Content uploaded by Sascha Kraus
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sascha Kraus on Dec 15, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
0268-4012/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Digital transformation in business and management research: An overview
of the current status quo
Sascha Kraus
a
, Susanne Durst
b
,
*
, Jo˜
ao J. Ferreira
c
, Pedro Veiga
d
, Norbert Kailer
e
,
Alexandra Weinmann
e
a
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Faculty of Economics & Management, Piazza Universit`
a 1, 39100 Bolzano, Italy
b
Tallinn University of Technology, Department of Business Administration, Ehitajate tee 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia
c
University of Beira Interior & NECE- Research Unit in Business Sciences, Portugal
d
Polytechnic Institute of Viseu, University of Beira Interior & NECE- Research Unit in Business Sciences, Portugal
e
University of Linz, Institute for Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Linz, Austria
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Digital transformation
Business and management
Thematic evolution
Bibliometrics
Review
Synergistic framework
ABSTRACT
It is no surprise that research on digital transformation (DT) has raised vast interest among academics in recent
decades. Countries, cities, industries, companies, and people all face the same challenge of adapting to a digital
world. The aim of the paper is twofold. First, map the thematic evolution of the DT research in the areas of
business and management, because existing research in these areas to date has been limited to certain domains.
To achieve this, articles were identied and reviewed that were published in the Chartered Association of
Business Schools’ (ABS) ≥2-star journals. Based on these ndings, the second objective of this paper will be to
propose a synergistic framework that relates existing research on DT to the areas of business and management,
which will help form the evolutionary perspective taken in this paper. Considering the emerging development of
the topic under investigation, the framework is understood as a sound basis for continued discussion and
forthcoming research.
1. Introduction
The industrial world is evolving into a digital one (Parviainen,
Tihinen, K¨
a¨
ari¨
ainen, & Teppola, 2017). The COVID-19 pandemic has
accelerated this phenomenon (Priyono, Moin, & Putri, 2020). Digital
transformation (DT) has gone from being a technological opportunity to
a pure necessity for managing the needs and expectations of the world’s
growing population (Kraus et al., 2021). These developments have led to
considerable changes in many organizations, with DT introducing new
processes and mechanisms that can affect the key structures of how a
company does business. According to Heavin and Power (2018), the
primary aim of DT is to solve challenges concerning efciency and
effectiveness, while Hess, Benlian, Matt, and Wiesb¨
ock (2016) state that
companies that do not rapidly develop and implement DT strategies are
unlikely to keep pace and compete in the new digital reality. The tran-
sition to this new reality should however not be underestimated
because, like every change process, it contains several risks and chal-
lenges (Andriole, 2017; Horv´
ath & Szab´
o, 2019; Vial, 2019). We know
from past research that any change is difcult to implement in organi-
zations (Deline, 2018), and up to 70% of large organizational changes
fail (Barrett & Stephens, 2016, 2017; Burke, 2011). It is also known that
companies are slow to respond to change (Wright, Van Der Heijden,
Bradeld, Burt, & Cairns, 2004), decreasing the likelihood of companies
adopting DT and implementing DT strategies. Additionally, reports by
Kane, Palmer, Phillips, Kiron, & Buckley, 2015 and Carr (2003) claim
that there is a general misconception that technology drives DT when,
according to the authors, it is a strategy instead. The COVID-19
pandemic, on the other hand, has shown the impact of a crisis (here,
an external one) on the rapid adaptation of DT (Dwivedi et al., 2020;
Fletcher & Grifths, 2020; Iivari, Sharma, & Venta-Olkkonen, 2020;
Kodama, 2020; Osiyevskyy, Shirokova, & Ritala, 2020; Papagiannidis,
Harris, & Morton, 2020; Rowe, 2020).
DT represents a substantial challenge not only for individual com-
panies, but also for national economies (ˇ
Svarc, Laˇ
znjak, & Dabi´
c, 2020).
To become a digital nation, i.e. a country in which citizens, govern-
ments, and companies live in a digital society that interacts and creates
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sascha.kraus@zfke.de (S. Kraus), susanne.durst@taltech.ee (S. Durst), jjmf@ubi.pt (J.J. Ferreira), motaveiga@gmail.com (P. Veiga), Norbert.
Kailer@jku.at (N. Kailer), weinmaaa@gmail.com (A. Weinmann).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Information Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102466
Received 23 August 2020; Received in revised form 6 December 2021; Accepted 7 December 2021
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
2
value benetting all stakeholders, national governments can/must learn
from the experiments conducted in smart cities (Cukusic, 2021; Kar,
Ilavarasan, Gupta, Janssen, & Kothari, 2019; Manfreda, Ljubi, & Groz-
nik, 2021; Tangi, Janssen, Benedetti, & Noci, 2021; Zekic-Susac,
Mitrovic, & Has, 2021), and the experiments of entrepreneurs in
particular (Kraus, Richter, Papagiannidis, & Durst, 2015).
DT research tends to be very specialized and restricted to particular
domains. It is currently seeing a rapidly growing number of publications
that annually present results from different disciplines and points of
view. Due to this, the larger eld of DT has become very complex and
difcult to comprehend (Hanelt, Bohnsack, Marz, & Antunes Marante,
2021; Hausberg, Liere-Netheler, Packmohr, Pakura, & Vogelsang,
2019).
With all of this in mind, it is not surprising to observe an increasing
number of researchers from different management and business elds
such as accounting, marketing, entrepreneurship, or manufacturing
interested in contributing to the topic of DT and its evolution. It also
shows that expectations are high, with initial reviews of the topic
already available. For example, Hofacker, Golgeci, Pillai, and Gligor
(2020) conducted a review in which they examined the relevant liter-
ature on digital marketing and B2B relationships. Li (2020b) performed
a systematic literature review to examine how digital technologies
facilitate business model innovation in creative industries, while
Knudsen (2020) conducted a systematic literature review that focused
on digitalization in accounting. The extant reviews have in common that
they primarily focus on very limited areas of business and management;
they are very narrow in perspective. Additionally, these reviews have
not determined the evolution of the term DT in the areas of business and
management. The rigorous study of DT is generally still at an early stage
(Chanias, Myers, & Hess, 2019), and the studies conducted on it are too
often overly optimistic about it (Kar et al., 2019).
