Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Industry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compind

Digital transformation capability maturity model enabling the

assessment of industrial manufacturers
Ebru Gökalp ∗ , Veronica Martinez
Institute for Manufacturing, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, 17 Charles Babbage Road, Cambridge, CB3 0FS, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The utilization of on-premise technologies in the business environment is ushering in a new era known
Received 29 December 2020 as digital transformation (DX). Although organizations are aware of the potential advantages of DX, they
Received in revised form 25 June 2021 have faced problems creating a clear path to reshape their existing processes in line with on-premise tech-
Accepted 8 July 2021
nologies. Therefore, they need guidance from a holistic viewpoint. Maturity models (MMs) are developed
Available online 27 July 2021
to guide organizations by providing an extensive roadmap for improvement. The digital transformation
capability maturity model (DX-CMM) is developed to assist organizations by providing current DX capa-
Keywords:
bility/maturity determination, derivation of a gap analysis, and the creation of a comprehensive roadmap
Digital transformation
Maturity model
for improvement in a comprehensive, structured, objective, complete, and standardized way. The aim of
Digital transformation maturity this study is to check the usability and applicability of the DX-CMM by performing a multiple case study,
Process assessment including assessments of the DX maturity level and derivation of a roadmap for DX maturity improvement
Smart manufacturing to move one level further in two organizations in the chemical and machine manufacturing domains. The
case study results show that the DX-CMM is applicable for identifying the DX maturity level, and it is
capable of providing a roadmap for DX maturity improvement for moving one DX maturity level further,
as well as benchmarking organizations evaluated using the same approach.
© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction coordinate and manage the holistic business-to-technology scope

of this transformation. It is necessary to acquire a comprehen-
The exploitation and integration of new digital technologies sive viewpoint to lead this DX, which includes heterogeneous
have been transforming almost all industries by reshaping and fre- and complex processes from different domains of strategy, human
quently disrupting existing business and operating models. This resources, process management, information technologies, among
transformation provides increasing innovations in value creation, others (Neff et al., 2014). Correspondingly, there is a need for assis-
sales, productivity, and service quality by improving the intel- tance and guidance to provide a clear path from a holistic viewpoint
ligence of products, processes, services, and systems. Recently, for the DX journey. The aim of maturity models (MMs), consisting
digital transformation (DX) has been attracting increasing inter- of a sequence of discrete maturity levels, is to bridge over organiza-
est from industry and academia. More than 80 % of CEOs reported tions by offering extensive guidance and providing a roadmap for
that they have digital business transformation programs in place; improvement. To this end, we have developed the digital transfor-
and it is estimated that by 2030 > 70 % of new value creation in the mation capability maturity model (DX-CMM) to assess the current
economy will depend on digital platforms (World Economic Forum, DX maturity level of the organizations and to offer a roadmap for
2018). maturity level improvement in a structured way. The aim of the
Although DX has a significant disruptive impact on business DX-CMM is to satisfy four requirements to:
and society, and organizations are aware of its potential effect,
many do not have a clear roadmap to re-engineer the existing
processes in line with the emerging technologies (Beckert, 2014). • evaluate DX processes in detail;
DX is a continuous and complicated undertaking that can substan- • provide guidance in identifying the current DX maturity level of
tially shape organizations’ operations. It is, therefore, essential to the organization;
• show opportunities for improvement to move to the next DX
maturity level;
∗ Corresponding author. • benchmark the organization against other organizations evalu-
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (E. Gökalp). ated with the DX-CMM.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2021.103522
0166-3615/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

The research objective of this study was to analyze how the DX- processes, reducing expenses and inconsistencies, and increasing
CMM identifies organizations’ current DX maturity level and gaps, employee productivity and involvement (Tarhan et al., 2016). These
and to provide roadmaps for DX maturity improvement. This this models have been utilized by hundreds of organizations worldwide
research aims to apply the DX-CMM to check its usability and appli- because of their proven benefits.”
cability through the utilization of a qualitative multiple case study A software process improvement and capability determination
approach. The model was applied to two companies with different model (SPICE), also known as ISO/IEC 3300xx (ISO, 2015a, 2015b,
sectors, sizes, countries, and DX adoption. As a result of semi- 2015c), a revised version of ISO/IEC 15504 (ISO, 2012, 2004a, 2004b,
structured interviews with DX process owners, and investigation 2003), provides a structured process assessment framework, facili-
of DX-related documents, detailed assessment reports, including tating a basis for process capability/maturity level improvement. It
DX gaps, successful practices observed, and improvement oppor- assumes that a higher level of process capability or organizational
tunities, were documented and presented to the DX stakeholders maturity is associated with better performance. Although SPICE
in the organizations. After discussing the assessment results, the was developed for the software development domain, after observ-
participants were asked to fill in the questionnaire to evaluate the ing its benefits, such as expense savings, increased involvement
applicability and usability of the DX-CMM. of employees, predictable and improved quality and productiv-
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: the related ity, and constructing a consistency of process capture and use,
research is provided, followed by the structure of the DX-CMM. it has been customized to different domains, such as automotive
After this, the application of the DX-CMM is given, and the results (Automotive, 2010), enterprise management (Ibrahim, 2008), IT
are discussed; lastly, the paper is finalized and a conclusion is security ((Barafort et al., 2006), IT service management (Malzahn,
drawn. 2007), and government (Gokalp and Demirors, 2016). It consists of a
set of technical standards documents for process improvement and
2. Background research capability determination, it is a reference model for the maturity
models.
A brief description of the DX and business process capability or The DX-CMM was developed based on SPICE. The primary rea-
MMs as well as a review of MMs developed for DX, smart industry, sons for selecting SPICE, the family of standards ISO/IEC 3300xx
Industry 4.0, and smart service domains, is given in the following (ISO, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c), as a benchmark are its well-established
subsections. and widely recognized structure. It presents a process viewpoint of
process assessment, providing a clear set of requirements for the
2.1. Digital transformation (DX) process assessment process, and the resources required to imple-
ment it effectively. It consists of technical standards, including the
DX is defined as a disruptive technological achievement requirements for MM design (ISO, 2015b), process definition (ISO,
bringing new business and operating models across all sectors. 2015c), planning, and execution of process capability/maturity
Organizations seek to reshape their processes in line with on- assessments (ISO, 2015d), and the application of process improve-
premise technologies such as digital twins (Annunziata and Biller, ment based on the process assessment (ISO, 2013).
2015), the Internet of things (IoT) and connected devices (Gilchrist,
2016), artificial intelligence (Schuh et al., 2017), cyber-physical sys- 2.3. Digital transformation capability/maturity assessment
tems, integration (Kagermann et al., 2013; Schuh et al., 2017), social models
media and platforms, blockchain (Swan, 2015), everything-as-a-
service (XaaS), robots and drones, data analytics (Gökalp et al., A search on the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar
2021b; Gökalp et al., 2021c), and 3D printing (Schwab, 2017). For research platforms was conducted to identify existing MMs.
example, collecting data via IoT devices and implementing analyt- The search terms relevant to this literature review research
ical tools to make predictive analysis on product quality trends can were defined as “Digital Transformation”, “Digitalization”, “Smart”,
be defined as a DX project that will affect the existing production “Industry 4.0”, “Industry Internet of Things” AND “Maturity Model”,
process, or the way employees are doing production. Since it has “Capability Model”, “Assessment Model”, “Readiness Assessment”, and
social, technical, technological, and managerial effects in the orga- so on. The references of the articles were also reviewed. Conse-
nization, it should be managed from a holistic perspective (De la quently, it was determined that there are 18 MMs regarding the
Boutetière et al., 2018; Gökalp et al., 2021a; Henriette et al., 2016; development of MMs for the DX, smart manufacturing, and smart
Kagermann et al., 2013; Li, 2020; Verhoef et al., 2021) services domains. During the search, it was observed that there has
been a research stream investigating the subject in recent years,
2.2. Business process Capability/Maturity models and the MMs that are published extensively use the “maturity” (83
% of all studies) and “Industry 4.0” (61 % of all studies) keywords.
Process capability/maturity models (PCMMs) are developed Although there are no standard or published evaluation criteria for
to provide a guideline for the implementation of vital practices the scope of DX, we utilized the MM evaluation criteria used in
for organizational processes. These models have process capabil- (Özcan-Top and Demirors, 2019). Correspondingly, The 18 MMs,
ity/maturity levels, referring to the level of progress from ad hoc given in Table A1 in the Appendix A, were evaluated based on three
practices to established and measurable processes (Curtis et al., criteria:
2009). PCMMs provide the application of the model-based process
assessment. As a consequence of the process assessment, the cur- • C1- The MM should be published as an academic paper, which is
rent capability/maturity level of the process is determined, and a an indicator of the academic approach.
roadmap for the process capability/maturity level improvement • C2- The MM should include a detailed description of its compo-
to the next level is achieved (Röglinger et al., 2012). There are nents in order to provide a detailed analysis.
some criticisms about the concept of MMs oversimplifying real- • C3- The MM should be applicable across all sectors instead of
ity and lacking an empirical foundation (Benbasat et al., 1984); being domain-specific.
however, their benefits are demonstrated through several case
studies (Goldenson and Gibson, 2003; Isoherranen et al., 2015). The Although the number of existing MMs in the DX, smart man-
MM approach demonstrated significant advantages in quality and ufacturing, and smart services domains is not small, none in the
productivity issues. They improve the performance and quality of literature fully satisfied all of the evaluation criteria listed above.

