A Digital Transformation Model for Cooperatives of Services

i INSTITUTO SUPERIOR DE CONTABILIDADE E ADMINISTRAÇÃO DO PORTO POLITÉCNICO DO PORTO M MESTRADO EM NEGÓCIO ELETRÓNICO Fábio André Pereira Couto. A Digital Transformation Model for Cooperatives of Services 06/2023 A Digital Transformation Model for Cooperatives of Services Fábio André Pereira Couto 06/2023 ii INSTITUTO SUPERIOR DE CONTABILIDADE E ADMINISTRAÇÃO DO PORTO POLITÉCNICO DO PORTO M MESTRADO EM NEGÓCIO ELETRÓNICO Fábio André Pereira Couto. A Digital Transformation Model for Cooperatives of Services 06/2023 A Digital Transformation Model for Cooperatives of Services Fábio André Pereira Couto Dissertação de Mestrado apresentado ao Instituto Superior de Contabilidade e Administração do Porto para a obtenção do grau de Mestre em Negócio Eletrónico, sob orientação de Prof. Doutora Mariana Curado Malta e Prof. Doutora Ana Azevedo iii Resumo: As Transformações Digitais são iniciativas que, com a pandemia da COVID-19, se tornaram ainda mais importantes para a competitividade das organizações. No entanto, estas iniciativas têm uma elevada taxa de insucesso, pois são processos complexos que exigem um planeamento e uma implementação cuidadosa e rigorosa. O principal objectivo desta dissertação é adaptar um binómio DTM (Digital Transformation Model)-DMM (Digital Maturity Model) às características das cooperativas de serviços. Para este objetivo, realizamos revisões sistemáticas de literatura de modo a identificar os DTMs e DMMs existentes. Os modelos são analisados e comparados (7 DTM e 20 DMM), e os mais completos são seleccionados. Em seguida, propomos vários pares DTM-DMM de entre os modelos mais completos, com base em características como a dimensão e o sector das organizações. Tendo em conta as cooperativas de serviços e as suas especificidades, seleccionamos o par considerado mais adequado para servir de base ao trabalho de adaptação. Esta adaptação é efetuada através da consulta da literatura e de especialistas em cooperativas, de modo a abranger as idiossincrasias deste tipo de organizações. Os resultados desta investigação têm implicações para a preparação e implementação de iniciativas de Transformação Digital no contexto das cooperativas de serviços. Os resultados apresentam duas ferramentas (DTM e DMM) adaptadas a este tipo de organização e que podem ser utilizadas numa abordagem combinada para o planeamento e a implementação de processos de TD rigorosos. Este têm o potencial de aumentar as taxas de sucesso da TD e, por conseguinte, melhorar a competitividade das cooperativas de serviços. Palavras chave: Transição Digital, Maturidade Digital, Transformação Digital, Cooperativas de Serviços, Roadmap, Modelos iv Abstract: Digital Transformations are initiatives that, with the COVID-19 pandemic, became even more important for the competitiveness of organisations. However, these initiatives have a high failure rate, as they are complex processes that require careful and rigorous planning and implementation. The main objective of this dissertation is to adapt a DTM-DMM binomial to the characteristics of the cooperatives of services. For this objective, we perform systematic literature reviews to identify existing DTMs and DMMs. The models are analysed and compared (7 DTM and 20 DMM), and the most complete ones are selected. Next, we propose several DTM-DMM pairs from among the most complete models, based on characteristics such as the size and sector of organisations. Taking into account the cooperatives of services and their specificities, we select the pair considered most suitable for the basis of model adaptation. This adaptation is made by consulting the literature and cooperative experts, so that it covers the idiosyncrasies of this type of organisation. The results of this research have implications for the preparation and implementation of DT initiatives in the context of the cooperatives of services. The results present two tools (DTM and DMM) adapted to this type of organisation and that can be used in a combined approach for the planning and implementation of rigorous DT processes. This has the potential to increase DT success rates and therefore improve the competitiveness of the cooperatives of services. Keywords: Digital Transformation, Digital Maturity, Digital Transition, Cooperatives of Services, Roadmap, Models v Table of Contents Chapter I - Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Motivation ................................................................................................................... 4 1.2. Objectives and Expected Results ................................................................................ 5 1.3. Research questions ...................................................................................................... 5 Chapter II – Theoretical Framework .................................................................................... 7 2.1. Digital Transformation ................................................................................................ 8 2.2. Digital Transformation Models ................................................................................... 9 2.3. Digital Maturity ......................................................................................................... 10 2.4. Digital Maturity Models ............................................................................................ 11 2.5. Cooperatives of Services ........................................................................................... 12 Chapter III – Methodology ................................................................................................... 14 3.1. Systematic Literature Review ................................................................................... 15 3.1.1. Digital Transformation Models.......................................................................... 16 3.1.2. Digital Maturity Models .................................................................................... 17 3.2. Adaptation of the Models .......................................................................................... 18 3.2.1. Cooperatives versus Investor-owned Companies .............................................. 19 Chapter IV – Results ............................................................................................................. 22 4.1. A Comparative Analysis of DTMs and DMMs ........................................................ 23 4.1.1. Definition Of The Parameters For The Framework Of DTM Analysis............. 23 4.1.1.1. Presentation of the DTMs ........................................................................... 25 4.1.1.2. Comparative Analysis of the DTMs ........................................................... 28 4.1.1.3. Discussion ................................................................................................... 29 4.1.2. Definition of the Parameters for the Framework of DMM Analysis ................. 30 4.1.2.1. Presentation of the DMMs .......................................................................... 33 4.1.2.2. Comparative Analysis Of The DMMs ........................................................ 42 4.1.2.3. Discussion ................................................................................................... 44 vi 4.2. NEXUS BETWEEN DTM AND DMM ................................................................... 46 4.2.1. Pairing DTM With A Specific DMM ................................................................ 48 4.2.1.1. DTM-DMM Pairing For SMEs - Industry 4.0 ........................................... 49 4.2.1.2. DTM-DMM Pairings For SMEs - Non-Manufacturing ............................. 50 4.2.2. Selection of the DTM-DMM pair for adaptation to service cooperatives ......... 53 4.3. Adaptation of the Models to a Cooperative of Services ............................................ 54 4.3.1. Adaptation of the DTM ...................................................................................... 54 4.3.2. Adaptation of the DMM..................................................................................... 56 4.3.3. A DTM-DMM pairing for cooperatives of services .......................................... 65 4.3.4. Discussion .......................................................................................................... 70 Chapter V – Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 73 5.1. Limitations of the work ............................................................................................. 74 5.2. Future work ............................................................................................................... 75 References ............................................................................................................................... 76 Appendix ................................................................................................................................. 88 Appendix I – Corporate DTMs screened in the systematic literature review ...................... 89 Appendix II – Academic papers screened in the DTM systematic literature review ........... 89 Appendix III – Corporate DMMs screened in the systematic literature review .................. 93 Appendix IV – Academic papers screened in the DMM systematic literature review ........ 94 Appendix V – Transcript of the meeting with a specialist in cooperatives.......................... 98 vii List of Figures Figure 1 - Connection between DM and DT, according to Aslanova & Kulichkina (2020) ... 11 Figure 2 – The steps of the research process ........................................................................... 15 Figure 3 – Methodology used for DTM selection ................................................................... 17 Figure 4 – Methodology used for DMM selection .................................................................. 18 Figure 5 - Formula to calculate Si, an intermediate variable to calculate the DM level - DMM ID-16 ........................................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 6 - Formula to calculate mi, intermediate variable to calculate the DM level - DMM ID16.............................................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 7 - Formula to calculate the DM level - DMM ID-16 ('n' is the total number of dimensions). ............................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 8 - Formula to calculate the DM level - DMM ID-19 .................................................. 42 Figure 9 - DTM and DMM nexus ............................................................................................ 47 Figure 10 - Generic steps for a combined DTM-DMM approach ........................................... 48 Figure 11 - DTM ID-5 paring: the use of DMM ID-7 with DTM ID-5. Adapted from NG et al. (2018) and Schuh et al. (2020) ................................................................................................. 50 Figure 12 - DTM ID-1 pairings (adapted from Barann et al., 2019): the use of DMM ID-9 (Borstnar & Pucihar, 2021) and ID-20 (Valdez-de-Leon, 2016) in DTM ID-1 ...................... 52 Figure 13 - DTM ID-3 pairings (adapted from Kääriäinen et al., 2020): the use of DMM ID-9 (Borstnar & Pucihar, 2021) and ID-20 (Valdez-de-Leon, 2016) with DTM ID-3 .................. 53 Figure 14 - DTM ID-3, adapted from Kääriäinen et al. (2020) ............................................... 55 Figure 15 - Positioning phase of DTM ID-3 ............................................................................ 55 Figure 16 - Current State Analysis phase of DTM ID-3 .......................................................... 55 Figure 17 - Roadmap phase of DTM ID-3............................................................................... 56 Figure 18 - Implementation phase of DTM ID-3..................................................................... 56 Figure 19 - Original version of DMM ID-20 ........................................................................... 57 Figure 20 - Original dimensions of DMM ID-20 .................................................................... 57 Figure 21 - Adapted version of DTM ID-3 .............................................................................. 66 Figure 22 - DMM dimension nexus ......................................................................................... 71 viii List of Tables Table 1 - Differences between Cooperatives and Investor-Owned Companies ...................... 21 Table 2 - Framework of DTM analysis: the parameters .......................................................... 25 Table 3 - DTM comparative analysis ....................................................................................... 28 Table 4 - Framework of DMM analysis: the parameters ......................................................... 32 Table 5 – Dimension and subdimensions of DMM ID-2 ........................................................ 33 Table 6 - DM levels of DMM ID-2 ......................................................................................... 34 Table 7 - Dimensions and subdimensions of DMM ID-5........................................................ 35 Table 8 - DM levels of DMM ID-8 ......................................................................................... 36 Table 9 - Dimensions and subdimensions of DMM ID-9........................................................ 36 Table 10 - DM levels of DMM ID-13 ..................................................................................... 38 Table 11 - DM levels of DMM ID-14 ..................................................................................... 38 Table 12 - Phases and evaluation dimensions of DMM ID-15 ................................................ 38 Table 13 - DM levels of DMM ID-16 ..................................................................................... 39 Table 14 - Dimensions and subdimensions of DMM ID-17.................................................... 40 Table 15 - Dimensions and subdimensions of DMM ID-18.................................................... 41 Table 16 - DMM Comparative Analysis ................................................................................. 42 Table 17 - Sources for subdimension definition ...................................................................... 60 Table 18 - DMM ID-20 dimensions and subdimensions after the adaptation process ............ 66 Table 19 – DMM ID-20 final DM Levels ............................................................................... 66 Table 20 - Final version of the DMM ...................................................................................... 67 Table 21 - Strategy dimension ................................................................................................. 67 Table 22 - Organization dimension.......................................................................................... 68 Table 23 - Customers & Cooperators dimension ..................................................................... 68 Table 24 - Ecosystem dimension ............................................................................................. 69 Table 25 - Operations dimension ............................................................................................. 69 Table 26 - Technology dimension ........................................................................................... 70 Table 27 - Innovation dimension ............................................................................................. 70 Table 28 – Corporate DTMs A1 .............................................................................................. 89 Table 29 – Corporate DTMs A2 .............................................................................................. 89 Table 30 – Academic DTMs B1 .............................................................................................. 90 Table 31 – Academic DTMs B2 .............................................................................................. 92 Table 32 – Academic DTMs B3 .............................................................................................. 92 ix Table 33 – Corporate DMMs C1 ............................................................................................. 93 Table 34 – Corporate DMMs C2 ............................................................................................. 94 Table 35 – Academic DMMs D1 ............................................................................................. 95 Table 36 – Academic DMMs D2 ............................................................................................. 97 Table 37 – Academic DMMs D3 ............................................................................................. 98 6 • How can we adopt a combined approach to DT which includes both a DTM and a DMM? • What are the necessary adaptations to make DTMs and DMMs encompass the characteristics of cooperatives of services? 7 CHAPTER II – THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 8 In today's rapidly evolving digital landscape, organisations must adapt to the changes brought by technological advancements. The concept of DT has emerged to enable organisations to harness the potential of digital technologies and integrate them into their business strategies. DTM provide a structured approach for organisations to follow when undertaking a DT process. In parallel, DMM allows organisations to assess their current digital capabilities and identify areas for improvement. 