Search results

Digital transformation has gained particular interest among academics and policymakers in recent years. However, the empirical quantification of digital transformation stages and their impact on innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) remains understudied. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the impact of digital transformation stages on a differentiated measurement of innovation performance in SMEs.

The authors propose a simplified one-dimensional digital maturity path to estimate the stages of digital transformation in SMEs. The authors validate their approach with a cluster analysis and perform an ordered logistic regression to estimate the impact of digital transformation stages on SMEs' innovation performance.

The authors' results show that digital transformation in general has a positive impact on SMEs' innovation performance. More precisely, the authors find that the early stage of digital transformation has a detrimental effect on innovation performance, while significant and positive effects can be expected from the experimental stage onward. Furthermore, the advanced stage of digital transformation significantly increases the probability of producing radical innovations.

This study contributes to the ongoing discussion about the relationship between digital transformation and innovation in SMEs by presenting an approach to quantify digital transformation stages in SMEs. Additionally, this study provides new insights into the specific dynamics of the relationship between different stages of digital transformation and their impact on a differentiated measurement of innovation performance, including technological, non-technological and radical innovation.

Two main types of models are used worldwide in consideration of the impact of Information Communication Technology (ICT) processes in construction: capability maturity models (CMM) and e‐readiness models. The purpose of this paper is to review the structure behind the different models, their applicability to construction and indicate how organisations move between the levels in a CMM.

This study investigates the literature behind eight e‐readiness models and 53 CMMs.

The findings indicate 88 per cent of maturity‐based CMM models linked to five maturity levels, with the remainder using four. CMMs have common features: the process/application is described by maturity levels; Key Process Areas (KPA) provide the features to allow movement; and the levels are arranged and attained systematically, lowest to highest. Publication dates and trends indicate the rate of CMM publication is increasing (most in 2009), conversely, e‐readiness models are not (most published in 2004).

It is expected that the number of CMMs will increase; conversely, e‐readiness models may not. E‐readiness models have not been adopted by other industries and applications. However, CMMs, although initiated in software engineering, have progressed to incorporate construction models which cover processes as diverse as financial management and documentation. This suggests that a CMM is more applicable for applications such as e‐business in construction.

The paper significantly expands that of Man in 2007 who listed 22 CMM models. This paper categorises a further 31 models and indicates construction applicability, combined with a review of e‐readiness models for the first time.