DT Maturity Assessment 2021

International Journal of Production Research
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20
Digital transformation maturity assessment:

development of the digital transformation
capability maturity model
Ebru Gökalp & Veronica Martinez
To cite this article: Ebru Gökalp & Veronica Martinez (2021): Digital transformation maturity
assessment: development of the digital transformation capability maturity model, International
Journal of Production Research, DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2021.1991020
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1991020
Published online: 26 Oct 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 110
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tprs20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1991020
Digital transformation maturity assessment: development of the digital

transformation capability maturity model
Ebru Gökalpa,b and Veronica Martineza
a Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; b Technology and Knowledge Management Department, Baskent
University, Ankara, Turkey
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The use of on-premises technology in the business environment to create a competitive advantage Received 23 March 2020
is ushering in a new era known as digital transformation. Although companies are aware of its poten- Accepted 15 September 2021
tial benefits, they face challenges creating a clear roadmap to reform their existing processes in KEYWORDS
line with these technologies. Maturity models are developed to assist organisations by providing Maturity model; digital
extensive guidance and a roadmap for improvement. However, as a result of the systematic liter- transformation; model
ature review and its analysis, it was observed that none of the 18 existing maturity models in the development; smart
digital transformation domain fully satisfies all the criteria of suitability, completeness, clearness, production; Industry 4.0
and objectivity. To close this research gap, this study aims to develop a holistic maturity model in
the digital transformation domain, entitled DX-CMM, by applying a theoretically grounded devel-
opment approach, which has so far been neglected despite its remarkable relevance. The purpose
of DX-CMM is to assist organisations by providing current capability and maturity determination,
deriving a gap analysis, and creating a comprehensive roadmap for improvement in a standard-
ised way. An exploratory case study is also conducted to check the applicability of the model in this
study.
1. Introduction
efficiencies. Digital transformation (DX) has recently
It is forecasted that, by 2022, more than 60% of the attracted increasing interest from scholars, practitioners,
global gross domestic product will be digitised. By 2030 governments, and information and communication tech-
more than 70% of new value creation in the economy nology suppliers to develop automatised, optimised, and
will be based on digitally enabled platforms (World Eco- sustainable concepts such as smart cities, smart health,
nomic Forum 2018). Digital innovations are transform- smart homes, smart government, and smart produc-
ing industries by disrupting existing business and oper- tion, also known as Industry 4.0 or Industrial Internet
ating models at an unprecedented pace. This creates new of Things (IIoT). With the rapid technological advents,
opportunities to add value in businesses by improving today we live in the midst of a DX where businesses,
the intelligence of products, services, and systems (Kager- especially manufacturing companies, are able to collect
mann, Lukas, and Wahlster 2011). Digitalisation cov- vast amounts of data from a diverse set of sources in the
ering automation does not equal the term DX, which product life cycle to produce business value to attain valu-
is observed as a disruptive technological achievement able insights and empower businesses to improve their
bringing new business and operating models. Organisa- processes performances, productivity and quality (Sjödin
tions in different industries such as automotive, chem- et al. 2018). Thus, a growing number of organisations
istry, electricity, health, banking, hospitality, logistics, are striving to intensify their DX capabilities to attain a
aviation, and travel, among others, have started to use competitive edge.
new emerging technologies and paradigm, such as the While DX has a significant disruptive impact on
Internet of Things (IoT) and connected devices, cyber- today’s business and society, the number of organisa-
physical systems, robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), and tions that are ready to take full advantage of it is limited.
big data analytics, to name a few, to build new busi- Although most organisations are aware of the potential
ness models, improve customer experiences, and increase effect of DX, many of them do not have a clear path
CONTACT Ebru Gökalp eg590@cam.ac.uk Institute for Manufacturing, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, 17 Charles Babbage
Road, Cambridge, CB3 0FS, UK
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 E. GÖKALP AND V. MARTINEZ
to bridge the gaps in order to reshape the existing pro- deriving a gap analysis, and creating a comprehensive
cesses in line with the emerging technologies (Beckert roadmap for improvement in a standardised way. In
2014). They experience difficulties in coordinating and doing so, first, the existing MMs in the DX/smart man-
managing the holistic business-to-technology scope of ufacturing/smart services domains are analyzed. Then,
this transformation and need to acquire a comprehensive the strengths and weaknesses of each model are identi-
viewpoint to lead this DX, which includes heterogeneous fied by evaluating the characteristics of the MMs based
and complex processes from different domains for man- on a set of predefined criteria. As a result, it was necessary
aging strategy, portfolios, projects, human resource skills, to develop a theoretically grounded model, entitled the
process re-engineering, software, and hardware (Neff digital transformation capability maturity model (DX-
et al. 2014). According to Gartner (Gartner 2019), 80% of CMM), to guide organisations that wish to adopt digital
DX projects are not likely to produce any business value transformation by providing a comprehensive, objective,
through 2020 because these projects are not managed consistent, and standardised approach. The DX-CMM is
and scaled with a standardised and systematic approach. developed based on a well-established process capability
Because DX necessitates a broader focus to tackle organ- maturity model of SPICE (ISO 2015a, 2015b, 2015c) by
isational, managerial, strategical, and cultural challenges applying a methodological MM development framework
to exploit these promising benefits. The recent studies (De Bruin et al. 2005). An exploratory case study is also
(Gröger 2018; Mikalef et al. 2019) indicate that utilising conducted to check the applicability of the DX-CMM.
a structured and standard model to initiate DX adoption The remainder of the paper is organised as follows: a
can increase return on investments. Thus, the endeavour literature review on existing MMs in the DX domain is
of leveraging DX requires following systematically devel- provided, followed by a description of the fundamental
oped and standardised methodologies and frameworks background information. After this, the development of
with well-defined processes and evolutionary paths (ur DX-CMM based on design science research is explained.
Rehman et al. 2019). Then, the structure of DX-CMM is given, and the paper
Structural approaches, such as maturity models is finalised.
(MMs) or frameworks, are developed to assist organi-
sations by providing extensive guidance and offering a
roadmap for improvement. The MM is defined as ‘a con- 2. Related research
ceptual model consisting of a sequence of discrete maturity
2.1. Existing maturity models in the digital
levels for a class of processes and represents a desired evolu-
transformation domain
tionary path for these processes’ (Becker, Knackstedt, and
Pöppelbuß 2009). The first MM, named the capability The literature review was conducted according to
maturity model (CMM), is revised to capability maturity the guidelines proposed by Kitchenham (Kitchenham
model integration (CMMI) (CMMI Product Team 2010); 2004). The keywords for the search were ‘Digital
at the same time, the software process improvement and Transformation,’ ‘Digitalization,’ ‘Smart,’ ‘Industry 4.0,’
capability determination model (SPICE) (ISO 2012) has ‘Industry Internet of Things,’ AND ‘Maturity Model,’
been released. SPICE and CMMI share the common ben- ‘Capability Model,’ ‘Assessment Model,’ ‘Readiness
efits of MMs, which include increased return on invest- Assessment,’ and so on. The review was conducted on
ment, quality, performance, customer satisfaction, and Scopus and Web of Science. The references of these
staff involvement, as well as decreased errors in the soft- articles were also reviewed. As a result of the review,
ware industry (Tarhan, Turetken, and Reijers 2016). After 18 existing MMs were identified, the details of which
observing these benefits, adaptation of these MMs, rather are given in the Appendix. In order to objectively
than software, to other sectors such as automotive (Auto- and systematically analyze the strengths and weaknesses
motive 2010), medical (Mc Caffery and Dorling 2010), of these MMs, the evaluation criteria were defined.
and government (Gökalp and Demirörs 2015, 2016) has Although there are no standard or published evalu-
become very popular, and there is an increasing num- ation criteria for the scope of DX, there is a well-
ber of MMs. Although the number of MMs has increased known ISO standard regarding the requirements for con-
in the last decade, the validation and usefulness of these structing MMs. According to the standard, the assess-
models are scarce (Tarhan, Turetken, and Reijers 2016), ment result of an MM should be ‘complete, clear,
and most lack a well-documented, complete, clear, and unambiguous, objective, impartial, consistent, repeat-
unambiguous standard (Becker, Knackstedt, and Pöppel- able, comparable, and representative’ (ISO 2015b). Con-
buß 2009). sequently, the assessment criteria for evaluating the
The objective of this research is to assist organisations existing MMs were identified based on the following
by providing current capability/maturity determination, requirements:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 3
Criterion 1 is suitability, which is the level of fitness for maturity model (Rockwell Automation 2014) was evalu-
the purpose of the MM in terms of the maturity ated as follows. The model investigates the technological
assessment of DX. readiness of organisations for integration. Criterion 1 was
Criterion 2 is the completeness of dimension, which is stated as 5 (fully satisfied), which means the level of suit-
the level of completeness of dimensions in terms of ability of the study in terms of the maturity assessment
addressing all, or a subset of, significant engineering of DX is about 100%. Since no dimension was defined
and management processes or aspects affecting DX. in the model, criteria 2, 4, and 5 were rated as 1 (Not
Criterion 3 is the definition of maturity levels, which all satisfied). Furthermore, although the MM had five
is the level of completeness of explanations regard- maturity levels, for which descriptions were largely pro-
ing the maturity levels enumerating the different vided, the measurement attributes and assessment meth-
degrees of DX maturity. ods were not provided. Therefore, criterion 3 was rated
Criterion 4 is the definition of dimensions, which is as 3 (moderately satisfied), and since there was no sat-
the level of description of the maturity dimensions isfying achievement between criteria 6–9, these criteria
assessed to determine the DX maturity level. A DX were rated as 1 (not all satisfied) for MM1. Because no
maturity model should include process or aspect- assessment method was defined, the rating of criterion 8,
related definitions, objectives, and base practices objectivity of the assessment method, was not applicable.
that enable the assessment of the DX processes or In summary, as a result of the literature review, it was
aspects. determined that there are 18 MMs regarding the devel-
Criterion 5 is the granularity of dimensions, which is opment of MMs for the DX/smart manufacturing/smart
the degree of granularity of the maturity dimensions services domain and 77% of the existing studies target
having a deeper level of detail. the manufacturing industry, because of the popularity
Criterion 6 is the definition of measurement attributes, of DX in the manufacturing domain based on its eco-
which is the level of completeness of explanations nomic impact (Kagermann et al. 2013). It seems that
regarding the maturity-level measurement dimen- there has been a research stream for investigating the
sions having attributes, practices, success indicators subject in recent years. Although the number of exist-
to enable measurement of the DX maturity level. ing MMs is not small, none of the existing MMs in the
Criterion 7 is the description of the assessment method, literature fully satisfy (5) all of the MM evaluation cri-
which is the degree of completeness of explanations teria. The top three models satisfying the criteria most
regarding the maturity-level evaluation approach are MM1, MM2, and MM3. Although all value-adding
with a detailed level of description of the assess- processes must be taken into consideration by a holistic
ment process to provide an objective and structured and integrated approach in order to benefit fully from
evaluation. the DX, none of the existing MMs has a comprehen-
Criterion 8 is the objectivity of the assessment method, sive and integrated approach. Moreover, none of them
which is the degree of objectiveness of the maturity- is developed based on a well-established process capabil-
level evaluation approach of the MM. It is the level ity maturity model, and they do not aim to improve the
of unambiguity of the descriptions in the capability DX processes, although leveraging DX requires following
or maturity level, attributes, practice, and indicators. systematically developed and standardised methodolo-
Criterion 9 is access, which is free accessibility to all gies and frameworks with well-defined processes and
items/questions and the assessment approach of the evolutionary paths (ur Rehman et al. 2019). Addition-
MM. If it is freely accessible, the MM is rated as fully ally, none of them gives full details of the model for the
satisfied for this criterion. application or provides an action plan for enabling matu-
rity stage improvement. The MMs developed for the DX
Existing MMs, given in Table A5 in the Appendix, domain are still at the preliminary stage; more than half
were analyzed based on these assessment criteria by three (55%) of the existing MMs are published as conference
experts in the field of DX and MMs, and the assess- proceedings, and only 27% are published as a journal
ment results are given in Table 1. The assessment was paper. No MM has a holistic approach for applicability
performed by rating the degree of satisfaction of each across all sectors. By taking all of these into account, it
criterion by using 5-points Likert scale and the descrip- can be said that there is research gap in this domain. For
tions are as follow: (-): Not applicable; (1) Not all sat- this reason, this study aims to develop an MM for the DX
isfied; (2) Slightly satisfied; (3) Moderately satisfied; (4) domain, called DX-CMM, that fills this research gap. The
Very satisfied; (5) Fully satisfied. As an example, for the next section provides information about the theoretical
assessment of MMs, MM15 – the connected enterprise background of this development.
Table 1. The assessment of existing MMs.