2
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

MM1, MM2, and MM6 are published as a White Paper and do not tifying DX processes in the model. As a result of three consecutive
fulfil C1. There is no detailed description of the components of the sessions, DX processes retrieved from the literature were discussed
MM, and a preliminary MM is given in MM8, MM11, and MM14. in the first session; additional processes offered by the experts were
There is no maturity level defined in MM4, MM15, and MM18. The retrieved after some series of discussions in the second session,
assessment method is not described in MM3, MM5, MM10, and and all of DX processes were considered through a systematic and
MM16. The measurement attributes are not defined in MM7 and interactive meeting to resolve conflicts to reach a consensus on DX
MM17. Thus, these models do not satisfy the second criterion. Since processes and DX process groups in the last session. As a result
MM9 was developed for the telecommunications sector, MM12 of the expert panel, all experts agreed on the DX processes and
targets the supply chain sector, and MM13 targets Industry 4.0 DX process groups defined in the DX-CMM. After developing the
strategy, these models do not satisfy the third criterion. Although process definitions for the DX processes, and the measurement
all value-adding DX processes must be taken into consideration framework for capability and maturity level determination, the
using a holistic and integrated approach in order to benefit fully expert panel reviewed the developed DX-CMM and provided feed-
from DX, none of the existing MMs has a comprehensive and inte- back. Consequently, the development of the DX-CMM was finalized.
grated approach. Moreover, none have been developed based on a The third phase covers the validation of the model, with a multiple
well-established PCMM, and they do not aim to improve DX pro- case study being conducted in two organizations operating in two
cesses. Additionally, none of them gives full details of the model different industries in two countries with different DX adoption
for the application or provides an action plan for enabling maturity levels. The decisions made when developing the DX-CMM are high-
stage improvement. Taking all of these issues into account, it can lighted with grey boxes in Table 1. The DX-CMM needs to include
be said that there is a lack of research in this domain. Thus, we aim both management-oriented and technology-oriented constructs
to fill this research gap by developing an MM for the DX domain and need to focus on both management and technology-oriented
by satisfying all criteria used for the evaluation of MMs. It is devel- processes.
oped by applying a theoretically grounded development approach.
It is aimed to be applicable across all sectors and provide a detailed
description of its components. The details of the research method 4. The DX-CMM: the digital transformation capability
are given in the next section. maturity model

The aim of the proposed MM, the DX-CMM, is to improve the

3. Research method organization’s DX competencies in a structured way as a conse-
quence of the existing capability/maturity level assessment, and
The research method to develop an MM for the DX domain to provide a comprehensive roadmap for improvement. The DX-
consisted of three phases, as defined in Fig. 1. In the first phase, CMM was developed by customizing SPICE (ISO, 2015a, 2015b,
the organizations’ need for a clear roadmap for their DX journey 2015c, 2012, 2004b, 2004a, 2003), which comprises two dimen-
was identified. As a result of the evaluation of the existing studies sions, process and capability. The process dimension in SPICE
related to this need, it was determined that none of the current includes software-development process definitions; and the capa-
studies satisfies the requirements, and there is a research gap in bility dimension consists of process capability levels, which are,
this field. To fulfill this necessity, a solution approach, the develop- in turn, composed of process attributes (PA), including base prac-
ment of an MM for guiding organizations in their DX activities based tices (BPs) for Level 1 and generic practices (GPs) covering Level
on a well-established PCMM, SPICE, was determined. The theoreti- 2 to Level 5. Organizational maturity is also defined based on the
cal foundations of the development of the DX-CMM are detailed process set for each maturity level. The capability levels defined
explained in one of our previous studies (Gökalp and Martinez, in the SPICE measurement framework from level zero to level five
2021). have been developed to be appropriate universally to all processes
In the second phase the DX-CMM was developed by utilis- except for level-1 (performed) where the observable indicators are
ing the MM development framework proposed by De Bruin et al. different for each process, while all the PAs from level two to five
(2005) as the methodological foundation. The framework offers six are common for all processes. In the scope of this study, the process
steps; namely, scope, design, populate, test, deploy, and maintain, definition of 26 DX processes are developed, including level-1 pro-
to develop an MM in a structured manner. At the scope phase, the cess performance indicators as outcomes, base practices and work
scope of the model was determined. At the design phase, the struc- products. Thus, the DX processes capability level can be assessed
ture/architecture of the model was determined based on the criteria based on SPICE owing to these developed process definitions.
of the target audience, the method of application, and the driver of The DX-CMM has two dimensions, as seen in Fig. 2. The process
application, the respondents, and the application,which are defined dimension comprises process definitions for DX-related processes
in the MM development framework proposed by De Bruin et al. instead of software-development processes, while the capability
(2005) While the models’ dimensions and sub-dimensions, which dimension includes the same capability levels, PAs, BPs, and GPs
should be measured, were defined at the populate phase, the model defined in SPICE (ISO, 2012). The literature provides that the capa-
is validated in the test phase by indicating that the assessment bility dimension is applicable to all processes across all domains
result of the model is exact and repeatable. The multiple case (Automotive, 2010; Mc Caffery and Dorling, 2010; Mitasiunas and
study approach was utilized for validation of the MM. Following Novickis, 2011). Organizational DX maturity is also defined based
validation, the MM is made available at the deploy phase for gen- on the DX process set for each maturity level. The requirements
eralization and standardization of the MM. As a final step of the defined in SPICE, the set of standards of ISO 3300xx, were followed
maintain phase, the MM ensures its continued relevance through a for the development of the DX-CMM. ISO/IEC 33004 (ISO, 2015c)
longitudinal study. was used in the development of DX process definitions, as well as
The DX-CMM was developed by identifying DX processes, devel- the maturity levels of the DX-CMM; ISO/IEC 33003 (ISO, 2015e),
oping the process definitions for the DX processes, and developing ISO/IEC 33020 (ISO, 2015c), and ISO/IEC 15504-5 (ISO, 2012) were
the measurement framework for capability and maturity level used for the capability dimension of the DX-CMM; ISO/IEC 33002
determination. An expert panel comprising five senior academi- (ISO, 2015d) was utilized to perform process assessment; and
cians, one senior DX leader, and one senior executive member ISO/IEC 33014 (ISO, 2013) was used to generate a road-map for
working in the DX domain was formed for the purpose of iden- process improvement.

3
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Fig. 1. The Research Method.

4.1. The process dimension of the DX-CMM DX initiatives should include gearing up and aligning the strategy,
culture, workforce, and process gathering to embrace this rapidly
DX processes can be defined as a set of interrelated or interact- changing environment. As a result of the expert panel described
ing activities that transform inputs into outputs for the purpose of in the research method section, the process dimension of the DX-
enabling the DX of the organization. The literature review (De la CMM consists of 26 DX processes defined under 4 process groups
Boutetière et al., 2018; Kagermann et al., 2013) and survey results of strategic governance, information and technology, digital pro-
(Koch et al., 2014; Leaders, 2018) show that the most critical dimen- cess transformation, and workforce management, as seen in Fig. 3
sions of DX in organizations are organization strategy (Brynjolfsson (below). These DX processes are defined based on the requirements
and Hitt, 2000; Tao et al., 2017), upskilling of the workforce (Autor outlined in ISO/IEC 33004 (ISO, 2015c), which states that a process
et al., 2003; Fu et al., 2011; Morrison et al., 2008), and digital pro- definition should include the process name, purpose, outcomes,
cess transformation. DX is not just about technology: successful base practices, and output work products.

4
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Table 1
Decisions made when developing the DX-CMM (Adapted from the study of Mettler (Mettler, 2010, 2009).

