Digital Transformation Maturity: A Systematic Review of Literature
Digital Transformation Maturity: A Systematic Review of Literature
Digital Transformation Maturity: A Systematic Review of Literature
Roman Teichert1
1
epartment of Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1,
D
613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
To cite this article: TEICHERT ROMAN. 2019. Digital Transformation Maturity: A Systematic Review of Literature.
Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 67(6): 1673–1687.
Abstract
The goal of this paper is to present contemporary developments in the field of digital maturity models.
By conducting a systematic literature review finally 24 relevant studies including 22 different models
were identified and various characteristics of different digital maturity models were extracted. Focus
was placed on the dimensions used to measure digital maturity in different model approaches.
Special light was shed on organizational culture and to what extent it is represented in the models.
Among other things, the findings indicate, that dimensions applied in various models can be very
different and that just a few models incorporate transformational in addition to digital capabilities.
In particular, organizational culture as a dedicated dimension of digital maturity is represented
already in a few models, which indicates the growing importance of culture as an enabler of digital
transformation efforts. Beside a comprehensive overview of the most widely used dimensions
measuring digital maturity, a synthesis of the most frequently addressed cultural attributes is
presented in this paper as well. This review finally reveals that most of the existing models give
an incomplete picture of digital maturity, that cultural attributes reflecting a digital culture are not
integrated systematically, and that digital maturity models specific to the domain of services are
clearly under-represented. It also clearly demonstrates that research about digital transformation
maturity as a holistic concept is scarce and needs more attention by research in the future.
Keywords: systematic literature review, digital transformation, digital maturity, digital maturity
models, digital transformation maturity, digital culture
1673
1674 Roman Teichert
for digital transformation is moving more and are not designed to offer specific guidance (Valdez-
more to the foreground and to the top of CEOs’ de-Leon, 2016). Moreover, none of the previous
agendas. Several surveys reported that company reviews investigated the aspect of company culture
culture is considered as the number one hurdle as a dimension of digital maturity, even though
to digital transformation (Goran et al., 2016; Buvat there is evidence that culture is the number one
et al., 2017; Solis, 2017). Hence, cultural change hurdle to digital transformation (Goran et al., 2016;
is a prerequisite and can become a bottleneck for Buvat et al., 2017; Solis, 2017). In the light of this,
digital transformation, if not adapted properly. a systematic literature review is carried out with
Especially in a volatile environment and its the following questions guiding the review:
pressure to innovate, organizational culture must 1. Who is driving the development of digital
change and evolve (Sörensen, 2002). This suggests maturity models – practitioner or academic?
a dynamic view of culture, which defines an 2. What are the different domains (industrial
adaptive organizational culture as an inherent contexts) addressed by digital maturity models?
attribute by which cultures change and respond to 3. What are the most common maturity dimensions
environmental changes (Kotter and Heskett, 1992). used in digital maturity models?
Therefore it can be argued that adaptive attributes 4. To what extent is organizational culture
of culture can positively influence progress of represented and which cultural attributes are
digital transformation efforts. addressed in digital maturity models?
Digital transformation itself simultaneously
affects multiple areas of an organization. Several
stakeholders have to be involved in defining MATERIALS AND METHODS
a transformation strategy. All these groups need
a common and consistent understanding of the Defining Digital Transformation
relevant areas to be addressed and the prioritization & Digital Maturity
of digital transformation activities (Berghaus
and Back, 2016). Therefore managers need to Digital Transformation
understand the current state with regard to digital Currently, there is no commonly accepted
transformation of their organization and “need definition for the term “digital transformation”
to define action items for their transformation (Schallmo et al., 2017). The term “transformation”
roadmap, prioritize between different activities expresses a fundamental change within the
and develop a strategic vision for the digital age” organization, which impacts strategy, structure
(Berghaus and Back, 2016). Consequently, the (Matt et al., 2015) and the distribution of power
need to systematically assess an overall status of (Wischnevsky and Damanpour, 2006). Digital
digital transformation and to map an effective transformation itself can be seen as an ongoing
path towards a desirable future digital maturity process of adoption to a significantly changing
state is significantly growing in organizations. digital landscape in order to meet the digital
Digital maturity matters for companies because expectations of customers, employees and partners.
there is evidence that firms with a higher level of This process of adoption has to be actively designed,
digital maturity outstrip industry competitors along initiated and executed (Berghaus and Back, 2016;
different dimensions of financial performance Kane et al., 2017). McKinsey developed a definition
(Westerman et al., 2012). which states that digital is less about any one process
A digital maturity model can assist management and more about how companies run their business
and employees in developing a clear roadmap for (Dörner and Edelman, 2015). Their definition of
their transformation activities in order to improve “digital” can be broken down into three areas:
the level of digital maturity. In recent years, an creating value at the new frontiers of the business
unclear number of various maturity models have world, optimizing the processes that directly
been developed to conceptualize and assess digital affect the customer experience, and building
maturity in organizations with the intention to foundational capabilities that support the entire
effectively manage and guide digital transformation. overall business initiative. The implementation of
Although previous reviews of digital maturity technologies in business processes is only a small
models have already been conducted (Chanias and part of digitally transforming a business. Moreover,
Hess, 2016; Remane and Hanelt, 2017; Canetta et al., digital technologies need to create additional value
2018), there is still a lack of understanding what for the customers, the business itself, and other
the most common maturity dimensions used across essential stakeholders (Schallmo and Williams,
existing models are. Chanias and Hess (2016) also 2017). For a successful digital transformation,
stated that there is a content-related (e.g. underlying companies have to focus on two complementary
dimensions) heterogeneity of the different digital activities: reshaping customer value propositions
maturity models. In addition, there is indication and transforming their operations using digital
that a lot of models are too generic in nature to technologies for greater customer interaction and
be applied to any particular industry and as such collaboration (Berman, 2012). Henriette et al. (2016)
Digital Transformation Maturity: A Systematic Review of Literature 1675
propose defining the digital transformation as digital maturity is not a static concept because the
a disruptive or incremental change process. digital landscape is continuously changing. As such,
It starts with the adoption and use of digital an organization will need to assess maturity over
technologies, then evolving into an implicit holistic time (Shahiduzzaman et al., 2017). In this systematic
transformation of an organization. Morakanyane literature review, the term “digital transformation
et al. (2017) compared several definitions of digital maturity” is used to reflect the connection between
transformation (Liu et al., 2011; Bharadwaj et al., the concept of “digital transformation” and “digital
2013; Fitzgerald et al., 2013; Lucas et al., 2013; maturity” and to underline that digital maturity
Mithas et al., 2013; Westerman et al., 2014; Henriette is a holistic concept reflecting a technological and
et al., 2015; Piccinini et al., 2015; Schuchmann and managerial aspect.
