INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING DESIGN, ICED21

16-20 AUGUST 2021, GOTHENBURG, SWEDEN

DETERMINATION OF ENGINEERING DIGITALIZATION

MATURITY

Tafvizi Zavareh, Mona;

Eigner, Martin

Institute of Virtual Product Engineering; University of Kaiserslautern

ABSTRACT
Engineering Digitalization enables development of new high intelligent products containing
mechanical, electrical, software and communication components. As these complex products are result
of multidisciplinary engineering processes, digitalization also enforces companies to raise, adapt and
revise their engineering competencies and process capabilities to increase agility and maintain
competitiveness. Also, the growing amount of data related to product and processes requires a well-
structured management concept. In order to encounter all these changes and new requirements
companies should identify their specific strengths and weaknesses and derive needs for action. This
paper presents a novel maturity model for evaluation of capabilities of Engineering Digitalization in
areas of processes, products, services, data, human and organization. The maturity model enables the
detection of enhancement potentials and conception of individual digitalization plans for production
companies. It has been composed based on a proven multidisciplinary engineering methodology along
the product lifecycle process, which includes Model Based Systems Engineering Methods, and a
multilevel IT architecture integration concept.

Keywords: Systems Engineering (SE), Digital / Digitised engineering value chains, Product Lifecycle
Management (PLM), Maturity Model, System Lifecycle Management

Contact:
Tafvizi Zavareh, Mona
TU Kaiserslautern
MV
Germany
[email protected]

Cite this article: Tafvizi Zavareh, M., Eigner, M. (2021) ‘Determination of Engineering Digitalization Maturity’, in
ICED21 of the International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED21), Gothenburg, Sweden, 16-20 August 2021.
Proceedings 1
DOI:10.1017/pds.2021.119

ICED21 1193
`

1 INTRODUCTION
In the future, the Internet of Things and Services (IOT/IOS) assume connected products and services.
Electronics and software will continue to increase in this type of products, systems and embedded
services. If products communicate with each other over the Internet, they are called Cyberphysical or
Cybertronic systems. These directions will have several consequences: interdisciplinary, regionally
and organizationally distributed and integrated product development, a rethinking of today’s design
processes, methods, IT solutions and organizational forms, as well as the demand for end-to-end pro-
cesses based on digital models from the requirements definition, system architecture, product devel-
opment, simulation, production planning, to production, service and operation. Furthermore, planning
and design methodologies of all disciplines – mechanics, electronics and software – must be put to the
test and their suitability for a new approach to product and service development must be reviewed in
order to convert them into a common, integrated and interdisciplinary method, process and IT solution
approach. This approach of digitalizing products, systems, services and their development is called
Engineering 4.0. The basics are methods of Systems Thinking (ST), Advanced Systems Engineering
(ASE) and Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE). The digitalization of products, systems and
services means a transformation process that rearranges the classic boundaries of a fragmented and
competing IT solution world, away from silo thinking to a consistent integrative approach in engineer-
ing. A lightweight and federated engineering backbone will play the role of data and process integra-
tion throughout the entire Product Life Cycle (PLC), including service operations. Another key point
of digitization is the horizontal and vertical integration of intellectual, technical and administrative
work processes along the PLC (Eigner, 2021). However, it is still unclear how companies can explicit-
ly approach digitalization and digital transformation and can realize it in a structured way. In fact,
digitalization is only the means and not the goal and should make the organizations more efficient,
productive and ultimately profitable.

The maturity model presented in this paper enables the detection of enhancement potentials and concep-
tion of individual digitalization plans for production companies. This maturity model has been composed
based on a proven multidisciplinary engineering methodology along the product lifecycle and integrates
further organizational technological and human aspects. It allows a company to compare its performance
in different fields according to the goal state and reveals individual potentials and challenges.

