Maturity Model Characteristics vs. Capabilities

As I was researching the current  industry Enterprise Architecture Capability Models I ran across an interesting observation. I  found that most of the EA Maturity Models (even TOGAF) actually derive or are heavily influenced by The Department of Commerce Architecture Capability Model (ACMM).

What is interesting about this is that instead of focusing on true capabilities, they rather focus on characteristics. Below you can see this in the example from Department of Commerce ACMM.




As a first step and initial cut at an EA Maturity Model I think this was a large leap forward. But is it the end state? I don’t think so. While it was a good first step I think we can mature on this baseline. The key first step is to have a bit better classification on what we are evaluating and assessing through the Maturity Model. That brings us to the topic of this post.

Let’s look at comparing these two aspects:



· Ad Hoc

· Mixed Abstraction

· Pointed

· Context Missing

· Defined

· Abstraction Defined

· Very Pointed

· Context Defined


The key differences here is the evolution of these key ideals into something more structured and at a higher level abstraction.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s