Existing MMs Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 Criterion 4 Criterion 5 Criterion 6 Criterion 7 Criterion 8 Criterion 9
MM1 (Schuh et al. 2017) 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 - 1
MM2 (Lichtblau et al. 2015) 5 5 5 5 5 2 1 - 5
MM3 (Gill and VanBoskirk 5 2 5 5 2 5 5 1 5
2016)
MM4 (Gökalp, Şener, and 5 5 5 5 5 2 1 - 1
Eren 2017)
MM5 (Akdil, Ustundag, and 2 3 5 5 3 3 5 3 5
Cevikcan 2018)
MM6 (Williams et al. 2019) 3 3 5 5 5 5 1 - 1
MM7 (Colli et al. 2018, 5 5 5 5 3 1 2 3 1
2019)
MM8 (Asdecker and Felch 2 3 5 5 3 2 2 3 5
2018)
MM9 (Sjödin et al. 2018) 5 3 1 5 5 1 1 - 1
MM10 (Leyh et al. 2016, 2 2 5 5 2 2 1 - 3
2017)
MM11 (Carolis, Macchi, 5 3 5 3 3 1 3 3 1
and Terzi 2017; De
Carolis et al. 2017)
MM12 (Valdez-de-Leon 3 3 5 3 2 2 3 3 5
2016)
MM13 (Mittal, Romero, 3 5 5 5 3 1 1 - 1
and Wuest 2018)
MM14 (Bandara, 3 5 1 5 3 1 2 3 1
Vidanagamachchi, and
Wickramarachchi 2019)
MM15 (Rockwell 5 1 3 1 1 1 1 - 1
Automation 2014)
MM16 (Schumacher, Erol, 5 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1
and Sihn 2016)
MM17 (Schumacher, 5 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1
Nemeth, and Sihn 2019)
MM18 (Ganzarain and 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 - 1
Errasti 2016)
(-): Not applicable (1) Not all satisfied; (2) Slightly satisfied; (3) Moderately satisfied; (4) Very satisfied; (5) Fully satisfied.
2.2. Theoretical background The differentiation between DX and the terms ‘Indus-
try 4.0,’ ‘Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT),’ or ‘smart
In this section, the theoretical background of DX-CMM
factory’ is that, while DX emphasises the fact that the
is given by explaining the term ‘digital transformation,’
new emergent technologies disrupt all industries, Indus-
the structure of business process capability maturity
try 4.0 explicitly focuses on the manufacturing industry
models, and the relationship between the dynamic capa-
(Kagermann et al. 2013). Industry 4.0 is more technol-
bility theory and DX-CMM.
ogy centric while DX is a process that focuses, along
with the technology, on the pre-requisite/enabling envi-
2.2.1. Digital transformation ronment needed for the transformation. Moreover, as an
The differentiation between digital transformation (DX) umbrella term, DX covers not only the changes in man-
and the term ‘digitalisation’ (and automation) is that digi- ufacturing, in the strictest sense, but also the evolutions
tisation covers the digitising data from paper carriers into and changes in the service industry, such as health, hospi-
electronic information, also known as electronic trans- tality, and government, posed by disruptive newcomers.
formation (e-transformation). Digitisation is needed to Since DX has a more holistic viewpoint, it is used in the
optimise the DX context; however, digitalisation does not scope of this study. The emergent technologies creating
equal the term DX, which is observed as a disruptive tech- digital transformation across all industries are the digital
nological achievement bringing new business and operat- twin, the Internet of Things (IoT) and connected devices,
ing models into the service sector (Burmeister, Luettgens, artificial intelligence, cyber-physical systems, integration,
and Piller 2015; Ardolino et al. 2018) and the manufac- social media and platforms, blockchain, everything-as-a-
turing industry (Kagermann et al. 2013; Nicolescu et al. service (XaaS), robots and drones, and data analytics.
2018; Xu, Xu, and Li 2018; Núñez-Merino et al. 2020; DX in a production setting covers the utilisation
Radanliev et al. 2020; Buer et al. 2021; Luz Tortorella et al. of DX technologies described above in the manu-
2021). facturing ecosystem. It targets the implementation of
interconnecting, smart, and self-controlled structures of is selected as a baseline for the development of the
processes and systems, which will have implications for DX-CMM in this study. The primary reasons for the
value creation, business models, downstream services selection of SPICE are its well-established and commonly
and work organisation, flexibility, optimised decision- accepted structure. It consists of technical standards,
making, resource productivity, and efficiency. including a reference model for MM development (ISO
2015b); it also provides the requirements for MM design,
planning, and execution of process capability/maturity
2.2.2. Business process capability/maturity models assessments, and the application of process improvement
After realising the significance of the business processes based on the process assessment.
in delivering high-quality products and services, Ham-
mer (Hammer 2002) defines process improvement as 2.2.3. The dynamic capability theory and digital
‘A structured approach to performance improvement that transformation capability maturity model
centres on the disciplined design and careful execution of a The theoretical foundations of the development of DX-
company’s end-to-end business process.’ Business process CMM are based on the dynamic capability theory (Teece,
improvement offers the benefits of the quality improve- Pisano, and Shuen 1997), in combination with the
ment of services and products, decreasing costs, increas- resource-based view (RBV) of the organisation (Barney
ing efficiency, downsizing, employee empowerment, and 1986; Penrose and Penrose 2009). The continually chang-
decentralisation of authority (Röglinger, Pöppelbuß, and ing market dynamics require the adoption of DX by
Becker 2012). To provide business process improvement reshaping the processes in line with on-premises tech-
in a structured way, process capability/maturity models, nology in order to survive and stay competitive. Corre-
referring to a guideline for implementation of the vital spondingly, organisations need to improve their organ-
practices for organisational processes, have been devel- isational capabilities to respond to the change in the
oped. These models have process capability/maturity lev- business environment (Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997).
els or stages, which refers to the level of improvement In this context, the dynamic capability theory differen-
path from ad hoc practices to standardised and measur- tiates between ordinary and dynamic capabilities (Win-
able processes and a state of constant improvement at ter 2003). While ordinary capabilities, which are funda-
the highest level (Curtis, Hefley, and Miller 2009). Pro- mental for performing routine organisational activities,
cess capability/maturity models provide the application provide significant organisational success in the present
of the model-based process assessment. As a result of the and near future, they do not ensure the sustainability of
process assessment, the current capability/maturity level competitive advantage for the future. However, dynamic
of the process is determined, and a roadmap to improve capabilities provide realignment, reconfiguration, and
the process capability level to the next level is achieved. renewal of ordinary capabilities to evolve through inno-
The process is improved by performing the actions in the vation and change. As seen in Table 2 (below), DX-CMM
roadmap (Röglinger, Pöppelbuß, and Becker 2012). contributes to all of the purposes of dynamic capability
There are some well-established process capabil- theory.
ity/maturity models and standards, such as CMMI The resource-based view takes the organisations as
(Capability Maturity Model Integration) (CMMI Prod- a collection of resources that should be valuable, rare,
uct Team 2010), and SPICE (ISO 2015a, 2015b, 2015c), non-substitutable, and non-imitable in order to create a
which is also known as ISO/IEC 3300xx (ISO 2015a, competitive advantage (Barney 1986; Penrose and Pen-
2015b, 2015c), a revised version of ISO/IEC 15504 stan- rose 2009). These resources are considered not only
dard (ISO 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2012), provides a struc- tangible assets, such as hardware infrastructure but
tural process assessment framework facilitating a basis also intangible capabilities, such as the HR skills of
for process-capability-level determination and process the company (Galbreath 2005). The resources of the
improvement for software development and related man- organisation are assessed via process capability/maturity
agement processes. SPICE (ISO 2015a, 2015b, 2015c) models.
Table 2. DCT stages and their relation to the maturity model in the digital transformation domain.
DCT stages Definition Relation to the MM in the DX domain
Sensing Identifying, developing, co-developing, and assessing technological Assessment of the current capability/maturity level of the company,
opportunities in relation to customer requirements. and determination of gaps to adopt DX.
Seizing Mobilization of resources to satisfy requirements and value-adding Provides the achievement of a roadmap for the application of the
opportunities. highest-value-adding activities.
Transforming Continued renewal. Continuous improvement of the processes in the DX domain.
The development process of the DX-CMM, which and maintain, to develop an MM in a structured man-
is developed based on this theoretical background, is ner. At the scope phase, the scope of the model, which
explained in the following section. can be general or domain-specific, is determined. At the
design phase, the structure/architecture of the model is
determined based on the criteria of the target audience,
3. Materials and methods
the method of application, and the driver of application,
Development of the DX-CMM is methodologically the respondents, and the application. While the models’
grounded in design science research, which has a dimensions and sub-dimensions, which should be mea-
solution-oriented approach to generating knowledge for sured, are defined at the populate phase, the test phase
use in designing solutions to domain problems (Van covers the model validation, indicating that the assess-
Aken 2005). This approach offers a suitable foundation ment result of the model is exact and repeatable. Case
for this study because the development of DX maturity is studies, surveys, and literature reviews can be used for
a relevant domain problem that requires new capabilities validation of the MM. Following validation, the MM will
to be achieved by the organisation in order to stay com- be made available at the deploy phase for generalisation
petitive. Design science research seeks to develop and and standardisation of the MM. As a final step of the
evaluate ‘artifacts’ to overcome the limitations of exist- maintain phase, the MM ensures its continued relevance
ing capabilities (Von Alan et al. 2004). These ‘artifacts,’ through a longitudinal study.
together with the evaluation results, represent the out-
comes of the design science research process (Peffers
3.2. Model development
et al. 2007). MMs are the reference models (Herbsleb
et al. 1997) and, thus, artifacts that show ‘an anticipated, Following De Bruin et al.’s framework (2005), the DX-
desired, or typical evolution path’ (Becker, Knackstedt, CMM is developed. This development consists of seven
and Pöppelbuß 2009). steps, as described in Table 3 (below).
The design principles of the model and model devel- The structure of the developed model is described in
opment phases are described in the following sub- the following section.
sections.
4. Digital transformation capability maturity
3.1. Design principles model: DX-CMM
The MM development framework proposed by De Bruin DX-CMM is developed by customising SPICE (ISO 2003,
et al. (2005) is used as the methodological foundation to 2004a, 2004b, 2012, 2015a) based on the requirements
develop DX-CMM in this study. The framework offers of the DX capability/maturity improvement. The SPICE
six steps; namely, scope, design, populate, test, deploy, model consists of two dimensions: process and capability.
Table 3. DX-CMM development steps.

