Digital Maturity Models for SMEs: A Systematic Literature Review
Niccolò Ulderico Re, Antonio Ghezzi, Raffaello Balocco and Andrea Rangone
Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering,
Via Lambruschini 4B, 20156 Milan, Italy
Keywords: Digital maturity, SMEs, Business Model, Business Model Innovation, Lean Startup, Literature Review.
Abstract: In recent years widespread digitalization is pushing enterprises to enhance their products and services and
their value propositions. Digital transition requires companies to adapt their organization. Small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs) lag behind larger firms when it comes to digitalization. Digital maturity models are
a valuable tool for policymakers and academia to understand the state of the art of digitalisation of SMEs.
However, these models too often have focused on large firms and manufacturing firms and have often adopted
a narrow field of investigation. This study, through a systematic analysis of the literature, highlights the main
contributions to the literature on digital maturity models of SMEs and proposes a framework for the analysis
and classification of the main variables analyzed, in order to allow future research to build models of holistic
digital maturity for SMEs.
1 INTRODUCTION
Over the past years, large firms have started to
transform their business strategies, business
processes, firm capabilities, products and services,
and key interfirm relationships by integrating digital
technologies in their processes (Bharadwaj, El Sawy,
Pavlou & Venkatraman, 2013). Some are pretty much
at the end of their roadmap, and they are increasingly
able to offer high quality specialized products and
services with less cost, resulting in lower prices
(Trstenjak, Cajner & Opetuk, 2019).
Instead, due to the lack of resources and know-
how, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are
facing more difficulties taking full advantages of the
new technologies and their potential (Amaral & Peças,
2021).
However, SMEs businesses are in serious risk due
to the lack of economic, social, human, and
organizational capital, and these limits are evidenced
by their tiresome reaction to the challenges posed by
the pandemic (Mandviwalla & Flanagan, 2021).
The pandemic has revealed the potential of digital
technologies and their versatility, possibly also
raising the awareness of SME entrepreneurs about
digital topics. However, transformational processes
pose substantial challenges, for instance due to the
need to develop new capabilities within the firm
(Soluk & Kammerlander, 2021).
Tools such as readiness or maturity models could
be useful to guide SMEs in their digital roadmap, but
the existing research rarely presents the proper
perspective of SMEs (Mittal, Khan, Romero & Wuest,
2018), because it often disregards firm boundaries,
industry, market competition and the network in
which a SME operates.
The following research question will be
addressed: which is the state-of-the-art of digital
maturity models for SMEs? The objective of this
research is to answer this question through a
systematic review of the existing academic
knowledge.
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Research Query Definition
The analysis of the scientific literature related to the
measurement of SMEs digitalization was performed
mainly on the Scopus database and it was carried out
following a systematic approach. First, we defined a
search query following the research scope, carefully
selecting of the keywords with the help of some
papers, in order to ensure the maximum coverage of
the extant literature on the topic. Table 1 illustrates
the query strategy.
530
Re, N., Ghezzi, A., Balocco, R. and Rangone, A.
Digital Matur ity Models for SMEs: A Systematic Literature Review.
DOI: 10.5220/0011828100003467
In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2023) - Volume 2, pages 530-537
ISBN: 978-989-758-648-4; ISSN: 2184-4992
Copyright
c
 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Table 1: Research Query.
Phenomenon (TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “digital maturity”
OR “digital readiness” OR “digital
transformation” OR “digitali?ation” OR
“ “digiti?ation” )
Purpose AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “measur*” OR
“assess*” OR “defin*) OR
“framework*” OR “model*” OR
“evaluat*” OR “index*” OR “level*)”
OR “stage* OR “phase*” OR “survey*”
OR “case stud*” OR “
j
ourne
y
*”
)
Subject of
interest
AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“sme*” OR “
smb*” OR “small enterprise*” OR
“medium enterprise*” OR “small
business*” OR “medium business*” OR
“small firm*” OR “medium firm*” OR
“small and medium-sized enterprise*”
OR “small and medium-sized business*”
OR “”small and medium -sized firm*”
OR “small-medium enterprise*” OR
“small-medium business*” OR “small-
medium firm*” OR “small and medium
enterprise*” OR “small and medium
business*” OR “small and medium
firm*”
))
The query was defined looking for articles and
conference papers written in English, and it was
structured according to the main themes which
constitute the research topic intended to cover. In
particular, the keyword search was performed
considering title, abstract or keywords and by
grouping them into three main clusters:
• Phenomenon under investigation: digitaliza-
tion process;
• Goal/purpose of the work: building up a
structured way of measuring the
phenomenon;
• Subject of interest: small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs).
