Modelling Digital Maturity for SMEs
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, Digital Transformation, Business Model, Business Model Innovation, Lean Startup, SMEs.
Abstract: SMEs still suffer from a significant delay in digitalization compared to their larger counterparts. In order to
develop effective public policies and digitization strategies, it is necessary to have tools that make it possible
to assess the state of digitization of SMEs: digital maturity models. Literature review reveals a preponderance
of tools developed for large firms or manufacturing SMEs. Applying multiple case study research, the present
study models the behavior of the SMEs into a comprehensive maturity model. The contribution of this work
is twofold. On one hand it confirms dimensions already considered as the subject of analysis by other
researchers, strengthening their positions and completing them with some additional details. On the other
hand, keeping in mind SMEs' inherent variety, the originality of this study lies in the quest for a tailor-made
assessment of the digitalization of SMEs.
1 INTRODUCTION
In the last two years, small and medium-sized
enterprises have had to face a situation of crisis. As
highlighted by OECD (2020), the Coronavirus
pandemic was a destabilizing element for SMEs.
The use of digital tools by SMEs was one of the
factors that made it possible to reduce the negative
impacts of Covid-19 (OECD 2020). In many cases it
was the “lifeline” that allowed them to survive
(Mandviwalla & Flanagan, 2021). However, SMEs
are facing many challenges in their digitization path,
conditioned by a scarcity of resources, skills, and
know-how, and are unable to fully exploit the
advantages offered by digital (Amaral & Peças, 2021;
Soluk & Kammerlander, 2021)
Thus, it becomes paramount to develop digital
maturity models. These models must serve in order to
allow policymakers and actors operating in the
ecosystem of SMEs to understand the real level of
digitization of small and medium-sized enterprises
and to develop the best strategies for fostering the
digital transformation of small and medium-sized
enterprises. However, as stated by Mittal, Khan,
Romero and Wuest (2018), digital maturity models,
more often designed for large companies, are unlikely
to grasp the peculiarities of the economic and
relational ecosystem of SMEs.
This research work aims to answer the gap in the
literature by answering the following question: which
elements should be considering in elaborating a
digital maturity framework for SMEs?
The following sections, respectively, address the
following contents: a) a theoretical contextualization
of the importance of SMEs and the role of digital
maturity models b) the research methodology c) the
results deriving from the interviews conducted with
SMEs d) the discussions and the proposal of a
framework. Finally, the conclusions, limitations and
future avenues of research are presented.
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Why Should We Care About the
Digital Maturity of SMEs?
Digitalization is seen as a basic requirement for
companies to enter this new industrial revolution
(Amaral & Peças, 2021). However, this digitalization
process, which aims to “improve an entity by
triggering significant changes to its properties
through combinations of information, computing,
communication, and connectivity technologies”
(Mandviwalla & Flanagan, 2021) is less developed
among SMEs because they are characterized by
several constraints which lead them to face more
538
Re, N., Ghezzi, A., Balocco, R. and Rangone, A.
Modelling Digital Maturity for SMEs.
DOI: 10.5220/0011828200003467
In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2023) - Volume 2, pages 538-545
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)

difficulties in implementing new technologies.
(Amaral & Peças, 2021).
Thanks to readiness models and digital maturity
models, entrepreneurs and consultants can develop a
structured digital roadmap that considers resources
and constraints of SMEs. Instead, researchers could
benefit a better theoretical background of the different
stages of the digitalization process, to acknowledge
the heterogeneity among firms about their current
state of digital adoption (Soluk & Kammerlander,
2021).
2.2 Maturity and Readiness Model
Due to the constraints that SMEs face, the digitization
process is often developed following an incremental
approach (Depaoli, Za & Scornavacca, 2020). For
this reason, to gradually face the complexity of
digitalization, a huge effort was spent in the last few
decades to better qualify this phenomenon through or
readiness assessments (Li, Su, Zhang & Mao, 2018).
Trotta & Garengo (2019) define consultancy
firms as the “first movers” of this approach, those
who introduced the concept of maturity model.