Step MM development
Scope The focus of the model: the scope of the MM is determined as domain-specific for DX. The organisation tries to adopt
emerging technologies to obtain value-addition. The model has a holistic approach covering all processes performed
during DX.
Design The target audience: internal executives and management staff (people responsible for building up and maintaining DX
capabilities (i.e. chief digital officer, and external auditors and consultants (people guiding organisational change))).
The method of application: DX-CMM is developed based on SPICE, and the assessment is conducted based on the standard
(ISO 2004a). According to the standard, the evaluation is conducted by an assessment team headed by a certified practitioner.
The driver of application: the necessity of the DX maturity improvement level of the organisation is realised internally.
Respondents: management and mid-level staff who have the expertise to assess their current DX capabilities.
Application: the model has a holistic approach, and it can be applied to multiple entities (e.g. production sites) in various
regions.
Populate Maturity stages: DX-CMM is developed based on SPICE. The capability dimension is adapted from SPICE, which has six
capability/maturity levels, as defined in the following section.
Model dimensions: DX-CMM has a holistic approach; it covers 26 DX processes defined under 4 main process groups
of strategic governance, information and technology, digital process transformation, and workforce management. These
processes are determined by applying an iterative approach. An extensive literature review and interviews with expert
practitioners in the DX domain are conducted at the first iteration, the collected data is iteratively discussed with a group of
domain experts to determine processes and process groups, along with Delphi method iterations, and the final version is
achieved at the third iteration. The MM quality criteria of completeness, clearness, unambiguity, objectiveness, impartialness,
consistency, repeatability, comparability, and representativeness (ISO/IEC 33004:2015 2015) are taken into consideration
during the design phase.
Test The qualitative case study method is applied to check the validity, reliability, and generalizability of the model.
Deploy and maintain The model is available for use and is verifying the extendibility of the model’s generalizability now.
Figure 1. Dimensions of DX-CMM.
The process dimension includes software development The literature review (Kagermann et al. 2013), survey
processes definitions; and the capability dimension con- results (Koch et al. 2014; Corporate Leaders 2018), and
sists of capability levels, which are, in turn, composed interviews with practitioners show that the most signifi-
of process attributes (PA) containing base practices and cant challenges that organisations face in their DX jour-
generic practices. DX-CMM has two dimensions, pro- ney are insufficient internal skills, lack of a clear vision,
cess, and capability, as seen in Figure 1. The process integrating new technologies, and resistance to change.
dimension comprises process definitions of DX-related DX is not just about technology: successful DX initia-
processes instead of software development processes, tives should include gearing up and aligning the strategy,
while the capability dimension includes the same capa- culture, workforce, and processes to embrace this rapidly
bility levels, PAs, generic practices, and generic practice changing environment. Correspondingly, DX initiatives
indicators defined in SPICE (ISO 2012). The literature should have a holistic approach covering the manage-
provides that the capability dimension is applicable to ment of strategy, workforce skills, and digital transfor-
all processes across all domains (Automotive SIG 2010; mation of existing processes, as well as information and
Mc Caffery and Dorling 2010; Mitasiunas and Novickis technologies. Thus, the process dimension of DX-CMM
2011). consists of four process groups, namely, strategic gover-
nance, information and technology, digital process trans-
formation, and workforce management.
4.1. The process dimension of DX-CMM
Empirical evidence shows that investment in new tech-
nologies provides the expected benefits if, and only if, 4.1.1. Strategic governance
the investment is integrated with appropriate adapta- DX strategy needs to be led from the top, with a strong,
tion of the organisation strategy, adequate governance clear, and inspiring vision of how emerging technolo-
(Brynjolfsson and Hitt 2000; Tao et al. 2017; Gökalp gies can create a new future with shared value. A DX
et al. 2021a), adequate upskilling of the workforce (Autor, roadmap should be generated based on the vision, and
Levy, and Murnane 2003; Morrison, Pietrobelli, and related governance activities should be performed. Cor-
Rabellotti 2008; Fu, Pietrobelli, and Soete 2011; Gökalp respondingly, the following processes are defined under
et al. 2021b), digital transformation of existing busi- this process group.
ness processes (Gökalp, Şener, and Eren 2017; Schu-
macher, Nemeth, and Sihn 2019; Şener, Gökalp, and o SG1. DX strategy development
Eren 2018 ), and information and technology manage- o SG2. Portfolio management
ment (De la Boutetière, Montagner, and Reich 2018; Ban- o SG3. Project management
dara, Vidanagamachchi, and Wickramarachchi 2019). o SG4. Financial resources and supplier management
4.1.2. Information and technology o DPT6. Self-optimised decision management

Management of information, communication, and tech- o DPT7. Business process integration toward life cycle
nology is one of the most fundamental dimensions in o DPT8. Quantitative process improvement
the DX journey of organisations. Correspondingly, the
following processes are defined under this process group. 4.1.4. Workforce management
Cultural change should be implemented before the pro-
o IT1. IT strategy management cess transformation begins. Thus, it is necessary to
o IT2. Requirement definition improve the processes defined below as part of a success-
o IT3. Enterprise architecture development ful DX initiative.
o IT4. Infrastructure management
o IT5. Data governance o WM1. HR skills development
o IT6. Agile software development o WM2. Organisational structure management
o IT7. Security management o WM3. Sustainable learning management
o IT8. Enterprise architecture integration o WM4. Organisational change management
o IT9. Data analytics
o IT10. Enterprise architecture maintenance
4.2. The capability dimension
4.1.3. Digital process transformation The organisation-level maturity improvement is regarded
This process group consists of the digitalisation of busi- as a cumulative, step-by-step process that evolves across
ness processes through technology to cut costs and different stages (Bell and Figueiredo 2012). The capabil-
increase productivity; and integration of processes at dif- ity dimension, applicable to any process, is adapted from
ferent levels, namely, intra-company, and inter-company, SPICE (ISO 2012). It includes six levels, from level 0:
as well as across the entire value chain. The processes incomplete, to level 5: innovating. The process attributes
defined under this process group are as follows: (PAs) at each capability level are seen in Figure 2 (below).
If the organisation does not perform the process, the
o DPT1. Business process digitalisation capability level for the process will be level 0: incomplete.
o DPT2. Business process vertical integration If the company performs the process in an ad hoc manner
o DPT3. Business process horizontal integration instead of performing it consistently, the capability level
o DPT4. Data-driven decision management for the process is level 1: performed. Process attribute
o DPT5. Quantitative performance management (PA) 1.1. Process performance is assessed at level 1, and
Figure 2. Process capability levels (adapted from SPICE(ISO 2015a)).