4.1.1. Strategic governance software, data, and business process layers; management of infras-
The DX strategy needs to be led from the top, with a strong, clear, tructure such as as IoT devices, servers, and so on; collecting,
and inspiring vision of how emerging technologies can create a new storing, analyzing, and distributing data; management of data
future with shared value (Tao et al., 2017). Organizations should analytics; development of applications based on agile software
create their DX roadmap, which is generated based on their vision. development principles; and IT security management. These pro-
The portfolio should be designed based on the strategic objectives, cesses are all fundamental to the DX journeys of organizations.
enterprise worth, and risk. The projects should be managed by
identifying, establishing, and controlling DX activities. Finding the
most appropriate supplier and maintaining the relationship is also 4.1.3. Digital process transformation
essential in the DX journey. This includes digitalization of business processes through tech-
nology to cut costs and increase productivity; integration of
4.1.2. Information and technology processes at different intra-company, and inter-company, levels,
An IT strategy should be developed that is aligned with the as well as across the entire value chain; establishing and maintain-
organization’s DX strategy for migration to the desired future ing a quantitative management of processes; improvement of the
environment. The IT requirements for each DX project should process performance; and data-driven decision-making, enabling
be defined: the development, integration, and maintenance of machines to autonomously adapt to the predicted status. These are
a standardized enterprise architecture (EA), including hardware, all essential dimensions in the DX journey of organizations.

Fig. 2. Dimensions of the DX-CMM.

5
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Fig. 3. DX Process Categories.

Fig. 4. Process Capability Levels (Adapted from SPICE).

4.1.4. Workforce management 0: Incomplete, to Level 5: Innovating. The PAs at each capability
Cultural change should be implemented before the process level are shown in Fig. 4 (below).
transformation begins. Human resources (HR) skills development,
organizational structure management, sustainable learning man- 4.3. Organizational digital transformation maturity
agement, and organizational change management are all essential
for the DX journey of organizations. Organizational DX maturity is the extent to which a firm con-
sistently implements DX processes to achieve the desired level
4.2. The capability dimension of achievement of DX maturity, which is evaluated by assessing
achievement of the specified process capability levels for a defined
The capability dimension, which is applicable to any process, profile of processes, as set out in an MM. Organizational DX matu-
was adapted from SPICE (ISO, 2012). It includes six levels, from Level rity is evaluated concerning process capability in a staged manner.

6
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Fig. 5. The DX-CMM Maturity Levels.

It is fundamental to understand that successful DXs occur step- The developed EA is integrated, and organizational change is man-
by-step. The DX-CMM provides a roadmap, including all related aged at this level.
dimensions, with a staged approach that relies upon a sequence of Level 4: Predictable – The quantitative techniques begin to be
capability levels, from the basic necessities to the continuous adap- applied to the collected real-time data for products, services, or
tation for DX. Each level builds on the previous one. Fig. 5 shows processes. Horizontal integration, which is the integration across
that the model has six maturity levels, from Level 0 to Level 5. networks at the business level, is established. Data analytics are
Level 0: Incomplete – The DX initiative has not yet started. applied.
Level 1: Performed – The DX initiative has been started. The Level 5: Innovating – The organization uses the collected data
vision of DX exists, and the roadmap for the transition strategy for continuous improvement, innovative culture is established, and
has been developed, but it has not been entirely implemented. The dynamic cooperation and increasing transparency, by extending
portfolio consisting of the DX projects that have been identified, operational visibility with automated and seamless information
evaluated, prioritized, and authorized is created. Additionally, a exchange among the network, are enabled.
department or group is assigned to carry out DX. Workforce skill The relationships between organizational DX maturity level and
necessities are determined, and corresponding training starts to be DX process capability level are illustrated in Fig. 6. To give an
acquired in the company. example, at Organizational Maturity Level 1, the processes of SG1.
Level 2: Managed – DX is managed at this level, at which the Digital Transformation Strategy Development, SG2. Portfolio Man-
digital shadow of physical items begins to be created. This concept agement, WM1. HR Skills Development, and WM2. Organizational
is also known as Digital Twin, which serves as a bridge between Structure Management are assessed. The capability level of these
the physical world and the digital world (Qi and Tao, 2018; Tao processes should be Level 1: Performed to satisfy the requirement
et al., 2018). This requires the performance of several complemen- of being Organizational DX Maturity Level 1. At Organizational
tary processes. Existing business processes are digitized through Maturity Level 2, the processes of DPT1. Business Process Digi-
technology; the IT department publishes an IT strategy to migrate talization, SG3. Project Management, SG4. Financial Resources and
to the demanded future environment stated in the organization’s Supplier Management, IT1. IT Strategy Management, IT2. Require-
DX strategy; DX-related projects are started; feasibility analysis of ment Definition, IT3. Enterprise Architecture Development, IT4.
the projects is performed, pilot studies are conducted, and require- Infrastructure Management, IT5. Data Governance, IT6. Agile Soft-
ments are defined for each project; the acquisition of IoT devices, ware Development, and IT7. Security Management, as well as the
hardware, and software has begun, and the vendor relationship processes assessed at Maturity Level 1 (SG1, SG2, WM1, WM2), are
is managed; the requirements and needs of the enterprise archi- evaluated. The capability level of these processes should be Level
tecture (EA), consisting of the business process, information, data, 2: Managed, to satisfy the requirement of being at Organizational
application, and technology architecture layers are identified, and DX Maturity Level 2. At Organizational Maturity Level 3, the pro-
standards, guidelines, procedures are defined; and, finally, infras- cesses of IT8. Enterprise Architecture Integration, DPT2. Business
tructure, data governance, software development, and the security Processes Vertical Integration, WM3. Organizational Change Man-
of the information systems are managed. agement, and WM4. Sustainable Learning Management, as well as
Level 3: Established – DX is established robustly at this level. the processes assessed at Maturity Level 2 (SG1, SG2, WM1, WM2,
Key processes are well defined and consistent with correspond- DPT1, SG3, SG4, IT1, IT2, IT3, IT4, IT5, IT6, IT7), are assessed. The
ing standardization. Vertical integration, including intra-company capability level of these processes should be Level 3: Established,
integration of IoT devices, up to enterprise resource planning or to satisfy the requirement of being at Organizational DX Maturity
customer requirement management systems, has been achieved. Level 3. At Organizational Maturity Level 4, the processes of DPT3.
Business Processes Horizontal Integration, DPT4. Data-Driven Deci-

7
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Fig. 6. The Relationships Between Maturity Levels and Capability Levels.

sion Management, DPT5. Quantitative Performance Management, of the outputs, and so on, is produced and approved by the organi-
IT9. Data Analytics, and IT10. Enterprise Architecture Maintenance, zation.
are assessed. The capability level of these processes should be at
Level 3: Established, to satisfy the requirement of being at Organiza-
tional DX Maturity Level 4: Predictable, and the previous processes 4.4.3. Step 3: assess current DX maturity level
capability level should stay at Level 3. At Organizational Maturity The assessment is conducted by the assessment team, one of
Level 5, the processes of DPT6. Self-Optimized Decision Manage- whom is a competent SPICE assessor. The team follows ISO/IEC
ment, DPT7. Business Process Integration Toward Life Cycle, and 33002 (ISO, 2015d) for process assessment procedures, including
DPT8. Quantitative Process Improvement are assessed. The capa- data collection and data validation techniques. The team collects
bility level of these processes should be at Level 3. Established, and data by conducting semi-structured interviews with process own-
the previous processes capability levels should stay at Level 3. to ers and investigating processes’ work products, such as documents,
satisfy the requirement of being Organizational DX Maturity Level tools, and mail, for example. After completing data collection, the
5: Innovating. team analyzes and synthesizes them to rate BPs, GPs, and PAs,
and correspondingly to determine the current capability levels,
strengths, and weaknesses of the DX processes and DX maturity
4.4. The DX maturity level assessment process level of the organization. Finally, the team documents the assess-
ment report containing these results.
The DX maturity level improvement life cycle is shown in Fig. 7. ISO/IEC 33003(ISO, 2015e), ISO/IEC 33020 (ISO, 2015c), and
The details are as follows. ISO/IEC 15504-5 (ISO, 2012) are followed for rating and capabil-
ity level determination. To perform a Level-1 assessment, PA 1.1.,
4.4.1. Step 1: examine the organization’s business goals focusing on the performing process, is assessed by checking the BPs
As a result of the examination of the organizational strategy, the described in the DX process definitions. To perform process assess-
need to improve the DX maturity level of the organization is deter- ments from Level 2 to Level 5, the GPs defined in SPICE are used.
mined. Then, initiation of the DX maturity improvement project is The PAs are rated based on the ratings of the corresponding BPs and
decided in the organization. GPs. The four-point rating scale is used for rating BPs, GPs, and PAs.
The rating shows the extent of the achievement: if the achievement
level is between 86 % and 100 %, it is rated as Fully Achieved (F.A.);
4.4.2. Step 2: initiate DX maturity improvement if it is between 51 % and 85 %, it is rated as Largely Achieved (L.A.);
The assessment team is constructed, and the assessment plan, if it is between 16 % and 50 %, it is rated as Partially Achieved (P.A.);
including the assessment team, interview schedules, delivery dates and if it is between 0 % and 15 % of achievement, the rating is Not

8
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Fig. 7. DX Maturity Level Improvement Cycle.

