On the relation between digital maturity and digital transformation: implications for school organization and digital leadership

Digital transformation has been examined across a range of domains, often framed as a fundamental restructuring of work and organizational practices driven by digital technologies (Rauseo et al., 2023; Willermark et al., 2024). As Primahendra et al. (2024) argue, digital transformation extends beyond the mere adoption of digital tools; it involves deep cultural and structural shifts that give rise to new business models, operational workflows and professional roles, thereby necessitating revised competence frameworks for both employees and learners.

Within the educational sector, digital transformation is regarded as “a multidimensional process, spanning many different areas from infrastructure and administrative routines to pedagogical issues, competence development and student learning” (Willermark et al., 2024, p. 230). Similarly, Tømte and Smedsrud (2023), argues that digital transformation in schools encompass both strategic planning and managerial processes aimed at integrating digital technologies into educational practice. Their perspective highlights how schools must continuously refine their approaches to digital transformation, ensuring that instructional methods, administrative processes and students' learning evolve to meet technological advancements. According to Alnuaimi et al. (2024) and Navaridas-Nalda et al. (2020), this ongoing adaptation is widely recognized as a central objective and strategic priority within contemporary educational policy frameworks.

Digital transformation can encompass a wide range of phenomena and carry varied meanings within educational contexts. One perspective is that digital transformation is intrinsically linked to large-scale processes of sociocultural change (Karanasios et al., 2021). In this view, digital technologies “carry the potential to fundamentally reshape the cultures into which they are introduced” (Lund and Aagaard, 2020). In our study, we conceptualize digitization, digitalization and digital transformation as an interrelated process of sociocultural change within school and society (see Pettersson et al., 2024b). Digitalization, from a sociocultural perspective, is understood as mediated human activity shaped by cultural artifacts (i.e. digital technologies) (cf. Karanasios, 2018; Cornet et al., 2018; Woll and Bratteteig, 2018). In these mediating human activities, digital technologies are understood to carry the potential to transform existing practices and contribute to development of new ways of doing and thinking about learning and working in school and education (Allen et al., 2013; Ruckriem, 2009). These changes may range from straightforward technology adoption with minimal impact on practice – often referred to as digitization – to more complex modifications of everyday routines, ultimately resulting in profound shifts in learning cultures (Pettersson et al., 2024b).

The foundation of sociocultural theory is the development and use of tools and the human activities in which they are embedded. In the early development of the theory, Vygotsky (1978) focused on the relation between cultural tools and the development of individual human mind and action. Focus was, for example, on how pens, paper, knits etc. could mediate human action and develop higher levels of human thinking. Vygotsky's thoughts were later expanded by Leontyev (2009) and Engeström (2015) to include development on collective level. This meant a development from individual cultural psychology to including change and development in organizations (Engeström, 2015). This has also been described as a development in focus from individual development of actions by learning to use new tools, to larger transformations of entire activity systems such as school organizations.

In the next section, digitization, digitalization and digital transformation as we understand them as interrelated processes of sociocultural change in school will be described.

1.1.1 Digitization: implementing and learning to use digital tools.

According to Negroponte (1995), digitization as a relatively straightforward technological implementation, primarily entails the conversion of analog processes into digital formats (see also Lund and Aagaard, 2020; Karanasios et al., 2021). This process includes making information accessible via various platforms, such as tablets and learning management systems, using digital textbooks, electronic attendance tracking and online assignment submissions. In Engeström's (2015) account of sociocultural learning, this means that individuals integrate tools into everyday teaching without altering the underlying motives of their work. Using digital tools – typing instead of handwriting or presenting on a screen rather than a blackboard – changes efficiency rather than the nature of the activity. The focus is on mastering digital tools and their functions, not transforming the tasks themselves.

