## 2 Related Work  
Maturity models are established means to measure the strengths and weaknesses of BI initiatives. These MM consist of multiple archetypal levels of maturity of a certain domain and can be used for organizational assessment and development. In the case of BI, many MMs have been proposed both from academia and industry (practice/consulting). In the literature, we find many BI maturity models that have been used for several years, some of them for almost two decades. Table 1 presents an overview of existing BI MM that were critically analyzed in this study, selected in accordance with the following criteria: the credibility of the proponent and availability of documentation. The listed models can be applied to any industry, except the latter two models [16; 17] which have been developed respectively for higher education and healthcare. A comparative analysis was performed on the selected maturity models, taken as reference to the properties of a BI maturity model: number of dimensions and levels, origin (academia or industry), and evaluation type. Dimensions are specific capabilities, processes or objects that make up the field of study. Levels represent the states of maturity in a given dimension; each level has a designation and a detailed description. The evaluation type refers to the method applied, which can be either a self-assessment exercise (e.g., using a questionnaire) or a third-party assisted exercise (with consultants or experts). An analysis of Table 1 conveys the following evidence for the sample of analyzed models: (1) they are mostly originated from the industry/practice and typically use a 5-level scale; (2) the number of dimensions is quite diverse; and (3) the predominant type of evaluation is self-assessment using a questionnaire, although there are also several models requiring third-party assistance. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**No.** & **Name** & **Source** & **Origin** & **Evaluation Type** & **No. Dimensions** & **No. Levels** \\ \hline
1 & DW stages of growth & [20] & A & ** & 8 & 3 \\ \hline
2 & DW process maturity & [14] & A & ** & 7 & 5 \\ \hline
3 & Capability MM for BI & [13] & A & ** & 5 & 5 \\ \hline
4 & DW capability MM & [21] & A & * & 6 & 5 \\ \hline
5 & HP business intelligence MM & [22] & I & ** & 3 & 5 \\ \hline
6 & Gartner’s BI and Performance Management Framework & [23] & I & ** & 4 & 5 \\ \hline
7 & TDWI Maturity Model & [15] & I & * & 8 & 5 \\ \hline
8 & TDWI Analytics Maturity Model & [24] & I & * & 5 & 5 \\ \hline
9 & TDWI Modern Data Warehousing Maturity Model & [25] & I & * & 5 & 4 \\ \hline
10 & Institutional Intelligence White Book Maturity Model & [16] & I & * & 9 & 5 \\ \hline
11 & ISMETT hospital BI maturity model & [17] & A + I & * & 23 & 4 \\ \hline
12 & DELTA model & [26] & I & * & 5 & 5 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Origin of the model is either from academia (A) or industry (I); The application of each model is either self-assessment (*) or third-party assistance (**).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparative analysis of BIA maturity models. The work of [17] was instrumental in the design of the HE-BIA maturity model, which will be detailed in the following section. The ISMETT hospital BI MM is different from the other selected models. First, it was designed by a research task force comprising both researchers and practitioners knowledgeable of BI in healthcare. Secondly, the number of dimensions is substantially higher than usual, in total 23 dimensions, clustered in four areas: functional, technological, diffusional, and organizational. This comprehensive set of dimensions was considered \"to form a model that is enough detailed and simple to suggest effective improvement paths to be pursued by healthcare organizations\" [17] (p. 87). Although compliant with requirement R1, the ISMETT hospital BI MM was still overly complex for our purposes, failing to comply with requirement R3.