The phenomenon in Table 1 was described using
five different but complementary keywords,
identified through a preliminary scoping review.
Concerning the first two, digital maturity and digital
readiness, “readiness” and “maturity” are generally
used interchangeably to represent the same set of
concepts (Pirola, Cimini & Pinto, 2019). However,
readiness is defined as “the state of being both
psychologically and behaviorally prepared to take
action (i.e., willing and able)” (Weiner, 2009), while
maturity refers to “the state of being complete, perfect
or ready” (Soanes & Stevenson, 2006). Hence, the
two definitions are equivalent. Mettler (2011),
instead, introduces the concept of evolution and states
that, to reach a state of maturity, it is required a
progressive evolution in demonstrating a specific
ability or in achieving a target, from an initial to a
desired end. Singh, Kaur, Kaur and College (2015)
argue that maturity relates to “the degree of formality
and optimization of processes, from ad-hoc practices
to formally defined steps, to managed result metrics,
to active optimization of the processes”, introducing
a third perspective.
However, the authors converge when discussing
readiness assessment and maturity assessment.
Benedict, Smithburger, Donihi, Empey,
Kobulinsky, Seybert, Waters, Drab, Lutz, Farkas and
Meyer (2017) state that readiness assessments are
“evaluation tools to analyze and determine the level
of preparedness of the conditions, attitudes, and
resources, at all levels of a system, needed for
achieving its goal(s)”. Using Holt, Armenakis, Field
and Harris (2007) definition, “a readiness assessment
aims to identify any risks, opportunities and potential
challenges that might arise when change processes
are implemented within an actual organizational
context”. Furthermore, a readiness assessment
provides an opportunity to address any gaps in the
existing organization either before or as part of the
process of implementing planned changes (Holt et al.,
2007) and it also “aims to identify any potential
barriers to success, thereby allowing the organization
to address them before beginning the change project”
(Pirola et al., 2019). Instead, according to Mettler
(2011), maturity models for maturity assessment are
“models that help an individual or entity to reach a
more sophisticated maturity level (i.e., ability) in
people/culture, processes/structures and/or
objects/technologies following a step-by-step
continuous improvement process”.
Therefore, maturity models, like readiness
assessment models, also help address the objective
and impartial evaluation of a company’s position, as
well as answer questions such as what needs to be
measured and how to assign a specific stage or degree
of maturity (Becker, Knackstedt & Pöppelbuß, 2009).
For this reason, the research considered both
digital readiness and digital maturity models. As for
the second triplet of terms – digitization,
digitalization, and digital transformation –, according
to the literature they describe different facets/phases
of the same phenomenon. Although often used
interchangeably, they account for interdependent but
different phenomena.
Digitization: “It is the transformation of
information into a digital representation” (Legner,
Eymann, Hess, Matt, Böhmann, Drews, Mädche,
Urbach & Ahlemann, 2017). “The technical process
of converting analogue data into digital ones creating
Digital Maturity Models for SMEs: A Systematic Literature Review
531

Figure 1: PRISMA flow diagram (Higgins, Thomas, Chandler, Cumpston, Li, Page & Welch, 2019).
data for information system and processing” (Autio,
Nambisan, Thomas & Wright, 2018; Tilson,
Lyytinen, & Sørensen, 2010; Verhoef, Broekhuizen,
Bart, Bhattacharya, Dong, Fabian & Haenlein, 2021).