In this context, the objective of this study is to provide a compre-
hensive review of the existing research on DT in the areas of business
and management. More precisely, the overall purpose of this paper is to
structure existing research, identify its current trends, and offer an
overview of recent research strands and topics in DT to determine their
thematic evolution as represented in the business and management
literature. The following research questions are posed: (i) How has the
topic of DT evolved in the areas of business and management? (ii) What
themes have been studied in the extant business and management
literature regarding digital transformation? The emphasis is here placed
on business and management to consider the importance ascribed to
these areas in conjunction with DT (Heavin & Power, 2018; Matt, Hess,
& Benlian, 2015). This study is divided into two parts: (1) mapping the
thematic evolution of the DT research in the areas of business and
management by focusing on papers that were published in the Chartered
Association of Business Schools’ (ABS) ≥2-star journals during the
period 2010–2020; (2) based on the ndings of the rst part, proposing a
synergistic framework that relates existing research on DT to the areas of
business and management.
This paper contributes to DT research in the areas of business and
management by providing detailed information on its evolution. The
main results are summarized within a synergistic framework. Taking
into account the emerging state of the topic, the proposed framework is
viewed as a solid basis for discussion, critique, and/or support of future
research.
The paper is structured as follows. In the next section, DT is intro-
duced and differentiated from other related terms to facilitate a common
basis of understanding. This section also provides varying denitions of
DT. Section three outlines the methodology. This is followed by sections
four and ve that present the different results of the study. Section six
highlights the paper’s contribution to theory, while section seven con-
cludes the paper, and also discusses the limitations of the study, as well
as future research directions.
2. Dening digital transformation in business and management
Before analyzing the thematic evolution of the research on DT in
business and management, it is useful to differentiate DT from other
related terms that are often used interchangeably (Hagberg, Sundstrom,
& Egels-Zand´
en, 2016; Hess et al., 2016; Horv´
ath & Szab´
o, 2019; Par-
viainen et al., 2017). These include (i) digitization, (ii) digitalization,
and (iii) digital transformation. According to the Gartner IT Glossary,
digitization is the process of changing from analog to digital form. Hess
et al. (2016), and Horv´
ath and Szab´
o (2019) also view the automation of
processes through information technologies as digitization.
The turn of the millennium saw vast progress made with technolo-
gies such as mobile phones, data processors, distributed computing,
storage, and digital cellular networks (Evans & Price, 2020; Heavin &
Power, 2018). These digital conversions are more advanced than digi-
tization, and are categorized on the next level that is associated with the
term digitalization. Digitalization calls for new ways of workplace
communication and collaboration, and can be understood as the use of
digital technologies and data (digitized and natively digital) to create
revenue, improve business, and replace/transform business processes
(not simply digitizing them). According to Schwarzmueller, Brosi,
Duman, and Welpe (2018), it also creates an environment for digital
business. Digital transformation in turn can be dened as the integration
of digital technology into all aspects and operations of an organization,
which in turn leads to infrastructural changes in how the organization is
operated and delivers value to its customers (McGrath & Maiye, 2010;
Vial, 2019). Some researchers (e.g., Bouncken, Kraus, & Roig-Tierno,
2021 and Vial, 2019) argue that DT goes even further, and fundamen-
tally changes business operations, products, and processes, which in
some cases leads to completely new business models. Organizations,
regardless of their type and size, need to be prepared to align or even
replace their current business processes with new ones (Horv´
ath &
Szab´
o, 2019) which they might not necessarily be comfortable with
(Benjamin & Potts, 2018). According to Kane et al. (2015), this needs to
occur at a fast pace. Kane et al. (2015) also stressed that DT requires a
change in leadership, culture and mindsets, attitudes towards risks, as
well as new ways of working, new technologies, and a willingness to
accept ambiguity and constant change.
Increases in sales and productivity, innovations in value creation, as
well as novel forms of interaction with customers are examples of po-
tential gains in a successful DT according to Matt et al. (2015). Heavin
and Power (2018) highlight that DT brings technologies such as machine
learning and analytics, which in turn can mean endless opportunities for
organizational solutions and increased internal efciency.
Although the discussion about DT tends to have a positive connota-
tion – and has been heavily promoted by large consulting companies
such as McKinsey and Boston Consulting, possible negative effects are
also increasingly addressed, with emphasis for example on the relevance
of responsible approaches towards managing DT (O’Halloran & Grifn,
2019), or societal and ethical issues (Royakkers, Timmer, Kool, & van
Est, 2018).
The existing literature suggests that research on DT aims to capture
recent trends and developments; it generally represents a eld of
research that has begun to prosper. However, and not surprisingly, there
is to date no commonly accepted denition of the term DT (Knudsen,
2020; Kraus, Roig-Tierno, & Bouncken, 2019; Schallmo, Williams, &
Lohse, 2019; Schallmo, Williams, Boardman et al., 2019). Table 1
summarizes the DT denitions identied in the business and manage-
ment journals covered in the present study.
As seen in Table 1, the focus of DT denitions varies from the
adoption and use of new technologies; to improvements in processes,
operations, customer relations, and performance; to the creation of new
business models; all the way to possible outcomes and impacts on
several actors and environments. DT is expected to be the trigger for the
development of new organizations. This can be realized in the form of
new market entrants, as well as with incumbent organizations that have
S. Kraus et al.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
3
the opportunity to aspire to the business next level.
Having laid a basic understanding of DT, the next section will present
the methodology utilized to reach the overall objectives of this paper.
3. Methodology
The authors followed a systematic review as outlined by Traneld,
Denyer, and Smart (2003) and Kraus, Breier, and Dasí-Rodríguez (2020)
to achieve the aim of structuring extant research on DT in the areas of
business and management. This procedure included the following three
steps: (1) planning the review, (2) conducting the review, and (3)
reporting the review. The last step is presented in Section 4 (Results).
The authors followed Kumar, Kar, and Ilavarasan (2021) and Kushwaha,
Kar, and Dwivedi (2021) to structure the analysis.
3.1. Planning the review
A literature review protocol was developed that included the selec-
tion criteria of the study. Relevant articles (data) for this study were
collected and compiled from the online Web of Science (WoS) database.
Created in 1960 and owned by the Clarivate analytics company, the WoS
is a platform based on web technology. It has collected a wide range of
bibliographic databases, citations, and scientic publication references
from countless scientic, technological, humanistic, and sociological
disciplines since 1945. The WoS consists of more than 12,000 live
journals, 23 million patents, 148,000 congressional proceedings, and
more than 40 million, and 760 million, sources of cited references
(S´
anchez, Rama, de la, & García, 2017). It provides a comprehensive
view of worldwide research production (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016;
S´
anchez et al., 2017).
