## 3 Data Management Maturity Model
### Phases 2 and 3--Design and Populate
#### 3.2.1 Systematic Literature Review  
An initial literature review was conducted to gain a preliminary understanding of maturity models in the context of digital transformation (Section 3.1.4). To delve deeper into maturity models within this specific research area over recent years, including their levels of detail, weighting of capabilities, and the capabilities used in existing studies, a systematic literature review was performed using the IEEE and Science Public databases. The search utilized the following keywords: (\"data-driven\" OR \"data science\" OR \"data literacy\") AND (\"maturity model\" OR \"capability model\" OR \"assessment model\"). These keywords were adapted from [PERSON] et al. (2016), who had previously conducted a literature review on this topic. The search was limited to studies published within the last six years (January 2018 to January 2024). As a result of this research, we retrieved 208 studies. Additionally, we included nine relevant studies from [PERSON] and their work on maturity models, bringing the total to 217 studies. After removing duplicates, 214 unique studies were available for the initial review. The evaluation was based on the following criteria: (1) publication in a conference paper, book chapter, or journal; (2) publication in English; (3) proposal of a capability or maturity model for data-driven organizations; (4) proposal of specific capabilities; and (5) description of an implementation strategy or journey roadmap. After the first review process, 32 studies were identified as relevant for this research. In the second step, these 32 studies were further analyzed based on the following criteria: (1) maturity measurement, (2) use of capabilities to describe data-driven organizations, (3) concept of analyzing both the as-is and to-be status, (4) development of a roadmap with recommendations for action, (5) use of an assessment tool, and (6) calculation of maturity levels. Access was not available for two studies. A study was included in the detailed analysis if it met more than three of the criteria. Ultimately, ten relevant studies were selected for extracting critical information to inform the development of our model (Figure 3). Table 2 presents the ten relevant studies and their classification according to the analyzed criteria. A study is listed in the corresponding column if it addresses a particular criterion. As the literature review revealed, most existing studies measure maturity using capabilities. Some studies use questionnaires as a basis for maturity assessments. However, other aspects, such as the calculation of maturity levels (i.e., the connection between capabilities and the final maturity level), are often neglected and not described transparently in detail. Moreover, criteria such as the analysis of as-is and to-be statuses, the development of a roadmap with action recommendations, and the use of assessment tools as well as the calculation of maturity levels are seldom addressed in research. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Maturity** \\ **Measurement** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Use of** \\ **Capabilities** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} **The Concept for the** \\ **Analysis of As-Is and** \\ **To-Be Status** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Development of** \\ **a Roadmap for** \\ **Recommendations for Action** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Measurement Tool** \\ **Assessment Tool** \\ **Questionaire** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Maturity** \\ **Calculation of the** \\ **Murity Level** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \hline \(\left[16,18-24\right]\) & \(\left[16,18-24\right]\) & \(\left[18,23\right]\) & \(\left[8,19,22\right]\) & \(\left[18,20\right]\) & \(\left[18,20\right]\) & \(\left[18-23\right]\) & \(\left[16,18,23\right]\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Literature review. Figure 3: Systematic review procedure.