2.1. Digital Transformation Digital Transformation (DT) is a term whose exact definition varies depending on the authors. For some, DT is the reinvention of business and value creation models, using digital technologies that leverage the performance and reach of organizations, and end up improving customer experience, operations and business models (Fitzgerald et al., 2013; Kane et al., 2015; Westerman et al., 2011). For these authors, DT is a synonym of “Digitalization”, but differs from “Digitization”. In turn, Hess et al. (2016) share the same definition but add improvements to “product reinvention” and “organizational structure”. Other authors argue that DT is a more general term when compared to “Digitization” (conversion of analog information into digital, or process automation through technology) and “Digitalization” (implementation of a given technology in an organization, to digitally support certain processes) (Maltaverne, 2018). DT is, in this case, a process that affects organizations, and can be described as the creation of new ways of operating, leading to new sources of value. Throughout this thesis, the definition of DT to be used it the one given by Westerman et al. (2011), Fitzgerald et al. (2013) and Kane et al. (2015). However, DT can also have a more general definition, being characterized as dealing with the changes that digital technologies cause in human life (Kaplan, et al., 2010, as cited in Mäkinen, 2017). Another definition is that DT represents the ability of an organization to react and effectively use new technologies and procedures; this reaction and adoption of changes can lead to Digital Disruption (Herbert, 2017). Digital Disruption is the change that occurs when new technologies and business models affect the value proposition of existing services and products (Wade et al., 2019). A lack of reaction to this Digital Disruption will lead to losses in revenue and profits (Bughin & Van Zeebroeck, 2017). That being said, the natural evolution of DT will make it progress to Digital Disruption (Bradley et al., 2015), with the emergence of new business models feeding this disruptive 9 phenomena (authors here refer to “combinatorial disruption”, which they define as the decomposition of value sources into their digital constituent parts, being then recombined and leading to new disruptive business models), competitive change and other businesses’ transformation necessity (Bradley et al., 2015). The primary force behind DT is the customer, as there is a generalized access to online information, as well as the existence of multiple channels (websites, apps and social networks), leading to an increase in expectations (Berman & Bell, 2011). There is a greater proliferation of information and greater ease and speed of access, making the customer more informed, and consequently, more demanding. The fundamental question is no longer to give priority to DT initiatives, but how to adopt it and turn it into a competitive advantage while incorporating DT into business strategies (Hess et al., 2016). Company managers have, in general, little clarity regarding the different options and elements to consider in a DT (Hess et al., 2016). This increases the risk of ignoring or forgetting important elements, which can eventually lead to unsuccessful initiatives: “[…] companies continue to struggle to establish concrete plans to implement digital transformation” (Ferreira, 2022). To help organizations, there are Digital Transformation Models available that can be used as guides (roadmaps that help define the “how?”), with due adaptation to each organization’s reality. 2.2. Digital Transformation Models A well-structured DT strategy will help organisations by acting as a unifying and supportive concept in coordinating, defining priorities, and implementing the necessary initiatives for successful DT (Hess et al., 2016). In other words, a well-structured DT strategy will help to create a shared vision with clear and well-defined goals so that everyone knows which changes to be made, when and how to do those changes, and why they are essential. However, decision-makers still lack guidance when choosing the best path to initiate DT efforts (Kane et al., 2017). As a result, only a minority of organisations adopt a DT plan consistent with a well-articulated business strategy (Bughin & Van Zeebroeck, 2017). DTM exist precisely to assist organisations in their DT journeys. They give guidance and act as roadmaps that help define the "how?" in DT, guiding the processes of developing a DT plan and consequent digital strategy. Roadmaps mean a clear and structured explanation of the processes needed to successfully plan DT initiatives, including techniques and methods 10 related to change management principles with deliverables and milestones. A DTM is important since SMEs lack DT expertise and know-how on how to conduct these complex changes, thus needing extensive guidance (Goerzig & Bauernhansl, 2018). A DTM is a systematic and structured approach that provides guidelines, principles, and best practices for organisations to undertake a successful DT. These models typically include a set of stages, such as assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation, which guide organisations through the process of DT. A DTM provides a holistic approach to DT and helps organisations define objectives, develop a roadmap, and monitor progress, ensuring the transformation is aligned with the organisation's goals and objectives. By providing a structured and standardised approach, DTM can help organisations optimise their DT efforts and improve their success chances. 2.3. Digital Maturity DM is the result of progress in the development of a system: organizations (maturing systems), improve their capabilities over time towards a desired future state (Teichert, 2019). It is therefore possible to say that DM encompasses technological and management aspects, thus being holistic (Teichert, 2019) and not static, as the digital landscape is constantly changing, making it necessary to assess DM iteratively (Shahiduzzaman et al., 2017). Constant changes in terms of digital landscape are caused by new technologies, creating opportunities for innovations capable of improving business models: “[…] digital maturity assessments are always made according to “moving targets” as (technological) possibilities evolve over time” (Chanias & Hess, 2016). This requires organizations to constantly update the technologies themselves, but also the best way(s) to take advantage of their potential. Responsiveness of organizations is fundamental: the ease of adaptation to changes in its sector in terms of technological advances, namely through frequent changes to their processes (Shahiduzzaman et al., 2017). These changes also affect DM levels, insofar as certain technologies or processes associated with a DM level can, at any time, become obsolete and be replaced by another more sophisticated technology or way of doing things. Digitally mature organizations undergo an integration and gradual implementation of organizational and human processes, and other resources into digital processes (Aslanova & Kulichkina, 2020). 11 DM is at the base of DT: when organisations want to rank higher in the DM spectrum, they prepare a DT (Aslanova & Kulichkina, 2020). The objective of a DT initiative is to reach a higher DM level. The DM level, in turn, reflects the state in which an organisation is in terms of its DT (Chanias & Hess, 2016). The connection between DM and DT is depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1 - Connection between DM and DT, according to Aslanova & Kulichkina (2020) 2.4. Digital Maturity Models DMM are tools that assess the status quo of a given organisation in terms of its DT; that is to say, it helps define the "what?" in DT (Becker et al., 2009). These models offer predefined dimensions, which can be complemented by descriptions of what organisations need to achieve at each DM stage. Furthermore, some DMM can include evolutionary paths, i.e., show concrete measures to improve DM (Berghaus & Back, 2016). Finally, most DMM uses questionnaires with questions built with Likert-type scales for the different DM levels (Bertolini et al., 2019). The DM level of an organisation provides a characterisation of its current performance regarding the use and integration of digital technologies. It is first necessary to know the current state of the DM of the organisation to increase the overall DM level. For that, we need to do an as-is analysis (Teichert, 2019) to identify the business areas needing improvement (Caralli et al., 2012; Cozmiuc & Pettinger, 2021). Resuming, it is first necessary to know in which DM stage the organisation is (Bumann & Peter, 2019) before identifying the goals of the DT process. A DMM guides organisations on what to address and improve in their DT, influencing their DT strategies and plans. These models typically consist of stages or levels, each representing a level of DM ranging from basic to advanced. By assessing an organisation's DM, 12 a DMM helps identify strengths and weaknesses, prioritise digital initiatives, and guide the development of a roadmap for improving digital capabilities. 2.5. Cooperatives of Services A Cooperative is an autonomous association, made up of people who unite voluntarily, seeking to achieve their common goal (economic, social and cultural), with all participants owning a percentage of the organization (the Cooperative), in a democratic management model (ICA, 2022). This emphasis on cooperation between members is due to the focus of these types of organizations on people, with the aim of achieving a shared interest. Cooperatives seek to bring cooperative members together in a democratic and egalitarian way, which is why the “one member, one vote” rule applies, in which each member has the same voting rights, regardless of the capital each one has invested in the organization (ICA, 2022b). As this is a type of business driven by values (not exclusively monetary), social justice and equality are always present in the search for an environment of mutual help, which results in the creation of a sustainable organization. Another important aspect is the possibility for each cooperator to be able to control and decide on their respective economic future, since a cooperative is not owned by any stakeholder, that is, the economic and social benefits arising from its activity are invested in the community; the profits are distributed by the members or else invested by the cooperative itself (ICA, 2022b). Cooperatives are historically part of the Social Economy (Ordeñana et al., 2022), sharing the same values in terms of autonomy and freedom, democracy and focus on people. These have as their main characteristic the cooperation between members, that is, the cooperators (work, consume, sell and/or provide services in the cooperative). However, there is also the possibility of admitting investor members, who are part of a given cooperative only with share capital (Pinto, 2018). The purpose of creating a cooperative is to meet the needs of its members, whether of an economic, social, or cultural nature, for example. Therefore, and contrary to commercial companies, the main objective is not to make profit, which makes it possible to say that a cooperative is not for profit (Pinto, 2018). 13 Service cooperatives, in this study, includes cooperatives whose goal is to provide a specialised service to its members (KCARD, 2020). Examples include healthcare, communication, transportation cooperatives, financial cooperatives or infrastructure services (electricity, water). The goal of a cooperative of services, according to our consultation with a subject matter expert, is: • to eliminate a middleman in the market, i.e., an employer; • to get a more adequate compensation for the services provided; • to provide a service at an approximated cost price, i.e., a non-speculative price; • to provide a service in different conditions to those of an investor-owned company (IOC), due to its social and economic dimensions. 14 CHAPTER III – METHODOLOGY 15 3.1. Systematic Literature Review This study started with a literature review to identify the research problem and define the objectives of the research. To achieve these objectives, we did a systematic literature review with a three-step approach (Webster & Watson, 2002): 1) a search for models in the main sources; 2) the selected models had their reference sections analysed for other potentially relevant models; 3) one last search for studies that cited the models selected in the previous steps. We aimed to find corporate and academic models. To find the first type of model, we used Google Search Engine (https://www.google.com/), and for the latter, we used Web of Science (https://www.webofscience.com/wos/) and Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/). Figure 2 presents a flowchart with the multiple steps of the methodology used in this study. Figure 2 – The steps of the research process The searches for the systematic literature review were conducted in May 2022. As a way of covering all the papers about DTM and DMM, it was decided to do the searches for both models with the same keywords. During the search process, we detected situations in which, despite an indication of a DTM proposal, the document ended up proposing a DMM instead. For example, IFRC (2021) names its document as "IFRC Digital Transformation Model", but that document proposes a DMM instead. DT-related language is not standardised; therefore, the same terms can lead to different results (Carrijo et al., 2021). We did not want to risk missing out on models, hence this decision. The keywords used were: "Digital Transformation" AND "Digital Maturity"; "Digital Maturity Model"; "Digital Transformation Maturity"; "Digital Transformation Framework"; "Digital Transformation Model"; "Digital Maturity Framework"; "Digital Capability" AND "Framework"; "Digital Capability" AND "Model". These keywords were used on 1) Google Search Engine to collect corporate models and 2) Web of Science and Google Scholar for 22 CHAPTER IV – RESULTS 23 4.1. A Comparative Analysis of DTMs and DMMs The systematic literature review resulted in eight (8) DTM and twenty (20) DMM. This section presents a comparative analysis of the DTMs and DMMs. 4.1.1. Definition Of The Parameters For The Framework Of DTM Analysis We defined the parameters for the DTM comparative analysis based on the works of Kääriäinen et al. (2020) and Nwaiwu (2018), as they were the only peer-reviewed papers we found that included DTM comparisons. Nwaiwu (2018) proposes a framework for comparing DTM to analyse their suitability and robustness in addressing DT. In this paper, the author evaluates their relevance and realworld applicability. The framework was created after an extensive review of DTM and based on insights from the author's reviews of these models. The framework uses the following parameters: • Assess the current state of digitalisation - evaluate whether the model under analysis proposes an assessment of the current state of digitalisation in the organisations; • What to transform - consists of three subgroups: the first analyses the total number of items that the DTM proposes to be changed based on the structure of the organisations. The second lists all these items. The third evaluates if these are explained in detail; • How to transform - contains two subgroups: the first lists the actions to take, and the second an analysis of the actions to see if there is a description of those actions; • Origin of the framework - determines whether the model under analysis comes from academic or corporate sources; • Framework scientifically validated - analyses if the model was subject to rigorous scientific validation. Kääriäinen et al. (2020) present a brief comparison of some DTM in their paper. The parameters used were based on a survey of relevant literature, which focused on published and peer-reviewed research papers. The comparison was made according to the following parameters: • DTM phases – the authors identified how many phases the DTM had and also their names; 24 • DM assessment phase – analyses if the DTM has a phase dedicated to DM diagnosis (they call it the "Positioning Phase"); • Tools or Methods – a list of the tools or specific methods suggested by the DTM to be used during the different phases of the model; • Validation – determines whether the DTM and its tools or methods were tested in SMEs and the number of organisations it was tested in. Furthermore, the authors refer to the importance of depth and the consequent availability of additional information regarding the models, thus facilitating interpretation. This is based on SMEs not having, in most cases, experts with experience with all DT concepts. Based on the works of Kääriäinen et al. (2020) and Nwaiwu (2018), we created our analysis framework. The following paragraphs present the parameters of the framework: • Phases (ID1) - listing of all phases that the proposed roadmap includes (1.1); assess whether there is a detailed description of those listed phases, with explanations to justify their inclusion and why it is relevant to the activities, when and how to do it (1.2); analyse if there are any examples of real-life application of the model (1.3). This category helps to understand the structure of the model and the amount of expertise required (less information makes it harder to comprehend). • DM Assessment (ID2) - refers to the existence of a construct or indication in the roadmap for the organisation's DM assessment. This parameter gives insight into the nexus between DTM and DMM. • Tools (ID3) - assesses if the model gives any suggestion or indication about the most appropriate tools for each proposed phase and describes how to use them. This category helps to evaluate the models' robustness, making them more complete. • Scientific Rigor (ID4) - analyses if the model complies with scientific rigour, i.e., if it presents reliable sources as the basis for its design or has been subject to peer review processes. The goal is to analyse how trustworthy the information given is. • Origin (ID5) - identify the model's source. The source can be academic or corporate. This category helps to better understand where the contributions come from, being helpful to create a general overview of the different characteristics of academic and corporate DTM. • Depth (ID6) - evaluate the depth of the DTM by analysing the additional information about the model. This point is vital since organisations may not have highly qualified employees with experience and know-how in all concepts addressed in the model 25 (Kääriäinen et al., 2020). The evaluation scale is a Likert-type (from 1 to 5), where 1 = no depth, 2 = minimum depth, 3 = some depth, 4 = high depth and 5 = very high depth. Table 2 below summarises the parameters used. Table 2 - Framework of DTM analysis: the parameters ID Category Name Author(s) Description 1 Phases Nwaiwu (2018); Kääriäinen et al. (2020) 1.1 – List of proposed phases; 1.2 – Detailed description of phases, which includes an explanation for having a given action and the reason why it is considered relevant (type of result: Boolean); 1.3 – Practical examples of application (type of result: Boolean). 