Consultancies perceived the necessity of a tool which
allowed for a comprehensive understanding of SMEs,
not only to improve the governance of their projects
but also to simplify the communication of a complex
topic such as Digitalization (Trotta & Garengo,
2019). However, practitioners’ scales are often not
suitable for SMEs because mostly geared towards
large firms (North et al., 2020), and typically do not
meet the standard in terms of replicability,
generalizability, and transparency (North et al., 2020;
Trotta & Garengo, 2019) – as it is required, instead,
for scientific publications. Moreover, over the last
year many of the maturity model that have developed
have their focus transformation on Industry 4.0
(Klohs & Sandkuhl, 2020).
It is well known that usually SMEs do not get the
real meaning of digitalization or digital
transformation (Pirola, Cimini & Pinto, 2019), and
this lack of knowledge could strongly affect the
business decisions of managers or entrepreneurs.
Maturity models can potentially clarify their digital
roadmap (Zapata, Berrah & Tabourot, 2020),
exploiting the real potential of their technologies
(Kääriäinen, Kuusisto, Pussinen, Saarela, Saari &
Hänninen, 2020) and it allows a cross dimensional
analysis linking the organizational needs with the
operational knowledge (Trotta & Garengo, 2019). In
this way, SMEs can improve their business
performance using the maturity model’s systematic
approach to digitalization (Depaoli et al., 2020).
For some authors such as Wendler (2012)
maturity models are mostly construed as multi-
dimensional framework. Some authors included in
their model evaluations areas that could affect the
digital maturity of a company, such as leadership,
ambidexterity, or technology integration (González-
Varona, Acebes, Poza & López-Paredes, 2020; Pirola
et al., 2019). Some authors prefer a business process
management approach, focusing on the six core
elements of BPM – strategic alignment, governance,
method, information technology, people and culture
–, which are deemed to be a prerequisite of digital
transformation; without them, SMEs would not be
able to reshape their business models (Fischer et al.,
2020). Other authors choose to completely deviate
from the traditional perspective, deepening the
relationship between the competences and the level of
digitalization of a company; these maturity models
are based on the theory of Digital Maturity
Competences (DMC; Li et al., 2018).
From a careful analysis of the literature, it is
possible to identify eight differences in dimensions
that are normally taken into consideration in defining
assessment models of digital maturity: digital strategy
and roadmap (Pirola et al., 2019; Eller et al. 2020;
Zangiacomi et al., 2020), employee skill and culture
(Jeansson & Bredmar, 2019, Pirola et al., 2019; Eller
et al. 2020; Zangiacomi et al., 2020), organizational
flexibility and adaptability (Pirola et. al., 2019; Eller
et al., 2020; Del Giudice et al., 2021; Park et al., 2020;
Zangiacomi et al., 2020), information technology
(Pirola et al., 2019; Eller et al., 2020), integration
(Jeansson & Bredmar, 2019; Pirola et al., 2019)
customers (Jeansson & Bredmar, 2019; Pirola et al.,
2019; Eller et al., 2020), external environment
(Jeansson & Bredmar, 2019; Pirola et. al., 2019; Del
Giudice et al., 2021; Zangiacomi et al., 2020) and
performance and benefits (Jeansson & Bredmar,
2019; Pirola et. al., 2019; Eller et al., 2020;
Zangiacomi et al., 2020).
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Case Study Research and Unit of
Analysis
This research has been designed as a descriptive
multiple case study (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt &
Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2014). The case study
methodology is suitable in case the research questions
are open-ended and aim at analyzing complex
phenomena (Yin, 2014), such as digitalization
processes in SMEs.
Modelling Digital Maturity for SMEs
539

Once defined the research questions, the next step
of the case study methodology is the identification of
the research purpose (Yin, 2014). The overall purpose
of this study is to grasp which are the mechanisms and
dynamics governing digitalization processes in SMEs.
According to Yin (2014), a major step in designing
and conducting a case-based research is the
identification of the unit of analysis (i.e. the case
itself), that is, the definition and the boundary of the
case to be studied. Given the research questions and
the purpose, the best fit is to adopt as a unit of analysis
the single SME.
