Content uploaded by Daniel Schallmo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel Schallmo on May 14, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating Our Common Future,
Berlin, Germany on 20–23 June 2021.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-467-8
1
Integrated Approach for Digital Maturity: Levels,
Procedure, and In-Depth Analysis
Daniel Schallmo*
Hochschule Neu-Ulm, Wileystraße 1, 89231 Neu-Ulm, Deutschland.
E-mail: daniel.schallmo@hnu.de
Christopher A. Williams
Johannes Kepler University Linz, Altenbergerstrasse 69, 4040 Linz,
Austria.
E-mail: chrs.a.williams@gmail.com
* Corresponding author
Abstract: The objective of this paper is to develop an integrated approach to
measure and develop digital maturity. The integrated approach consists of
several fundamental levels for strategically oriented digitalization. These
include digital strategy, digital transformation, and digital implementation. The
approach also consists of three relevant steps: an initial analysis of digital
maturity, an in-depth analysis, and the derivation of measurements. Combined
with our previous work (e.g., the in-depth analysis of 25 maturity models), we
applied semi-structured interviews to develop an initial, grounded theory for
maturity models. The paper offers a relevant concept and outlines an
appropriate research methodology to advance this research field. This closes an
existing research gap regarding the measurement and improvement of digital
maturity.
Keywords: Digital maturity; digital strategy; digital transformation; digital
implementation; procedure; in-depth analysis.
1 Introduction
Digital transformation has fundamentally changed organizational processes, core
products and services, and existing organizational strategies (Mittal et al. 2018).
Unsurprisingly, the majority of companies already found themselves in the middle of
significant digital transformation initiatives ranging from largescale, cross-organizational
digital initiatives to smaller digital projects (Melchior 2018). Digital transformation
including the contexts of strategy-oriented digitalization and digitization affects all
sectors of society, especially economies. At the same time, strategy-oriented
digitalization opens new networking possibilities and enables cooperation between
different actors, who, for example, exchange data and, thus, initiate processes. The terms
‘digital transformation’ and ‘strategy-oriented digitalization’ contain several overlapping
features. Research has revealed several popular ways of promoting digital transformation.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating Our Common Future,
Berlin, Germany on 20-23 June 2021.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-467-8
2
Some of the most popular are 1) digital strategy, 2) digital business models, 3) digital
product/services, 4) digital processes, and 5) digital maturity models (Accenture 2015). In
our previous work, digital transformation refers to strategy-oriented digital initiatives like
digital strategy and digital business models (Schallmo et al. 2018). However, it has been
argued that certain digitalization-level initiatives (e.g., digital operational/process model)
may also exhibit strategy-oriented perspectives. In addition, for companies, the idea of
digital transformation might be considered too abstract, similar to the term ‘industry 4.0’
(Gimpel et al. 2018). Therefore, we use the term ‘strategy-oriented digitalization’ to
describe digital initiatives that focus on a strategic level but only on strategy, business
models, and implementation tasks and the processes behind these (Schallmo et al. 2019a).
Recent evidence in research on maturity models has shown that digital strategy (Williams
et al. 2019) and digital business models are two of the most reported dimensions (Rübel
et al. 2018). Contrary to expectations, several studies have found when measuring digital
maturity that strategy-oriented initiatives are often poorly developed and implemented in
companies or simply not present (Williams and Schallmo 2020). Based on our initial
findings, a holistic view of digital maturity addressing all fundamental levels of strategy-
oriented digitalization is still missing. Additionally, an integrated approach with an initial
study of digital maturity, an in-depth study, and the derivation of measurements is
missing. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to propose an integrated approach that
aims to develop a holistic digital maturity model focusing on the major digital
deficiencies rather than developing a more complex digital maturity representation.
Considering holistic digital maturity for strategy-oriented digitalization, all three
fundamental levels should be addressed.
In our research, we develop an integrated approach to digital maturity with a holistic,
strategy-oriented view of digitalization. We base our research on our previous work (e.g.,
an in depth-analysis of 25 models from different industries and different countries
evaluated with methodological and contextual research principles, (see Williams et al.
2019) and apply semi-structured interviews to develop an initial, grounded theory for
maturity models.
2 Theoretical Background
Digital maturity has been discussed in several publications (Becker et al. 2009; Tarhan et
al. 2016; Williams and Schallmo 2020). In general, maturity models consist of common
properties (Lahrmann et al. 2010), including 1) maturity concept, 2) dimension, and 3)
levels. Most approaches outline several dimensions of a company and are addressed and
evaluated separately. Dimensions in a maturity model can be defined as foundational
concepts consisting of subdimensions and their requirements, which are evaluated by the
maturity level (Hamidi et al. 2018; Mittal et al. 2018). According to maturity model
scholars, the primary purpose of a maturity model is to evaluate a company’s current
capabilities and assess the company’s future capability requirements (Anggrahini et al.
2018). Maturity model research has closely examined digital capabilities in the area of
information technology (IT) management (Becker et al. 2009), supply chain sustainability
(Correia et al. 2017), project management (Backlund et al. 2014), and business processes
(Tarhan et al. 2016). For example, there have been around 30 different maturity models
in the domain of ‘project management’ (Cook-Davies 2002) and even 150 maturity
models for ‘IT service capability, strategic alignment, innovation management, program
management, enterprise architecture, or knowledge management maturity’ (De Bruin et
al. 2005). The definition of a digital maturity model is a bit more difficult to
operationalize due to the different terms used. In the literature review, the following
categories are considered to be digital (Williams and Schallmo 2020):
• Inherent areas of technological activity: This would include such domains as IT
and business intelligence.
• Digital terms used: This would include previously mentioned terms like digital,
industry 4.0, smart, data-driven, cloud, and so on.
• The principal idea behind maturity models, whether general or digital, is a set of
overlapping investigations into the gap between the company’s current and
future capabilities.
Not surprisingly, many of the maturity models deal with evaluating digital transformation
or industry 4.0 initiatives. One of the most well-cited general maturity model frameworks
is the Capability Maturity Model (Caiado et al. 2016).
Overall, the degree of maturity of a research object deals with the fulfilment of certain
criteria including objectives, characteristics, or indicators (Becker et al. 2009). Several
dimensions and criteria within these dimensions necessary to achieve a degree of
maturity are predefined in models like CMMI (CMMI Product Development Team 2011)
but are often developed using a bottom-up approach which, on one hand, makes the
digital maturity model very personalized to the company. On the other hand, it is very
time-consuming to develop such a model, and it is often not generalizable to other
companies. Additionally, the point at which the digital maturity model is developed can
be arbitrary (Pfeifer-Silberbach 2005) because the model measures the current state of a
company and its products, services, business model, and processes considering the time
of the measurement.