2 DM Assessment Nwaiwu (2018); Kääriäinen et al. (2020) Analyse if the DTM includes a DM assessment phase (type of result: Boolean). 3 Tools Kääriäinen et al. (2020) Identify if there are suggestions of specific tools to be used (Business Model Canvas, SWOT analysis, KPI, etc.), as well as detailed instructions on how and when (in which phase) to use them (type of result: Boolean). 4 Scientific Rigour Nwaiwu (2018) Identify if the DTM was conceived according to scientific rigour (type of result: Boolean). For this, it will be necessary to present reliable sources that were the basis for the conception of the proposed model. 5 Origin Nwaiwu (2018) DTM origin: corporate or academic. 6 Depth Kääriäinen et al. (2020) Assessment of the depth of the DTM: the amount of additional information made available regarding the proposed model. 4.1.1.1. Presentation of the DTMs The DTM selected are described regarding their phases and the main goals of each phase. DTM ID-1 (Barann et al., 2019) is an academic model, it includes a reference to DM assessment and proposes five phases: • Position Company – the AS-IS situation and the DM are analysed; • Create Digitalisation Roadmap – generate ideas, evaluate them and develop a Digitalisation roadmap that orders and prioritises the DT goals; 26 • Create Supportive environment – create awareness, involve employees and generate a Digitalisation culture; • Prepare Digitalisation Project – select the DT goal with the highest priority, identify opportunities with concrete action items, and build expertise with training efforts; • Implement Solution – design, refine, realise and monitor the solutions. DTM ID-2 (Gaffley & Pelser, 2021) is an academic model, it includes a reference to DM assessment and proposes seven phases: • Evaluation – set the digital benchmark by identifying the digital gap; • Variable Selection – select independent and dependent variables relevant to the digital strategy; • Variable Impact and Urgency Analysis – prioritise, weight and rank the digital assets identified before; • Prioritisation – list the prioritised digital assets using a digital planning map; • Financial Plan - set a financial plan, develop and allocate detailed budgets for implementation; • KPI and ROI – select cross-functional teams, assign responsibilities against KPI and ROI requirements; • Execution and Review – execute, review, set timelines and update digital strategy every six to twelve weeks, incorporating it into the overall business strategy. DTM ID-3 (Kääriäinen et al., 2020) is an academic model. It includes a reference to DM assessment and proposes four phases: • Positioning – Digitalisation status of the organisation as a whole, including development ideas and digital vision(s); • Current State Review – the digital vision(s) are examined in more detail, and conceptual solutions are developed; • Roadmap – plan how to achieve the objectives and definition of metrics to evaluate success; • Implementation – implementation of solutions and success evaluation. DTM ID-4 (Lazaro-Aleman et al., 2020) is an academic model. It does not include a reference to DM assessment and proposes five phases: • Risk Analysis – identify and analyse worker's needs, the company's current processes and risk assessment; 27 • BIM Initiation and Planning – develop a staff training plan, acquire a cloud platform and establish satisfaction, time, cost and quality indicators; • BIM Stabilization – process follow-up and control, promote feedback practices and assess process performance; • BIM Progression – standardise new digitalised processes, and establish continuous improvement practices; • Benefits – more efficient document processing management, additional cost reductions and reprocesses. DTM ID-5 (NG et al., 2018) is an academic model, it includes a reference to DM assessment and proposes five phases: • Assessment of Current Business Model – identify current business strategies and activities; • Design of Digital Business Model – design future digital business processes and requirements; • Assessment of Current Digital Capabilities – assess current DM level; • Identification of Future Digital Capabilities – identify the gap between the current DM level and future digital business processes and requirements; • Development of Action Plan – develop an action plan, including a roadmap to implement the digital business model. DTM ID-6 (Corver et al., n.d.) is a corporate model, it includes a reference to DM assessment and proposes six phases: • Problem Framing – establish approach, state assumptions, develop a hypothesis, plan research; • Insights – gather inputs from actors, existing data, competitors, adjacencies and market trends; • Strategy Ideation and Development – sensemaking, value platform development, future mapping; • Prioritisation & definition – prioritisation, roadmap development, defining future business model; • Execution Planning – organisational realignment, funding model, change management, authority to proceed; • Implementation – implement the plans and strategies established in the previous phases. 28 DTM ID-7 (Gartner, 2021) is a corporate model, it includes a reference to DM assessment and proposes five phases: 1. Ambition – the strategy is defined, and interest and excitement are generated; 2. Design – the options and ecosystem are assessed for plan development; 3. Deliver – minimum viable proofs of concept are executed and communicated; 4. Scale – the plan is commercialised and absorbed by the organisation; 5. Refine – assess, optimise and re-evaluate. 4.1.1.2. Comparative Analysis of the DTMs Table 3 presents the comparative analysis of the DTMs according to the parameters defined in Table 2. Table 3 - DTM comparative analysis Parameters ID Reference (1.1) (1.2) (1.3) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1 Barann et al. (2019) Position Company; Create Digitalization Roadmap; Create Supportive Environment; Prepare Digitalization Project; Implement Solution Y N Y Y Y A 4 2 Gaffley & Pelser (2021) Evaluation; Variable Selection; Variable Impact and Urgency Analysis; Prioritisation; Financial Plan; KPI and ROI; Execution and Review N N Y N Y A 2 3 Kääriäinen et al. (2020) Positioning; Current State Review; Roadmap; Implementation Y Y Y Y Y A 5 4 LazaroAleman et al. (2020) Risk Analysis; BIM Initiation and Planning; BIM Stabilization; BIM Progression; Benefits N Y N Y Y A 2 5 NG et al. (2018) Assessment of Current Business Model; Design of Digital Business Model; Assessment of Current Digital Capabilities; Identification of Future Digital Capabilities; Development of Action Plan Y N Y Y Y A 3 6 Corver et al. (n.d.) Problem Framing; Insights; Strategy Ideation and Development; Prioritization & Definition; Execution Planning; Implementation N N Y Y N C 2 7 Gartner (2021) Ambition; Design; Deliver; Scale; Refine N N Y Y N C 1 29 4.1.1.3. Discussion There are five academic models (71%) and only two corporate models (29%). The cause for this value may be because corporate DTM often does not include roadmaps, or when they do, they include proprietary tools that are not free to access as they are part of the companies' consulting services. Only one of the seven analysed DTMs (14%) does not include an evaluation of DM, and the proposed roadmaps have, for the most part, between four and five phases (the first phase, in half of the analysed models, involves assessing the DM of the organisation). Regarding the information provided on these same phases, more than half of the DTMs (five out of seven - 71%) do not satisfactorily clarify the proposed actions to take, which might end up making it more challenging to understand fully. As far as scientific rigour is concerned, it is possible to conclude that the corporate models analysed are both validated by use, being empirically validated by the companies based on their experiences. DTM ID-1 is well described, with each phase and cycle well-detailed and wellstructured. It focuses on organisations with fewer financial resources that would like to work with external support units. DTM ID-2 has well-structured phases in its roadmap, but there is little information on each phase (dependent and independent variables, for example). In addition, the results obtained are not robust, so the authors themselves recognise the need to strengthen the study with complementary research. DTM ID-3 focuses on SMEs and differentiates itself from the others by the free availability and easy access to all the tools mentioned by the authors. This abundance of information makes it possible to create a complete portfolio in terms of documentation of the TD planning process. The proposed phases are detailed and validated. There is also a considerable amount of information provided regarding the planning of interviews with stakeholders. Also meaningful is the existence of a website with additional information about the DTM and its tools. DTM ID-4 is the only model which does not indicate a DM assessment in its roadmap. Given the importance of a maturity analysis (proven by the number of DTM that include a DM assessment), this was considered a less positive aspect. There is also a lack of detailed information on the proposed phases. 30 DTM ID-5 focuses on Industry 4.0. The model is well-structured, which facilitates understanding, but there could be more information about its phases. Some tools are suggested in specific phases, thus making the model more complete. DTM ID-6 provides little information about each phase, with only short descriptions and occasional tool suggestions. This DTM suggested time frames for each phase, which is a detail that no other DTM had. DTM ID-7 is the model with less information available. Each phase contains a small list of activities, but no further explanation exists. DTM ID-1, ID-3, and ID-5 were considered the most complete. Taking into account everything discussed in the previous paragraphs, the DTM ID-1, DTM ID-3, and DTM ID-5 are the most comprehensive among all the models that we presented. They are, therefore, the ones used in the pairings presented in the section "Nexus between the DTMs and the DMMs". 4.1.2. Definition of the Parameters for the Framework of DMM Analysis We defined the parameters for the DMM comparative analysis based on the works of Remane et al. (2017), Chanias & Hess (2016), Macruz et al. (2020), Carrijo et al. (2021), De Bruin et al. (2005), Paasi (2017) and Proença & Borbinha (2016), as they were considered references in terms of this type of model during our literature review of DMM. The first parameter (ID#1 - DMM type) refers to the models' objective, which helps describe the DMM's goal. According to De Bruin et al. (2005), the models can be: • Descriptive - description of the status quo of the organisation in terms of DM, without mentioning improvement options to move to higher levels of maturity; • Prescriptive - proposal of options to improve in terms of DM, thus being potentially useful for the creation of roadmaps; • Comparative - comparison of the DM assessment results with other organisations, in the same or sometimes in distinct industries. The second parameter (ID#2 - Dimensions) aims to determine the number of analysis dimensions (and subdimensions) of the specific organisational areas, describing different maturity aspects of the evaluated organisations (Carrijo et al., 2021; Chanias & Hess, 2016; Macruz et al., 2020; Remane et al., 2017). It can give some insight into how embracing the DMM is. 31 The third parameter (ID#3 – DM levels) focuses on the number of proposed DM levels (Chanias & Hess, 2016; Remane et al., 2017). It can show how specific the final result is, as a model with two levels will not be as accurate as one with five. The fourth parameter (ID#4 - Assessment Method) is the method used to assess DM. This category helps to understand if there might be a need for specialised external experts to either adapt or conduct interviews, for example. Furthermore, it can also help evaluate the adaptative potential to other industries, as more complex procedures might make it harder to adapt. The assessment method can be (Chanias & Hess, 2016): • Quantitative - structured questionnaires (with Likert-type scales, for example), may vary in complexity, using combinations and mathematical-statistical procedures to calculate scores, for example. • Qualitative - semi-structured interviews, with the assessment on an interpretive basis. The fifth parameter (ID#5 – Results Presentation) concerns how the results are shown (Chanias & Hess, 2016). Here, depending on the type of audience (stakeholders), visual representations could be easier to understand, whereas in other cases, absolute numbers might be enough. The sixth parameter (ID#6 - Origin) identifies the model's origin, which may come from academic or corporate sources (Carrijo et al., 2021; Proença & Borbinha, 2016). It helps identify where the contributions are coming from. The seventh parameter (ID#7 - Data Collection Method) aims to specify the method used in the DMM to collect the necessary information for the DM assessment (Chanias & Hess, 2016). It could be done via online questionnaires (on a dedicated website), offline (Microsoft Excel or other software), or interviews. These aspects help when considering the adaptative potential of the models, as online questionnaires make it much more complex in terms of adaptation if need be. The eighth parameter (ID#8 - Scientific Rigor) refers to whether reliable sources are used to conceive the model or if the paper was peer-reviewed, for example. It also analyses if the model was validated, either by use or by subject matter experts. This makes it possible to use the results of the application of the model in other scientific papers and to generalise the conclusions (Carrijo et al., 2021; Macruz et al., 2020; Remane et al., 2017). The ninth parameter (ID#9 - Technology vs. Organisational Transformation) aims to identify the total dimensions focused on digital technologies and organisational transformation 38 Table 10 - DM levels of DMM ID-13 Points DM Level 0-30 points Minimalist 31-50 points Conservative 51-70 points Pragmatist 71-90 points Advanced 91-100 points Trailblazing The assessment is done quantitatively, through an offline questionnaire, with multiplechoice answers. The final score is between 0-100 points. DMM ID-14 (Marks et al., 2020) has a descriptive goal focusing on higher-education organisations. Five evaluation dimensions are proposed: "DT Vision, Strategy, Leadership and Communication"; "DT Talent, Skills, and Knowledge"; "DT Processes, Controls, and Digital Technologies"; "DT Technology Infrastructure"; "Approach to Understand and Communicate with Customers." There are four DM levels (see Table 11). Table 11 - DM levels of DMM ID-14 Points DM Level 0-24 points Desire/Ambition 25-49 points Planning and Designing 50-74 points Delivering 75-100 points Harvesting The assessment is done quantitatively, through an offline questionnaire, with 100 points distributed by predefined processes. Each process will have a classification between 0 and 5 (predefined). The sum of all these individual scores will be the DM level. DMM ID-15 (North et al., 2018) has a descriptive goal focusing on SMEs. It proposes sixteen evaluation dimensions, divided into four phases (see Table 12). Table 12 - Phases and evaluation dimensions of DMM ID-15 Phase Evaluation Dimension Sensing Digitally Enabled Growth Potentials • searching for digitally enabled growth opportunities • understanding and developing digital customer needs • sensing technology driven opportunities 39 Phase Evaluation Dimension • use of external sources for digital innovation Developing a Digitally Enabled Growth Strategy and Mindset • digitally enabled growth strategy • digital leadership • digital mindset • empowered employees Seizing Digitally Enabled Growth Potentials • digitally enabled business models • digital market presence • digital customer experience • agile implementation/deployment of digitalisation initiatives Managing Resources for Digital Transformation • digital skills & learning • digital processes • digital