According to the European Union Commission
(2014) the category of micro, small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs) is made up of enterprises
which employ fewer than 250 people and which have
an annual turnover not exceeding EUR 50 million,
and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding
EUR 43 million. However, for the purpose of this
work only the small and medium-sized category was
considered as it would be difficult to enable
meaningful comparisons with micro enterprises due
to the significant differences in both structural and
financial terms. Also, in order to avoid distortions and
gain a better understanding of the real potential in
terms of digitalization, the unit of analysis selected
for this research will be an autonomous SME, as
defined by the European Union Commission (2014).
3.2 Cases Selection
The selection of the cases represents a critical issue in
the field of building theory from cases (Eisenhardt,
1989). In order to enhance the external validity of the
research, the adoption of multiple case studies is
preferred to the single case study (Yin, 2014), since
the generalization purpose of the study requires more
cases to be examined
A structured approach to the sampling process has
been adopted with the intention of maximizing the
collection of valuable insights. Three dimensions
were identified:
 Industry: manufacturing vs services.
 Size: small (10 < AWU < 50) vs medium (50 <
AWU < 250).
 Geographical location: Northern Italy, Central
Italy, Southern Italy.
This selection process led to the identification of a
heterogeneous sample of 18 cases conveniently
anonymized to safeguard the identity of the SMEs
involved.
3.3 Data Analysis
After having transcribed verbatim each interview, a
coding procedure was initiated, following the Gioia
Methodology (Gioia et al., 2012). The procedure
started with a within-case analysis and then moved to
a cross-case synthesis to aggregate the findings and
build a more robust basis for the development of a
theoretical framework. In the first-order analysis both
in-vivo and constructed codes have been adopted to
label salient points of the collected empirical
evidence. Then, in the second-order analysis labels
were grouped together and categorized according to
the corresponding sphere of pertinence. In this phase
a process of triangulation between the evidence
collected in the field and the theoretical realms related
to SMEs digitalization was carried out, questioning
each time whether the concepts developed were both
consistent with the literature and able to explain the
phenomena observed in reality (Gioia et al., 2012).
Once the categories were formed, the process of
abstraction went on with their further aggregation into
themes. In this phase the focus was on two fronts: on
one side themes validating extant theories and
propositions emerged, while on the other side novel
concepts for enriching the scientific framework
“leaped out”.
4 FINDINGS
4.1 The Internal Perspective
From our interviews, skills, culture, adaptability,
flexibility, shared best practices are positively
correlated with digital maturity and play a central role
in SMEs. However, these dimensions cannot be
considered in isolation, due to the pervasiveness of
digitalization. In fact, a correct commitment and
people mindset allows the roadmap to be
implemented with less effort.
“The most critical and most important asset is the
people, because they are the ones who create the most
value for any company. So, this is the first step, that
is, having a team, having a company focused on the
same goal and convinced to do so. " (S5, Governance
and privacy manager). Technologies allow a better
information sharing, and they strongly influence
organization working methods and therefore the
People & Culture dimension. “We must, so to speak,
facilitate integration between people. So, if this
integration already exists within the supplier, that's
fine, otherwise if this technology or need is not
inherent to the suppliers we have, we try to find
ICEIS 2023 - 25th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
540

market-wide solutions that allow us to provide a
solution. to this thing, compatibly with what are the
investments. " (M6, CEO)
4.2 The External Perspective
At this point we adopt an external point of view,
describing the environment in which SMEs operate.
Our evidence suggests that the role that customers
and suppliers play to shape digital maturity is
basically the same. Thus, it is possible to confirm that
customers’ and suppliers' behavior positively
influence the adoption of technologies (Jeansson &
Bredmar, 2019). However, from some interviews it
emerges also the negative impact that these actors
could have on digital maturity. In this case emerge the
mediating role of the size: If the SME is smaller than
its customer base or smaller that its suppliers, the
SME’s digital implementation could be imposed or
hindered with more simplicity by these external
actors. On the other hand, if the SMEs is greater than
its customers and suppliers, the firm can stimulate the
adoption of technologies along the supply chain. This
element influences drastically the evaluation of the
digital maturity because some companies, due to
external constraint, cannot digitalize processes and
improve their digital maturity.
