# Analysis of Enterprise Internet of Things Maturity Models: A Review
## 5 Results and Analysis
### 2 What Do the Proposed IoT Maturity Models Consider the Main Dimensions?
#### 5.2.2 Q2  
Do the Proposed MATURITY Models Support Post-Measurement Improvement in the IoT Domain in Enterprises? In reviewing the existing scientific literature on proposed maturity models in the IoT domain, it is difficult to determine whether these models effectively support post-measurement improvement, as there is no consensus or explicit articulation of the answer to this question. In particular, most articles emphasize the role of the maturity model in assessment rather than addressing its ability to facilitate post-measurement improvement [61]. These mechanisms focus primarily on identifying organizational strengths and weaknesses. Some models provide clear guidance for moving from one maturity level to another, while others only define each level's expected outcomes or capabilities; others include specific processes or phases for identifying improvement potential, implementingactions, and reassessing the maturity level [71; 73]. In general, maturity level improvement processes are based on identifying the positives and negatives of the current maturity state and suggesting possible actions and steps to address gaps and challenges, providing a common language and shared vision for the organization and stakeholders to communicate and collaborate in the improvement process [18]. However, the models must provide a comprehensive and detailed framework to drive maturity improvement after measurement. Now, some proposed maturity models offer specific internal mechanisms that support improvement after measurement, the most common way being to provide a benchmark that allows the company to compare its results and progress with those of other organizations or with the expected results, learning from the experiences and success stories of other organizations [70]. This is the case of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [43], who propose a maturity model that analyzes the tasks and requirements of the development of Chinese manufacturing companies based on the conditions of the Asian country, allowing them to compare the results among the organizations that apply the model. Another clear example is the proposal of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [18], which allows for the evaluation of the organization, compares its results and progress with those of other companies at the same or higher maturity level, and learns from their best practices and experiences. Generally, benchmarks [50] are inherent to any maturity model and are established as one of the main advantages of this type of mechanism in the domain. This type of maturity support does not explicitly rely on improvement after measurement and is positioned more as an analysis or assessment tool. Some maturity models for IoT provide feedback and recommendations to the organization based on assessing or measuring the maturity level. Feedback is based on assessing or diagnosing the organization's current state and identifying gaps and improvement opportunities [41]. Recommendations are suggestions or proposals to improve or enhance the performance and effectiveness of the organization based on best practices or lessons learned from the literature or case studies. This is the case of [PERSON] [65], whose proposal offers strategic recommendations to improve maturity by defining the characteristics and strategies of each port classification and the range of scores corresponding to each maturity level. Along these lines, another way to improve maturity measurement in the models reported in the literature is when the mechanisms present a roadmap or direction that guides the organization to plan and implement improvement actions and initiatives based on the gap analysis and prioritization of improvement areas, also describing the characteristics and requirements of each maturity level, as well as the steps and actions needed to reach the next level [60].