Whereas digitization refers to the conversion of analog content into digital formats, digitalization encompasses broader social and structural changes in everyday practices. From an activity-system perspective, digitalization denotes to changes in activity systems brought about from individuals' engagement with digital tools (cf. Pettersson, 2021). In educational contexts, this means that digital technologies reshape how tasks are carried out by introducing new possibilities and limitations. A concrete example is the “Integrated Write to Learn” (iWTL) method, as reported by Angélii Genlott and Grönlund (2016), which utilized digital tools to support students' text production. While digital writing itself may not constitute a qualitative shift in daily school practices, making the text accessible to peers and teachers enabled collaborative discussion, giving and receiving formative feedback as a process of refining text together. This iterative process of refining texts collectively contributed to the emergence of new writing practices and the development of revised instructional guidelines within the classroom.

Digital transformation represents a far-reaching, multifaceted process that derives systemic changes, significantly impacting entire organizations (Karakose et al., 2021; Willermark et al., 2024). At this more advanced stage, digitalization has been associated with the power to change and reshape not only educational practices but also broader perceptions of schooling itself (cf. Blau and Shamir-Inbal, 2017; Lund and Aagaard, 2020; Siljebo, 2020). In the case of the digitally supported iWTL, the new form of writing, discussing, giving and receiving formative feedback resulted in new collaboration between teachers and better student results on the national tests (Angélii Genlott and Grönlund, 2016). The success of the initiative garnered recognition from school leadership and prompted its broader implementation across subject areas. Consequently, all schools within the municipality were allocated time and resources to integrate and refine the model. Moreover, the initiative catalyzed the development of new avenues for collaboration, professional learning and pedagogical discourse within the local educational community. This means, in terms of activity theory, that the activity has been qualitatively changed and developed (cf. Engeström, 2015). This sociocultural development builds on the two earlier described changes: as digital tools are implemented and used, they begin to alter specific components of the school's activity system. When these changes accumulate, the shared understanding of school's practices starts to take on a new meaning (Pettersson et al., 2024b).

From this perspective, digital transformation is not merely a technical transition but a process involving systematic and epistemic change (Karakose et al., 2021; Karakose et al., 2021; Willermark et al., 2024; Leino Lindell, 2020; Shanks, 2020). In this regard, the use of digital technology is understood as having an inherent transformational agency, fundamentally altering the ways in which individuals engage with learning and development (Lund and Aagaard, 2020; Siljebo, 2020). This means that technologies can support daily teaching and learning practices while, in some instances, prompting fundamental shifts that transform previous practices and organizations into new ones (From et al., 2020; Islam and Grönlund, 2016). Moreover, this reflects a deeper understanding of the role technology plays in education, emphasizing not merely access to technology, but its meaningful application within teaching and learning processes. This implies that innovation is more substantial if technology is not only a substitute or a slight improvement for old practices but also empowers educators and students to do new things.

According to recent research, the extent to which digital transformation unfold appears to be closely linked to contextual factors such as infrastructural conditions, stakeholder involvement, the capacity of leadership to effectively steer digital change and more (cf. Palau et al., 2024; Ruloff and Petko, 2021). Identifying and understanding factors that influence these processes become increasingly important. Therefore, the concept of digital maturity has garnered growing scholarly attention. Studies show, for example, that digital maturity mediates the relationship between digital investment and organizational outcomes; without sufficient maturity, digital initiatives fail to translate into improved performance (Egeberg et al., 2016; Kane et al., 2017; Tømte and Smedsrud, 2023; Nielsen et al., 2024).

Along these lines, Nasiri et al. (2021) demonstrate that digital intensity alone is insufficient and may even undermine strategic orientation unless organizations possess the maturity required to absorb and operationalize digital initiatives. Similarly, Hortovanyi et al. (2023) find that maturity develops cumulatively through evolving resource–capability combinations that co-evolve with the increasing complexity of digital transformation. International business research likewise emphasizes this dynamic quality; Fleury et al. (2024) show that digital maturity functions as a distributed capability cluster across global networks rather than as a property of isolated organizational units. Leso et al. (2024) integrate digital maturity into a coordinated framework of transformation governance, ecosystem engagement and structural adaptation, while Biernikowicz et al. (2025) identify several core dimensions of digital maturity, including change management, digital processes, governance and technological readiness.

