CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 69Digital Innovation in IndustriesInformation Technology Governance and StrategyDigital Transformation in Industry

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development of a Digital Transformation Maturity Model for IT Companies

Gollhardt, Torsten, Halsbenning, Sebastian, Hermann, Andreas, Karsakova, Aleksandra, Becker, Jorg·2020·2020 IEEE 22nd Conference on Business Informatics (CBI)
DOI 10.1109/cbi49978.2020.00018
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The more the technological and digital shift moves forward, the more are companies struggling to keep in touch with the latest innovations and state-of-the-art technologies. Although companies differ regarding their transformation approach in detail, there is a rising demand for digital transformation maturity models to determine the status of a company's digital transformation to cope with digitalization. In order to provide companies with the opportunity to uncover the areas that are lacking behind in the digitalization process or self-assess their current transformation status, we pursue the goal to develop a digital transformation maturity model fitting to IT companies. The artifact was developed in collaboration with an IT company from the energy sector. This case serves as a first and exemplary application scenario. Based on literature on digital transformation maturity models and eight expert interviews, we iteratively designed and evaluated a maturity model tailored to IT companies. As a result, we synthesized five dimensions: culture, ecosystem, operations, governance, and strategy. Each dimension consists of further criteria specifying the respective dimension. Our artifact shows a high fit with the needs of the company under investigation and can serve as a blueprint for other IT companies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cbi49978.2020.00018

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. gill, 2016, The Digital Maturity Model 4.0, Forrester Research
  2. 10.7748/nr2013.05.20.5.28.e327 · DOI
  3. siau, 1998, Evaluation of Information Modeling Methods - A Review, Proceedings of the 31st Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (HICSS 1998), 314
  4. 10.1057/ejis.2014.36 · DOI
  5. hevner, 2007, A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19, 87
  6. 10.1108/01409171211210154 · DOI
  7. ivan?i?, 2019, Mastering the Digital Transformation Process: Business Practices and Lessons Learned, Technology Innovation Management Review, 9, 36, 10.22215/timreview/1217 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1007/BF03177550 · DOI · Paper page
  9. vom brocke, 2009, Reconstructing the Giant: On the Importance of Rigour in Documenting the Literature Search Process, Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2009), 2206
  10. 10.1016/j.bushor.2014.09.001 · DOI
  11. 10.1017/S1049096502001129 · DOI
  12. pöppelbuß, 2011, What makes a useful maturity model? A framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management, 19th European Conference on Information Systems ECIS 2011
  13. 10.1016/j.infsof.2012.07.007 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.5771/0042-059X-2016-2-98 · DOI
  15. ismail, 2017, Digital Business Transformation and Strategy: What Do We Know So Far?, University of Cambridge Tech Rep
  16. schäfer, 2016, Digital Transformation Report 2015, neuland - digital vision & transformation Tech Rep
  17. henriette, 2015, The Shape of Digital Transformation: A Systematic Literature Review, Ninth Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems
  18. 10.1007/978-3-030-06234-7_36 · DOI
  19. 10.1007/s12599-015-0401-5 · DOI
  20. 10.3384/ecp1815630 · DOI
  21. mettler, 2009, A Design Science Research Perspective on Maturity Models in Information Systems, Institute of Information Management Universtiy of St Gallen Tech Rep
  22. 10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_22 · DOI
  23. 10.1007/978-3-319-77703-0_41 · DOI
  24. 10.1007/978-3-7908-2404-9_39 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/0167-9236(94)00041-2 · DOI
  26. 10.21511/ppm.16(4).2018.13 · DOI
  27. 10.22215/timreview/1008 · DOI
  28. 10.1007/s12599-009-0044-5 · DOI · Paper page
  29. vukši?, 2018, A Preliminary Literature Review of Digital Transformation Case Studies, 20th International Conference on Managing Information Technology, 12, 737
  30. 10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:2.3 · DOI · Paper page
  31. berghaus, 2016, Stages in Digital Business Transformation: Results of an Empirical Maturity Study, The Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems
  32. 10.1504/IJTIP.2017.085478 · DOI
  33. becker, 2010, Maturity Models in IS Research, 18th European Conference on Information Systems 2010
  34. manzini, 2016, Quick and Dirty Technology Intelligence for SMEs, Stratinnov It, 1
  35. de bruin, 2005, Understanding the main phases of developing a maturity assessment model, ACIS 2005 Proceedings - 16th Australian Conference on Information Systems
  36. 10.1109/MITP.2017.3051329 · DOI
  37. lasrado, 2015, Maturity Models Development in IS Research: A Literature Review, IRIS Selected Papers of the Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia 2015
  38. shuy, 2002, In-person versus telephone interviewing, Handbook of interview research Context and method, 537
  39. pöppelbuß, 2011, Maturity Models in Information Systems Research: Literature Search and Analysis, Communications of The Association for Information Systems, 29, 505
  40. 10.1109/HICSS.2016.553 · DOI
  41. 10.1504/IJSSS.2011.038934 · DOI
  42. likert, 1932, A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, Archives of Psychology
  43. van steenbergen, 2013, Improving IS Functions Step by Step: the Use of Focus Area Maturity Models, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 25, 35
  44. bley, 2018, Towards a Focus Area Maturity Model for Digitalization, Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik, 1718
  45. 2020, Maturity

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 69

Metadata

Authors
Gollhardt, T., Halsbenning, S., Hermann, A., Karsakova, A., & Becker, J.
Affiliations
University of Münster (DE)
ORCID
Venue
2020 IEEE 22nd Conference on Business Informatics (CBI)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2020-06
Pages
94-103
DOI
10.1109/cbi49978.2020.00018
OpenAlex
W3034281292
Cited by
69
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 2
FWCI
21.41
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
IEEE Conference on Business Informatics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Digital Innovation in Industries
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Digital Transformation in Industry
Keywords
digital transformation, maturity model, IT companies, digitalization, energy sector, organizational culture, digital ecosystems, IT governance, digital strategy, self-assessment, maturity model development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review