The authors proceeded from here as follows: A search for publication
titles, keywords, and abstracts for the initial downloading of published
research literature between 2010 and 2020 was commenced. In step
one, the query result led to 3414 research papers. In the second step, the
authors restricted the analysis only to articles; this reduced the number
of possible contributions to 1667. In step three, the authors limited the
search further by focusing only on those contributions published in the
areas of business and management. This reduced the number of research
papers to 398. In the fourth step, the authors restricted the search to
articles published in English, which reduced the articles to 376. In step
ve, only 2-, 3-, and 4-star journals as listed in the Chartered Association
of Business Schools’ ranking were selected to further restrict the search
to higher quality articles, further diminishing the number of suitable
papers to 231. In the sixth step, the authors screened the titles, key-
words, and abstracts of the remaining papers to exclude those that were
not relevant for achieving the aim of the paper. The nal set of papers
covered 217 articles that appeared appropriate for structuring the
research on DT in the elds of business and management. Fig. 1 sum-
marizes the various steps taken for selecting relevant contributions.
3.2. Conducting the review
This section includes more detailed insights into how relevant arti-
cles were identied. It also provides information about the nal number
of articles involved in the study.
To identify relevant articles, the searches were carried out using the
following expressions included in the title, abstract, or keywords:
TS=("digita* transfor*").
Rened by: DOCUMENT TYPES: (ARTICLE OR REVIEW) AND WEB
OF SCIENCE CATEGORIES: (BUSINESS OR MANAGEMENT) AND
LANGUAGES: (ENGLISH).
The search syntax was derived from steps 1–4 as presented in Fig. 1.
The searches carried out resulted in 217 relevant articles published
between 2010 and 2020 (online). Table 2 provides a descriptive sum-
mary of the articles included in the present study. The articles involved
were produced by 593 authors (641 author appearances), of which 22
articles were published by a single author, and 571 articles were pub-
lished as part of a co-authorship.
Table 1
Denitions of Digital Transformation.
Author(s) Denition
Liu, Chen, and Chou (2011), p.1728 Digital Transformation is an organizational
transformation that integrates digital
technologies and business processes in a
digital economy.
Matt et al. (2015), p. 339 Digital transformation strategies take on a
different perspective and pursue different
goals. Coming from a business-centric
perspective, these strategies focus on the
transformation of products, processes, and
organizational aspects owing to new
technologies.
Hess et al. (2016) Digital transformation (also known as
digitalization), however, is concerned with
the changes that digital technologies can
bring about in a company’s business model,
products, processes and organizational
structure.
Parviainen et al. (2017), p. 64 Digital transformation is dened as changes
in ways of working, roles, and business
offering caused by the adoption of digital
technologies in an organization, or in the
operation environment of the organization.
Bondar, Hsu, Pfouga, and Stjepandi´
c
(2017), p. 33
Digital Transformation is a consistent
networking of all economic sectors and as
adaption of actors to new circumstances of
the digital economy.
Schallmo et al. (2019); Schallmo,
Williams, Boardman et al. (2019),
p. 4
The DT framework includes the networking
of actors such as businesses and customers
across all value-added chain segments, and
the application of new technologies. As such,
DT requires skills that involve the extraction
and exchange of data as well as the analysis
and conversion of that data into actionable
information. This information should be used
to calculate and evaluate options, in order to
enable decisions and/or initiate activities. In
order to increase the performance and reach
of a company, DT involves companies,
business models, processes, relationships,
products, etc.
Hinings, Gegenhuber, and
Greenwood (2018), p. 53
Digital Transformation is the combined
effects of several digital innovations bringing
about novel actors (and actor constellations),
structures, practices, values, and beliefs that
change, threaten, replace or complement
existing rules of the game within
organizations, ecosystems, industries or
elds.
Heavin and Power (2018), p. 40 While digital transformation has its
challenges, existing research indicates that
the digital phenomenon is an opportunity to
innovate and redene how organizations do
business. The two main aspects of digital
transformation are dened in terms of (1)
technology and (2) customer or user.
Vial (2019), p. 121 Digital transformation is a process that aims
to improve an entity by triggering signicant
changes to its properties through
combinations of information, computing,
communication, and connectivity
technologies.
Warner & W¨
ager, 2019, p. 344 Digital transformation is an ongoing process
of strategic renewal that uses advances in
digital technologies to build capabilities that
refresh or replace an organization’s business
model, collaborative approach, and culture.
S. Kraus et al.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
4
3.3. Methods
The authors of this study used different methods and procedures. To
determine the thematic evaluation of the research on DT in the areas of
business and management, they determined the annual distributions of
the papers involved, the number of citations, the names of authors most
frequently cited, as well the journals in which the papers were published
(with a focus on ABS ≥2 stars journals). The countries from which the
most articles came were also identied. In a second step, the articles
were analyzed to identify the most frequently mentioned words in the
title and keywords of the papers; these helped establish an adequate
description of the content of an article, and in turn identied patterns
and trends in a specic discipline (Cambrosio, Limoges, Courtial, &
Laville, 1993; Evans, Foster, & Guo, 2013). In a further step, the authors
utilized a co-occurrence word analysis bibliometric methodology.
Co-occurrence word analysis links two articles that cite the same arti-
cles. The more papers they share, the more likely these two publications
cover the same research topic. If a set of articles shares keywords, it is a
likely sign that the same or similar ideas are covered in these articles.
More generally, these articles are expected to depict central topics and
intellectual structures of an area of knowledge (Leydesdorff & Vaughan,
2006). While mapping the co-occurrence word analysis, the authors
used social network theory to determine the position of each keyword in
the network (Freeman, 1978; Otte & Rousseau, 2002). In a nal step, the
articles were grouped into different compact sets based on their content.
Fig. 1. The data selection process.
Table 2
Summary of articles resulting from the searches.
Description Results
Documents 217
Sources (journals, books, etc.) 71
Keywords plus (ID) 612
Author’s keywords (DE) 757
Period 2010–2020
Average citations per document 24.01
Authors 593
Author appearances 641
Authors of single-authored documents 22
Authors of multi-authored documents 571
Documents per author 0.366
Authors per document 2.73
Co-authors per document 2.95
S. Kraus et al.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
5
4. Results
Section 4 is structured as follows. The Section 4.1 provides a char-
acterization of the articles covered in this paper. To do this, an analysis
provides (1) the chronological evolution of both the number of articles
published, and the number of citations in the areas of business and
management regarding DT since 2010. This is followed by (2) an over-
view of the top-cited articles; this also comprises information about the
publications at the national and international levels. In Section 4.2, the
results of the keyword analysis are presented to show the conceptual
structure of the articles included in this study, while Section 4.3 is
dedicated to the analysis of co-occurring words, which also allows the
establishment of dominant themes.
4.1. Analysis of ndings by the number of articles
Fig. 2 summarizes the evolution of both the number of articles and
citations regarding the research on DT in the areas of business and
management since 2010. The average year of publication was 2019.0.