Public sector studies highlight additional sociotechnical and psychological dimensions. Li et al. (2025) show that digital transformational leadership influences maturity indirectly through employee engagement, with effects strengthened by AI readiness. Gkika et al. (2025) conceptualize maturity as a system-level capability shaped by digital vision, managerial intensity and organizational agility. Critical scholarship complicates these generally optimistic perspectives: Thordsen and Bick (2023) argue that many maturity models lack empirical rigor and theoretical grounding, calling for greater methodological caution. At the individual level, Laaber et al. (2023) broaden the construct by conceptualizing digital maturity as a psychosocial capability encompassing self-regulation, problem-solving and socially responsible digital behavior.

Within educational settings, digital maturity provides an explanatory framework for understanding institutional capacity to navigate digital transformation. Kane et al. (2017), for example, argue that recognizing the role and impact of digital maturity is critical because it shapes schools' capacity to implement and sustain meaningful digital change. In their study, digital maturity is defined as “how organizations systematically prepare to adapt consistently to ongoing digital change” (p. 5). Tømte and Smedsrud (2023) contend that establishing a digitally mature organization necessitates a systematic and strategic approach to digital transformation. Pata et al. (2022) describe digital maturity as both a progression through successive stages of digital innovation and the ability to integrate digital tools meaningfully into teaching, learning and organizational practices (see also Pettersson and From, 2022).

Digital maturity has been conceptualized as a key enabler of innovation across all levels of education (cf. Tømte and Smedsrud, 2023). Empirical studies show that schools with higher levels of digital maturity tend to implement digital technology solutions more effectively, thereby enhancing teaching and learning outcomes (Egeberg et al., 2024; Nielsen et al., 2024). This research further suggests that achieving digital maturity involves multiple interrelated dimensions, including strategic goals, leadership practices, institutional culture, stakeholder attitudes, distribution of responsibilities, knowledge resources and technological infrastructure (Nielsen et al., 2024). Despite growing scholarly interest, however, the specific mechanisms and contextual influences that shape varying levels of digitalization within schools remain insufficiently understood. This gap highlights the need for further investigation. Measuring digital maturity in education requires tools attuned to sociocultural complexity and therefore involves dimensions such as leadership, strategic alignment, cultures of execution and development, distributed responsibility and organizational learning capacity (Tømte and Smedsrud, 2023).

In sum, literature positions digital maturity as a dynamic, multilevel and integrative capability that mediates adaptation and value creation in digitally evolving environments. Its relevance across sectors – including K–12 schools and higher education – underscores its importance as a conceptual and analytical framework for understanding digital transformation.

Recent research also underscores the critical role of leadership in the digitalization of school (Clark and Triegaardt, 2022; Ghavifekr and Wong, 2021; Kilcoyne, 2024; Nagel et al., 2026). School leaders are for example considered “cornerstones” (Alnuaimi et al., 2024, p. 30) and “the main agents” (Cheng and Wang, 2023, p. 8) for leading digitalization processes. This can include tasks and responsibilities to steer the process through goals and visions for digital transformation, navigating technological advancement and supporting cultures of change (Dexter and Barton, 2021; Primahendra et al., 2024; Reis-Andersson, 2024). Other examples put forth in research are developing supportive environments (Alnuaimi et al., 2024; Håkansson Lindqvist and Pettersson, 2019; Richardson et al., 2021), facilitate professional development (Clark and Triegaardt, 2022; Dagli et al., 2023), provide and improve digital infrastructures (Pettersson et al., 2024a, b; Reis-Andersson, 2024; Zhong, 2017) and actively act as role-models (Chua Reyes, 2015; Zhong, 2017).