2 STATE OF THE ART IN DIGITALIZATION OF ENGINEERING

2.1 The VPE System Development Methodology

The VPE System Development Methodology1 defines a holistic macro approach. It adopts and com-
bines concepts of different interdisciplinary and discipline-specific development approaches and
adapts them to the requirements and boundary conditions of cybertronics. Based on the definitions of a
methodology according to Martin (1997) and Estefan (2008), the methodology consists of the follow-
ing three essential components (cf. Figure 1):
 the Model Based Virtual Product Engineering (MVPE) process model is adapted to the context of
the Internet of Things and interdisciplinary design
 the Kaiserslautern System Concretization Model (KSCM) is positioned as the correspondent De-
sign Method
 a 5-Level IT Architecture concept based on a multilevel Engineering Backbone.
While the MVPE model – with a specific focus on conceptual design and development – describes the
general life cycle phases of a product development process, the KSCM bundles techniques to fulfil the
tasks that arise during the phases of conceptual design and discipline-specific development (i.e. a meth-
od). The 5-level IT architecture concept describes a complementary approach for the tool-based creation
and management of system data along the entire life cycle. The main changes in the product and process
world are, on the one hand, completely new requirements for products and production systems2

1The VPE System Development Methodology has been developed since 2014 in several research projects funded by the Federal Government by the Institute of
Virtual Product Engineering (VPE). Eigner (2021).
2 In the following the term product is used for the product and the production system

1194 ICED21
(Ashton, 2009) and service-oriented business models as well as new IT technologies, architectures and
standards (big data, 3D printing, OSLC/ REST, multi-tenant data bases,) that enable the implementa-
tion of these requirements. The digitalization of products and product development means a transfor-
mation process that rearranges the classic boundaries of a fragmented and competing IT solution
world. A consistent, lightweight and federated engineering backbone will play the role of data and
process integration between product and production development, production/manufacturing and as-
sembly, and service. In extension to the traditional PLM approach the central Engineering Backbone
solution is called System Lifecycle Management (SysLM) (Eigner, 2014, 2021). SysLM extends the PLM
approach upstream (full integration of system modelling) and downstream (integration of engineering
and production planning) and is based on actual WEB-based software technology. For the mental trans-
formation of silo-oriented thinking on an interdisciplinary and system-technical approach and the IT-
implementation of Engineering 4.0, MBSE, ST, ASE and SysLM can serve as a central guideline.

Figure 1. VPE system development methodology (Dickopf, 2020; Eigner et al., 2019;
Eigner, 2021)

2.2 Digitalization of Engineering (Engineering 4.0)

Digitization - as the first step towards a Digital Transformation - is the process of converting analogue
information into a digital format. Digitalization - as the second step - indicates a process of continuous
change triggered by the growing usage of digital technology within products and processes. Digital
technologies are causing significant change along the value chain and creating strategic potential for
companies and organizations. However, companies must attempt to manage the structural changes and
organizational barriers that influence the positive and negative outcomes of this process (Vial, 2019).
Digitalization in the context of engineering is understood as:
 the digitalization of products, systems and services
 the vertical and horizontal digitalization of the engineering processes.
The functional range of current mechatronic systems is significantly extended by mutual networking
and influencing. If these systems communicate with each other - usually via the Internet - we speak of
Cyberphysical systems (CPS) or Cybertronic systems (CTS). Both represent a further development of
mechatronic systems in the direction of intelligence and communication capabilities. Building on
model-based development, research is currently being conducted on approaches for the interdiscipli-
nary and integrated development of CTS, which include products, production systems and service-
oriented business models, so-called Product Service Systems (PSS) (Aurich et al., 2019; Eigner et al.,

ICED21 1195
`

2017). Based on communicating ‘things’ (→ products/systems), new, often disruptive service-oriented

business models are built for various applications, e.g. Smart Products, Smart Factory, Smart Energy,
Smart Mobility, Smart Farming and Smart Buildings. Services within new overall systems are becom-
ing the central success factor of the Internet of Service (IOS). If companies build a service-oriented
business model on digitized products and processes, it is called Digital Transformation.
Another key aspect of digitization is the horizontal and vertical integration of technical and adminis-
trative work processes along the product life cycle. Horizontal integrations focus on the administrative
functions such as Release, Change and Configuration Management over the entire product life cycle
and the integration of all information generated in the individual phases on the SysLM level. Vertical
integrations are the integration of authoring systems via Team Data Management (TDM) or direct into
SysLM along the life cycle phases requirements management, system architecture, design in mechan-
ics, electronics and software and simulation (Figure 2). As of today, no company in the world has im-
plemented such a complete vertical and horizontal integration, but only fragmentary approaches. But it
is precisely from the experience with these approaches that we can learn. The concepts are available
and the first partial prototypes have been built. The process of an overall integration that lies ahead of
us is evolutionary, just like the progress in the last 50 years of the use of optimization solutions in
engineering. The engineering-relevant processes, methods and IT solutions are available. They must
now be applied to all phases of the PLC.