Fig. 2 also indicates that the papers published before 2017 can be seen as
forerunners laying the foundation for the research domain. The
increasing interest in research on DT in the two areas started only in the
past decade, most notably as of 2016. Fig. 2 also demonstrates that, since
2019, the topic has gained considerable momentum, with around 81.0%
of all articles published (29.0% in 2019, and 52.0% in 2020).
In terms of the number of citations, the articles involved in this study
were cited an average of 24.0 times out of a total number of 5208 ci-
tations. Delving deeper, it’s seen that six articles (2.8%) had no citations,
70 articles (32.3%) were cited between one and ve times, and 51 ar-
ticles were cited 25 times or more (23.5%).
Table 3 lists the ten articles with the highest number of citations.
Four of the most cited articles were published in 2019, and one paper
was published in 2010. The articles with the highest number of citations
in the given set of articles are the works by Agarwal, Gao, Gordon,
DesRoches, and Jha (2010) (292 citations), Hess et al. (2016) (128 ci-
tations), Hagberg et al. (2016) (118 citations), and Vial (2019) (109
citations).
To structure the research on DT, the authors also organized the
studied articles based on the countries in which different DT topics have
been studied (Table 4). As seen, Germany (55 articles), followed by the
USA (47 articles) and Italy (51 articles) are the most active countries (in
terms of number of articles). All of the countries listed in Table 5 are
industrialized nations.
Regarding co-authorship between countries, the Italian authors had
37 articles published with authors from other countries, followed by
authors from Germany (29 articles published in co-authorship), the USA
(26 articles published in co-authorship), and the UK (25 articles pub-
lished in co-authorship). Within these four countries, eight articles were
published by Italian authors with UK authors, seven articles were pub-
lished by Italian authors with authors from the USA, and seven by
Fig. 2. Number of articles published and citations by year.
Table 3
Top publications in the DT eld.
Article # Citations
Agarwal et al. (2010) 292
Hess et al. (2016) 128
Hagberg et al. (2016) 118
Vial (2019) 109
Kathan, Matzler, and Veider (2016) 105
Bogers, Chesbrough, and Moedas (2018) 97
Karimi and Walter (2015) 85
Singh and Hess (2017) 82
Hinings et al. (2018) 77
Sebastian et al. (2017) 76
Trantopoulos, Von Krogh, Wallin, and Woerter (2017) 76
Table 4
List of countries with the largest number of articles
on DT.
Country # Articles
Germany 55
USA 47
Italy 40
UK 32
Sweden 17
Canada 13
France 13
Denmark 12
Finland 12
Austria 9
Netherlands 9
Spain 9
Switzerland 9
S. Kraus et al.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
6
authors from Germany with authors from the UK.
4.2. Analysis of keywords
Fig. 3 shows the frequently occurring words in the titles and in the
author keywords of the articles studied, which in turn indicate a the-
matic focus in these works. More precisely, Fig. 3 (I) demonstrates the
high-frequency words in the titles of the papers covered. The most
popular words in the titles are “digital”, “transformation”, “process”,
“business”, “innovation”, “performance”, and “value”. On the other
hand, Fig. 3 (I) shows the most popular keywords of the selected papers,
which are “dynamic capabilities”, “big data”, “entrepreneurship”,
“value co-creation”, “business model”, “industry 4.0”, “competitive
advantage”, “value creation”, “change management”, “behavior”, and
“strategy”. When the results are brought together, it can be concluded
that “dynamic capabilities”, “business model”, “value creation”, “big
data”, “Industry 4.0”, and “change management” are the most dominant
themes in the selected research articles regarding research on DT in the
areas of business and management.
To strengthen these ndings, and learn more about possible research
trends over time, the authors performed an analysis of the keywords
frequently used between 2017 and 2020. It was only possible to do this
analysis from 2017 onwards because previous years had no keywords
co-occurring in two or more articles. Moreover, the keywords initially
introduced in the research were not included in the analysis.
The results of the analysis are summarized in Fig. 4. As seen, in 2017,
the most frequently used keywords were Industry 4.0 and digitization,
with two articles each out of seven total articles. Although Industry 4.0 is
part of digitalization, DT goes far beyond Industry 4.0, and includes
transforming physical products into digital services, recommendations
to consumers about social media, and the incorporation of digital de-
vices in the purchase process (see Table 1). In 2018, the keywords
innovation, strategy, and big data headed the list of the most frequently
used keywords, with two articles each out of 16 articles.
As shown in Fig. 3, 2019 was the year in which a substantial increase
in publications on DT occurred. Not surprisingly, the topics being
studied became more diverse. Prominent keywords in 2019 were dy-
namic capabilities and strategy (with six articles each out of 63 total
articles), Industry 4.0 and value co-creation (with ve articles each out
of 63 total articles), value creation and big data (with four articles each
out of 63 total articles), and change management and business model
(with three articles each out of 63 total articles). This trend continued in
2020, with the most frequent keywords being dynamic capabilities
(seven articles out of 113 total articles), followed by the keywords
strategy (six articles out of 113 total articles), Industry 4.0, business
model, and big data (ve articles out of 113 total articles), articial
intelligence and value creation (four articles out of 113 total articles),
and change management and value co-creation (four articles out of 113
total articles).
Looking at the development over the years, dominant themes and
focal points of interest become clear, particularly in the areas of strategy,
change management, and big data.
4.3. Analysis of co-occurring words
To deepen the analysis further, the authors created a network dia-
gram using co-occurring words of the keywords used in the articles
studied. Keywords were used with at least two co-occurrences. Using
cluster analysis, seven clusters were determined, revealing closely
associated keywords. Each cluster was given a unique color to demon-
strate the themes contained by the co-occurring words. Fig. 5 shows this
network of keywords obtained based on the data from the co-occurrence
matrix of keywords. The network diagram highlights the co-occurring
clusters of the keywords, suggesting seven thematic clusters.
To label each cluster, a content analysis of the articles related to
keywords was carried out using Vial’s building blocks of the DT process
(Vial, 2019) which functioned as an objective lens for this activity. Based
on the analysis of the network diagram, and an interpretation of each
cluster and its structure, ve thematic areas could be determined: (1)
structural changes and changes in value creation, (2) use of digital
technologies, (3) dynamic capabilities, (4) strategic response, and (5)
consumer behavior.
5. Dominant themes in DT literature relating to business and
management
This section provides an overview of the main thematic elds which
were identied based on the articles selected; this follows the steps
presented above. The presentation is structured around the ve thematic
areas identied in Section 4.3.
5.1. Structural changes and changes in value creation
Cluster 1’s papers are primarily concerned with the necessary
changes DT entails at different levels (i.e., organizational, sector, and
industry levels). Agarwal et al. (2010) analyzed the digitization of
Fig. 3. (I) Word cloud of the titles. (II) Word cloud of the keywords of the selected papers.