Digitalization has led to a considerable increase in complexity for school leadership (Nagel et al., 2026; Wollscheid et al., 2025). As digital technologies continue to advance and the educational landscape evolves, the focus has increasingly shifted towards the development of more complex, sophisticated and school-wide practices (Krein, 2023; Richardson et al., 2021). School leaders are expected to lead their organizations through political reforms while demonstrating effective practices for integrating technology into educational contexts (Avidov-Ungar et al., 2022; Sterrett and Richardson, 2020). This is while simultaneously coordinating and reacting to other tasks and responsibilities emerging in the daily life in school leadership (Alnuaimi et al., 2024; Richardson et al., 2021; Willermark et al., 2024). This makes leadership a multifaceted role, tasked to master many different practices and responsibilities (cf. Baroudi, 2022; Tømte and Smedsrud, 2023; Siljebo, 2024a; Sterrett and Richardson, 2020; Dagli et al., 2023; Alnuaimi et al., 2024). This intricate interplay of processes requires a form of leadership that is not only attuned to the nuances of digital transformation but also capable of aligning project objectives with the broader developmental and organizational goals of the school.

A common critique of research on both digitalization and digital school leadership is the lack of contextualization and concrete examples illustrating what digitalization is in practice (see conclusions from two recent research reviews Krein, 2023; Nagel et al., 2026). Discussions often remain abstract, focusing on general technological advancements and systemic changes without addressing how digitalization is enacted in specific educational environments. This gap makes it challenging to assess and understand digitalization and leadership.

To address this limitation, this study focuses on a particular process: the development of distance teaching in schools as an example of digitalization. By examining this specific instance, the study seeks to provide a more tangible understanding of digital maturity in relation to digital transformation in educational settings, revealing the organizational aspects required for successful implementation. Through this approach, the research contributes to a broader understanding of digitalization while emphasizing the practical mechanisms through which schools integrate technology into their teaching and learning structures.

The data for this study was collected in Sweden. The specific region has an area of 63,000 km² and municipalities with populations ranging from 2,400 to 130,000 residents. Several municipalities have faced significant challenges related to increased urbanization and declining birthrates. The area is further characterized by small school units, long distances between schools and a shortage of certified teachers. These shared challenges have fostered collaboration and partnership among the municipalities in terms of digital technology solutions. One notable initiative is the implementation of distance teaching, where students can participate in some lectures delivered remotely. By implementing digital solutions for distance teaching, municipalities have been able to bridge geographical distances, expand access to certified teachers and enhance access to a wider range of subjects and courses for students. Digitalization in this context has created several opportunities to address the region's unique challenges. These advancements also indicate how digitalization supports not just practical technology implementations but also drives digital transformation in education. Thus, this region serves as an example of what digital transformation can look like in educational contexts and, as such, has been selected for this study.

For this study, all school employees in the region who were involved in distance teaching in any capacity were invited to the online self-report survey. The survey was administrated during spring 2024 using the digital platform LimeSurvey. In total, 162 school employees from five schools completed the questionnaire. The sample consisted of 50 men (31%), 106 women (65%) and 6 individuals identifying as nonbinary (4%).

Prior to data collection, participants received written information outlining the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation and the use of aggregated data for research purposes. No names or personal identifiers were collected, and all responses were anonymized upon submission. Participants were informed that data would be stored and processed in accordance with institutional and legal data-protection guidelines. They participated voluntarily, and no compensation was provided. Completing the questionnaire required approximately 15 min. Data was exported directly from LimeSurvey into statistical software for analysis.

This study uses a cross-sectional quantitative survey design to examine the strength and direction of relationships between the latent variables (digital maturity, digitization, digitalization and digital transformation) across a broad sample of educational institutions. The survey comprised a total of 24 items, based on the Digital Transformation Scale (DTS) (Pettersson et al., 2024b) and the adaptation of the digital maturity framework (Kane et al., 2016; The Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth, 2017).

For digital transformation, the DTS scale was used (first developed and validated by Pettersson et al., 2024b, see also Pettersson and From, 2022). Digital transformation in the survey is conceptualized as three dimensions, reflecting change and transformation within educational contexts; digitization, digitalization and digital transformation (see Table 1). In the theoretical foundation of the survey, the notions of digitization, digitalization and digital transformation is theorized and quantitatively measured as different hierarchical dimensions of sociocultural change (cf. Bateson, 1972; Engeström, 2015). From digitization as learning to use digital tools on an individual level, to digital transformation as a state when the motive and structure of the entire school organization is “reconceptualized to embrace a radically wider horizon of possibility than in the previous mode” (Engeström, 2015 p. 137, see also Pettersson, 2021; Siljebo, 2020).

