA Maturity frameworks across three dimensions

4 Analyzing EA Maturity Frameworks

Analyzing different maturity models has been done several times in literature. In [20],
a comparison between different maturity models for project management is carried
out according to 27 variables. The study comprises nine different models and the
result is presented in table form where one framework is chosen to be the best suited
in terms of selected variables.
Another analysis of different maturity models has been done in [21] where the
focus is on IT Governance with the special emphasis on multi-sourcing. For this
purpose, seven requirements were identified and used to analyze multi-sourcing
maturity models or best practices respectively with a table representing the result.
In order to give more substance to the term EA maturity, we need to address
several maturity characteristics that are important for this domain. In other words, for
a thorough analysis of EA Maturity frameworks, we need to identify adequate criteria
or key characteristics respectively, together with corresponding attributes. These are
summarized in Table 3.

Maturity Profile
This profile determines to which target the maturity level is assigned, such as
processes, characteristics or focus areas. Another important issue is if there is an
assessment aggregation, i.e. are several targets with already assigned maturity levels
combined and translated into a bigger picture or overall maturity.
172 M. Meyer, M. Helfert, and C. O’Brien

Table 3. Key characteristics and relevant attributes for the framework analysis

Key Characteristic Relevant Attributes

Maturity Profile Assessment Targets, Assessment Aggregation, No. of levels,
Representation
Assessment Method Type of Method, Time, Complexity
Maturity Improvement Type of Directions
Value Proposition Value/Benefit
EA Domain Coverage Business Architecture, Application Architecture, Technology
Architecture

A maturity profile can be represented in several ways, although a table

representation is the most common. Another way to show subject-maturity
relationships is to employ a cube-like form [22]. Consequently, subjects are taking up
two dimensions whereas the maturity levels the remaining one. Also to be found are
mere textual descriptions for every level and the corresponding characteristics.
Many maturity models adopt a five-level profile, although some approaches, such
as [5], [23], [13] support more than these five levels in order to allow a finer
granularity in terms of improvement steps. This also brings an increased level of
complexity and may make the assessment process more difficult and time consuming.
In the course of our examination of maturity profiles, we see that every one of the
selected frameworks possesses a level 0. According to general understanding, we do
not count it as a full-fledged maturity level. The analysis of the frameworks in terms
of the maturity profile is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. EA Maturity Profiles for selected frameworks

Framework Assessment Targets Assessment Aggregation No. of Representation

levels
IT-CMF Capability Building Blocks Critical Processes 5 Table
EAMM Categories None 5 Text
SAMM 2 None 5 Text
BITA Criteria
CMMI Process Areas, Capabilities None 5, 3 Table
ACMM IT Architecture Characteristics Operating Unit 5 Table
EAMMF/EAAF Critical Success Attributes CSA Representations 6 Table/Cube
COBIT/ValIT Processes None 5 Table

Assessment Method
The assessment method serves the purpose of assigning the maturity levels to
different components. We examine the frameworks in terms of this method and
whether it supports a structured way of evaluating the maturity. Furthermore, we
inspect the expenditure of time and the difficulty to undertake such assessments.
Another aspect of such a method is the involved roles and responsibilities which gives
insight to the level of engagement and how far-reaching the scope in terms of
organizational involvement is. The analysis of the frameworks in terms of the
assessment method is summarized in Table 5.

2
BITA: Business IT Alignment
 An Analysis of Enterprise Architecture Maturity Frameworks 173

Table 5. Assessment Method for selected frameworks

Framework Type of Method Time Complexity

IT-CMF Questionnaire, unique for every CP Quick Medium
EAMM NASCIO Toolkit Quick Low
SAMM High-level process with 6 steps Long High
CMMI SCAMPI, detailed process, roles and Long High
responsibilities
ACMM Scorecard (Questionnaire) Quick Low
EAMMF/EAAF EAAF, practices and artifacts for every level Moderate Medium
COBIT/ValIT None explicitly mentioned Varies Medium