Figure 2. Vertical and horizontal integration of the engineering processes

Based on this discussion important requirements of implementation of the engineering digitalization
can be summarized to connectivity of engineering data and processes, MBSE and ST methods and
engineering IT Tools. VPE System Development Methodology integrates these aspects and can be
considered as a basic reference model for implementation of engineering digitalization. The presented
VPE System Development Methodology and the digitalization of engineering based on this are the
framework for the maturity model introduced in the following. With the help of this maturity model,
the understanding and implementation of the theoretical background can be improved and a roadmap
containing individual potentials and needs can be derived.

3 MATURITY ASSESSMENT
As mentioned above, companies are under increasing pressure to innovate and improve their products,
reduce time to market and cut costs. The implementation of suitable technologies, processes and
methods in engineering is the basis for mastering new challenges, especially with regard to digitaliza-
tion (Gausemeier et al., 2017; Abramovici, 2018; Tafvizi Zavareh et al., 2018). The development of
cybertronic products (also referred as smart products) and their service systems as a main challenge for

1196 ICED21
the companies requires multidisciplinary collaboration, integrated processes, and availability (tracea-
bility) of data and information throughout the entire PLC (Eigner, 2021). For this reason, companies
strive to update their digital skills according to their needs.
Furthermore, to make best strategic options, companies are hold to determine their own strengths and
weaknesses and identify their potential and risks (Wagner et al., 2017; Issa et al., 2017). The introduc-
tion and integration of new technologies in terms of an integrated digitalized engineering requires
extensive well-studied planning and thus financial and human resources that are often missing. Based
on a comprehensive, founded self-assessment, future needs for action can be easily derived and possi-
bilities for achieving higher effectiveness, innovativeness, adaptability and profitability can be identi-
fied (Reichert, 2020; Bauer et al., 2019). Also identifying deficits can reveal neglected or less focused,
but not unimportant areas and indicate necessary changes within a company.
To obtain a reasonable holistic view of company’s engineering development degree, not only prod-
ucts, but also processes, technologies, organizational conditions, staff competencies and strategies
must be thoroughly evaluated (Gausemeier et al., 2002). For this purpose, the progress level can be
evaluated by means of a digital maturity assessment in order to advance and ultimately validate the
company’s level of digitalization (Schumacher et al., 2019).

3.1 Maturity Models

Maturity models are often used as a tool to measure the maturity of an organization or process in rela-
tion to a specific target state (Stich et al., 2019). These tools help to identify and assess the current
state of an organization using various criteria. Based on the results action fields can be spotted and
recommendations for action can then be derived. According to Becker et al (Becker et al., 2009), a
maturity model consists of a sequence of maturity stages for a class of objects. It represents an as-
sumed, aspired or evolutionary path, which the considered objects pass through in discrete stages.
Typically, these objects are organizations or processes (Bundschuh et al., 2005). The lowest stage
represents an initial state, which is characterized by the fact that the organization has hardly any capa-
bilities in the considered area. The highest maturity stage, however, stands for a mature state.
Maturity models refer to the level theory by Nolan as part of his IT Management concept, which states
that elements of a system pass through a sequence of different development phases over time. The
properties of the different phases must be distinguishable and empirically verifiable, and it must be
possible to understand what causes an element of a system to advance to the next phase of develop-
ment (Nolan, 1973). In order for a system to ascend a development phase, all properties of the current
phase must be fulfilled first. The origin of these models is the Quality Management Maturity Grid
(Crosby, 1979) developed by Philip B. Crosby. This is a five-stage matrix whereby organizations can
evaluate the maturity of their service and quality management processes.
At the end of the 1980s, the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) appeared, which is designed to reveal
improvement opportunities in the software development process (Humphrey, 1988). This model was
then further developed by Ahern et al (2003) into the Capability Maturity Model Integrated. Besides this
model, the model for Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination (SPICE), which was
developed by the international standardization organization ISO, is one of the most widely used maturity
models (Ahern et al., 2003) (ISO, 2015). Automotive SPICE is a domain-specific variant of the
international standard of the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA). The purpose of
Automotive SPICE is to evaluate the performance of the development processes of control unit suppliers
in the automotive industry (VDA QMC Working Group 13, 2017; Höhn et al., 2015).
In recent years a variety of maturity models were developed mostly based on the structure of general
models (CMMIs and SPICE) which aim to measure the maturity of companies with focuses on latest
related topics to the industry. Figure 3 shows some of these maturity models identified in the recent
literature concerning the requirements mentioned in chapter 2.2 (Schuh et al., 2020; Lichtblau et al.,
2015; Jodlbauer and Schagerl, 2016; Leyh et al., 2016; Batenburg et al., 2006; Klötzer and Pflaum,
2017; Berghaus, Sabine and Back, Andrea, 2016; Pfenning et al., 2020; Vogelsang, 2018; Schumacher
et al., 2019).