3 Research Objective and Research Questions
Several existing approaches have advanced our digital maturity knowledge. However,
they do not address digital maturity from a holistic, strategy-oriented view of
digitalization with an integrated approach. Based on the problem described and our
current understanding, we aim to develop an integrated approach to digital maturity with
a holistic, strategy-oriented view of digitalization. This research will answer the
following research questions:
• What fundamental strategy-oriented levels are relevant to measuring the digital
maturity of a company from a holistic perspective?
• What steps are relevant to measure the fundamental strategy-oriented levels and
improve digital maturity?
• How can digital maturity be evaluated in detail to focus on fundamental
strategy-oriented dimensions’ relevant criteria?
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating Our Common Future,
Berlin, Germany on 20-23 June 2021.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-467-8
4
4 Methods
4.1 Research Design
Theory can be built based on the grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss 1967;
Martin and Turner 1986; Glaser 1992; Baskerville and Wood-Harper 1998; Kromrey
2009). The foundation is laid by data collection and analysis. The theory is built through
iterative data collection and analysis to integrate practical rather than abstract experience
(Kromrey 2009).
Based on our research objective and the research questions, we included our previous
work on digital maturity (e.g., Schallmo et al. 2020; Williams and Schallmo 2020;
Williams et al. 2019) and digitalization (e.g., Schallmo et al. 2019a; Schallmo et al. 2017;
Schallmo and Williams 2020; Schallmo et al. 2019b; Schallmo et al. 2018; Schallmo and
Williams 2017).
Figure 1 Research design of the integrated approach for digital maturity
Due to the complexity of investigating digital maturity, it is recommended that
researchers and practitioners use a mixed-methods approach (i.e., qualitative and
quantitative) to investigate maturity models (Frederico et al. 2019; Schumacher et al.
2016). Qualitative methods like semi-structured interviews are considered an appropriate
research method to develop maturity models, but, in recent studies, there have been some
uncertainties about the research rigor. For example, the interview schedules and
transparency of how the interviews were analyzed are often not clear (Kim et al. 2018;
Warnecke et al. 2018). Therefore, data collection followed a qualitative research
approach using semi-structured interviews (Schmidt 2004).
Combined with our previous work, we applied semi-structured interviews to develop an
initial, grounded theory (i.e., conceptual model) for maturity models. Our research design
is shown in Figure 1.
4.2 Data Collection
To gain insights from experts on digitalization, we developed a guide for semi-structured
interviews. The interview guide was tested previously and includes the following three
blocks of questions (see also Appendix 1 for more details):
• Actual status in the context of digitization (implementation, structure, initiatives, and
experiences)
• Actual status in the context of digital maturity (implementation, structure, initiatives,
and experiences)
• Model for the measurement of digital maturity with levels of strategy-oriented
digitalization, procedure to measure and improve digital maturity, and in-depth
analysis (assessment, practicability, missing elements, superfluous elements)
We interviewed six experts on digitalization from Germany from April 30th to May 10th,
2021. The semi-structured interviews conducted are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Experts interviewed
Position
Company/Institution
Date
Expert 1
and
Expert 2
Digital Transformation
Manager
Manufacturing company for
packaging machines
April 30th,
2021
Expert 3
Project Manager and Lead
Autonomous Mobility
Company for engineering services
and software development
April 30th,
2021
Expert 4
Partner und Director Digital
Solutions
Consulting company for
transformation and digitization of
business models, products, and
processes
April 30th,
2021
Expert 5
Executive Vice President
Industry
Company for consulting and IT-
services
April 30th,
2021
Expert 6
Managing Director
Company for IT-services
May 10th ,
2021
Within our data analysis, we focus on the results regarding the model for the
measurement of digital maturity. Experts 1 and 2 were interviewed together since they
both belong to the same company.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating Our Common Future,
Berlin, Germany on 20-23 June 2021.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-467-8
6
4.3 Quality Criteria
To ensure a high level of validity of the results (Denzin 1970), we applied triangulation in
several ways by gaining data from several sources. First, we combined existing
approaches to digital maturity and digitalization to utilize advantages and insight from
existing knowledge (Denzin 1970). Second, we applied six semi-structured interviews to
gain insights from experts on digitalization.
The reliability of our approach was ensured by transcribing the results of the semi-
structured interviews in a report with additional notes. The information thus gained
formed an empirical data pattern and, combined with the previous work, forms the basis
for an integrated approach to digital maturity. Objectivity was ensured by pretesting
including existing approaches and the interview guide. In addition, we applied
subsequent data analysis. The generalizability of our approach is a challenge requiring
adaptation of the approach to the needs of each company.
5 Integrated Approach for Digital Maturity
Within our integrated approach, we address three different dimensions: fundamental
levels of strategy-oriented digitalization, procedure to measure and improve digital
maturity, and in-depth analysis of digital maturity. The three dimensions are shown in
Figure 2.
Figure 2 Dimensions of the integrated approach for digital maturity
In the following section, we develop each dimension of our model followed by the
integration of excerpts from the interviews and conclusions for the further development
of our model.
5.1 Fundamental levels of strategy-oriented digitalization
Strategy-oriented digitalization can be structured into the following three fundamental
levels: the digital strategy, digital transformation of business models, and digital
implementation influenced by the macro- and micro-environment (Schallmo et al.
2019a). This enables companies to measure the digital maturity of a company in a holistic
way. The three fundamental levels of strategy-oriented digitalization are shown in Figure
3.
Figure 3 Classification in the context of digitization (Schallmo et al. 2019a)
The development of a digital strategy is just as integral to a company’s activities as the
digital transformation of business models. Companies often lack clarity on which
direction to take with respect to their digital strategy and which general principles and
options to apply.
The first level of strategy-oriented digitalization is the digital strategy as the strategic
form of the digitization intentions of a company. The short- and mid-term objectives are
to create new or to maintain competitive advantages. Within the digital strategy, digital
technologies and methods are applied to products, services, processes, and business
models. To develop a digital strategy, the company and its current environment must be
analysed as a foundation for several future scenarios. The digital strategy consists of a
vision, mission, strategic objectives, strategic success factors, values, and measures. It
also includes the design of ecosystems and networks (Kraewing 2017; Greiner et al.
2017; Rauser 2016; Peppard and Ward 2016; Petry 2016; Cordon et al. 2016; Hille et al.
2016; Bharadwaj et al. 2013; Schallmo et al. 2018).
The second level of strategy-oriented digitalization is the digital transformation of
business models, which concerns itself with individual business model elements, the
entire business model, value chains, and the networking of different actors into a value
network. This digital transformation serves to define the digital strategy more clearly
within business models. It is based on an approach with a sequence of tasks and decisions
that are logically and temporally related to each other (BMWi 2015; Bowersox et al.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating Our Common Future,
Berlin, Germany on 20-23 June 2021.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-467-8
8
2005; Boueé and Schaible 2015; Westerman et al. 2011; Mazzone 2014; Schallmo et al.
