Introduction Industry 4.0 is rapidly approaching the manufacturing industry and are generating multiple challenges for the companies to overcome. Simultaneously, the customer demand is changing towards customisation and the industry requires new technology within the production system development to remain competitive. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to develop a framework and assess the maturity towards Industry 4.0 and to provide guidance for further advancement. The following two research questions were defined and answered to guide the authors: ~        RQ1: What dimensions should be considered when assessing the maturity of Industry 4.0? ~        RQ2: How could the maturity assessment of Industry 4.0 be performed?    Methodology A literature review was performed to attain previous results within the area of creating and performing maturity assessment. Further, a multiple case study was performed at a selection of case companies where semi-structured interviews, workshop and observations were used to collect empirical data. The analysis has been performed through a cross case analysis for evaluating patterns between the frame of reference and empirical findings. Frame of Reference The literature review increased the authors understanding of how a maturity assessment model functions and which parameters that creates the foundation. The review mainly focused on what set of dimensions and how many levels that can be used in relation to assess a production system. Empirical Findings The empirical findings provide an overview of the current state of production within each case company. Aspects regarding a transition towards Industry 4.0 is elaborated based on process, technology and people aspects. Analysis and Discussion The synthesis between Frame of Reference and Empirical findings contribute with important dimensions to consider when assessing the maturity model. This thesis has decided to conclude the dimensions into three headings consisting of process, technology and people.  A second contribution is a framework for a maturity assessment towards Industry 4.0, where five levels are defined for each dimension. A concluded picture visualises the case companies’ mean maturity level within each dimension of process, technology and people. Conclusions and Recommendations Provided by the maturity assessment, an initiative towards Industry 4.0 exist within the case companies, although major challenges of defining the concept of Industry 4.0 and a lack of competence is highlighted. Future recommendations are to perform a similar study with more depth into the investigations within each case company to validate the maturity assessment towards Industry 4.0 within each case company.

Magister Commercii (Information Management) - MCom(IM) / The purpose of the study described in this thesis was to investigate the structure required to implement and manage digital forensic readiness within an enterprise. A comparative analysis of different digital forensic readiness frameworks was performed and, based on the findings of the analysis, the digital forensic readiness commonalities framework (DFRCF) was extended. The resultant structure was used to design a digital forensic readiness maturity assessment model (DFRMAM) that will enable organisations to assess their forensic readiness. In conclusion, both the extended DFRCF and the DFRMAM are shown to be validated by forensic practitioners, using semi-structured interviews. A qualitative research design and methodology was used to perform a comparative analysis of the various digital forensic readiness frameworks, to comprehend the underlying structures. All the participant responses were recorded and transcribed. Analysis of the findings resulting from the study showed that participants mostly agreed with the structure of the extended DFRCF; however, key changes were introduced to the extended DFRCF. The participants also validated the DFRMAM, and the majority of respondents opted for a checklist-type MAM. Digital forensic readiness is a very sensitive topic since organisations fear that their information might be made public and, as a result, increase their exposure to forensic incidents and reputational risk. Because of this, it was difficult to find participants who have a forensic footprint and are willing, able, and knowledgeable about digital forensic readiness. This study will contribute to the body of knowledge by presenting an original, validated DFRCF and DFRMAM. Practitioners and organisations now have access to non-proprietary DFRMAM.