## 3 Results
### MaMoRes Application to Two Case Studies  
More insights on how the developed MaMoRes can be applied to practical contexts are provided in this section. Specifically, the MM was developed through a research collaboration with two organizations that had the need to evaluate their performance. Thus, the MaMoRes is tested on two separate case studies of enterprises operating in Italy. Due to privacy policy, the companies will be referred to as Company Alpha and Company Beta. These two companies present significant differences in terms of dimensions and sector. This is useful to test the model in different contexts, providing better insights on potential generalization capabilities. Company Alpha is a medium enterprise, and it is a manufacturer of plastic products. On the other hand, Company Beta is a large-scale multinational company operating in the energy field. Four and 7 experts in logistic processes were consulted for the maturity assessment. The experts were administered a questionnaire that they filled out through a dedicated focus group. Specifically, the experts were asked to evaluate each sub-dimension of the developed maturity model through a 5-point Likert scale (1--Fully Immature... 5--Fully Mature). It is worth noting that Company Alpha is a medium-sized organization that did not struggle much with the application of the model. Furthermore, the model has been applied to both the case studies following the same approach. The former aspects possibly hint that the model has a sufficient level of detail and general applicability, but it does not neglect ease of adoption and user friendliness. Considering Equations (1) and (2), the maturity levels of Company Alpha and Company Beta are estimated. The results depicted a maturity level of Company Alpha equal to 3 (neither immature nor mature), while Company Beta is associated with a maturity level of 4 (partially mature). Figure 11 provides the results related to the score of each dimension. Considering Company Alpha, the highest score is 4, associated with \"Redundancy and Robustness\" (D3). It is followed by \"Agility, Flexibility, and Adaptability\" (D2) with a score of 3. Lower scores are obtained by \"Transparency and Visibility\" (D4), \"Collaboration and Relationships\" (D5), and Risk Management (D1), which are evaluated with a score of 2, 2, and 1.67, respectively. On the other hand, Company Beta reached a higher level of maturity. The highest score equal to 3.5 is associated with \"Redundancy and Robustness\" (D3) and \"Collaboration and Relationships\" (D5). The \"Risk Management\" (D1) and the \"Transparency and Visibility\" (D4) dimensions are assigned a score of 3.33 and 3, respectively. Finally, \"Agility, Flexibility, and Adaptability\" (D2) is evaluated as the least mature for Company Beta with a score of 2.67. Based on the former results, it is possible to state that Company Beta is more mature than Company Alpha. It has the highest score for all dimensions but \"Agility, Flexibility, and Adaptability\" (D2) and \"Redundancy and Robustness\" (D3). This indicates that Company Alpha has a high focus on the former dimensions, but it is neglecting all the remaining ones. On the contrary, Company Beta is characterized by more uniform maturity across the dimensions. Going more into detail, the score of each sub-dimension (see Figure 12) can be analyzed. The lower the score of a sub-dimension, the higher the need for improvement. Regarding Company Alpha, the lowest scores are associated with \"Risk Identification and Assessment\" (S1.1) and \"Digitalization\" (S4.2). Both are evaluated with a score of 1, denoting fully immatureness. Next, there are four sub-dimensions with a score of 2: \"Risk Management and Mitigation\" (S1.2), \"Risk Prevention and Recovery\" (S1.3), \"Intra- and Inter-Integration\" (S5.1), and \"Coordination and Cooperation\" (S5.2). Due to the low score, all the former dimensions should be prioritized to reach a higher level of maturity.