2017).
The third level of strategy-oriented digitalization is digital implementation, which
concerns itself with the application of the digital strategy and supports the digital
transformation of one or more business models (Rauser 2016; Peppard and Ward 2016;
Petry 2016; Cordon et al. 2016; Kraewing 2017). The following areas are relevant to
digital implementation (Schallmo and Williams 2020):
• Technical implementation: e.g., the use of sensors, creation of databases, and
networking of components.
• Organisation: e.g., the definition of structures and responsibilities, the
establishment of departments, and the definition of processes.
• Skills: e.g., IT know-how (hardware, software application/development, etc.),
use of collaboration tools, development of leadership and collaboration skills,
and the acquisition of methods.
• Culture: e.g., cultural anchoring within the company, sensitisation of employees,
communication within the company.
5.2 Findings on the fundamental levels of strategy-oriented digitalization
Based on the interviews and transcripts (see Appendix 2), we deliver the following
excerpts for the levels of strategy-oriented digitalization:
• ‘…the three levels are very important and very sensible…’ (E1)
• ‘…with the implementation that one then must make very concrete, it is of
course also important that it is not only at a high level—some terms that people
somehow throw at one another—but that one really gets into doing something
really concrete...’ (E1)
• ‘...technology, digital products, what we have—this is an extra pillar with the
business models. That would be at the lowest level, but I think that is also a
good way to put that into this second level, because it is a more strategic issue
than the other areas.’ (E1)
• ‘…if it [digital strategy] is at the beginning and you can build on it, [it] can drive
the digital transformation…’ (E2)
• ‘…every company should have a digitalization strategy. That is why this is only
conclusive…’ (E3)
• ‘…of course, I must adapt in certain areas and with my business models and
then with the four areas [technology, organization, skills, culture]…’ (E3)
• ‘…what I am missing here [digital strategy] is differentiation. So, what we had:
the digitization of the business model. So, we differentiate between two areas.
On one hand, I have digitization of my business model, i.e., digitization of my
range of services, my products et cetera. And on the other hand, the digitization
of my service delivery...’ (E4)
• ‘…I see the topic of culture as a superior... How do I empower my organization,
how do I communicate, take everyone with me? And for me, this is more of a
framework on which the whole thing takes place…’ (E4)
• ‘…there are no superfluous issues here [in the model]…’ (E4)
• ‘…on one hand, of course, via the complete supply chain, this is part of my
service delivery, but of course also [affects] my customers. How do the
processes work for my customers? How can I optimize this? That is also part of
it…’ (E4)
• ‘…so, we have structured this in this way in our company as well as with our
customers….’(E5)
• ‘…for us, I'm saying the aspect, the business model and the bottom of the digital
implementation, I don't experience it so much as separating these two levels. But
we tend to go and look down. Culture rather from the point of view of
organization…’ (E5)
• ‘…but these are the elements [on the level of implementation] of technology,
organization, people and business with the fields of business administration,
psychology, sociology, IT, and computer science…’ (E5)
• ‘…rather look at the relationship e.g., between organization and business
management, according to the motto—do we have to change the organization a
little bit and be better positioned in terms of business?’ (E5)
• ‘…no, [the model] fits, so if you flatten it a bit, then it fits our view.’ (E5)
• ‘…so, I'm missing the whole topic of measuring the digital strategy. So, the one
thing is to bring and implement and plan initiatives. But this whole topic of
measurement—measurement of progress and of the digital maturity degree—
this [is] continuous…’ (E6)
• ‘…. otherwise, it is logically structured and clear and unambiguous for me….’
(E6)
Based on the levels of strategy-oriented digitalization described and the interview
excerpts, the following conclusions are relevant to further develop the model:
• The three levels in general should be kept but must be able to be adapted to
specific company needs.
• Technology is already included in the business model and in the roadmap for
digital transformation but should be pointed out more clearly.
• The differentiation between digitization of products and services and service
delivery (external and internal digitization) is included in the business model
and roadmap for digital transformation but should be pointed out more clearly.
• Culture and communication should be included from the beginning and on all
three levels.
• The mutual influence of the four areas (technology, organisation, skills, and
culture) is include on the implementation level but should be pointed out more
clearly.
• The measurement of progress at each level is included in the procedure but
should be pointed out more clearly.
5.3 Procedure to measure and improve digital maturity
The second dimension is the procedure to measure and improve digital maturity including
the following three steps, as shown in Figure 4: 1. initial analysis of digital maturity, 2.
in-depth analysis, and 3. derivation of measurements. The initial analysis supports the
focus on relevant areas of strategy-oriented digitalization and is designed as a short
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating Our Common Future,
Berlin, Germany on 20-23 June 2021.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-467-8
10
overview. The analysis is separated into results (e.g., a digital strategy) and organisation
(e.g., process for digital strategy).
Figure 4 Procedure to measure and improve digital maturity
Inspired by the evaluation of several items within the EFQM (2003) model, we propose
the four stages of digital maturity for the initial analysis, as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5 Exemplary initial analysis for digital maturity
Based on this, the relevant areas are selected for an in-depth analysis. This analysis
provides details on each level of strategy-oriented digitalization and contained criteria.
The third step is the derivation of measurements to improve the digital maturity of a
company.
5.4 Findings on the procedure to measure and improve digital maturity
Based on the interviews and transcripts (see Appendix 3), we deliver the following
excerpts for the procedure to measure and improve digital maturity:
• ‘…I think that, if you look at it at a higher level, it makes sense, and the
derivation of measures—I'm always very much fan of it anyway…’ (E1)
• ‘…good process…this is very simple…not at all superfluous …’ (E3)
• ‘…the question that must clearly come out of a digitalization strategy…[is]
whether I want to digitize my company internally, whether we want to take a
certain degree of maturity, or whether I also want to raise my company to a
certain degree of maturity…be it product side...’
• ‘…otherwise, of course, the process is also practical in terms of simplicity, to
put it this way…’ (E3)
• ‘…I think it fits very well, yes….’ (E4)
• ‘…what do I do with the measures?’ (E4)
• ‘…what are the most profitable use cases that I derive here from these measures
or from the potentials is an essential element…’ (E4)
• ‘…how it is presented now fits, but then above all is the central element. What
happens next?’ (E4)
• ‘…we are very much looking at a cycle, so much more, for example, initial
analysis…’ (E5)
• ‘…a fundamental increase from a degree of digitization does not necessarily
have to be a goal…. not necessarily every local digitization degree increase of
the entire company makes sense…’ (E5)
• ‘…the mature degree itself, but also the mature degree of the environment…’
(E5)
• ‘…the analyses should be evaluated before the measures are derived…’ (E6)
• ‘…can also be two different teams in companies, so: That one evaluates this,
shows weak points, and just the derivation of measures could be someone
else….’ (E6)’
Based on the procedure to measure and improve digital maturity described above and the
excerpts from the interviews, the following conclusions are relevant to develop the model
further:
• The three steps of the process should be kept but must be able to be adapted to
specific company needs.