Also, other stakeholders include entities such as
competitors, consultants, universities and research
entities, public agencies are responsible for digital
maturity improvement. However, SMEs convey that
some of these stakeholders, such consultants and
universities, could contribute better to enhance their
digitalization. "The facilitators of this, including the
universities, competence centers, the digital
innovation hubs, all these people here, including you,
it's a bit of a mess." (M3, CEO)
A particular influence is brought by competitors:
“Sometimes we thought this was a waste of money,
always like I told you from our parents. However, we
gradually led them, through competitors, to change
their mindset by telling them things like, “Did you
see? They did this, they have the website, they
have…”. Let's say that we pushed them and this
desire to excel led them to listen to us allowing us to
catch up with the times.” (S3, CEO). In fact, several
projects are introduced thanks to the competitiveness
of the market. The contribution of competitors is
relevant also for all SMEs’ scales.
The last cardinal point is composed by Digital
Service Providers (DSPs). For SMEs they are the
reference point for all digital projects. Moreover, their
contribution is not only related to the provision of
technologies, but they are also guide of the digital
journey, they are the digital trainer and digital
consultant of SMEs. Over time, the service level
expected from these providers is increasing, and
SMEs are becoming more and more aware of their
relevance for a successful implementation of digital
projects.
4.3 Internal-External Perspective
The element that contributes drastically to the
definition of digital maturity is the Applicability
dimension. This is represented as a layer between
SMEs and external actors; however, it should be
considered as a background dimension which
influence all the other dimensions of the framework.
Sometimes, internal processes are not digitalized
because the analogic version is more effective. “I
don't know, the kanban with tags, maybe tomorrow
we will also do the digital kanban, it already exists,
and we can do it, but if the green, yellow and red card
works perfectly, as has been done for thirty years in
Toyota and twenty in Italy, it works well and its point
of strength is also this stuff, why digitalize it?" (M3,
CEO) It happens also for the external point of view.
Applicability influences the relationship between
SMEs and customer and suppliers, it influences the
contribution of DSPs to digitalization and the
relationship between exogenous factor, other
stakeholder, and SMEs.
4.4 The Context
During our interviews, we found lot of references to
Covid 19 pandemic, as an example of exogenous
factor which influences digital transformation. For
this reason, it is possible to confirm that SMEs digital
maturity is strongly affected by socio economical
condition which could change organization and the
works methods (Mandviwalla & Flanagan, 2021).
A concrete example: "In the period of Covid we
could not go around and since we had to present the
new collection, like so many of our competitors but
we were the first, we created a virtual showroom to
present the collection made using CAD, therefore the
digitalization of the fabrics, not the fabric
photographed. Useful or not useful? At that moment
it was required. […] However, at that moment, during
the three-and-a-half-month lockdown, we created a
virtual showroom”. (M2, Marketing and
communication manager)
More in general, the overall degree of
technological know-how in the economy – i.e., the
availability of a technology, together with the
availability on the market of the competencies needed
Modelling Digital Maturity for SMEs
541

to integrate such technologies – strongly influences
digital maturity. In this context we refer to the
advancement of technologies in a particular context.
It is possible that in a different period technology
could be not implemented because immature, but
over the time they will enable new processes and new
innovations.
“In my opinion sooner or later we will also think
of the metaverse, perhaps better sooner than later
because maybe after it's late. It's true, no one knows
it now, few know it, but everyone talks about it. [...]
And if the metaverse will help to create new job
opportunities, to increase the business for realities
already present today, so be it, I am the first, rather, I
would like to face this discussion. " (M2, Marketing
and communication manager)
This kind of evaluation is useful also because
“Now the technology has a short life cycle.” (S5,
Governance and privacy manager). This means that a
maturity model should be re-calibrated frequently in
order to assess SMEs in a correct way. This allows an
innovative evolution in terms of readiness model,
because it gives the possibility to assess companies in
different time period and obtain different result.