technology & security • digital investments There are six DM levels, based on a scale of 0 to 5, and each maturity level has a set of characteristics suggested by the authors. The assessment is done quantitatively, through an offline questionnaire, with six possible answers (corresponding to each DM level) to each question. DMM ID-16 (Pirola et al., 2019) has a descriptive goal focusing on Italian SMEs in an Industry 4.0 context. Five evaluation dimensions are proposed: "Strategy"; "People"; "Processes"; "Technology Integration". There are five DM levels (see Table 13). Table 13 - DM levels of DMM ID-16 Points DM Level 0-1,8 points 1 1,8-2,6 points 2 2,6-3,4 points 3 3,4-4,2 points 4 4,2-5 points 5 The assessment is done quantitatively, through an offline questionnaire, with a Likerttype scale. Each dimension will have its points predefined by the formula of Figure 5. Qi is the subset of questions referring to the dimension i, and bj is calculated following way: • bj = 0 if the technology/feature j is deemed not applicable; 40 • bj = aj (answers in a five-point Likert scale: aj∈{1, …, 5}) if the technology/feature is applicable, and the company is not planning to invest in it (or the investment already has been carried out and completed); • bj = min(aj+1;5) if the technology/feature is applicable and the company is currently investing in it. mi is defined as shown in Figure 6. Figure 5 - Formula to calculate Si, an intermediate variable to calculate the DM level - DMM ID-16 Figure 6 - Formula to calculate mi, intermediate variable to calculate the DM level - DMM ID-16 Finally, the DM score I is calculated using the formula of Figure 7. Figure 7 - Formula to calculate the DM level - DMM ID-16 ('n' is the total number of dimensions). DMM ID-17 (Rauch et al., 2020) has a descriptive goal focusing on Industry 4.0 context amongst SMEs. It proposes four evaluation dimensions with subdimensions (see Table 14). Table 14 - Dimensions and subdimensions of DMM ID-17 Dimension Subdimensions Operations • Agile Manufacturing Systems • Monitoring & Decision Systems • Big Data • Production Planning and Control Organisation • Business Model 4.0 • Innovation Strategy • Strategy 4.0 • Supply Chain Management 4.0 Socio-Culture • Human Resources 4.0 • Work 4.0 • Culture 4.0 • Big Data Technology • Communication & Connectivity 41 Dimension Subdimensions • Cyber Security • Deep Learning, Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence • Identification and Tracking technology • Additive Manufacturing • Maintenance • Robotics & Automation • Product Design and Development • Standards 4.0 • Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality and Simulation There are five DM levels, based on a scale of 1 to 5, and each maturity level has a set of characteristics suggested by the authors. The assessment is qualitative, through interviews that aim to understand where the organisation stands and assess the DM level based on the data collected. DMM ID-18 (Sándor & Gubán, 2021) has a descriptive goal focusing on SMEs. It proposes two evaluation dimensions, with subdimensions (see Table 15). Table 15 - Dimensions and subdimensions of DMM ID-18 Dimension Subdimensions IT • Technical Solutions • Hardware • Software Organisational • Orgware • Online Presence • Peopleware All items of each subdimension will have a relevance score, and the sum of all the items ticked by the organisation will be the final DM level. That sum will be a value between 0-1, and the closer to 1 the score is, the more mature the organisation is. The assessment is quantitative, through an offline questionnaire, in which the organisation has to choose which items apply to its situation. DMM ID-19 (Schumacher et al., 2016) has a descriptive goal focusing on Industry 4.0. Nine evaluation dimensions are proposed: "Strategy"; "Leadership"; "Customers"; "Products"; "Operations"; "Culture" "People"; "Governance"; "Technology". 42 Based on a Likert-type scale, there are five DM levels, ranging from 1 – "Not implemented" to 5 – "Totally Implemented." The assessment is quantitative, through an offline questionnaire, with five possible answers (corresponding to each DM level) to each question. Each question has a relevance score from one to five. The final DM score is calculated with a mathematical formula (see Figure 8). Figure 8 - Formula to calculate the DM level - DMM ID-19 DMM ID-20 (Valdez-de-Leon, 2016) has a descriptive goal focusing on telecommunication service providers. Seven evaluation dimensions are proposed: "Strategy"; "Organisation"; "Customer"; "Technology"; "Operations"; "Ecosystem"; "Innovation". There are six DM levels: "0 – Not Started"; "1 - Initiating"; "2 – Enabling"; "3 - Integrating"; "4 - Optimising"; "5 – Pioneering". The assessment is quantitative, through an offline questionnaire. Each dimension has a DM score and a set of characteristics associated with each level. The organisation should choose the DM level that best represents its situation. 4.1.2.2. Comparative Analysis Of The DMMs Table 16 presents the comparative analysis of the DMM according to the parameters defined in Table 4. Table 16 - DMM Comparative Analysis Parameters ID Reference (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 1 Blanchet et al. (2020) C 7 5 QT Table C Offline Quest. N T:7 HR N 2 COTEC (2020) P/C 4 (16) 3 (01000 points) QT Numerical score; Radar chart C Online Quest. N T:2; OT:2 Cult & HR Y 3 GE Digital (n.d.) D 6 6 QT Image C Online Quest. N T:6 - N 43 Parameters ID Reference (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 4 IDC & Cisco (n.d.) D 4 4 QT Numerical Score C Online Quest. N T:2; OT:2 HR Y 5 IFRC (2020) D 3 (10) 5 QL Numerical score; Table C Interview N T:1; TO:2 Cult & HR Y 6 Ohio Manufacturing Extension Partnership (n.d.) C 8 6 QT Numerical score; Comparative Charts C Online Quest. N T:7; OT:1 Cult N 7 Schuh et al. (2020) P 4 6 QT Concentric Circles C Offline Quest. Y T:2; OT:2 Cult & HR Y 8 Blatz & Dietel (2018) D 6 3 QT Numerical Score A Offline Quest. Y T:4; OT:2 Cult & HR Y 9 Borstnar & Pucihar (2021) D 2 (7) 4 QT Radar Chart A Offline Quest. Y T:1; OT:1 Cult & HR Y 10 Buntak et al. (2021) D 5 6 - - A - N T:3; OT:2 - Y 11 De Carolis et al. (2017) D 4 5 QT Numerical Score A Offline Quest. Y T:3; OT:1 - - 12 Gollhardt et al. (2020) D 5 - QT - A Offline Quest. Y T:2; OT:3 Cult & HR Y 13 Ifenthaler & Egloffstein (2019) D 6 5 QT Numerical Score A Offline Quest. N T:2; OT:4 Cult & HR Y 14 Marks et al. (2020) D 5 4 QT Numerical Score A Offline Quest. Y T:3; OT:2 Cult & HR Y 15 North et al. (2018) D 16 6 QT Numerical Score A Offline Quest. N T:10; OT:6 Cult & HR Y 16 Pirola et al. (2019) D 5 5 QT Numerical Score A Offline Quest. Y T:3; OT:2 Cult & HR Y 17 Rauch et al. (2020) D 4 (22) 5 QL Radar Chart A Interview Y T:3; OT: 1 Cult & HR Y 44 Parameters ID Reference (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 18 Sándor & Gubán (2021) D 2 (6) 0-1 Points QT Numerical Score A Offline Quest. N T:1; OT:1 Cult & HR Y 19 Schumacher et al. (2016) D 9 5 QT Numerical score; Radar Chart A Offline Quest. Y T:3; OT:6 Cult & HR Y 20 Valdez-deLeon (2016) D 7 6 QT Table A Offline Quest. Y T:4; OT:3 Cult & HR Y 4.1.2.3. Discussion More than half of the DMMS were developed in the academia (65%). In total, there are seven corporate models analysed (35%) versus thirteen academic DMM. A possible explanation is that consulting companies often have their DMM as part of their paid services and thus do not offer free access to them. Only four of the twenty DMMs analysed do not have a descriptive goal (20%). Eighteen models (90%) have a quantitative approach, usually with Likert-type scales. Furthermore, only one of the corporate models (14%) meets the standards of scientific rigour, as there is not much information available regarding the sources and how the model was conceived; these models are usually based on companies' experiences as DT consultants. The most common assessment method is through offline questionnaires. Online questionnaires are only used in corporate models. Interviews are only used in two DMMs. Almost all the academic DMM propose changes to business models and organisational strategies (92%), whereas three out of seven corporate models (43%) do include any suggestion regarding business models and strategy in organisations. Culture and Human Resources are also widely mentioned amongst DMMs, meaning there is growing awareness of the importance of skilled workforces and company values and behaviours towards new digital technologies. Focusing on the specific context for which these models were conceived, half of them are related to manufacturing and Industry 4.0. However, there is still some diversity in the range of organisations covered, including SMEs, manufacturing, humanitarian, service providers, educational, and IT. 45 Regarding adaptability, models that use online questionnaires in a dedicated platform have a lower potential, as there is little information on how the DMM was built, and most of them are not open access. Table 15 shows that thirteen DMM (65%) have incomplete information and a lack of scientific rigour (ID-1, ID-2, ID-3, ID-4, ID-5, ID-6, ID-10, ID-11, ID-12, ID-13, ID-14, ID15 and ID-18), making them harder to fully understand, creating doubts regarding the validity of the results provided. DT is about leveraging new digital technologies to support the transformation of businesses, which means there needs to be an equilibrium between the focus on technology and on transforming the organisations. Considering the necessary balance between digital technology and organisational transformation, many DMM fail to achieve this equilibrium. This situation happens when there is a significant difference (two dimensions or higher) between the dimensions focused on IT and on Organisational Transformation. The DMMs ID8, ID-13, ID-15, ID-17, and ID-19 fail to achieve this. DMM ID-16 is complete regarding the information provided and includes case studies with twenty SMEs. However, it also uses multiple complex mathematical-statistical computation procedures for calculating DM levels, making it harder to communicate to management and stakeholders, which ends up damaging its suitability (Chanias & Hess, 2016). DMMs ID-7, ID-9, and ID-20 were considered the most complete and robust in our analysis. However, they also have their downsides. DMM ID-7, even though it has a considerable amount of information available, does not propose a questionnaire to be used, meaning the questions need to be created depending on the specific organisational context. DMM ID-9 requires specific software (DEXi). On the other hand, once the model is fully operational, it will provide instant results and has a built-in feature for automatically generating visualizations. DMM ID-20 provides all the necessary information, including the DM level descriptions. Its primary disadvantage might be the information given regarding its dimensions, which could be more detailed. Taking into account everything discussed in the previous paragraphs, the DMM ID-7, DMM ID-9, and DMM ID-20 are the most comprehensive among all the models that we presented. They are, therefore, the ones used in the pairings presented in the next section. 46 4.2. NEXUS BETWEEN DTM AND DMM By "nexus", we refer to the relation between the two models (DTM and DMM) and how they can fit together. We explore how these two models are related and can be used together to achieve a common goal: a successful DT process in an organisation. DT initiatives are complex processes that require extensive planning and coordination across an organisation. Therefore, a DTM is essential as it provides a structured approach to guide a DT process. This type of model typically includes a set of guiding principles, roadmaps for implementation, and a set of metrics to measure progress and success. Conversely, a DMM is a tool that assesses an organisation's digital capabilities and helps identify the business areas that need improvement. A DMM usually includes a set of critical capabilities required to move from one DM level to the next, along with an assessment tool to help organisations determine their current level of DM. These two models are intrinsically linked. By using both on a DT process, organisations can engage in a more rigorous process since they can better understand their current DM level and know the steps needed to achieve their DT goals. A DMM provides a starting point for assessing an organisation's digital capabilities (AS-IS analysis) and defining DM objectives (TO-BE analysis). A DTM offers a structured approach to guide the DT process by helping to create a roadmap to achieve DM objectives. A right-fit DTM-DMM framework provides a powerful toolset for organisations seeking to improve their chances of successful DT initiatives. When combined, it is possible to identify strengths and weaknesses regarding the DM process and develop a plan to achieve DT goals. In the process of DT of an organisation, we need to identify the organisation's current state of DM (AS-IS analysis) and then the future state the organisation wants to achieve (TOBE analysis) – a DMM is used for these analyses (AS-IS and TO-BE). The gap analysis between the current and future DM levels is done by analysing the information collected after the AS-IS and TO-BE assessments. It will then be possible to identify the goal and objectives of the DT process. When a DT process is over, the organisation reaches its defined DM level future state (so its DM level increases). Figure 9 depicts where a DMM and a DTM are needed in the DT process of an organisation. 47 Figure 9 - DTM and DMM nexus If the desired DM level is too high compared to the starting level, the process can go smoothly by doing various rounds – that is, after each round, the DM levels (AS-IS and TOBE states) are re-assessed. Theoretically, a DT process can never end. The number of rounds depends on the level of DM organisations want to achieve and how carefully they want to move forward. A very high DM level cannot be achieved in only one process if the starting point is too low - it can disrupt organisations. Figure 10 presents an example of achieving this (with the combined approach between a DTM and a DMM), showing where the loop is introduced in the organisation's DT process. 54 iii) There is a high amount of information and documentation available for this model, thus facilitating understanding and communication with stakeholders. It is very important to communicate complex processes such as DT in an accessible way. DTM ID-3 has different tools and templates built specifically for enabling better communication with stakeholders. DTM ID-3 pairs with DMM ID-9 and DMM ID-20 (Figure 12). Given that we are focusing on service cooperatives, we identified DMM ID-20 as a suitable option. This DMM was built for service providers and its author confirms that "[…] the framework may be of interest to other industries, especially those in services" (Valdez-de-Leon, 2016). Furthermore, the selected DMM was built with adaptations in mind, which reflects on its architecture: Valdez-de-Leon (2016) suggests further developments of DMM ID-20 to adapt it to other industry-specific requirements. DMM ID-9 has a more general approach to DM, thus targeting SMEs but no industry in specific, and runs on software (DEXi), making adaptations more complex. As we are focusing on service cooperatives that do not produce physical products, DMM ID-20 was the selected model: it focuses specifically on organisations within the services sector and has an adaptation-friendly architecture. For these reasons, we identified DMM ID20 as the most appropriate baseline for our adaptation. 4.3. Adaptation of the Models to a Cooperative of Services 4.3.1. Adaptation of the DTM After the selection process, it was time to adapt DTM ID-3. The first phase of this model, "Positioning", suggests using an online tool for positioning organisations in terms of digitalisation capabilities. However, this tool has two limitations for our case study: it does not accommodate the characteristics of cooperatives, such as the importance and relevance of its members (who also own a part of the cooperative); as an online tool, it cannot be adapted. To solve this, we opted to adapt DTM ID-3 and search for a Digital Maturity Model (DMM) that would suit the needs of service cooperatives both as a service provider and as a cooperative, thus substituting the original tool suggested. DTM ID-3 is represented in Figure 14, which depicts the use of the online positioning tool suggested in its original version. 55 Figure 14 - DTM ID-3, adapted from Kääriäinen et al. (2020) Phase number one (Positioning) includes the following activities (Figure 15): the online positioning tool, which we mentioned before; DigiSWOT, which is a SWOT analysis to DT; DigiTriangle, in which one analyses the ideas generated and organises them into three categories, namely "Internal Efficiency", "External Opportunities" or "Disruptive Change". Figure 15 - Positioning phase of DTM ID-3 Phase number two (Current State Analysis) includes the following activities (Figure 16): analysis of the current state of the organisation, in which one analyses how the functions that will suffer changes work at the moment; a description of the business model; the identification and description of concept solutions; the planning of a new business model. Figure 16 - Current State Analysis phase of DTM ID-3 Phase three (Roadmap) includes the following activities (Figure 17): a definition of concrete measures to reach the defined goals; the phasing of actions in terms of prioritisation; the assignment of responsibilities; the definition of metrics to evaluate the implementations. 56 Figure 17 - Roadmap phase of DTM ID-3 Phase number four (Implementation) includes the following activities (Figure 18): the development of proofs-of-concept to validate solutions before full-scale implementations, the adoption of agile development methods, and the implementation of CEFO (Continuous Experimentation of Future Opportunities). Figure 18 - Implementation phase of DTM ID-3 This DTM follows the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) principles, which are universally known for the continuous improvement of products, people and services (Moen & Norman, 2009). These principles of continuous improvement also apply to cooperatives (Santini et al., 2021) and therefore no further adaptations were made. 4.3.2. Adaptation of the DMM For this adaptation, we used Google Scholar to identify papers that targeted the topic of DM in cooperatives. By using the keywords “Digital Maturity Cooperatives” and “Maturidade Digital Cooperativas”, we identified the work of Prado (2019), which focuses on finding the most relevant DM dimensions for cooperatives. Furthermore, we used Google Scholar to search for adaptations of DMM ID-20 by other authors that could help us optimise the model. To do that, we searched for papers that cited Valdez-de-Leon (2016), and identified the work of Múnera et al. (2020), which adapts DMM ID-20 to credit unions. The original version of DMM ID-20 is represented in Figure 19. 57 Figure 19 - Original version of DMM ID-20 Its original dimensions are represented in Figure 20. Figure 20 - Original dimensions of DMM ID-20 As mentioned before, a DMM needs maintenance: it matches against technology in constant change. As our understanding of DT changes, there is a need to further develop these models as well (Valdez-de-Leon, 2016). Furthermore, these models must reflect industryspecific requirements (Chanias & Hess, 2016; Paasi, 2017; Remane et al., 2017; Valdez-deLeon, 2016). Prado (2019) used the Delphi method, consulting with IT specialists that work with cooperatives, to identify the most important DM dimensions and components for cooperatives: 1. Digital Vision and Strategy: the generation of value for the cooperative members or digital customers, the commitment of top management to planning and alignment with digital, providing all the necessary resources for training and the prioritisation of digital products/services. 2. Digital Culture: includes expectations, experiences, philosophy, and values of an organisation, holding it together. It is expressed in its self-image, internal functioning, interactions with the external world and future expectations. This 58 is based on shared attitudes, beliefs, customs and written and unwritten rules developed over time. It is characterised by digital affinity, agility and error tolerance. 3. Digitalisation – Processes and Technologies: it evaluates the role of IT as a protagonist and supporter of DT processes, as it disseminates the latest technologies and drives the use of software to facilitate collaboration, communication and knowledge sharing in a structured way. The IT area suggests complete solutions to users and clients within acceptable physical and logical security parameters and privacy policies. This dimension comprises data-driven processes, digital supply chains, key performance indicators, and digital project and process management. 4. Strategic Innovation: it analyses the organisation's digital innovation process regarding its goods and services, whether the planning system impacts business models and whether cooperators are involved in the innovation process. Strategic innovation occurs through changes in the business model, technological innovation, testing, and learning experiments as a long-term investment. 5. Digital Leadership: strategically using a cooperative's digital assets to achieve business goals. It can be addressed at both organisational and individual levels and encompasses knowledge management, collaboration skills and talent management, thus creating space for DT. 6. Digital Governance: defined roles, responsibilities and decision-making in processes. DT follows a defined strategic plan. The structure that establishes responsibilities, roles, and authorities for decision-making about an organisation's digital presence. Digital policies guide instructions to manage risks and meet an organisation's interests. 7. Customer & Cooperant Orientation: availability of appropriate digital channels for communicating with customers and cooperators, thus promoting interaction. It can include CRM infrastructure with timely responses. The cooperative includes its customers and members in developing new product ideas and testing digital product improvements. As our goal is to adapt DMM ID-20 to the specificities of service cooperatives, we integrated these dimensions into the original model, maintaining its structure. Some of the 59 dimensions mentioned by Prado (2019) were already represented in the original model, which means not all original dimensions were modified. The first dimension in the original model, "Strategy", encompasses vision, governance, planning and process management. It already mentions some of the dimensions identified by Prado (2019): Digital Vision and Strategy, Digital Governance. The second dimension in the original model, "Organisation", encompasses culture, structure, training and knowledge management, meaning it already includes Digital Culture and Digital Leadership. The third dimension in the original model, “Customer” does not encompass cooperators, which are fundamental and unique to cooperatives. This dimension is where most modifications were made, as we had to change the original dimension. The name was changed from “Customer” to “Customers & Cooperators”. The goal was to include cooperators as an essential part of DM and that had to be reflected in this dimension. To do so, we included cooperator’s participation in areas such as: the development of new ideas and initiatives; service improvements and better digital experiences; the importance of digital communication channels to facilitate interaction. The original dimensions named “Ecosystem”, “Operations” and “Technology” encompass partner ecosystem development, IT capabilities, and technology planning, deployment, integration and use. Prado (2019) groups all these areas into Digitalization – Processes and Technologies. As a result, we decided not to change the original structure of DMM ID-20. The seventh dimension in the original model, “Innovation”, encompasses new flexible and agile ways of working that foster digital innovation, investments in digital technology and data-driven innovation, which Prado (2019) mentioned in the Strategic Innovation dimension. The next step was to make adjustments to the structuring of the subdimensions, i.e., deciding the most relevant dimension in which to group each one of the subdimensions identified. Our subdimensions resume the main topics within each dimension. Múnera et al. (2020) proposed a dimension and subdimension structure that we used as the basis to make these changes: • The “Participation”, “Knowledge” and “Relationship” subdimensions were added to the “Customers & Cooperators” dimension; 60 • The “Processes” and “Digital Business Development” subdimensions were added to the “Ecosystem” dimension; • The “Digitisation” subdimension was added to the “Operations” dimension; • The “Infrastructure” and “Security” subdimensions were added to the “Technology” dimension. By adding new dimensions and subdimensions, we had to define what each subdimension refers to. A further search was conducted to consider the less positive aspects of the original version of DMM ID-20, namely its lack of information on the dimensions and subdimensions. This was done to facilitate understanding for those needing to interpret our updated version of the model. To do it, multiple documents were consulted and are shown in Table 17. Table 17 - Sources for subdimension definition ID Dimension Subdimension Name Sources 1 Strategy Vision Prado (2019) 2 Strategy Governance Prado (2019); (Nabben et al., 2021); (Ciruela-Lorenzo et al., 2020) 3 Strategy Planning Valdez-de-Leon (2016) 4 Organisation Culture Prado (2019) 5 Organisation Structure Prado (2019) 6 Organisation Training & Talent Management Pirola et al. (2019); Prado (2019) 7 Organisation Knowledge Management Prado (2019) 8 Customers & Cooperators Participation Prado (2019); (Nabben et al., 2021); EURICSE & ICA (2022) 9 Customers & Cooperators Knowledge Prado (2019) 10 Customers & Cooperators Relationship Prado (2019) 11 Ecosystem Processes Prado (2019) 12 Ecosystem Digital Business Development Prado (2019); (Nabben et al., 2021) 13 Operations Digitization Pirola et al. (2019) 14 Operations Automations Ciruela-Lorenzo et al. (2020); IBM (2022) 15 Technology IT Planning Prado (2019) 16 Technology IT Infrastructure Prado (2019) 61 ID Dimension Subdimension Name Sources 17 Technology Integrations Pirola et al. (2019) 18 Technology Security Gartner (2022) 19 Innovation Flexible and Agile ways of working Prado (2019) While most subdimensions were comprehensively described by Prado (2019), other definitions were taken from consulting companies and scientific papers. Subdimension ID-1: DT is currently an integral part of a global vision in the business world. The generation of value defines the vision to the cooperators and customers, the commitment of senior management with planning and alignment for digital and providing the necessary resources for transformation. Subdimension ID-2: Defined roles, responsibilities and decision-making in the processes. DT follows a defined strategic plan. Development of a structure that establishes responsibilities, roles and authorities for decision-making about an organisation's digital presence. There has been a greater demand for accountability in cooperatives, which can be addressed through technologies such as multi-signature wallets or smart contracts. Digital policies are guiding statements to manage risk and ensure that an organisation's best interests are served as it operates online. Digital standards determine who decides the nature of the digital portfolio, and they exist to ensure optimal digital quality and effectiveness. Compliance with practice requirements, legislation, regulations or terms of a contract. Definition of the cooperative's DT budget to guarantee the execution of planned innovation projects. Subdimension ID-3 relates to the planning of the developed DT strategy, with roadmaps that map the different stages of implementation. This helps anticipating obstacles and possible difficulties, thus allowing the formulation of strategies to mitigate and control such risks. Subdimension ID-4 includes an organisation's expectations, experiences, philosophy, and values that hold it together and are expressed in its self-image, inner workings, interactions with the outside world, and future expectations. They are based on shared attitudes, beliefs, and written and unwritten rules developed over time and considered valid. 62 Subdimension ID-5: the ability to change quickly or adapt in response to market changes. This helps a cooperative to successfully react to the emergence of new competitors, the development of new technologies that can change the industry, or to reach sudden changes in general market conditions. It also minimises the resistance to organisational change through the involvement of key stakeholders, usually organised in multidisciplinary groups participating in the design of strategies. Also includes the planning, control and monitoring of DT initiatives. Subdimension ID-6: Staff training involves upskilling and reskilling actions to enable the potential exploitation of new technologies. Organisations lack knowledge, and lifelong learning and training need to be put in place as a way of improving in this area. These strategies also help retain talent. Talent Management gives business managers an especially important role in recruiting, developing and retaining committed, high-performing collaborators. Subdimension ID-7: an effective method of transferring know-how between individuals, therefore, fundamental to creating and sustaining a competitive digital advantage. This approach promotes increased training, capacity building, job satisfaction and other measures, and improved hiring practices. In addition, external consultants can be involved to develop knowledge of digitalisation, and in-house experts on digital topics act as multipliers. Subdimension ID-8: the management has the interests of all stakeholders (customers, cooperators, employees) as its highest priority. There are policies for including all audiences involved in elaborating digital strategies (online and offline). Stakeholders help in the development of new product ideas and in testing the improvement of digital services. Understanding the customer experience is integral to relationship management and learning so that the cooperative can offer products and services consistently across all digital channels. There is access to updated and trustworthy information by the members and public, to avoid gaps in transparency and information asymmetry, thus increasing members’ and stakeholders’ ability to oversee and control the cooperative. Subdimension ID-9: insights derived from interactions, customer and cooperator data, and interaction experiences must be organised in the different channels. Customer and cooperator data are analysed and executed, ideally, in real-time through technologies such as data analytics. Subdimension ID-10: personalised digital communication with customers and cooperators. The promotion of services is made through one or more forms of electronic media, 63 with promotions driven by the internet, social media, mobile phones and other digital channels. The availability of appropriate digital channels for communicating with customers and cooperators, integrated and with consistent content, to promote interactivity and responses to the organisation's digital flow. CRM (Customer Relationship Management) infrastructure with timely responses. Subdimension ID-11: process management is an integral part of any modern operating system. To do it, the operating system must contain a data structure for each process that describes the state and resources used, allowing it to exercise control over each process. Subdimension ID-12 evaluates the role of IT as a protagonist and supporter of the DT process, given that it disseminates the latest digital technologies and drives the use of software that facilitates collaboration, communication, knowledge sharing in a structured way and multiple applications in mobile technologies. Moreover, IT proposes complete solutions to users and customers within acceptable physical and logical security parameters and privacy policies. Digital tools for decentralised voting, treasury management solutions and automation of payments may improve the scalability of service cooperatives. Subdimension ID-13: the level at which processes are digitised to transition from analogue practices (i.e., physically record data on paper sheets) to digital (i.e., no use of paper printed documents, and adoption of best practices such as digital signatures). Subdimension ID-14: automation of routine processes, reducing human intervention. It streamlines and centralises routine tasks, increasing productivity and efficiency (e.g., automating payments and contracts using smart contracts). Subdimension ID-15: process in which the organisation embarks on a journey with technology as a source of innovation and has been identified as a critical success factor to increase competitiveness by focusing on the technological aspects of a process or service. There is a systematic evaluation of digital technologies and innovations. Subdimension ID-16: structured IT and up-to-date infrastructures ensure relevant digital technologies can be implemented. More and more industries are incorporating Automation, Cloud, Big Data, Analytics, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet of Things to add connectivity, intelligence and autonomy to machines and software. Subdimension ID-17: integration can be vertical and horizontal. Considering ERP as the company's core, it is assumed that vertical integration is achieved when all information 70 Table 26 - Technology dimension Finally, the DM level descriptions for the Innovation dimension are represented in Table 27. Table 27 - Innovation dimension 4.3.4. Discussion 71 Regarding the DTM, our adaptation modified the initial “Positioning” phase, by now including a DMM for service cooperatives. This follows our proposed DTM-DMM combined approach. The DTM will give guidance to service cooperatives and help them create roadmaps for DT processes. Regarding the DMM, the main difference in this adaptation is the inclusion of cooperators, which are unique to a cooperative and thus play a central role in the DT of a service cooperative. A customer and cooperator centricity is essential to a cooperative, leading to a better customer and cooperator experience and good organisational performance. Cooperators relate to the cooperatives as owners but also as clients and thus demand benefits that go beyond financial profitability as a way of experiencing better services (Prado, 2019). DT initiatives should therefore place customers and cooperators at the heart of their strategies and work towards fulfilling their necessities and ambitions. The relationship between the different dimensions of this DMM is represented in Figure 22. We can see that all the dimensions must have a common goal: to better serve Customers & Cooperators, hence its central position. Figure 22 - DMM dimension nexus According to EURICSE & ICA (2022), the most important areas for cooperatives regarding the use of digital tools are: • IT system security – represented in the Technology dimension of our DMM; • Management software – represented in the Ecosystem and Technology dimensions of our DMM; 72 • E-Commerce – represented in the Technology dimension of our DMM; • Cloud computing and remote management of services and infrastructure – represented in the Ecosystem and Technology dimensions of our DMM; • Communication and creation of web and social media content - represented in the Customers & Cooperators dimension of our DMM; • Digital participation of members – represented in the Customers & Cooperators dimension of our DMM; • AI, Big Data processing and analysis – represented in the Technology dimension of our DMM; • Automation – represented in the Operations dimension of our DMM. Our adaptation of the DMM covers all of these areas identified by EURICSE & ICA (2022), meaning it addresses the most important tecnological aspects for service cooperatives regarding DT. By using this DTM-DMM pair, service cooperatives can overcome resource constraints and develop structured DT plans. By developing a DT strategy aiming at specific and clear DM goals, these organisations can increase their chances of success, remaining competitive. We have developed an adaptation that provides useful information regarding its architecture, namely its dimensions and subdimensions, as the goal is to offer an easy-to-use and easy-tounderstand set of tools. Kääriäinen et al. (2020) developed a DTM that includes a DM tool for private companies. We made an alteration, so it would include a DMM specific to service cooperatives. (Valdez-de-Leon, 2016) contributed with a DMM for service providers, and we used it as the basis for building our DMM for service cooperatives. These contributions were essential to this study, being considered a good example of a robust and free-access DTM-DMM pair. However, they were not suited for service cooperatives, and we have managed to add an important contribute to help this type of organisation. 