Mapping Business Transformation in Digital Landscape: A Prescriptive Maturity Model for Small Enterprises

  • Juhani NaskaliEmail author
  • Jesse Kaukola
  • Johannes Matintupa
  • Hanna Ahtosalo
  • Mikko Jaakola
  • Antti Tuomisto
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 907)


Developing versatile modern ICT is an insurmountable challenge to many small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Resources, such as skills, money, time [1] and knowledge [2], are scarce [3]. This makes the selection and decision of any development project a key business issue. The most important questions for SMEs are (i) where to start and (ii) what to change. While there are hundreds of descriptive maturity models for organizational development [4, 5], these offer little support for organizational decision-making. We developed a prescriptive maturity model that maps a subjective snapshot of the maturity of a business, and identifies the most promising objects for next development steps. This Business Transformation Map has three interrelated maturity dimensions: business, technology, and social, that span across past, present and future. We used the model in several test cases, and our results show that the model makes business dimensions visible in a way that makes sense to SMEs. The interviewed SME companies state that depicting company maturity levels in this manner brings clarity to overall business growth options, and it helps transforming this understanding into concrete development steps.


Small enterprises Information systems development Digitalization Work informatics 


  1. 1.
    Jones, O., Macpherson, A., Thorpe, R., Ghecham, A.: The evolution of business knowledge in SMEs: conceptualizing strategic space. Strateg. Change 16, 281–294 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holsapple, C.P., Joshi, K.D.: An investigation of factors that influence the management of knowledge in organizations. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 9, 235–261 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atherton, A.: The uncertainty of knowing: an analysis of the nature of knowledge in a small business context. Hum. Relat. 56(11), 1379–1398 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, D.W.I.J.: Developing maturity models for IT management. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 1(3), 213–222 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß, J., Becker, J.: Maturity models in business process management. Bus. Process Manag. J. 18(2), 328–346 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nguyen, T.H., Newby, M., Macaulay, M.J.: Information technology adoption in small business: confirmation of a proposed framework. J. Small Bus. Manag. 53, 207–227 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ribbers, P., Parker, M.M.: Designing information technology governance process: diagnosing contemporary practices and competing theories. In: Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Bruin, T., Freeze, R., Kaulkarni, U., Rosemann, M.: Understanding the main phases of developing a maturity assessment model. In: Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), 30 November–2 December (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kumar, K., Van Dissel, H.G., Bielli, P.: The merchant of Prato-revisited: toward a third rationality of information systems. MIS Q. 22(2), 199–226 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schumacher, A., Erol, S., Sihn, W.: A maturity model for assessing industry 4.0 readiness and maturity of manufacturing enterprises. Procedia CIRP 52, 161–166 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Igartua, J.I., Retegi, J., Ganzarain, J.: IM2, a maturity model for innovation in SMEs. IM2, un Modelo de Madurez para la innovación en PYMEs. Dirección y Organización 64, 42–49 (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tuomisto, A., Kaukola, J., Koskenvoima, A.: Sensitive development of work systems – the story of dandelions. In: Conference paper: Information Systems Research Seminar Scandinavia (IRIS) 38 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chatzoglou, P.D., Diamantidis, A.D., Vraimaki, E., Vranakis, S.K., Kourtidis, D.A.: Aligning IT, strategic orientation and organizational structure. Bus. Process Manag. J. 17(4), 663–687 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang, Q., Cao, M.: Business process reengineering for flexibility and innovation in manufacturing. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 102(3), 146–152 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Škrinjar, R., Trkman, P.: Increasing process orientation with business process management: critical practices. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 33(1), 48–60 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bergman, B., Klefsjö, B.: Quality from Customer Needs to Customer Satisfaction, 3rd edn. Studentliteratur AB (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Looy, A.: Does IT matter for business process maturity? A comparative study on business process maturity models. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6428, pp. 687–697. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Albliwi, S.A., Antony, J., Arshed, N.: Critical literature review on maturity models for business process excellence. In: IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pöppelbuß, J., Röglinger, M.: What makes a useful maturity model? A framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management. In: ECIS 2011 Proceedings, p. 28 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marangunić, N., Granić, A.: Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 14(1), 81–95 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Legris, P., Ingham, J., Collerette, P.: Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 40(3), 191–204 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jansen, R.J.G., Curşeu, P.L., Vermeulen, P.A.M., Geurts, J.L.A., Gibcus, P.: Information processing and strategic decision-making in small and medium-sized enterprises: the role of human and social capital in attaining decision effectiveness. Int. Small Bus. J. 31(2), 192–216 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hernández-Carrión, C., Camarero-Izquierdo, C., Gutiérez-Cillán, J.: Entrepreneurs’ social capital and the economic performance of small businesses: the moderating role of competitive intensity and entrepreneurs’ experience. Strateg. Entrep. J. 11, 61–89 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bititci, U.S., Garengo, P., Ates, A., Nudurupati, S.S.: Value of maturity models in performance measurement. Int. J. Prod. Res. 53(10), 3062–3085 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fabio, L.O.: Knowledge management barriers, practices and maturity model. J. Knowl. Manag. 18(6), 1053–1074 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khatibian, N., Hasan gholoi pour, T., Jafari, H.A.: Measurement of knowledge management maturity level within organizations. Bus. Strategy Ser. 11(1), 54–70 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boughzala, I.: A Community Maturity Model: a field application for supporting new strategy building. J. Decis. Syst. 23(1), 82–98 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tarhan, A., Turetken, O., Reijers, H.A.: Business process maturity models: a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 75, 122–134 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van der Hoorn, B., Whitty, S.J.: The project-space model: enhancing sensemaking. Int. J. Manag. Proj. in Bus. 10(1), 185–202 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heimo, O.I., Kimppa, K.K., Nurminen, M.I.: Ethics and the inseparability postulate. In: Proceedings of Ethicomp (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Deming, W.E: Elementary Principles of the Statistical Control of Quality: A Series of Lectures (1950)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Systems Science, Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Turku School of EconomicsUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Nordkalk Oy AbPargasFinland

Personalised recommendations