See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350098483

Part-1: Digital Transformation Maturity Models and Frameworks -Point of

View "Action Fields of Digital Transformation -A Review and Comparative
Analysis of Digital Transformation M...

Article · March 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 1,059

1 author:

Ayman El Safadi
Jathwa Information & Technology Services
4 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

How to make your COO Digitally listen? View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayman El Safadi on 12 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Part-1:
Digital Transformation Maturity Models and Frameworks - Point of View

This article is the first in a 3-part series about Digital Transformation Models and
Frameworks. Part-1 is an amplified summary and point of view edition of a research
conducted by Jimmy Bumann and Professor Dr. Marc K. Peter - November 2019 titled
"Action Fields of Digital Transformation - A Review and Comparative Analysis of Digital
Transformation Maturity Models and Frameworks."

In Part-2 and Part-3 of my independent scrutiny, I will cover other digital frameworks
and models not cited by Mr. Bumann and Professor Dr. Marc, such as the MIT,
Capgemini, Accenture, Cognizant, EY, and others. I will be utilizing a similar
methodology and approach to the research they conducted in 2019.

Digital Transformation (DX) is meant to be a global and a revolutionized industry effort

(Industry 4.0). Organizations have no choice but to transfer digitally; It's a survival
issue; it is either transfer; otherwise, you will be left behind.

DX sponsors, strategists, and implementation leaders find it challenging to set and

implement digital agendas because they are uncertain about the business process's
digitalization aspects, topics, and setup.

To provide the organization's leadership with an overview of the most critical digital
transformation topics, many consulting (firms), independent authors, and even digital
communities built their unique digital transformation frameworks/models, making the
confusion and challenges even more difficult.

Unfortunately, research insights and practical guidance for businesses in the field of
DX are still limited (M. Peter, C. Kraft, and J. Lindeque, 2019). While commercial
providers, including consulting companies, have published a series of whitepapers
and frameworks, only a handful of DX models/frameworks have emerged from
academic research. Most of them are digital maturity models that assess an
organization's digital readiness and progress in the digital age.

Multi-million dollar questions asked – Which one is a more suitable framework? Which
firm's philosophy, framework, and model would an enterprise pick for its Digital
Transformation Strategy and Journey? And Which one will make an enterprise Digital
Transformation Strategy and Journey a successful one? Let me shed light on some
answers and retort these questions in the coming articles as part of this POV and
conclusion.

Out of almost one hundred articles and sources, Bumann and Dr. Peter's review has
identified eighteen validated digital maturity models and frameworks which describe
various business dimensions or action fields for DX leadership to consider for a digital
transformation strategy and journey. The eighteen identified models and frameworks
include 116 dimensions (an average of six per model/framework).

The comparative analysis and findings, the models and frameworks:

a) vary in terms of origin, industry, and their academic or practical background
and purpose
b) either had to stem from researchers or organizations with a sound reputation,
such as international conglomerate system integrators or/and consultancy
firms
c) the majority are maturity models that aim to assess an organization's digital
maturity either with a self-assessment or with an assessment through a third
party, where some frameworks purely provide an overview for digital
transformation topics
The analysis examined more than 25 (business) dimensions and action fields, but six
repeated ones (are dominating) provide an essential potential generic cross-industry
digital transformation framework for organizations to succeed in their digital
transformations. However, I have noticed that one common action field among nine
specific dimensions is vital (but not –clearly– cited) to the digital journey's success; it is
the Change Management action field. Enterprise's Change management capability
creates the fuel for success by orchestrating a harmony between Culture, People,
Leadership, Collaboration, Environment, Monitoring, Control, Value, and
Transformation Management.

To simplify the representation, I abbreviated the essential business dimensions or

business action fields which henceforth called them business capabilities under a
holistic one "STOP-3C digital transformation business capabilities" model:

1. Strategy business capability

2. Technology business capability

3. Organization business capability

4. People business capability

5. Corporate culture business capability

6. Customer experience/engagement business capability

7. Change management business capability

one STOP-3C digital transformation business capabilities

Through the one STOP-3C DX Business Capabilities model, I aim to unify a DX model
that might answer some of the DX executives' concerns. The above model highlights
the main-dimensions, and in the subsequence part of this article, I will shed light more
on the sub-dimensions capabilities.

Unfortunately (and as proclaimed by Becker, Knackstedt & Pöppelbuss), although

many maturity models and frameworks have been developed in recent years, the
procedures and approaches that led to these models have been ambiguously
documented.

The procedure for the development and identification of a generic and supported
digital transformation framework partly relates to a simplified methodological
approach suggested by Becker, Knackstedt & Pöppelbuss (2009), Egeli (2016), and
Neff (2014).