Seufert, 2015; Chanias and Hess, 2016; Hess et al.,
2016) and proposed that digital transformation Digital Maturity Model
is “an evolutionary process that leverages digital A maturity model provides some guidance on
capabilities and technologies to enable business how organizations approach their transformation
models, operational processes and customer and maps out typical paths of how organizations
experiences to create value”. Overall, the definitions go about their transformation (Berghaus and
of Henriette et al. (2016) and of Morakanyane Back, 2016). Maturity models can be seen as a tool
et al. (2017) are proposing good definitions of that mainly enables an assessment of the status-
digital transformation. Especially the definition of quo (Becker et al., 2009) and indicates a potential,
Henriette et al. (2016) underlines that in the context anticipated or typical development path to the
of using and adopting digital technology a holistic desired target state (Pöppelbuß and Röglinger,
transformation of an organization is required in 2011; Paulk et al., 1993). Digital maturity models
order to create value. help companies to assess their ability to encounter
digital transformation according to pre-defined
Digital Maturity dimensions. Especially in the case of transformation
The term “maturity” refers to a state of being journeys can they assist in understanding the
complete, perfect or ready (Lahrmann et al., 2011) current state and the capabilities of an organization
and is the result of progress in the development in effectively managing and guiding digital
of a system. Maturing systems (e.g. organizations) transformation efforts in a systematic way. Digital
improve their capabilities over time towards maturity models consist of dimensions and criteria
the achievement of some desirable future state. which describe areas of action and measures
Sometimes digital transformation and digital in various levels which indicate the evolution
maturity are used interchangeably without path towards maturity (Berghaus and Back,
considering differences (Leipzig et al., 2017), but 2016). A dimension is a specific, measurable and
digital maturity can be seen more as a systematic independent component which reflects a major,
way for an organization to transform digitally fundamental and distinct aspect of digital maturity
(Kane et al., 2017). Hence the term “digital maturity” and describes an area of action (de Bruin et al.,
specifically reflects the status of a companyʼs 2005). The definition for the term “maturity level”
digital transformation (Chanias and Hess, 2016). It can be linked to the Capability Maturity Model. In
describes what a company has already achieved that context, a maturity level consists of related
in terms of performing transformation efforts specific and generic practices for a predefined
and how a company systematically prepares to set of maturity dimensions that can improve the
adapt to an increasingly digital environment in organizationʼs overall maturity. The maturity level
order to stay competitive. Digital maturity goes of an organization provides a way to characterize its
beyond a merely technological interpretation performance and can be defined as an evolutionary
simply reflecting the extent to which a company plateau for organizational maturity improvement.
performs tasks and handles information flows by The terms “maturity stage” and “maturity level” can
IT, but also reflects a managerial interpretation be used interchangeably.
describing what a company has already achieved in
terms of performing digital transformation efforts Search Strategy
including changes in products, services, processes, The primary tool used for preliminary search
skills, culture and abilities regarding the mastery of with keywords was Google Scholar, a freely
change processes (Chanias and Hess, 2016). Thus, accessible web search engine that indexes the full
digital maturity comprises a technological and text or metadata of scientific documents across an
a managerial aspect and therefore can be seen as array of publishing formats and disciplines. Other
a holistic concept. Organizations reach the highest electronic databases were used to extract abstracts,
level of maturity when they have both a strong and finally full texts in the following screening
digital foundation and a good understanding of how phases (Tab. I). The search process applied consists
to leverage this foundation for a strategic business of four phases and was not restricted to a certain
advantage (Shahiduzzaman et al., 2017). Moreover, time period. All results of the first three search and
1676 Roman Teichert
ResearchGate, IEEE • Retrieve and review abstracts in terms of inclusion criteria (secondary screening)
Xplore Digital Library, • Retrieve and review full text in terms of inclusion criteria (final screening)
ScienceDirect, Emerald • Final set of included studies documented (“characteristics of included studies & reports”)
• Screening reference lists of already included papers
• Retrieve identified papers (Google)
Reference lists
• Review identified papers in terms of inclusion criteria
• Final set of included studies documented (“characteristics of included studies & reports”)
Search terms
“Digital Maturity” / “Digital Transformation” + “Digital Maturity” / “Digital Transformation Maturity” /
“Digital Maturity Levels” / “Digital Transformation Efforts” / “State of Digital Transformation” /
“State of Digital Transformation” / “Digital Transformation Progress” / “Phases of Digital Transformation”
Screening reference lists of the already 1. Article is addressing the concept of digital maturity models
included papers 2. Papers describing digital maturity models
screening phases were saved and retained in the generated 1,925 first hits sorted by relevance after
Google Scholar Library. Together with the results running the preliminary search.
