The interplay of resources, dynamic capabilities and technological uncertainty on digital maturity

Kwiotkowska, Anna

doi:10.29119/1641-3466.2022.155.15

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

The interplay of resources, dynamic capabilities and technological uncertainty on digital maturity

Autorzy

Kwiotkowska Anna

Treść / Zawartość

Pełne teksty:

Pobierz

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2022.155.15

Warianty tytułu

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

Purpose: Based on the resource-based view theory, environmental uncertainty perspective, and causal complexity in firms, this study aims to identify the causal pathways of organizational resources, dynamic capabilities and technological uncertainty leading to digital transformation from a holistic perspective. Design/methodology/approach: Considering the gap in the existing literature on the configuration of internal and external factors affecting digital transformation, this study conducts a set-theoretic analysis using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fs/QCA). The fs/QCA focuses on the effects of causal conditions that allow for more detailed discovery and understanding of the causal mechanisms of digital transformation. Thirty-three manufacturing SMEs were selected and fs/QCA was used to explore how companies can engage resources and dynamic capabilities to achieve digital transformation in the face of a highly uncertain external environment. Findings: As the research shows, both high and low levels of digital maturity can be achieved through various pathways of causal conditions. There is synergy between technological uncertainty and relational and portfolio technological resources or between technological uncertainty and sensing and seizing capabilities that can jointly promote digital transformation. Research limitations/implications: The analysis is based on a limited number of cases. In order to generalize the results, a larger sample from multiple industries can be collected and analyzed, thus refining the findings and increasing the level of universality. Future research should also be extended to different levels and theoretical perspectives to analyze the different factors influencing digital transformation. Practical implications: According to the research, managers should avoid "one size fits all" strategies and follow a pathway based on their resources and capabilities, especially dynamic to promote digital transformation or analyze environmental changes, as the digital era is inextricably linked to a high degree of technological uncertainty. Originality/value: This research enhances understanding of the interdependence of causal conditions (i.e. organizational resources, dynamic capabilities and technological uncertainty) in established relationships with the outcome – the level of digital maturity. It also provides implications for the digital transformation of manufacturing SMEs.

Słowa kluczowe

digital maturity resources dynamic capabilities technological uncertainty fs/QCA

dojrzałość cyfrowa zasoby zdolności dynamiczne niepewność technologiczna fs/QCA

Wydawca

Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej

Czasopismo

Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska

Rocznik

2022

Tom

z. 155

Strony

221--236

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 55 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Kwiotkowska Anna