S. Kraus et al.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
7
healthcare systems, the impact on quality, and reduced costs in
healthcare, as well as the challenges of DT in this industry. Bogers et al.
(2018) combined DT and openness to discuss possible business and
economic development effects, while Chanias et al. (2019) argued that
DT changes business operations, products, and processes, which in some
cases leads to completely new business models. Burton-Jones et al.
(2020) explored how institutional theory offers a lens for understanding
the complexities of evaluating DT in healthcare. Cozzolino, Verona, and
Rothaermel (2018) examined the drivers and impeding factors of busi-
ness model adaptation, how incumbents change their strategies to cope
with different components of the process, and how a closed business
model can be renewed to develop an open, platform-based business
model to seize external opportunities.
Di Gregorio, Maggioni, Mauri, and Mazzucchelli (2019) researched
how digital transformation has disrupted the marketing career path by
analyzing the most in-demand marketing skills, and identifying oppor-
tunities for future marketing professionals. Diller, Asen, and Spath
(2020) explored the psychological factors and the relationship between
tax consultants’ big-ve personality traits and their level of digitization.
Kohtamaki, Parida, Oghazi, Gebauer, and Baines (2019) veried the
direct and interaction effects of product uncertainty and product price
on online consumers’ purchase decisions. Baiyere, Salmela, and Tapa-
nainen (2020) re-thought the dominant business process management
logic, proposing new logics that the authors conceptualize as light touch
processes (process), infrastructural exibility (infrastructure), and
mindful actors (agency). Aibinu and Papadonikolaki (2020) explored
why and how the distribution of effort spent on various tasks over the
project life cycle can be used as a metric for assessing and improving the
performance of building information modeling implementation. Baber,
Ojala, and Martinez (2019) studied how digital business models evolve
when entrepreneurs move to new digital platforms, and how this evo-
lution is related to effectuation and causation logics.
Baptista, Stein, Klein, Watson-Manheim, and Lee (2020) evaluated
the challenges for companies when dealing with organizational changes
Fig. 4. Overview of the most frequently used keywords between 2017 to 2020.
S. Kraus et al.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
8
derived from DT, particularly workplace technologies. Bartsch, Weber,
Buettgen, and Huber (2021) reported leadership effectiveness regarding
employees’ work performance in virtual settings brought on by the
COVID-19 pandemic. Bejakovic and Mrnjavac (2020) examined the
relationship between digital skills and employment, accentuating the
importance of policy interventions for improving digital literacy. Ben-
lian and Haffke (2016) compared the facets of mutual understanding
between CEOs and CIOs and how their ability for mutual
perspective-taking affects the quality of collaboration in their partner-
ships. Bouncken et al. (2021) examined the key concepts related to
business model digitalization; they developed a conceptual matrix for
portfolio considerations of rm business model digitalization. Cennamo
and Marchesi (2020) evaluated the diffusion of digital technologies,
enabling a notable transformation in the rms’ boundaries, processes,
structures, roles, and interactions.
Chierici, Tortora, Del Giudice, and Quacquarelli (2021) researched
whether and how digital transformation, in terms of digital collabora-
tion, joint efforts with internal/external partners to achieve common
goals, and the adoption of digital tools supporting this practice, affect
social innovation capital in the context of small innovative enterprises.
Denicolai and Previtali (2020) researched the impact of precision
medicine on the business models of companies and institutions, and the
new paradigm of sustainable development for healthcare and welfare
systems at the global level. Dengler and Matthes (2018) analyzed the
impacts of digital transformation on the labor market, examining in
particular the substitution potentials of occupations in Germany. Based
on an in-depth case study of the digital transformation completed by the
largest construction machinery manufacturer in China, Du, Pan, and
Huang (2016) derived a four-phase process model of IT-enabled slack
redeployment to provide recommendations for CIOs. Eden,
Burton-Jones, Casey, and Draheim (2019) studied a large Australian
healthcare service, identied three workforce transformation practices
of exing, deepening, and revitalizing, all of which appear to facilitate
an interlinked digital/workforce transformation, and in turn help
overcome the signicant challenges involved with them.
Ekman, Thilenius, Thompson, and Whitaker (2020) applied the
theoretical perspective of embeddedness to better dene the complex-
ities of MNC digital transformation, and identify how headquarters and
Fig. 5. The network of bibliographic coupling of articles published and cluste.
S. Kraus et al.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
9
subsidiaries can navigate them. Based on institutional theory, Faik,
Barrett, and Oborn (2020) developed a model of IT and social change,
arguing that it is critical in an era of large-scale digital transformation. In
their study, Forcadell, Aracil, and Ubeda (2020) found that the combi-
nation of corporate sustainability and digitalization facilitates the
transformation of the organizational nature of banks by simultaneously
narrowing their boundaries and expanding their scope. Gfrerer, Hutter,
Fuller, and Strohle (2021) examined how digital knowledge and skills
are distributed among managers and employees, developing a frame-
work of change readiness toward digital readiness. Fischer, Imgrund,
Janiesch, and Winkelmann (2019); Fischer, Imgrund, Janiesch, and
Winkelmann (2020) examined how companies use business process
management to implement digital transformation. Using a case study
from the healthcare industry, Gray, El Sawy, Asper, and Thordarson
(2013) analyzed how IT is used to create new value for both the enter-
prise as well as the entire ecosystem. Hanelt et al. (2021) claried the
boundary conditions for investigating the phenomenon of DT from the
perspective of organizational change. Gerth and Peppard (2016)
researched the reasons why CIO leaders are derailed, and what they and
the CEO can do to avoid this.
To better understand the mechanisms by which IT enables or inhibits
the capabilities of public organizations in attaining public value, Goh
and Arenas (2020) adopted a conict resolution lens to examine how
IT-enabled capabilities mitigate their tradeoffs. Hughes and Vafeas
(2019) explored changes in agency/client value co-creation during a
period when digital transformation is having a major impact on the
marketing communications process. Jammulamadaka (2021) examined
the role of capacity building in reverse mentoring as an enabling routine
in bringing about changes in cognition and capabilities for organiza-
tional change. Using company examples and practices, Guinan, Parise,
and Langowitz (2019) described how digital leaders are using these le-
vers to propel their organizations forward in the journey toward digital
transformation. Based on two public sector organizations in which IS
and business leaders used the participatory process model, delineated by
the authors, Hansen, Kraemmergaard, and Mathiassen (2011) dened
some assumptions about IS leadership, challenging existing IT strategies
and collaboration patterns, and adapting the organization’s digitization
approach.