3.2 Identified Research Gap

To select or pursue a model, it is important to clarify the objectives of the model and structure one’s
own needs. Although there are a variety of models already existing (cf. Table2), the reviewed litera-

ICED21 1197
`

ture lacks an engineering-specific maturity model, which should simultaneously address digitalization,
MBSE and the integration approach to SysLM.
Another striking characteristic is the background of the here presented model. The majority of the
available models are based on a collection of best practices, whose implementation is recommended.
They refer to themselves as reference models and follow different sources for each criterion. However,
the VPE Engineering Digitalization Maturity Model (VPE-EDMM) aims to present a step-by-step
approach for the implementation of the well-founded VPE System Development Methodology, which
integrates the mentioned important aspects in sections 2.1 and 2.2. into a holistic matter.

Figure 3. Comparison of literature for relevant requirements

Based on a strong focus on engineering and digitalization aspects, the VPE-EDMM in this paper aims
at an extension of existing models and tools and give detailed measurement criteria for assessment of
vertical and horizontal PLC integration, MBSE Methods (based on VPE System Development Meth-
odology) and also organizational issues.

4 CONCEPTION OF THE VPE ENGINEERING DIGITALIZATION MATURITY

MODEL
The development procedure of the VPE-EDMM is based on the concept of Bruin et al. (2005), which
suggests a set of successive development steps, and also the experience gained by the authors in de-
veloping maturity models (Siedler et al., 2020). The model development begins with the definition of
the model scope or the model framework. This includes the focus and topic of the model, but also the
potential addressees and from which area they should come. These questions can be answered with the
goal of the work to design a maturity model for the current state of implementation of digitalization in
engineering. The addressees are therefore engineering managers with sufficient overview of the pro-
cesses and structures of the company. As mentioned Specific criteria of the model are derived out of
VPE System Development Methodology, but also considers preliminary work on general aspects. The
model can be used independently of the industry, but the model is mainly tailored to discrete and non-
discrete production companies. The model is given majorly a step-like representation that builds on
each other, whereby all possible implementation states are represented.

4.1 Model Architecture and its Components

In order to facilitate a differentiated analyses of digitalized engineering maturity within the whole set-
up of a company, the proposed model includes a total of more than 80 maturity indicators which are
grouped into 6 dimensions. Table 1 provides an overview on the dimensions together with some ex-
emplary indicators to support understanding.
The dimensions “Engineering Processes and Tools” as well as “Products and Services Development”
in engineering represent the objectives of digitalization of engineering (Nyffenegger et al., 2020). The
other dimensions form the basis for achieving these goals. The exploitation of the potentials and per-
ception of the needs associated with digitalization in the areas of “People,” Organizational Culture and
Structure and “Data Handling” play a key role here and form the foundation of digitalization (Carolis
et al., 2017). Within each dimension, maturity criteria (Indicators) are defined and characteristics of
the possible stages are specified with expressions.

1198 ICED21
 Table 1. Dimensions and indicators
Dimension Exemplary maturity indicators
Engineering Processes and Vertical Integration, Horizontal Integration (see 4.3)
Tools
Products and Services MBSE Methods (modelling methods), Cybertronic Products
Development Development (sensors, connectivity, services, ...)
Data Handling Big Data (handling of data amount, velocity, variety, ..), im-
plementation of Data Technologies (Iot, AI, ..)
People (Spec. Engineers) Employee’s Development and Involvement (digital compe-
tencies, Interdisciplinary competencies), Work Conditions
Organizational Culture Enterprise Culture (decision making, communication), Strat-
egy (business model, innovation management) ...
Organizational Structure Team structure (flat Structures, tools), Responsibilities (Chief
Digital Officer, Development Operation Units)

4.2 Description of Maturity Levels

The VPE-EDMM consists of four maturity levels: Explorer, Beginner, Advanced and Expert. These
levels and their value range are shown in Figure 4 along with some formulas. In order to apply user spe-
cific priorities (e.g. Mechanical Design integration is more important to the user than Electrical Design),
the maturity level can be weighted for each Indicator. This enables individualized comparison and deci-
sion making. The user evaluates Indicators based on provided expressions and defines his individual
weightings and subsequently receives the results of Indicator Group and Dimension maturities.