“Some technologies you marry, some you lose, you
have to be able to make the right choices. You have
to make some choices because you can't keep up with
everything obviously, there is so much out there that
how can you stay up to date and keep up with
everything?" (S2, CEO)
Also, the Legal Framework contributes to the
adoption of technologies. Several authors states that
public institutions have an impact upon SMEs’
digitalization, and it is possible to confirm these
results with our interviews. "These are years of
exceptional investments for us, because the various
opportunities and tax advantages linked to 4.0
combined with Sabatini have given us crazy
leverage". (M5, CEO). “Some things are also required
by law, if you are asked for the PEC you have to
adapt”. (M4, Administrative manager)
Lastly, also the geographical and socio-economic
context should be considered. In some cases, this
external factor is perceived as the main driver of
digitalization.
“The digitalization come from, I would say 70
(external factor) and 30 (internal factor)”(S9, CEO)
However, some difficulties could derive from
context that bind companies and force them to slow
down their growth.
"In Italy, personnel management is enough ... we
don't focus so much on people, that is, in Italy there
are the lowest salaries in Europe." (S9, CEO)
For these reasons, considering also these
dimensions in the evaluation of digital maturity is
crucial because it allows a benchmarking between
companies that operate in different environments.
5 DISCUSSION
The main objective of this framework is to provide a
guideline for the fair evaluation of the digital
maturity, highlighting different perspectives for the
evaluation of small and medium enterprises. For this
reason, the framework in Figure 1 represents a
compass indicating what are the main dimensions that
improve the SME’s digitalization, without forgetting
the essential nature of an enterprise.
We improve the understanding of the main
dimensions identified by researchers (as in section
2.2) so far with the aim of covering all SMEs with
their characteristics and differences. The eight
dimensions of reference play a fundamental role for
the model proposal, leading our research from the
theoretical point of view.
Figure 1: SMEs Digital Maturity Framework.
However, the framework dimensions do not
correspond exactly to those listed in the literature
review, but it groups some of them in a single theme.
This happens for the dimension People & Culture,
which groups together Employee skill and culture and
Organizational flexibility and adaptability; and it is
also true for the dimension Technology Portfolio,
which aggregates Integration and Information
Technology.
ICEIS 2023 - 25th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
542

5.1 The Core of the Framework
People & Culture, Technology Portfolio, and Strategy
& Roadmap are the essence of SMEs; all of them
converge into the Integrated Processes dimension,
that plays the role of connector.
From our interviews, People & Culture is a
fundamental driver of digitalization, thus confirming
the contribution of all the reference studies (Eller et
al., 2020; Jeansson & Bredmar, 2019; Pirola et al.,
2019; Zangiacomi et al., 2020).
The second dimension is Technology Portfolio.
Its contribution to digital maturity is straightforward:
digital technologies are the tools which enable the
transformation. Previous research underlines that
technology integration is a requirement of digital
maturity.
The third dimension is Strategy & Roadmap
which it is considered a crucial dimension for digital
maturity by most of the authors (Eller et al., 2020;
Jeansson & Bredmar, 2019; Pirola et al., 2019;
Zangiacomi et al., 2020). It is well established that
Strategy & Roadmap represents the capability of the
company to implement, evaluate, and define digital
goals. However, it is necessary to further stress its
importance, because none of the seminal papers
addresses the Strategy & Roadmap dimension from
the service SMEs’ perspective.
The Strategy & Roadmap dimension allows into
account the different nature of SMEs (manufacturing
or service), thus enabling an evaluation tailored to the
firm.
The above-mentioned dimensions influence
drastically the Integrated Processes dimension.
Nevertheless, when authors define models and
assessment tools, looking at production processes,
they refer to categories strictly related to
manufacturing machines, sensors, and products.