Kauffman, Li, and Van Heck (2010) explored the circumstances
under which value is created in business networks made possible by IT.
Latilla, Frattini, Franzo, and Chiesa (2020) studied the relationship be-
tween business model innovation and the relevant organizational
changes that can facilitate the renewal of a traditional business model.
Singh and Hess (2017) contributed to research on strategic change,
investigating the organization design parameters surrounding chief
digital ofcers and their DT activities. der Schaft, Lub, der Heijden, and
Solinger (2020) studied the effect of social interaction on the dynamics
of psychological contracting throughout the organizational change in
DT. Adopting a discovery-oriented, theories-in-use approach, Tronvoll,
Sklyar, Sorhammar, and Kowalkowski (2020) examined the strategic
organizational shifts that underpin manufacturers’ digital servitization.
Wrede, Velamuri, and Dauth (2020) explored the role and facilitating
actions of top managers in response to digital transformation.
The remaining papers assigned to this cluster mainly address the
approaches, responses, and actions taken by organizations to handle
progressive DT (e.g., Baum, Danner-Schroeder, Mueller-Seitz, & Rabl,
2020; Guy, 2019; Kane, 2019; Krishnamurthy, 2020; Roth, 2020; Rowe,
2018; Wenzel & Will, 2019), its impact on business models (e.g., Li,
2020a, 2020b; Rapaccini, Saccani, Kowalkowski, Paiola, & Adrodegari,
2020; Rossi, Festa, Devalle, & Mueller, 2020; Schallmo, Williams, &
Boardman, 2017; Steinhauser, Doblinger, & Huesig, 2020; Tekic &
Koroteev, 2019), and the required organizational conguration to in-
crease the success of DT (e.g., Hensmans, 2021; Kretschmer & Khashabi,
2020; Scholz, Czichos, Parycek, & Lampoltshammer, 2020; Schwarz-
mueller et al., 2018; vom Brocke, Schmid, Simons, & Safrudin, 2021;
Wenzel, Kraemer, Koch, & Reckwitz, 2020; Westerman, 2016;
Westerman, Soule, & Eswaran, 2019).
5.2. Use of digital technologies
Papers assigned to this cluster address how different technologies are
utilized to master DT, particularly in the contexts of B2B and Industry
4.0. Bienhaus and Haddud (2018) analyzed the role of digitization in
procurement, and its role within the area of supply chain management,
exploring potential barriers to digitizing procurement and supply
chains, as well as ways to overcome them. Bjorkdahl (2020) discussed
the digitalization efforts of a set of leading manufacturing rms, the
difculties encountered there, and how they can be handled. Caliskan,
Ozkan Ozen, and Ozturkoglu (2021) developed a framework for un-
derstanding the 7Ps in marketing based on contemporary perspectives of
Industry 4.0.
Crupi et al. (2020) aimed to know if and how European digital
innovation hubs lling the role of knowledge brokers can support the
digital transformation of small and medium-sized enterprises by trig-
gering open innovation practices. Culot, Orzes, Sartor, and Nassimbeni
(2020) reviewed academic publications and the most inuential
non-academic sources, including governmental bodies and consulting
companies, about Industry 4.0 to categorize the phenomenon and its
multiple facets. Frank, Mendes, Ayala, and Ghezzi (2019) proposed a
conceptual framework connecting servitization and Industry 4.0 while
taking a business model innovation perspective. Furr and Shipilov
(2019) showed how manufacturers successfully responded to the digital
challenge by making major changes to their manufacturing processes,
distribution channels, or business models.
Govindarajan & Immelt, 2019 explored why this is so difcult for
industrial companies in particular, sharing key insights from their deep
experience and research. Handeld (2019) developed a framework to
determine the role of technology and other shifts in the supply chain
ecosystem, as well as the value of buyers and sellers in the industrial
landscape. Hartley and Sawaya (2019) researched the three technolo-
gies poised to change supply chain business processes: robotic process
automation, articial intelligence/machine learning, and blockchains.
Horv´
ath and Szab´
o (2019) show how top executives interpret the
concept of Industry 4.0, the driving forces for introducing new tech-
nologies, and the main barriers to Industry 4.0. Kaiser and Stummer
(2020) described how the German appliance manufacturer Miele met
the DT challenge in 2016, discussing lessons learned during the four
years after the company initiated its transformation process. Szalavetz
(2019) investigated whether advanced manufacturing technologies can
modify the upgrading patterns in manufacturing subsidiaries operating
in FDI-hosting factory economies. Garzoni, De Turi, Secundo, and Del
Vecchio (2020) analyzed how digital technologies trigger changes in the
business process of small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises
(SMEs) in the Italian Apulian region.
In a holistic and structured way, Hofmann, Samp, and Urbach (2020)
proposed four traits that characterize robotic process automation,
providing orientation as well as a focus for further research. Martinez
(2019) illustrated the procedure followed by some manufactures to
introduce digital elements into their operations. Jean, Kim, Lien, and Ro
(2020) developed and tested a theoretical framework of how to manage
global supply chain relationships under digital transformation into in-
ternational customer-supplier relationships. Nasiri, Ukko, Saunila, and
Rantala (2020) investigated the approach required to achieve compet-
itive advantages in the digital supply chain, also examining how the
digital transformation of companies can fuel smart technologies, leading
to improved relationship performance. Richard, Pellerin, Bellemare, and
Perrier (2021) addressed the difculties faced by manufacturing enter-
prises, providing a project portfolio management approach supporting
the selection and prioritization of various Industry 4.0 projects where
business process analysis is used to ensure the strategic alignment and
value of the project portfolio. Sabri, Micheli, and Nuur (2018) analyzed
the impact of digital transformation and rapid dissemination of
S. Kraus et al.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
10
technological innovations along the supply chain when process and
product innovation practices are implemented.
Secundo, Rippa, and Cerchione (2020) analyzed whether the entre-
preneurship education centers introduced in Italy are effectively
adopting the emergent digital technologies for nurturing their entre-
preneurship education activities and dissemination of knowledge
contamination practices among university students. Seyedghorban,
Samson, and Tahernejad (2020) investigated how procurement can be
reinvented by going from being digitized to digitalized, to digitally in-
tegrated, and how this contributes to business in terms of supply chain
effectiveness as well as prot generation. Seepma, de Blok, and Van
Donk (2021) explored how inter-organizational ICT is used in rede-
signing public service supply chains. Shashi, Centobelli, Cerchione, and
Ertz (2020) descriptively and analytically reported how technology was
addressed within the agile supply chain literature, mapping a nomo-
logical network of agile supply chain research. Chen, Jaw, and Wu
(2016) examined the effect of a pilot implementation of an
industry-specic web portal with a B2B function on textile SMEs’
organizational performance. Amidst the COVID-19 crisis, Cortez and
Johnston (2020) analyzed the impact of DT-related management prac-
tices on the prevalence of B2B company success.