Achieved (N.A.). The rating of PA is determined based on its BPs and ops an action plan, including work packages, assigned people, and
GPs ratings, and the capability level of the process is determined schedules by considering their specific circumstances.
based on its PA ratings: if all PAs below Level X are rated as F.A.,
and the PAs at Level X are rated as F.A. or L.A., the capability level of
4.4.5. Step 5: improve the DX maturity level
the process will be determined as Level X, as defined in SPICE. For
This step, including implementation of the action plan, confirm-
instance, if the rating of PA 1.1 is identified as N.A., the capability
ing and sustaining improvements is long-lasting. It often covers a
level of the process will be Level 0; if the rating of PA 1.1. is deter-
period of one year. As a consequence of completing this step, the
mined as L.A., the capability level of the process will be identified as
following improvement cycle can be initiated.
Level 1; if the rating of PA 1.1. is determined as FA, and PA 2.1 and
PA 2.2 are assessed as L.A., the capability level of the process will
be identified as Level 2. The DX maturity level of the organization 5. Implementation of the DX-CMM
is determined based on the process capability levels, as defined in
the section on organizational DX maturity. A multiple case study was conducted following the protocol
template of Yin (2013).
4.4.4. Step 4: analyze results and derive an action plan
ISO/IEC 33014 (ISO, 2013) was used to generate a roadmap • The objective of the case study was to investigate if the DX-CMM
for process improvement. As a consequence of process capability could be used for assessment of the current DX maturity level and
level determination, process improvement opportunities are deter- the derivation of a roadmap for improvement.
mined and prioritized for the establishment of an order of execution • The research questions (RQs), defined according to the above
of the action plan in the assessment report. The organization devel- objective, were:

9
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

o RQ How does the DX-CMM identify organizations’ current DX is used to describe the company in this study, for the purpose of
maturity level and gaps and provide roadmaps for DX maturity confidentiality.
improvement? Case-2: The chemical company produces beauty care and laun-
• The design type of the case study was multiple cases because it dry and home care products, employing around 53,000 people
was applied in two companies in two different industries in two worldwide. The data was collected from three different people: the
countries with different DX adoption levels to assess their 26 DX DX specialist, the IT manager, and the data scientist. The total dura-
processes. tion of the interviews was three hours. The term “The Chemical
• The measures used in the research were the DX maturity level of Company” is used to describe the company in this study.
the organizations. To identify the DX maturity level, the capability
levels of the DX processes performed in the organizations had to
be determined. 5.2.1. Step 1: examine the organization’s business goals
• Field procedure, data collection, and limitations were based on These include the organizational strategy documents, includ-
SPICE. ISO/IEC 33002 (ISO, 2015d) was followed to ensure the per- ing DX maturity improvement; the top management supports this
formance of assessment, consisting of activities for assessment improvement in the two companies. Thus, the initiation of the DX
planning, data collection, ratings, and reporting assessment, in a maturity improvement project was decided in each of the organiza-
standardized manner. tions. We checked the company reports, and additional information
• The objectivity of the judgment: To overcome the effects of sub- was requested from the interviewees.
jectivity and reduce uncertainty in the results, the DX-CMM had
explicit indicators and a hierarchical bottom-up approach for rat-
5.2.2. Step 2: initiate DX maturity improvement
ing. As a first step, as defined in the section on the DX maturity
The assessment team was constructed, and the assessment
level assessment process, BPs and GPs were rated as Not Achieved
plan, including the assessment team members, interview sched-
(N.A.), Partially Achieved (P.A.), Largely Achieved (L.A.), and Fully
ules, delivery dates of the outputs, and so on, was produced and
Achieved (F.A.). Then, based on these ratings, corresponding pro-
approved by the organizations.
cess attributes (PAs) were rated as N.A., P.A., L.A., and F.A., After
that, process capability levels were determined based on the rat-
ings of PAs, and lastly, the DX maturity level was determined 5.2.3. Step 3: assess current DX maturity level
based on the capability levels of the processes assigned to each The meetings with each organization occurred over two
maturity level. Moreover, the necessity to prepare an assessment separate days to conduct the DX maturity level assessment. Semi-
report, including pieces of evidence, reduced subjectivity. structured interviews, as well as investigating direct evidence, were
used for data collection. The collected data was analyzed to deter-
5.1. Design of the case study mine the DX maturity level of the organization. The findings were
documented in the assessment reports.
The multiple case study was designed to cover the following The interviews were recorded during the meeting, then tran-
activities: scribed and mapped onto each BP and GP in the model for rating.
The Level-1 assessment was executed by checking if the BPs given
(a) Preparation: Development of the data collection templates, in the process definitions were performed. The ratings were done
preparing semi-structured interview questions, and the post- based on evidence gathered as follows: F.A., L.A., P.A., and N.A as
assessment survey questions to be used for collecting feedback. defined in the section on the DX maturity level assessment process.
(b) Case Selection and Planning: Selecting organizations to be able As an example, the rating in Level 1 of the digital transformation
to observe all patterns in DX processes and DX maturity levels. strategy development process in The Machine Company is given in
Managing the interactions with case organizations about the Table A2. in the Appendix A. As is illustrated, PA 1.1 was rated as
assessment plan, including assessment schedules and partici- L.A. (Largely Achieved) based on the BPs ratings. For the assessment
pants. of PAs from PA 2.1 to PA 5.2, the GPs provided by SPICE were used
(c) Assessments and Data Collection: DX maturity level assessment, and rated, as defined in (ISO, 2015c, 2012, 2004a). These capabil-
and collecting data via semi-structured interviews and investi- ity level assessments were carried out for 26 DX processes in each
gating direct shreds of evidence, such as documents, records, IT organization. Detailed information about the evaluations was given
strategy, plans, tools used, and metrics collected. To triangulate in the assessment reports (University of Cambridge, Institute for
data in each case, conducting interviews with at least three peo- Manufacturing, 2019; University of Cambridge, 2020).
ple from different roles, such as the head of the DX department,
IT manager, process quality manager, DX project manager, and
HR manager. 6. Results and discussions
(d) Analysis: Transcribing the voice records of the interviews, inves-
tigating the direct evidence, and analyzing the data to develop A process capability level is determined as Level X if the ratings
the assessment reports. of all PAs below Level X are F.A., and the ratings of PA(s) at Level
(e) Validation of the Findings: Sharing the assessment results and X are rated as F.A. or L.A., as defined before. Process capability lev-
discussing with interviewees to obtain their feedback and els were determined for The Machine Company and The Chemical
determine if any revision was necessary on the reports. Company, as shown in Tables A3 and A4 in the Appendix A. For
example, the capability level of the digital transformation strategy
5.2. Case study conduct development process is Level 3 in The Chemical Company, since PA
1.1., PA 2.1, and PA 2.2. are rated as F.A. and PA 3.1 and PA 3.2 are
The DX-CMM was applied in two organizations. rated as L.A. Still, the software development process is performed
Case-1: The machine production company has 255 employees by the sub-contractors; the assessment of this process is assessed as
and is located in the UK. Interviews were conducted with three Not Applicable, since the company outsources it. The improvement
people: the head of the DX department, the IT manager, and the opportunities related to this process are also given in the assess-
quality manager. The duration of the interviews for each person ment report (University of Cambridge, Institute for Manufacturing,
was approximately one hour. The term “The Machine Company” 2019, 2020).

10
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

6.1. Organizational DX maturity level assessment

After performing the DX Maturity Level-1 assessment, as can

be seen below, the requirements of being at DX Maturity Level 1,
being at a process capability level of Level 1 for the processes of Dig-
ital Transformation Strategy Development, Portfolio Management,
HR Skills Development, and Organizational Structure Management,
are satisfied in both companies. Therefore, a Level-2 assessment
could be continued for both of them. They developed a DX strategy
and roadmap by conducting value-mapping workshops and gap
analysis, created a portfolio for DX projects, had an organizational
unit for DX management, and provided some DX-related training
to improve their HR skills (Fig. 8).
When we continued to assess Maturity Level 2, it was evident
that, although the requirements of being at DX Maturity Level 2
are not satisfied in The Machine Company, they are satisfied in The
Chemical Company, as seen in Fig. 9. Thus, the DX maturity level Fig. 8. Organizational Maturity Assessment – Level 1.
of The Machine Company was determined as being Level 1, and
the capability level of the processes, rated below Level 2, should be
improved to at least Level 2 to improve the DX maturity level of the A DX Maturity Level 3 assessment was performed, and it was
organization from Level 1 to Level 2. The gap analysis to move to observed that the requirements of being at DX Maturity Level 3 are
Maturity Level 2 is shown in Fig. 12. Meanwhile, an assessment for satisfied in The Chemical Company, as seen in Fig. 10. Thus, a DX
the next maturity level could be done for The Chemical Company. Maturity Level 4 assessment could be conducted.

Fig. 9. Organizational Maturity Assessment – Level 2.

11
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Fig. 10. Organizational Maturity Assessment – Level 3.

To achieve Maturity Level 4, all processes assigned to Matu- 6.1.1. Step 4: analyze results and derive an action plan
rity Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 will achieve Process Capability Level The strong and weak points of the DX processes of the organi-
3 or higher. As seen in Fig. 11 (below), the requirements for zations were identified depending on the assessment findings in
Organizational Maturity Level 4 are not satisfied in The Chem- this step. Improvement opportunities were identified based on the
ical Company. To fulfill this, the business processes horizontal identified weak points of the DX processes for each case. The aim
integration process should be improved from Level 1 to Level was to achieve FA in the BPs and GPs to improve their capability
3, and quantitative performance management and EA mainte- levels to the next levels.
nance processes should be improved from Level 2 to Level 3. After For The Machine Company, the DX maturity level of the orga-
completing these four process improvements, the organizational nization was determined as being Level 1. The transformation
maturity level of the organization will be at Level 4. Thus, the DX was then initiated in the company. There was a DX roadmap
maturity level of The Chemical Company is determined as being for the short term (one year). The portfolio consists of eight DX
Level 3. projects that provide good results in a short amount of time with
For The Machine Company, the DX maturity level was deter- a low budget. Moreover, a DX department was established in the
mined as being Level 1. The gap analysis to move to Maturity Level organization, although the number of employees working in the
2 is shown in Fig. 12. All processes seen in the figure should be department was only three. Lastly, there was a process manage-
improved to Level 2. ment culture in the organization; thus, the DX-related projects
For The Chemical Company, the DX maturity level was deter- can be easily defined and established. On the other hand, there
mined as being Level 3. To achieve the highest DX maturity level was a long DX journey facing the company to achieve the high-
of Level 5, The Chemical Company should first satisfy the require- est DX maturity level. As a starting point, the organization should
ment of being at Maturity Level 4, and then improve the capability focus on the DX processes defined at Level 2. For example, devel-
level of the processes of self-optimized decision management and opment of the DX strategy document for the long-term vision,
business process integration toward product life cycle from Level the acquisition of DX-related training, the development of plans
0: Incomplete to Level 3 (Fig. 13). for DX projects, and development of the IT strategy, including the

12
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Fig. 11. Organizational Maturity Assessment – Level 4.

operational environment, enterprise architecture (business, infor- specific data. The data analytics tools currently in use are showing
mation, data, applications, and technology domains), enterprise improvements on the overall productivity and service quality.
culture, and current challenges can be taken into consideration On the other hand, horizontal integration, including integration
as beginning steps. A total of 122 improvement opportunities for across networks at the business level, has not yet been achieved,
DX maturity improvement from Level 1 to Level 2 were defined and the functionalities of whole enterprises have not been inte-
in the assessment report (University of Cambridge, Institute for grated either. Additionally, self-optimized decision-making of the
Manufacturing, 2019). Example Assessment Results for Two Pro- machines has not yet been performed. The guideline, including 84
cesses in the Machine Company is given in Table A5 in the Appendix DX process improvement opportunities prepared mainly for the
A. company, will help to enable dynamic cooperation and increasing
The initiatives highlighted in red suggest high priority, which transparency by extending operational visibility across the supply
means they should be done as a first step to improve the relative chain with automated and seamless information exchange within
process. The blue ones, having medium priority, should be done as the network. Example improvement opportunities are given in
a second step, and the grey ones, having low priority, should be Table A6 in the Appendix A.
done after completing the previous ones.
The overall DX maturity was scored at Level 3 in The Chemical
Company. This means that DX is robust at this level. Key processes
are well defined and consistent with corresponding standardiza-
tion. Vertical integration, including intra-company integration of 6.1.2. Step 5: improve the DX maturity level
IoT devices, up to enterprise resource planning, customer require- Performing activities stated as improvement opportunities in
ment management, or supply chain management systems, has been the assessment reports, sustaining these improvements, and mon-
achieved. Developed EA is integrated, and organizational change is itoring them is a long-lasting step. Following confirmation of the
managed at this level. The quantitative techniques are starting to sustainability of the improvements, the current improvement iter-
be applied to the collected real-time product–service or process- ation will be finished, and a new cycle of DX maturity assessment
can be started.

13
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Fig. 12. DX Maturity Level Gap Analysis for The Machine Company.

Fig. 13. DX Maturity Level Gap Analysis for The Chemical Company.

6.2. Analysis of the model’s applicability (RQ) explained. They declared that the main benefit of the assessment
was understanding the necessity for the assessment and improve-
The DX maturity level assessment results were shared in a meet- ment of DX maturity; they also reported that they will focus on
ing with the DX stakeholders in the organizations. The ratings for following the guideline for DX maturity improvement and on uti-
each BP, GP, PA, process capability level, and organization DX matu- lizing the same approach for future process improvement cycles.
rity level, and also evidence for the evaluations, were described. To investigate the usefulness and adequacy of the DX-CMM, we
The developed roadmap for DX maturity improvement was also conducted a post-assessment survey with all of the participants

14
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Fig. 14. DX Maturity Comparison of The Machine Company and The Chemical Company.

following the meetings. The open-ended structured questionnaire essential, but commitment drives the budget. At the moment, in
was used for the interviews, which lasted approximately ten min- The Machine Company, there is an attempt to transition to DX: the
utes. vision of DX exists but it is not fully implemented. They are strug-
Q1. Are measuring DX maturity level and achieving a guideline gling with people’s commitment levels, and they do not consider
for DX maturity level improvement useful? (5-point Likert-type training to be essential. They can also face organizational change
scale): Response is 4 in the median. management problems during the implementation of DX projects.
Q2. Do you think that the application of these suggestions There is a long DX journey facing the company to achieve the high-
will improve the DX maturity level? (5-point Likert-type scale): est DX maturity level.
Response is 4 in the median.
Q3. Is there any information you want to add to the DX-CMM? 6.4. Mitigation of threats to validity
Please write, if any. (Open-ended): “No”
Q4. Is there any missing item in the guideline for DX maturity The qualitative data, used in the multiple case study approach,
improvement? Please write, if any. (Open-ended): “The suggested might create some validity concerns. In order to mitigate threats
actions are useful in the identification of ‘what’ to improve [in that might have an effect on the internal, construct, and external
order] to increase the maturity level. Future work might seek to validity and reliability, the following activities were performed.
develop/expand on the ‘how’ to achieve these improvements.”
6.4.1. Internal validity
6.3. Cross-case comparison Detailed question sets at different granularity levels for each DX
process were developed, the data was collected from at least three
One of the logical bases for selecting the cases was to be able to people in order to triangulate it, and different sources for direct
observe a rating for each DX process capability level and DX matu- evidence were used to overcome the threats to internal validity.
rity level of the organizations. The two industrial manufacturers’ DX Moreover, the utilization of a multiple case study approach was
journeys are quite different, and their ambitions regarding DX are critical to mitigating this threat. A logical chain of data collection
different. They experienced different DX journeys, reflecting differ- was designed and implemented, the detailed collected data was
ent maturity levels. The DX maturity comparison of The Machine stated in the assessment reports, as well as being validated by the
Company and The Chemical Company is shown in Fig. 14. It was stakeholders in the organizations.
observed that, although the DX initiative started just three years
ago, with four employees working in the DX department in The 6.4.2. Construct validity
Chemical Company, they made a significant achievement in this To overcome this threat, related to the objectivity of the con-
limited amount of time. The reasons behind this achievement are structs, the data collection was performed with different people
commitment, HR skills development, and financial resource allo- and different sources; the interviews were recorded and tran-
cation. There is a particular unit for upskilling, they perform the scribed; BPs, GPs, and PAs were rated objectively using the
training process in a well-established way, and they manage orga- four-point ordinal scale of SPICE, including N.A., P.A., L.A., and F.A.;
nizational change by training and empowering people. Budget is and the results were evaluated objectively.

15
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

6.4.3. External validity and capability. The process dimension consists of 26 DX processes
The cases were selected from different sectors, with different defined under 4 process groups: strategic governance, digital pro-
sizes, and from different countries in order to increase the gen- cess transformation, workforce management, and information and
eralizability of the results. As the DX-CMM has been designed technology management. The capability dimension, adapted from
independently of the sector, it is intended to observe its applicabil- SPICE, has six capability and six maturity levels.
ity in different circumstances. The assessment team did not observe The application and usability of the DX-CMM were verified by
any difficulty or difference during the application. The model was the multiple case study in this study. The DX-CMM and the method
first applied to The Machine Company; and subsequently the repli- for conducting DX maturity assessment were explained, and the
cation material was applied to The Chemical Company. It was results of a multiple case study analysis based on two different
ensured that the replication logic was executed consistently and organizations were given. The results of the analysis show that
resulted in similar findings and conclusions in the same or different the DX-CMM is capable of identifying DX maturity improvement
organizations. opportunities at different organizational DX maturity levels and
is successful at providing a guideline for moving the DX maturity
6.4.4. Reliability level one step further. The post-assessment survey results show
Reliability problems are related to ensuring that other people that the approach to assessment of DX maturity level and achieve-
can conduct the same study utilizing the methodology. In order to ment of a roadmap for improvement is useful, and all suggestions
prevent these problems, the case study protocol by Yin (Yin, 2013) for DX maturity improvement given in the assessment reports will
was followed to identify the objectives, RQs, design, and data col- improve the DX performance of the organizations. To this end, it can
lection of the case study in a structured way, and the assessment be asserted that the DX-CMM proposes a baseline for starting and
methodology defined in the DX-CMM in detail was also followed. sustaining a continuous improvement life cycle for DX processes in
Moreover, the replication material of the case study was prepared a well-structured way. It provides an evaluation of the current state
and executed in different organizations. It was determined that of DX maturity in detail, and the generation of a feasible improve-
consistent outputs were produced through multiple implementa- ment guideline for moving one DX maturity level further, as well as
tions. benchmarking organizations evaluated using the same approach.
The Machine Company has realized the importance of HR skills
7. Conclusion improvement, while initiating DX in the company; and The Chem-
ical Company has understood that DX is a never-ending cycle that
In this study, it was determined that none of the existing MMs seeks to maintain continuous improvement.
within the DX domain fully satisfied the defined criteria: pub- One of the limitations of this research is generalizability, because
lishing as an academic paper, including a detailed description of of the limited number of case studies. Additional case studies with
its components, and being applicable across all sectors. None of different sectors, countries, and DX adoption levels are needed to
the existing MMs has a comprehensive and integrated approach increase generalizability. Future studies would include additional
applicable across all sectors. Additionally, they are not developed case studies and the development of a self-assessment tool for use
based on a well-established process capability maturity model, by employees or organizations to evaluate themselves, observing
they do not aim to improve the DX processes, and do not determine any weaknesses and improving DX maturity on their own.
the DX maturity level of the organization based on the capability
level of the processes. Moreover, none of them gives full details Author statement
of the model for the application or provides an action plan for
enabling maturity stage improvement. To fulfill these require- Ebru Gökalp: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, For-
ments, the DX-CMM, having a holistic and integrated approach mal analysis, Writing - Original Draft, Visualization
applicable across all sectors, was developed based on a well- Veronica Martinez: Conceptualization, Writing - Review & Edit-
established process capability maturity model, SPICE, by applying ing, Supervision
the MM development framework proposed by De Bruin et al. (2005)
to assist organizations by providing current capability/maturity Appendix A
determination, derivation of a gap analysis, and creation of a com-
prehensive roadmap. The DX-CMM, has two dimensions of process Table A7

16
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Table A1
The Existing MMs in DX/Smart Production/Smart Service Domain.

MM# The MM Dimensions Levels

MM1 The connected enterprise maturity model – 1 Assessment

(Automation, 2014) 2 Secure and upgraded
network and controls
3 Defined and organized
working data capital
4 Analytics
5 Collaboration

MM2 The digital maturity model 4.0 (Gill and - -Culture 1 Skeptics
VanBoskirk, 2016) - -Organization 2 Adopters
- -Technology Insights 3 Collaborators
4 Differentiators

MM3 IMPULS – Industrie 4.0 readiness (Lichtblau - -Strategy and organization 1 Outsider
et al., 2015) -Smart factory -Smart 2 Beginner
operations -Smart products 3 Intermediate
- -Data-driven services 4 Experienced
- -Employees 5 Expert
6 Top performer

MM4 A maturity model Industry 4.0 readiness - -Product –

(Schumacher et al., 2016) - -Customers
- -Operations
- -Technology
- -Strategy
- -Leadership
- -Governance
- -Culture
- -People

MM5 System integration maturity model Industry - -Vertical Integration 2 Basic Digitization
4.0 – SIMMI 4.0 (Leyh et al., 2017, 2016) - -Horizontal Integration 3 Cross-Departmental
- -Digital Product Digitization
Development 4 Horizontal and Vertical
- -Cross-Sectional Technology Digitization
Criteria 5 Full Digitization
6 Optimized Full Digitization

MM6 Industrie 4.0 maturity index – Acatech (Schuh - -Resources 1 Computerization

et al., 2017) - -Information systems 2 Connectivity
- -Organizational structure 3 Visibility
- -Culture 4 Transparency
5 Predictive capability
6 Adaptability

MM7 DREAMY – Digital readiness assessment - -Process, 1 Initial

maturity model (De Carolis et al., 2017a, b) - -Monitoring and Control, 2 Managed
- -Technology 3 Defined
- -Organization 4 Integrated and Interoperable
5 Digital-oriented

MM8 Three-stage maturity model in SMEs toward - -Vision 1 Initial

Industry 4.0 (Ganzarain and Errasti, 2016) - -Roadmap 2 Managed
- -Projects 3 Defined
4 Transform
5 Detailed BM

MM9 A digital maturity model for - -Strategy 1 Not started

telecommunications service providers - -Organization 2 Initiating
(Valdez-de-Leon, 2016) - -Customer 3 Enabling
- -Technology 4 Integrating
- -Operations 5 Optimizing
- -Ecosystem 6 Pioneering
- -Innovation

MM10 Industry 4.0 – MM (Gökalp et al., 2017; Şener - -Asset Management, Level 0 Incomplete
et al., 2019) - -Data Governance, Level 1 Performed
- -Application Management, Level 2 Managed
- -Process Transformation, Level 3 Established
- -Organizational Alignment Level 4 Predictable
Level 5 Optimizing

17
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Table A1 (Continued)

MM# The MM Dimensions Levels

MM11 A smart manufacturing maturity model for - -Finance 1 Novice

SMEs (SM3E) (Mittal et al., 2018) - -People 2 Beginner
- -Strategy 3 Learner
- -Process 4 Intermediate
- -Product 5 Expert

MM12 DPMM 4.0 – Industry 4.0 maturity model for - -Order processing Based on SIMMI 4.0
the delivery process in supply chains (Asdecker - -Warehousing
and Felch, 2018) - -Shipping

MM13 Maturity and readiness model for Industry 4.0 - -Smart products and services Absence
strategy (Akdil et al., 2018) - -Smart business processes Existence
- -Strategy Survival
- -Organization Maturity

MM14 A preliminary maturity model for leveraging - -People 1 Connected technologies

digitalization in manufacturing (Sjödin et al., - -Process 2 Structured data
2018) - -Technology 3 gathering and sharing
4 Real-time process
5 analytics and optimization
6 Smart, predictable
manufacturing

MM15 A model for assessing the maturity of Industry - -Products and services 1 Initial
4.0 in the banking sector (Bandara et al., 2019) - -Technology and Resources 2 Managed
- -Strategy and organisation 3 Defined
- -Operations 4 Established
- -Customers 5 Digital Oriented
- -Governance
- -Employees

MM16 IMA – Infrastructure maturity assessment - -Transport 1 Administrative

(Williams et al., 2019) - -Collaboration 2 Tactical
- -Security 3 Fixed
- -Mobility 4 Mobile
- -Data Center 5 Externalized
6 Integrated
7 Contextualized
8 Orchestrated

MM17 A maturity assessment approach for - -Governance 1 None

conceiving context-specific roadmaps in the - -Technology 2 Basic 2.Transparent 3.Aware
Industry 4.0 era (Colli et al., 2019, 2018) - -Connectivity 4.Autonomous 5.Integrated
- -Value creation
- -Competences

MM18 Roadmapping toward industrial digitalization - -Technology -Products –

based on an Industry 4.0 maturity model for - -Customers and Partners
manufacturing enterprises (Schumacher et al., - -Value Creation Processes
2019) - -Data & Information
-Corporate Standards
- -Employees Strategy and
Leadership

Table A2
Capability Level 1 Assessment of Digital Transformation Strategy Development Process in The Machine Company.

Base Practices (BPs) Rate of BP Rate of PA 1.1

SG.SD.BP.01. Evaluate the business and market L.A.

SG.SD.BP.02. Analyze the current situation of the company F.A.
SG.SD.BP.03. Define the target situation of the company (i.e., value mapping, business model innovation) F.A.
SG.SD.BP.04. Conduct a gap analysis L.A. L.A. (Largely Achieved)
SG.SD.BP.05. Define company-specific DX strategy and roadmap L.A.
SG.SD.BP.06. Communicate the DX strategy and direction with all related parties F.A.
SG.SD.BP.07. Publish the vision and strategy document F.A.

18
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Table A3
Capability Level Assessments of DX Processes in The Machine Company.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Process Capability

Process
Level
PA 1.1 PA 2.1 PA 2.2 PA 3.1 PA 3.2

Digital Transformation Strategy Development L.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 1

Portfolio Management L.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 1
Project Management P.A. – – – – Level 0
Financial Resources and Supplier Management P.A. – – – – Level 0
IT Strategy Management P.A. – – – – Level 0
Requirement Definition P.A. – – – – Level 0
Enterprise Architecture Development L.A. – – – – Level 1
Infrastructure Management L.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 1
Data Governance L.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 1
Agile Software Development N.A. – – – – Level 0
Enterprise Architecture Integration N.A. – – – – Level 0
Data Analytics P.A. – – – – Level 0
Enterprise Architecture Maintenance N.A. – – – – Level 0
Security Management L.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 1
Business Process Digitalization P.A. – – – – Level 0
Business Processes Vertical Integration L.A. L.A. L.A. −. – Level 1
Business Processes Horizontal Integration P.A. – – – – Level 0
Quantitative Performance Management P.A. – – – – Level 0
Data-Driven Decision Management N.A. – – – – Level 0
Quantitative Process Improvement N.A. – – – – Level 0
Self-Optimized Decision Management N.A. – – – – Level 0
Business Process Integration Toward Product Life Cycle N.A. – – – – Level 0
HR Skills Development L.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 1
Organizational Structure Management F.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 2
Sustainable Learning Management P.A. – – – – Level 0
Organizational Change Management L.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 1

Table A4
Capability Level Assessments of DX Processes in The Chemical Company.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Process Capability

Process
Level
PA 1.1 PA 2.1 PA 2.2 PA 3.1 PA 3.2 PA 4.1 PA 4.2

Digital Transformation Strategy Development F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 3
Portfolio Management F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 3
Project Management F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 3
Financial Resources and Supplier Management F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 3
IT Strategy Management F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 3
Requirement Definition F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 3
Enterprise Architecture Development F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 3
Infrastructure Management F.A. F.A. F.A. F.A. F.A. P.A. P.A. Level 3
Data Governance F.A. F.A. F.A. F.A. F.A. P.A. N.A. Level 3
Agile Software Development Not Applicable Not Applicable
Enterprise Architecture Integration F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 3
Data Analytics F.A. F.A. FA L.A. L.A. – – Level 3
Enterprise Architecture Maintenance F.A. F.A. L.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 2
Security Management F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 3
Business Process Digitalization F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 3
Business Processes Vertical Integration F.A. F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. – – Level 3
Business Processes Horizontal Integration F.A. L.A. P.A. – – – – Level 1
Quantitative Performance Management F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 3
Data-Driven Decision Management F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 3
Quantitative Process Improvement F.A. L.A. L.A. – – – – Level 2
Self-Optimized Decision Management P.A. – – – – – – Level 0
Business Process Integration Toward Product Life Cycle P.A. – – – – – – Level 0
HR Skills Development F.A. F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. – – Level 3
Organizational Structure Management F.A. F.A. F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. P.A. Level 3
Sustainable Learning Management F.A. F.A. F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. P.A. Level 3
Organizational Change Management F.A. F.A. F.A. L.A. L.A. – – Level 3

19
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Table A5
Example Assessment Results for Two Processes in the Machine Company.

20
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Table A6
Example Assessment Results for Two Processes in The Chemical Company.

Table A7
Abbreviations.

Abbreviation Definition

BP Base Practice: the specific functional activities of the process

CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration: a process level improvement training and appraisal program.
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
organizations that wish to adopt digital transformation by providing a comprehensive, objective, consistent, and
standardized approach.
F.A. Fully Achieved: There is evidence of a complete and systematic approach to, and full achievement of, the defined
process attribute in the assessed process.
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
L.A. Largely Achieved: There is evidence of a systematic approach to, and significant achievement of, the defined process
attribute in the assessed process.
N.A. Not Achieved: There is little or no evidence of achievement of the defined process attribute in the assessed process.
P.A. Partially Achieved: There is some evidence of an approach to, and some achievement of, the defined process attribute
in the assessed process.
PA Process Attribute: a measurable property of process capability
SPICE also known as ISO/IEC 3300xx Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination: a set of technical standards documents for the computer
software development process and related business management functions

21
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

Declaration of Competing Interest ISO, 2003]. ISO/IEC 15504-2: Information Technology - Process Assessment - Part 2:
Performing an Assessment.
ISO, 2004a]. ISO/IEC 15504-3: Information Technology – Process Assessment – Part
The authors report no declarations of interest. 3: Guidance on Performing an Assessment.
ISO, 2004b]. ISO/IEC 15504-4: Information Technology – Process Assessment – Part
4: Guidance on Use for Process Improvement and Process Capability Determi-
nation.
References ISO, 2012]. ISO/IEC 15504-15505: Information Technology - Process Assessment -
Part 5: an Exemplar Process Assessment Model.
Akdil, K.Y., Ustundag, A., Cevikcan, E., 2018]. Maturity and Readiness Model for ISO, 2013]. ISO/IEC TR 33014 Information Technology — Process Assessment — Guide
Industry 4.0 Strategy. in: Industry 4.0: Managing the Digital Transformation. for Process Improvement.
Springer, pp. 61–94. ISO, 2015a. ISO/IEC 33000: Information Technology – Process Assessment. Interna-
Annunziata, M., Biller, S., 2015. The Industrial Internet and the future of work. Mech. tional Organization for Standardization.
Eng. Mag. Sel. Artic. 137, 30–35. ISO, 2015b]. ISO/IEC 33004: Information Technology - Process Assessment - Require-
Gökalp, E., Martinez, V., 2021. Digital transformation maturity assessment: devel- ments for Process Reference, Process Assessment and Maturity Models.
opment of the digital transformation capability maturity model. Int. J. Prod. ISO, 2015c]. ISO/IEC 33020: Information Technology — Process Assessment — Pro-
Res. cess Measurement Framework for Assessment of Process Capability.
Asdecker, B., Felch, V., 2018]. Development of an Industry 4.0 maturity model for ISO, 2015d]. ISO/IEC 33002:2015, Information Technology — Process Assessment —
the delivery process in supply chains. J. Model. Manag. Requirements for Performing Process Assessments 2015.
Automation, R., 2014. The connected enterprise maturity model. Rockwell Autom., ISO, 2015e]. ISO/IEC 33003, Information Technology — Process Assessment —
12. Requirements for Process Measurement Frameworks 2015.
Automotive, S.I.G., 2010]. Automotive SPICE process assessment model. Final Release Isoherranen, V., Karkkainen, M.K., Kess, P., 2015]. Operational excellence driven by
4 (4), 46. process maturity reviews: a case study of the ABB corporation. In: 2015 IEEE
Autor, D.H., Levy, F., Murnane, R.J., 2003]. The skill content of recent technological International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Manage-
change: an empirical exploration. Q. J. Econ. 118, 1279–1333. ment (IEEM), IEEE, pp. 1372–1376.
Bandara, O., Vidanagamachchi, K., Wickramarachchi, R., 2019. A Model for Assessing Kagermann, H., Helbig, J., Hellinger, A., Wahlster, W., 2013]. Recommendations for
Maturity of Industry 4.0 in the Banking Sector. Implementing the Strategic Initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0: Securing the Future of Ger-
Barafort, B., Humbert, J.-P., Poggi, S., 2006. Information security management and man Manufacturing Industry; Final Report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group.
ISO/IEC 15504: the link opportunity between security and quality. In: SPICE Forschungsunion.
Conference, Luxembourg. Koch, V., Kuge, S., Geissbauer, R., Schrauf, S., 2014]. Industry 4.0: Opportunities and
Beckert, S., 2014. Empire of Cotton: A Global History. Knopf, New York. Challenges of the Industrial Internet. Strateg. PwC.
Benbasat, I., Dexter, A.S., Drury, D.H., Goldstein, R.C., 1984. A critque of the stage Leaders, C., 2018. Digital Transformation Readiness Survey Summary.
hypothesis: theory and empirical evidence. Commun. ACM 27, 476–485. Leyh, C., Bley, K., Schaffer, T., Forstenhausler, S., 2016]. Proc. 2016 Fed. Conf. Com-
Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L.M., 2000. Beyond computation: Information technology, put. Sci. Inf. Syst. FedCSIS 2016 SIMMI 4.0-a maturity model for classifying
organizational transformation and business performance. J. Econ. Perspect. 14, the enterprise-wide it and software landscape focusing on industry 4.0, 8, pp.
23–48. 1297–1302.
Colli, M., Madsen, O., Berger, U., Møller, C., Wæhrens, B.V., Bockholt, M., 2018]. Leyh, C., Sch, T., Bley, K., Forstenh, S., 2017]. Gdansk, Poland. 14th Conference, AITM
Contextualizing the outcome of a maturity assessment for Industry 4.0. IFAC 2016, and 11th Conference, ISM 2016, Held as Part of FedCSIS Information tech-
- PapersOnLine 51, 1347–1352. nology for management: New ideas and real solutions, 277, pp. 103–119.
Colli, M., Berger, U., Bockholt, M., Madsen, O., Møller, C., Wæhrens, B.V., 2019. A Li, F., 2020]. The digital transformation of business models in the creative industries:
maturity assessment approach for conceiving context-specific roadmaps in the a holistic framework and emerging trends. Technovation 92, 102012.
Industry 4.0 era. Annu. Rev. Control 48, 165–177. Lichtblau, K., Stich, V., Bertenrath, R., Blum, M., Bleider, M., Millack, A., Schmitt,
Curtis, B., Hefley, B., Miller, S., 2009. People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM) K., Schmitz, E., Schröter, M., 2015. IMPULS-industrie 4.0-readiness. Impuls. des
Version 2.0, second edition. VDMA, Aachen-Köln.
De Bruin, T., Freeze, R., Kaulkarni, U., Rosemann, M., 2005]. Understanding the Main Malzahn, D., 2007. A service extension for spice. In: SPICE Conference, Seoul, South
Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model. Korea.
De Carolis, A., Macchi, M., Terzi, S., 2017a]. Guiding Manufacturing Companies Mc Caffery, F., Dorling, A., 2010. Medi SPICE development. J. Softw. Maint. Evol. Res.
Towards Digitalization. Pract. 22, 255–268.
De Carolis, A., Macchi, M., Negri, E., Terzi, S., 2017b. A maturity model for assessing Mettler, T., 2009]. A Design Science Research Perspective on Maturity Models in
the digital readiness of manufacturing companies. IFIP International Conference Information Systems.
on Advances in Production Management Systems, 13–20. Mettler, T., 2010. Thinking in terms of design decisions when developing maturity
De la Boutetière, H., Montagner, A., Reich, A., 2018. Unlocking Success in models. Int. J. Strateg. Decis. Sci. 1, 76–87.
Digital Transformations. McKinsey Company, October, Available Online Mitasiunas, A., Novickis, L., 2011. Enterprise SPICE based education capability matu-
https//mck.co/2AzwomG [Accessed 10 May 2019]. rity model. In: International Conference on Business Informatics Research.
Fu, X., Pietrobelli, C., Soete, L., 2011. The role of foreign technology and indigenous Springer, pp. 102–116.
innovation in the emerging economies: technological change and catching-up. Mittal, S., Romero, D., Wuest, T., 2018]. Towards a smart manufacturing maturity
World Dev. 39, 1204–1212. model for SMEs (SM 3 E). In: IFIP International Conference on Advances in
Ganzarain, J., Errasti, N., 2016. Three stage maturity model in SME’s towards industry Production Management Systems. Springer, pp. 155–163.
4.0. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 9, 1119–1128. Morrison, A., Pietrobelli, C., Rabellotti, R., 2008. Global value chains and technolog-
Gilchrist, A., 2016]. Industry 4.0: the Industrial Internet of Things. Apress. ical capabilities: a framework to study learning and innovation in developing
Gill, M., VanBoskirk, S., 2016]. The Digital Maturity Model 4.0. Benchmarks Digit. countries. Oxford Dev. Stud. 36, 39–58.
Transform. Playb. Neff, A.A., Hamel, F., Herz, T.P., Uebernickel, F., Brenner, W., vom Brocke, J., 2014.
Gokalp, E., Demirors, O., 2016]. Model based process assessment for public financial Developing a maturity model for service systems in heavy equipment manufac-
and physical resource management processes. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 54, turing enterprises. Inf. Manag. 51, 895–911.
186–193, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2016.11.011. Özcan-Top, Ö., Demirors, O., 2019. Application of a software agility assessment
Gökalp, E., Şener, U., Eren, P.E., 2017]. Development of an assessment model for model–AgilityMod in the field. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 62, 1–16.
industry 4.0: industry 4.0-MM. Communications in Computer and Information Qi, Q., Tao, F., 2018]. Digital twin and big data towards smart manufacturing and
Science, 770. Springer, Cham, pp. 128–142 https://link.springer.com/chapter/ industry 4.0: 360 degree comparison. IEEE Access 6, 3585–3593.
10.1007/978-3-319-67383-7 10. Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß, J., Becker, J., 2012. Maturity models in business process
Gökalp, E., Kayabay, K., Gökalp, M.O., 2021a]. Leveraging digital transformation management. Bus. Process Manag. J. 18, 328–346.
technologies to tackle COVID-19: proposing a privacy-first holistic framework. Schuh, G., Anderl, R., Gausemeier, J., ten Hompel, M., Wahlster, W., 2017]. Industrie
Emerg. Technol. Dur. Era COVID-19 Pandemic 348, 149–166, http://dx.doi.org/ 4.0 Maturity Index. Manag. Digit. Transform. Companies. Munich Herbert Utz.
10.1007/978-3-030-67716-9 10. Schumacher, A., Erol, S., Sihn, W., 2016. A maturity model for assessing Industry
Gökalp, Mert Onuralp, Gökalp, Ebru, Kayabay, Kerem, Koçyiğit, Altan, Eren, P. Erhan, 4. 0 readiness and maturity of manufacturing enterprises. Procedia CIRP 52,
2021b. Data-driven manufacturing: An assessment model for data science matu- 161–166.
rity. J. Manuf. Sys. 60, 527–546, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.07.011. Schumacher, A., Nemeth, T., Sihn, W., 2019. Roadmapping towards industrial digital-
Gökalp, Mert Onuralp, Kayabay, Kerem, Gökalp, Ebru, Koçyiğit, Altan, Eren, P. Erhan, ization based on an Industry 4.0 maturity model for manufacturing enterprises.
2021c. Assessment of process capabilities in transition to a data-driven organ- Procedia CIRP 79, 409–414.
isation: A multidisciplinary approach. IET Software, http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/ Schwab, K., 2017. The fourth industrial revolution. Currency.
sfw2.12033. Şener, U., Gökalp, E., Eren, P.E., 2018. Toward a maturity model for Industry 4.0: A
Goldenson, D., Gibson, D.L., 2003]. Demonstrating the Impact and Benefits of CMMI: systematic literature review and a model proposal. In: Industry 4.0 From the
an Update and Preliminary Results. MIS Perspective. Peter Lang, pp. 291–303, 21.
Henriette, E., Feki, M., Boughzala, I., 2016]. Digital transformation challenges. In: Sjödin, D.R., Parida, V., Leksell, M., Petrovic, A., 2018]. Smart factory implementation
MCIS., pp. 33. and process innovation: a preliminary maturity model for leveraging digital-
Ibrahim, L., 2008. Improving process capability across your enterprise. In: 4th World ization in ManufacturingMoving to smart factories presents specific challenges
Congress on Software Quality (4WCSQ), Bethesda/USA.

22
E. Gökalp and V. Martinez Computers in Industry 132 (2021) 103522

that can be addressed through a structured approach focused on people. Synth. Valdez-de-Leon, O., 2016]. A digital maturity model for telecommunications service
Lect. Technol. Manag. Entrep. 61, 22–31. providers. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 6, 19–32.
Swan, M., 2015]. Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy. O’Reilly Media, Inc. Verhoef, P.C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J.Q., Fabian, N.,
Tao, F., Cheng, Y., Zhang, L., Nee, A.Y.C., 2017]. Advanced manufacturing systems: Haenlein, M., 2021]. Digital transformation: a multidisciplinary reflection and
socialization characteristics and trends. J. Intell. Manuf. 28, 1079–1094. research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 122, 889–901.
Tao, F., Cheng, J., Qi, Q., Zhang, M., Zhang, H., Sui, F., 2018. Digital twin-driven product Williams, P.A.H., Lovelock, B., Cabarrus, T., Harvey, M., 2019]. Improving digital
design, manufacturing and service with big data. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 94, hospital transformation: development of an outcomes-based infrastructure
3563–3576. maturity assessment framework. J. Med. Internet Res. 21.
Tarhan, A., Turetken, O., Reijers, H.A., 2016]. Business process maturity models: a World Economic Forum, 2018. Digital Transformation Initiative Maximizing the
systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 75, 122–134. Return on Digital Investments.
University of Cambridge, Institute for Manufacturing, Cambridge 2019. Digital Yin, R.K., 2013]. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage publications.
Transformation Maturity Assessment Report-1.
University of Cambridge, Institute for Manufacturing, Cambridge 2020. Digital
Transformation Maturity Assessment Report-2.

23