# Analysis of Enterprise Internet of Things Maturity Models: A Review
## 2 Related Works  
In this section, a detailed analysis of secondary studies like the present research is performed, considering both analogous aspects and divergent elements. As noted above, few reviews compile existing information on maturity models for enterprise IoT due to their novelty and continuous ad hoc developments in this field. One example is the research by [PERSON] et al. (2015), where, based on a literature review, they seek to develop a holistic maturity model for enterprise IoT. The main results identify several challenges and limitations of current maturity models for IoT, such as the lack of specific assessment approaches for this technology and the diversity and heterogeneity of environments. The literature review is a preliminary step to building a new maturity model, so the main objective of the research is not to characterize the domain. Another perspective review is ([PERSON], 2019), which explores maturity models for the Industrial Internet of Things in the context of Industry 4.0. The results of this review indicate that while the concept of maturity and maturity models has gained considerable attention in recent years, they are still in a relatively early stage. Furthermore, they highlight that existing maturity models are often based on user opinion surveys, which hinders an objective assessment of technological progress and the knowledge stack. Another secondary study is the proposal by [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2016), where they review the literature on maturity models for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), focusing on adopting and implementing IoT in their manufacturing processes. The authors acknowledge that IoT is a crucial catalyst for the fourth industrial revolution but note that SMEs encounter numerous obstacles and barriers to fully exploiting its potential, stating that there is a need for more comprehensive and appropriate mechanisms to assess SME readiness and maturity for the technology. Their review identifies and analyzes eight maturity models regarding dimensions, maturity levels, and gaps. The results indicate that none of these mechanisms meet all the criteria for accuracy, clarity, and objectivity. They also note that most models do not consider readiness, operational performance, and organizational and environmental factors, highlighting that these mechanisms lack generalization and empirical validation with data. Another review in the domain is ([PERSON] and [PERSON], 2017), which identifies maturity models for IoT and their applicability to SMEs in the manufacturing sector, leading to the identification and analysis of 24 relevant studies. The authors present a comparative analysis of IoT management regarding its dimensions, levels, and objectives. The authors indicate that most mobility management applications are designed for the manufacturing industry, but only a few are specifically tailored for SMEs. Numerous maturity models exist with dimensions covering manufacturing capabilities, technology maturity, and organizational readiness, and most models define progressive maturity levels from an initial stage to an advanced stage. They also identify shared objectives, such as improved performance, quality, efficiency, and innovation. The authors stress the need for further research and development of maturity models specifically designed for SMEs, considering their unique characteristics, needs, and challenges. In this line, other relevant papers are the proposals of [PERSON] et al. (2018, 2020). These papers correspond to a systematic review and a systematic literature mapping; both focused on the general domain of mechanisms to measure IoT technological maturity in organizations. These two papers explore and deepen the domain using a methodology like the one proposed in the present research. However, their approach is more comprehensive than a single type of mechanism, such as maturity models, representing a gap in the existing knowledge that this study seeks to address.