Upadhyay and Khemka (2020) investigated the moderating role of
social media use intensity on the relationship between social capital and
social identity. Sivarajah, Irani, Gupta, and Mahroof (2020) researched
the role of big data and social media analytics within a participatory web
environment in B2B organizations, which became more protable and
remained sustainable in their strategic operations and marketing related
business activities. Rahrovani (2020) showed that digitalization exposes
continuous adjustment within and across three elements of digital work:
embracing new uses of the platform at the user level, redesigning
governance policies, and tting uses with the platform logic underlying
digital work.
Inuenced by the DT of business, Taylor, Hunter, Zadeh, Delpechitre,
and Lim (2020) developed a framework of marketing interactions in B2B
that merges the evidence related to goal theory, perceived value,
resource sharing, value propositions and their communication, mar-
keting ecosystems, and the value co-creation process. Huber and G¨
artner
(2018) showed the ndings of an in-depth qualitative case study con-
ducted at a medium-sized German hospital, focusing on the hospital’s
information system with a particular emphasis on its operating room
module. Troshani, Janssen, Lymer, and Parker (2018) researched how
traditional business-to-government reporting is being eliminated, and
how digital reporting is determined to replace it in light of the chal-
lenges to reduce administrative burdens without compromising regu-
latory effectiveness.
Other authors researched the role of using technologies/datasets/
tools in DT such as big data and analytics (e.g., Battisti, Shams, Sakka, &
Miglietta, 2020; Brous & Janssen, 2020; Caputo, Cillo, Candelo, & Liu,
2019; Carrero, Krzeminska, & Hartel, 2019; Dremel, Herterich, Wulf,
Waizmann, & Brenner, 2017; Goul, 2018; Gust, Flath, Brandt, Stroehle,
& Neumann, 2017; Jackson, 2019; Kappelman, Johnson, Torres,
Maurer, & McLean, 2019; Mausson & Andersson, 2019; Nuccio &
Guerzoni, 2019; Roth, Schwede, Valentinov, Zazar, & Kaivo-oja, 2019;
Sestino, Prete, Piper, & Guido, 2020; Ylijoki & Porras, 2019), the
Internet of Things (e.g., Butschan, Heidenreich, Weber, & Kraemer,
2019; Ceipek, Hautz, De Massis, Matzler, & Ardito, 2021; Osterlie &
Monteiro, 2020; Saarikko, Westergren, & Blomquist, 2020; Sandberg,
Holmstrom, & Lyytinen, 2020), articial intelligence (e.g., Brock & von
Wangenheimz, 2019; Harwood & Eaves, 2020; Kronblad, 2020b, 2020a;
Magistretti, Dell’Era, & Petruzzelli, 2019; Rodriguez-Lluesma,
Garcia-Ruiz, & Pinto-Garay, 2021), and blockchains (e.g., Cennamo,
Dagnino et al., 2020; Li, 2020a; Milian, Spinola, & Carvalho, 2019;
Riasanow, Jaentgen, Hermes, Boehm, & Krcmar, 2020).
5.3. Dynamic capabilities
This cluster contains papers that aim to develop the link between
dynamic capabilities and DT, particularly from a theoretical point of
view. Based on dynamic capabilities and digital innovation literature,
Dong (2019) conducted an in-depth longitudinal study involving Dutch
digital entrepreneurship. Endres, Helm, and Dowling (2020) derived key
market knowledge sourcing determinants of the sensing capability of
industrial rms in general, linking them with market dynamism and
revenue growth. Karimi and Walter (2015) focused on the impact of the
dynamics between routines and dynamic capabilities when adopting
new technologies. Liu et al. (2011) developed a framework that provides
a theoretical advancement of the resource t literature that includes four
dimensions: external resource t, internal resource t, external capa-
bility t, and internal capability t.
Michaelis, Rogbeer, Schweizer, and Oezleblebici (2021) extended
dynamic capabilities research by examining the underlying and funda-
mental concepts of capabilities, resource allocation, fungibility, and
environmental change concerning value creation and appropriation in
DT environments. Drawing on the literature on dynamic capabilities and
digital transformation, Sousa-Zomer, Neely, and Martinez (2020)
conceptualized and investigated the relevant antecedents of the essen-
tial digital transforming capability and its effect on rm performance.
Pelletier and Cloutier (2019) studied a particular group conceptualiza-
tion, relating perceptions of IT issues within a service ecosystem that
includes three subgroup proles: entrepreneurs, IT professionals, and
socioeconomic support professionals.
Trantopoulos et al. (2017) aimed to show the joint role of searching
external knowledge sources and IT for improving knowledge absorption
on process innovation performance, while Vial (2019) proposed dy-
namic capabilities as a theoretical foundation for studying mechanisms
that enable rms to engage with DT to enable strategic renewal. Wies-
boeck, Hess, and Spanjol (2020) researched the role of IT capabilities in
the specic context of digital product and service innovations. Warner
and W¨
ager (2019) developed a process model comprised of nine
micro-foundations to reveal the generic contingency factors that trigger,
enable, and hinder the building of dynamic capabilities for DT.
5.4. Consumer behavior
These papers encompass contributions to research on DT that high-
light what should be done in B2C contexts. Bassano, Gaeta, Piciocchi,
and Spohrer (2017) developed a model of customer behavior that ex-
plains the impact factor on the consumer-purchasing process generated
by a new mode of creating information and technology-based commu-
nication. Fritze, Eisingerich, and Benkenstein (2019) conducted one
quasi-experimental eld study and one scenario-based online experi-
ment to examine the endowment effect of digital services, and whether
consumers form instantaneous possession attachment in electronic
commerce. Hagberg et al. (2016) analyzed the digitalization of retailing
by developing a conceptual framework that can be used to further
delineate current transformations of the retailer-consumer interface.
Hinings et al. (2018) suggest an institutional perspective as a promising
lens for studying both digital innovation and transformation. Hansen
and Sia (2015) researched how a European sports fashion company
overcame the challenges posted by DT and successfully transitioned
toward omnichannel retailing. Hazee et al. (2020) researched the bar-
riers perceived by both customers and peer service providers of smart
mobile devices and mobile applications.