Figure 4. Maturity levels and values

4.3 Exemplarily Execution of Selected Maturity Dimensions

The following section focuses on the VPE-EDMM for digitalized engineering in the areas of horizontal
and vertical integration. As discussed earlier in this paper, Digitalization of processes and tools can be
seen as a frontline of digitalization in engineering, where, as in other fields of action, current and future
market needs and the associated human, organizational and infrastructural requirements must be met.
In the upper section of Figure 5 a subset of the vertical integration matrix listing more common engi-
neering applications for each PLC phase is shown. In this matrix the existence of the respective solu-
tions and their degree of integration to a TDM (Team Data management System) or SysLM are que-
ried. The highest level (evaluated for 3) is regarded for fully integration into the SysLM backbone.
In the second matrix (Figure 5) the horizontal integration and coupling of processes and data between
the PLC phases is focussed. As covered in chapter 2.2. data and information existing in each PLC are
to be connected and used for all its previous and succeeding phases. The horizontal integration evalua-
tion matrix is to be filled out with scores for connection of PLCs according to the provided evaluation
expressions. This symmetric matrix evaluates the degree of connectivity of each PLC to the next and
previous one. Next to the matrix, a diagram presents the results of the evaluation.

ICED21 1199
`

Figure 5. Segments of vertical and horizontal integration matrices

Further dimensions for evaluation of Personnel Development, Organizational Culture, Organizational
Structure, Data Handling, Methods and Technologies are also designed as questionnaires (Figure 6).

Figure 6. VPE-EDMM, more maturity dimensions

5 OUTLOOK
Based on the comprehensive maturity assessment, potentials for engineering digitization can be identi-
fied on the basis of which a strategy or an individual roadmap can be developed. In order to be able to
carry out a targeted maturity assessment, fundamental company characteristics such as company size,
business sector, market segment, organizational structures and existing strategies must be also record-
ed. The maturity of the individual competencies and skills should be determined, which can take place,
for example, through surveys and interviews of employees. The maturity assessment is best done by
people who are most familiar with the respective topics, such as development managers on issues re-
lated to quality in product development.
Further content of VPE-EDMM dimensions for evaluation of Personnel development, Organizational
Culture, Organizational Structure and Data Handling as well as individual validation of results will be
published later. More research can be done also on benchmark studies with relation to engineering
capabilities.