Slightly different but still coherent is the definition of
Park, Pavlou and Saraf (2020), which describe the
phenomenon as the “firm’s effort and process to
digitize its business processes by implementing,
assimilating, and using information systems”.
Digitalization: “A paradigm, which has made
information technology (IT) pivotal for
competitiveness and customer satisfaction” (Mithas,
Ali & Will, 2013). Fischer, Imgrund, Janiesch and
Winkelmann (2020), Autio et al. (2018) and Tilson et
al. (2010) define digitalization as a “socio-technical
process” that sees the adoption of information and
communication technology (ICT) as complementary
to knowledge based-assets such as organizational and
human capital (OECD, 2017).
Digital transformation: “As digital technologies
connect people, things, and locations to generate and
analyze large amounts of data, digitization and
digitalization merge to become digital
transformation” (Legner et al., 2017), which “alters
communication and interactions between all
stakeholders and reshapes the current economic,
social, and political landscape” (Hansen & Sia, 2015;
Holotiuk & Beimborn, 2017). In fact, Verhoef et al.
(2021) acknowledge digital transformation as “the
most pervasive and complex phase due to its
multidisciplinary nature which involves changes in
strategy, organization, information technology,
supply chains and marketing”. Rogers (2016) agrees
stating that it “is fundamentally not about technology,
but about strategy”. In summary, it can be defined as
“the process of reshaping the business model of a
company due to, and through, the adoption and use of
digital technologies, in order to create a setting where
new possibilities are enabled and value created”
(Jeansson & Bredmar, 2019).
Even if it is difficult to identify a unique and
common ground definition for each of these three
phenomena, it is nevertheless possible to extrapolate
a concept from the literature. They represent
consequential phases of a path that, going forward,
requires involving and taking into consideration more
and more factors and stakeholders. This concept is
well explained by Eller, Alford, Kallmünzer and
Peters, (2020) which, referring specifically to the
transition from digitalization to digital
transformation, states that this adheres to the “adage
of walking before you run”. However, once again,
with the purpose of covering the whole research field
was deemed necessary to insert all three terms within
the query. For the sake of this research, we will adopt
the digital transformation perspective.
2.2 Screening Process
Once extracted, the list obtained underwent a
screening process (Figure 1) aimed at collecting the
relevant articles strictly inherent to the topic. The
selection was performed according to a three-step
procedure. First, we carried out a title screening in
ICEIS 2023 - 25th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
532

order to discard the results that were clearly not
aligned with the research objective. 359 records were
excluded. Example of papers not included are: “The
Quality of Infectious Disease Hospital Websites in
Polandin Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic” (Król &
Zdonek, 2021), with a clear connection to health
management, and “The Implications of Social Media
on Local Media Business:Case Studies in Palembang,
Manado and Bandung” (Maryani, Rahmawan &
Karlinah, 2020) since there is a clear connection to
marketing and communications.
The second step was to filter the records based on the
abstract reading. 132 records where excluded, since
they were not targeted to the objective of the research.
The remaining documents were subjected to a
full-text reading for an eligibility assessment.
In order to support the screening process, we also
assessed the relevance of each record in terms of:
 relevance of the source, looking at the H-index
(SCImago);
 relevance of the article, considering three
indicators: number of citations – collected
from Scopus, Google Scholar, and Semantic
Scholar, since these databases have different
algorithms to count citations –, Field-
Weighted Citation Impact (Scopus), and
highly-influential citations (Semantic
Scholar).
3 FINDINGS
According to Wendler (2012), maturity models are
frequently multi-dimensional. From the qualitative
assessment of the literature, it was possible to define
some academic papers which have a relevant impact
in this field. Starting from these papers it was possible
to identify the major themes addressed by researchers
in defining a maturity model or a readiness model
from both quantitative and qualitative models. For
this reason, we have reclassified the relevant
dimensions and have summarized them in eight
clusters.