5.2 Relationships
Processes allow to go beyond the perimeter of the
SMEs and create connection with the other entities of
the model. Within the SMEs network, four are the key
relationship on which SMEs should focus,
represented with the four cardinal points: Customers,
Suppliers, Digital Service Providers, and Other
Stakeholders.
Customers have great importance also in other
studies (Eller et al., 2020; Jeansson & Bredmar, 2019;
Pirola et al., 2019), while the influence that suppliers
have on SMEs is less mentioned. Our evidence
suggests that the role that customers and suppliers
play to shape digital maturity is basically the same.
Thus, it is possible to confirm that customers’ and
suppliers' behavior positively influence the adoption
of technologies (Jeansson & Bredmar, 2019).
Looking at the seminal papers, some of them
highlight the role that DSPs play in digital
transformation; however, none of them strongly
emphasize the great contribution that these actors
give to SMEs. In our research, we witness how DSPs
positively influence digitalization and, moreover,
how they strongly influence the heart of the company
– Strategy & Roadmap, People & Culture,
Technology Portfolio.
Applicability influences the relationship
between SMEs and customer and suppliers, it
influences the contribution of DSPs to digitalization
and the relationship between exogenous factor, other
stakeholder, and SMEs.
For this reason, applicability should be a
considered as a filter that allows all the entities
described by the framework to interact among each
other following the benefit that SMEs are trying to
gain.
5.3 Context
Finally, based on the evidence from the interviews,
the context should be evaluated according to the
endowments in terms of technological knowhow,
exogenous events, legal framework, and geographical
and socioeconomic context.
According to the findings of our interview, thus,
digital maturity should be assess using a, evolutive
approach: in this way a SMEs could be considered
digital mature for a particular context, but digital
immature in the moment in which this context
changes. This gives a huge feature to our model,
which consider the possibility to be demoted to a
lower level of digital maturity.
Moreover, the four elements that are part of the
external layer of our framework should be considered
as interrelated elements.
6 MANAGERIAL CONCLUSIONS
This research evidence that for SMEs, core and
support processes are the main elements to be
considered in terms of digitalization. However, we
show that these are not the only dimensions that are
involved in the digital maturity evaluation, “the
winner is the one who has the widest possible
approach, who tries to see the interconnections” (M3,
CEO). With this research, entrepreneurs can extend
their digital vision through the environment in which
Modelling Digital Maturity for SMEs
543

operate, focusing on what is significant for their
companies.
We highlight that developing digitalization with
external actors is crucial to exploit advantages, “to
promote and convey messages and values” (M7,
Marketing and sales manager). For example, our
research underlines the importance of a well-
established relationship with digital vendors.
“Supplier choice is even more important than today's
technology” (M3, CEO) because a digital partner
could fill knowledge gaps and allows companies to
define the correct activities and solutions to
implement digitalization, as happened to M7: “we
have several partners, not directly an eCommerce, but
several partners who convey our products through
digital channels”. Benefits derived from the network
are several. Another example could be related to the
easier access to financial resources, thanks to regions'
digital subsidy or on-again, a collaboration with
suppliers in terms of digital integration could reduce
order errors, misunderstanding, and so on.
7 CONCLUSION, LIMITATION
AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This research work manages to achieve a double goal:
it confirms some of the dimensions highlighted by
other researchers, enriching them, however, with
additional details and by, distancing itself from the
contributions exclusively dedicated to large
companies or only to manufacturing companies,
proposes a vision of the digital maturity models to cut
out on SMEs.
As presented in the discussion of the model, our
advice is to follow an adaptable evaluative
perspective that starting from the object of analysis –
the single SME with its processes – can then rescale
the results obtained on the basis of the other
components which, depending on the context in
which the company operates, will enable a more
truthful assessment of its digital maturity.
However, this work is not without limitations. The
first limitation concerns the “high-level” perspective
of the phenomenon. Only C-level managers and
executives were interviewed. A wider set of
informants not coming from the firm's chain of
command, could also be involved in future research.