Figure 3. The DX maturity levels.
the base practices (BPs), as stated in the process defini- roadmap creation in all related dimensions with a staged
tions, are checked to see if they are performing. If the approach to increase the benefits and decrease the risks of
BPs are performed consistently, as well as work products investment and implementation for the organisation. The
and the performance of the process being managed in the model’s approach depends on a succession of capability
organisation, the capability level of the process is level 2: stages, from the basic requirements for DX to continuous
managed. PA 2.1. Performance management and PA 2.2. adaptation. Each level builds on the previous one. As seen
Work product management are assessed at this level. If in Figure 3, the model has six maturity levels, from level
the process is managed (if they satisfy the requirements of 0 to level 5.
level 2), as well as being well-established and performing
in a standardised way, the capability level of the process is • Level 0: incomplete – the DX initiative has not yet
level 3: established. If the organisation begins to manage started. The organisation focuses on its fundamen-
the established process quantitatively, and variations in tal operations only, such as acquisition, production,
performing best practices are reduced, the capability level service, and sales.
of the process is level 4: predictable. Lastly, if the organ- • Level 1: performed – the transformation has begun.
isation uses this quantitative knowledge for continuous The vision of DX exists, and there is a roadmap for
improvement for the predictable process, the capability the transition strategy, but it is not fully implemented.
level is level 5: innovating, and the corresponding PAs are Thus, the DX process of digital strategy development
assessed at each level. should be performed at this level. The portfolio is
created, consisting of the DX projects, which are iden-
tified, evaluated, prioritised, and authorised; addition-
4.3. Organisational DX maturity
ally, a department or group is assigned to carry out DX.
Organisational DX maturity is the extent to which a Workforce skill necessities are determined, and the
firm consistently implements DX processes to achieve the corresponding training commences in the company.
desired level of achievement of DX maturity, which is Therefore, the DX processes of portfolio management,
evaluated by assessing achievement of the specified pro- organisational structure management, and HR skill
cess capability levels for a defined profile of processes, as development should be performed at this level.
set out in an MM. Organisational DX maturity is evalu- • Level 2: managed – DX is managed at this level, at
ated in relation to process capability in a staged manner. which physical items start to be represented by a vir-
It is fundamental to understand that successful trans- tual world. This requires the performance of many
formations occur step-by-step. This model results in the complementary processes. Existing business processes
are digitised through technology; the requirements 1, the processes of SG1. DX strategy development, SG2.
and needs of enterprise architecture are identi- Portfolio management, WM1. HR skills development,
fied, and standards, guidelines, and procedures are and WM2. Organisational structure management are
defined; infrastructure, data governance, software assessed. The capability level of these processes should be
development, and security of the information sys- level 1 to satisfy the requirement of being organisational
tems are managed. Therefore, corresponding DX DX maturity level 1. At organisational maturity level
processes which are business process digitalisation, 2, the processes of DPT1. Business process digitalisa-
project management, financial resources and sup- tion, SG3. Project management, SG4. Financial resources
plier management, IT strategy management, require- and supplier management, IT1. IT strategy management,
ment definition, enterprise architecture development, IT2. Requirement definition, IT3. Enterprise architecture
infrastructure management, data governance, agile development, IT4. Infrastructure management, IT5. Data
software development, and security management governance, IT6. Agile software development, and IT7.
should be assessed at this level. Security management, as well as the processes assessed at
• Level 3: established – DX is established robustly at maturity level 1 (SG1, SG2, WM1, WM2), are assessed.
this level. Key processes are well-defined and consis- The capability level of these processes should be at least
tent with the corresponding standardisation. Verti- level 2 to satisfy the requirement of being organisational
cal integration, including intra-company integration DX maturity level 2. If one of the process capability levels
of IoT devices up to enterprise resource planning, is determined as being level 1, this means that the organ-
customer requirement management, or supply chain isation does not satisfy the requirement of being at DX
management systems, has been achieved. Developed maturity level 2.
EA is integrated, and organisational change is man-
aged at this level. Therefore, corresponding DX pro-
4.4. The assessment process
cesses, which are business process vertical integration,
EA integration, organisational change management, The tasks, illustrated in Figure 5, are followed during
and sustainable learning management, are assessed at the DX capability/maturity assessment, as described in
this level. SPICE (ISO 2004a).
• Level 4: predictable – quantitative techniques start to After documenting the assessment plan, the inter-
be applied to the collected real-time product–service views with stakeholders are conducted and related doc-
or process-specific data. There is horizontal integra- uments are analyzed. Then, the capability level of DX
tion, including integration across networks at the busi- process is determined. The capability dimension includes
ness level. The functionalities of whole enterprises the same capability levels, PAs, base practices, and generic
are integrated. Furthermore, data analytics tools are practices defined in SPICE (ISO 2012). PAs comprise the
employed to improve productivity and service quality. measurable characteristics required for process manage-
Thus, corresponding DX processes, which are busi- ment and improvement. The measure of capability level
ness process horizontal integration, data-driven deci- is based on rating a set of PAs. For instance, it is nec-
sion management, quantitative performance man- essary to rate PA 1.1 (Process performance attribute) to
agement, data analytics, and EA maintenance, are determine if the process has achieved capability level 1.
assessed at this level. Each PA is measured by an ordinal rating of fully achieved
• Level 5: innovating – the firm starts to learn from (86% to 100% of achievement), largely achieved (51% to
the collected data and improves its business contin- 85% of achievement), partially achieved (16% to 50% of
uously; its business model evolves into an innovative achievement), or not achieved (1% to 15% of achieve-
structure. Dynamic cooperation and increasing trans- ment), which represents the extent of achievement of the
parency, by extending operational visibility with auto- PAs. A process is defined to be at capability level k if all
mated and seamless information exchange between PAs below level k satisfy the rating fully achieved, and
the networks, are enabled. Therefore, correspond- the level k PA(s) are rated as fully achieved or largely
ing DX processes, which are self-optimised decision achieved, as defined in SPICE (ISO 2012). A process that
management, business process integration towards fails to achieve capability level k is at capability level k-1.
life-cycle, and quantitative process improvement, are For example, in order to determine a process capability
assessed at this level. level as level 3, the ratings of PA 1.1, PA 2.1, and PA 2.2
must be fully achieved, and PA 3.1 and PA 3.2 must be
The relationships between organisational DX maturity rated as fully achieved or largely achieved.
level and DX process capability level are represented in The achievement of PA is determined by checking the
Figure 4. For example, at organisational maturity level base practices for PA 1.1 or the generic practices for other
Figure 4. The relationships between maturity levels and capability levels.
Figure 5. The DX maturity assessment process.
PAs. Evidence of these practices supports the judgment Three types of evidence are evaluated for rating: direct
of the degree of achievement in the PA. Base practices – outputs as a result of an activity; indirect – documents
refer to the specific functional activities of the process. presenting that an activity has been carried out; and
The developed process definitions for 26 DX processes comments – the thoughts of process owners and stake-
include base practices, which are used for level 1 assess- holders being evaluated. As a result of the determination
ment. Generic practices, referring to generic operational of DX processes capability levels, DX maturity level of
activities for any process, are used for the assessment of the organisation is determined based on Figure 4, a gap
levels two to five. Generic practices are adapted from analysis is derived and improvement opportunities are
SPICE (ISO 2012). prioritised regarding to their importance. The assessment
team delivers the assessment report to the company. As a process attribute PA 1.1. process performance attribute.
last step, the company assign resources; develop a sched- The assessment results are given in Table 4 (below).
ule for the DX maturity improvement plan; execute and
monitor this plan.
5.1. Results and discussions
A process capability level is determined as Level X if
5. Application of the DX-CMM
the ratings of all process attributes below Level X are
An exploratory case study for one of the DX processes fully achieved, and the ratings of process attribute(s) at
defined at the first DX maturity level, SG1.DX Strategy Level X are rated as fully achieved or largely achieved,
Development, was performed to explore the applicabil- as defined before. Correspondingly, the capability level of
ity and usability of the proposed approach. This pro- the process was determined as Level-0, since the Process
cess was selected because of its importance in the DX Attribute 1.1. Process Performance was rated as partially
journey of a company. The case study was conducted achieved for the DX process, SG1. DX Strategy Develop-
in a medium-sized manufacturing company producing ment, as a result of the process assessment. This means
remote intervention equipment. Interviews were con- that the requirements of being at process capability level-
ducted with three people: the head of the production 1 were not satisfied. Since the capability level of this
department, the IT manager, and the quality manager. process should be at least level-1 to satisfy the require-
The duration of the interviews for each person was ments of DX maturity level-1, the DX maturity level of
approximately one hour. The term ‘The Company’ is used the company is also Level-0.
to describe the company in this study, for the purpose of Although senior executives realised the necessity of
confidentiality. the DX and accordingly initiated the DX journey of the
Process assessment was performed by following ISO company by developing a vision, proceeding to commu-
33020 (ISO 2015c), as the documented procedural nicate it by holding a few meetings with key stakeholders,
approach. The assessment team collected and systemati- and working on the establishment of a cooperation with
cally validated the information gathered during the inter- a consultancy firm, there is a long DX journey waiting
views and document analysis. Based on the analysis and for the company to achieve the highest DX maturity level.
synthesis of the obtained information, the rating of pro- As a starting point, the organisation should focus on the
cess attribute, and correspondingly the current process DX processes defined at level 1; one of them is SG1. DX
capability level of the process was determined by discov- Strategy Development. There was not any well-defined
ering the weaknesses and strengths of it. Process capa- DX strategy document in the organisation. They did not
bility level 1 assessment was performed concerning the conduct any workshops with key stakeholders to develop
base practices, outcomes, and work products described the DX strategy.
in the process definition of DX strategy development pro- As a result of identifying the strong and weak points
cess, given in Table A2 in the Appendix, with the focus of of the DX strategy development process of the organisa-
checking whether the base practices given in the process tion depending on the assessment findings, improvement
definition are performed according to the corresponding opportunities were identified. The aim was to achieve
Table 4. Process capability level assessment results.

