The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0398.htm

JEIM
33,1 Promoting digitally enabled
growth in SMEs:
a framework proposal
238 Klaus North
Fachbereich Wiesbaden Business School,
Received 8 April 2019
Revised 14 June 2019 Hochschule RheinMain, Wiesbaden, Germany, and
10 July 2019
19 July 2019
Nekane Aramburu and Oswaldo Jose Lorenzo
Accepted 31 July 2019 Deusto Business School, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide guidance to SMEs to sense and seize digitally enabled
growth opportunities as well as start a project-based learning process to transform the organization in order
to remain competitive in turbulent environments.
Design/methodology/approach – The proposed framework is nurtured from a dynamic capabilities
approach as well as from digital transformation studies and mitigates shortcomings of existing frameworks on
IT-enabled business transformation. A pilot study has also been carried out for testing the proposed framework.
Findings – The results of the pilot study show that the framework is well understood by SME owners or
managers and contributes to a comprehensive perception of digitalization challenges and potentials.
The overall maturity level of the 52 companies analyzed is moderate. Firms are better at “sensing” than
“seizing”, that is, at identifying digitally based growth opportunities than in profiting from them. The test of
the proposed framework also contributes to its further adjustment and refinement.
Practical implications – The developed framework is useful for owners and managers of SMEs as a self-
assessment of digital maturity. It sets a baseline regarding the current position and supports coordinated
initiatives for digitally enabled growth.
Originality/value – Few frameworks regarding digital maturity have been developed. Most of them lack a
sound theoretical foundation and are less suited to the needs of SMEs. There are few studies on digitalization
in SMEs and they are not focussed on capabilities development but mostly on processes (Trung Pham 2010;
Blatz et al., 2018; Mittal et al., 2018). Therefore, the originality of this paper is to propose a framework that
allows SMEs to assess their digital maturity level and the capabilities associated with each level to enhance
digitally enabled growth, contributing to expand the research on the relationship between dynamic
capabilities and digitalization (Teece, 2017).
Keywords Growth, Dynamic capabilities, Digital maturity, Digital transformation, SMEs
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Enterprise Information
Management
Vol. 33 No. 1, 2020
pp. 238-262
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0398
DOI 10.1108/JEIM-04-2019-0103
1. Introduction
1.1 Digitalization of SMEs: drivers and challenges
Digital technologies and their applications are disrupting a wide range of industries,
threatening to transform existing ways of doing things and existing business models
(Hamill, 2015; Lorenzo et al., 2018). The digital transformation has been evolving through
three interlinked processes. First, the digitization of analogue information to encode it into
zeros and ones so that computers can store, process and transmit it. Second, digitalization of
the ways in which people interact through the use of digital technologies (e.g. e-mail, chat,
social media, etc.) and the digitalization of business models through the use of digital
technologies. Finally, the digital transformation of organizations that refers to the
cross-cutting organizational change based on the implementation of new digital
technologies (Bloomberg, 2018; Gartner, 2019; Brennen and Kreiss, 2016; Bounfour, 2016).
The corresponding digitalization of previously analogue operations, tasks and managerial
processes profoundly affects companies and organizations (Tarute et al., 2018; Iansiti and
Lakhani, 2014). Developing an appropriate response to digital change is the number one
medium-term challenge facing business today.
 SMEs, which play a key role in national economies around the world by generating Promoting
employment and value added, are particularly affected by these changes. Digitalization digitally
offers new opportunities for SMEs to participate in the global economy, but SMEs are enabled growth
lagging behind in the digital transition (OECD, 2017a). The purpose of this paper, therefore,
is to provide guidance for digitally enabled growth of SMEs. The framework presented in in SMEs
this paper helps SMEs to sense and seize digitally enabled growth opportunities as well as
start a project-based learning process to transform their organization in order to remain 239
competitive in turbulent environments. To assist SMEs in their learning journey we have to
understand what their motivations are and how they approach digital transformation.
The main drivers for SMEs wanting to embrace the digital economy are internal
efficiencies, cost reductions, better collaboration and new product and service offerings
(Grand Coalition for Digital Jobs, 2014–2016). Quinton et al. (2017) argued that SMEs could
excel in the digitalized organization environment because digital technology supports
intelligence gathering, cost reduction and audience extension. As smaller business partners,
SMEs are often left with no alternative but to adapt to the requirements of others. Their
competitiveness will depend strongly on their capacity to better connect to an integrated
business network (Rehm and Goel, 2017; EU Commission, 2014). A literature analysis by
Tarutėa and Gatautisa (2014) showed that the adoption of information and communications
technology (ICT) has an impact on SMEs’ performance dimensions, such as profitability,
growth, market value, social and environmental performance and satisfaction. The
European Digital Transformation Scoreboard (EU Commission, 2017) stated that 53 per cent
of companies in Europe investing in digital technologies have increased their annual
turnover, but only 6 per cent of technology adopters have seen their operational costs
decrease. The Boston Consulting Group (BCG, 2013) surveyed the IT adoption of more than
4,000 SMEs in Germany, China, India and Brazil. They found that leaders in technology
adoption created jobs almost twice as fast as other SMEs and their annual revenues grew
faster than firms with a lower level of technology adoption.

1.2 How are SMEs approaching digitalization?

To understand how SMEs are approaching digitalization we have to be aware that they are
part of a heterogeneous universe of extremely diverse economic agents, whose
characteristics vary depending on the business sector they operate in, the markets they
serve, the products they produce and how involved and connected they are to the
macroeconomic context and support institutions (Neirotti et al., 2018; OECD/UN ECLAC,
2012). What SMEs do have in common, however, is the need to integrate, build and
reconfigure internal and external resources to adapt to rapidly changing environments.
These dynamic capabilities reside in skills, processes, procedures, organizational structures,
decision rules and distinct disciplines that motivate and promote the detection (sensing) and
capture (seizing) opportunities in order to reconfigure (transforming) their capabilities
(Teece, 2007). Several studies demonstrated that the development of dynamic capabilities
contributes to SME performance and growth (Sunday and Vera, 2018; He and Wong, 2004;
Lubatkin et al., 2006; Protogeru et al., 2008). Based on the literature and an explorative study
of 235 small- and medium-sized firms, Borch and Madsen (2007) developed four categories of
dynamic capabilities that facilitate innovative strategies in SMEs: internal and external
reconfiguration and integration capabilities, resource acquisition capability, learning
network capabilities and strategic path aligning capabilities.
Even though we currently lack consolidated evidence in this emerging field of research and
practice, there is an increasing number of surveys and case studies that shed light on the
learning path of developing the digitalization capabilities of SMEs. In their online survey of Irish
SMEs, Harrigan et al. (2011) found that SMEs are adopting relatively simple internet-based
technologies to improve their customer communication and information management
JEIM capabilities and thus create competitive advantage in their own strategic way. External support
33,1 from digital platform service providers often paves the way to digitalization
(Li et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2016). In case studies of 68 German manufacturing SMEs, Müller
et al. (2018) illustrated that these firms generally approach Industry 4.0 with caution and are still
trying to comprehend how to take advantage of business model innovation in value creation,
value offer and value capture. This cautious or reactive view is echoed by a survey of 300 SMEs
240 in the UK (IDC, 2017) who still view IT as a necessary cost (45 per cent) as opposed to a driver of
competitive advantage (20 per cent) (see also Karltorp, 2017). The ;IDC-SAP (2017) study of
3,900 SMEs in 14 countries also stated that companies prefer to move forwards cautiously
investing in small quick impact projects, which set the stage for more ambitious and demanding
projects. Observing other SMEs and learning from them is a widely used approach in this
stepwise move towards digitalization (Baker et al., 2015; Grand Coalition for Digital
Jobs, 2014–2016). A study of Swiss SMEs (PwC Switzerland, Google Switzerland, and
digitalswitzerland, 2016) revealed that digital maturity correlates positively with the size of the
organization and negatively with the age of its management. Overall, SMEs tend to be more
flexible and can make decisions faster than larger companies (North and Varvakis, 2016).
However, they are often less oriented to advance their (technological) capabilities due to a lack of
resources or strategy (Ramdani et al., 2009; Consoli, 2012; Karltorp, 2017).
Summarizing the above findings: in this first wave of digitalization (EU Commission,
2017), SMEs adopt quick impact measures, experiment with new solutions, observe their
peers and cautiously move forwards mostly without a comprehensive vision of what
digitalization means for the firm. Proactive firms display a strong leadership, develop a
digital mindset, have well-developed sensors for technology and market developments,
learn from many sources, integrate into business ecosystems and actively promote their
digital market presence (Conference Board of Canada, 2014; IDC-SAP, 2017; Sinkkilä, 2017;
Müller et al., 2018).
Considering the aforementioned, the big challenge remains how to foster dynamic
capabilities development for digitally enabled growth in a holistic and systematic manner.
Development of capabilities for digitalization is an even greater challenge for SMEs due to,
as pointed out above, their lack of resources or strategy. Paradoxically, there is little
research aimed at giving answer to this challenge. The number of studies on digitalization in
SMEs is scarce and they are not focussed on capabilities, but mostly on processes
(Trung Pham, 2010; Blatz et al., 2018; Mittal et al., 2018). Overall, there are few studies on
digitalization focussed on capabilities and they do not refer to SMEs (Evans, 2017; Bain and
Company, 2016). In order to cover this gap and to contribute to expand the research on the
relationship between digitalization and dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2017), the main purpose
of this research is to develop and provide a framework that can allow companies to assess
their digital maturity level, and the capabilities associated with each level of maturity, that
could support their digitally enabled growth. This assessment helps SMEs to reflect on their
current status, to identify required capabilities, to anchor pilot initiatives in an overall
picture of digital transformation as well as to consciously design their learning journey.

