# Towards a Maturity Model for IoT Adoption by B2C Companies
## 2 Literature Review: Maturity Models for IoT Implementation  
Companies that are able to successfully implement IoT technologies extract added value and gain a competitive advantage. However, due to the still emergent nature of IoT, no specific procedures and standards have been defined yet regarding its implementation, which is the root of many adoption-related issues and challenges. IoT service providers tend to employ a \"learning by doing\" strategy, which obviously does not generate expected added value and does not justify the cost of the IoT implementation [2].  
Maturity models are said to be a powerful tool for organisations to use in order to achieve their strategic objectives. It assists in understanding the current state of effectiveness, identifying the need for change, and deriving the steps that have to be taken to improve the current position. As stated in a study by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [3], maturity models can be classified as staged, continuous, or focus area oriented. With regards to their purpose, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [3] also distinguish descriptive, prescriptive, and competitive types of models.  
The most well-known maturity model in the IT field is the Capability Maturity Model (CMM). Originally proposed by [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] [4] to assist the process of software development, specifically in government projects, the CMM later evolved as a tool for improving business processes in general. The model consists of five levels of maturity and moving along them constitutes enhanced effectiveness in the use of a product or service.  
Since the CMM proposal, many other maturity models were proposed. Table 1 provides an overview of the models created for maturity assessment in areas of innovation development and implementation on the basis of information technology, primarily IoT, as well as in the areas of data management and analytics.  
After analysing the IoT maturity models, it becomes clear that there is no consensus about the crucial pillars of IoT implementation maturity. Different capabilities are prioritised in these models, with the exception of technology, data and organisational culture, which are, however, still included in the models under different structural compositions and varying definitions.  
No maturity model for IoT was found to be specifically designed for the B2C market and be reflective of the factors important for operating under its conditions. In addition, although a large range of various maturity models has been developed, their usability and actual effectiveness are arguable. [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [20] claim that particularly scientific maturity models in practice fail to meet users' requirements. This drawback is due to the lack of customizability and adaptability of such models. The findings show that organisations prefer to either develop their own maturity models specifically tailored to their internal goals and needs or make use of the models proposed by consulting firms, which heavily rely on industry experts' opinions and experiences in the development of the model. For this reason, it is important to continue the development efforts for IoT maturity models, focusing on the one hand on having a strong basis of academic knowledge, and on the other hand on reflecting the best practices and real solutions of the companies implementing IoT technology in their businesses.