akwiotkowska@polsl.pl

Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5204-1259

Bibliografia

1. Amit, R., and Han, X. (2017). Value creation through novel resource configurations in a digitally enabled world. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(3), 228-242.
2. Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99-120.
3. Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O., Pavlou, P., and Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471-482.
4. Boyd, B.K., Bergh, D.D., and Ketchen, D.J. (2010). Reconsidering the reputation- performance relationship: a resource-based view. Journal of Management, 36(3), 588-609.
5. Carlo, J.L., Lyytinen, K., and Boland Jr, R.J. (2012). Dialectics of collective minding: contradictory appropriations of information technology in a high-risk project. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1081-1108.
6. Castelo-Branco, I., Cruz-Jesus, F., and Oliveira, T. (2019). Assessing industry 4.0 readiness in manufacturing: evidence for the European Union. Computers in Industry, 107, 22-32.
7. Chadwick, C., Super, J.F., and Kwon, K. (2015). Resource orchestration in practice: CEO emphasis on SHRM, commitment-based HR systems, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 360-376.
8. Chen, Q.J., Wang, Y.M., and Wan, M.F. (2021). Research on peer effect of enterprise digital transformation and influencing factors. Chinese Journal of Management, 18(5), 653-663.
9. De Crescenzo, V., Ribeiro-Soriano, D.E., and Covin, J.G. (2020). Exploring the viability of equity crowdfunding as a fundraising instrument: A configurational analysis of contingency factors that lead to crowdfunding success and failure. Journal of Business Research, 115, 348-356.
10. Du, Y.Z., and Kim, P.H. (2021). One size does not fit all: Strategy configurations, complex environments, and new venture performance in emerging economies. Journal of Business Research, 124, 272-285.
11. Eisenhardt, K.M., and Martin, J.A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105-1121.
12. Ferreira, J.M., Fernandes, C.I., and Ferreira, F.A.F. (2019). To be or not to be digital, that is the question: Firm innovation and performance. Journal of Business Research, 101(8), 583-590.
13. Fletcher-Chen, C.C.-Y., Al-Husan, F.Z.B., and ALhussan, F.B. (2017). Relational resources for emerging markets’ non-technological innovation: insights from China and Taiwan. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 32(6), 876-888.
14. Ghobakhloo, M. (2018). The future of manufacturing industry: a strategic roadmap toward Industry 4.0. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(6), 910-936.
15. Gill, M., and Vanboskirk, B.S. (2016). The digital maturity model 4.0. https://forrester.nitro-digital.com/pdf/Forrester-s%20Digital%20Maturity%20Model%204.0.pdf.
16. Guinan, P.J., Parise, S., and Langowitz, N. (2019). Creating an innovative digital project team: Levers to enable digital transformation. Business Horizons, 62(2), 717-727.
17. Gurbaxani, V., and Dunkle, D. (2019). Gearing up for successful digital transformation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 18(3), 209-220.
18. Jackson, N.C., and Dunn-Jensen, L.M. (2021). Leadership succession planning for today’s digital transformation economy: Key factors to build for competency and innovation. Business Horizons, 64(2), 273-284.
19. Jantunen, A., Ellonen, H.-K., and Johansson, A. (2012). Beyond appearances - Do dynamic capabilities of innovative firms actually differ? European Management Journal, 30(2), 141-155.
20. Jantunen, A., Tarkiainen, A., Chari, S., and Oghazi, P. (2018). Dynamic capabilities, operational changes, and performance outcomes in the media industry. Journal of Business Research, 89, 251-257.
21. Jaworski, B.J., and Kohli, A.K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53-70.
22. Jiang, X., and Ma, Y.Y. (2018). Environmental uncertainty, alliance green revolution and alliance performance. Management Review, 30(3), 60-71.
23. Kane, G.C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A.N., Kiron, D., and Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy, not technology, drives digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte University Press.
24. Kaplan, A., and Haenlein, M. (2019). Digital transformation and disruption: On big data. Business Horizons, 62(6), 679-681.
25. Karimi, J., Walter, Z. (2015). The role of dynamic capabilities in responding to digital disruption: a factor-based study of the newspaper industry. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(1), 39-81.
26. Katkalo, V.S., Pitelis, C.N., and Teece, D.J. (2010). Introduction: On the nature and scope of dynamic capabilities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 175-1186.
27. Kauppila, O. (2015). Alliance management capability and firm performance: using resource-based theory to look inside the process black box. Long Range Planning, 48(3), 151-167.
28. Kingshott, R., Sharma, P., and Chung, H. (2018). The impact of relational versus technological resources on e-loyalty: a comparative study between local, national and foreign branded banks. Industrial Marketing Management, 72, 48-58.
29. Kwiotkowska, A., Barriers to the development of spin-offs. A fuzzy-set-theoretic approach, Operations Research and Decisions, 28(4), 31-46.
30. Kwiotkowska, A., Gajdzik, B., Wolniak, R., Vveinhardt, J., Gębczyńska, M. (2021). Leadership competencies in making Industry 4.0 effective: the case of Polish heat and power industry. Energies, 14, 1-22.
31. La Boutetière, H.D., Montagner, A., Reich, A. (2019). Unlocking success in digital transformations. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/ organization/our-insights/unlocking-success-in-digital-transformations, 07.01.2019.
32. Li, H., Wu, Y., Cao, D., and Wang, Y. (2019). Organizational mindfulness towards digital transformation as a prerequisite of information processing capability to achieve market agility. Journal of Business Research, 122, 700-712.
33. Li, H.F, Jing-Qin, S., and Higgins, A. (2016). How dynamic capabilities affect adoption of management innovations. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 862-876.
34. Liu, Z.Y., Zhao, C.F., and Li, B. (2020). Digital social entrepreneurship: Theoretical framework and research outlook. Foreign Economics & Management, 42(4), 3-18.
35. Machado, C., Winroth, M., and Ribeiro Da Silva, E. (2020). Sustainable manufacturing in Industry 4.0: an emerging research agenda. International Journal of Production Research, 58(5), 1462-1484.
36. Martínez-Caro, E., Cegarra-Navarro, J.G., and Alfonso-Ruiz, F.J. (2020). Digital technologies and firm performance: The role of digital organizational culture. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 154, Article 119962.
37. Nunally, J.C., and Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychological theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
38. Pramanik, H.S., Kirtania, M., and Pani, A.K. (2019). Essence of digital transformation manifestations at large financial institutions from north America. Future Generation Computer Systems, 95(6), 323-343.
39. Ragin, C.C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40. Rihoux, B., and Ragin, C.C. (Eds.) (2009). Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41. Rowe, F., Besson, P., and Hemon, A. (2017). Socio-Technical Inertia, Dynamic Capabilities and Environmental Uncertainty: Senior Management Views and Implications for Organizational Transformation. 25th European Conference on Information Systems, Guimarães, Portugal.
42. Schneider, C.Q., and Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press
43. Selander, L., and Jarvenpaa, S.L. (2016). Digital action repertoires and transforming a social movement organization. MIS Quarterly, 40(2), 331-352.
44. Svahn, F., Mathiassen, L., and Lindgren, R. (2017). Embracing digital innovation in incumbent firms: how Volvo Cars managed competing concerns. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 239-253.
45. Teece, D.J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319-1350.
46. Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28, 118-144.
47. Warner, K.S.R., and Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52, 326-349.
48. Winter, S.G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 991-995.
49. Wittmann, C.M., Hunt, S.D., and Arnett, D.B. (2009). Explaining alliance success: competences, resources, relational factors, and resource-advantage theory. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(7), 743-756.
50. Woodside, A.G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66, 463-472.
51. Zahra, S.A., and George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 85-203.
52. Zammuto, R.F., Griffith, T.L., Majchrzak, A., Dougherty, D.J., and Faraj, S. (2007). Information technology and the changing fabric of organisation. Organisation Science 18(5), 749-762.
53. Zhang, G., and Ozer, M. (2015). The formation of status asymmetric ties: a perspective of positive externality and empirical test. Industry and Innovation, 22(7), 625-647.
54. Zhang, M., and Du, Y.Z. (2019). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) in management and organization research: Position, tactics, and directions. Chinese Journal of Management, 16(9), 1312-1323.
55. Zhu, X. M., Liu, Y., and Chen, H.T. (2020). Digital entrepreneurship: Research on its elements and core generation mechanism. Foreign Economics & Management, 42(4), 19-35.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-1511a727-95d5-41e5-a8db-0fb9cf3e463c