2. Theoretical background: frameworks and maturity models for digital

transformation
A management framework is a suite of structural elements or units that create a (theoretical)
foundation for the management process (McConnell, 2010). Frameworks reflect the axioms,
principles, structure and objectives that turn a body of knowledge into a body of
understanding, answering questions regarding why certain techniques and constructs fit
together (Managing Research Library, n.d.).
The capability maturity model was developed more than 25 years ago by the Software
Engineering Institute (Paulk et al., 1993). This model was the trigger for the study of the
maturity evolution of organizations in different fields, such as information systems Promoting
(Becker et al., 2009), knowledge management (Kulkarni and Freeze, 2004) and business digitally
process management (De Bruin and Rosemann, 2005). The maturity concept is related to the enabled growth
level of identification, description and optimization of processes, from ad hoc practices to
formally defined management of performance or optimization of processes. In summary, in SMEs
maturity can be defined as a measure to evaluate the capabilities of an organization
regarding a certain discipline (Paulk et al., 1993). Maturity models allow the assessment of 241
the current situation of a company as well as the identification of reasonable improvement
measures (Becker et al., 2009) and they serve as a guide through the transformation journey
(Valdez-de-Leon, 2016). In this study, we identified 16 publications that developed maturity
models related to digital transformation in different contexts (see Table I). In order to
properly classify them, we have depicted a maturity model classification based on the type
of application of these models (descriptive, prescriptive and comparative) and the type of
entities under study (processes, business models, organizational systems and capabilities).
This classification is based on Mettler and Rohner (2009) as well as Pöppelbuß and
Röglinger (2011).
The first-mentioned study refers to a set of entities. Typical entities under study are
people, processes or other objects such as social systems (Kohlegger et al., 2009), and
according to a resource-based view of a firm, resources are classified into assets and
capabilities (Wade and Hulland, 2004). Pöppelbuß and Röglinger (2011) described three
application-specific purposes for a maturity model: descriptive, prescriptive and
comparative. First, a descriptive purpose is applied to assessment models where the
current capabilities of the entity under investigation are evaluated with respect to a given
criteria (Becker et al., 2009). In this case, the model is mainly used as a diagnostic tool.
Second, a prescriptive purpose considers how to identify desirable maturity levels and guide
an organization about ways to improve its measures (Becker et al., 2009). Third, a
comparative purpose aims at comparing the performance of different participants based on
enough historical data (Maier et al., 2009). Based on the review of maturity models for digital
transformation, we identified four types of entities: processes, business models,
organizational systems and capabilities. In addition, we classified them according to the
three application-specific purposes mentioned above. Table I shows the classification of
each of the 16 studies identified from the literature review. The reasons for the classification
of the studies are described below.

2.1 Descriptive models

The following three studies are classified in Table I cell combining descriptive application
and the entity of processes. First, Blatz et al. (2018) described the level of digitalization of
SMEs in the process of creating product-service systems. Second, a framework to evaluate
the maturity level of analytic processes in an organization was introduced by Grossman
(2018). The framework identified analytic-related processes in six key process areas, from
building analytic models to identifying analytic opportunities. It divides maturity into five
levels, from organizations that can build reports to enterprises whose analytics is strategy
driven. Third, an investigation by Morais et al. (2010) focussed on the e-business maturity
stages of Portuguese SMEs and large companies. The aim of Morais et al. (2010) was to
identify at which e-business maturity stage an organization was and to explore the
relationship between the maturity stage and e-business development. In addition, in this
group of descriptive models, an article by Catlin et al. (2015) is classified in the cell
combining descriptive application and the entity organizational system. This study
developed a maturity model based on a McKinsey’s in-depth survey that evaluated
18 practices related to digital strategy, technological capacities and culture to measure the
digital quotient of an organization.
JEIM Focus on Focus on
33,1 Focus on business organizational Focus on
Number Authors Title of model processes model system capabilities

Descriptive models
1 Blatz Maturity model of |
et al. (2018) digitization for SMEs
242 2 Grossman A framework for |
(2018) evaluating the analytic
maturity of an org.
3 Paulo Morais Electronic business maturity |
et al. (2010) in Portuguese SME and large
enterprises
4 Catlin Raising your digital quotient |
et al. (2015)
Prescriptive models
5 Wiesner Maturity models for |
et al. (2018) digitalization in
manufacturing –
applicability for SMEs
6 Mittal Towards a smart |
et al. (2018) manufacturing maturity
model for SMEs (SM3E)
7 Trung Pham Measuring the ICT maturity |
(2010) of SMEs
8 Rubel A maturity model for |
et al. (2018) business model management
in Industry 4.0
9 Adamik and Preparedness of companies |
Nowicki (2018) for digital transformation
and creating a competitive
advantage in the age of
Industry 4.0
10 Valdez-de-Leon A digital maturity model for |
(2016) telecomm service providers
11 Warwick An Industry 4.0 readiness |
Manufacturing assessment tool
Group (2017)
12 Evans (2017) Mastering digital business |
Comparative models
13 Lichtblau Industry 4.0 readiness report |
et al. (2015)
14 Remane Digital maturity in traditional |
et al. (2017) industries: an exploratory
analysis
15 Westerman, The advantages of digital |
Table I. Tannou, maturity
Maturity models Bonnet,
classification based on Ferraris and
the type of application McAfee (2012)
and the type of 16 Bain and The path to digital maturity |
entities Company (2016)

2.2 Prescriptive models

The group of prescriptive models represents most studies from the literature review. The
following three articles are classified in the cell combining prescriptive application and the
entity processes. Wiesner et al. (2018) evaluated the level of readiness to implement
technologies and practices such as Industry 4.0 in SMEs. In addition, the authors described Promoting
requirements to be addressed by SMEs if they wished to attempt the digitalization of their digitally
manufacturing processes. A model measuring smart manufacturing maturity for SMEs was enabled growth
proposed by Mittal et al. (2018). The model aimed to assist SMEs to progress towards smart
manufacturing through a set of methods and toolboxes. Trung Pham (2010) introduced a in SMEs
model for measuring the maturity of the ICT processes of Vietnamese SMEs. The model
enables organizations to know their current situation and to lead effective management of 243
knowledge resources to strengthen their competitive capability.
A second set of articles is classified in the cell combining prescriptive application and the
entity organizational system. Adamik and Nowicki (2018) aimed at evaluating the level of
organizations’ preparedness for digital transformation and identified key requirements for the
generation of a competitive advantage in the age of Industry 4.0. Valdez-de-Leon (2016)
focussed on the telecommunications sector and offered recommendations on how to navigate
digital transformation for telecommunication service providers. Valdez-de-Leon’s (2016) model
considered a set of different organizational dimensions such as strategy, innovation
ecosystems, technology and operations. Valdez-de-Leon’s study was an inspiration for the
construction of the framework presented in this investigation, mainly regarding the definition
of digital maturity levels. A study by the Warwick Manufacturing Group (2017) developed an
Industry 4.0 readiness assessment tool for companies with a view to harnessing the
opportunities of the new digital age. The tool looked beyond the technology to consider other
organizational dimensions such as strategy, supply chain and legal issues.
Finally, in this group of prescriptive models, there are two further articles to be mentioned.
First, an article by Rubel et al. (2018) is classified in the cell combining prescriptive application
and the entity of business model. This study introduced the entity of business model and
combined it with Industry 4.0 and other managerial aspects. In addition, the model guided
organizations on ways to progress towards a refined business model. Second, an investigation
by Evans (2017) is classified in the cell combining prescriptive application and the entity
capabilities. This study described the new capabilities needed by organizations to develop
digital transformation. Evans (2017) discussed different competencies across strategy, people,
process, governance and technology.

