Literature review proposes a digital maturity model for higher education in Vietnam, highlighting key dimensions and indicators.
Aim/purpose – This paper reviews existing studies on digital transformation in higher education to develop a digital maturity model for universities in Vietnam. Design/methodology/approach – Content analysis methods were used for a systematic literature review, adhering to the PRISMA approach. Of the 150 records, 50 articles remained following the application of exclusion criteria. Then, the four-stage process, including (1) diagnosis, (2) planning, (3) evaluation, and (4) improvement, was em- ployed to develop the digital maturity model. Focus group interviews were conducted to evaluate the proposed model. Findings – A digital maturity model was developed and evaluated using several tech- niques in a sequential research process. The model has seven dimensions and 40 indica- tors covering a variety of activities in a university, including: (1) Planning, leadership, and management, (2) Digital teaching and learning, (3) Scientific research, (4) Quality assurance, (5) Technology transfer and social service, (6) Human resources, (7) ICT infrastructure and resources. Research implications/limitations – This model is helpful for universities to self- -evaluate and identify their digital maturity level. Adopting the model will be an initial step in their digital transformation process, which can provide university managers with input for their digital transformation strategy and plans. However, this study has not yet validated the model using quantitative methods, which should be addressed in future research. Originality/value/contribution – Research on digital transformation and digital maturi- ty in the Vietnamese higher education sector remains scant. This paper aims to fill this void by developing a new digital maturity model applicable to Vietnamese universities. Keywords: Digital transformation, digital maturity, higher education, transition context, Vietnam. JEL Classification: I23, M10, O14, O33.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nguyen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: