A Capability Maturity Framework for Event-Driven Integration: Benchmarking Kafka and Pulsar in Enterprise Environments
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21590/ijtmh.12.03.13Keywords:
Event-Driven Architecture, Maturity Framework, Apache Kafka, Apache Pulsar, Enterprise Integration, Stream Processing, Cloud-Native.Abstract
As enterprises accelerate digital transformation, event-driven architecture (EDA) has become a foundational paradigm for scalable, loosely coupled, real-time integration. Yet organizations lack a structured means to assess EDA readiness or chart a maturity progression path. This paper proposes the Capability Maturity Framework for Event-Driven Integration (CMF-EDI), a five-level model evaluating enterprise maturity across event schema governance, stream processing sophistication, operational observability, fault tolerance, and organizational alignment. To ground the framework empirically, we conduct a comparative benchmarking study of Apache Kafka and Apache Pulsar across six enterprise-relevant dimensions. Findings show Kafka maintains stronger ecosystem depth for mature deployments, while Pulsar offers architectural advantages for multi-tenant and cloud-native scenarios. Platform capabilities are mapped to CMF-EDI levels, and the framework is validated against adoption patterns across financial services, retail, and telecommunications. The CMF-EDI equips enterprise architects with actionable guidance for platform selection, capability investment, and EDA roadmap planning.
References
[1]Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., & Pöppelbuß, J. (2009). Developing maturity models for IT management. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 1(3), 213–222.
[2]Confluent. (2022). State of Data Streaming Report 2022. Confluent Inc.
[3]Hohpe, G., & Woolf, B. (2003). Enterprise Integration Patterns. Addison-Wesley.
[4]Kleppmann, M. (2017). Designing Data-Intensive Applications. O'Reilly Media.
[5]Narkhede, N., Shapira, G., & Palino, T. (2017). Kafka: The Definitive Guide. O'Reilly Media.
[6]Newman, S. (2019). Monolith to Microservices. O'Reilly Media.
[7]OpenMessaging Benchmark Framework. (2022). OMB: A benchmarking framework for cloud messaging systems. Apache Software Foundation.
[8]Richardson, C. (2018). Microservices Patterns. Manning Publications.
[9]StreamNative. (2022). Apache Pulsar vs. Apache Kafka. StreamNative Inc. Technical Whitepaper.
[10]Wang, L., et al. (2021). Comparative study of message queue systems for real-time data processing. Journal of Cloud Computing, 10(1), 1–19.
[11]Zhang, Y., & Chen, M. (2022). Event-driven microservices: Patterns and best practices. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 15(3), 1442–1455.
