With so many essentially competing frameworks I do have to wonder whether the underlying motivation of many organisations who produced them is marketing rather than helpfulness… which certainly explains a tendency for this thought-leader stuff and not necessarily improving on the work of others or evidence in a very clear way.
Interesting you highlight an important next step is the different journeys of small and large orgs, couldn’t agree more. In all my work employed in and now with small charities I have never once heard anyone mention a maturity framework — either because we hadn’t heard of them as ‘a thing’ or didn’t identify with them at all, eg so many never even had a regular strategy so the idea of a purely digital one was lol.
Re suggested action point ‘Coordinate a set of best practice resources, guides and referrals to relevant support for each of the 19 focus areas’ I think there’s some juicy stuff in CAST (Ellie) and IVAR’s research (which you might well have read or it was being written in tandem with yours!) https://www.ivar.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Start-Somewhere-Making-Tech-Imaginable-and-Usable.pdf that shows most (small) organisations turned first to either a colleague or google rather than helpful organisations/communities etc for digital help (all on p.18 above). I think knowing this behaviour is quite interesting when considering what/if resources should be allocated in producing guides online vs person to person support — all kind of hinges on what the 30% of people turning to google first are actually turning up, as may well be the existing help out there OR random stuff not at all associated with social good digital.