Maturity Improvement
Having achieved a certain level of maturity, a company needs to know what is to be
done next in order climb up the maturity ladder. Hence, we look at the framework
support for directions on how to achieve this progress in terms of maturity.
Notably, it is generally assumed, that every company wants to achieve the highest
possible level of maturity, even if it might not be feasible to reach it, especially when
considering SMEs. However, this issue needs to be further investigated and is beyond
the scope of this paper. Another interesting point for maturity improvements is the
involved costs, but since they vary for every level and company, we will not
investigate this topic further. Such research was conducted in [24] where an analysis
on how to reach level five within CMMI is described. The analysis of the frameworks
in terms of the maturity improvement is summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. Maturity Improvement for selected frameworks

Framework Type of Directions

IT-CMF Available for every CP
EAMM None
SAMM Depends on gap analysis, no detailed directions available
CMMI Detailed in SCAMPI
ACMM None
EAMMF/EEAF Given in the EEAF, artifacts for every level
COBIT/ValIT Depends on goals and metrics defined for every process

Value Proposition
Employing a maturity model assumes that the company plans and operates more
efficiently if higher maturity levels are attained. But there is more to the value
argument. What kind of value brings the application of the maturity model and how
can this be measured? In literature, we can find several contributions that deal with
ROI ([24], [25] and references therein) of software process improvement. In terms of
software, the software product marks the most important measure of success in any
improvement program [24]. The product itself may be developed and maintained by
several processes, but improving each process according to the maturity profile does
not necessarily mean that the overall product is better in terms of performance or
efficiency [26]. This can be broken down to an optimization problem and whether its
solution provides a local or global optimization.
174 M. Meyer, M. Helfert, and C. O’Brien

We will now examine the selected frameworks in terms of their value proposition.
It has to be mentioned that we just examine the primary source of framework
information, i.e. the built-in claims of value generation since a thorough study on this
matter is beyond the scope of this paper. The analysis of the frameworks in terms of
the value proposition is summarized in Table 7.

Table 7. Value Proposition for selected frameworks

Framework Value/Benefit
IT-CMF Generate business value
EAMM Reduced redundancy, provide BITA, improved accuracy during
development, reduced system complexity, enhanced information sharing,
increased traceability
SAMM Provide BITA and therefore the value of it
CMMI Improved performance, reduced costs
ACMM Provide strategic direction; identify weak spots; enhance overall success of
IT Architecture
EAMMF Identify status quo in a simplified and structured way
COBIT/ValIT Provide governance, improve efficiency of IT investments

EA Domain Coverage
We already outlined what EA is all about. For analyzing EA Maturity frameworks we
need to find viable perspectives or domains respectively. A generally accepted way to
organize an EA into domains is to introduce four distinct sub-architectures, namely
the Business-, the Data/Information-, the Application-, and the Technology
Architecture (e.g. [27]). For the purpose of this work, we just use three domains and
include the Data/Information Architecture into the Application Architecture as done
in [28]. The reason for this is that data or information respectively can be considered
as a passive structure created, managed or analyzed by applications and services. Data
without an application is actually useless. The analysis of the frameworks in terms of
the EA domain coverage is summarized in Table 8 and is in line with section 3.1.

Table 8. EA Domain Coverage for selected frameworks

Framework Business Architecture Application Technology

Architecture Architecture
IT-CMF High High High
EAMM Medium Low Low
SAMM High Medium Low
CMMI Medium High Low
ACMM Medium Medium Low
EAMMF/EAAF High High High
COBIT/ValIT High High Low

5 Conclusion
In this paper, we presented an overview of the current state of the art in EA maturity
by analyzing selected frameworks in terms of the maturity profile, the assessment
 An Analysis of Enterprise Architecture Maturity Frameworks 175

method, the maturity improvement, the value proposition, and the EA domain
coverage which we think are key characteristics of such frameworks. Since EA as
discipline deals with the enterprise IT holistically, at least on higher level of
abstraction, we wanted to elaborate if there is a framework capable of serving as an
overarching IT maturity model. As it is the case, we discovered that the IT-CMF is
able to fulfill this purpose, not only on a high level of abstraction, but also going into
detail by means of providing a structured maturity profile and assessment method for
each of the containing processes. Finally, this analysis sheds light on the topic of EA
maturity and therefore should aid IT managers as well as Enterprise Architects in
selecting the appropriate maturity approach best suited for their needs.