2.3 Comparative models

Four articles are included in this group. First, Lichtblau et al. (2015) is classified in the cell
combining comparative application and the entity of processes. This study examined
Industry 4.0 readiness in the context of manufacturing, and it classified organizations in a
comparative way through three categories: newcomers, learners and leaders. Second, the
model of the consulting firm Bain and Company (2016) is classified as a comparative
application and the entity of capabilities. They identified and compared five different
groups of companies based on a set of specific digital capabilities; for example, using digital
for operational excellence, using digital for customer engagement or using digital for
security capabilities. Third, the study of Remane et al. (2017) focussed on digital
transformation at the whole organization level. Additionally, the paper created five digital
maturity clusters to compare the position of each organization. We have classified the article
in the cell combining comparative application and the entity of organizational system.
Finally, the article by the MIT researchers Westerman, Bonnet and McAfee (2012),
classified in the same cell, is broadly mentioned in the academic literature and in
practitioner-oriented publications. The article focusses on the organizational level to create a
comparative four-level maturity model based on two main concepts: digital intensity and
transformation management intensity.
In the light of the above classification and the results of the review, a gap in the literature
review was identified related to the understanding and development of capabilities
JEIM for digital transformation in the context of SMEs’ business growth. With the aim of closing
33,1 this gap, a framework is proposed that could help SMEs to develop and assess their
capabilities to support their digital-based development and growth. The framework translates
Teece’s (2007) “sensing”, “seizing” and “transforming” trilogy into a practice-oriented
self-assessment tool for SMEs. From this perspective, the model could be classified in the cell
combining the descriptive application and the entity of capabilities.
244
3. A framework proposal: the “DIGROW” framework
3.1 “DIGROW” framework building process
The construction of “DIGROW” framework is based on different elements. First, the
framework is supported on solid theoretical underpinnings. For this reason, a broad
literature review has been carried out covering various fields: dynamic capabilities theory;
microfoundation theory; SMEs growth and management challenges; digitalization concepts
and frameworks, especially those referred to SMEs. Moreover, the proposed framework
extends the “Learning to grow” methodology (North et al., 2016) to digitally enabled growth
(“Learning to grow digitally”). This methodology is explained a few lines bellow. On the
other hand, a pilot test of the preliminary framework has helped to adjust it and build the
final framework. The building process of the framework is summarized in Figure 1.

Maturity
Dynamic SME Growth +
Digitalization Framework
Capabilities Management
Concepts Modelling
Theory Challenges

Literature Review
Literature Review
on Digitalization
on digitally enabled
Frameworks (for SMEs)
growth of SMEs

Identification of Shortcomings
Identification of Capabilities and Requirements
for Digitally Enabled

Growth of SMEs

Development of
Visualization
DIGROW Framework
of Framework
Microfoundation Theory:
Adaptation (Wheel of
Literature based Foundation of
Growth)
Digitalization Capabilities
Figure 1. Pretest with 50 SMEs
DIGROW framework
building process
Source: Own elaboration (The Authors)
3.2 Learning to grow digitally Promoting
As described above, digital transformation is a learning process that requires integrating digitally
technology, business and learning strategies in an entrepreneurial-oriented organization enabled growth
(Wang, 2008; Nguyen et al., 2015). The proposed framework, therefore, aims at providing
guidance to SMEs to sense and seize digitally enabled growth opportunities as well as start in SMEs
a project-based learning process to transform the organization in order to remain
competitive in turbulent environments. As mentioned before, the framework was developed 245
to extend the successful “Learning to grow” methodology (North et al., 2016) to digitally
enabled growth (“Learning to grow digitally”) but is not limited to this application.
In brief, “Learning to grow” consists of the following steps: based on a structured
self-assessment of growth capabilities, opportunities and threats by means of a “wheel of
growth” the owner/manager supported by a “growth coach” defines a strategic growth
project. The selected project should have a short- to medium-term impact on business
performance and in parallel serves to develop/sustain growth capabilities. To this effect, the
project is delegated by the owner/manager to a team of employees who define their learning
objectives and carry out the project, which is conceived as a learning journey, over a period
of six to nine months. The whole process is supported by a coach (approximately 12 half
days of intervention) who has been trained in the methodology. Normally the “Learning to
grow” methodology is used in a network of about ten SMEs whose teams meet to exchange
experiences and run joint learning sessions.
In the light of “Learning to grow”, the proposed framework – visualized as a “wheel of
digitally enabled growth” (Figure 2) – serves to:
(1) raise awareness of owners, managers and employees of SMEs towards required
capabilities, as well as opportunities/threats;
(2) create a shared understanding of what “digitally enabled growth” means for the firm;
(3) develop and communicate a strategy;
(4) anchor pilot initiatives in an overall “picture” of digitalization; and
(5) define learning objectives (e.g. What do we need to learn to advance from Level 2
to Level 3?).
A framework developed for SMEs has to take into account the lower degree of formalization
of strategies, processes and organization as compared to bigger firms (North and Varvakis,
2016). Therefore, current and desired levels of capabilities should be described in terms of
practices and in wording that is easy to understand. Furthermore, an action-oriented
visualization of the framework helps to communicate an overall understanding of what
digital-enabled growth means. Approaches developed for bigger companies, such as the
digital quotient (McKinsey, 2015), presume a formalized organization with ample resources.
In addition, many of the assessments are not available free of charge. This is why the
developers of the DIGROW framework aimed at developing a simple, free of charge tool
with a sound theoretical base.

3.3 Structure and microfoundations of the “DIGROW” framework

As explained by North et al. (2016), the theoretical foundation of the wheel of growth is
based on Teece’s (2007) trilogy of dynamic capability development: “For analytical
purposes, dynamic capabilities can be disaggregated into the capacity (1) to sense and shape
opportunities and threats, (2) to seize opportunities, and (3) to maintain competitiveness
through enhancing, combining, protecting and, when necessary, reconfiguring the business
enterprise’s intangible and tangible assets” (Teece, 2007, p. 1319). In their empirical study,
Pavlou and El Sawy (2011) deepened understanding of how dynamic capabilities are
JEIM II. Deve
lopin
33,1 pot
enti
als ga
dig

Digitally enabled
Use of ex
ital

gy
th

for
w ly e

strate
gro na

d
ble

Se
led

igita

ip
b d

ns

sh
na gr

dr

ternal so

th
l inn
ing

er
ive

grow
e

ad

ow
n

tec unit
lly
Un

ova

Le
op

th
ita
de

hn
po

al

str
dig
rs

tion
246

olo s
rt

git
urces
ta t
dse

ate
nd

Di
gy
ing dig ing min

ie
ital al

gy
igit
ens

cus an
tom d D

and
er de
I. S

ne ve
ed lo

mind
Searc s pin
hing g
for dig
itally ployees
ered em

set
growth oppo enab empow
led
rtunities Digitally

Digitally
enable
ents d busin
vestm ess mo
Digital in ty dels
uri
ec
IV. M

n ds Dig
ita

als
Di
ya lm

gi
log ark
ana

enti
tal
o
g
hn et
c earnin pre

Cu
l te se

p ot
gin

digitalizat
a

sto
nc
git

Agile
s

e
Di
g

se

me

th
and L
re s

es

ow
re
oc

deplo
ou

xp

gr
pr

er
rc

ion initiat
l skills

ed
al

s l

ien
e

git

fo
r
yme ab
Di

ce
d ig en
ly
Digita

nt of
ita
l tra i tal
dig
ives

nsfo
rmat izing
ion III. Se
Figure 2.
The wheel of digitally © Klaus North 2018
enabled growth
Source: Own elaboration

