Systematic comparison of digital maturity assessment models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing the digital maturity of companies is essential to prepare for digital transformation in the context of Industry 4.0. Several digital maturity assessment models have emerged in the past few years to support this evaluation. One obstacle for companies is the impossibility of easily comparing themselves to one another quantitatively or qualitatively. This paper introduces a new way to compare digital maturity models through a quantitative framework that is compatible with a wide variety of models. Comparisons are performed in the space of the keywords used to characterize key performance indicators (KPIs) that are reverse engineered from the models. The matches are encoded in a keyword matrix that is used to automatically compute the match level of KPI pairs. The framework has been validated on 13 state-of-the-art maturity models whose analysis resulted in the identification of 451 KPIs characterized using 263 keywords structured according to 12 dimensions and 58 subdimensions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it