73 CHAPTER V – CONCLUSION 74 To optimize the benefits of DT in cooperatives, it is crucial to devise a DT strategy that is tailored to the cooperative's overall objectives and specific organisational characteristics, which differ from those of IOC. A well-crafted DT plan can give cooperatives a competitive edge by streamlining, enhancing, and expanding their service offerings, resulting in a closer and more productive relationship between cooperators and the cooperative. We define the current state of the art of DTMs and DMMs, including models from academic and corporate sources. However, these models were built for IOCs and therefore place profit maximization at the centre. This shows that the models do not encompass the characteristics of cooperatives of services, namely the central role of cooperators instead of profit. For a combined approach, there needed to be an adaptation in the models. The combined DTM-DMM approach provides structured guidance on the planning and implementation of DT processes. Transformative processes must be conducted with rigour, otherwise, they might fail. While a DTM provides a set of guiding principles and phases for implementing digital technologies and practices in organisations, a DMM is a tool that helps these organisations assess their current level of DM and identify areas that need improvement (AS-IS and TO-BE analysis). We selected the most robust and complete models and proposed pairings according to companies' characteristics, such as size and industry. In the end, we suggest three pairings: One for SMEs in an Industry 4.0 context and two for SMEs not in the manufacturing industry. Then, we select the most suitable DTM-DMM pairing and incorporate the characteristics of service cooperatives. The changes included the removal of profit-oriented objectives and the inclusion of cooperators as a central element of a DT. The cooperators were included in both the constructs and the DM level descriptions in the DMM. The cooperatives of services now have a set of tools (DTM and DMM) that, when combined and used together can help creating structured DT plans and rigorous guidance regarding DT processes. With this, these organisations have the chance of potentially increasing the success rates of their DT efforts, overcoming eventual resource limitations. This dissertation provides a new contribution for the study of the DT phenomenon in cooperatives of services. 5.1. Limitations of the work 75 Only the models (DTMs and DMMs) available in English were considered, which is one of the limitations of this study. In addition, the amount of DTMs and DMMs available for different types of organisation is still scarce, with most targeted at Industry 4.0 and SMEs. This scarcity makes the suggested binomial relations more limited in their scope. Furthermore, the model analysis was based on text interpretation by the author. Even though there was an attempt to be as unbiased as possible, different interpretations might be possible for others, as the results only reflect a possible point of view. Terms related to DT and DM are not standardised, meaning there are multiple ways to understand the text. Finally, this DTM-DMM adaptation still needs to be validated in practice. This can be done by applying the models in real-life scenarios, which could lead to refinements and further optimisations. 5.2. Future work Future research recommendations include a broader analysis of DTM and DMM that have documentation in other languages, as well as the validation of this DTM-DMM pair in practice. These models can also be used for further adaptation to other types of cooperatives, as these organisations are underrepresented and must deal with DT complexity while most also deal with resource limitations. Once this DTM-DMM pair is validated, it can be a useful starting point for service cooperatives and also the basis for further adaptations to other types of cooperative. 76 REFERENCES 77 Andrade, A., & Franco, R. (2007). ECONOMIA DO CONHECIMENTO E ORGANIZAÇÕES SEM FINS LUCRATIVOS. SPI – Sociedade Portuguesa de Inovação. https://spi.pt/documents/books/economia_conhecimento/docs/Manual_VIII.pdf Aslanova, I., & Kulichkina, A. I. (2020). Digital Maturity: Definition and Model. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, 138, 443–449. Ávila, R., & Campos, J. (2012). LA ECONOMÍA SOCIAL EN LA UNIÓN EUROPEA. CIRIEC. https://www.ces.uc.pt/projectos/pis/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/ND_EconomiaSocial-na-Europa_CIRIEC.pdf Barann, B., Hermann, A., Cordes, A.-K., Chasin, F., & Becker, J. (2019). Supporting Digital Transformation in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: A Procedure Model Involving Publicly Funded Support Units. 52, 4977–4986. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., & Pöppelbuß, J. (2009). Developing Maturity Models for IT Management – A Procedure Model and its Application. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 3, 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/11576-009-0167-9 Bellantuono, N., Nuzzi, A., Pontrandolfo, P., & Scozzi, B. (2021). Digital Transformation Models for the I4.0 Transition: Lessons from the Change Management Literature. Sustainability, 13(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312941 Berghaus, S., & Back, A. (2016). Stages in Digital Business Transformation: Results of an Empirical Maturity Study. Association for Information Systems, 22. https://aisel.aisnet.org/mcis2016/22 Berman, S., & Bell, R. (2011). Digital transformation. Creating new business models where digital meets physical. IBM Global Business Services. https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/KWRV8QK6 Bertolini, M., Esposito, G., Neroni, M., & Romagnoli, G. (2019). Maturity Models in Industrial Internet: A Review. 39, 1854–1863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.253 Blanchet, M., McKinney, J., & Rasmus, R. (2020). THE RACE FOR DIGITAL OPERATIONS TRANSFORMATION. Accenture. Blatz, F., & Dietel, M. (2018). Maturity model of digitization for SMEs. 18. 78 Borštnar, M., & Pucihar, A. (2021). Multi-Attribute Assessment of Digital Maturity of SMEs. 10(885). https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics 10080885 Bradley, J., Loucks, J., Macaulay, J., Noronha, A., & Wade, M. (2015). Digital Vortex. How Digital Disruption Is Redefining Industries. Global Center for Digital Business Transformation. https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/solutions/collateral/industrysolutions/digital-vortex-report.pdf Bughin, J., & Van Zeebroeck, N. (2017). The Best Response to Digital Disruption. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58, 80–86. Bumann, J., & Peter, M. (2019). Action Fields of Digital Transformation—A Review and Comparative Analysis of Digital Transformation maturity Models and Frameworks. Em Digitalisierung und andere Innovationsformen im Management (pp. 13–40). Edition Gesowip. Buntak, K., Kovačić, M., & Mutavdžija, M. (2021). Measuring Digital Transformation Maturity of Supply Chain. 15(2), 199–204. https://doi.org/10.31803/tg-20200414191933 Canetta, L., Barni, A., & Montini, E. (2018). Development of a Digitalization Maturity Model for the manufacturing sector. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE/ITMC42968.2018 Caralli, R., Knight, M., & Montgomery, A. (2012). Maturity Models 101: A Primer for Applying Maturity Models to Smart Grid Security, Resilience, and Interoperability. Software Engineering Institute. https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/whitepaper/2012_019_001_58920.pdf Carrijo, P., Alturas, B., & Pedrosa, I. (2021). Analysis of Digital Transformation Maturity Models. 2021 16th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI). https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI52073.2021.9476644 Carvalho, J. (2008). O Desempenho nas Organizações Sem Fins Lucrativos. ISMAI. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joao-Carvalho78/publication/255629798_O_Desempenho_nas_Organizacoes_Sem_Fins_Lucrativos/links/5 728ac3f08aef7c7e2c0bdb2/O-Desempenho-nas-Organizacoes-Sem-Fins-Lucrativos.pdf Castel, A. G., & Sanz, J. P. (2009). El papel de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación en las empresas de economía social. REVESCO. Revista de Estudios Cooperativos, 97, 90–116. 79 Chanias, S., & Hess, T. (2016). How digital are we? Maturity models for the assessment of a company’s status in the digital transformation. Munich School of Management. https://www.dmm.bwl.uni-muenchen.de/download/epub/mreport_2016_2.pdf Ciruela-Lorenzo, A., Del-Aguila-Obra, A., Padilla-Meléndez, A., & Plaza-Angulo, J. (2020). Digitalization of Agri-Cooperatives in the Smart Agriculture Context. Proposal of a Digital Diagnosis Tool. Sustainability, 1325(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041325 Cisco & IDC. (n.d.). Cisco Small Business Maturity Assessment. https://www.sbmaturityassessment.com/ Código Cooperativo. (2015). Diário da República Eletrónico. https://dre.pt/ Constituição da República Portuguesa, (2005). https://www.parlamento.pt/Legislacao/Paginas/ConstituicaoRepublicaPortuguesa.aspx Corver, Q., Smeets, T., & Sol, P. (n.d.). How to Win with Digital—A Playbook for Successful Digital Transformation. Cognizant. Costa, O., & Gouveia, L. (2021). Industria 4.0: Uma Proposta de Modelo de Transformação Digital para as Pequenas e Médias Empresas. Em ENGENHARIA DE PRODUÇÃO: PLANEJAMENTO E CONTROLE DA PRODUÇÃO EM FOCO (1.ª ed., Vol. 1, pp. 118– 133). Editora Científica Digital. COTEC. (2020). Theia Digital Maturity Self-Assessment. https://theia.cotec.pt/en Cozmiuc, D., & Pettinger, R. (2021). Consultants’ Tools to Manage Digital Transformation: The Case of PWC, Siemens, and Oracle. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 23(4), Artigo 4. https://doi.org/10.4018/JCIT.20211001.oa7 Cunha, R. (2021). O Papel da Economia Social no Combate à Pobreza Energética. A Coopérnico como estudo de caso. [Dissertação de Mestrado, ISCAP]. https://recipp.ipp.pt/handle/10400.22/25 De Bruin, T., Rosemann, M., Freeze, R., & Kulkarni, U. (2005). Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model. 8–19. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/25152/ De Carolis, A., Macchi, M., Negri, E., & Terzi, S. (2017). A Maturity Model for Assessing the Digital Readiness of Manufacturing Companies. 513, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-66923-6_2 86 Remane, G., Hanelt, A., Wiesböck, F., & Kolbe, L. (2017). DIGITAL MATURITY IN TRADITIONAL INDUSTRIES – AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS. Proceedings of 25th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2017), 15. Salla, Y. M., Fransi, E. C., & Adillón, M. J. G. (2013). La implementación de las TIC en la gestión de las cooperativas agroalimentarias: El caso de la provincia de Lleida. REVESCO. Revista de Estudios Cooperativos, 110, 223–253. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_REVE.2013.v110.41442 Sándor, Á., & Gubán, Á. (2021). A Measuring Tool for the Digital Maturity of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. 12(4), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.24425/mper.2021.140001 Santini, B., Pinheiro, G. M., Wakulicz, G. J., & Lima, É. S. de. (2021). System of Continuous Improvement for a Cooperative Organization in Southern Brazil. Research, Society and Development, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i5.15127 SAPO Tek. (2022). Empresas em Portugal mantêm planos de internacionalização apesar dos constrangimentos económicos. SAPO Tek. https://tek.sapo.pt/noticias/negocios/artigos/empresas-em-portugal-mantem-planos-deinternacionalizacao-apesar-dos-constrangimentos-economicos Sarkar, S., Biswas, T., Malta, M. C., Meira, D., & Dutta, A. (2023). A coalition formation framework of smallholder farmers in an agricultural cooperative. Expert Systems With Applications, 221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119781 Schuh, G., Dumitrescu, R., & Hompel, M. (2020). Industrie 4.0 Maturity Index. AcatechStudy. Schuh, R., Gausemeier, M., & Wolfgang, W. (2017). Industrie 4.0 Maturity Index. Managing the Digital Transformation of Companies (acatech STUDY). acatech STUDY, 60. Schumacher, A., Erol, S., & Sihn, W. (2016). A maturity model for assessing Industry 4.0 readiness and maturity of manufacturing enterprises. Procedia CIRP, 52, 161–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.07.040 Shahiduzzaman, M., Kowalkiewicz, M., Barrett, R., & McNaughton, M. (2017). DIGITAL BUSINESS: TOWARDS A VALUE-CENTRIC MATURITY MODEL. PwC Chair in Digital Economy. https://w7g6c8m4.stackpathcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/DIGITALMATURITY-MODEL-PART-A.pdf 87 Silva, M. (2010). ENFRENTAR A CRISE. ERRADICAR A POBREZA – O CONTRIBUTO DA ECONOMIA SOCIAL. Revista Sociedade e Trabalho nº 41, 101–110. Taylor, P. (2022). Factors preventing digital transformation worldwide 2021. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1311518/factors-preventing-digital-transformationworldwide/ Teichert, R. (2019). Digital Transformation Maturity: A Systematic Review of Literature. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 67(6), Artigo 6. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201967061673 Tovar, C., & Cervantes, M. (2019). Lineamientos para la Construcción de un Plan de Transformación Digital en la Cooperativa Coomeva [Dissertação de Mestrado]. Universidad del Valle - Facultad de Ciencias de la Administración. Valdez-de-Leon, O. (2016). A Digital Maturity Model for Telecommunications Service Providers. 6(8), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1008 Vargas Sánchez, A. (2004). Empresas cooperativas, ventaja competitiva y tecnologías de la información. CIRIEC-España, 49, 12–29. Wade, M., & Shan, J. (2020). Covid-19 Has Accelerated Digital Transformation, but May Have Made it Harder Not Easier. MIS Quarterly Executive, 19(3), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.17705/2msqe.00034 Wade, M., Macaulay, J., Noronha, A., & Barbier, J. (2019). Orchestrating Transformation: How to Deliver Winning Performance with a Connected Approach to Change. International Institute for Management Development. Webster, J., & Watson, R. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/4132319 Westerman, G., Calméjane, C., Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P., & McAfee, A. (2011). DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION: A ROADMAP FOR BILLION-DOLLAR ORGANIZATIONS (p. 68). Capgemini Consulting. 88 APPENDIX 89 Appendix I – Corporate DTMs screened in the systematic literature review Table 28 – Corporate DTMs A1 Corporate DTMs – A1 1 Achieving Digital Maturity https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/za/Documents/technology/za_ DUP_Achieving-digital-maturity.pdf MIT Sloan Management Review & Deloitte, (2017) 2 Digital Transformation in the Saudi Levant Cluster https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/sa/pdf/2020/digital-transformationplaybook.pdf KPMG, (2020) 3 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATI ON: A ROADMAP FOR BILLIONDOLLAR ORGANIZATION S https://www.capgemini.