1200 ICED21
REFERENCES
Abramovici, M. (2018), “Engineering smarter Produkte und Services Plattform Industrie 4.0 STUDIE”.
Ahern, D.M., Clouse, A. and Turner, R. (2003), CMMI distilled: A practical introduction to integrated process
improvement, 2. ed., Addison-Wesley, Boston.
Ashton, K. (2009), “That ‘internet of things’ thing”, RFID journal, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 97–114.
Aurich, J.C., Koch, W. and Kölsch, P. (2019), Entwicklung datenbasierter Produkt-Service Systeme: Ein Ansatz
zur Realisierung verfügbarkeitsorientierter Geschäftsmodelle, [1. Auflage].
Batenburg, R., Helms, R.W. and Versendaal, J. (2006), “PLM roadmap: stepwise PLM implementation based on
the concepts of maturity and alignment”, International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management, Vol. 1
No. 4, p. 333, https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJPLM.2006.011053.
Bauer, W., Stowasser, S., Mütze-Niewöhner, S., Zanker, C. and Brandl, K.-H. (Eds.) (2019), TransWork - Arbeit
in der digitalisierten Welt: Stand der Forschung und Anwendung im BMBF-Förderschwerpunkt, Fraunho-
fer IAO, Stuttgart.
Becker, J., Knackstedt, R. and Pöppelbuß, J. (2009), “Developing Maturity Models for IT Management”, Busi-
ness & Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 213–222, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12599-
009-0044-5.
Berghaus, Sabine and Back, Andrea (2016), “Stages in Digital Business Transformation: Results of an Empirical
Maturity Study”, in MCIS 2016 Proceedings. 22.
Bruin, T., Freeze, R., Kaulkarni, U. and Rosemann, M. (Eds.) (2005), Understanding the main phases of devel-
oping a maturity assessment model.
Bundschuh, M., Dumke, R., Schmietendorf, A. and Ebert, C. (2005), Best practices in software measurement:
How to use metrics to improve project and process performance ; with 37 tables, Springer, Berlin, Heidel-
berg, New York.
Carolis, A. de, Macchi, M., Negri, E. and Terzi, S. (2017), “A Maturity Model for Assessing the Digital Readi-
ness of Manufacturing Companies”, in Lödding, H., Riedel, R., Thoben, K.-D., Cieminski, G. von and
Kiritsis, D. (Eds.), Advances in production management systems: The path to intelligent, collaborative and
sustainable manufacturing ; IFIP WG 5.7 International Conference, APMS 2017, Hamburg, Germany, Sep-
tember 3-7, 2017 ; proceedings, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Vol. 513,
Springer, Cham, pp. 13–20.
Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality is free: The art of making quality certain, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Dickopf, T. (2020), A Holistic Methodology for the Development of Cybertronic Systems in the Context of the
Internet of Things, Dissertation, Schriftenreihe VPE, Band 23, Martin Eigner (publ.), Kaiserslautern.
Eigner, M. (2014), “Modellbasierte Virtuelle Produktentwicklung auf einer Plattform für System Lifecycle
Management”, in Sendler, U. (Ed.), Industrie 4.0: Beherrschung der industriellen Komplexität mit SysLM,
Xpert.press, Springer Vieweg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 91–110.
Eigner, M. (2021), System Lifecycle Management: Digitalisierung des Engineering, Springer Vieweg, soon be
published in English, Berlin, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62183-7.
Eigner, M., Dickopf, T. and Apostolov, H. (2019), “Interdisziplinäre Konstruktionsmethoden und -prozesse zur
Entwicklung cybertronischer Produkte. Teil 2”, Konstruktion.
Eigner, M., Koch, W. and Muggeo, C. (Eds.) (2017), Modellbasierter Entwicklungsprozess cybertronischer
Systeme: Der PLM-unterstützte Referenzentwicklungsprozess für Produkte und Produktionssysteme,
Springer Vieweg, Berlin.
Estefan, J.A. (2008), “Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Methodologies”, available at:
http://www.omgsysml.org/MBSE_Methodology_Survey_RevB.pdf.
Gausemeier, J., Bätzel, D. and Orlik, L. (2002), “Potenzialfindung im Rahmen der strategischen Produkt- und
Prozessplanung”, ZWF, Vol. 97 No. 9, pp. 453–458, https://dx.doi.org/10.3139/104.100568.
Gausemeier, J., Wiesecke, J., Echterhoff, B., Isenberg, L., Koldewey, C., Mittag, T. and Schneider, M. (Eds.)
(2017), Mit Industrie 4.0 zum Unternehmenserfolg - Integrative Planung von Geschäftsmodellen und
Wertschöpfungssystemen: Cooperate succes with industry 4.0 - Integrative planning of business models and
value creation systems, Heinz Nixdorf Institut Universität Paderborn, Paderborn.
Höhn, H., Sechser, B., Dussa-Zieger, K., Messnarz, R. and Hindel, B. (2015), Software Engineering nach
Automotive SPICE: Entwicklungsprozesse in der Praxis ; Ein Continental-Projekt auf dem Weg zu Level 3,
1. Aufl., dpunkt, s.l.
Humphrey, W.S. (1988), “Characterizing the software process: a maturity framework”, IEEE Software, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 73–79, https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/52.2014.
ISO (2015), Information Technology – Process Assessment – Requirements for process measurement frame-
works: ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 7 No. ISO/IEC 33003, 1st ed.
Issa, A., Lucke, D. and Bauernhansl, T. (2017), “Mobilizing SMEs Towards Industrie 4.0-enabled Smart Prod-
ucts”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 63, pp. 670–674, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.346.
Jodlbauer, H. and Schagerl, M. (2016), “Reifegradmodell Industrie 4.0 - Ein Vorgehensmodell zur Identifikation
von Industrie 4.0 Potentialen”, in Mayr, H.C. and Pinzger, M. (Eds.), Informatik 2016: Tagung vom 26.-30.

