Digital maturity in higher education hinges on governance and role perception

Digital governance emerged as the most interconnected dimension across all four groups. It was seen as essential to research productivity, community outreach, and administrative efficiency. Among students and teachers, it was closely linked to university extension and research capacity. For administrators and managers, it enabled institutional image-building and innovation infrastructure. These patterns underscore that governance is the linchpin for coordinating various aspects of digital transformation - from strategy to execution to public perception.

Universities seeking to navigate the digital transformation landscape are facing a critical question: How mature are these digital transformations, and how do different stakeholders perceive their success? A new study published in Frontiers in Computer Science, titled "Assessing Digital Transformation Maturity in Higher Education Institutions: A Correlational Analysis by Actors and Dimensions," offers a data-driven answer. 

The study assessed 338 participants through structured, actor-specific surveys, measuring maturity across four stakeholder groups: teachers, students, administrators, and managers and ddimensions like digital governance, research and innovation, administrative management, academic management, sociocultural integration, institutional marketing, teaching-learning processes, and university extension. Spearman correlation analysis revealed which dimensions are most interconnected and which stakeholder perspectives drive or hinder adoption. What emerged was a nuanced map of how digital maturity is shaped not just by infrastructure or strategy, but by the actors interpreting and implementing it.

How do teachers, students, administrators and managers view digital maturity differently?

The research found that perceptions of digital maturity vary significantly across roles. For teachers, the digital governance dimension had the strongest correlation with university extension (rho = 0.70), research and innovation (rho = 0.66), and institutional image (rho = 0.60). This suggests that faculty view governance as central to enabling impactful teaching, collaborative research, and social engagement. However, teaching-learning itself showed weaker links with core institutional processes, highlighting a disconnect between pedagogical innovation and institutional digital strategy.

Students, by contrast, associated digital governance most closely with research-innovation (rho = 0.75), university extension (rho = 0.73), and institutional image (rho = 0.69). The highest correlation was between institutional image and university extension (rho = 0.78), indicating that students see outward-facing activities such as community programs, cultural engagement, and marketing as key indicators of a university’s digital relevance. Their perception underscores the importance of aligning academic digitization with visible, socially resonant outcomes.

Administrators offered yet another lens. Their strongest correlations were between administrative management and institutional image (rho = 0.92), followed by research-innovation (rho = 0.83) and digital governance (rho = 0.82). For them, digital efficiency in processes like enrollment, finance, and data management directly impacts how the university is perceived. They also saw administrative management as tightly linked to innovation and research facilitation, suggesting that behind-the-scenes operations play a vital role in academic output.

Managers, on the other hand, prioritized university extension’s correlation with institutional image (rho = 0.83), while also highlighting strong links between research-innovation and digital governance (rho = 0.73) and academic management (rho = 0.71). This signals that leadership views community impact and research output as the principal pathways to institutional prestige—and that effective governance and academic structuring are necessary enablers.

Which dimensions drive digital transformation across stakeholder groups?

Digital governance emerged as the most interconnected dimension across all four groups. It was seen as essential to research productivity, community outreach, and administrative efficiency. Among students and teachers, it was closely linked to university extension and research capacity. For administrators and managers, it enabled institutional image-building and innovation infrastructure. These patterns underscore that governance is the linchpin for coordinating various aspects of digital transformation - from strategy to execution to public perception.

Research and innovation also featured prominently across perceptions. For students, it was enabled by digital tools that facilitate access to resources and collaborative platforms. Teachers emphasized its dependence on robust digital governance. Administrators linked it to streamlined processes and resource allocation, while managers saw it as a branding asset central to institutional identity. Its cross-functional relevance points to research as both a product and a driver of digital maturity.

University extension was another key dimension. Teachers valued its connection to governance and outreach; students saw it as a marker of institutional commitment to social progress. For managers, it was a strategic tool to enhance prestige and attract partnerships. Across all roles, extension programs correlated with better institutional image scores, confirming that social engagement is not a peripheral benefit but a core outcome of effective digital transformation.

Institutional image-marketing (MKT) proved to be a composite indicator - closely tied to operational efficiency (rho = 0.92 among administrators), outreach (rho = 0.83 among managers), and governance. A university’s public perception is no longer shaped solely by academic rankings; it now depends on how effectively it digitizes both internal and external functions. This explains the intense interdependencies identified in the study.

What are the barriers, enablers, and strategic implications of digital maturity?

While the findings offer a roadmap for strategic investment, they also reveal systemic obstacles. Structural challenges include a lack of harmonization between academic and administrative systems, limited budgets, underdeveloped digital infrastructure, and unequal access to technology. Cultural barriers, such as resistance to change, lack of digital skills, and generational divides, also persist, particularly among teaching and administrative staff.

Yet, the study identifies clear enablers as well. Correlations between research-innovation and digital governance suggest that well-managed platforms can unlock innovation and interdepartmental collaboration. The alignment of administrative management with institutional image validates investment in backend digital systems like ERP platforms, which indirectly bolster public reputation. Similarly, the perceived value of extension programs in elevating brand equity shows that social responsibility and visibility are not just ethical imperatives—they’re strategic assets.

Importantly, the study calls for customized digital maturity strategies that are sensitive to stakeholder roles. Teachers, students, administrators, and managers have different operational needs and cultural expectations. Tailoring digital adoption plans accordingly can improve both participation and impact. For example, training programs that enhance faculty competencies in teaching technologies may unlock new levels of pedagogical innovation, while streamlined admin tools can improve morale and reduce institutional friction.

HEIs are also encouraged to adopt a multidimensional strategy that aligns digital implementation with research goals, governance protocols, and community engagement. The research emphasizes that maturity is not a linear process but an interwoven system where improvements in one area can catalyze gains in others.

The study’s findings also have implications for digital policy and infrastructure funding. Institutions must look beyond generic IT upgrades and toward a holistic framework that incorporates stakeholder engagement, metrics for dimension-level maturity, and longitudinal monitoring. Real digital maturity means not only digitizing services but embedding innovation, efficiency, and outreach into the institutional fabric.

Further studies are needed across more institutions and geographies to generalize these insights. Including perspectives from alumni and external stakeholders could also enrich future models. Nonetheless, the current study provides a critical benchmark for universities seeking to navigate the digital transformation landscape, not just as a technological necessity, but as a strategic mission.