## 5 Conclusions  
From the investigation carried out some research gaps that this article proposes to for future works were identified. The findings will be presented in answer to the questions formulated as the objective of this article. (1) What are the main differences among maturity models described in the literature? The literature review allowed the identification the main characteristics of Maturity models (Table 2), integrating models from I4.0 and other areas of business process management. Additionally, a synthesis of maturity models is presented in Section 3.2, which is a useful resource for researchers and professionals aiming to select and understand these models. However, as the research progressed, it was observed that reconfiguration projects in the transformation for I4.0 are quite diverse, and that the LEs, for the most part, have the resources and critical knowledge to conduct, by themselves or with the support of consultancies, their initiatives to renew their business models. In such cases, generic maturity models are often adopted. However, SMEs and economic sectors suffering from very particular constraints have great difficulties. Numerous research initiatives have been identified to address these cases by building specific maturity models. (2) Which factors should be adopted for selection or development of a maturity model? There is a lack of studies on the ways in which companies can orient themselves to discover the approach of reconfiguration of business models best suited to their reality, i.e., whether they should employ their own efforts or seek support for the application of generic maturity Industry 4.0 models, or whether they identify the need for a specific strategy. In the latter case, an approach based on specific maturity models seems to be promising, but there are also no studies aimed at systematizing a methodology that guides researchers in the development and application of maturity models, nor for companies that recognize the need for a special development. Within the demands for generic and wide-ranging models, it was found that there is confusion and difficulties in distinguishing among terms such as framework, roadmap, maturity models and readiness assessments, and this aspect denotes opportunities for research. Although much of the literature treats them as synonyms, there are particularities that need to be taken into consideration. Likewise, there is the lack of a study for the systematization of an integrated approach for an organizational reconfiguration model. This purpose can be pursued in future works. Concerning specific maturity models, although the authors report successful cases of building maturity models for specific contexts, there are also very diverse treatments in the methodological aspect adopted in these processes. However, it was possible to find approaches that allowed the identification of a set of important factors that can be used as the ground base for the development of a specific maturity model for I4.0. An Industrial Revolution presupposes, to a certain extent, a movement of transformation driven by the emergence of a new scientific paradigm that, in turn, presents a new logical-conceptual matrix. Under these conditions, it is foreseeable that some ambiguities will arise in the discourse of different authors who, on the one hand, may assume biases related to old models and paradigms, and on the other hand, may use old terms to refer to new realities that still lack more appropriate terminology. This level of terminology ambiguity creates one of the limitations of a systematic literature review like the one proposed here. Another limitation is related to the methodology of selection and evaluation of articles that depend on the selected search terms and on the criteria of analysis and the consensus between both researchers. Finally, we consider that the results added valuable knowledge to the area of maturity models for Industry 4.0 both for interested researchers and professionals initiating their journey for I4.0.