Base practices Rating
BP1. Evaluate the business, market, industry drivers, relevant regulations, the basis for competition Largely Achieved
BP2. Analyze the future organisation direction and understand the ambition level of the organisation in terms of DX, which may include Largely Achieved
creating a new business model, decreasing costs, increasing efficiency, customer centricity, or speed to market.
BP3. Analyze the current situation of the organisation. Largely Achieved
BP4. Identify key stakeholders and obtain insight into their requirements. Largely Achieved
BP5. Conduct workshops with key stakeholders for value mapping and business model innovation. Not Achieved
BP6. Conduct feasibility analysis for the possible alternatives determined in the workshops. Not Achieved
BP7. Define the target situation of the company Not Achieved
BP8. Conduct a gap analysis to identify gaps between current and target environments and describe the high-level changes. Not Achieved
BP9. Define high-level DX objectives and goals and specify their contribution to organisation objectives. Not Achieved
BP10. Define the organisation-specific long term and short time DX strategy Not Achieved
BP11. Detail a road-map defining the incremental steps required to achieve the goals and objectives of the DX Strategy. Not Achieved
BP12. Define objectives, goals, metrics (KPIs), responsible people, deadlines for each objective to track achievements, and specify their Not Achieved
contribution to organisation objectives.
BP13. Communicate the DX strategy and direction with all related parties. Not Achieved
BP14. Publish the vision and strategy document Not Achieved
BP15. Review and update the DX strategy document regularly. Ensure that it is a living/dynamic document. Not Achieved
Process Attribute 1.1. Process Performance Partially Achieved
fully achieved in the base practices to improve the capa- • Suitability: DX-CMM aims to guide organisations
bility level to level-1. As a first step, although they evalu- in assessing their DX process capabilities, evaluating
ated the business and market, the company should also their organisational DX maturity levels, revealing their
evaluate the industry drivers, relevant regulations, the strengths and limitations, performing a gap analysis,
basis for competition, analyze the future company direc- and providing an extensive roadmap for continuous
tion and understand the ambition level of the company improvement in a structured and repeatable way.
in terms of DX more clearly, conduct workshops with • Completeness of dimension: DX-CMM comprises 26
key stakeholders for value mapping and business model DX processes defined under four process groups:
innovation. After generating possible alternatives during strategic governance, digital process transformation,
the workshops, they should conduct feasibility analyses workforce management, and information and tech-
to check if they are feasible alternatives to implement nology management.
based on their costs and benefits. Then, the target sit- • The definition of maturity levels: DX-CMM defines
uation of the company, including feasible projects and six maturity levels from Level 0: Not Performed to
programmes, should be defined, followed by conducting Level 5: Innovating.
a gap analysis to achieve the target situation. Based on • The definition of dimensions: Each maturity level
these findings, the contribution of high-level objectives includes goals to achieve better defined and more con-
and goals to the company objectives should be speci- sistently implemented DX processes as the organisa-
fied, and the company-specific long term and short time tion gains maturity. The ISO/IEC 33004 was used in
DX strategy as well as road map should be developed the development of the DX process and maturity level
and communicated with all related parties. Objectives, definitions.
metrics (key performance indicators), responsible peo- • The granularity of dimensions: Each process capabil-
ple, deadlines for each strategy to track achievements ity level comprises at least one well-defined measure-
should be clearly defined. After collecting feedback from ment attribute to address the assigned capability level’s
all related parties and revising the document based on specific strength to support continuous improvement.
the received feedback, the vision and strategy document • The definition of measurement attributes: DX matu-
should be published and then reviewed and adjusted rity level is evaluated by assessing the process capa-
dynamically to keep it as a live document. After con- bilities in a staged manner to promote incremental
firming that the achievement levels of performing these improvements through standardisation and optimisa-
practices are fully achieved, the capability level of the pro- tion. Each process capability level comprises at least
cess will be moved to level-1 and this improvement cycle one well-defined measurement attribute to address a
will be completed. Then, a new iteration of assessment for specific strength of the assigned capability level to
improvement can be initiated for improving the process support continuous improvement.
capability from level-1 to level-2. • The description of the assessment method: DX-CMM
The initial findings of this exploratory case study sug- is developed based on ISO/IEC 330xx standard series
gest that the proposed approach is applicable for identi- for the objective, consistent, and unbiased model
fying the DX process capability levels as well as the DX development and assessment results. ISO/IEC 33003
maturity level of the organisation, and also it is capable of and ISO/IEC 33020 were used for the capability
providing a roadmap for moving to the next level. While dimension of DX-CMM;
the exploratory case study provides valuable insights, • The objectivity of the assessment method: ISO/IEC
additional case studies in companies with different sec- 33002 was utilised to perform process assessment;
tors, countries, sizes, and DX adoption are still needed ISO/IEC 33014 was used to generate a roadmap for
to evaluate the generalizability of the DX-CMM. Accord- process improvement.
ingly, as an extension of this study, we conducted a mul- • Access: all items/questions and the assessment
tiple case study in two organisations in the chemical and approach of DX-CMM is freely accessible.
machine manufacturing domains to verify the applica-
tion and usability of the DX-CMM (Gökalp and Martinez
6. Conclusion
2021).
Although the concept of the process capability matu-
rity model is not new, its application to the DX domain
5.2. Evaluation of DX-CMM based on the predefined
has not been extensively studied. This research found 18
criteria
MMs within the DX domain, and their strengths and
DX-CMM is also evaluated based on the assessment cri- weaknesses were analyzed by comparing MMs based on a
teria. It fully satisfies all criteria, as explained below. set of predefined criteria. It was determined that none of
them fully satisfied all of the criteria. Although all value- specific technology, the concept of DX is still evolving.
adding processes must be taken into consideration by a For this reason, the highest maturity-level requirements
holistic and integrated approach in order to benefit fully should be checked periodically to determine whether
from the DX, none of the existing MMs has a comprehen- this level continues to reflect the highest technological
sive and integrated approach applicable across all sectors. state of the art, during maintenance of the DX-CMM.
Additionally, they are not developed based on a well- Although an exploratory case study was carried out in
established process capability maturity model, they do the study, conducting multiple case studies to demon-
not aim to improve the DX processes, and do not deter- strate the applicability and usability of the DX-CMM is
mine the DX maturity level of the organisation based ongoing. Additional case studies for generalizability of
on the capability level of the processes. Moreover, none the DX-CMM are always necessary. As a future study,
of them gives full details of the model for the applica- it is planned to conduct several case studies across dif-
tion or provides an action plan for enabling maturity ferent sectors to understand applicability, usability, and
stage improvement. To fulfil these requirements, the DX- generalizability of the DX-CMM.
CMM, having a holistic and integrated approach appli-
cable across all sectors, was developed based on a well-
Disclosure statement
established process capability maturity model, SPICE, by
applying the MM development framework proposed by No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
De Bruin et al. (2005) to assist organisations by provid-
ing current capability/maturity determination, deriva-
Notes on contributors
tion of a gap analysis, and creation of a comprehensive
roadmap. The DX-CMM, having a holistic approach, Dr. Ebru Gökalp is a Visiting Academic
has two dimensions, namely, process and capability. The Fellow at the University of Cambridge,
Institute for Manufacturing. Her research
process dimension consists of 26 DX processes defined
interests include digital transformation,
under four process groups of strategic governance, digi- business process improvement, business
tal process transformation, workforce management, and model innovation, software engineering,
information and technology management. The capability and management information systems.
dimension is adapted from SPICE. The DX maturity level She received her BS and MS degrees in
of the organisation is determined based on the capability Industrial Engineering and her PhD degree in Information Sys-
tems. Her PhD thesis and working experiences are related to
levels of the DX processes performed in the organisation. the development of maturity models to guide organisations
The contributions of this study are (1) to provide a by assessing their current process capability levels and pro-
review of the available MMs from a specific DX perspec- viding a roadmap for improvement. She is currently an Assis-
tive, (2) to close the research gap through the theoretically tant Professor in the department of Computer Engineering at
grounded, methodologically rigorous development of a -Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
holistic MM in the DX domain, (3) to check the appli- Dr. Veronica Martinez is a Lecturer at the
cability of the model by conducting an exploratory case University of Cambridge. She works on
study. The DX-CMM can be used not only as a staged the Shift from products to services’ project
and the application of digital technologies
model for improving the DX maturity level but also as in services and operations. Veronica was
a continuous model for improving the capability level of a visiting professor at Karlsruhe Institute
DX processes. The advantages of the utilisation of this of Technology, Germany. Prior she worked
approach are evaluating DX processes in detail; provid- at the Cranfield and Strathclyde Univer-
ing guidance in identifying the current DX maturity level sities as researcher and lecturer. Her major research interests
revolve around the fields of strategic service performance, value
of the organisation; showing opportunities for improve-
creation and performance measurement and management sys-
ment to move to the next DX maturity level; benchmark- tems. Veronica has led and participated in large European and
ing organisation against other organisations evaluated UK research projects in products and services. She works in
with DX-CMM. multidisciplinary teams investigating and supporting organi-
There are some limitations to this study. One limita- sations in their servitization journeys such as, MAN Trucks,
tion is that there are some criticisms about the concept Microlise, Roll-Royce, Rockwell, among others.
of MMs oversimplifying reality and lacking an empirical
foundation (Benbasat et al. 1984); however, their benefits References
are demonstrated through several case studies (Gold-
Akdil, Kartal Yagiz, Alp Ustundag, and Emre Cevikcan. 2018.
enson and Gibson 2003; Isoherranen, Karkkainen, and “Maturity and Readiness Model for Industry 4.0 Strategy.” In
Kess 2015). The other limitation is that, although the Industry 4.0: Managing The Digital Transformation, 61–94.
model includes generic practices instead of suggesting a Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57870-5_4.
Ardolino, Marco, Mario Rapaccini, Nicola Saccani, Paolo Colli, M., O. Madsen, U. Berger, C. Møller, B. Vejrum Wæhrens,
Gaiardelli, Giovanni Crespi, and Carlo Ruggeri. 2018. “The and M. Bockholt. 2018. “Contextualizing the Outcome of a
Role of Digital Technologies for the Service Transformation Maturity Assessment for Industry 4.0.” IFAC-PapersOnLine
of Industrial Companies.” International Journal of Produc- 51 (11): 1347–1352. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.343.
tion Research 56 (6): 2116–2132. Corporate Leaders. 2018. Digital Transformation Readiness Sur-
Asdecker, Björn, and Vanessa Felch. 2018. “Development of vey Summary. http://www.corporate-leaders.com/sitescene/
an Industry 4.0 Maturity Model for the Delivery Process custom/userfiles/file/CCL_/Digital%20Transformation
in Supply Chains.” Journal of Modelling in Management 13. %20Readiness%20Survey%20Report_Web.pdf.
doi:10.1108/JM2-03-2018-0042. Curtis, Bill, Bill Hefley, and Sally Miller. 2009. “People Capabil-
Automotive SIG. 2010. “Automotive SPICE Process Assessment ity Maturity Model (P-CMM) Version 2.0, Second Edition,”
Model.” Final Release, V4 4: 46. no. July.
Autor, David H, Frank Levy, and Richard J Murnane. 2003. De Bruin, Tonia, Ronald Freeze, Uday Kaulkarni, and Michael
“The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Rosemann. 2005. “Understanding the Main Phases of Devel-
Empirical Exploration.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics oping a Maturity Assessment Model.” Australasian Chapter
118 (4): 1279–1333. of the Association for Information Systems.
Bandara, Oshadhi, Kasuni Vidanagamachchi, and Ruwan De Carolis, Anna, Marco Macchi, Elisa Negri, and Sergio Terzi.
Wickramarachchi. 2019. “A Model for Assessing Maturity of 2017. “A Maturity Model for Assessing the Digital Readiness
Industry 4.0 in the Banking Sector.” In International Con- of Manufacturing Companies.” In IFIP International Confer-
ference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Manage- ence on Advances in Production Management Systems, 13–20.
ment At: Bangkok, Thailand. Springer.
Barney, Jay B. 1986. “Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, De la Boutetière, H., A. Montagner, and A. Reich. 2018.
Luck, and Business Strategy.” Management Science 32 (10): “Unlocking Success in Digital Transformations.” McKinsey
1231–1241. & Company. October. Accessed 10 May 2019. https://Mck.
Becker, Jörg, Ralf Knackstedt, and Jens Pöppelbuß. 2009. Co/2AzwomG.
“Developing Maturity Models for IT Management.” Business Fu, Xiaolan, Carlo Pietrobelli, and Luc Soete. 2011. “The Role
& Information Systems Engineering 1 (3): 213–222. of Foreign Technology and Indigenous Innovation in the
Beckert, S. 2014. Empire of Cotton: A Global History Knopf. New Emerging Economies: Technological Change and Catching-
York: Vintage. Up.” World Development 39 (7): 1204–1212.
Bell, Martin, and Paulo N Figueiredo. 2012. “Innovation Capa- Galbreath, Jeremy. 2005. “Which Resources Matter the Most
bility Building and Learning Mechanisms in Latecomer to Firm Success? An Exploratory Study of Resource-Based
Firms: Recent Empirical Contributions and Implications for Theory.” Technovation 25 (9): 979–987.
Research.” Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue Ganzarain, Jaione, and Nekane Errasti. 2016. “Three Stage
Canadienne d’études Du Développement 33 (1): 14–40. Maturity Model in SME’s Towards Industry 4.0.” Journal of
Benbasat, Izak, Albert S Dexter, Donald H Drury, and Robert C Industrial Engineering and Management 9 (5): 1119–1128.
Goldstein. 1984. “A Critque of the Stage Hypothesis: Theory doi:10.3926/jiem.2073.
and Empirical Evidence.” Communications of the ACM 27 Gartner. 2019. “Our Top Data and Analytics Predicts for 2019”.
(5): 476–485. Gill, Martin, and Shar Vanboskirk. 2016. The Digital Maturity
Brynjolfsson, Erik, and Lorin M Hitt. 2000. “Beyond Com- Model 4.0. Benchmarks: Digital Transformation Playbook.
putation: Information Technology, Organizational Transfor- Gökalp, Ebru, and Onur Demirörs. 2015. “Proposing an
mation and Business Performance.” Journal of Economic ISO/IEC 15504 Based Process Improvement Method for the
Perspectives 14 (4): 23–48. Government Domain.” In International Conference on Soft-
Buer, Sven-Vegard, Marco Semini, Jan Ola Strandhagen, and ware Process Improvement and Capability Determination,
Fabio Sgarbossa. 2021. “The Complementary Effect of Lean 100–113. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19860-6_9.
Manufacturing and Digitalisation on Operational Perfor- Gökalp, Ebru, and Onur Demirörs. 2016. “Developing Pro-
mance.” International Journal of Production Research 59 (7): cess Definition for Financial and Physical Resource Man-
1976–1992. agement Process in Government Domain.” In Software
Burmeister, C., D. Luettgens, and F. T. Piller. 2015. “Business Process Improvement and Capability Determination: 16th
Model Innovation for Industrie 4.0: Why the ‘Industrial International Conference, SPICE 2016, Dublin, Ireland, June
Internet’ Mandates a New Perspective on Innovation.” Die 9–10, 2016, Proceedings, edited by M Paul Clarke, V Rory
Unternehmung, Vol 2/2016. O’Connor, Terry Rout, and Alec Dorling, 169–180. Cham:
Carolis, Anna De, Marco Macchi, Sergio Terzi. 2017. “Guiding Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-
Manufacturing Companies Towards Digitalization.” 2017 38980-6_13.
International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Gökalp, Mert Onuralp, Ebru Gökalp, Kerem Kayabay, Altan
Innovation (ICE/ITMC). doi:10.1109/ICE.2017.8279925. Koçyiğit, and P. Erhan Eren. 2021a. “Data-Driven Manu-
CMMI Product Team. 2010. “CMMI® for Development, Ver- facturing: An Assessment Model for Data Science Matu-
sion 1.3, Improving Processes for Developing Better Prod- rity.” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 60 (July): 527–546.
ucts and Services.” Software Engineering Institute. doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.07.011.
Colli, M., U. Berger, M. Bockholt, O. Madsen, C. Møller, Gökalp, Mert Onuralp, Ebru Gökalp, Kerem Kayabay, Altan
and B. Vejrum Wæhrens. 2019. “A Maturity Assessment Koçyiğit, and P. Erhan Eren. 2021b. “The Development of the
Approach for Conceiving Context-Specific Roadmaps in the Data Science Capability Maturity Model: A Survey-Based
Industry 4.0 Era.” Annual Reviews in Control 48: 165–177. Research.” Online Information Review. doi:10.1108/OIR-
doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2019.06.001. 10-2020-0469.
Gökalp, Ebru, and Veronica Martinez. 2021. “Digital Trans- Leyh, Christian, Katja Bley, Thomas Schaffer, and Sven Forsten-
formation Capability Maturity Model Enabling the Assess- hausler. 2016. “SIMMI 4.0-a Maturity Model for Classifying
ment of Industrial Manufacturers.” Computers in Indus- the Enterprise-Wide It and Software Landscape Focusing on
try 132 (November): 103522. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2021. Industry 4.0.” Proceedings of the 2016 Federated Conference
103522. on Computer Science and Information Systems, FedCSIS 8:
Gökalp, Ebru, Umut Şener, and P. Erhan Eren. 2017. “Devel- 1297–1302. doi:10.15439/2016F478.
opment of an Assessment Model for Industry 4.0: Industry Leyh, Christian, Thomas Sch, Katja Bley, and Sven Forstenh.
4.0-MM.” In Communications in Computer and Information 2017. “Information Technology for Management: New Ideas
Science, 770: 128–142. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-67383-7_10. and Real Solutions.” Lecture Notes in Business Information
Goldenson, Dennis, and Diane L Gibson. 2003. “Demonstrat- Processing 277: 103–119. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53076-5.
ing the Impact and Benefits of CMMI: An Update and Lichtblau, K., V. Stich, R. Bertenrath, M. Blum, M. Bleider,
Preliminary Results”. A. Millack, K. Schmitt, E. Schmitz, and M. Schröter. 2015.
Gröger, Christoph. 2018. “Building an Industry 4.0 Analytics IMPULSIndustrie 4.0-Readiness. Aachen-Köln: Impuls-
Platform.” Datenbank-Spektrum 18 (1): 5–14. doi:10.1007/ Stiftung Des VDMA.
s13222-018-0273-1. Luz Tortorella, Guilherme, Paulo A Cauchick-Miguel, Wen Li,
Hammer, Michael. 2002. “Process Management and the Future Jo Staines, and Duncan McFarlane. 2021. “What Does Oper-
of Six Sigma.” MIT Sloan Management Review 43 (2): 26–32. ational Excellence Mean in the Fourth Industrial Revolu-
Herbsleb, James, David Zubrow, Dennis Goldenson, Will tion Era?” International Journal of Production Research 1–17.
Hayes, and Mark Paulk. 1997. “Software Quality and the doi:10.1080/00207543.2021.1905903.
Capability Maturity Model.” Communications of the ACM 40 Mc Caffery, Fergal, and Alec Dorling. 2010. “Medi SPICE
(6): 30–40. Development.” Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolu-
ISO. 2003. “ISO/IEC 15504-2: Information Technology – Pro- tion: Research and Practice 22 (4): 255–268.
cess Assessment – Part 2: Performing an Assessment”. Mikalef, Patrick, Maria Boura, George Lekakos, and John
ISO. 2004a. “ISO/IEC 15504-3: Information Technology – Krogstie. 2019. “Big Data Analytics Capabilities and Inno-
Process Assessment – Part 3: Guidance on Performing an vation: The Mediating Role of Dynamic Capabilities and
Assessment”. Moderating Effect of the Environment.” British Journal
ISO. 2004b. “ISO/IEC 15504-4: Information Technology – Pro- of Management 30 (2): 272–298. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.
cess Assessment – Part 4: Guidance on Use for Process 12343.
Improvement and Process Capability Determination”. Mitasiunas, Antanas, and Leonids Novickis. 2011. “Enterprise
ISO. 2012. “ISO/IEC 15504-5: Information Technology – Pro- SPICE Based Education Capability Maturity Model.” In
cess Assessment – Part 5: An Exemplar Process Assessment International Conference on Business Informatics Research,
Model”. 102–116. Springer.
ISO. 2015a. “ISO/IEC 33000: Information Technology – Pro- Mittal, Sameer, David Romero, and Thorsten Wuest. 2018.
cess Assessment, International Organization for Standard- “Towards a Smart Manufacturing Maturity Model for SMEs
ization.” Geneva, Switzerland. (SM 3 E).” In IFIP International Conference on Advances in
ISO. 2015b. “ISO/IEC 33004: Information Technology – Pro- Production Management Systems, 155–163. Springer.
cess Assessment – Requirements for Process Reference, Pro- Morrison, Andrea, Carlo Pietrobelli, and Roberta Rabellotti.
cess Assessment and Maturity Models”. 2008. “Global Value Chains and Technological Capabili-
ISO. 2015c. “ISO/IEC 33020: Information Technology – Pro- ties: A Framework to Study Learning and Innovation in
cess Assessment – Process Measurement Framework for Developing Countries.” Oxford Development Studies 36 (1):
Assessment of Process Capability”. 39–58.
Isoherranen, V., M. K. Karkkainen, and P. Kess. 2015. “Oper- Neff, Alexander A, Florian Hamel, Thomas Ph Herz, Falk
ational Excellence Driven by Process Maturity Reviews: A Uebernickel, Walter Brenner, and Jan vom Brocke. 2014.
Case Study of the ABB Corporation.” In 2015 IEEE Interna- “Developing a Maturity Model for Service Systems in
tional Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Heavy Equipment Manufacturing Enterprises.” Information
Management (IEEM), 1372–1376. IEEE. & Management 51 (7): 895–911.
Kagermann, Henning, Johannes Helbig, Ariane Hellinger, and Nicolescu, Razvan, Michael Huth, Petar Radanliev, and David
Wolfgang Wahlster. 2013. Recommendations for Implement- De Roure. 2018. “Mapping the Values of IoT.” Journal of
ing the Strategic Initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0: Securing the Information Technology 33 (4): 345–360.
Future of German Manufacturing Industry; Final Report Núñez-Merino, Miguel, Juan Manuel Maqueira-Marín, José
of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group. Frankfurt: Forschung- Moyano-Fuentes, and Pedro José Martínez-Jurado. 2020.
sunion. “Information and Digital Technologies of Industry 4.0 and
Kagermann, Henning, Wolf-Dieter Lukas, and Wolfgang Lean Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature
Wahlster. 2011. “Industrie 4.0: Mit Dem Internet Der Review.” International Journal of Production Research 58
Dinge Auf Dem Weg Zur 4. Industriellen Revolution.” VDI (16): 5034–5061.
Nachrichten 13 (1): 3–4. Peffers, Ken, Tuure Tuunanen, Marcus A Rothenberger,
Kitchenham, Barbara. 2004. “Procedures for Performing Sys- and Samir Chatterjee. 2007. “A Design Science Research
tematic Reviews.” Keele, UK, Keele University 33 (TR/SE- Methodology for Information Systems Research.” Journal of
0401): 28. doi:10.1.1.122.3308. Management Information Systems 24 (3): 45–77.
Koch, Volkmar, Simon Kuge, Reinhard Geissbauer, and Stefan Penrose, Edith, and Edith Tilton Penrose. 2009. The Theory of
Schrauf. 2014. Industry 4.0: Opportunities and Challenges of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
the Industrial Internet.” Strategy & PwC. https://www.pwc. Radanliev, Petar, David C De Roure, Jason R.C. Nurse, Rafael
nl/en/assets/documents/pwc-industrie-4-0.pdf. Mantilla Montalvo, Stacy Cannady, Omar Santos, Peter
Burnap, and Carsten Maple. 2020. “Future Developments Tarhan, Ayca, Oktay Turetken, and Hajo A. Reijers. 2016.
in Standardisation of Cyber Risk in the Internet of Things “Business Process Maturity Models: A Systematic Literature
(IoT).” SN Applied Sciences 2 (2): 169. Review.” Information and Software Technology 75: 122–134.
Rockwell Automation. 2014. “The Connected Enterprise Matu- doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2016.01.010.
rity Model.” Rockwell Automation 12. Teece, David J, Gary Pisano, and Amy Shuen. 1997. “Dynamic
Röglinger, Maximilian, Jens Pöppelbuß, and Jörg Becker. 2012. Capabilities and Strategic Management.” Strategic Manage-
“Maturity Models in Business Process Management.” Busi- ment Journal 18 (7): 509–533.
ness Process Management Journal 18 (2): 328–346. ur Rehman, Muhammad Habib, Ibrar Yaqoob, Khaled Salah,
Schuh, Günther, Reiner Anderl, Jürgen Gausemeier, Michael Muhammad Imran, Prem Prakash Jayaraman, and Charith
ten Hompel, and Wolfgang Wahlster. 2017. “Industrie 4.0 Perera. 2019. “The Role of Big Data Analytics in Industrial
Maturity Index.” In Managing the Digital Transformation of Internet of Things.” Future Generation Computer Systems 99:
Companies. Munich: Herbert Utz. 247–259. doi:10.1016/j.future.2019.04.020.
Schumacher, Andreas, Selim Erol, and Wilfried Sihn. 2016. “A Valdez-De-Leon, Omar. 2016. “A Digital Maturity Model for
Maturity Model for Assessing Industry 4. 0 Readiness and Telecommunications Service Providers.” Technology Innova-
Maturity of Manufacturing Enterprises.” Procedia CIRP 52: tion Management Review 6 (8): 19–32. doi:10.22215/timre
161–166. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.07.040. view1008.
Schumacher, Andreas, Tanja Nemeth, and Wilfried Sihn. 2019. Van Aken, Joan Ernst. 2005. “Management Research as a
“Roadmapping towards Industrial Digitalization Based on Design Science: Articulating the Research Products of Mode
an Industry 4.0 Maturity Model for Manufacturing Enter- 2 Knowledge Production in Management.” British Journal of
prises.” Procedia CIRP 79: 409–414. doi:10.1016/j.procir. Management 16 (1): 19–36.
2019.02.110. Von Alan, R Hevner, Salvatore T March, Jinsoo Park, and
Şener, Umut, Ebru Gökalp, and P Erhan Eren. 2018. ‘Towards Sudha Ram. 2004. “Design Science in Information Systems
a Maturity Model for Industry 4.0: A Systematic Literature Research.” MIS Quarterly 28 (1): 75–105.
Review and a Model Proposal’. In Industry 4.0 from the MIS Williams, Patricia A. H., Brendan Lovelock, Tony Cabar-
Perspective, edited by Sevinc Gülseçen, Zerrin Ayvaz Reis, rus, and Marlon Harvey. 2019. “Improving Digital Hospi-
Murat Gezer, and Çiğdem Erol, 290–302. Bern: Peter Lang tal Transformation: Development of an Outcomes-Based
D. doi:10.3726/b15120. Infrastructure Maturity Assessment Framework.” Journal of
Sjödin, David R., Vinit Parida, Markus Leksell, and Alek- Medical Internet Research 21 (1). doi:10.2196/12465.
sandar Petrovic. 2018. “Smart Factory Implementation Winter, Sidney G. 2003. “Understanding Dynamic Capabili-
and Process Innovation: A Preliminary Maturity Model ties.” Strategic Management Journal 24 (10): 991–
for Leveraging Digitalization in Manufacturing Moving to 995.
Smart Factories Presents Specific Challenges That Can Be World Economic Forum. 2018. Digital Transformation Initia-
Addressed through a Structured Approach Focused on Peo- tive Maximizing the Return on Digital Investments, 1–27.
ple, P.” Research Technology Management 61 (5): 22–31. Genova/Switzerland. https://reports.weforum.org/digital-
doi:10.1080/08956308.2018.1471277. transformation/files/2018/05/201805-DTI-Maximizing-the-
Tao, Fei, Ying Cheng, Lin Zhang, and Andrew Y C Nee. 2017. Return-on-Digital-Investments.pdf.
“Advanced Manufacturing Systems: Socialization Charac- Xu, Li Da, Eric L Xu, and Ling Li. 2018. “Industry 4.0: State of
teristics and Trends.” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 28 the Art and Future Trends.” International Journal of Produc-
(5): 1079–1094. tion Research 56 (8): 2941–2962.
Appendix
Table A1. The existing MMs in DX/smart production/smart service domain.