developed and they proposed four steps: sensing, learning, integration and coordination.
These steps highlight the importance of managing knowledge and learning in digital
transformation (North et al., 2018) and of coping with turbulent and disruptive environments
(North and Varvakis, 2016).
A particular shortcoming in SMEs is that owners and managers are aware of growth
potentials but often lack an explicit strategy and if they have a strategy they do not
communicate that strategy to employees (North et al., 2016). That is why in the proposed
model an intermediate step is inserted between Teece’s “sensing” and “seizing”: the step of
strategy development and communication, which is related to Pavlou and El Sawy’s (2011)
learning and integration.
Therefore, the proposed “DIGROW” framework contains the following four steps, which
can be seen as challenges (e.g. What are our challenges to sense digitally enabled growth
potentials?) or capabilities (e.g. Do we have the capability to sense digitally enabled growth
potentials?). Both views are useful in a self-assessment:
(1) sensing digitally enabled growth potentials;
(2) developing a digitally enabled growth strategy and mindset;
(3) seizing digitally enabled growth potentials; and
(4) managing resources for digital transformation.
In order to create a foundation of the nature of each capability we adopt a microfoundation
research approach (Foss, 2011) which aims at developing an understanding of how
individual actions and characteristics aggregate through some processes to create and
develop collective phenomena. This means, for example, in our case, how organizational Promoting
routines and dynamic capabilities are created and developed from aggregation of individual digitally
actions and interactions (Molina-Azorín, 2014). Therefore, along the lines of Teece’s (2007) enabled growth
microfoundations of dynamic capabilities, we have defined four capacities for each of the
four challenges or capabilities. Each of these capacities can be evaluated at five levels in SMEs
described by an anchor statement (see complete framework in Tables AI–AIV ). In a pre-test
with firms, the results of which will be presented in the next section, it was found that these 247
five levels allow a sufficient degree of differentiation. In the following lines, the
microfoundations of the “DIGROW” framework are explained:
(1) To sense digitally enabled growth potentials firms would need an intention to seek out
and understand external information in order to identify new opportunities
(Hulbert et al., 2015). In operational terms, SMEs have to implement mechanisms and
processes for scanning, observing and understanding changes in the business
environment. Digitally enabled innovation and growth opportunities arise from
understanding and developing digital customer needs and from identifying technology-
driven opportunities (Tidd and Bessant, 2009; Lorenzo et al., 2018). A particularly
fruitful source can be the use of external knowledge for digital innovation: (potential)
customers, universities, research centres, “the crowd”, partners in the “ecosystem”.
(2) Developing a digitally enabled growth strategy and mindset: based on this
exploration of possible futures (Moore and Manring, 2009), firms will have to
develop an understanding of how digital solutions will help to deliver the firm’s
objectives and to review their strategy regarding digitalization. The question of how
SMEs can succeed in the digital environment requires understanding what strategic
orientation best equips SMEs to compete in that environment (Quinton et al., 2017).
It is crucial that leaders (owner and/or managers of SMEs) recognize the potential
of digitally enabled growth (BCG, 2013). Creating a shared understanding of how the
digital world “ticks” is a prerequisite for motivating employees and developing a
forward-looking attitude towards digitalization (Meier et al., 2017) followed by a broad
development of new behaviours (“digital mindset”). In this context, Quinton et al.
(2017) advocated a digital orientation which they defined as “the deliberate strategic
positioning of an SME to take advantage of the opportunities presented by digital
technologies. This positioning includes the attitudes and behaviors that support the
generation and use of market insight, proactive innovation, and openness to new
ideas” (p. 4). In such a digitally oriented organization, employees are empowered and
encouraged to experiment with digital initiatives (Chan et al., 2019; Lorenzo, 2016).
(3) Seizing digitally enabled growth potentials: to exploit identified opportunities or
mitigate threats of digitalization, SMEs have to revise business strategies and decide
whether to adapt current business models or develop new ones (Huang et al., 2019).
This is linked to investment choices and preparedness to enter into new fields, a
particular issue in family owned businesses (Carsrud and Cucculelli, 2014). Business
model innovation represents the “designed, novel, nontrivial changes to the key
elements of a firm’s business model and/or the architecture linking these elements”
(Foss and Saebi, 2017, p. 201). Such key elements are digital market presence and
digital customer experience leading to new ways of value creation, value capture and
value offer (Laudien et al., 2016). Depending on their current stage of development,
SMEs might perceive business potentials of digitalization but acknowledge their
current unpreparedness for implementing the required new technologies (Müller et al.,
2018). This is why the ability to deploy digitalization initiatives is crucial to seizing
perceived opportunities. This might include small pilot projects and/or methodologies
for agile product and service development, such as design thinking.
JEIM (4) Managing resources for digital transformation: managing threats and transforming
33,1 the organization requires, according to Teece (2007), the continuous alignment and
realignment of specific tangible and intangible assets. Apart from financial
resources, these assets are knowledge of people and technologies which are
embedded in processes.
In their survey of digital capabilities in SMEs in the UK, Baker et al. (2015) found that there is a
248 positive link between digital skill levels and turnover growth. According to the European
E-Skills Forum (2004), digital skills are understood to be the skills and capabilities that enable
businesses to exploit opportunities provided by ICT, to ensure more efficient and effective
performance, to explore new ways of conducting business and to establish new businesses. The
term “digital skills” describes a wide range of high level professional capabilities including
organizational competencies, such as market and domain knowledge and (change) management
skills. With regard to digital upskilling, the case studies published by The Grand Coalition for
Digital Jobs (2014–2016) showed that SMEs seem less oriented towards traditional instruments
such as university courses and dedicated schemes like vocational training. What leads to
success is close collaboration with trusted partners, often SMEs that are members of the same
local communities, in a step-by-step process. Any knowledge transfer needs to be driven by the
current need in the business project. These findings are a powerful argument for project
learning approaches, such as the above-described “Learning to grow” methodology. Regarding
access to and application of digital technologies, SMEs face two challenges.
Fully benefiting from the opportunities linked to digitalization will require businesses to
have reliable and affordable access to digital networks and services (Cenamor et al., 2019).
However, mere access to digital networks does not ensure effective use (OECD, 2017b).
Although many SMEs are relatively well equipped with ICT, they do not seize the
opportunities that ICT provides (Arendt, 2007). Further, SMEs hesitate to invest in
technology as it can be difficult to understand the end result and benefit of undergoing a
technology adoption (Ramdani et al., 2009; Conference Board of Canada, 2014).

4. Testing the “DIGROW” framework

4.1 Method
With the aim of testing the “DIGROW” framework, a pilot study was carried out in the period
February–May 2018. For this purpose, a set of companies was selected and a questionnaire
was developed based on the “DIGROW” framework, encompassing questions that referred to
the different building blocks of the framework (i.e. for each of the capacities making up each of
the aforementioned capabilities). The questionnaire was applied to a sample of Spanish SMEs
from the Basque region; the questionnaire was addressed to the CEO of each company or the
IT department director. In the cases where there was not IT department, another director of
the company answered (e.g. Finance or Marketing department director). The target population
was made up of SMEs belonging to the machinery and tools industry. The total population of
SMEs in this sector comprises 375 firms. All of them were contacted. The final sample
included 52 firms (response rate of 14 per cent). Regarding data analysis, descriptive analysis
was carried out using IBM SPSS software (version 24.0). In the following section, the main
results of the analysis are presented.

4.2 Findings
As described above, each of the capacities included in the framework can be evaluated at
five levels (i.e. five digital maturity levels). As a result of the descriptive analysis
undertaken, frequencies are calculated for each capacity integrating each dimension or
building block of the framework. Table II summarizes frequencies for the capacities that the
first capability or dimension of “DIGROW” framework encompasses (i.e. “sensing digitally Promoting
enabled growth potentials”). digitally
According to the results obtained, most companies are above digital maturity level 3 in enabled growth
two capacities (i.e. “understanding and developing digital customer needs” (57.69 per cent of
firms); “use of external sources for digital innovation” (59.61 per cent of companies)), but in in SMEs
the case of the other two capacities, most companies are below digital maturity level 3 (i.e.
“searching for digitally enabled growth opportunities” (65.39 per cent of firms); “sensing 249
technology driven opportunities” (53.85 per cent of companies)). Overall, it can be concluded
that most companies do not undertake a proactive and systematic search for digital growth
opportunities, although they try to understand customers’ digital needs and use external
sources for digital innovation.
As far as the second capability of the framework is concerned (i.e. “developing a digitally
enabled growth strategy and mindset”), frequencies for each of its component capacities are
shown in Table III.
In this case, again, most firms are above digital maturity level 3 in two capacities
(i.e. “digital leadership” (57.69 per cent of firms) and “empowered employees” (69.23 per cent
of companies)), but regarding the other two capacities most companies are below digital
maturity level 3 (i.e. “digitally enabled growth strategy” (87.7 per cent of firms); “digital
mindset” (73.08 per cent of companies)). Therefore, it can be concluded that in most
companies the leaders try to promote digital transformation and empower people for
supporting it but they do not define digitally enabled growth strategies.
Focussing now on the third capability of the “DIGROW” framework, Table IV
summarizes the frequencies for all the capacities making up this capability.
In this case, most companies are above digital maturity level 3 in two capacities
(i.e. “digitally enabled business models” (63.46 per cent of firms); “agile implementation/
deployment of digitalization initiatives” (61.53 per cent of firms)), but regarding the other

Searching for Understanding and Sensing technology- Use of external

digitally enabled developing digital driven sources for digital
growth opportunities customer needs opportunities innovation
Level of maturity Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

0 10 19.2 9 17.3 10 19.2 10 19.2

1 17 32.7 6 11.5 11 21.2 3 5.8
2 7 13.5 7 13.5 7 13.5 8 15.4 Table II.
3 9 17.3 8 15.4 4 7.7 7 13.5 Dimension/Capability
4 7 13.5 9 17.3 9 17.3 22 42.3 1 – “Sensing digitally
5 2 3.8 13 25.0 11 21.2 2 3.8 enabled growth
Total 52 100.0 52 100.0 52 100.0 52 100.0 potentials”

Digitally enabled Digital Digital mindset (attitudes Empowered

growth strategy leadership and behaviours) employees
Level of maturity Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

0 6 11.5 4 7.7 19 36.5 4 7.7

1 7 13.5 7 13.5 5 9.6 5 9.6 Table III.
2 17 32.7 11 21.2 14 26.9 7 13.5 Dimension/Capability
3 6 11.5 6 11.5 3 5.8 1 1.9 2 – “Developing a
4 14 26.9 3 5.8 9 17.3 23 44.2 digitally enabled
5 2 3.8 21 40.4 2 3.8 12 23.1 growth strategy and
Total 52 100.0 52 100.0 52 100.0 52 100.0 mindset”
JEIM two capacities most companies are below digital maturity level 3 (i.e. “digital market
33,1 presence” (76.93 per cent of firms); “digital customer experience” (55.77 per cent of
companies)). In light of these results, it can be concluded that most companies are able to
develop digitally enabled business models and implement digitalization initiatives, but for a
majority of the companies their presence in digital markets is low and their digital
interaction with customers is also quite low.
250 Finally, and regarding the fourth capability of the proposed framework, Table V
summarizes the frequencies for all the capacities that this capability encompasses.
According to the results obtained in this case, most companies are above digital maturity
level 3 in two capacities (i.e. “digital processes” (57.69 per cent of firms); “digital technology
and security” (57.69 per cent of companies)). Nevertheless, most companies are below digital
maturity level 3 in the capacity “digital investments” (59.62 per cent of firms). For the
capacity “digital skills and learning”, half of the companies are above maturity level 3 and
the other half are below. Therefore, it can be concluded that a majority of the firms are
implementing digitalized processes and are also worried about cybersecurity. However,
most companies are not devoting enough financial resources to sustain digitalization.
Regarding the development of the necessary skills for digitalization, many companies (i.e.
half ) need to apply greater effort in this direction.
Finally, and considering the results obtained, it can be stated that overall the digital
maturity level of the companies analyzed is moderate. Moreover, the companies’ leaders try
to foster digitalization and the implementation of some digital initiatives, processes and
technologies, but they do not define clear strategies that can orientate a future digitally
based growth and digital transformation. In general terms, it seems that companies are not
very good at “sensing”, that is, at proactively searching for digitally enabled growth
opportunities. With regard to “seizing”, companies are not so good in taking the maximum