Each theme is a cluster of several relationship
between two dimensions that researchers have
validated with their studies.
With the review of Eller et al. (2020), Jeansson &
Bredmar (2019), Pirola et al. (2019) Zangiacomi,
Pessot, Fornasiero, Bertetti and Sacco (2020), Del
Giudice, Scuotto, Papa, Tarba, Bresciani &
Warkentint (2021), Park et al. (2020), the purpose is
to give a better description of the consolidate
dimensions, from which it could be possible to
expand the existing knowledge and achieve a deeper
comprehension of SMEs.
3.1 Digital Strategy and Roadmap
Inside the cluster of digital strategy/roadmap we
group relationships among digitalization and other
dimensions related to the strategy of a SME. Jeansson
and Bredmar (2019), Pirola et al. (2019), Eller et al.
(2020), and Zangiacomi et al. (2020) agree to define
the positive relationship between digital strategy and
digitalization. Also the opposite is true: the lack of
alignment between digital and business strategy gives
a negative impact on digitalization and digital
transformation (Jeansson & Bredmar, 2019),
highlighting the absolute necessity of an established
strategy for a successful digital roadmap.
From the studies, it emerges also that the
capability of understanding which technologies suit
best the business needs exert a positive influence on
digitalization (Zangiacomi et al., 2020). The only way
to identify the best solution is being aware of the goals
that the SME want to achieve, therefore this subtheme
is obviously anchored to the previous one.
A well-established roadmap could be
implemented only with a well-established
management, and Zangiacomi et al. (2020) also
strongly underline this issue: the positive effect on
digitalization that pilot projects bring to the company.
According to Zangiacomi et al. (2020), this
approach to the digital roadmap is highly beneficial
for the digitalization of companies, allowing the
possibility of experimenting. Working with a test-by-
doing approach is considered a best practice to
develop a SME digital path, in a highly dynamic
digital environment.
3.2 Employee Skills and Culture
Also, this theme is pervasive: four out of six seminal
papers (Jeansson & Bredmar, 2019; Pirola et al.,
2019; Eller et al., 2020; Zangiacomi et al., 2020)
analyzed the relationship among employee skill,
company culture, and digitalization.
As for the previous theme, authors agree that the
lack of management and knowledge, the lack of a
shared organizational identity and culture exert a
negative impact on the digitalization of a SME (Eller
et al., 2020; Jeansson & Bredmar, 2019), highlighting
the central role that information and know- how play
for firms.
The human factor, through employee skills, is a
priority for SMEs as organizations, and human
resources play a key role for the implementation and
Digital Maturity Models for SMEs: A Systematic Literature Review
533

the achievement of a higher level of digitalization
(Eller et al., 2020). Digital maturity requires
employee skill and competences (Pirola et al., 2019),
and firms could achieve a better level of digitalization
investing in people and culture and sharing
knowledge and best practice inside the organization
(Zangiacomi et al., 2020).
People are the first users of the new technologies,
and therefore they are the first source of feedback for
SMEs. For this reason, helping employees to develop
a critical approach is necessary to effectively
implement digital projects and consequently,
improving digital maturity (Pirola et al. 2019).
3.3 Organizational Flexibility and
Adaptability
The third theme in the literature refers to the
organization's ability to adapt. MNEs have always
had an advantage over SMEs due to the greater
resources they can devote to the introduction of
enabling digital technologies (Del Giudice et al.,
2021). However, the growing ascent of software-as-
a-service allows firms to switch between technologies
as needed, while remaining within a reasonable range
of resources and time (OECD, 2017). This provides
SMEs with an unprecedented opportunity to drive
digitalization by developing scalable, high-quality IT
infrastructures (Eller et al., 2020).
Nonetheless, organizational adaptability is
required to reap the benefits of cost- effective
implementation of digital options (Del Giudice et al.,
2021). It affects the learning curve of the company
(Del Giudice et al., 2021), requiring the organization
to develop a dynamic and ever-changing set of
capabilities in order to ensure business-IT alignment
to rapidly sensing and responding to changing
environments (Eller et al., 2020; Park et al., 2020). In
accordance with the previous paragraph, this should
happen through a progressive proactive involvement
of human resources, aimed at gathering different
perspectives and developing an integrated approach
(Zangiacomi et al., 2020).
