Digital transformation (DT) refers to the changes in ways of working and business offering caused by adoption of digital technologies in an organization. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are struggling with this transformation because of their limited resources and know-how. Thus, SMEs need practical grassroots-level help for DT that allows the companies to analyze where they stand in digitalization, and how they should proceed. This article discusses how SMEs can be supported in their DT by utilizing the DT model consisting of four consecutive phases for supporting companies’ systematic development of digitalization. The article focuses on the first phase of the DT model, positioning, where company’s digitalization status is analyzed in detail, and development ideas are identified. The positioning phase was conducted for 19 SMEs in Northern Ostrobothnia, Finland. The results indicate that the used process and tools were suitable to support SMEs for analyzing their digitalization status and identifying areas for improvement. The DT model and piloted tools have been published as a free-of-charge ApuaDigiin.fi online service to facilitate their widespread use in the future. In this way, public regional business development authors or research organizations can utilize the online service while supporting the digitalization of SMEs.

Digitalisation has been identified as one of the major trends changing society and business. However, companies are not making the most of all the opportunities that digitalisation has to offer. In the digital transformation process, it is important to start with assessing the current state. Digital maturity assessment can be used to analyse the current level of digital readiness and performance of an organisation. Micro-enterprises are the smallest group of enterprises and numerically the dominant enterprise type in economies. They differ from larger enterprises in terms of organisational characteristics, such as their unique attitude towards digital tools and application deployment. Furthermore, micro-enterprises are lagging behind in exploring the possibilities that come with digitalisation. This article describes the design process, usage possibilities, and initial experiences of a digital maturity model, especially from the viewpoint of micro-enterprises. As result, this article presents a micro-enterprise-focused self-evaluation framework providing holistic digital maturity status.

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details.

Conclusions To make the invisible visible we need more diversified evaluation approach and indicators which enable to analyse RTOs impact in the systemic and complex environment. RTOs' impact cannot be demonstrated with one -or even a few single indicators: a comprehensive picture of impact requires multi-criteria approach, a variety of indicators and data gathering from multiple sources. Policy measures and evaluation practices could be updated to perceive the significance and 'hidden performance' of innovations in systemic context: innovations do not emerge without evaluation mechanisms that support their creation. RTOs are tackling with systemic and complex challengesThere are no simple solutions to complex societal problems.Modern innovation theories emphasizes that tackling system level problems requires considering three perspectives: 1) Solutions require deep integration of technologies and service-based novelties. 2) Collaboration between multiple actors from different sectors of society is required. 3) Developing and disseminating solutions requiresunderstanding of customer and citizen needs and the policy-making context. Current innovation measures do not make the impact visibleTarget of RTOs is to solve broad societal challenges. However, current innovation indicators do not capture RTOs' multiple roles and impact in systemic environment. There are two main reasons why traditional evaluation and measures fail. The focus is on:• techno-economic aspects of innovation and impact, which are not able to capture the reality of innovations (e.g. system, social and service innovations) and "hidden performance". • input and direct outputs. Therefore we lack data about impact. VTT's strategic evaluation frameworkVTT's new strategic evaluation framework and related measures of success (KPIs) integrate multi-criteria approach of innovation to the traditional balanced scorecard (BSC). The framework expands traditional innovation indicators towards broader societal transformations in accordance with VTT's strategy. They make VTT's long-term impact visible in four categories: 1) Benefit for society 2) Benefit for customers 3) Excellence in everything we do 4) Sufficiency of financial resources Figure 1. The focus in the impact analysis is typically in the linkages between the visible innovation and visible performance, which do not capture the nontechnological innovation and hidden performance of innovations. (Djellal & Gallouj, 2010). Figure 2. Framework to measure success at VTT.Biased information may cause inaccurate analysis and interpretations and lead to inappropriate decisions. In order to paint a truthful and comprehensive picture of RTOs' impact, and to provide better information for managing and learning, we need diversified evaluation approach and measures. VTT -beyond the obvious www.vttresearch.comThe long-term societal impact is based on VTT's ability to create customer impact in shorter term. To ensure this, we need to support customers' success and growth and actively create new partner networks. ...

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details.