stemming from screening the reference lists of The first three screening phases for the final
included studies, all finally included studies were inclusion of articles and studies were guided by
documented in a separate overview reflecting defined inclusion criteria (Tab. III). In the primary
characteristics of included studies and reports on screening phase, only the first 20 search results
digital transformation maturity. were considered. Search results beyond those first
Search terms that address the concept of digital 20 hits did not bring any additional valuable search
transformation maturity (Tab. II) were used in results. Results were evaluated on their applicability
order to identify applicable articles and papers. In by assessing, whether all used keywords were
the adopted search strategy, the buzz-word “digital identified in the displayed title or text of the search
transformation” was not used as a stand-alone result. After this initial screening phase, 64 studies
search term, but in combination with words like were left. In the secondary screening stage, the
efforts, progress, levels, stages, phases and maturity, abstracts and associated keywords of the remaining
with the intention of emphasizing the evolutionary studies were evaluated on their eligibility with
aspect of maturing digitally. This search strategy regards to the concept of digital transformation
maturity. Of the remaining 14 papers, full texts were
Digital Transformation Maturity: A Systematic Review of Literature 1677
PRIMARY SCREENING: Assessing first hits by applying inclusion criteria (first 20 hits,
search keywords found in article title and text) – number remaining:
64 studies
14 studies
11 studies included
24 studies included
1: Overview of search process
retrieved, completely read and again checked for digital maturity models. Special attention was
matching inclusion criteria. In the end, 11 eligible placed on the model approach and the design
studies remained. To increase the reliability of parameters of the included models in order to
the systematic literature review and to avoid better categorize and compare different approaches
missing important literature describing digital (Tab. IV). To gain insight, as to who was driving
transformation maturity models and concepts, research about digital maturity over time, all
a complementary search was conducted. For this, studies were clustered into studies published by
the reference lists of the 11 included studies were practitioners or academics.
screened, which resulted in 13 additional studies With the purpose of taking the context and
describing various digital maturity models. Finally, challenges of different industries into account,
24 studies were suitable for data extraction and the included digital maturity models further were
were retrieved successfully from the used data categorised into two model approaches: (i) models
sources (Tab. I). addressing a specific industrial domain, e.g.
The entire screening process and yielded results manufacturing, and (ii) models not developed for
of the search strategy are illustrated in Fig. 1. a specific industrial context which therefore can be
considered as general models. This categorization
Data Extraction enables a better understanding of which different
From the final set of included studies, information domains are addressed by contemporary models
regarding the characteristics of the study itself and and furthermore if various model approaches
the included digital maturity models was extracted. differ with regard to maturity dimensions used.
The 24 included studies represented 22 different All 22 included digital maturity models comprise
125 maturity dimensions, out of which 41 are in that area. Additional sources were identified
similar across all models and 84 have quite by screening the reference lists of the 11 included
different and unique denominations, which makes studies (Canetta et al., 2018; Remane et al., 2017;
comparability impossible. To gain a better insight Colli et al., 2018; Chanias and Hess, 2016). Thus,
into the meaning of maturity dimensions, all 13 additional studies describing digital maturity
identified attributes which describe the dimension models and concepts were identified and included
in more detail were extracted. This allowed for in the final set of studies. All digital maturity models
developing a nomenclature representing the most (n = 22) included in the final set of studies were
common maturity areas and facilitated mapping clustered into the categories “practitioner” and
each of the 125 original dimensions. How often “academic” and classified by specific characteristics
a common maturity area could be mapped with (Tabs. VI–VII).
original dimensions of included models was Most of the studies were published in the last
counted and consequently resulted in a frequency 3 years, whereas nearly 40% of the included studies
per common maturity area. In a similar way, 25 were published in 2016 (Fig. 2).
different attributes related to culture across all The first studies on digital maturity were
models were identified and counted based on published in 2011 and 2012. Both studies were
their occurrence across all models. All 25 identified developed by a practitioner (Friedrich et al.,
attributes were clustered into main categories 2011; Westermann et al., 2012). The first study
of cultural attributes (Tab. IX) in order to better was measuring industry digitization across 15
analyse and compare them with other cultural different industry sectors and different business
models. In a next step, all identified attributes were process dimensions. The study of MIT/Capgemini
mapped to the main categories. In this way, the described a digital transformation maturity model
frequency of occurrence of cultural categories could which distinguishes between “digital intensity”
be evaluated. and “digital transformation intensity” and defined
4 archetypes reflecting different levels of digital
maturity. This study pointed out that beside IT
RESULTS
capabilities also transformational capabilities are
necessary for a successful digital transformation. Up
Descriptive Results of Studies (n = 24)
to 2015, practitioners were driving the development
The first hit results (Tab. V) for applied search of digital maturity models. Just one of the included
keywords addressing the concept of digital studies was published by academics (Lichtblau et al.,
maturity are significantly lower (1,925 first hits) 2015). Since 2016, academics have started to bring
than first hit results for “digital transformation” attention to this field of research, and since then,
(25,400 first hits). This indicates in general that nearly 70% of the included studies have originated
there is little scholarly literature available in the from academics. Overall, the included set of studies
field of digital maturity compared to the field of shows that slightly more digital maturity models
digital transformation. With the specific keyword have been developed by academics (12 models)
“digital transformation maturity”, just 38 first hits than by practitioners (10 models) since 2011 (Fig. 3).