In summary, SMEs (and companies in a broader
sense) should be able to pursue ambidexterity
intended as “the ability to pursue both efficiency and
flexibility while balancing exploitation and
exploration” (Park et al., 2020). In fact, Del Giudice
et al. (2021) consider it as a “measure of
organizational agility and adaptability”.
The relatively small size and flexible structure
could facilitate the creation of a shared code of
positive values and norms that foster digitalization
(Eller et al., 2020). Whereas large companies struggle
because of their structural complexity, inertia of
existing processes, and bureaucratic formalities (Del
Giudice et al., 2021).
It is evident that the relationship described so far
is bidirectional an can create virtuous cycles. In fact,
as stated by Park et al. (2020), IT systems enable
seamless knowledge flows by facilitating the active
participation and collaboration of employees, which
in turn enhance the flexibility and speed of adaptation
of an enterprise in volatile and ever-changing
environments (Del Giudice et al., 2021).
As companies must continually adapt their
business realities to deal with ever- changing market
requirements, the models for evaluating them should
also change accordingly. In fact, according to Pirola
et al. (2019) modularity, understood as the ability to
adapt to the needs and context of the company, has
proved to be a key feature for providing a tailored
assessment of SMEs digitalization.
3.4 Information Technology
Even if only few authors (Eller et al., 2020; Jeansson
& Bredmar, 2019; Pirola et al, 2019) discussed the
implication of the IT inside the SMEs, it is
fundamental to underline that digitalization is
initiated by specific technologies. According to Pirola
et al. (2019), IT carries relevant weight in the digital
transformation, and a critical analysis of the actual IT
infrastructure of a SME should be the starting point
of a digitalization roadmap. “IT is an umbrella term
summarizing technological devices with computing
capabilities that support decision making and
organizational information processing” (Eller et al.,
2020). This means that Information Technology is the
heart of the digitalization, it is a key resource, it is an
enabler that should be exploited from small and
medium-sized enterprises to improve communication,
collaboration and facilitate the development of digital
infrastructure (Eller et al., 2020).
Hence both authors agree in stating that IT
influences digitalization positively.
3.5 Integration
This cluster gives to digitalization a strong processes-
oriented point of view. With the Integration theme,
Pirola et al. (2019) and Jeansson & Bredmar (2019)
define the relationship between digital maturity and
process integration.
The researchers did not limit the discussion only
to the simple positive correlation between these two
dimensions but define process integration is a
requirement of digital maturity (Pirola et al., 2019).
ICEIS 2023 - 25th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
534

In this way, an implementation of a new
technology or a new software inside the company
cannot be considered the only goal to pursue in order
to achieve better results related digital readiness, but
SMEs should consider the horizontal implication
among all the processes affected by the new
technology and should try to exploit all the benefits
that integration can bring to the firm (Jeansson &
Bredmar, 2019; Pirola et. al., 2019). Digitalization,
considered as technology integration, influences
positively information sharing and communication
among different areas within the organization and
other actors inside the supply chain (Pirola et al.
2019). It is for this reason that sharing information
and data among processes is crucial to improve SMEs
digital readiness, and companies could gain benefit in
further digital projects.
3.6 Customers
This cluster contains all the evidence related the
beneficial effect that digitalization gives to the
customers. On the other hand, it is well known by
SMEs that their customer is more and more digitally
oriented, and they are ready to use and interact with
digital system and tools; hence, customer orientation
is a requirement for digital maturity (Pirola et al.,
2019).
Digital tools open to a new way of communicating
with customers and, thanks to this, SMEs are
stimulated to develop digital project to better
communicate their value proposition (Jeansson &
Bredmar, 2019). Moreover, digitalization binged the
competition to another level, and customers are
becoming more and more demanding; this unstable
context pushes SMEs to improve their processes and
their capabilities, and, as stated by Jeansson &
Bredmar (2019), this could positively influence the
implementation of digital projects.
