Big data maturity model: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:53, 21 May 2017

Revision as of 16:57, 21 May 2017

Line 145:

* Ease of application (ease of use, comprehensibility)

* Big Data value creation (actuality, relevancy, performance)

The TDWI and CSC have the strongest overall performance with steady scores in each of the criteria groups. The overall results communicate that the top performer models are extensive, balanced, well-documented, easy to use, and they address a good number of big data capabilities that are utilized in business value creation. The models of Booz & Company and Knowledgent are close seconds and these mid-performers address big data value creation in a commendable manner, but fall short when examining the completeness of the models and the ease of application. Furthermore, Braun (2015) found that Knowledgent suffers from poor quality of development, having barely documented any of its development processes. The rest of the models, i.e. Infotech, Radcliffe, van Veenstra and IBM, have been categorized as low performers. Whilst their content is well aligned with business value creation through big data capabilities, they all lack quality of development, ease of application and extensiveness. Lowest scores were awarded to IBM and Van Veenstra, since both are providing low level guidance for the respective maturity model’s practical use, and they completely lack in documentation, ultimately resulting in poor quality of development and evaluation<ref name=":1" />.

== Also See ==