The DTS scale comprised 17 positively worded statements, rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The digital maturity consists of a combination of items including: (1) objectives, (2) strategy, (3) leadership, (4) competence, (5) culture of execution, (6) culture of development and (7) responsibility (see Table 2). All items derive from an extensive literature review aimed at developing a model for digital maturity (inspired by Kane et al., 2016. The review highlights theoretical concepts, models and results and is presented within a comprehensive model, designed for empirical investigation.

The first step in the analysis involved calculating the means and standard deviations for the individual items measuring digital maturity and digital transformation. This provided an overview of the dataset and helped identify potential patterns or anomalies (Field, 2018). For the composite variables within digital transformation, a reliability analysis was conducted using Cronbach's Alpha, a commonly used measure of internal consistency. A value above 0.70 is generally considered to indicate acceptable reliability (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011).

The next phase of the analysis examined the relationship between digital maturity and digital transformation. This was done by calculating Pearson's correlation coefficients, which assesses the strength and direction of the association between variables. Following Cohen’s (1988) established conventions, correlations of approximately 0.10, 0.30 and 0.50 were interpreted as low, medium and high in magnitude. All analyses were performed using the statistical software IBM SPSS version 28, a widely used tool for quantitative research in social science.

In this section, the results and interpretations of findings are presented. First, descriptive statistics of digital maturity and digital transformation are presented. Thereafter, the relation between digital maturity and digital transformation is analyzed.

Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for different aspects of digital maturity in relation to implementation and use of distance teaching as one specific example of digitalization in school.

As displayed in Table 3, all items are rated on a scale from 1 to 4, where higher values indicate a greater degree of digital maturity in the respective domain. Among the seven measured areas, the highest mean scores were observed for objectives (M = 2.58, SD = 0.57) and strategies (M = 2.57, SD = 0.59). These results suggest that participants generally perceive a moderate level of clarity and structure regarding strategic planning for digital development in school.

In contrast, competence received the lowest mean score (M = 1.93, SD = 0.71), indicating limited digital expertise or confidence in skills among staff. This gap may represent a critical bottleneck, as competence is often a prerequisite for effectively implementing and sustaining digital initiatives. Similarly, the domains of leadership (M = 2.15, SD = 0.68) and responsibility (M = 2.21, SD = 0.74) were scored comparably low. These results may indicate ambiguity regarding leadership roles, insufficient guidance or unclear ownership of digital transformation processes within the organization.

Meanwhile, scores for culture of execution (M = 2.38, SD = 0.69) and culture of development (M = 2.39, SD = 0.77) reflect a moderate perception of organizational support to implement and sustain digital innovation. These scores suggest that while some enabling cultural conditions are present, they may not yet be strong enough to fully drive or sustain long-term digital transformation.

In Table 4, descriptive statistics for individual items and composite variables within the DTS are presented, assessing how distance education, as an example of digitalization, influences individual and organizational work practices.

Table 4 presents descriptive statistics for three dimensions of digital progression: digitization, digitalization and Digital transformation, each assessed through multiple items. Respondents rated their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale, and internal consistency was acceptable for all dimensions (α = 0.86−0.93).

The highest overall mean was observed in the digitization dimension (M = 4.47, SD = 0.72), with particularly high scores for using digital technologies to search for information (M = 4.70) and communicate (M = 4.61). This suggests that digital tools are widely integrated into individuals' everyday workflows.

In contrast, digitalization had a moderate average score (M = 3.45, SD = 1.21), reflecting varied experiences with how distance education has influenced task planning, execution and perception. Notably, the item “Distance education has developed new work tasks” received the highest rating within this category (M = 3.92).