To achieve digital maturity, SMEs need to
become customer oriented (Pirola et al, 2019), and
digitalization could help to improve the
communication with the downstream of companies
supply chain (Eller et al. 2020).
3.7 External Environment
Firms which operate in highly competitive
environments needs to take as much as possible
advantages from all the resources available, hence
Jeansson & Bredmar (2019) state that an unstable
market and external pressures are positively
correlated to the development of digital projects.
Digitalization is positively correlated to the
achievement of better results in term of market
competitiveness, market position, strategic
advantages, and the development of new products and
services (Jeansson & Bredmar, 2019).
Changes brought by exogenous events are another
driver which influences positively the digitalization
roadmap of SMEs (Pirola et al., 2019). The COVID-
19 pandemic is the most recent case of such external
push OECD (2020).
The external environment theme also includes a
set of dimensions that are strictly related to digital
maturity. Del Giudice et al. (2021) found that
networking is crucial for SMEs to cover internal lack
and knowledge gaps. SMEs with partners and strong
networks should be considered better prepared to
introduce a new technology rather than isolated SMEs.
This is because a good network could help a small or
medium-sized enterprise to overcome some of its
constraints (e.g financial constrain and information
asymmetries as in Mittal et al, 2018) bringing the
company to another level of competitiveness. This
relation is also confirmed in the work of Zangiacomi
(2020).
3.8 Performance and Benefits
Performance and benefits are the last theme that has
been extracted and reinterpreted by our review.
Potentially, this could enclose the drivers that
SMEs firstly consider while they are assessing the
introduction of a new technology inside the company.
Authors agreed that the impact on cost and
efficiency are some of the most relevant benefits that
small and medium-sized enterprises could achieve
from digitalization (Eller et. al., 2020; Jeansson &
Bredmar, 2019).
However, digitalization can bring several
improvements also for the company measurement
system – as observed by Eller (2020), allowing the
introduction of real time data collection, and enabling
better process optimization and better financial
analysis. Authors found that data collection is a
fundamental driver in a digitalized word (Pirola et al,
2019).
4 CONCLUSION, LIMITATION
AND FURTHER RESEARCH
AV E N U E S
The consequences of the preponderance of Industry
4.0 are reflected in the models extant in the literature.
Digital Maturity Models for SMEs: A Systematic Literature Review
535

In fact, most of the existing Industry 4.0 and Smart
manufacturing models focus on internal dimensions
while keeping less attention on external dimensions.
Furthermore, due to this approach focused on
manufacturing, very often in the literature there is a
too vertical approach in digital maturity models,
which does not allow the development of all-inclusive
models to study digital maturity.
Starting from the results presented in this article,
future research works should try to validate the use of
an all-encompassing digital maturity model through
an empirical approach. Furthermore, in order to
develop digital maturity models created ad hoc for
SMEs, it is of fundamental importance for future
research to analyze the specific context, internal and
external, in which manufacturing and service SMEs
operate, trying to grasp their peculiarities.
Finally, this work has some limitations. Firstly,
the analysis was based on an extraction of papers
from the Scopus database alone, secondly, only
conference articles and newspaper articles written in
English were analysed.
REFERENCES
Amaral, A., & Peças, P. (2021). SMEs and Industry 4.0:
Two case studies of digitalization for a smoother
integration. Computers in Industry, 125.
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D. W., & Wright, M.
(2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the
genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72–95.
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., &
Venkatraman, N. v. (2013). Digital business strategy:
toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly,
471–482.
Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., & Pöppelbuß, J. (2009).
Developing maturity models for IT management.
Business & Information Systems Engineering, 1(3),
213–222.
Benedict, N., Smithburger, P., Donihi, A. C., Empey, P.,
Kobulinsky, L., Seybert, A., Waters, T., Drab, S., Lutz,
J., Farkas, D., & Meyer, S. (2017). Blended Simulation
Progress Testing for Assessment of Practice Readiness.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 81(1),
14.