• The connection between the evaluation of the digital maturity, measurements,
and the three levels of digitalization (digital strategy, digital transformation, and
digital implementation) should be pointed out more clearly.
• The evaluation of digital maturity should be done continuously, including the
evaluation of measurements success (covered in the approach for digital
implementation) and iterations between several steps.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating Our Common Future,
Berlin, Germany on 20-23 June 2021.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-467-8
12
• In addition to the analysis of the company maturity, the maturity of the
environment should analysed, including an alignment (covered in the approach
for digital transformation).
• The evaluation of the analysis is done in step two (in-depth analysis) to focus on
the relevant items.
5.5 In-depth analysis of digital maturity
The third dimension is basically the second step of the described procedure and a detailed
evaluation of relevant items. The items evaluated provide insights for each level of
strategy-oriented digitalization—for example, the process for the development of a digital
strategy, responsibilities, organizational integration, existence of a vision, and so on.
Therefore, the results (e.g., digital strategy, business model) and basic steps (e.g.,
roadmap for digital transformation of business models) are deconstructed and included in
the in-depth analysis. Each item is evaluated using four different levels (from 1 - very
low to 4 - very high) for the categories: digital maturity, potential of improvement, and
relevance for the company. Figure 6 shows an example of an in-depth analysis of digital
maturity on the level of digital transformation.
Figure 6 Exemplary in-depth analysis of digital maturity on the level of digital
transformation
By applying several categories, it is possible to focus even more on relevant digital
initiatives to improve the digital maturity of a company. It is also possible to describe
each item verbally to gain more insights. Two important points are the quantification of
digital maturity and the adjustment of the integrated approach to specific company
requirements.
5.6 Findings on the in-depth analysis of digital maturity
Based on the interviews and transcripts (see Appendix 4), we deliver the following
excerpts for the in-depth analysis of digital maturity:
• ‘…I find it more helpful—to make the three pillars and then say, OK, how do
we assess the digital maturity degree, and where do we see the potential? (E2)
• ‘…and what is the relevance? I believe that we could then perhaps deduce even
more detailed and even simple measures and know what is important.’ (E2)
• ‘…I think it is good that I see it here now, that you look at not only the internal
but also the external factors—that is, the channels that go outside….’ (E3)
• ‘…to the items, I think that is already a very complete picture…, and so you can
also query the digital maturity level…’ (E3)
• ‘…that is clear, logical, good, and very simple, so I don't think you have to add
another scale; that just makes it more complicated…’ (E3)
• ‘…and I also think potential is good. Relevance: Is the question whether this can
be applied to all individual areas…?’ (E3)
• ‘…I find it simple, and yet there is also a complete picture…’ (E3)
• ‘…what is the reference for evaluation? I do not know what you are doing there
if I now apply this to a company and would like to discuss this in this regard…’
(E4)
• ‘…depends, of course, on the level of knowledge of the respective
respondent…how he sees it and where he would like to have focus…’ (E4)
• ‘…option 1: We do not have a digitalization strategy, we haven't planned
anything about it at the moment…. Option 2: We do not have a digitalization
strategy, but we are planning…. Option 3 is then: We are currently in the
process of implementing the digitalization strategy…, and option 4 is: We have
completed it and are at the optimization [stage]…’ (E4)
• ‘…what are the next points where I would have to go?’ (E4)
• ‘…the columns provide a positive response to me…’
• ‘…now we would have to adjust the metric itself…. How do you do that? So,
that was madness…’
• ‘…and then the discussion was there, and this discussion has changed in
hindsight, so the only real benefit of it was the discussion…’ (E5)
• ‘…yes, but take the entrepreneurial risk with you—with each line in the end. So,
the risk that I am sleeping there at the market, for example…and the risk when I
look at my business model at the customer channel now is perhaps higher, as if
I—no idea—implement completely new in the organization…’ (E6)
Based on the in-depth analysis of digital maturity described above and the excerpts from
the interviews, the following conclusions are relevant to further develop the model:
• The idea to have an initial analysis and then an in-depth analysis should be kept
but must be able to be adapted to specific company needs.
• There should not be added any additional scales to keep complexity low.
• The reference for evaluation has been included by comparing the company with
the strongest competitor.
• Regarding the respondents, experts in a company should be included and not
just any employee.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating Our Common Future,
Berlin, Germany on 20-23 June 2021.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-467-8
14
• A more differentiated evaluation (not planned, planned….) has been included in
the initial analysis; the evaluation from 1 to 4 could be explained more or could
be individualized.
• The management of complexity should be kept in mind.
• The in-depth analysis can also be seen as a communication tool to discover a
need for digitalization projects.
• The risk is included in the scale ‘relevance to develop item further’.
6 Contributions
This research contributes an integrated approach to measuring and developing digital
maturity. This approach consists of several fundamental levels for strategy-oriented
digitalization. The fundamental levels include digital strategy, digital transformation, and
digital implementation. We also provide three relevant steps including an initial analysis
of digital maturity, an in-depth analysis, and the derivation of measurements. This closes
an existing research gap regarding the measurement and improvement of digital maturity.
7 Practical Implications
Senior managers and business developers will gain from the findings by having an
integrated approach to digital maturity covering several levels of digitalization. The
integrated approach enables companies to take advantage of their digital potential. By
deriving measurements, companies are able to optimize their current situation and create
a distinct competitive advantage. Specific requirements of companies should be covered
by adjusting the initial approach presented.
8 Limitations
This paper aimed to continue our existing research on digital maturity and report our
initial findings on the applicability of our integrated approach. We see the following
limitations to this paper. Readers must be aware that, due to theoretical constraints and
the lack of primary data sources, the presented results may not be generalizable.
Furthermore, the outlined principles and proposed research methodology require further
investigation.
8 Recommendations for Further Research
Further research on the integrated approach would be worthwhile. Practitioners should be
even more included in further research as the integrated approach could be tested
intensively, providing additional empirical data for comparison. It would be interesting to
create an overall accessible and anonymized database or a knowledge-building
community to be able to analyse which fundamental levels and steps are relevant and
how applicable an in-depth analysis is. In particular, the quantified measurement and
tracking of digital maturity (e.g., including KPI) would be interesting. This database
would allow researchers to gain insights from different industries, regions, or countries;
practitioners would access a reliable benchmarking tool providing recommendations for
further actions inside their companies.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating Our Common Future,
Berlin, Germany on 20-23 June 2021.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-467-8
16
Appendix 1. Guide for the semi-structured interviews
Actual status in the context of the digitization:
• Is digitization implemented in your company and, if so, how (e.g., organizational
anchorage; responsibility)?
• Is digitization structured in your company and, if so, how (e.g., the different levels
that are looked at)?
• Have you or your company begun or carried out initiatives and projects in the
context of digitization during the last two years and, if so, which?
• Which experiences have you had so far in the context of digitization?
Actual status in the context of digital maturity:
• Is digital maturity implemented in your company and, if so, how (e.g., organizational
anchorage; responsibility)?
• Is digital maturity measured in your company and, if so, how (e.g., levels, degrees)?
• Have you or your company begun or carried out initiatives and projects in the
context of digital maturity during the last two years and, if so, which?
• Which experiences have you had so far in the context of digital maturity?
Model for measuring digital maturity:
• What is your assessment regarding the three levels of strategy-oriented digitalization
(digital strategy, digital transformation, and digital implementation)? Are these
practicable? What is missing? What is superfluous?
• What is your assessment regarding the procedure to measure and improve digital
maturity (initial analysis of digital maturity, in-depth analysis, and derivation of
measurements)? Are these practicable? What is missing? What is superfluous?
• What is your assessment regarding the in-depth analysis of digital maturity
(evaluation of digital maturity, potential of improvement, and relevance for the
company)? Are these practicable? What is missing? What is superfluous?
Appendix 2 Results of the expert interviews (focus on the levels)
Levels of strategy-oriented digitalization
What is your assessment regarding the three levels of strategy-oriented digitalization (digital
strategy, digital transformation, and digital implementation)? Are these practicable? What is
missing? What is superfluous?
• ‘So, I think the three levels are very important and very sensible, that you also break this
down in this way, so we did so in that direction simply because a digital strategy is
important so that everyone in the company knows where you want to go at all. What is the
goal? What do you want to achieve? And then, you can also focus on many projects and
think, OK, where do we pay for it now and where maybe not? And which project should we
prioritize? Because that pays more to the digital strategy that everyone has agreed on...and
then [at] the lowest level. With the implementation that one must then make very concrete,
it is of course also important in the implementation that it is not only so at a high level—
some kind of terms that people somehow throw among one another—but that one really
gets into doing something really concrete. Technology, digital products, what we have, this
is an extra pillar with the business models that would be in the lowest level, but I think that
is also a good way to put that into this second level, because it is a more strategic issue than
the other areas.’ (E1)
• ‘Yes, I also think that the level of digital strategy, if it is at the beginning and you can build
on it, can derive the digital transformation…’ (E2)
• ‘So, I do believe that you are very general in your words. Are they already practicable,
because they are adaptable? So, I think every company should have a digitalization strategy.
That is why this is only conclusive. Once internally, but also outwardly and directed
sideways. This means, of course, that I must adapt. In certain areas and with my business
models and that with the four areas [technology, organization, skills, culture] I also think
are very good, because of course that is an essential point – as it is so nicely said, "culture
eats strategy for breakfast". That is precisely the point. These are essential factors that are
seen, which are included. I find it superfluous. It is always exciting, then I think I can really
implement this at the third implementation point. That is the real challenge’. (E3)
• ‘What I am missing here [digital strategy] is differentiation. So, what we had: the
digitization of the business model. So, we differentiate between two areas. On one hand, I
have digitization of my business model, i.e., digitization of my range of services, my
products, et cetera. And on the other hand, the digitization of my service delivery.... Then,
we differentiate between these two thrusts in both. That is an element on the next level,
where I have seen that in part, if you are digital. That is where I have the business model,
and then I get into the value chains. With this, I am in value chains; I am again in my
service delivery. That is like mixed and when I look at the third level. Then, we talk about
Enabler from our side. So, the way to empower. To be able to implement my digitalization
strategy and to be able to adapt to the area in Enabler Technical Implementation,
Organizational Skills. I see the topic of culture as a superior... How I empower my
organization, how do I communicate, I take everyone with me, and, for me, this is more of a
framework on which the whole thing takes place. Especially regarding the topic of change
management. So, for me, [that would be] an important element here in the digital
implementation, but rather superior in the pure frame. I think that is a top priority if you
look at digital strategy and digital transformation again.... Here [Digital Strategy], the topic
of change culture is already an important factor in creating this digitalization strategy. Who
do I take with me in defining my strategy? We are right in the change. Who do I need to
question? Even when we carry out projects with our customers, it is above all about who do
we take with us on our digitalization journey? And then we also take the lowest levels with
us to involve the key team members in the strategy development. Or at least to ask what
potential you see in your daily work. There are no superfluous issues here [in the concept]; I
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating Our Common Future,
Berlin, Germany on 20-23 June 2021.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-467-8
18
am only good. Maybe now, personally, there's always such a need for structuring. I think
that, as I have presented, this must also be differentiated. What do I look at about my
service delivery? What do I look at on the other side: Business model [of] which products,
services I offer on the market, [which is] in our experience still quite a valuable
distinguishing feature? Under the business model, i.e., on one hand, I digitize my range of
services, so if I transfer this to a machine builder, and then I have a machine on offer here,
let's say a printing press from me. And I am expanding the capabilities of this product by
offering my customers a monitor ring with yes, which I purely implemented in this product.
Then, he can quickly see when do I have to carry out my maintenance in the future? So, I
increase the degree of digitization of my product. I must take this into account when
developing this product. And on the other hand, how can I optimize myself in my
processes? On one hand, of course, via the complete supply chain; this is part of my service
delivery, but of course also affects my customers. How do the processes work for my
customers? How can I optimize this? That is also part of it.’ (E4)
• ‘So, we have structured this in this way in our company as well as with our customers. That
the digital strategy—i.e., there is no document on it, digital strategy and on another corner
where corporate strategy stands. Instead, the corporate strategy must include the digital
strategy and vice versa. The digital strategy must be the corporate strategy, which means
that there is no need to distinguish between them. So, if you make a distinction, then you
have a problem. Then, so to speak, one seems to be above the other, which does not work,
at least our experience. That is why it has been important for us not to take these terms
apart, but we are talking about the Roadmap 2025, for example, and to consciously not only
talk about digitization and not just talk about the state of affairs, but the whole thing is one,
so we deliberately do not use the word. Note number 2: For us, I'm saying the aspect, the
business model and the bottom of the digital implementation, so I don't experience it so
much that you separate these two levels. But we tend to go and look down. Culture rather
from the point of view of organization. Below, so to speak, four elements. But these are the
elements of technology, organization, people, and business with the fields of business
administration, psychology, sociology, IT, and computer science. And not so much
strengthen these corners but pay attention to the edges between these four corners during
the whole transformation. So, it's more likely that we're not going to have organization as
such strengths now, for example, and that we're putting up measures and looking at them.
But rather, look at the relationship, e.g., between organization and business management
according to the motto, do we have to change the organization a little bit and be better
positioned in terms of business? So, how are they depending on each other? Which is not to
say whether what is on the screen is good or bad. I just reflected what we are doing.
Without knowing if that is better or worse. No, [the model] fits, so if you flatten it a bit,
then it fits our view.’ (E5)
• ‘So, I'm missing the whole topic of measuring the digital strategy. So, the one thing is to
bring and implement and plan initiatives. But this whole topic of measurement,
measurement of progress and of the digital maturity degree—this [is] continuous—that I
would miss, otherwise it is logically structured and clear and unambiguous for me.’ (E6)
Appendix 3 Results of the expert interviews (focus on the procedure)
Procedure to measure and improve digital maturity
What is your assessment regarding the procedure to measure and improve digital maturity (initial
analysis of digital maturity, in-depth analysis, and derivation of measurements)? Are these
practicable? What is missing? What is superfluous?
• ‘So, what I think is good, which we also think I haven't done, is this first query on these
about topics, whether you see problems somewhere or if you just don't have anything from
them yet: digital strategy, business models, etc. That one makes such a coarser query first
and then goes into the detail analysis, because, in us, we have almost only done this detail
analysis [in] this survey, which was very detailed, on each of these individual pillars and
then the digital strategy derived from it. And I think that, if you look at it at a higher level, it
makes sense, and the derivation of measures—I'm always very much a fan of it anyway.
Otherwise, we do not need to do everything else if we do not then derive concrete measures
and then follow them up in such a way that they are implemented.’ (E1)
• ‘Yes, good process. Of course, this is very simple; this is not a negative statement now. Not
at all superfluous. So, I ask myself the question that must clearly come out of a
digitalization strategy. Whether I want to digitize my company internally, whether we want
to take a certain degree of maturity or whether I also want to raise my company to a certain
degree of maturity. Be it product side... That's just what I think you must do in the digital
digitalization strategy. Otherwise, of course, the process is also practical in terms of
simplicity, to put it this way.’ (E3)
• ‘As far as the process is presented now, I think it fits very well, yes. It is important in the
aftermath, of course. What do I do with the measures? Because, usually, an insane number
of measures are determined. As I said earlier. Do I have to include all areas there? If I have
identified over 300, 400, 500 potentials, as we have only recently had with large companies,
what do I do with them now? No, so I'm just in my head big OEM also where you are going
there. That is precisely the challenge. What are the most profitable use cases that I derive
here from these measures or from the potentials is an essential element. And the so-called
synthesis, to say, okay, now let us evaluate that qualitatively. One to make before selecting
before making a quantitative assessment. So, where do I bet on it? Where do I put my
energy on it so as not to improve? Using digitization opportunities? That is why I say how it
is presented now fits, but then above all is the central element. What happens next?’ (E4)
• ‘So, there are two elements that I notice. Point number 1 suggests a certain linearity. And
we are very much looking at a cycle so much more, for example initial analysis, what to
do—look, it works, maybe this derivation is not possible, so I do not want to insinuate this
to them, but the picture suggests first think, then act. Is it more influenced by—I do not
want to exaggerate, but perhaps even to act, then see what happens, what happens here, do
you have to structure it at all and do it at all, or can it not just be allowed to run? So, does
that need control? If so, let us think, then come in immediately: What do we want? After all,
a fundamental increase from a degree of digitization does not necessarily have to be a goal.
Yes, because we have realized, if, for example, travel booking wants to digitize, then this
leads to implications, so to speak, no idea in the project business, we do not want that at all;
that is not necessarily every local digitization degree increase of the entire company makes
sense and that, and the third point is therefore the context around it. So, not only in the
mature degree itself, but also the mature degree of the environment. Yes, so things that I get
through with me, so more iterative until in some situations even act then look... And that's
especially in the environment. So, we have experienced that in part also in the maturity
considerations the environment has to come in. So, a lot to think about the environment.
Because this is also very expensive to recognize. Where the limits of some aspects of
digitization are.’ (E5)
• ‘In order to do the initial analysis, do I need the detailed analysis, or do I understand this
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating Our Common Future,
Berlin, Germany on 20-23 June 2021.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-467-8
20
correctly? Then, honestly, I do not have the evaluation phase. In other words, the analyses
should be evaluated before the measures are derived. Of course, it is related somewhere, but
purely from the logical model, I think, that still belongs in. But that can also be two
different teams in companies, so that one evaluates this, shows weak points, and just the
derivation of measures could be someone else.’ (E6)’
Appendix 4 Results of the expert interviews (focus on the in-depth analysis)
In-depth analysis of digital maturity
What is your assessment regarding the in-depth analysis of digital maturity (evaluation of digital
maturity, potential for improvement, and relevance for the company)? Are these practicable?
What is missing? What is superfluous?
• ‘So far, I don't think we've measured it with the potential. The relevance has already been
queried before, but not in the detailed form as it would be structured now, and, as it is
intended, I find it more helpful. To make the three pillars and then say, OK, how do we
assess the digital maturity degree, and where do we see the potential? And what is the
relevance? I believe that we could then perhaps deduce even more detailed and even simple
measures and know what is important.’ (E2)
• ‘So basically, I think it is good that I see it here now, that you look at not only the other, but
also the external factors, that is, the channels that go outside. To the items, I think that is
already a very complete picture, and so you can also query the digital maturity level. That is
clear, logical, good, and very simple, so I don't think you have to add another scale; that just
makes it more complicated. And I also think potential is good. Relevance: Is the question
whether this can be applied to all individual areas? But I think if you look at, OK, I have
good customer channels that I play or a vision, but my implementation is not nearly that far.
