Development and Implementation of a Maturity Model of Digital Transformation

Ifenthaler, Dirk; Egloffstein, Marc

doi:10.1007/s11528-019-00457-4

Cited by 88 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nine of the analyzed DMMs fail to provide a theoretical basis for their work. In most cases, when assumptions with regards to connections between maturity [34] Digital maturity & transformation report 2016 10 [35] Digital maturity model 4.0 2016 11 [36] Digital maturity model for telecom 2016 12 [37] Industry 4.0 readiness 2017 13 [1] Digital maturity in traditional industries 2017 14 [38] Maturity assessment for industry 4.0 2018 15 [39] Digitalisierungsindex mittelstand 2018 2018 16 [40] Strategic factors enabling digital maturity 2019 17 [41] Maturity model of digital transformation 2019…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Measure Digitalization? A Critical Evaluation of Digital Maturity Models

Thordsen

Bick

2020

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To preserve competitive advantage in a more and more digitalized environment, today's organizations seek to assess their level of digital maturity. Given this particular practical relevance, a plethora of digital maturity models, designed to asses a company's digital status quo, has emerged over the past few years. Largely developed and published by practitioners, the academic value of these models remains obviously unclear. To shed light on their value in a broader sense, in this paper we critically evaluate 17 existing digital maturity modelsidentified through a systematic literature search (2011-2019)with regard to their validity of measurement. We base our evaluation on established academic criteria, such as generalizability or theory-based interpretation, that we apply in a qualitative content analysis to these models. Our analysis shows that most of the identified models do not conform to the established evaluation criteria. Based on these insights, we derive a detailed research agenda and suggest respective research questions and strategies.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Measure Digitalization? A Critical Evaluation of Digital Maturity Models

Thordsen

Bick

2020

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• Development of a generic maturity model of digitalization for educational institutions (Ifenthaler and Egloffstein 2020). • Transfer of the findings to other companies in the education sector and beyond.…”

Section: The Joint Research Project #Kovernetztmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…tions predominantly focus on school settings as well as on individual factors explaining the assimilation process (Niederhauser and Lindstrom 2018). Still, organizational perspectives on digitalization especially in the education sector are scarce (Ifenthaler and Egloffstein 2020). Within most organizations, the initial phase of a digitalization process -the "fuzzy front end" -is perceived as ill-defined and chaotic (Berghaus and Back 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tracing Digital Transformation in Educational Organizations

Egloffstein

2021

Digital Transformation of Learning Organizations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter describes the quantitative approaches for assessing various aspects of digital transformation from the joint research and development project #ko.vernetzt. In an application-oriented case study approach, the operationalization of a maturity model of digital transformation for educational organizations (MMEO) and the design and implementation of a multi-perspective evaluation concept are outlined. While the MMEO provides a state perspective on the digital transformation of an educational organization and its employees, the evaluation concept aims at tracing developments of media-related professional competencies. MMEO has been implemented in a study with N = 222 participants, while N = 59 learners were subject to the evaluation polls. The results provide the necessary evidence for implementing and continuously improving a qualification program in the regarded research context. However, the methodology can also be transferred to other organizations in the education sector and beyond.

show abstract

“…Digital maturity describes what an organization has already achieved in terms of changing products or processes while developing a meta-ability for leading the change process (p. 4). Recently, educational technology scholars have found that digital maturity depends on understanding and managing continuous change that helps to better facilitate organizational transformation (Ifenthaler and Egloffstein 2020). For informal education organization leaders, digitization means developing leaders and organizations for optimal digital maturity.…”

Section: Stage 4 Institute Stabilizing Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The problem is that educators need knowledge to organize and to lead digital innovation teams differently today. Ifenthaler and Egloffstein (2020) remind that digital technology integration is an important mission for every business, organization, or institution not only for communication, administration, and management but also for learning and instruction/teaching (p. 302). However, with artificial intelligence, Big Data, smart classrooms (Ifenthaler 2017), and service robots (Kowch 2020) arriving in the near horizon to help teaching and learning, digital innovation teams need guides for leading a more integrated approach to leading, learning innovation work that offers a better chance to transform the learning organizations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leading Transformation with Digital Innovations in Schools and Universities: Beyond Adoption

Kowch

2021

Digital Transformation of Learning Organizations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital innovations in schools and universities matter. New leadership approaches and new organization knowledge are necessary for leaders to realize long-term school and university transformations afforded by important digital innovation experiments. This chapter takes a hard look at leadership and organization theory and practice, along with a critical look at innovation adoption to help digital school and university innovation teams find more sustainable, impactful innovations. First, we examine research and theory on formal leadership and organization to argue that classical, formal leaders separate people from the work of others, limiting innovation teamwork. We also examine formal organizations as “houses,” finding that these over-structure people and power in vertical functional “boxes” in bureaucracies that limit school or university readiness to adapt—even when great digital innovations offer transformation potential. Less formal leadership and organization is then explored with evidence from the author’s research on leading complex adaptive teams as more adaptable organization network forms. We conclude that less formal leadership and less formal organizing structures offer more innovation potential by creating adaptive spaces for digital innovations. We present a new theory and guidelines for leading and participating in high-impact digital innovation networks working to lead learning organization emergence (transformation) via digital innovations.

show abstract

Development and Implementation of a Maturity Model of Digital Transformation

Cited by 88 publications

References 13 publications

How to Measure Digitalization? A Critical Evaluation of Digital Maturity Models

How to Measure Digitalization? A Critical Evaluation of Digital Maturity Models

Tracing Digital Transformation in Educational Organizations

Leading Transformation with Digital Innovations in Schools and Universities: Beyond Adoption

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About