Strengths and Weaknesses of Digital Maturity Models

Abstract

Assessing digital maturity is a prerequisite for any digital transformation initiative. This assessment allows the business to know its current level of digital maturity and assess its ability to manage change. The evaluation also enables society to identify the main thrusts and objectives of its digital strategy. This article analyses the strengths and weaknesses of 8 digital maturity models to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of these models for measuring the digital maturity of companies and public organizations. This study follows content analysis from 8 papers on digital maturity models. These 8 models are the result of a document reference of 30 models of digital maturity divided into 8 application domains. Within each application area, the most relevant model for measuring digital maturity was chosen after the reference work. In this document, regarding the literature, we have identified 12 strengths that a maturity model should fulfill and we have formulated them into 12 questions that, once answered, will constitute strengths or weaknesses of the model. The results show that the Digital Internet Maturity Model (DIMM) has the most advantages over the others for measuring digital maturity in any application area, followed by the Bank Internet Maturity Model (BIMM) which has several advantages for the banking sector with some significant disadvantages. Next, we have the digital maturity balance model and tool for public organizations for organizations providing public services. The hospital information system maturity model for the health sector takes into account several aspects of the digital transformation of the health sector, but with some handicaps related to its implementation. It was noted that all models reviewed have several strengths and weaknesses, including structural and strategic weaknesses. This article firstly highlights the strengths and weaknesses of 8 digital maturity models that are among the most relevant for measuring digital maturity in their respective domains and secondly, it reinforces the literature on digital maturity models.