Digital transformation had the lowest overall mean (M = 3.25, SD = 1.17), indicating that while some elements of organizational change are present – such as collaborative discussions or structural adjustments – these are less consistently experienced across respondents. However, internal consistency was highest for this dimension (α = 0.93), suggesting the items are conceptually coherent.

Table 5 presents the correlation between digital maturity and digital transformation. Correlation indicates the strength of the relationship between digital maturity and digital transformation.

Table 5 displays the correlations between three levels of digital transformation: digitization, digitalization and digital transformation and seven indicators of organizational digital maturity: objectives, strategies, leadership, competence, culture of execution, culture of development and responsibility. Overall, the results reveal a clear differentiation in how various aspects of digital development correlate with an organization's level of digital maturity, in terms of a gradual strengthening of associations from digitization to digital transformation.

Digitization, which reflects the operational use of digital tools, demonstrates low or negligible correlations with the digital maturity variables (ranging from −0.01 to 0.17). Notably, its only negative value is with culture of execution (r = −0.01), suggesting that routine digital usage may not directly reflect deeper organizational alignment or capability. This suggests that individual adoption of digital tools does not inherently require digital maturity. Digitization can occur independently of digital maturity, as it primarily reflects individual-level engagement with technology, not just in school but also in everyday life.

Digitalization shows medium correlations across the board, especially with objectives (r = 0.40), strategies (r = 0.38) and culture of execution (r = 0.36). These findings imply that as digital practices begin to alter how work is conceptualized and executed, to some extent they are somewhat integrated with the organization's broader strategic and cultural frameworks, but for the most part, it is about the level of the individual employee.

Digital Transformation exhibits consistently high and positive correlations with all organizational factors, particularly with culture of execution (r = 0.67), objectives (r = 0.64) and culture of development (r = 0.66). This suggests that transformational approaches to digital work are most closely aligned with strategic clarity, cultural support and practical implementation across the organization.

Taken together, this analysis supports a sequential model in which organizations typically evolve from digitization through digitalization to digital transformation. Achieving genuine transformation requires more than technological investment – it necessitates cultural support, strategic clarity and organizational learning.

In this section, the findings are analyzed in relation to previous research in the field. The results are not only relevant to digital transformation in general but also to context specific digitalization projects. This provides a structured approach to measuring and understanding how similar processes can be critically measured and analyzed and effectively supported.

The first research question concerns how digital maturity influences the process and outcomes of digital transformation in schools. In this study, the digital transformation scale has been used to indicate levels of digital change while digital maturity framework has been used to indicate what drives such a process. Findings in this study show that digitization, which reflects the operational use of digital tools, demonstrates weak or negligible correlations with digital maturity, suggesting that routine digital usage may not directly reflect deeper organizational alignment or capability (c.f. Primahendra et al., 2024). In other words, individual adoption of digital tools does not inherently require digital maturity, rather, it should be seen as a reflection of the fact that we all already live in a digitally mediated world. Digitization therefore occurs independently of digital maturity, as it primarily reflects individual-level engagement with technology on a daily basis. Routine digital practices – such as email usage – do not inherently reflect digital progression; it is rather an expression of everyday life, underscoring that meaningful transformation stems from organizational goals and systemic change rather than isolated individual actions (Willermark et al., 2024; Alnuaimi et al., 2024). Digitization can therefore be characterized as individual usage without organizational anchoring, a limited indicator of digital capacity.

The findings imply that digitalization entails a certain level of organizational adaptation, though it remains largely individual-driven. Digitalization may, in line with Pettersson et al. (2024b), be understood as a phase in which digital practices begin to integrate with organizational structures, without yet being fully embedded within strategic frameworks, but have the potential to be a transitional phase toward organizational integration.