Thus, the relevance would be high. This can already be linked. I believe that I will then
draw the conclusions from this. That is going to be what it's going to do. But I find it
simple, and yet there is also a complete picture.’ (E3)
• ‘What is the reference for evaluation? I do not know what you are doing there if I now
apply this to a company and would like to discuss this in this regard. And wants to identify
the focal points. But this depends, of course, on the level of knowledge of the respective
respondent. How he sees it and where he would like to have focus. Can he, of course,
crystallize immediately by his evaluation? But what is the basis for measuring the digital
maturity itself? So, we only recently had a study, which has not yet been published, but that
is exactly what we had thought about. In the end, we said digital maturity… Let us make a
very simple topic: digitization strategy. In response, Stage 1: We do not have a
digitalization strategy; we haven't planned anything about it at the moment. Answer stage 2:
We do not have a digitalization strategy, but we are planning. Stage 3 is then: We are
currently in the process of implementing the digitalization strategy. Stage [4] is then: We
have completed it and are on the optimization. What is this really a criterion, and what is the
reference for me to get this classification at all? Yes, the right word here was the
expressions and to give them as a check or choice, because otherwise, I have no possibility
of comparison. If the company wants to know, how do I feel about other companies? Can
you represent that, but everyone has a different rating scale and to group themselves in, and
the advantage is that I can see possibilities through the answer: What are the next points
where I would have to go?’ (E4)
• ‘So, the columns that provide a positive response to me. About measurement, as I said, we
have gone into madness methodically. Because this topic metrics, etc., are crazy. Yes, for
example, the technologies, we only found out, we filled out our compass for the first
project; four minutes later, there was another technology. Now, we would have to adjust the
metric itself. How do you do that? So, that was madness. At some point, which is probably
a disgrace from a university point of view, we decided to use intersubjective lenses. In other
words, at some point, we said we just had 1 to 4. Whatever is 1 to 4. Each has a different
state of condition from 1 little to 4 maximum. And then, we went, and that turned out to be
very, very interesting for our company afterwards, and that is what we made a kind of
digitization poker, so we took our individual lines, handed out cards, got the project and the
stakeholders, the managers together, and they should just fill out those four columns by
turning the cards over. And that was just exciting, because either that was ..., but then it did
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating Our Common Future,
Berlin, Germany on 20-23 June 2021.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-467-8
22
not matter, why is the 2? It is probably not 2. Or it was one of the other 4, and then the
discussion was there, and this discussion has changed in hindsight, so the only real benefit
of it was the discussion. And the discussion about what would have to happen with it: Your
1 and my 4 will, and frankly, that is why this metric was. This number, this numerical view
of the maturity degree, was rather a playful nature and the actual asset was afterwards
automatically summarized the measures that we discussed. And then we tried to give up
these numbers game with these cards and get straight into the measures but did not work.
When we used this intersubjective maturity game, we thought, this is important, and then
got the aspects out for the measures and the preconditions. That was our experience. And
then, the result of the measures, so to speak, emphasize and reward it and present it because
of work. And especially among computer scientists, it is of course always automatic; if a
degree of maturity is there 1 to 4, one comes to the variance, one calculates the mean, etc.
But getting away from these numbers does not pay so much attention to the world, but
rather: We have had a variance, had differences between employees and management, so to
put things forward rather than the numerical value as such.’ (E5)
• ‘Yes, but take the entrepreneurial risk with you—with each line in the end. So, the risk that
I am sleeping there at the market, for example. Due to competitive factors, for example.
And the risk when I look at my business model at the customer channel now is perhaps
higher, as if I—no idea—implement completely new in the organization. Just as an
example. But perhaps consider the risk for companies. Exactly, or just who I then make a
90- or 180-degree swing completely different customers, then of course I have an
enormously high entrepreneurial risk.’ (E6)
References and Notes
accenture 2015, Digitalisierungsstrategien der deutschen Top500, accenture strategy.
Anggrahini, D, Kurniati, N, Karningsih, PD, Parenreng, SM & Syahroni, N 2018,
‘Readiness assessment towards smart manufacturing system for tuna processing
industry in Indonesia’, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering,
vol. 337.
Backlund, F, Chroner, D & Sundqvist, E 2014, ‘Project management maturity models—
A critical review: A case study within Swedish engineering and construction
organizations’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 119, pp. 837–46.
Bharadwaj, A, El Sawy, OA, Pavlou, PA & Venkatraman, N 2013, ‘Digital business
strategy: Toward a next generation of insights’, MIS Quarterly, pp. 471–82.
Baskerville, R & Wood-Harper, AT 1998, ‘Diversity in information systems action
research methods’, European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 90–
107.
Becker, J, Knackstedt, R & Pöppelbuß, J 2009, ‘Developing maturity models for IT
management’. Business & Information Systems Engineering, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 213–
22.
BMWi 2015, Industrie 4.0 und Digitale Wirtschaft - Impulse fr Wachstum,
Beschftigung und Innovation. Bundesministerium fr Wirtschaft und Energie,
Berlin.
Boue, C & Schaible, S 2015, Die Digitale Transformation der Industrie. Roland Berger
und BDI, Studie.
Bowersox, DJ, Closs, DJ & Drayer, RW 2005, ‘The digital transformation: Technology
and beyond’, Supply Chain Management Review, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 22–9.
Caiado, RGG, Lima, GBA, Nascimento, DLM, Vieira Neto, J & Oliveira, RAM 2016,
‘Guidelines to risk management maturity in construction projects’, Brazilian Journal
of Operations and Production Management, vol. 13, pp. 372–85.
CMMI Product Development Team 2011, CMMI® für Entwicklung, Version 1.3,
Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, pp. 464.
Cook-Davies, T 2002, ‘Project management maturity models. Does it make sense to
adopt one?’, Project Manager Today, pp. 16–20.
Cordon, C, Garcia-Mil, P, Ferreiro Vilarino, T & Caballero, P 2016, ‘From digital
strategy to strategy is digital’, in Strategy is digital, Springer, New York, pp. 9–45.
Correia, E, Carvalho, H, Azevedo, S & Govindan, K 2017, ‘Maturity models in supply
chain sustainability: A systematic literature review’, Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 1, p.
64.
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating Our Common Future,
Berlin, Germany on 20-23 June 2021.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-467-8
24
De Bruin, T, Freeze, R, Kaulkarni, U & Rosemann, M 2005, ‘Understanding the main
phases of developing a maturity assessment model’, paper presented to the 16th
Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney, 2005.
Denzin, NK 1970, The research act in sociology: A theoretical introduction to
sociological methods, Butterworths, London.
EFQM 2003, Die Grundkonzepte der Excellence, EFQM, Brüssel.
Frederico, GF, Garza-Reyes, JA, Anosike, A & Kumar, V 2020, ‘Supply chain 4.0:
concepts, maturity and research agenda’, Supply Chain Management, vol. 25, no. 2,
pp. 262–82.
Gimpel, H, Hosseini, S, Huber, R, Probst, L, Röglinger, M & Faisst, U 2018, 'Structuring
Digital Transformation - A framework of action fields and its application at ZEISS’,
Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), vol. 19, no. 1,
pp. 31–54.
Glaser, BG 1992, Basics of grounded theory analysis: emergence vs forcing, Sociology
Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, BG & Strauss, AL 1967, The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research, Aldire, Chicago.
Greiner, O, Riepl, P & Kittelberger, D 2017, 'Die digitale Strategie: Der Wegweiser zur
systematischen Digitalisierung des Unternehmens', in M Kieninger (ed.),
Digitalisierung der Unternehmenssteuerung: Prozessautomatisierung, Business
Analytics, Big Data, SAP S/4HANA, Anwendungsbeispiele, Schffer Poeschel,
Stuttgart.