Del Giudice, M., Scuotto, V., Papa, A., Tarba, S. Y.,
Bresciani, S., & Warkentin, M. (2021). A Self-Tuning
Model for Smart Manufacturing SMEs: Effects on
Digital Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 38(1), 68–89.
Eller, R., Alford, P., Kallmünzer, A., & Peters, M. (2020).
Antecedents, consequences, and challenges of small
and medium-sized enterprise digitalization. Journal of
Business Research, 112(March), 119–127.
European Union Commission. (2014). Official Journal.
Official Journal of the European Union, 57(467), 216.
Fischer, M., Imgrund, F., Janiesch, C., & Winkelmann, A.
(2020). Strategy archetypes for digital transformation:
Defining meta objectives using business process
management. Information and Management, 57(5),
103262.
Gavrila Gavrila, S., & de Lucas Ancillo, A. (2021). Spanish
SMEs’ digitalization enablers: E-Receipt applications
to the offline retail market. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 162(October 2020), 120381.
Ghezzi, A., Renga, F., & Cortimiglia, M. (2009). Value
networks: scenarios on the mobile content market con-
figurations. In 2009 Eighth International Conference
on Mobile Business (pp. 35-40). IEEE.
Ghezzi, A. (2012), Emerging business models and
strategies for mobile platform providers: a reference
framework, info, 14(5), 36-56.
Ghezzi, A., Georgiades, M., Reichl, P., Le‐Sauze, N., Di
Cairano‐Gilfedder, C., & Managiaracina, R. (2013).
Generating innovative interconnection business models
for the future internet. info, 15(4), 43-68.
Ghezzi, A., Rangone, A., & Balocco, R. (2013).
Technology diffusion theory revisited: a regulation,
environment, strategy, technology model for
technology activation analysis of mobile ICT.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(10),
1223-1249.
Ghezzi, A. (2020). How Entrepreneurs make sense of Lean
Startup Approaches: Business Models as cognitive
lenses to generate fast and frugal Heuristics.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161,
120324.
Hansen, R., & Sia, S. K. (2015). Hummel’s digital
transformation toward omnichannel retailing: key
lessons learned. MIS Quarterly Executive, 14(2).
Higgins, J. P., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li,
T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (2019). Cochrane
handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John
Wiley & Sons.
Holotiuk, F., & Beimborn, D. (2017). Critical success
factors of digital business strategy.
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G.
(2007). Readiness for organizational change: The
systematic development of a scale. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 232–255.
Jeansson, J., & Bredmar, K. (2019). Digital transformation
of SMEs: Capturing complexity. 32nd Bled
EConference: Humanizing Technology for a
Sustainable Society, Bled, Slovenia, June 16-19, 2019,
523–541.
Jocevski, M., Arvidsson, N., & Ghezzi, A. (2020),
Interconnected business models: present debates and
future agenda, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 35(6), 1051-1067.
Kääriäinen, J., Kuusisto, O., Pussinen, P., Saarela, M.,
Saari, L., & Hänninen, K. (2020). Applying the
positioning phase of the digital transformation model in
practice for smes: Toward systematic development of
ICEIS 2023 - 25th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
536

digitalization. International Journal of Information
Systems and Project Management, 8(4), 24–43.
Klohs, K., & Sandkuhl, K. (2020). Digitalization of Small
and Medium-Sized Enterprises: An Analysis of the
State of Research. In Lecture Notes in Business
Information Processing (Vol. 394). Springer
International Publishing.
Król, K., & Zdonek, D. (2021). The quality of infectious
disease hospital websites in poland in light of the covid-
19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 18(2), 642.
Legner, C., Eymann, T., Hess, T., Matt, C., Böhmann, T.,
Drews, P., Mädche, A., Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F.
(2017). Digitalization: opportunity and challenge for
the business and information systems engineering
community. Business & Information Systems
Engineering, 59(4), 301–308.