Agile implementation/
Digitally enabled Digital market Digital customer deployment of
business model presence experience digitization initiatives
Level of maturity Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

0 2 3.8 25 48.1 8 15.4 5 9.6

1 4 7.7 8 15.4 13 25.0 2 3.8
Table IV. 2 13 25.0 7 13.5 8 15.4 13 25.0
Dimension/Capability 3 23 44.2 10 19.2 15 28.8 5 9.6
3 – “Seizing digitally 4 1 1.9 2 3.8 8 15.4 23 44.2
enabled growth 5 9 17.3 0 0 0 0 4 7.7
potentials” Total 52 100.0 52 100.0 52 100.0 52 100.0

Digital skills and Digital technology and Digital

learning Digital processes security investments
Level of maturity Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

0 1 1.9 7 13.5 1 1.9 13 25.0

1 17 32.7 13 25.0 13 25.0 11 21.2
Table V. 2 8 15.4 2 3.8 8 15.4 7 13.5
Dimension/Capability 3 12 23.1 4 7.7 11 21.2 3 5.8
4 – “Managing 4 10 19.2 13 25.0 11 21.2 10 19.2
resources for digital 5 4 7.7 13 25.0 8 15.4 8 15.4
transformation” Total 52 100.0 52 100.0 52 100.0 52 100.0
profit from opportunities in terms of increasing their presence in digital markets and in Promoting
digital interaction with customers. digitally
The main purpose of this pilot study was to test the applicability of the DIGROW enabled growth
framework in SMEs. Overall, the surveyed managers of SMEs had no difficulty in relating the
dimensions of the framework to the digitalization practices of their firm. However, during in SMEs
the pilot survey it became clear that completion of the self-assessment questionnaire would be
eased by explaining key concepts such as “digital leadership” and “digital mindset”. 251
Therefore, a revised version was prepared in which main concepts are explained at the
beginning of each of the four building blocks of the framework. Subsequently, the framework
has been successfully applied to a sample of 427 Basque firms (North et al., 2019).

5. Discussion
In this paper we propose a dynamic capability-based framework for the assessment of the
digital maturity of SMEs. In the following we will discuss first how this framework ties in
with the current state of frameworks. Second, we will discuss its usefulness to guide digital
transformation of SMEs. There are increasing numbers of maturity models assessing the
state of digital transformation of firms. Many of these maturity models have been developed
by consultancy firms (e.g. McKinsey, 2015) and are mostly geared towards bigger firms and
lack a clear theoretical basis.
In our above review of maturity models for digital transformation, we distinguished
between models that focussed on processes, business models, organizational system and
capabilities. In these models a process or organizational system focus is dominant and a
capability approach is underrepresented. Carcary et al. (2016) argued that for effective
digital transformation, organizations need to expand their focus beyond solely considering
technology in isolation and to include the underlying organizational capabilities. They also
found that there is growing acceptance that adopting a capability approach as opposed to a
process-based approach to management can result in greater value generation for an
organization. This highlights the need for a digital maturity model based on a capability
approach. This is particularly relevant when organizations shift towards a digital strategy.
Misalignments between the emergent strategy and resources give rise to tension and require
alignment actions, which iteratively reconfigure organizational resources and refine
strategy in order to respond to changes in the environment and internal tensions
(Yeow et al., 2018). Drawing on senior executives’ experiences with leading digitalization
projects, Warner and Wäger (2018) proposed a process model comprising nine
microfoundations that trigger, enable and hinder the building of dynamic capabilities for
digital transformation. This model, however, is not translated into a maturity model.
Teece (2017) proposed a framework that connects dynamic capabilities with
digitalization in the context of digital platforms-based business ecosystems. Specifically,
Teece (2017) analyzed the requirements in terms of capabilities at each stage of the digital
platform-based business ecosystem lifecycle. A limitation of Teece’s (2017) framework is its
focus on the level of a business ecosystem and not on the firm’s capabilities supporting its
digital transformation process.
Regarding the usefulness of frameworks for SMEs, Scozzi et al. (2005) argued that although
methods and models alone do not assure success in innovation processes, they are enabling
factors and can support the creation of strategies, reasoning, insights and communication.
From an implementation science viewpoint, Nilsen (2015) stated that frameworks can help to
guide implementation practice, because they identify potential barriers and enablers that might
be important to address when undertaking an implementation endeavour. They can also be
used for evaluation because they describe aspects that might be important to evaluate.
From action research with SMEs North et al. (2016) learned that a framework designed for
SME owners and managers needs to be simple in its structure, there should be visualization of
JEIM the model and the maturity levels should be described in easily comprehensible
33,1 wording. Experiences with the “Learning to grow” methodology demonstrate that the
“Wheel of growth” is a convincing visualization, which allows a quick assessment of strengths
and weaknesses and communicates the needed capabilities well. Although the DIGROW
framework is geared towards SMEs, it can also be used by bigger enterprises. These,
however, would perhaps prefer a deeper analysis and a look into functional areas. In this case,
252 the “digital quotient” by McKinsey (2015) might be appropriate.

6. Conclusions
6.1 Implications to theory and practice
The above discussion shows that the DIGROW framework provides additional value
allowing not only the assessment of capabilities relevant for digitally enabled growth, but
also as a starting point for more conscious and systematic digitalization efforts of SMEs at
firm level. SME owners and managers will be able to better understand which factors need
to be consciously managed for digitally enabled growth. The framework contributes to
further their understanding that digitalization is not only an issue of technology adoption
but requires a change of mindset and leadership practices. The framework also enables
business associations or policy makers to assess the level of digital maturity of their
associates and thus develop specific support mechanisms. Along these lines, the framework
presented in this paper represents a useful tool for multiple stakeholders who want to lead
or support firms on the path of growth opened by opportunities brought by digitalization.
Implications for theory relate to an improved understanding of how to operationalize the
theoretical construct of digitally enabled growth of firms. The definition of a set of
capabilities allows further research into the relative importance of these capabilities and
their interrelation. The systematic construction of the framework using a microfoundation
research approach (Foss, 2011) furthers also the understanding of the development of
dynamic capabilities related to the specific field of digitalization, expanding this line of
research (Teece, 2017). This theoretical grounding gives the presented framework additional
value compared to the multitude of assessment tools developed by consultants and other
agencies which in most cases lack a sound theoretical basis.

6.2 Key lessons learnt

From a theoretical point of view the microfoundation research approach has proven to be
adequate for the construction of the framework. Regarding practice the utility of the
framework has been proved in a pilot study presented here and in a wider study of
427 SMEs carried out subsequently (North et al., 2019). The pilot study shows that, overall,
the analyzed companies have a moderate digital maturity level. They have advanced in
terms of the implementation of some digital initiatives, but they lack a clear digital strategy
which could guide future growth and transformation, and they lack the necessary skills that
could allow them to profit from identified digitalization opportunities.
Our findings confirm the statement by the Conference Board of Canada (2014, p. 32)
which summarizes a possible journey of SMEs towards digitalization: “Through the course
of their operations, SMEs reach critical junctures where it becomes essential to their growth
to adopt more productive methods. This often includes incorporating digital technologies
into their operations. These junctures or pain points are, in fact, opportunities for SMEs to
examine their current practices and needs, as well as to assess their future needs. A better
understanding of their business will, in turn, lead to better business decisions”.

6.3 Limitations of this research

On the other hand, the framework and its application have some limitations. First, the pilot
study is restricted to a particular set of companies, which are SMEs, of a specific industry
(i.e. machinery and tools) and a concrete geographical location (i.e. Basque region in Spain). Promoting
Further research is needed to verify if the proposed framework also works in other digitally
geographical settings and industries. Although it has been proved in the pilot study that enabled growth
the framework is useful for assessing the digital maturity level of companies, the
generalizability of the usefulness of the framework has not been demonstrated, since the in SMEs
framework has not yet been tested in different geographical contexts (i.e. it has been proved
in other industries in the same region (North et al., 2019), but not in other geographical 253
settings). Second, the proposed framework encompasses a set of capacities that are limited.
It might be sensible to add other capacities that could be relevant for fostering digitally
enabled growth. This will demand in-depth studies regarding digitalization path and
required capabilities.