The approach took into consideration the following strains:

• The need and practical relevance for a broader and validated digital
transformation framework
• The need to identify and reveal the existing digital maturity models and
transformation frameworks
• The need for the models and frameworks to be compared and evaluated
regarding their (business) dimensions
• A born of a new model/framework shall be (universal) demarcated
according to the results of the comparative analysis
• The framework shall be validated in the market

The analysis classified the six most applied business capabilities, namely:
• Culture (in 13 models/frameworks)
 • Technology (in 12 models/frameworks)
• Strategy (in 11 models/frameworks)
• Organization (in 10 models/frameworks)
• Customer experience/engagement (in 10 models/frameworks)
• People/employees (in 9 models/frameworks)

The threshold was defined at 40% – meaning that these business capabilities appear
in at least 40% of the total group of frameworks and models.

Since each model has its unique characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses, the
comparison led to several challenges:

Firstly, some models used a specific topic as the primary dimension, while others used
it indirectly as well, but only as a sub-dimension. For instance, "eco-systems and
partnerships" were used as the primary dimension and defined as a sub-category of
another dimension. Anderson & William (2018) consider eco-systems under the
strategy dimension, whereas Schlaepfer (2017) categorize eco-systems under the
organization dimension. Since this comparison aimed to identify the most frequently
used topmost (business) dimensions, the concept-matrix generally only covered each
framework/model's primary (business) dimensions and neglected the sub-dimensions.

Secondly, for specific (business) dimensions with the same meaning, slightly different
terms were used by others. For instance, dimensions such as information technology
and technology management combined in the technology dimension (later
amplified as disruptive technology). Dimensions such as customer centricity or
customer experience combined in the customer(s) dimension. On the other hand,
different topics were aggregated in one dimension. For instance, Anderson & William
(2018) combined organization and culture, Peter (2017) combined digital leadership
and culture, and Berghaus (2017) combined culture and expertise. In such cases,
both terms were considered separately to increase comparability and consistency
levels.

And finally, most models and frameworks are generic, similar to these of a general
business model canvas, while others, for instance, Gill & Vanboskirk (2016), Gimpel
(2018), Gunsberg (2018), Peter (2017), Rogers (2016), Schlaepfer (2017) and
Westerman (2011), include digital transformation specific (business) dimensions, which
are new to the portfolio of pre-digital area management topics.

Comparative Analysis of Digital Transformation Models & Frameworks (renovated)

 Conclusion
Many digital transformation communities, consulting firms, and governmental entities
created their own digital Transformation model/framework. The marketplace is
overwhelmed with too many digital transformation models and frameworks which
confuses many executives, leaders, and implementation managers. Most of them are
digital maturity models that assess an organization's digital readiness and progress in
the digital age. And unfortunately, many of these frameworks lack pragmatic
validation and lack practical guidance for businesses (Bumann and Peter, 2019). A
call to unify and industry standardized a digital transformation model/framework is
becoming a necessity.

The review unveiled by Bumann and Professor Dr. Peter sat as a cornerstone for
evaluating and reshaping the industrial digital transformation models and
frameworks. The analysis opened the door wide and mandated a standardizing
industrial digital transformation model/framework – building a universal, industry-
standard, and cross-industrial model/framework permitting an enterprise to map its
business capabilities and measure its digital success journey.

Despite the fact that Mr. Bumann and Dr. Peter put a tremendous analytical effort
into the review by (a) validated more than 25 significant business dimensions for
successful digital transformation, (b) identified and analyzed eighteen digital
strategy/transformation maturity models/frameworks along with their various business
dimensions/capabilities, and (c) identified the most often cited business dimensions
(namely strategy, organization, corporate culture, technology, customer, and
people), other existing digital transformation models/frameworks ought to be
incorporated and assessed.

Digital transformation requires an interlock of organizational change along with the

implementation of disruptive digital technologies. The six business capabilities stated
in the review – together with the additional change management capability – should
be deliberated in all digital transformation strategies and mapping tasks.

The task was challenging since some models defined (or labeled) a certain topic as
the main business dimension/capability, whereas others used it as well, but only as a
sub-dimension. In addition, for some business dimensions/capabilities with the same
meaning, slightly different terms were used in the identified literature.

Many of the reviewed models/frameworks are generic, similar to those of a general

business strategy or business model canvas, while others include digital
transformation-specific dimensions; this created a new driver and an excellent
opportunity for organizations (not a challenge or a confusion). Since digital
transformation is not optional and a surviving matter, organizations need not start
comparing their current (strategy) status and future (digital) strategy status. They
should confirm and enrich their existing strategy with the new digital direction and
deploying disruptive digital technologies.

In Part-2, I will shed more light on other existing digital transformation models and
frameworks. And in Part-3, a more focus on digital transformation business capabilities
will be the core topic.

Ayman El Safadi
COO / CDO
Business Transformation

View publication stats