As is likewise evident in the empirical results, achieving digital transformation necessitates a higher degree of digital maturity at the organizational level. The relationship between the aspects of digital maturity and digital transformation is high. This reinforces that school organization's willingness to embrace digital change and an organizational culture that supports innovation is a key determinant of digital transformation, as a matter of strategic and cultural integration (c.f. Karanasios et al., 2021; Pettersson et al., 2024b; Siljebo, 2020). The results also indicate that school organizations with well-defined goals and strategies tend to experience more profound transformation, i.e. school development. This suggests that clear objectives play a crucial role in driving development, ensuring digital initiatives align with broader organizational needs, while robust strategies facilitate effective execution.

The examination revealed that although digital maturity and digital transformation are closely related, they are not synonymous. Digital maturity appears to function as a structural and strategic condition – an organization's capacity – whereas digital transformation reflects the actual process of change and innovation within the school. Digital maturity refers to an organization's capacity, readiness and structural alignment to engage with digital development. It encompasses strategic planning, leadership, competence and cultural integration, serving as a foundational condition for change. In contrast, digital transformation is a process – a dynamic shift in practices, structures and mindsets driven by the integration of digital technologies. Transformation implies that digital tools are not merely used but actively reshape how the organization operates and evolves (compare Engeström, 2015; Bateson, 1972).

Empirical findings support this distinction; the weak correlations between digital maturity and digitization suggest that everyday digital tool use does not require digital maturity. Strong correlations with digital transformation, however, indicate that systemic change depends on strategic clarity, cultural support and organizational learning. The observed differences in correlation strength across the three phases of digital progression (digitization, digitalization and transformation) further support the notion that digital maturity and digital transformation, although interrelated, are conceptually distinct. Thus, we argue that digital maturity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for digital transformation and that the two concepts are complementary, with maturity enabling transformation, but not equating to it.

The second research question concerns implications for school organization and leadership. Overall, the findings underscore that addressing any single aspect of digital maturity in isolation is insufficient to initiate and sustain meaningful transformation of school. Instead, all aspects of digital maturity must be developed in parallel to create necessary conditions for systemic change. This also has significant implications for school leadership (c.f. Håkansson Lindqvist and Pettersson, 2019), since it is about going beyond tool adaption and striving for a clear digital vision aligned with broader educational goals (Alnuaimi et al., 2024; Navaridas-Nalda et al., 2020), including setting priorities and allocating resources.

An implication is that it is no longer strategically sound, at a school level, to invest time and resources in developing the digital competence of individual staff members, as this does not lead to digital transformation in terms of school development. Similarly, investing in specific technical solutions is not a wise strategy for the same reason. Instead, efforts should be directed – through a deliberate and considered approach – toward developing all dimensions of the organization's digital maturity (c.f. Dexter and Barton, 2021, Alnuaimi et al., 2024; Reis-Andersson, 2024). The strong correlation between digital maturity and digital transformation underlines that this is a central factor in driving school development.

A further implication derived from the above is that advancing an organization's digital maturity is far from a quick fix; rather, it constitutes a comprehensive, multifaceted and evolving process that unfolds over time (c.f. Nielsen et al., 2024). This progression increases the complexity of the challenges faced by school leadership and organizational structures (c.f. Siljebo, 2024b; Wollscheid et al., 2025), thereby necessitating strategic initiatives that are not only thorough and far-reaching but also long-term and sustainable in nature. As such, school leadership must be continuously developed, systematically observed and critically understood across longer temporal dimensions.

This study is based on a limited number of respondents, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, the research was conducted within a specific regional context. This may limit the applicability of the findings to broader or more diverse populations, as cultural norms, educational practices and institutional structures can vary significantly across different settings. This study highlights some suggestions for future research. One of these is longitudinal and more empirically robust studies, to explore how digital transformation evolves over time and under what conditions it accelerates or regresses. Comparative case studies across schools or national systems would also offer insights into how different organizational cultures and leadership approaches influence transformation outcomes. Further investigation is also needed into leadership practices that foster digital maturity, and, in parallel, studies on how collective teacher agency contributes to organizational maturity beyond individual tool use. Additionally, the relationship between digital maturity and educational equity warrants attention, particularly whether transformation efforts are inclusive or risk reinforcing systemic disparities.