6.4 Future research recommendations

Finally, such limitations shed light on future research. Future studies could be carried out
to test the framework in different contexts and considering additional capabilities. It will
be also of interest to look into the interrelations and the relative importance of the
capabilities. This could be done by deepening the analysis of the microfoundations as well
as performing statistical analyses of empirical data gained by the self-assessment of firms.
In a further stage of development, based on the self-assessment further services such as
online-tutorials, project-based learning might be added. As a result, the “DIGROW”
framework might be adjusted, refined and improved, increasing its practical utility for
managers who want to promote their firms’ digitalization processes and profit from
digitally enabled growth opportunities.

References
Adamik, A. and Nowicki, M. (2018), “Preparedness of companies for digital transformation and
creating a competitive advantage in the age of Industry 4.0”, Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on Business Excellence, Bucharest, 22-23 March, Vol. 12 No. 1,
doi: 10.2478/picbe-2018-0003.
Arendt, L. (2007), “Barriers to ICT adoption in SMEs – How to bridge digital divide?”, IADIS
International Conference e-Commerce, Algarve, 7-9 December, available at: www.academia.edu/2
349490/Barriers_to_ICT_adoption_in_SMEs_how_to_bridge_the_digital_divide
Bain and Company (2016), “The path to digital maturity”, Bain and Company, Boston, MA, December,
available at: www.bain.com/insights/the-path-to-digital-maturity-infographic/
Baker, G., Lomax, S., Braidford, P., Allinson, G. and Houston, M. (2015), “Digital capabilities in SMEs:
evidence review and re-survey of 2014 small business survey respondents”, BIS Research Paper
No. 247, BMG Research and Durham University, Durham.
BCG (2013), “Ahead of the curve: lessons on technology and growth from small business leaders”,
Boston Consulting Group, Boston, MA, October, available at: www.bcg.com.cn/en/files/
publications/reports_pdf/BCG_Ahead_of_the_Curve_Oct_2013.pdf
Becker, J., Knackstedt, R. and Pöppelbuß, J. (2009), “Developing maturity models for IT management”,
Business & Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 213-222.
Blatz, F., Bulander, R. and Dietel, M. (2018), “Maturity model of digitalization for SMEs”, IEEE
International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), Stuttgart,
pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1109/ICE.2018.8436251.
Bloomberg, J. (2018), “Digitization, digitalization and digital transformation: confuse them at your peril”,
Forbes, 29 April, available at: www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbloomberg/2018/04/29/digitization-
digitalization-and-digital-transformation-confuse-them-at-your-peril/#560149b02f2c; www.forbes.
com/sites/jasonbloomberg/2018/04/29/digitization-digitalization-and-digital-transformation-
confuse-them-at-your-peril/
JEIM Borch, O.J. and Madsen, E.L. (2007), “Dynamic capabilities facilitating innovative strategies in SMEs”,
33,1 International Journal of Technoentrepreneurship, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 109-125.
Bounfour, A. (2016), Digital Futures, Digital Transformation, Springer, Heidelberg.
Brennen, J.C. and Kreiss, D. (2016), The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and
Philosophy, 1st ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Carcary, M., Doherty, E. and Conway, G. (2016), “A dynamic capability approach to digital
254 transformation – a focus on key foundational themes”, Conference Paper, 10th European
Conference on Information Systems Management, Evora, 8-9 September.
Carsrud, A. and Cucculelli, M. (2014), “Family firms, entrepreneurship, and economic development”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 52, pp. 189-191.
Catlin, T., Scanlan, J. and Willmott, P. (2015), “Raising your digital quotient”, McKinsey Quarterly,
June, pp. 1-13, available at: www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digitalmckinsey/how-we-
help-clients/digital-quotient
Cenamor, J., Parida, V. and Wincent, J. (2019), “How entrepreneurial SMEs compete through digital
platforms: the roles of digital platform capability, network capability and ambidexterity”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 100, pp. 196-206.
Chan, C.M.L., Teoh, S.Y., Yeow, A. and Pan, G. (2019), “Agility in responding to disruptive digital
innovation: case study of an SME”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 436-455.
Chen, Y.Y.K., Jaw, Y.L. and Wu, B.L. (2016), “Effect of digital transformation on organisational
performance of SMEs: evidence from the Taiwanese textile industry’s web portal”, Internet
Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 186-212.
Conference Board of Canada (2014), “Adopting digital technologies: the path for SMEs”, Briefing paper,
Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa, available at: www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/doc/irap-pari/dtapp-
ppatn/resources-ressources/REPORT_6029_adoptingdigitaltechnologies_en.pdf
Consoli, D. (2012), “Literature analysis on determinant factors and the impact of ICT in SMEs”,
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 62, pp. 93-97.
De Bruin, T. and Rosemann, M. (2005), “Towards a business process management maturity model”,
in Bartmann, D., Rajola, F., Kallinikos, J., Avison, D., Winter, R. and Ein-Dor, P. (Eds),
Proceedings of the Thirteenth European Conference on Information Systems, Regensburg, May,
pp. 26-28.
EU Commission (2014), Fostering SMEs Growth through Digital Transformation, Guidebook, EU
Commission, Brussels, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/19646
EU Commission (2017), “Digital transformation scoreboard 2017: evidence of positive outcomes and
current opportunities for EU businesses”, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-
databases/dem/monitor/scoreboard (accessed 8 June 2019).
European E-Skills Forum (2004), “E-skills for Europe: towards 2010 and beyond”, available at: www.
bvekennis.nl/Bibliotheek/09-0484_e-skills-forum-2004-09-fsr.pdf (accessed 8 June 2019).
Evans, N.D. (2017), Mastering Digital Business: How Powerful Combinations of Disruptive
Technologies are Enabling the Next Wave of Digital Transformation, BCS-The Chartered
Institute for IT, London.
Foss, N. (2011), “Why micro-foundations for resource-based theory are needed and what they may look
like”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1413-1428.
Foss, N.J. and Saebi, T. (2017), “Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: how far have
we come, and where should we go?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 200-227.
Gartner (2019), “IT glossary”, available at: www.gartner.com/it-glossary/ (accessed 8 June 2019).
Grand Coalition for Digital Jobs (2014–2016), “Digital skills for SMEs”, available at: https://digital.di.dk/
SiteCollectionDocuments/Publikationer/DigitalskillsforSMEs.pdf (accessed 7 March 2019).
Grossman, R.L. (2018), “A framework for evaluating the analytic maturity of an organization”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 45-51.
Hamill, J. (2015), Digital Disruption and Small Business in Scotland, Federation of Small Businesses of Promoting
Scotland, Glasgow, available at: www.fsb.org.uk/LegacySitePath/policy/rpu/scotland/assets/fsb digitally
%20scotland%20-%20disruption%20report%20-%20final.pdf
enabled growth
Harrigan, P., Ramsey, E. and Ibbotson, P. (2011), “Critical factors underpinning the e-CRM activities of
SMEs”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27, pp. 503-529. in SMEs
He, Z.L. and Wong, P.K. (2004), “Exploration vs exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity
hypothesis”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 481-494. 255
Huang, Z., Kim, J., Sadri, A., Dowey, S. and Dargusch, M.S. (2019), “Industry 4.0: development of a
multi-agent system for dynamic value stream mapping in SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing
Systems, Vol. 52, pp. 1-12.
Hulbert, B., Gilmore, A. and Carson, D. (2015), “Opportunity recognition by growing SMEs:
a managerial or entrepreneurial function?”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 7,
pp. 616-642.
Iansiti, M. and Lakhani, K.R. (2014), “Digital ubiquity: how connections, sensors, and data are
revolutionizing business”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 92 No. 11, pp. 90-99.
IDC (2017), “The road to the digital future of SMEs”, IDC white paper, IDC, London, available at: www.
virginmediabusiness.co.uk/pdf/Insights%20Guides/the-road-to-digital-future.pdf
IDC-SAP (2017), “The next steps in digital transformation. How small and midsize companies are
applying technology to meet key business goals”, available at: http://news.sap.com/wp-content/
blogs.dir/1/files/SAP_IDC_infobrief_SMB_DX_102016.pdf (accessed 15 June 2019).
Karltorp, L. (2017), “Digital transformation strategies in small businesses: a case study in the Swedish
manufacturing industry”, bachelor thesis in business administration, Jönköping University,
Jönköping, available at: www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1115635/FULLTEXT01.pdf
(accessed 10 May 2019).
Kohlegger, M., Maier, R. and Thalmann, S. (2009), “Understanding maturity models results of a
structured content analysis”, Proceedings of I-KNOW ’09 and I-SEMANTICS ’09, Graz, pp. 51-61.
Kulkarni, U. and Freeze, R. (2004), “Development and validation of a knowledge management
capability assessment model”, Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Information Systems,
pp. 647-670, available at: http://pdf.aminer.org/000/326/698/development_and_validation_
of_a_knowledge_management_capability_assessment_model.pdf
Laudien, S.M., Spieth, P. and Clauss, T. (2016), “Digitalization as driver of business model innovation:
an exploratory analysis”, ISPIM Innovation Summit, Kuala Lumpur, 4-7 December.
Li, L., Su, F., Zhang, W. and Mao, J.-Y. (2017), “Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: a capability
perspective”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 1129-1157.
Lichtblau, K., Stich, V., Bertenrath, R., Blum, M., Bleider, M., Millack, A., Schmitt, K., Schmitz, E. and
Schröter, M. (2015), IMPULS-Industrie 4.0-Readiness, Impuls-Stiftung des VDMA, Aachen-Köln.
Lorenzo, O. (2016), “Digital culture: building new organizational behaviours and habits to
maximize the potential of technology”, Boletín de Estudios Económicos, Vol. LXXI No. 217,
pp. 75-87.
Lorenzo, O., Kawalek, P. and Wharton, L. (2018), Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Technology: A
Guide to Core Models and Tools, Routledge, New York, NY.
Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. and Veiga, J.F. (2006), “Ambidexterity and performance in small to
medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 646-672.
McConnell, E. (2010), “Project management framework: definition and basic elements”, available at:
www.mymanagementguide.com/project-management-framework-definition-and-elements
(accessed 7 March 2019).
McKinsey (2015), “Digital quotient”, McKinsey & Company: Digital McKinsey, available at:
www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digitalmckinsey/how-we-help-clients/digital-quotient
(accessed 7 March 2019).
JEIM Maier, C., Laumer, S. and Eckhardt, A. (2009), “An integrated IT-architecture for talent management
33,1 and recruitment”, Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Human Resource
Information Systems (HRIS), Milan, 6-7 May.
Managing Research Library (n.d.), “Strategic management framework”, available at: https://
managingresearchlibrary.org/glossary/strategic-management-framework (accessed 8 June 2019).
Meier, C., Sachs, S., Stutz, C. and McSorley, V. (2017), “Establishing a digital leadership barometer for
256 small and medium enterprises (SME)”, Proceedings International Conference on Management
Challenges in a Network Economy, Lublin, pp. 103-109.
Mettler, T. and Rohner, P. (2009), “Situational maturity models as instrumental artifacts for
organizational design”, 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information
Systems and Technology, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 1-9.
Mittal, S., Romero, D. and Wuest, T. (2018), “Towards a smart manufacturing maturity model for SMEs
(SM3E)”, in Moon, I., Lee, G., Park, J., Kiritsis, D. and von Cieminski, G. (Eds), Advances in
Production Management Systems. Smart Manufacturing for Industry 4.0. IFIP Advances in
Information and Communication Technology, Vol. 536, Springer, Cham, pp. 155-163.
Molina-Azorín, J.F. (2014), “Microfoundations of strategic management: toward micro-macro research
in the resource-based theory”, Business Research Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 102-114.
Moore, S.B. and Manring, S.L. (2009), “Strategy development in small and medium sized enterprises
for sustainability and increased value creation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17 No. 8,
pp. 276-282.
Morais, E.P., Sousa, S. and Moreira, R. (2010), “Electronic business maturity in Portuguese SME and large
enterprises”, Communications of the IBIMA, Vol. 2010, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.5171/2010.119470, available at:
www.ibimapublishing.com/journals/CIBIMA/cibima.html
Müller, J., Buliga, O. and Voigt, K.I. (2018), “Fortune favors the prepared: how SMEs approach business
model innovations in Industry 4.0”, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 132 No. C,
pp. 2-17.
Neirotti, P., Raguseo, E. and Paolucci, E. (2018), “How SMEs develop ICT-based capabilities in response
to their environment: past evidence and implications for the uptake of the new ICT paradigm”,
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 10-37.
Nguyen, T.H., Newby, M. and Macaulay, M.J. (2015), “Information technology adoption in small
business: confirmation of a proposed framework”, Journal of Small Business Management,
Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 207-227.
Nilsen, P. (2015), “Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks”, Implementation
Science, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 53-66.
North, K. and Varvakis, G. (Eds) (2016), Competitive Strategies for Small and Medium Enterprises:
Developing Resilience, Agility and Innovation in Turbulent Times, Springer, Heidelberg.
North, K., Bergstermann, M. and Hardwig, T. (2016), “Learning to grow – a methodology to sustain
growth capabilities of SMEs”, in North, K. and Varvakis, G. (Eds), Competitive Strategies for
Small and Medium Enterprises: Developing Resilience, Agility and Innovation in Turbulent Times,
Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 223-236.
North, K., Maier, R. and Haas, O. (Eds) (2018), Knowledge Management in Digital Change (Advances in
Information Science), Springer, Heidelberg.
North, K., Aramburu, N., Lorenzo, O. and Zubillaga, A. (2019), “Digital maturity and growth of SMEs:
a survey of firms in the Basque country (Spain)”, Proceedings, IFKAD Conference, Matera,
5-7 June ( forthcoming).
OECD (2017a), “Enhancing the contributions of SMEs in a global and digitalised economy”, available
at: www.oecd.org/mcm/documents/C-MIN-2017-8-EN.pdf (accessed 7 June 2019).
OECD (2017b), “Going digital: making the transformation work for growth and well-being”, Meeting of
the OECD Council at Ministerial Level, Paris, June, available at: www.oecd.org/mcm/documents/
C-MIN-2017-4%20EN.pdf (accessed 7 June 2019).
OECD/UN ECLAC (2012), Latin American Economic Outlook 2013: SME Policies for Structural Change, Promoting
OECD Publishing, Paris, available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/leo-2013-en digitally
Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B. and Weber, C.V. (1993), “The capability maturity model for enabled growth
software”, Version 1.1 (No. CMU/SEI-93-TR-24), Software Engineering Institute.
Pavlou, P.A. and El Sawy, O.A. (2011), “Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities”,
in SMEs
Decision Sciences, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 239-273.
Pöppelbuß, J. and Röglinger, M. (2011), “What makes a useful maturity model? A framework of general 257
design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management”,
European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) 2011 Proceedings, Vol. 28 available at:
https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2011/28
Protogeru, A., Caloghirou, Y. and Lioukas, S. (2008), “Dynamic capabilities and their impact on firms
performance”, DRUID Working Paper No. 08-11, Copenhagen.
PwC Switzerland, Google Switzerland, and digitalswitzerland (2016), “Digital transformation: how
mature are Swiss SMEs?”, available at: www.pwc.ch/en/publications/2016/digital_
transformation_how_mature_are_swiss_smes_en_web.pdf (accessed 12 May 2019).
Quinton, S., Canhotoa, A., Molinillo, S., Perac, R. and Budhathokid, T. (2017), “Conceptualising a digital
orientation: antecedents of supporting SME performance in the digital economy”, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 427-439, doi: 10.1080/0965254X.2016.1258004.
Ramdani, B., Kawalek, P. and Lorenzo, O. (2009), “Predicting SMEs’ adoption of enterprise systems”,
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 22 Nos 1–2, pp. 10-24.
Rehm, S.V. and Goel, L. (2017), “Using information systems to achieve complementarity in SME
innovation networks”, Information and Management, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 438-451.
Remane, G., Andre, H., Florian, W. and Lutz, K. (2017), “Digital maturity in traditional industries: an
exploratory analysis”, Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems
(ECIS), Guimarães, June.
Rubel, S., Emrich, A., Klein, S. and Loos, P. (2018), “A maturity model for business model management
in Industry 4.0”, Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2018, Lüneburg, March.
Scozzi, B., Garavelli, C. and Crowston, K. (2005), “Methods for modeling and supporting innovation
processes in SMEs”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 120-137.
Sinkkilä, H. (2017), “Digitalisation driven strategic renewal in small and medium sized enterprises in
Finnish manufacturing”, master thesis, Aalto University School of Science, Degree Programme
in Industrial Engineering and Management, Aalto.
Sunday, C.E. and Vera, C. (2018), “Examining information and communication technology (ICT)
adoption in SMEs: a dynamic capabilities approach”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 338-356.
Tarute, A., Duobiene, J., Kloviene, L., Vitkauskaite, E. and Varaniute, V. (2018), “Identifying factors
affecting digital transformation of SMEs”, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Electronic Business (ICEB), December, pp. 373-381.
Tarutėa, A. and Gatautisa, R. (2014), “ICT impact on SMEs performance”, Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 110, pp. 1218-1225.
Teece, D.J. (2007), “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1319-1350.
Teece, D.J. (2017), “Dynamic capabilities and (digital) platform lifecycles”, in Furman, J., Gawer, A.,
Silverman, B.S. and Stern, S. (Eds), Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Platforms (Advances in
Strategic Management), Vol. 37, Emerald Publishing, Bingley, pp. 211-225.
Tidd, J. and Bessant, J. (2009), Managing Innovation, Wiley, Chichester.
Trung Pham, Q. (2010), “Measuring the ICT maturity of SMEs”, Journal of Knowledge Management
Practice, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Valdez-de-Leon, O. (2016), “A digital maturity model for telecommunications service providers”,
Technology Innovation Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 8, pp. 19-32.
JEIM Wade, M. and Hulland, J. (2004), “The resource-based view and information systems research: review,
33,1 extension, and suggestions for future research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 107-142.
Wang, C.L. (2008), “Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 635-657.
Warner, K.S.R. and Wäger, M. (2018), “Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: an
ongoing process of strategic renewal”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 326-349.
258 Warwick Manufacturing Group (2017), “An Industry 4 readiness assessment tool”, available at: https://
warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/wmg/research/scip/industry4report/final_version_of_i4_report_for_use_
on_websites.pdf (accessed 5 March 2019).
Westerman, G., Bonnet, D. and McAfee, A. (2012), “The digital capabilities your company needs”,
MIT Sloan Management Review, p. 5, available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-digital-
capabilities-your-company-needs/
Westerman, G., Tannou, M., Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P. and McAfee, A. (2012), “The digital advantage: how
digital leaders outperform their peers in every industry”, Working Paper, MIT Center for Digital
Business, Cambridge, MA, November.
Wiesner, S., Gaiardelli, P., Gritti, N. and Oberti, G. (2018), “Maturity models for digitalization in
manufacturing – applicability for SME’s”, in Moon, I., Lee, G., Park, J., Kiritsis, D. and von Cieminski,
G. (Eds), Advances in Production Management Systems. Smart Manufacturing for Industry 4.0.,
IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Vol. 536, Springer, Cham, pp. 81-88.
Yeow, A., Soh, C. and Hansen, C. (2018), “Aligning with new digital strategy: a dynamic capabilities
approach”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 43-58.