6 Outlook and Future Research

When analyzing frameworks, we usually are challenged by the sheer amount of
possible ways of adequate criteria and on which level of abstraction such an analysis is
undertaken. Therefore, it might be interesting to elaborate a finer granularity of the
chosen characteristics, attributes, dimensions and focus areas in order to provide a
more thorough analysis. In addition, the selection of frameworks is certainly not
exhaustive, so adding further approaches might prove as valuable. As already pointed
out in the course of this paper, some topics are beyond the scope of this contribution,
such as the value and cost of these frameworks which would require a larger survey
across several sectors with a good number of companies participating in such analysis.

References
1. ISO/IEC 42010 - IEEE Std 1471-2000: Systems and software engineering. IEEE (July
2007)
2. de Bruin, T., Freeze, R., Kulkarni, U., Rosemann, M.: Understanding the Main Phases of
Developing a Maturity. In: ACIS, Proceedings (2005) Paper 109
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)
4. Kaisler, S., Armour, F., Valivullah, M.: Enterprise Architecting: Critical Problems. In:
Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii (2005)
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)
6. SEI Carnegie Mellon University: Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), Version
1.3 (2010)
7. Curley, M.: An IT Value Based Capability Maturity Framework. MIT Sloan CISR VI(2D)
(2006)
8. National Association of State Chief Information Officers. Enterprise Architecture Maturity
Model, http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/
NASCIO-EAMM.pdf (accessed, December 2003)
9. Luftman, J.: Assessing Business-IT Alignment Maturity. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems 4(1), Article 14 (2000)
176 M. Meyer, M. Helfert, and C. O’Brien

10. Luftman, J. (ed.): Competing in the Information Age: Align in the Sand, 2nd edn. Oxford
University Press, Oxford (2003)
11. SEI Carnegie Mellon University: Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process
Improvement (SCAMPI), Version 1.3 (2011)
12. Department of Commerce (DoC). ACMM Enterprise Architecture Capability Maturity
Model, http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/
Enterprise_Architecture/PROD01_004935 (accessed 2007)
13. U.S. Government of Accountability Office: Organizational Transformation: A Framework
for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 2.0),
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-846G
14. U.S. Office of Management and Budget: Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework
(EAAF), http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/eaaf
15. IT Governance Institute: Control Objectives for Information and related Technology
(COBIT) (2007)
16. IT Governance Institute: ValIT, Version 2.0 (2008)
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)
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)
19. Office of Government Commerce: IT Infrastructure Library. The Stationary Office,
London (2007)
20. Khoshgoftar, O.: Comparison of maturity models. In: 2nd IEEE International Conference
on Computer Science and Information Technology ICCSIT, pp. 297–301 (2009)
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)
22. Welke, R., Hirschheim, R., Schwarz, A.: Service-Oriented Architecture Maturity. IEEE
Computer 44(2), 61–67 (2011)
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)
24. McGarry, F., Decker, B.: Attaining Level 5 in CMM Process Maturity. IEEE
Software 19(6), 87–96 (2002)
25. van Solingen, R.: Measuring the ROI of Software Process Improvement. IEEE
Software 21(3), 32–38 (2004)
26. Walker, A.J.: Enterprise Maturity Models: Have We Lost the Plot? Computer 41(11), 96–
98 (2008)
27. The Open Group: The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) Version 9. (2009)
28. The Open Group: ArchiMate 1.0 Specification (2009)
29. Schekkerman, J.: How to Survive in the Jungle of Enterprise Architecture Frameworks:
Creating or Choosing an Enterprise Architecture Framework, 3rd edn. Trafford (2006)
30. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, J.: Developing Maturity Models for IT
Management. Business & Information Systems Engineering 1(3), 213–222 (2009)
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)
 An Analysis of Enterprise Architecture Maturity Frameworks 177

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)
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)
34. Rosemann, M., de Bruin, T.: Towards a Business Process Management Maturity Model.
In: ECIS 2005 Proceedings (2005)
35. Jugdev, K., Thomas, J.: Project Management Maturity Models: The Silver Bullets of
Competitive Advantage? Project Management Journal 33(4) (2002)
36. U.S. Office of Management and Budget: Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA),
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/e-gov/fea/