Hamidi, SR, Aziz, AA, Shuhidan, SM, Aziz, AA & Mokhsin, M 2018, 'SMEs maturity
model assessment of IR4. 0 digital transformation', Proceedings of the International
Conference on Kansei Engineering & Emotion Research, Singapore, 2018, pp. 721–
32.
Hille, M, Janata, S & Michel, J 2016, Digitalisierungsleitfaden: Ein Kompendium fr
Entscheider im Mittelstand im Auftrag der QSC AG, Compendium, Kassel.
Kim, K, Jeon, B & Kim, Y 2018, Applied practices of Test Maturity Model (TMM) for
small and midsize test organizations, viewed May 2021,
<http://www.joetsite.com/applied-practices-of-test-maturity-model-tmm-for-small-
and-midsize-test-organizations>.
Kraewing, M 2017, Digital Business Strategie für den Mittelstand: Entwicklung und
Konzeption mit internationaler Ausrichtung, 1st ed., Haufe-Lexware, Freiburg.
Kromrey, H 2009, Empirische Sozialforschung: Modelle und Methoden der
standardisierten Datenerhebung und Datenausweitung, 1st ed., UTB, Stuttgart.
Lahrmann, G, Marx, F, Winter, R & Wortmann, F 2010, 'Business intelligence maturity
models: an overview’, Proceedings of the VII Conference of the Italian Chapter of
AIS, Naples, Italy, 2010.
Martin, PY & Turner, BA 1986, ‘Grounded theory and organizational research’, The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 141–57.
Mazzone, DM 2014, Digital or death: Digital transformation—The only choice for
business to survive smash and conquer, 1st ed., Smashbox Consulting Inc,
Mississauga, Ontario.
Melchior, L 2018, 'Digitale Transformation: Deutsche Unternehmen sehen sich gut
aufgestellt‘, Internet World Business, viewed May 2021,
<https://www.internetworld.de/sonstiges/digitale-transformation/digitale-
transformation-deutsche-unternehmen-sehen-gut-aufgestellt-1528986.html>.
Mittal, S, Khan, MA, Romero, D & Wuest, T 2018, ‘A critical review of smart
manufacturing & Industry 4.0 maturity models: Implications for small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs)’, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 49, pp. 194–214.
Peppard, J & Ward, J 2016, The strategic management of information systems: Building a
digital strategy, John Wiley and Sons.
Petry, T 2016, Digital Leadership: Erfolgreiches Führen in Zeiten der Digital Economy,
Haufe-Lexware.
Pfeifer-Silberbach, U 2005, Ein Beitrag zum Monitoring des Reifegrades in der
Entwicklung eines Produktes, Aachen: Shaker.
Rauser, A 2016, Digital strategy: A guide to digital business transformation,
CreateSpace, North Charleston, SC.
Rübel, S, Emrich, A, Klein, S & Loos, P 2018, ‘A Maturity Model for Business Model
Management in Industry 4.0’, in Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik, Lneburg,
Germany, March 6–9, 2018.
Schallmo, D & Williams, CA 2017, 'Digital transformation of business models - Best
practices and roadmap’, Proceedings of the XXVIII ISPIM Innovation Conference,
Vienna, Austria, June 18–21, 2017.
Schallmo, D, Williams, CA & Boardman, L 2017, ‘Digital transformation of business
models - Best practices, enablers and roadmap’, International Journal of Innovation
Management, vol. 21, no. 8.
Schallmo, D, Williams, CA & Lohse, J 2018, ‘Clarifying digital strategy - Detailed
literature review of existing approaches’, Proceedings of the XXIX ISPIM Innovation
Conference "Innovation, The Name of The Game", Stockholm, Sweden, June 17–20,
2018. ISBN 9789523352193
Schallmo, D, Williams, CA & Lohse, J 2019a, ‘Digital strategy: Integrated approach and
generic options, International Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 23, no. 8.
Schallmo, D, Williams, CA & Lohse, J 2019b, Digital strategy: Integrated approach and
generic options. Proceedings of the XXX ISPIM Innovation Conference, Florence,
Italy, June 16–19, 2019. ISBN 9789523353510
Schallmo, D & Williams, CA 2020, ‘An integrated approach to digital implementation:
TOSC model and DPSEC-Circle’, Proceedings of the XXXI ISPIM Innovation
Conference – "Innovating Our Common Future", Berlin, Germany, June 7–10, 2020.
ISBN 9789523354661
Schallmo, D, Lang, K, Hasler, D, Ehmig-Klassen, K & Williams, CA 2020, 'An approach
for a digital maturity model for SMEs based on their requirements’, Proceedings of
This paper was presented at The ISPIM Innovation Conference – Innovating Our Common Future,
Berlin, Germany on 20-23 June 2021.
Event Proceedings: LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications: ISBN 978-952-335-467-8
26
the XXXI ISPIM Innovation Conference – "Innovating Our Common Future", Berlin,
Germany, (virtual), June 7–10, 2020. ISBN 9789523354661
Schmidt, C 2004, The analysis of semi-structured interviews. A companion to qualitative
research, pp. 253–8.
Schumacher, A, Erol, S & Sihn, W 2016, ‘A maturity model for assessing Industry 4.0
readiness and maturity of manufacturing enterprises’, Procedia CIRP, vol. 52, pp.
161–6.
Tarhan, A, Turetken, O & Reijers, HA 2016, ‘Business process maturity models: A
systematic literature review’, Information and Software Technology, vol. 75, pp. 122–
34.
Warnecke, D, Heyn, J & Teuteberg, F 2018, ‚Nachhaltigkeit durch betriebliche
Umweltinformationssysteme (BUIS)? Entwicklung und Evaluation eines
Reifegradmodells fr kleine und mittlere Unternehmen (KMU)‘, in Workshops der
INFORMATIK 2018-Architekturen, Prozesse, Sicherheit und Nachhaltigkeit, Kllen
Druck+ Verlag GmbH.
Westerman, G, Calmjane, C, Bonnet, D, Ferraris, P & McAfee, A 2011, ‘Digital
transformation: A roadmap for billion-dollar organizations’, MIT Center for Digital
Business and Capgemini Consulting, pp. 1–68.
Williams, C. A, Schallmo, D, Lang, K & Boardman, L 2019, ‘Digital maturity models for
small and medium-sized enterprises: A systematic literature review, ISPIM
Conference Proceedings. The International Society for Professional Innovation
Management (ISPIM), 2019, pp. 1–15.
Williams, C. A & Schallmo, D 2020, ‘How SMEs digitally mature: Conceptual research
framework and initial findings’, Proceedings of the ISPIM Connects Global
"Celebrating the World of Innovation", (virtual), December 6–8, 2020. ISBN
9789523355668