MM# The MM Dimensions Levels Discussion
MM1 Industrie 4.0 Maturity -Resources 1. Computerization The model, developed for the manufacturing domain,
Index – Acatech -Information systems 2. Connectivity proposes generic archetypes regarding the different
(Schuh et al. 2017) -Organisational 3. Visibility Industrie 4.0 maturity levels but doesn’t propose an
structure 4. Transparency action plan for enabling maturity stage improvement.
-Culture 5. Predictive capability Additionally, the Assessment Method is not accessible.
6. Adaptability
MM2 IMPULS – Industrie 4.0 -Strategy and 0. Outsider It presents a web-based self-assessment tool to determine
Readiness (Lichtblau organisation 1. Beginner the Industry 4.0 readiness level of the company. The
et al. 2015) -Smart factory 2. Intermediate proposed self-assessment tool is a lack of objectivity.
-Smart operations 3. Experienced The measurement approach is not provided. Moreover,
-Smart products 4. Expert the model does not propose an action plan for the
-Data-driven services 5. Top performer maturity level of improvement.
-Employees
MM3 The Digital Maturity -Culture 1. Skeptics The assessment is done based on a questionnaire
Model 4.0 (Gill and -Organisation 2. Adopters consisting of 8 items defined for each of the 3
VanBoskirk 2016) -Technology Insights 3. Collaborators dimensions. The items are rated between 0 and 3 and
4. Differentiators the maturity level is determined based on the total score.
Although it is easy to conduct, it has a self-assessment
approach which is lacking objectivity. The dimensions
are not covering strategy, process transformation, etc.
The dimensions are incomplete. Additionally, the model
does not propose an action plan for the maturity level of
improvement.
MM4 Industry 4.0-MM -Asset Management, Level 0 Incomplete Although the model has a holistic approach covering
(Gökalp, Şener, and -Data Governance, Level 1 Performed all aspects of DX in the manufacturing industry and
Eren 2017; Şener, -Application Level 2 Managed it is developed based on a well-established process
Gökalp, and Eren Management, Level 3 Established capability/maturity model, only a high-level description
2018) -Process Level 4 Predictable is provided. There is no explanation about the details
Transformation, Level 5 Optimising of the model. Furthermore, measurement indicators,
-Organisational assessment approaches, and validation of the model
Alignment are lacking. There is no case study indicating that the
model provides an action plan for enabling maturity
level improvement.
MM5 Maturity and readiness -Smart products and 0. Absence The IT (Technology, Software, Data Management, etc.)
model for industry services 1. Existence dimension is lacking in the model. Thus, the model is
4.0 strategy (Akdil, -Smart business 2. Survival incomplete. It does not show a maturity path towards
Ustundag, and processes 3. Maturity the DX. It has an incomplete definition of maturity levels
Cevikcan 2018) -Strategy under each dimension. The questionnaire, including
-Organisation self-assessment is lack of objectivity.
MM6 IMA-Infrastructure -Transport 1. Administrative The health domain-specific model focuses on infrastructure
Maturity Assessment -Collaboration 2. Tactical management. Strategy Organization and Employee,
(Williams et al. 2019) -Security 3. Fixed Process, Software Management dimensions are missing.
-Mobility 4. Mobile Thus, the model does not have a comprehensive
-Data Centre 5. Externalized approach. Additionally, the model does not provide an
6. Integrated action plan for enabling maturity level improvement.
7. Contextualized
8. Orchestrated
MM7 A maturity assessment -Governance 0. None The model has a self-assessment questionnaire, including
approach for -Technology 1. Basic 25 multiple answer questions addressing the five
conceiving context- -Connectivity 2. Transparent maturity dimensions. The questionnaire, including
specific roadmaps -Value creation 3. Aware self-assessment, is lack of objectivity. Furthermore, it
in the Industry 4.0 -Competences 4. Autonomous does not provide any action plan for enabling maturity
era (Colli et al. 2018, 5. Integrated stage improvement.
2019)
MM8 DPMM 4.0- Industry 4.0 -Order processing Based on SIMMI 4.0 The model focuses on Supply Chain Processes. Although it
maturity model for -Warehousing provides a detailed assessment of the digital capabilities
the delivery process -Shipping of supply chain processes, the model does not have a
in supply chains holistic approach covering strategy, organisation, and
(Asdecker and Felch IT management. Furthermore, it does not provide any
2018) action plan for enabling maturity stage improvement.
MM9 A Preliminary -People 1. Connected It is a Preliminary Model, has a high-level description.
Maturity Model -Process technologies Strategy, organisation structure management
for Leveraging -Technology 2. Structured data dimensions are not taken into consideration in the
Digitalisation in gathering and sharing model. Additionally, it does not propose a maturity path
Manufacturing 3. Real-time process towards DX.
(Sjödin et al. 2018) analytics and
optimisation
4. Smart, predictable
manufacturing
(continued).
Table A1. Continued.