Further reading
Bakhtieva, E. (2017), “Digital marketing maturity models: overview and comparison”, International
Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 1131-1139.
Berghaus, S. and Back, A. (2016), “Gestaltungsbereiche der Digitalen Transformation von Unternehmen:
Entwicklung eines Reifegradmodells”, Die Unternehmung, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 98-123.
Fraser, P., Moultrie, J. and Gregory, M. (2002), “The use of maturity models/grids as a tool in assessing
product development capability: a review”, IEEE International Engineering Management
Conference, Cambridge, August.
Gerbert, P., Gauger, C. and Steinhauser, S. (2015), “The double game of digital strategy”, BCG Perspectives,
October, available at: www.bcg.com/publications/2015/double-game-of-digital-strategy.aspx
Macpherson, A. and Holt, R. (2007), “Knowledge, learning, and small firm growth: a systematic review
of the evidence”, Research Policy, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 172-192.
VDMA (2015), “Industrie 4.0 readyness”, available at: www.impuls-stiftung.de/documents/3581372/
4875835/Industrie+4.0+Readniness+IMPULS+Studie+Oktober+2015.pdf/447a6187-9759-4f25-
b186-b0f5eac69974 (accessed 5 April 2019).
Wiljén, B. and Beigi, R.K. (2015), “Managing digitalization with dynamic capabilities: a case study on
how incumbent firms are building dynamic capabilities to address digitalization”, master’s
thesis in informatics, Report No. 2016:057, Department of Applied Information Technology,
University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg.

Corresponding author
Nekane Aramburu can be contacted at: nekane.aramburu@deusto.es
Dimension Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Searching for digitally Digitalization is We are planning We have We have We identify digital-enabled Our company identifies
enabled growth rather a threat to identify started to spotted some growth opportunities, but systematically digitally
opportunities than an opportunities look for digital- opportunities not systematically enabled growth opportunities
opportunity for enabled growth
us opportunities
Understanding and No We are planning We have talked We have We have a clear There is genuine and
developing digital understanding to talk to customers to some analysed understanding of how our systematic understanding of
customer needs of digital and analyse digital customers some most important customer how each of our customer
customer needs about customer segments are changing in segments are changing in the
needs digitalization segments the digital environment and digital environment, what their
what their needs are needs are, and how to address
them
Sensing technology-driven No digital/ We react to digital We observe We We analyse how some Our company takes a
opportunities technological technology of new digital appropriated technology-driven systematic and proactive
innovation competitors technologies/ some new opportunities can create approach to technology-driven
applications digital value for specific customer product/service innovation in
and how they technology segments and we address the digital environment
could serve us them properly
Use of external sources for No use of We are planning to We have External We collaborate regularly We practice a systematic and
digital innovation: external collect ideas from started to use sources have with some external partners proactive open innovation
(potential) customers, sources customers and external contributed to to search for and develop approach: invite customers/
universities, research other stakeholders sources from identify digitally enabled growth potential clients to provide
centres, “the crowd”, (providers, different innovation opportunities feedback and ideas via digital
partners in the “ecosystem” universities, etc.) players opportunities platforms (Crowdsourcing), we
collaborate intensively with
further external sources such
as providers and universities
Appendix. Digitally enabled growth of SMEs – the DIGROW maturity model evaluation grid

259
in SMEs
enabled growth
digitally
Promoting

Table AI.
Sensing digitally

potentials
enabled growth
 33,1

260
JEIM

Table AII.

enabled growth
strategy and mindset
Developing a digitally
Dimension Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Digitally No digitally We react to There is some We have started to review We have updated our We have a consistent digitally
enabled enabled changing understanding of how our strategy regarding strategy regarding enabled innovation and growth
growth growth strategies of digital solutions will help digitally enabled growth some aspects of strategy in alignment with our
strategy strategy competitors us to deliver the firm’s digitally enabled resources
objectives growth
Digital No interest of
Reactive Leaders recognize potential Leaders motivate and Leaders activate Digital initiatives have high
leadership leaders in
leadership. We of digitally enabled growth support people for employees for digital priority. There is a defined position/
digitally
prefer to first see digital change initiatives role to launch, coordinate and
enabled
what competitors monitor digital initiatives
growth
do
Digital Digitally
We have some People in our firm start There is a generally Most people in our Everyone in the firm shares an
mindset averse
“digital natives” in thinking about positive attitude towards firm are motivated to understanding of our digital vision
(attitudes our firm and they digitalization and managers digitalization and broad seize digital and has favourable attitudes and
and behave are developing new digital development of new opportunities behaviours towards digitalization
behaviours) accordingly behaviours behaviours
Empowered No Some employees We collect ideas of Employees are encouraged Digital initiatives Employees are fully empowered to
employees empowerment have started employees for digital to experiment with digital managed by experiment with digital initiatives
of employees digital initiatives innovations initiatives employees have been and implement them
on their own implemented
Dimension Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Digitally No digitally We have a We are looking for We have started to Our new business models We systematically adapt our
enabled enabled reactive new/improved/ change some components already contribute to business models or create new
business business approach. First, innovative of our business model (e. increased revenues ones for digital-enabled growth,
models models we see what business models g. sales channels, value including customer segments,
competitors are proposition) channels,
doing or activities/resources and the
changing value proposition
Digital market No digital Website not Customer-oriented Actively managed digital Our firm has a digital presence Our firm has a broad and
presence market actively website and presence market presence through and continuously develops integrated digital presence
presence managed, some in several social internal resources, different activities to keep across several media through
presence in media collaboration with ourselves at the top of mind (e.g. different digital activities. We
social networks partners or external digital marketing campaigns, regularly measure the impact of
(e.g. Facebook, service provider blogs, videos, digital our digital market presence
Twitter or communities, etc.)
LinkedIn)
Digital No digital Our company We have at least one We actively use customer We mainly interact with The firm successfully interacts
customer customer has started to well-established data for customers digitally, revenues with (potential) customers and
experience experience interact with online channel to data-driven services. (% of sales) are generated by delivers customer service across
customers deliver customer We interact with some data-driven services multiple digital channels, an
digitally (e.g. services and interact customer segments important part of revenues is
e-mail, online with customers digitally generated by
feedback) data-driven (online) services
(% of revenues)
Agile No projects nor Some digital Some digital projects Digital projects have been Some digital projects are based The organization has adopted
implementation/ methodologies projects have have been started started and they have on agile methodologies agile methodologies to develop
deployment of for digital been started, and they follow a included some techniques its digital initiatives and
digitalization opportunities but without specific methodology to quickly respond to this is managed based on a
initiatives using any customers’ needs and structured method
specific requirements
methodology
261
in SMEs
enabled growth
digitally
Promoting

Seizing digitally

potentials
Table AIII.

enabled growth
 33,1

262
JEIM

for digital
Table AIV.

transformation
Managing resources
Dimension Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Digital No digital Low level of digital Adequate level of Adequate level of Significant level of digital Employees possess all necessary digital
skills and skills skills and/or low digital skills in a digital skills in some skills in most relevant fields or skills, which are updated regularly
Learning No training investment to develop few relevant relevant fields or business areas through a formal learning and
for the digital capabilities fields or business business areas Specific programme for the development programme
development areas development of digital skills
of digital
skills
Digital No Digitalization of Process Few internal Many internal processes and Most processes and interactions with
processes digitalization processes is planned digitalization processes and interactions with external external partners have been digitalized
of processes is under way interactions with partners already digitalized and a formal managerial process to
external partners monitor them is in place
already digitalized
Digital Only First attempts to Digital Digital technology State-of-the-art digital Effective technology planning,
technology minimum adopt digital technology starts to be technology supports critical deployment, integration and use to
and digital technology already adopted considered a critical processes and the business support the digital-enabled business.
security technology in Regular backup of in few areas or enabler for business strategy; IT security is ensured Comprehensive IT security solutions
place data, up-to-date processes strategy for the most have been implemented for all
Very limited antivirus software, Few IT and Some IT and critical areas relevant areas
IT security further security cybersecurity cybersecurity There is a cybersecurity plan in place
measures solutions planned measures are measures have been
planned implemented