The second limitation relates to the shortage of
different points of view from other actors of the
ecosystem. It would be interesting to look at the
phenomenon from a different angle, for example by
adopting the vendor's standpoint as a complementary
means to refine the understanding of the digitalization
processes of SMEs. The third limitation concerns the
adoption of the model to effectively assess the digital
maturity of an SME. Future research should focus on
identifying the scales and evaluation criteria by which
to evaluate the different variables that make up the
framework presented in this paper. Finally, a
limitation common to the whole research regards the
relatively low generalizability of the findings in terms
of both numerosity and heterogeneity, coming from
the qualitative nature of the research methodology
adopted. According to the purpose of the research, it
does not represent a real drawback because a more in-
depth inquiry was essential to establish a theoretical
basis for understanding the rationales behind SMEs'
digitalization. However, given these characteristics,
future research could improve the generalizability of
this work by addressing the emergence of
“idiosyncratic phenomena” (Eisenhardt, 1989)
according to two alternative pathways:
1. Quantitative support: complementing the
interpretative-oriented approach adopted during
the interviews with a more statistical-oriented
set of research.
2. Further improving heterogeneity: this research
does not intend to claim exhaustiveness, so two
possible ways glimpse of enhancing
heterogeneity within the sample are: a)
enlargement of the geographical scope b)
inclusion of additional sectors.
Given the limitations listed above, the framework
presented does not represent a finish line but rather it
is intended as a preliminary starting point that settles
the stage to new avenues of research.
ACKNOWLDEGEMENTS
We thank you Matteo Ariazzi and Stefano Arré for
their contribution to the work.
REFERENCES
Amaral, A., & Peças, P. (2021). SMEs and Industry 4.0:
Two case studies of digitalization for a smoother
integration. Computers in Industry, 125.
Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., & Ruales Guzman, B. V. (2020).
Driving internationalization through business model in-
novation: Evidences from an AgTech company. Multi-
national Business Review, 28(2), 201-220.
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
ICEIS 2023 - 25th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
544

Digital Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 38(1), 68–89.
Depaoli, P., Za, S., & Scornavacca, E. (2020). A model
for digital development of SMEs: an interaction-based
approach. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 27(7), 1049–1068.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case
Study Research. Academy of Management Review,
14(4), 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory
building from cases: Opportunities and challenges.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
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.
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). Technolo-
gy diffusion theory revisited: a regulation,
environment, strategy, technology model for
technology activation analysis of mobile ICT.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(10),
1223-1249.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012).
Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes
on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research
Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
González-Varona, J. M., Acebes, F., Poza, D., & López-
Paredes, A. (2020). Fostering Digital Growth in
SMEs: Organizational Competence for Digital
Transformation. Working Conference on Virtual
Enterprises, 237–248.
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), Inter-
connected 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
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.
Li, L., Su, F., Zhang, W., & Mao, J. Y. (2018). Digital
transformation by SME entrepreneurs: A capability
perspective. Information Systems Journal, 28(6), 1129–
1157.
Mandviwalla, M., & Flanagan, R. (2021). Small business
digital transformation in the context of the pandemic.
European Journal of Information Systems, 30(4), 359–
375.
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., 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.
North, K., Aramburu, N., & Lorenzo, O. J. (2020).
Promoting digitally enabled growth in SMEs: a
framework proposal. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 33(1), 238–262.
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.
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.
Trotta, D., & Garengo, P. (2019). Assessing Industry 4.0
Maturity: An Essential Scale for SMEs. Proceedings
of 2019 8th International Conference on Industrial
Technology and Management, ICITM 2019, 69–74.
Wendler, R. (2012). The maturity of maturity model
research: A systematic mapping study. Information and
Software Technology, 54(12), 1317–1339.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and
Methods 5th edition. S.l.: SAGE Publications
.
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.
Zapata, M. L., Berrah, L., & Tabourot, L. (2020a). Is a igital
transformation framework enough for manufacturing
smart products? The case of Small and Medium
Enterprises. Procedia Manufacturing, 42, 70–75.
Modelling Digital Maturity for SMEs
545