MM# The MM Dimensions Levels Discussion
MM10 System Integration -Vertical Integration 1.Basic Digitisation The model aims to evaluate the system integration level
Maturity Model -Horizontal Integration 2.Cross-Departmental of the organisation. However, DX is more than system
Industry 4.0-SIMMI -Digital Product Digitisation integration. The strategy, organisation governance,
4.0 (Leyh et al. 2016, Development 3.Horizontal and employee management, etc. are ignored in evaluating
2017) -Cross-Sectional Vertical Digitisation the maturity level. The dimensions are incomplete.
Technology Criteria 4.Full Digitisation Additionally, there is no Assessment Method provided.
5.Optimised Full Finally, the model does not propose an action plan for
Digitisation the maturity level of improvement.
MM11 DREAMY- Digital REadi- -Process, 1. Initial The model focuses on management aspects and doesn’t
ness Assessment -Monitoring and 2. Managed propose an action plan for enabling maturity stage
MaturitY model Control, 3. Defined improvement. The questionnaire is not provided, which
(Carolis, Macchi, -Technology 4. Integrated and limits the applicability and usability of the model.
and Terzi 2017; De -Organisation Interoperable
Carolis et al. 2017) 5. Digital-oriented
MM12 A Digital Maturity -Strategy 0. Not started The model focuses on telecommunication services.
Model for Telecom- -Organisation 1. Initiating Characteristics of the MM are defined, but the model is
munications -Customer 2. Enabling incomplete. Furthermore, it does not provide any action
Service Providers -Technology 3. Integrating plan for enabling maturity stage improvement.
(Valdez-de-Leon -Operations 4. Optimising
2016) -Ecosystem 5. Pioneering
-Innovation
MM13 A smart manufacturing -Finance 1.Novice The model focuses on SMEs in the manufacturing industry.
maturity model for -People 2.Beginner Although the model has a holistic approach covering all
SMEs (SM3E) (Mittal, -Strategy 3.Learner aspects of DX, a high-level description is provided. There
Romero, and Wuest -Process 4.Intermediate is no explanation about the details of the model. There
2018) -Product 5.Expert is a lack of measurement indicators and assessment
approaches.
MM14 A model for assess- -Products and services 1 Initial The model is specifically developed for the banking
ing maturity of -Technology and 2 Managed sector. Although the model has a holistic approach,
industry 4.0 in the Resources 3 Defined the questionnaire, which is not provided, is developed
banking sector -Strategy and 4 Established based on the 5 points Likert scaled questions. There is no
(Bandara, Vidanaga- organisation 5 Digital Oriented assessment approach for maturity level determination.
machchi, and -Operations It does not provide an action plan for enabling maturity
Wickramarachchi -Customers level improvement.
2019) -Governance
-Employees
MM15 The Connected – 1. Assessment The model examines the technological readiness of
Enterprise Maturity 2. Secure and upgraded organisations. There is no detailed explanation of
Model (Rockwell network and controls dimensions and related items. There is no explicit
Automation 2014) 3. Defined and evaluation approach. Since the aim of the MM is the
organised working integration and connection, it focuses on securing and
data capital upgrading networks and controls. Furthermore, the
4. Analytics model does not propose an action plan for the maturity
5. Collaboration level of improvement.
MM16 A maturity model -Product – The model has a strong focus on organisational aspects.
Industry 4.0 Readi- -Customers It is incomplete for a holistic approach. Sixty-two items
ness (Schumacher, -Operations are defined under nine dimensions. The evaluation
Erol, and Sihn 2016) -Technology method is based on the scoring of each item using the
-Strategy Likert scale. There is no defined Maturity Level. The
-Leadership questionnaire is not provided. Additionally, the model
-Governance does not propose an action plan for the maturity level of
-Culture improvement.
-People
MM17 Road mapping towards -Technology – The model has a strong focus on organisational aspects.
industrial digital- -Products Sixty-five items are defined under eight dimensions.
isation based on -Customers and The evaluation method is based on the scoring of items
an Industry 4.0 Partners using the Likert scale. There is no defined Maturity Level.
maturity model for -Value Creation The questionnaire is not provided. Furthermore, it does
manufacturing Processes not provide any action plan for enabling maturity stage
enter- -Data & Information – improvement.
prises(Schumacher, Corporate Standards
Nemeth, and Sihn -Employees Strategy
2019) and Leadership
MM18 Three Stage Maturity -Vision 1. Initial The model focuses on SMEs in the manufacturing industry.
Model in SME’s -Roadmap 2. Managed A high-level description is provided. There is no
towards Industry -Projects 3. Defined explanation about the details of the model. There is
4.0 (Ganzarain and 4. Transform no assessment approach provided for maturity level
Errasti 2016) 5. Detailed BM determination. Since there is no clear instruction about
the assessment, performing the self-assessment is
difficult for SMEs which doesn’t have much experience
and expertise.
Table A2. Process definition of digital transformation strategy development process.