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/07/Digital_Transformation__A_Road-Map_for_BillionDollar_Organizations.pdf Capgemini & MITSloan Management Review, (2011) 4 Digital transformation: Creating new business models where digital meets physical https://s3-us-west2.amazonaws.com/itworldcanada/archive/Themes/Hubs/Brainstorm/digitaltransformation.pdf IBM, (2011) 5 How to Win with Digital https://www.cognizant.com/us/en/archives/whitepapers/documents/how-to-winwith-digital-codex4448.pdf Cognizant, (n.d.) 6 Mulesoft Digital Transformation Blueprint https://www.mulesoft.com/lp/whitepaper/api/digital-transformation-blueprint Mulesoft, (n.d.) 7 Raising your Digital Quotient http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/act/dmi/workgroup/materials/Pages/Mck insey_Raising%20your%20Digital%20Quotient_2016.pdf McKinsey & Company, (2015) 8 The Definitive Guide to DIGITAL TRANSFORMATI ON & THE DIGITAL MATURITY MATRIX https://amplience.a.bigcontent.io/v1/static/DigitalTransformation-and-theDigital-Maturity-Matrix-updated Amplience, (n.d.) 9 The IT Roadmap for Digital Business Transformation https://www.gartner.com/en/publications/the-it-roadmap-for-digital-businesstransformation Gartner, (2021) 10 Wipro's Digital Transformation Model https://www.wipro.com/content/dam/nexus/en/industries/communicationservice-providers/solutions/wipro-digital-transformation-model.pdf Wipro, (2020) Table 29 – Corporate DTMs A2 Corporate DTMs – A2 1 How to Win with Digital https://www.cognizant.com/us/en/archives/whitepapers/documents/how-to-winwith-digital-codex4448.pdf Cognizant, (n.d.) 2 The IT Roadmap for Digital Business Transformation https://www.gartner.com/en/publications/the-it-roadmap-for-digital-businesstransformation Gartner, (2021) Appendix II – Academic papers screened in the DTM systematic literature review 90 Table 30 – Academic DTMs B1 Academic DTMs – B1 1 A Big Data strategy to reinforce self-sustainability for pharmaceutical companies in the digital transformation era: A case study of Egyptian pharmaceutical companies Hassanin & Hamada, (2022) 2 A Case Study Perspective to the Digital Transformation of a Hospital's Perioperative Process Ryan, et al. (2019) 3 A Dynamic Capability Approach to Digital Transformation: a Focus on key Foundational Themes Carcary, et al. (2016) 4 A Framework for BPM Software Selection in Relation to Digital Transformation Drivers Brkic, et al. (2020) 5 A FRAMEWORK FOR DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION Van Tonder, et al. (2020) 6 A Framework Integrating Internet of Things and Blockchain in Clinical Trials Reverse Supply Chain Badulescu & Cheikhrouhou, (2021) 7 A Model for Librarians to Assess the Digital Capability of Research Teams Wolski, et al. (2020) 8 AI led ethical digital transformation: framework, research and managerial implications Saurabh, et al. (2021) 9 Applications of Blockchain Technology to Higher Education Arena: A Bibliometric Analysis Reis-Marques, et al. (2021) 10 Applying the positioning phase of the digital transformation model in practice for SMEs: toward systematic development of digitalization Kääriäinen, et al. (2020) 11 Artificial intelligence (AI) library services innovative conceptual framework for the digital transformation of university education Okunlaya, et al. (2022) 12 Assessing Digital Transformation in Universities Rodriguez-Abatia & Bribiesca-Correa, (2021) 13 Behavior-Based Network Management: A Unique Model-Based Approach to Implementing Cyber Superiority Seng, (2016) 14 Big data and data analytics in auditing: in search of legitimacy De Santis & D'Onza, (2021) 15 Building and Development of an Organizational Competence for Digital Transformation in SMEs Gonzalez-Varona, et al. (2021) 16 Building Culinary Business Performance during the Covid-19 Pandemic: Transformational Leadership as a Trigger through Digital Capabilities Permana, et al. (2022) 17 Challenges and Driving Forces for Industry 4.0 Implementation Herceg, et al. (2020) 18 Conceptualizing and Testing a Social Cognitive Model of the Digital Divide Wei, et al. (2011) 19 Constructing a Sustainable and Dynamic Promotion Model for Fresh Foods Based on a Digital Transformation Framework Ou, et al. (2021) 20 Construction of a Digital Platform for Enterprise Financial Management Based on Visual Processing Technology Deng, (2022) 21 Consultants' Tools to Manage Digital Transformation: The Case of PWC, Siemens, and Oracle Cozmiuc & Pettinger, (2021) 22 CORPORATE SOCIAL AND DIGITAL RESPONSIBILITY Orbik & Zozul'akova, (2019) 23 Cross-language Keyword Analysis of Digital Transformation for Business Van Veldhoven, et al. (2020) 24 Current Trends in Air Services Distribution Channel Strategy: Evolution Through Digital Transformation Poukali & Katsoni, (2020) 25 CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL AGILITY DRIVEN BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION TO SHAPE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Mihardjo, et al. (2019) 26 Delivering the digital region: leveraging digital connectivity to deliver regional digital growth Knight, (2015) 27 Developing a digital transformation model to enhance the strategy development process for leadership in the South African manufacturing sector Gaffley & Pelser, (2021) 28 Digital evolution and emerging revenue management practices: evidence from Aegean airlines distribution channels Katsoni & Poulaki, (2021) 29 Digital innovation strategy: A framework for diagnosing Nylen & Holmstrom, (2015) 30 Digital Privacy GDPR: A Proposed Digital Transformation Framework Completed Research Russell, et al. (2018) 91 31 Digital transformation during a lockdown Fletcher & Griffiths, (2020) 32 Digital Transformation Insights and Trends Pihir, et al. (2018) 33 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION MODEL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM COMPANIES Pumaleque, et al. (2021) 34 Digital Transformation Model for the Reduction of Time Taken for Document Management with a Technology Adoption Approach for Construction SMEs Lazaro-Aleman, et al. (2020) 35 Digital Transformation Model: Analytic Approach on Participatory Governance & Community Engagement in India Misra, et al. (2018) 36 Digital Transformation of Agencies for Students` Part Time Jobs in the Republic of Croatia Visnjic & Vrcek, (2021) 37 Digital Transformation of Business: Approaches and Definitions Zaychenko, et al. (2020) 38 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION OF REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRY 4.0: CASE OF NAVAL PLATFORMS Cerezo-Narvaez, et al. (2018) 39 Digital Transformation Strategies Matt, et al. (2015) 40 Digital transformation: challenges faced by organizations and their potential solutions Shahi & Sinha, (2021) 41 Digital Value Creation 22th February 2018 Seitz & Burosch, (2018) 42 Enterprise Digital Transformation in Ecuador: Strategic Options Merchan & Paliz, (2020) 43 Environmental uncertainty, resource orchestration and digital transformation: A fuzzy-set QCA approach Chen & Tian, (2022) 44 Framing the Digital Transformation of Educational Institutions Furjan, et al. (2018) 45 Fraud Management Accounting and Organizational Value Creation: Evidence from Listed Firms in Thailand Phornlaphatrachakorn, (2021) 46 Gearing up for successful digital transformation Gurbaxani & Dunkle, (2019) 47 Grasp the Challenge of Digital Transition in SMEs-A Training Course Geared towards Decision-Makers Azevedo & Almeida, (2021) 48 Health Professional Digital Capabilities Frameworks: A Scoping Review Brice & Almond, (2020) 49 How will we Build Competences for Managing the Digital Transformation? Wolff, et al. (2019) 50 Industrie 4.0 roadmap Issa, et al. (2018) 51 Information Practices and Digital Perspectives of Municipal Waste Recovery Providers in Europe Luic & Labura, (2021) 52 Information technology and marketing: an important partnership for decades Graesch, et al. (2020) 53 IT Management and Governance Framework for Formulating a Digital Transformation Strategy Korachi & Bounabat, (2022) 54 Key Drivers of Digital Transformation in Greek Businesses: Strategy vs. Technology Karekla, et al. (2021) 55 Leadership matters in crisis-induced digital transformation: how to lead service employees effectively during the COVID-19 pandemic Bartsch, et al. (2020) 56 Making the invisible visible Singh, (2019) 57 Mastering the Digital Transformation Process: Business Practices and Lessons Learned Ivancic, et al. (2019) 58 Methodology for Digitalization - A Conceptual Model Ng, et al. (2018) 59 Mutual 'App'reciation: Co-production as a model for delivering digital capability within social work education Turner, (2020) 60 Nexus of Digital Organizational Culture, Capabilities, Organizational Readiness, and Innovation: Investigation of SMEs Operating in the Digital Economy Zhen, (2021) 61 Organizational competencies toward digital transformation at the events of disruptive changes: an operational process innovation perspective Al-Edenat, (2021) 62 Quality of Digital Transformation Management on the Way of Formation of Innovative Economy of Russia Veselovski, et al. (2019) 63 Role of Government to Enhance Digital Transformation in Small Service Business Chen, et al. (2021) 64 Structural Requirements for Digital Transformation - Insights from German Enterprises Murawski, et al. (2019) 65 Supporting Digital Transformation in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Barann, et al. (2019) 92 66 Survival in the digital age – A framework Trenkle, (2019) 67 THE CONCEPT OF BUILDING A DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION MODEL FOR ENTERPRISES FROM THE SME SECTOR Szopa & Cyplik, (2020) 68 The Digital Transformation Trajectory of Industrial Enterprises Ismagilova, et al. (2019) 69 The Digitalization Transformation of Commercial Banks and Its Impact on Sustainable Efficiency Improvements through Investment in Science and Technology Zuo, et al. (2021) 70 The effects of personality traits on digital transformation: Evidence from German tax consulting Diller, et al. (2020) 71 The importance of Industry 4.0 and digital transformation for SMEs Verhovnik & Duh (2021) 72 THE ROLE OF DISTINCTIVE ORGANISATIONAL CAPABILITY IN FORMULATING CO-CREATION STRATEGY AND BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION Mihardjo, et al. (2018) 73 The Shift towards Digital Literacy in Australian University Libraries: Developing a Digital Literacy Framework Johnston, (2020) 74 Threats and Opportunities in Digital Transformation in SMEs from the Perspective of Sustainability: A Case Study in the Czech Republic Simberova, et al. (2022) Table 31 – Academic DTMs B2 Academic DTMs – B2 1 A FRAMEWORK FOR DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATION Van Tonder, et al. (2020) 2 Applying the positioning phase of the digital transformation model in practice for SMEs: toward systematic development of digitalization Kääriäinen, et al. (2020) 3 Assessing Digital Transformation in Universities Rodriguez-Abatia & BribiescaCorrea, (2021) 4 Developing a digital transformation model to enhance the strategy development process for leadership in the South African manufacturing sector Gaffley & Pelser, (2021) 5 Digital innovation strategy: A framework for diagnosing Nylen & Holmstrom, (2015) 6 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION MODEL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM COMPANIES Pumaleque, et al. (2021) 7 Digital Transformation Model for the Reduction of Time Taken for Document Management with a Technology Adoption Approach for Construction SMEs Lazaro-Aleman, et al. (2020) 8 Digital Transformation of Agencies for Students` Part Time Jobs in the Republic of Croatia Visnjic & Vrcek, (2021) 9 Gearing up for successful digital transformation Gurbaxani & Dunkle, (2019) 10 Industrie 4.0 roadmap Issa, et al. (2018) 11 Methodology for Digitalization - A Conceptual Model Ng, et al. (2018) 12 Supporting Digital Transformation in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Barann, et al. (2019) 13 Survival in the digital age – A framework Trenkle, (2019) 14 Tackling the digitalization challenge: how to benefit from digitalization in practice Parviainen, et al. (2017) Table 32 – Academic DTMs B3 Academic DTMs – B3 1 Applying the positioning phase of the digital transformation model in practice for SMEs: toward systematic development of digitalization Kääriäinen, et al. (2020) 2 Developing a digital transformation model to enhance the strategy development process for leadership in the South African manufacturing sector Gaffley & Pelser, (2021) 3 Digital Transformation Model for the Reduction of Time Taken for Document Management with a Technology Adoption Approach for Construction SMEs Lazaro-Aleman, et al. (2020) 93 4 Methodology for Digitalization - A Conceptual Model Ng, et al. (2018) 5 Supporting Digital Transformation in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Barann, et al. (2019) Appendix III – Corporate DMMs screened in the systematic literature review Table 33 – Corporate DMMs C1 Corporate DMMs – C1 1 BOOST YOUR DIGITAL MATURITY https://www.sofokus.com/wp-content/uploads/sofokus-boost-yourdigital-maturity-guidebook.pdf Sofokus, (2020) 2 Cisco Small Business Maturity Assessment https://www.sb-maturityassessment.com/# IDC & Cisco (n.d.) 3 Cotec - Digital maturity Selfassessment Theia https://theia.cotec.pt/en Cotec, (n.d.) 4 DigiMaturity tool https://digimaturity.vtt.fi/ VTT, (n.d.) 5 DIGITAL BUSINESS: TOWARDS A VALUECENTRIC MATURITY MODEL https://chairdigitaleconomy.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2018/04/Digital-Business-Part-A.pdf QUT PwC Chair in Digital Economy, (2017) 6 Digital Manufacturing Execution Systems Maturity Quiz https://www.ge.com/digital/sd/manufacturing-maturity-quiz/ GE Digital, (n.d.) 7 Digital maturity assessment BDC https://www.bdc.ca/en/articles-tools/entrepreneur-toolkit/businessassessments/digital-maturity/digital-maturity-assessment BDC, (n.d.) 8 Digital Maturity Assessment Gluu https://gluu.biz/digital-maturity/digital-maturity-assessment/ Gluu, (n.d.) 9 Digital Maturity Framework https://digitalmaturity.org/digital-maturity-framework/ Digital Leadership Ltd, (n.d.) 10 Digital Maturity SelfAssessment https://actionpoint.ie/digital-maturity-assessment/ ActionPoint, (n.d.) 11 DIGITAL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR https://www.bdodigital.com/calculators/digital-performance-indicator BDO, (n.d.) 12 Digital Strategy Toolkit https://www.dpc.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/46567/Digit al_Maturity_Assessment.pdf Department of the Premier and Cabinet, (n.d.) 13 Digital Transformation for Manufacturers Assessment https://research.mpi-group.com/jfe/form/SV_aYpkA5olEUatKJv Ohio MEP, (n.d.) 14 Digital Transformation Maturity Assessment https://tools.marketimpacttools.com/go/UST/digitalmaturity/ Forrester, (2021) 15 Digital Transformation Maturity Survey https://dmmindex.emerson.com/ Emerson, (2020) 16 GB Tech Digital Maturity Model https://www.gbtec.com/resources/digital-maturity-model-poster/ GB Tech, (n.d.) 17 Google Digital Maturity Benchmark https://digitalmaturitybenchmark.withgoogle.com/en/advertisers/ Google & BCG, (2021) 18 How to increase solution efficiency through understanding your digital experience maturity https://www.kentico.com/discover/resources/digital-experienceplatform-as-a-modern-means-to-improve-business-performance Kentico, (n.d.) 19 IDC Future Enterprise Maturity Assessment https://future-enterprise.idcmaturityscape.com/#onepre IDC, (n.d.) 94 20 IFRC Digital Transformation Model https://www.510.global/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/IFRC-DigitalTransformation-Model-V1.pdf IFRC, (2021) 21 Industrie 4.0 Maturity Index https://en.acatech.de/publication/industrie-4-0-maturity-indexupdate-2020/ Acatech, (2020) 22 Measuring Industry Digitization: Leaders and Laggards in the Digital Economy https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/gx/en/insights/20022013/measuring-industry-digitization/strategyand-measuringindustry-digitization-leaders-laggards-digital-economy.pdf Booz & Company, (2011) 23 Overview of the Digital Maturity Index (DMI) https://orgcmf.com/en-gb/pages/digital/dmioverview/ ODTI, (n.d.) 24 Plotting your Path to Personalization with the Digital Experience Maturity Model https://www.martechcube.com/resources/sitecore/plotting_your_pat h_to_personalization/2019-DXMM-WP.pdf Sitecore, (2019) 25 The 4 stages of digital maturity https://www.danaconnect.com/the-4-stages-of-digital-maturity-whatis-digital-maturity-and-strategies-to-achieve-digital-maturity/ Dana Connect, (n.d.) 26 The Fast Track to Digital Marketing Maturity https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/_qs/documents/11989/BCG-TheFast-Track-to-Digital-Marketing-Maturity-Aug-2021.pdf BCG, (2021) 27 THE RACE FOR DIGITAL OPERATIONS TRANSFORMATION https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/PDF-139/Accenture-TheRace-for-Digital-Operations-Transformation.pdf Accenture, (2020) 28 The Researcher's Blueprint for Achieving Digital Maturity https://www.similarweb.com/corp/reports/digital-maturity-guide/ SimilarWeb, (2021) 29 What’s your Digital Maturity Level? https://infocert.digital/digital-maturity-model/ InfoCert, (n.d.) 30 What’s your digital maturity? https://www.axway.com/en/maturity-assessment Axway, (n.d.) Table 34 – Corporate DMMs C2 Corporate DMMs – C2 1 Cisco Small Business Maturity Assessment https://www.sb-maturityassessment.com/# IDC & Cisco (n.d.) 2 Cotec - Digital maturity Selfassessment Theia https://theia.cotec.pt/en Cotec, (n.d.) 3 Digital Manufacturing Execution Systems Maturity Quiz https://www.ge.com/digital/sd/manufacturing-maturity-quiz/ GE Digital, (n.d.) 4 Digital Transformation for Manufacturers Assessment https://research.mpi-group.com/jfe/form/SV_aYpkA5olEUatKJv Ohio MEP, (n.d.) 5 IFRC Digital Transformation Model https://www.510.global/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/IFRC-DigitalTransformation-Model-V1.pdf IFRC, (2021) 6 Industrie 4.0 Maturity Index https://en.acatech.de/publication/industrie-4-0-maturity-indexupdate-2020/ Acatech, (2020) 7 THE RACE FOR DIGITAL OPERATIONS TRANSFORMATION https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/PDF-139/Accenture-TheRace-for-Digital-Operations-Transformation.pdf Accenture, (2020) Appendix IV – Academic papers screened in the DMM systematic literature review 95 Table 35 – Academic DMMs D1 Academic DMMs – D1 1 A Comparison of the Digital Divide Across Three Countries with Different Development Indices Chang, et al. (2015) 2 A critical review of digital capability frameworks: a consumer perspective Malchenko, et al. (2020) 3 A Digital Maturity Model for digital banking revolution for Iranian banks Goumeh & Barforoush (2021) 4 A Digital Maturity Model for Telecommunications Service Providers Valdez-De-Leon (2016) 5 A Maturity Level-Based Assessment Tool to Enhance Rauch, et al. (2020) 6 A maturity model for assessing Industry 4.0 readiness Schumacher, et al. (2016) 7 A Maturity Model for Assessing the Digital Readiness of Manufacturing Companies De Carolis, et al. (2017) 8 A Measuring Tool for the Digital Maturity of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Sandor & Guban, (2021) 9 A study of knowledge management systems processes and technology in open and distance education institutions in higher education Altinay, et al. (2019) 10 An Innovative Digital Maturity Assessment Model for Smart Cities Topuz, et al. (2022) 11 Analysis of companies' digital maturity by hesitant fuzzy linguistic MCDM methods Buyukozkan & Guler, (2020) 12 Analysis of the adoption of emergent technologies for risk management in the era of digital manufacturing Rodriguez-Espindola, et al. (2022) 13 APPROACH FOR THE SYSTEMATIC TRANSITION OF THE COMPANY INTO INDUSTRY 4.0 Gajsek (2019) 14 Assessing digital maturity of schools: framework and instrument Redjep, et al. (2021) 15 Assessing the Digital Maturity Level of Higher Education Institutions Durek, et al. (2018) 16 Assessing the digital maturity of micro and small enterprises: a focus on an emerging market Da Costa, et al. (2022) 17 Assessing the level of digital maturity of enterprises in the Central and Eastern European countries using the MCDM and Shannon's entropy methods Brodny & Tutak, (2021) 18 Beyond description: in search of disciplinary digital capabilities through signature pedagogies Vargas-Atkins, (2020) 19 Building Holistic Social Media Strategy Refering to Social Intelligence and Digital Maturity Boufim & Barka (2015) 20 Building organizational resilience with digital transformation He, et al. (2022) 21 Building skills in the context of digital transformation: How industry digital maturity drives proactive skill development Ostmeier & Strobel, (2022) 22 Company readiness for digital transformations: problems and diagnosis Dolganova & Deeva (2019) 23 Comprehensive Review of Digital Maturity Model and Proposal for A Continuous Digital Transformation Process with Digital Maturity Model Integration Minh & Thanh, (2022) 24 Conditioning Factors of Digitally-Enabled Growth Strategy in SMEs Aramburu, et al. (2020) 25 Contextualizing the outcome of a maturity assessment for Industry 4.0 Colli, et al. (2018) 26 Development and Implementation of a Maturity Model of Digital Transformation Ifenthaler & Egloffstein, (2020) 27 Development of a Digital Transformation Maturity Model for IT Companies Gollhardt, et al. (2020) 28 Digital Maturity Framework for Higher Education Institutions Durek, et al. (2017) 29 DIGITAL MATURITY MODEL FOR BULGARIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS Doneva, et al. (2019) 102 Ora, isto não encontra nas sociedades comerciais. Nenhum sócio pode ser obrigado a integrar órgãos da sociedade. Depois, outra diferença importantíssima entre a cooperativa e uma sociedade comercial, seja cooperativa do ramo dos serviços, ou seja de qualquer outro ramo. Esta diferença prendese com o objeto. O objeto da cooperativa compreende sempre uma dimensão económica que se traduz na satisfação das necessidades dos seus membros. Neste caso, nas cooperativas de serviços, prestar um serviço ou adquirir um serviço a um preço justo. Essa é a dimensão económica do objeto e, portanto, nessa atividade económica os cooperadores irão participar. E depois há uma dimensão social no objeto da cooperativa que está evidenciado por um princípio cooperativo, que é o princípio do interesse pela comunidade. As cooperativas não se centram apenas nas necessidades dos seus membros, mas também devem contribuir para o desenvolvimento sustentável da comunidade. E quando nós falamos aqui de sustentabilidade, não estamos a falar apenas da sustentabilidade ambiental. Estamos a falar de um conceito amplo de sustentabilidade, alinhado com os objetivos do desenvolvimento sustentável. Por exemplo, uma das características das cooperativas é de que elas não se deslocalizam. E, portanto, o seu enraizamento na comunidade é muito forte pelo que significa que se os cooperadores forem da comunidade, a cooperativa vai gerar empregos estáveis, não deslocalizáveis e, portanto, aqui está evidenciada a dimensão social da cooperativa. Este é o principal princípio que evidencia essa dimensão social, o princípio cooperativo do interesse pela comunidade. Nós reconhecemos sempre no objeto da cooperativa esta dimensão social, sendo certo que esta dimensão social não encontra numa sociedade comercial de forma obrigatória: a lei não obriga as sociedades comerciais a terem uma dimensão social no seu objeto. O objeto da sociedade é o de desenvolver uma atividade que gera lucro. Isto não significa que a sociedade comercial não possa adotar práticas de responsabilidade social da empresa. Aí já estaremos numa dimensão social do objeto, mas atenção, essas práticas de responsabilidade social da empresa são de adesão voluntária numa sociedade, não são obrigatórias, não fazem parte do ADN. A dimensão social do objeto da cooperativa faz parte do ADN da cooperativa. Esta solidariedade interna que existe entre os cooperadores e esta solidariedade externa com a comunidade, que se traduz também na obrigação de desenvolver práticas antidiscriminatórias em função do género, em função da raça… há um princípio cooperativo, que é o princípio da adesão voluntária e livre classicamente conhecido por “porta aberta”, portanto, qualquer pessoa 103 que cumpra os requisitos previstos nos estatutos para aderir a uma cooperativa não pode ver a sua adesão rejeitada sem motivo objetivo. Portanto, esse é um importante princípio que também evidencia esta dimensão social do objeto e que evidencia esta forte ligação da cooperativa à comunidade, portanto, a questão da igualdade também a igualdade, a igualdade no próprio valor cooperativo importantíssimo e que se projeta, por exemplo, na distribuição dos resultados económicos. Os resultados positivos que os cooperadores geram com a sua atividade chamam-se excedentes. Vamos imaginar que temos uma cooperativa de produtores de serviços. Eu, o Fábio, a pessoa X e a pessoa Z, constituímos uma cooperativa que presta serviços na área dos sistemas de informação e com isso, nós pretendemos exercer a nossa atividade de forma livre. Somos nós que vamos acordar como é que vamos exercer a nossa atividade. Como é que vamos ser remunerados pela nossa atividade e decidimos em assembleia geral que, mensalmente iremos receber cada um de nós os quatro mil e duzentos euros. E no final do exercício económico vamos apurar quais foram os resultados económicos gerados pela nossa atividade. Imagine, Fábio que chegamos ao fim do exercício económico, ao fim de dois mil e vinte e três, e feitas as contas, os resultados econômicos, se nós dividirmos por nós os quatro, e se dividirmos por doze, permitir-nos-ia recebia em cada mês, não mil e duzentos euros, mas dois mil e duzentos euros. O que é isto? Isto é um resultado económico positivo gerado com a nossa atividade, não é um lucro. Quem gerou esta atividade, quem gerou este resultado económico fomos nós com a nossa atividade. Ele chama-se um excedente. Fábio Couto: Que tem de ser redistribuído…? Deolinda Meira, PhD: Que pode retornar aos cooperadores. Pode porquê? Porque são eles cooperadores que, em assembleia geral vão decidir quanto retorna e se retorna. Pois não vai retornar tudo. Uma parte vai ficar para as reservas. Imagine que precisamos de melhorar o equipamento informático. Vamos constituir uma reserva livre e para o ano vamos, com esta reserva livre, comprar equipamento informático. Mas os cooperadores também podem decidir (nós os quatro) que uma parte vai retornar a nós. Utiliza-se o termo de “retorno de excedentes”. Ora, só retorna a uma pessoa aquilo que é seu. Isso não é o lucro, é um resultado económico gerado com a atividade do cooperador. E esta é outra importante diferença das cooperativas face às sociedades económicas, porque o resultado económico da sociedade chama-se lucro. Eu entrei com mil e no fim do exercício 104 económico, os meus mil valem dez mil sem que eu participe na atividade. Não fui eu que gerei, foi a sociedade com a sua atividade, portanto, é diferente. Não quer dizer que as cooperativas não possam gerar lucro. Vamos imaginar que a cooperativa está a trabalhar muito bem, nós os quatro já não conseguimos dar conta de todas as encomendas de serviços e temos de contratar três informáticos que não querem ser cooperadores. Nós até propomos a esses três informáticos que entrem na cooperativa como cooperadores, mas eles não querem. Portanto, celebramos com eles um contrato de trabalho. Eles trabalham para a cooperativa. Nós os quatro, eu, o Fábio, X e Z trabalhamos na cooperativa. É diferente trabalhar “na” ou trabalhar “para”. Se com esse trabalho gerado pelos três informáticos, a cooperativa obtiver um resultado positivo, ou seja, pagou todos os meses novecentos e cinquenta euros aos informáticos, e o trabalho que eles geraram gerou um lucro. Portanto, efetivamente aquele trabalho gerou resultados muito superiores, temos um lucro, mas esse lucro, atenção, não pode ser repartido entre os cooperadores. É um lucro objetivo que nunca pode ser repartido. Ele é reinvestido, é realocado a reservas obrigatórias que não são repartidas entre os cooperadores, designadamente na reserva legal, que só tem como propósito cobrir perdas e a reserva de educação, formação e informação. Esta reserva de educação, formação e informação é outra importante especificidade das cooperativas face às sociedades comerciais. A cooperativa tem a obrigação de educar e formar os seus membros, os seus trabalhadores, os seus representantes eleitos, educar para que se consiga uma profissionalização da gestão, educar para que o cooperador saiba de forma adequada participar na atividade da cooperativa, seja na atividade económica, seja na dimensão política, ou seja, na dimensão da governação. E ainda o dever de informar, que se dirige à comunidade. A cooperativa vai informar a comunidade quanto às vantagens do modelo cooperativo. Isto pode gerar mais adesões na cooperativa e, sobretudo, adesões conscientes. Portanto, esta é uma importantíssima reserva da cooperativa, que só existe nas cooperativas. Não existe nas sociedades comerciais e que, por exemplo, eu encaro como muito importante para, por exemplo, dar formação aos cooperadores na dimensão digital. Hoje, em que esta realidade digital está em todas as organizações, de forma a combater a iliteracia digital que eventualmente poderá existir, a cooperativa pode utilizar esta reserva da educação e informação com esse propósito de educar e informar no contexto digital. Devidamente aproveitada, pode potenciar a transformação digital. 105 Depois há outra questão muito importante, que é a questão da comunicação interna e externa. Se a cooperativa tem uma dupla dimensão do seu objeto, económica e social, e se a cooperativa tem uma íntima ligação à comunidade, isso quer dizer que a cooperativa tem de saber comunicar devidamente internamente (com os cooperadores, desde logo para que eles participem de forma adequada na cooperativa), porque a transparência é um valor importantíssimo na gestão destas entidades, porque estamos a falar de entidades geridas democraticamente, não há democracia sem transparência e, portanto, a transparência implica uma adequada comunicação, quer quanto a atividade econômica, quer quanto a dimensão social da cooperativa e, neste caso, os meios digitais podem potenciar, podem facilitar essa transparência e depois a relação com a comunidade. Portanto, utilizar o website para disponibilizar informação, para dinamizar atividades com a comunidade, para trabalhar em rede com as outras organizações. Essa questão da transparência, da “accountability” que é uma imposição legal para as cooperativas porque são organizações democráticas, é uma outra dimensão. Repare, nas sociedades comerciais, a transparência existe se a sociedade quiser, porque só as sociedades cotadas em bolsa é que divulgam ao mercado quantos lucros tiveram, quantas trabalhadoras têm a ocupar cargos de direção e porquê? Porque isso pode influenciar o valor das ações no mercado, porque as demais não têm obrigação de divulgar esse tipo de informação. Podem fazê-lo desde logo ao abrigo de políticas de responsabilidade social, mas não existe uma obrigação legal. No caso das cooperativas, isto é obrigatório por lei, porque estamos a falar de organizações geridas democraticamente e elas têm de ser obrigatoriamente transparentes. Uma outra questão importante tem a ver com os resultados económicos. Há pouco disse que os resultados económicos gerados pela participação do cooperador na atividade se chamavam excedentes. Se a assembleia geral decidir fazer retornar uma parte dos excedentes ou a totalidade, depois de feitas as deduções para as reservas, aos cooperadores, como é que eles participam nos excedentes? Eles participam nos excedentes em função da sua participação na atividade. Quem mais trabalhou recebe mais. Se o Fábio trabalhar só meio tempo na cooperativa e eu trabalhar o tempo inteiro, quando é feito o retorno dos excedentes, o retorno é feito em proporção à minha participação na atividade. Nas sociedades, quando são distribuídos lucros entre sócios, esses lucros são distribuídos em função da minha participação no capital social. Quanto mais eu participar no capital, mais lucros tenho direito a receber. Essa é a regra nas sociedades comerciais. 106 E há aqui uma outra diferença muito importante, que eu não mencionei há pouco. A regra de voto nas sociedades é a de que o número de votos depende da participação no capital. Quanto mais eu participar no capital, maior número de votos eu detenho nas assembleias gerais. É por isso que nas sociedades encontra os sócios minoritários e os sócios maioritários. Na cooperativa é impossível um cooperador sozinho ou dois cooperadores sozinhos controlarem a cooperativa. Nas sociedades comerciais é possível que dois ou três sócios controlem a sociedade. Basta que tenham a maioria do capital social, porque significa que terão a maioria dos votos na assembleia. Essa é outra diferença muito importante. São estas as principais dimensões que eu identifico quando confronto as cooperativas com as sociedades comerciais. Fábio Couto: Muito interessante a questão da transparência e dos canais de comunicação digitais… e a influência da literacia digital dos membros… Deolinda Meira, PhD: Repare, a nossa cooperativa fictícia tem quatro cooperadores. Agora imagine uma grande cooperativa agrícola, que tem oitocentos cooperadores. Comunicar adequadamente, disponibilizando informação no website da cooperativa ou noutras ferramentas digitais, é fundamental… e definir circuitos de comunicação. Se eu quiser aceder a determinados documentos: a cooperativa vai comprar um terreno e eu cooperador tenho dúvidas se isso é ou não é interessante e benéfico para a vida da cooperativa e quiser aceder a essa informação, deve haver circuitos que rapidamente me permitam aceder a essa informação. Porquê? Porque as cooperativas estão obrigadas à transparência. A lei reconhece aos cooperadores um amplo direito à informação e, portanto, este amplo direito à informação pode ser potencializado pelos meios digitais. A participação nas assembleias gerais também poderá ser afetada positivamente. Durante o COVID, surgiu esta problemática das assembleias gerais virtuais. Bom, se os cooperadores estiverem devidamente preparados para nelas participarem, poderá ser uma forma muito interessante de combater o problema nalgumas cooperativas, sobretudo cooperativas de média e grande dimensão, que é a baixa participação nas assembleias. Ora, se houver um uso adequado das ferramentas digitais para potenciar essa participação ou criando assembleias híbridas ou totalmente virtuais, isso poderá ser muito interessante para a cooperativa. 107 A cooperativa Mútua dos Pescadores tem cooperadores de todo o território continental, dos Açores e da Madeira e faz assembleias setoriais por causa disso. Realizam assembleias na Madeira, no Norte e no Centro, e no Sul. Porquê? Porque os cooperadores não se deslocam a Lisboa para uma Assembleia Geral. Se a Assembleia geral se socorrer de meios digitais, isso poderá resolver estes problemas e, portanto, haverá uma assembleia geral com a participação de todos os cooperadores. Portanto, isso é claramente hoje apontada como uma forma de tornar mais intenso este princípio da gestão democrática e transparente que caracteriza as cooperativas. O Fábio tem alguma questão? Fábio Couto: Não. Fiquei esclarecido. As dúvidas que tinha foram sendo esclarecidas ao longo desta conversa, pelo que apenas me resta agradecer novamente pelo tempo despendido. O seu contributo será muito valioso para o meu trabalho final de mestrado. Deolinda Meira, PhD: Ora essa. Fico sempre feliz por poder contribuir e qualquer dúvida, disponha. Não hesite em entrar em contacto se necessitar.