A longitudinal character; see, e.g., Solli-S her and Gottschalk (2015), whose “Stages-ofgrowth model for outsourcing, offshoring and backsourcing” was developed more than many years. In contrast, the present study was carried out over a period of a number of months throughout the spring of 2021, so exactly the same substantial testing with the model has not been carried out. In preparing their development framework, Solli-S her and Gottschalk (2010) referred to previously developed Gisadenafil Autophagy maturity models. In particular, they pointed to how conceptual “based on interviews or their sensible insight into the field of investigation” (Solli-S her and Gottschalk 2010, p. 284). To a lesser extent, they’ve had these models tested and revised. Therefore, Solli-S her and Gottschalk (2010) suggested including an exploratory survey within the testing phase. For their maturity model, such a survey was conducted among 133 big firms which had been deemed relevant, but only 50 from the responses had been regarded usable in the revision in the model. Maier et al. (2011) also created a point regarding this final phase. According to their research, “[e]valuations could possibly be continued till a saturation point is reached, i.e., till no more substantial changes are getting suggested by participants and/or until the evaluation benefits are satisfactory” (Maier et al. 2011, p. 151). Consequently, it is probable to argue that only possessing tested the CFMM in a single relevant firm, and possessing discussed its components and architecture with only a single business expert just isn’t sufficient for moving forward to revise the model. Hence, this phase was not completed for the CFMM. 5.two.three. Sub-Conclusion Provided the analysis context, it is reasonable to argue that steps have already been taken to make sure well-informed choices connected towards the model’s architecture. Cibacron Blue 3G-A Epigenetics Having a lengthier timeframe for the investigation project, however, the CFMM could possibly be tested in greater than 1 case firm, and might be modified primarily based on the feedback. This could potentially enhance each its usability and usefulness. Nonetheless, the all round verdict is that the good results criteria defined for the CFMM have been attained. 6. Conclusions six.1. Theoretical Implications The recommended model–the CFMM–indicates a path of evolution exactly where the compliance function matures from getting reactive and inconsistent to becoming a proactive and integrated part of a firm’s small business practices. This paper has presented a comprehensive overview and comparison of the current frameworks for the development method of maturity models. Also, the compliance function maturity model was developed following many phases suggested in earlier maturity model analysis. The development process with the CFMM was evaluated based on how the proposed model was thought to attain its defined good results criteria of usability and usefulness. The findings usually aligned with these of other researchers, emphasizing the value of developing maturity models that happen to be not only constructed on a strong theoretical foundation but in addition empirically validated (Solli-S her and Gottschalk 2009; Solli-S her and Gottschalk 2010). To be in a position to conceptually ground the structure on the CFMM in theory, we resorted to measures recommended in preceding research by Solli-S her and Gottschalk (2010), Maier et al. (2011), and Becker et al. (2009). The measures, involving the researchers hunting toAdm. Sci. 2021, 11,27 ofan established body of expertise on corporate compliance and previously created maturity models for the compliance functio.