were found, and during the screening process the A domain-specific approach is reflected in 41%
number of eligible studies remaining for synthesis of all included models, whereas 78% (7 models)
was reduced down to 3 studies. This evidences that of all domain-specific digital maturity models
there was less attention to this field in the past, and are developed by academics, which underlines
therefore academic research seems quite immature
V: First hits of search process (n = 1,925) and final number of studies included (n = 11)
the increasing attention academics have started maturity, but not giving guidance nor a clear
to place on research about digital maturity since road-map as to how to achieve a higher level of
2015, driven by Industry 4.0 and the need for more maturity (prescriptive). 13 models (59%) pursue
specific and sophisticated models. a linear maturity approach, which means that they
This also explains why the most-represented assume a linear evolutionary path for organizations
domain is “manufacturing” (89% of all domain- pursuing digital transformation efforts. The rest
specific digital maturity models). There is only one reflect a non-linear maturity approach. The majority
included study on digital transformation maturity (78%, 7 models) of the non-linear digital maturity
representing “telecommunication services”. Clearly models represent a general model approach.
this shows that there is not sufficient focus on the Assessing the level of digital maturity is carried
service industry – neither by practitioners nor out by means of self-assessment in 59% of the
academics. models. Models developed by practitioners – mostly
Nearly all included digital maturity models are consultants – tend to apply a third-party assisted
descriptive in their nature and therefore limiting assessment, because their intention is to identify
their scope to just assessing the level of digital
1
5
1 3 2 3
6 3 4 2
4 2 2
1
3 2
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
TM models (n=22)
ademia practitioner academic practitioner
Fig. 2 Publication
Academics
distribution
5 models (23%) 7 models (32%)
maturity gaps and offer consultancy services to Qualitative Analysis of Studies (n = 24)
close the gaps.
All included studies were proposing digital Most Common Maturity Areas Identified
maturity models with different maturity- To understand and compare to which extent
dimensions, stages and assessment items. digital maturity areas get addressed, all original
Some models distinguish between two main dimensions from the existing maturity models that
areas, encompassing digital assets (e.g. digital have been analysed were clustered to the proposed
capabilities, investments, digital infrastructure) “most common maturity areas” (Tab. VIII). In
and transformation enablers (e.g. vision, culture, a next step all original dimensions were mapped
leadership, governance, innovation or agility), to the most common maturity areas. Multiple
clustering dimensions into these two domains mappings per dimension were possible, because
(Westerman and MacAfee, 2012; Shahiduzzamann dimensions and included attributes sometimes
et al., 2017). This underlines the importance address several maturity areas. The frequency of
of the managerial and “soft” aspect of digital original dimensions mapped to common maturity
transformation efforts. The number of dimensions areas in domain-specific and general digital
describing digital maturity is different between maturity models was evaluated and is depicted
the models and lies between 4 and 9, the number in Figs. 4, 5. The analysis shows that in domain-
of stages of digital maturity lies between 4 and specific digital maturity models, “technology” is
6. The majority of the examined models (55%) the most addressed maturity area, followed by
use defined stages for describing maturity. Some “digital skills” and “operations & processes”. Due
models (23%) propose archetypes describing to the lack of available digital maturity models of
digital maturity, which in combination with two other industries, this ranking mainly reflects the
main dimensions depict the digital maturity of manufacturing sector driven by Industry 4.0 and
a company in a 2 × 2 matrix. A minor part of the its strong emphasis on technology. Directly linked to
models – mainly originated by consultants – uses this is the importance of digital skills and expertise
a kind of digital index to describe digital maturity required to be able to handle the technological
(Catlin and Scanlan, 2015; Oltmanns et al., 2015, complexity. The importance of process-automation
Friedrich et al., 2011). Regarding organizational and -flexibility is evidenced by the strong
culture, the research identified that 55% of the representation of the maturity area “operations
examined models include “culture” as one of the & processes”. This maturity area is – similar to
maturity dimensions. The majority of the models domain-specific models – also strongly addressed
developed by practitioners represent “culture” as in general maturity model approaches. A strong
a dimension (in 70% of the cases), but only 40% of difference can be identified regarding the maturity-
models developed by academics reflect “culture” in area “products & services”, which is much more
their models. strongly addressed in domain-specific models than
in models with a general approach. This reflects
ACADEMIC
Model Character. Model approach
Study (# dimensions / (focus of model, maturing approach, Domain Culture
# maturity levels) application method)
Lichtblau et al. (2015) 6 /6 stages Domain-specific, linear, 3rd party assisted Manufacturing No
Schuhmacher et al. (2016) 9 / 5 stages Domain-specific, non-linear, self-assessment Manufacturing Yes
Colli et al. (2018) 5 / 6 stages Domain-specific, non-linear, self-assessment Manufacturing No
Remane et al. (2017) 2 / 5 clusters General, non-linear, self-assessment No
Berghaus, Back (2016) 9 / 5 stages General, linear, self-assessment Yes
Canetta et al. (2018) 5 / n/a. Domain-specific, non-linear, self-assessment Manufacturing No
Uhl, Gollenia (2016) 6 / 4 stages General, linear, self-assessment No
KPMG (2016) 7 / 4 archetypes General, non-linear, self-assessment Yes
Leyh et al. (2016) 4 / 5 stages Domain specific, linear, 3 party assisted
rd
Manufacturing No
A de Carolis et al. (2017) 4 / 5 stages Domain-specific, linear, self-assessment Manufacturing No
Leino et al. (2017), VTT 6 / 4 stages General, non-linear, self-assessment Yes
Acatech (2017) [ ] 4 / 6 stages Domain-specific, linear, 3 party assisted
rd
Manufacturing Yes
Digital Transformation Maturity: A Systematic Review of Literature 1681
the fact that in the domain of Industry 4.0, smart & experience” is also represented more strongly
products and data-driven services play a critical in general than in domain-specific digital maturity
role. It also highlights, that the aspect of “products & models, which could be an indication that the
services” is clearly not of same relevance in general capability of understanding customers and
models because they apply to any industry. designing an excellent customer experience is
At the same time, “innovation” gets much more not seen as important in domain-specific models.
attention in general digital maturity model, what Significantly more weight is placed on “Compliance
underlines that the capability of an organization & Security” in domain-specific than in general
to develop new products and services is indicated models. This is driven by the strong focus on
there much more strongly. “Customer insight “technology”, which brings along IT compliance
Fig.4Culture
Digital 5 change ability, participative leadership, open communciation, trust in processes and systems, knowledge sharing, open-innvoation, value of I
cyber-security, digital trust, IT-security, digital challenges rocgnized, legal risk consistently addressed with collaboration partners, optimising t
Compliance & Security 5 access, intellectual property,
smart products & services, digitization of product/service offerings, data analytics deployed for individualization, digital features, possibility o
Products & Services 7 product data usage, data analysis in usage phase, integrated customer journey management
GENERAL MODELS - Synthesis of maturity areas
1682 Operations & Processes Roman
8 Teichert
flexible production planning and steering; automation, flexible processes, autonomous processes, information exchange, decentralization of p
most common maturity areas count description
Digital Skills 8 mind-set and skills needed for performing digital transformation and operating with digital solutions, training and learning culture, personel d
Technology 12 business modelICT,
smart factory, defined and digitization
IT-systems, taken
digital data into account,
processsing, smartbusiness
factory, models are expanding,
IT-architecture, digital
data lake, initiatives
BI-tools, cloud,are generating
ERP,MES, VR, value, there
resilient are
IT infras
Business Model 2
digitalization effects positively the result
Frequency of maturity areas addressed in domain
degree specific
of digitization, digital
degree maturity
of innovation modelsmodel; E-commerce, infotainment, drones, autonomous vehicles, predictive maintena
in business
Products & Services 2 Split of maturity areas
maintenance
Compliance & Security Technology 3 IT security, digital security, IT compliance within organisation 12and towards stakeholders, assessing risk factors, risk management
leadership team learning new technolgies, creating sense of urgency for change, leaders have a compelling long-run vision, leaders actively id
Digital Skills 8
Leadership 4 achieve objectives
Operations & Processes all leaders mandated to executed8and shape digital strategy
Products & Services the organisation works as 7part of a digital ecosystem, digital connection with the business network (e.g. through API), technological foundatio
Digital Ecosystem 4 technology plattforms enable the delivery of more efficient outcomes, interoperable technology plattforms enable new or highly customizabl
Compliance & Security 5
and environments, managment of personal health data aggregated from many service providers and wearable devisces)
Vision Digital Culture 5 digital technology
5 realizes the vision of the organization, all staff work in sync with the digital vision, communicating and conveying digital vis
Governance Digital Strategy 6 ensuring comprehensive
5 und reliable execution of digital strategy, steering tools used, everyone has a mandate to think creatively and innova
Organization
Customer Insight & Experience 8
experience
4 design, customer centricity, customer benefit from digitization, personalization, organization utilizes digital services when trying t
interaction with the business, customers and suppliers effectively communicate with the organisation to co-create value, sensing and identify
Innovation Governance 9 4 customers into innovation process, using agile methods, funding innovation, innovation activities conducted regularly
involvign
Digital Skills Digital Ecosystem 9 3
digital affinity, digital competences, digital expertise available, required resources available, digital skills/experience/interests/resources is uti
empowered decision making
Innovation 3 digital team set-up, organizational agility, partner network, roles/tasks related to digitization are defined, adaequate resource allocation, cross
Customer Insight & Experience
Organization 9 3 structure/practices supporting digital business; cross-functional collaboration, digital skills embedded throughout the organization,
Leadership Vision vendor an
related to digitization, organization can pivot based on analysis of customer insight (agility)
Digital Strategy
Digital Business Model 2
9 digital strategy developed/communicated, digital technology used to do business fundamentallyDigital
Innovation
new,Strategy
Digital Ecosystem
bold longterm orientation, digital strate
Digital Culture
Vision 1 process automation, data-driven business, level of digitization of information, bringing business process to an industrialized level, avoiding int
Operations & Processes Digital Skills
Operations & Processes 10 collaboration with external partners and suppliers, agility of processes, integration of digital activity, extent of digital processes in procuremen
Leadership 1
digital processes in the sales function; processes and systems are used to react to business change
integrated IT-architecture, agile project management, IT roadmap, fluid IT budget, adaequately funding IT, new digitalisation-based IT system
4: Frequency
Technology
Fig.4 of maturity areas addressed
11 in domain-specific
of supporting models,
systems, process automation, usen = 9
of APIs, cloud, additive manufacturing, robotics, broadband, IoT, wearables
Source:
Digital Culture Included models, n = 22 12 risk-taking, risk-tolerance, collaboration, error/no-blame culture, employees encouraged to ideate new digitalized working methods and servi
speed, agility, test & learn, external orientation
study of Buvat et al. 2017. Particularly cultural in maturity-dimensions, nomenclature, levels and
attributes reflected in the examined digital characteristics applied. The comparison of maturity-
maturity models, like “collaboration”, “agility & areas addressed in different models provides
flexibility” and “customer centricity”, also can be interesting findings. Firstly, the dimension “product
found as an attribute of a digital culture definition & services” plays a clearly minor role in general
established by Buvat et al. 2017. Attributes like models compared to domain-specific models.