Mandviwalla, M., & Flanagan, R. (2021). Small business
digital transformation in the context of the pandemic.
European Journal of Information Systems, 30(4), 359–
375.
Maryani, E., Rahmawan, D. E. T. T. A., & Karlinah, S. I.
T. I. (2020). The implications of social media on local
media business: Case studies in Palembang, Manado
and Bandung. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal
of Communication, 36(1), 317-333.
Mettler, T. (2011). Maturity assessment models: a design
science research approach. International Journal of
Society Systems Science, 3(1–2), 81–98.
Mithas, S., Ali, T., & Will, M. (2013). How a Firm’s
Competitive Environment and Digital Strategy Posture
Influence Digital Business Strategy. Management
Information Systems Quarterly, 37(2), 511–536.
Mittal, S., Khan, M. A., Romero, D., & Wuest, T. (2018).
A critical review of smart manufacturing & Industry 4.0
maturity models: Implications for small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs). Journal of Manufacturing
Systems, 49(June), 194–214.
Mittal, S., Khan, M. A., Romero, D., & Wuest, T. (2019).
Smart manufacturing: Characteristics, technologies and
enabling factors. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering
Manufacture, 233(5), 1342–1361.
Mittal, S., Romero, D., & Wuest, T. (2018). Towards a
smart manufacturing maturity model for SMEs
(SM3E). In IFIP Advances in Information and
Communication Technology (Vol. 536). Springer
International Publishing.
OECD (2020), "Coronavirus (COVID-19): SME policy
responses", OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus
(COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris.
Park, Y. K., Pavlou, P. A., & Saraf, N. (2020).
Configurations for achieving organizational
ambidexterity with digitization. Information Systems
Research, 31(4), 1376–1397.
Pirola, F., Cimini, C., & Pinto, R. (2019). Digital readiness
assessment of Italian SMEs: A case-study research.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
31(5), 1045–1083.
Rogers, D. (2016). The digital transformation playbook.
Columbia University Press.
Singh, S., Kaur, G., Kaur, P., & College, D. A. V. (2015).
Importance of Testing Maturity Model.
Sanasi, S., & Ghezzi, A. (2022). Pivots as strategic re-
sponses to crises: Evidence from Italian companies nav-
igating Covid-19. Strategic Organization,
14761270221122933.
Sanasi, S., Manotti, J., & Ghezzi, A. (2021). Achieving
agility in high-reputation firms: Agile experimentation
revisited. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-
ment, 69(6), 3529-3545.
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2006). Concise oxford
English dictionary (Vol. 11). Oxford University Press
Oxford.
Soluk, J., & Kammerlander, N. (2021). Digital
transformation in family-owned Mittelstand firms: A
dynamic capabilities perspective. European Journal of
Information Systems, 30(6), 676–711.
Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., & Sørensen, C. (2010). Research
Commentary—Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS
Research Agenda. Information Systems Research,
21(4), 748–759.
Trstenjak, M., Cajner, H., & Opetuk, T. (2019). Industry 4.0
readiness factor calculation: Criteria evaluation
framework. FME Transactions, 47(4), 841–845.
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A.,
Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital
transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and
research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122,
889–901.
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness
for change. Implementation Science, 4(1), 67.
Wendler, R. (2012). The maturity of maturity model
research: A systematic mapping study. Information and
Software Technology, 54(12), 1317–1339.
Wendler, R. (2012). The maturity of maturity model
research: A systematic mapping study. Information and
Software Technology, 54(12), 1317–1339.
Wyckoff, A., & Pilat, D. (2017). Key issues for digital
transformation in the G20. Berlin: OECD.
Zangiacomi, A., Pessot, E., Fornasiero, R., Bertetti, M., &
Sacco, M. (2020). Moving towards digitalization: a
multiple case study in manufacturing. Production
Planning and Control, 31(2–3),143–157.
Digital Maturity Models for SMEs: A Systematic Literature Review
537