Process title Digital transformation strategy development
Process Purpose The purpose of this process is to develop a digital transformation strategy supporting the
organisation strategy, deliver the desired value through a road map of incremental changes,
and use a holistic approach, ensuring that each initiative is integrated into an overarching
strategy.
Process Outcomes (1) The external ecosystem of the organisation is analyzed [BP1].
(2) The future organisation direction, including organisation strategy, goals, and objectives, are
understood [BP2].
(3) The current situation of the organisation is analyzed [BP3]
(4) Workshops are conducted with key stakeholders for value mapping and business model innovation
[BP2, BP3, BP4, BP5]
(5) Feasibility analysis of the possible alternatives are conducted [BP6]
(6) The target situation of the organisation is defined [BP7]
(7) The gap analysis is conducted [BP8]
(8) DX strategy document is prepared [BP9, BP10, BP11, BP12]
(9) The finalised DX strategy document is published after communicating with and getting approval
from all related parties in the organisation [BP13, BP14]
(10) The DX strategy document is reviewed and updated regularly [BP15]
Base Practices BP1. Evaluate the business, market, industry drivers, relevant regulations, the basis for competition
BP2. Analyze the future organisation direction and understand the ambition level of the organisation
in terms of DX, which may include creating a new business model, decreasing costs, increasing
efficiency, customer centricity, or speed to market.
BP3. Analyze the current situation of the organisation.
BP4. Identify key stakeholders and obtain insight into their requirements.
BP5. Conduct workshops with key stakeholders for value mapping and business model innovation.
BP6. Conduct feasibility analysis for the possible alternatives determined during the workshops.
BP7. Define the target situation of the organisation.
BP8. Conduct a gap analysis to identify gaps between current and target environments and describe
the high-level changes.
BP9. Define high-level DX objectives and goals and specify their contribution to organisation
objectives.
BP10. Define the organisation-specific long term and short time DX strategy
BP11. Detail a road-map defining the incremental steps required to achieve the goals and objectives
of the DX Strategy.
BP12. Define objectives, goals, metrics (KPIs), responsible people, deadlines for each objective to track
achievements, and specify their contribution to organisation objectives.
BP13. Communicate the DX strategy and direction with all related parties.
BP14. Publish the DX strategy document.
BP15. Review and update the DX strategy document regularly. Ensure that it is a living/dynamic
document.
Work-Products
Inputs Outputs
Organisation Strategy Document
[Outcome:2]
SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunites, Threats) Analysis of
the Organisation [Outcome:2]
Workshop records [Outcome:4]
Existing IT Infrastructure [Outcome:3]
Return of Investment Expectations Feasibility analysis report [Outcome:5]
[Outcome:5]
Communication Plan [Outcome: 9] Communication records [Outcome:9]
DX Strategy Document [Outcome:9]
DX Strategy Document [Outcome:9] Updated DX Strategy Document [Outcome:10]
Table A3. Abbreviations chart.

Abbreviation Definition
BP Base Practice: the specific functional activities of the process
CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration: a process level improvement training and appraisal
programme.
DX Digital Transformation: the disruptive technological achievement bringing new business and
operating models.
DX-CMM Digital Transformation Capability Maturity Model: a model developed based on a well-
established process capability maturity model of SPICE by applying a methodological maturity
model development framework to guide organisations that wish to adopt digital transformation
by providing a comprehensive, objective, consistent, and standardised approach.
MM Maturity Model: a conceptual model consisting of a sequence of discrete maturity levels for a
class of processes and represents a desired evolutionary path for these processes
PA Process Attribute: a measurable property of process capability
SPICE Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination: a set of technical standards
also known as documents for the computer software development process and related business management
ISO/IEC 3300xx functions

DT Maturity Assessment 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DT Maturity Assessment 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DT Maturity Assessment 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Production Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

Digital transformation maturity assessment:

Ebru Gökalp & Veronica Martinez

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1991020

Published online: 26 Oct 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 110

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Digital transformation maturity assessment: development of the digital

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Table 1. The assessment of existing MMs.

Table 3. DX-CMM development steps.

Figure 1. Dimensions of DX-CMM.

4.1.2. Information and technology o DPT6. Self-optimised decision management

Figure 2. Process capability levels (adapted from SPICE(ISO 2015a)).

Figure 3. The DX maturity levels.

Figure 4. The relationships between maturity levels and capability levels.

Figure 5. The DX maturity assessment process.

Table 4. Process capability level assessment results.

Table A1. The existing MMs in DX/smart production/smart service domain.

Table A1. Continued.

Table A2. Process deﬁnition of digital transformation strategy development process.

Table A3. Abbreviations chart.

You might also like