This study aims to develop a digital maturity model (DMM) specifically for higher education and to identify design principles emerging from the model development process. Recognizing that existing maturity frameworks rarely reflect the unique mission, governance, and stakeholder complexity of universities, this study addresses a conceptual and practical gap by integrating evidence from the literature, expert validation, and institutional piloting. A Design and Development Research methodology was employed. The development process combined a systematic literature review, document analysis, semi-structured interviews with 12 domain experts, a 25-week iterative expert panel process to refine the dimensions, levels, and indicators, and pilot implementation across 18 universities. The resulting model comprises five dimensions (individual, education, managerial processes, research, and infrastructure), 19 sub-dimensions, and 104 indicators, organized across five qualitative maturity levels: awareness, partial implementation, strategic implementation, integrated implementation, and cultural transformation. Four design principles were derived from the development process, emphasizing holistic dimensional coverage, clear and unambiguous level definitions, appropriately concrete indicators, and practical applicability. The model provides institutions with a structured instrument for assessing digital readiness, prioritizing transformation initiatives, informing strategic resource allocation, and benchmarking progress over time. An accompanying guideline is intended to facilitate stakeholder engagement and evidence-informed decision-making. Theoretically, the study contributes an empirically grounded and iteratively validated maturity model specific to higher education, while also offering design principles relevant to maturity model development and digital transformation in academic contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yavuz et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: