MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116777626 · doi:10.1016/j.dte.2025.100084

A digital maturity model for assessing SMEs in the manufacturing sector

2025· article· en· W7116777626 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Syrine Njah, Christophe Danjou, Fabiano Armellini, Catherine Beaudry, Elaine Mosconi

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital engineering. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDigital Transformation in Industry
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookePolytechnique Montréal
FundersMitacs
KeywordsMaturity (psychological)Digital transformationCapability Maturity ModelService Integration Maturity ModelModular designField (mathematics)Industry 4.0

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the development of a Digital Maturity Model (DMM) designed to support small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises (SMEs) in their transition towards Industry 4.0. SMEs face distinct challenges compared to large enterprises, mainly due to financial constraints, limited digital skills and reliance on short-term operational priorities, which necessitate flexible and modular solutions adapted to their context. Existing DMMs show critical limitations, including weak practitioner involvement, lack of multidimensional integration, insufficient consideration of lower maturity levels and absence of actionable strategic outputs. To address these gaps, a six-phase methodology was followed, including qualitative case studies with three Canadian manufacturing SMEs. The final DMM includes five dimensions, 34 subdimensions and 49 indicators covering technological, managerial and organizational aspects. Case studies revealed an overview of digital maturity in SMEs with a strong strategic awareness of digital transformation and early-stage integration of emergent technologies. They also highlighted persistent barriers such as limited digital capabilities, resistance to change and regulatory challenges. The DMM provides practical value as a descriptive tool for assessing maturity and guides both ecosystem positioning and the development of digital transformation roadmaps. It also contributes to the academic field as a replicable and adaptable approach for evaluating digital maturity in SMEs and fostering innovation in manufacturing ecosystems. Future research should focus on developing a scoring methodology and conducting quantitative validation to enhance reliability.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital engineering.Same topicDigital Transformation in IndustryFrench-language works237,207