“failure tolerance”, “risk tolerance” and “ideating Secondly, the cultural aspect plays a significantly
new digitalized working methods and services” more important role in general digital maturity
show some correlation to the behavioural attribute models than in domain-specific models. Other “soft”
“innovation”, which is also part of the digital culture dimensions, more attached to transformational
model developed by Buvat et al. 2017. Innovation capabilities, like leadership, vision, and innovation
itself is well represented as a separate dimension culture, are also addressed more in general digital
of examined digital maturity models, but rather maturity models than in domain-specific models.
addresses the process and methods of innovation. Thirdly, it becomes evident, that in all examined
Attributes like “open culture”, “data-driven decision models included in this review the maturity area
making” and “digital-first mind-set” are not “business model” is hardly addressed. It seems,
found to be part in the “culture” dimension of the that the digitalization of the business model is
examined digital maturity models. To some extent neglected in most digital maturity approaches.
they are included in other dimensions like “digital Just a few models address this aspect. This can be
ecosystem” and “technology”. When furthermore interpreted that most companies rather focus on
comparing the extracted cultural attributes (Fig. 6) the exploitation of digital technology than on the
with the attributes of the cultural model of Denison exploration of digital innovation and development
(Denison and Mishra, 1995) – one of the most of new digital products and business models to
popular organizational culture models – it can be generate new digital revenues. Fourthly, “customer
argued that the extracted cultural attributes are to insight and experience” as a characteristic of digital
a large extent described by a culture of adaptability maturity plays a minor role in domain-specific
(organizational learning, customer focus, models. Hence it can be argued that general digital
creating change) and a culture of involvement maturity models more comprehensively address
(empowerment, team orientation). These cultural transformational capabilities, and domain-specific
traits indicate higher levels of product & service models more strongly address digital-technological
innovation and creativity, as well as a fast response capabilities in the assessment of the digital maturity
to customers’ and employees’ changing needs. of a company. Also, general models tend to show
more external orientation and therefore take
customer experience as criteria for digital maturity
DISCUSSION
much stronger into account than domain-specific
This systematic literature review takes stock models. The comparison of all maturity dimensions
of research and contemporary development in represented in various models makes evident that
the field of digital maturity. The findings identify the majority of models provide an incomplete
that there has been an increase in the quantity of picture of digital maturity. Either transformational
academic research in the field of digital maturity management capabilities (e.g. vision, culture,
since 2016 – mainly driven by Industry 4.0. The leadership, governance, innovation, agility, …) or an
number of identified digital maturity models is in organization’s digital foundation (e.g. technology,
line with previously published papers (Chanias digital skills, organization, strategy, customer
and Hess, 2016; Remane and Hanelt, 2017; Canetta experience, …) are not addressed sufficiently and
et al., 2018). In this systematic literature review, systematically.
22 eligible digital maturity models were identified In this context, a special light has been shed on
and included. The analysis conducted in this paper the dimension of “culture” because organizational
is going beyond the work presented in previously culture is seen more and more as the number one
published papers mentioned above, since special hurdle to digital transformation (Buvat et al., 2017;
attention has been placed on the type of dimensions Solis, 2017) and as the most significant barrier
used in the various digital maturity models. to digital effectiveness (Goran et al., 2016). What
The research results of this article provide separates digital leaders from the rest is a clear
strong evidence that all identified models pursue digital strategy combined with a culture and
different approaches in describing digital maturity. leadership focussing on driving the transformation.
There is no consistent definition of digital maturity Employees in digitally mature organizations
available because all the different maturity models describe their culture as more collaborative and
and their underlying definition of digital maturity innovative compared to other organizations and
show a heterogeneity in content and methodology. they state that leadership has sufficient digital skills
Even domain-specific digital maturity models (Kane et al., 2015). Digitally mature companies also
examined in this paper – mainly reflecting the have cultures that embrace an expanded appetite
manufacturing sector – show significant differences
Digital Transformation Maturity: A Systematic Review of Literature 1685
for risk, rapid experimentation, heavy investment Driven by Industry 4.0, the majority part existing
in talent and recruiting and leaders excelling in models address the domain of manufacturing.
soft skills (Kane et al., 2016). More than half the More specific and granular model approaches
examined digital maturity models include “culture” providing additional layers of detail are required
as a separate dimension. Within the models, in order to reflect industry-specific capabilities
attributes like “collaboration”, “agility & flexibility”, and characteristics and give companies effective
“organizational learning”, “change-ability” and guidance towards digital maturity in different
“customer centricity” are among the most industrial and functional contexts. Especially the
represented cultural attributes across all models. service industry needs stronger attention in the
Innovation is addressed indirectly by attributes future, because more and more manufacturing
like “failure tolerance”, “risk tolerance” and companies recognize aftermarket services as
“ideating new digitalized working methods”. When a revenue driver, and digital technologies are
comparing the identified cultural attributes with opening up new opportunities especially in service
the attributes proposed by popular culture models (Baines et al., 2009; Falk and Peng, 2013; Ardolino,
like Buvat et al. 2017 and Denison and Mishra 2018; Benjamin, 2019).