ICED21 1201
`

September 2016 in Klagenfurt, GI-Edition Lecture Notes in Informatics Proceedings, Gesellschaft für
Informatik, Bonn, pp. 1473–1487.
Klötzer, C. and Pflaum, A. (2017), “Toward the Development of a Maturity Model for Digitalization within the
Manufacturing Industry’s Supply Chain”, in Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences– HICSS-50.
Leyh, C., Schäffer, T., Bley, K. and Forstenhäusler, S. (2016), “SIMMI 4.0 – A Maturity Model for Classifying
the Enterprise-wide IT and Software Landscape Focusing on Industry 4.0”, in Proceedings of the 2016 Fed-
erated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, 11.09.2016 - 14.09.2016, IEEE,
pp. 1297–1302.
Lichtblau, K., Stich, V., Bertenrath, R., Blum, M. and Bleider, M. (2015), Industrie 4.0-Readiness, Frankfurt
IMPULS-Stiftung VDMA.
Martin, J.N. (1997), Systems engineering guidebook: A process for developing systems and products, Systems
engineering series, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Nolan, R.L. (1973), “Managing the computer resource: a stage hypothesis”, Communications of the ACM, Vol.
16 No. 7, pp. 399–405, https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/362280.362284.
Nyffenegger, F., Ríos, J., Rivest, L. and Bouras, A. (Eds.) (2020), Product Lifecycle Management Enabling Smart
X, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Springer International Publishing, Cham.
Pfenning, P., Eibinger, H.C., Rohleder, C. and Eigner, M. (2020), “A Comprehensive Maturity Model for As-
sessing the Product Lifecycle”, in Nyffenegger, F., Ríos, J., Rivest, L. and Bouras, A. (Eds.), Product
Lifecycle Management Enabling Smart X, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology,
Vol. 594, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 514–526.
Reichert, A. (2020), “Industrie 4.0 – Ansätze zur Strategieentwicklung in der Produktentwicklung”,
Studienprojekt, Lehrstuhl für Virtuelle Produktentwicklung, TUK, Kaiserslautern, 2020.
Schuh, G., Anderl, R., Dumitrescu, R., Krüger, A. and Michael, t.H. (Eds.) (2020), Industrie 4.0 Maturity Index:
Die digitale Transformation von Unternehmen gestalten – UPDATE 2020, acatech STUDIE, acatech,
Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften e.V, München.
Schumacher, A., Nemeth, T. and Sihn, W. (2019), “Roadmapping towards industrial digitalization based on an
Industry 4.0 maturity model for manufacturing enterprises”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 79, pp. 409–414,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.02.110.
Siedler, C., Dupont, S., Tafvizi Zavareh, M., Zeihsel, F. and Aurich, J.C. (2020), “Reifegradmodell zur
Bestimmung des Digitalisieurngsgrads”, in Aurich, J.C., Pier, M., Siedler, C. and Sinnwell, C. (Eds.),
Bedarfsgerechte Digitalisierung von Produktionsunternehmen: Ein modulares Transformationskonzept als
praxisorientierter Ansatz., Synnovating, Kaiserslautern, 21-36.
Stich, V., Schumann, J.H. and Beverungen, D. (2019), Digitale Dienstleistungsinnovationen: Smart Services agil
und kundenorientiert entwickeln, 1st ed.
Tafvizi Zavareh, M., Sadaune, S., Siedler, C., Aurich, J.C., Zink, K.J. and Eigner, M. (2018), “A Study on the
socio-technical Potentials of industrial Product Development Technologies for future digitized integrated
Work Systems”, in Proceedings of Norddesign 2018, Linköpig, Sweden.
VDA QMC Working Group 13 (2017), “Automotive SPICE® Process Reference Model Process Assessment
Model. Version 3.1”.
Vial, G. (2019), “Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda”, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst.,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003.
Vogelsang, A. (2018), “Reif für MBSE? Ein Reifegradmodell für modellbasiertes RE”.
Wagner, T., Herrmann, C. and Thiede, S. (2017), “Industry 4.0 Impacts on Lean Production Systems”, Procedia
CIRP, Vol. 63, pp. 125–131, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.02.041.

1202 ICED21