1995, it becomes evident that to some extent there With regards to the design of the models,
is conformity. Other proposed attributes describing an inconsistency of levels and characteristics
a digital culture (Buvat et al., 2017), like “digital- describing digital maturity can be found across all
first mindset”, “data-driven decision making” and examined models. There is no standard approach
“open culture”, are clearly under-represented in for describing digital maturity levels, not even
the examined digital maturity models. Hence, there within a domain like manufacturing. In most
is a clear need to consistently define attributes of cases, the description of digital maturity levels and
a digital culture enabling digital transformation and consequently the classification of companies is
to systematically include these cultural attributes in too vague. Therefore, an assessment does not give
digital maturity models. clear reference points for new digital initiatives and
Furthermore, the findings of this paper reveal does not provide a clear map of potential actions
a lack of digital maturity models reflecting domains for management. Thus, more granular assessment
other than manufacturing, taking the context approaches with specific characteristics for each
and challenges of other industries into account. defined maturity level would be required.
CONCLUSION
The main objective of this extensive systematic literature review was to provide a better understanding
of the contemporary development in the field of digital maturity and related models. This could be
achieved by identifying, examining and comparing 22 digital maturity models in detail. The research
results of this paper indicate that most models provide an incomplete picture of digital maturity and
that the description of digital maturity stages is inconsistent across all models. Furthermore, the
review reveals that the majority of existing digital maturity models addresses just the manufacturing
domain. Other domains like service are clearly under-represented. Special attention was placed on
the role of culture playing in digital transformation and in which way it is reflected in digital maturity
models. It is schown that attributes of a digital culture which enhance digital transformation efforts
are not systematically incorporated in contemporary digital maturity models.
Overall, the findings of this paper indicate that research in this domain is not sufficient and future
research has to place more attention to the issues highlighted above: (1) Incomplete digital maturity
models need to be extended to “digital transformation maturity” models which are holistic and
specific, respectively granular, at the same time. (2) Furthermore, models addressing other domains
than manufacturing have to be developed. In this context the domain of service needs more
attention. (3) Clearly defined attributes of a digital culture have to be integrated systematically in
digital maturity models.
REFERENCES
ARDOLINO, M., RAPPACCINI, M., SACCANI, N. et al. 2018. The role of digital technologies for the
service transformation of industrial companies. International Journal of Production Research, 56(6):
2116–2132.
BAINES, T., BENEDETTINI, O. and LIGHTFOOD, H. 2009. The servitization of manufacturing: A review
of literature and reflection on future challenges. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
20(5): 547–567.
BECKER, J., KNACKSTEDT, R. and PÖPPELBUSS, J. 2009. Development of maturity modells for IT-
management. Business Information & Systems Engineering, 1(3): 213–222.
1686 Roman Teichert
BENJAMIN, G., LAVANDIER, H. and MUTHIHA, S. 2019. The service solution for unlocking industry's
next growth opportunity. Operations Report. Ney York: McKinsey & Company.
BERGHAUS, S. and BACK, A. 2016. Stages in Digital Business Transformation: Results of an Empirical
Maturity Study. In: Tenth Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS) Proceedings.
Paphos, Cyprus, September 2016. St. Gallen: University of St. Gallen.
BERMAN, B. 2012. 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution. Business Horizons, 55: 155—162.
BHARADWAJ, A. et al. 2013. Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights. MIS
quarterly, 37(2): 471–482.
BUVAT, J., CRUMMERNEL, C., KAR, K. et al. 2017. The digital culture challenge: closing the employee-
leadership gap. Capgemini Digital Transformation Institute Survey. Paris: Capgemini Digital
Transformation Institute.
CANETTA, L., BARNI, A. and MONTINI, E. 2018. Development of a digitalization maturity model for
the manufacturing sector. In: International Converence on Engineering, Technology and Innovation.
Manno, Switzerland 2018. Manno: University of Applied Sciences Manno.
CATLIN, T. and SCANLAN, J. 2015. Raising your Digital Quotient. Boston: McKinsey Digital.
CHANIAS, S. and HESS, T. 2016. How digital are we? Maturity models for assessment of a company’s
status in digital transformation. LMU Munich Management Report 2/2016. Munich_ Munich School
of Management.
COLLI, M., MADSEN, O., BERGER, U. et al. 2018. Contextualizing the outcome of a maturity assessment
for Industry 4.0. IFAC PapersOnLine, 51(11): 1347–1352.
DE BRUIN, T. et al. 2005. Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model.
In: 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS). Nov 29 2005–Dec 2 2005, Sidney,
Australia.
DENISON, D. R. and MISHRA, A. K. 1995. Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness.
Organization Science, 6(2): 204–223.
DÖRNER, K. and EDELMAN, D. 2015. What ‘digital’ really means. McKinsey & Company.
FALK, M. and PENG, F. 2013. The increasing service intensity of European manufacturing. Service
Industries Journal, 33(15–16): 1686–1706.
FICHMAN, R. et al. 2014. Digital innovation as fundamental and powerful concept in the information
system curriculum. MIS Quarterly, 38(2): 329–353.
FIZTGERALD, M. et al. 2013. Embracing digital technology: A new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan
Management Review, Capgemini.
FRIEDRICH, R. et al. 2011. Measuring industry digitization. Leaders and laggards in the digital economy.
Booz & Company.
GORAN, J., SRINIVASAN, R. and LA BERGE, L. 2016. Culture for a digital age. McKinsey Quarterly July
2017. New York: McKinsey.
HENRIETTE, E., FEKI, M. and BOUGHZALA, I. 2016. Digital Transformation Challenges. In: MICS
Proceedings 2016. Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems. AIS.
HENRIETTE, E. et al. 2015. The shape of digital transformation: A systematic literature review. In:
MCIS 2015 Proceedings. Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, Paper 10.
HESS, E. et al. 2016. Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy. MIS Quarterly Executive,
15(2): 123–139.
KANE, G., PALMER, D., PHILLIPS, A. et al. 2015. Strategy, not technology, drives digital transformation.
Research Report Summer 2015. MIT Sloan Management Review & Deloittee University Press.
KANE, G., PALMER, D., PHILLIPS, A. et al. 2016. Aligning the organization for its digital future. Research
Report Summer 2016. MIT Sloan Management Review & Deloittee University Press.
KANE, G., PALMER, D., PHILLIPS, A. et al. 2017. Achieving digital maturity. Research Report Summer
2017. MIT Sloan Management Review & Deloittee University Press.
KITCHENHAM, B. 2004. Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Keele University Technical
Report TR/SE-0401. Keele: Keele University.
KOTTER, J. P. and HESKETT, J. L. 1992. Corporate culture and performance. New York: Macmillan.
LAHRMANN, G. et al. 2011. Business Intelligence Maturity: Development and Evaluation of
a Theoretical Model. In: HICSS ‘11 Proceedings of the 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences. Washington: IEEE.
LICHTBLAU, K., STICH, V., BERTENRATH, R. et al. 2015. Impulse. Industry 4.0 Readiness [in German:
Impuls. Industrie 4.0-Readiness]. 1st Edition. Achen, Köln: Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Köln,
RWTH Achen.
LIU, D. Y. et al. 2011. Resource fit in digital transformation: Lessons learned from the CBC Bank global
e-banking project. Management Decision, 49(10): 1728–1742.
Digital Transformation Maturity: A Systematic Review of Literature 1687
LEIPZIG, T., GAMP, M., MANZ, D. et al. 2017. Initialising customer-oriented digital transformation
in enterprises. In: 14th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing. Stellenbosh, Southafrica,
3–5 October 2016. Elsevir: Procedia Manufacturing 8, pp. 517–524.
LUCAS, H. C. et al. 2013. Impact research on transformational information technology: An opportunity
to inform new audiences. MIS Quarterly, 37(2): 371–382.
MATT, C. et al. 2015. Digital transformation strategies. Business and Information System Engineering,
57(5): 339–343.
MITHAS, S. et al. 2013. How a firm’s competitive environment and digital strategic posture influence
digital business strategy. MIS Quarterly, 37(2): 511–536.
MORAKNYANE, R., GRACE, A. and O‘REILLY, P. 2017. Conceptualizing Digital Transformation Business
Organizations – A Systematic Review of Literature. 30th Bled eConference. Bled, Slovenia.
OLTMANNS, T., REMANE, G., BLOCHING, B. et al. 2015. The digital transformation of industry. 1st Edition.
Munich: Roland Berger, Bundesverband Der Deutschen Industrie.
PAULK, M., CURTIS, B., CHRISSIS, M. B. et al. 1993. Capability Maturity Model for Software. Version 1.1.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213: Carnegie Mellon University.
PICCININI, E. et al. 2015. Transforming industrial business: The impact of digital transformation on
automotive organizations. In: 36th International Conference on Information Systems. Fort Worth 2015.
PÖPPELBUSS, J. and RÖGLINER, M. 2011. What makes a useful maturity model? A Framework
of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process
management. In: European Converence on Information Systems (ECIS). 10th June 2011. ECIS 2011
Proceedings 28.
REMANE, G. and HANELT, A. 2017. Discovering digital business models in traditional industries.
Journal of Business Strategy, 38(2): 41–55.
SHAHIDUZZAMAN, M. D. 2017. Digital business: Towards a value centric maturity model. Part A.
Queensland: PWC Chair in Digital Economy/Queensland University of Technology.
SCHALLMO, D. and WILLIAMS, C. 2017. Digital Transformation of Business Models – Best Practice,
Enablers and Roadmap. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(8): 1740014.
SCHUCHMANN, D. and SEUFERT, S. 2015. Corporate learning in times of digital transformation:
A conceptual framework and service portfolio for the learning function in banking organizations.
iJAC, 8(1): 31–39.
SOLIS, B. 2017. The 2017 State of Digital Transformation. Research Report. Altimeter.
SSÖRENSEN, J. B. 2002. The Strength of Corporate Culture and the Reliability of Firm Performance.
Research Article. MIT.
VALDEZ-DE-LEON, O. 2016. A digital maturity model for telecommunication service providers.
Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(8): 19–32.
WESTERMAN, G. and MC-AFEE, A. 2012. The digital advantage: How digital leaders outperform their
peers in every industry. Capgemini Consulting.
WESTERMAN, G. and BONNET, D. 2015. Revamping your business through digital transformation.
MITSloan Management Review.
WISCHNEVSKY, D. and DAMANPOUR, F. 2006. Organizational transformation and performance: An
examination of three perspectives. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(1): 104–128.
Contact information
Roman Teichert: [email protected]