Using a game theory model, Jiang and Katsamakas (2010) examined
how the entry of an e-book seller affects strategic interaction in book
markets, and impacts sellers and consumers. Jocevski, Ghezzi, and
Arvidsson (2020) studied how mobile payment providers engaged in the
innovation of their business models, identifying three pertinent aspects:
rethinking the relationship management with retailers, creating part-
nerships with other actors in the payment ecosystem to complement and
S. Kraus et al.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
11
deliver the proposed value, and integrating and using front-end mobile
technology. Gurhan-Canli, Sarial-Abi, and Hayran (2018) organized and
synthesized the growing literature on branding, culture, and globaliza-
tion related to DT from a behavioral perspective. Gregory, Kaganer,
Henfridsson, and Ruch (2018) found that the widespread adoption of
digital technology in everyday life leads to everyone’s IT, a new set of
shared beliefs among consumers that highlights democratized access
and individualized use of IT. Huarng, Bresciani, and Ferraris (2020)
proposed a model for experiential interaction design with a business
purpose covering a series of interactive activities. Kamalaldin, Linde,
Sjodin, and Parida (2020) applied the relational view theory to a study
of four provider-customer relationships engaged in digital servitization.
Kathan et al. (2016) examined why the sharing economy has the
potential to produce a long-term transformation in consumption
behavior, followed by a consideration of how this change might affect
companies’ business models. Morath and Münster (2018) studied the
platform design in online markets in which buying involves a
(non-monetary) cost for consumers caused by privacy and security
concerns. Reinartz, Wiegand, and Imschloss (2019) analyzed how digi-
tization initiated the decline of institutional retailing as the primary
interface with customers. Santos, Louca, and Coelho (2019) examined
the relationship between social media and traditional media, offering
recommendations to address the societal challenges posed by the
transformation of media environments. Savastano, Bellini, D’Ascenzo,
and De Marco (2019) explored whether the kind of technology storage
positively affects the customer experience in an omnichannel retail
environment, and if the early adoption of in-store technology by re-
tailers produces a sustainable competitive advantage. Scuotto, Arrigo,
Candelo, and Nicotra (2020) analyzed the role of the use of social media
platforms in ambidextrous innovation orientation at Italian fashion
companies. Concerning ongoing digital transformation, Steininger and
Gatzemeier (2019) drew on the literature on hedonic and experiential
goods to investigate the relationship between crowd evaluations based
on listening experiences and popular music chart success.
Compared with the papers assigned to the “Use of digital technolo-
gies” cluster which predominantly covers papers conducted in B2B and/
or Industry 4.0 contexts, it can be concluded that in its earlier years, the
study of DT had a primary focus on B2C, while more recently, the focus
has shifted to studying the impact of DT on B2B. This development has
certainly been supported by the emphasis placed in recent years on In-
dustry 4.0, both in academia and by the public (as also indicated in
Fig. 3).
5.5. Strategic responses
This last cluster contains papers that study digital businesses and DT
strategies. Al-Busaidi and Al-Muharrami (2021) provided an integrated
assessment that enables nancial institutions to develop their strategies
and assessments in terms of ICT investments, and go beyond typical,
tangible nancial protability indicators. Bohnsack and Liesner (2019)
provided a growth hacking framework, deconstructing its building
blocks: marketing, data analysis, coding, and the lean startup
philosophy.
Del Giudice, Scuotto, Garcia-Perez, and Petruzzelli (2019) evaluated
the convergence of technology upgrading such as virtual reality,
augmented reality, and digital and social networking platforms, as well
as new strategies and solutions for small and medium-sized enterprises.
Depaoli, Za, and Scornavacca (2020) produced a holistic, non-linear
e-business development model for SMEs that takes into account the in-
teractions of an organization in the pursuit of its business objectives.
Echterfeld and Gausmeier (2018) presented a methodology for rms to
strategically align their product portfolio with digitization, strengthen
their market position, and remain competitive. Ferreira, Fernandes, and
Ferreira (2019) showed in their study that there is a link between the
proles of entrepreneurs and managers, the adoption of new digital
processes, and increased competitiveness.
Galindo-Martin, Castano-Martinez, and Mendez-Picazo (2019)
analyzed the theoretical and quantitative effects of DT and digital div-
idends on entrepreneurial activity. Gastaldi, Appio, Corso, and Pistorio
(2018) analyzed how digital technologies can help healthcare organi-
zations, and improve the exploration-exploitation paradox over time.
Guenzi and Habel (2020) presented a model for in-depth analysis of
sales processes, goals for each process in terms of effectiveness and ef-
ciency, and a structured set of digital responses. He, Meadows, Ang-
win, Gomes, and Child (2020) aimed to stimulate multidisciplinary
debate and theoretical reections to better understand emerging para-
doxes and challenges that contemporary rms face in the formation,
evolution, and dissolution of strategic alliances. Kohli and Johnson
(2011) studied who should lead the DT effort, as well as the role of the
chief information ofcer in executing a digital strategy. Nambisan,
Wright, and Feldman (2019) researched the signicant impact of digital
technologies, platforms, and infrastructures on innovation and entre-
preneurship at different levels, and in varying countries, industries, and
companies. Regarding barriers, a lacking ability to aggregate and
interpret the data linked with the digital agricultural revolution and
missing data-driven strategies were stressed.
North, Aramburu, and Jose Lorenzo (2020) guided SMEs to sense and
seize digitally-enabled growth opportunities, and start a project-based
learning process to transform the organization to remain competitive
in turbulent environments. Schaarschmidt and Bertram (2020)
researched the level of strategic organizational investments in emergent
and innovative digital technologies that lead to felt obligations towards
the employer, and to constructive process deviance as a result.
Correani, De Massis, Frattini, Petruzzelli, and Natalicchio (2020),
Gurbaxani and Dunkle (2019), Hess et al. (2016), McGrath and McMa-
nus (2020), Rane, Narvel, and Bhandarkar (2019), Schallmo et al.
(2019); Schallmo, Williams, Boardman et al. (2019), Sebastian et al.
(2017), and Teubner and Stockhinger (2020) developed integrated ap-
proaches for digital strategies, while Wang, Mahmood, Sismeiro, and
Vulkan (2019) analyzed whether DT strategy could improve organiza-
tional performance, providing a comprehensive analysis of the necessity
of implementing digital transformation in companies. Wiesboeck and
Hess (2020) merged prevailing work on digital innovations into a
technology-driven linking framework of digital innovations and their
embedding in organizations.
6. Discussion
6.1. Theoretical contributions
Fig. 6 was developed to provide a synergistic view of existing
research on DT in the areas of business and management, and thus bring
together the ndings presented in Sections 4 and 5 (Sections 4.2, 4.3,
and 5 in particular). The framework proposed delivers a synthesized
answer to the second research question: (ii) What themes have been
studied in the extant business and management literature concerning
digital transformation?
The framework can be read as follows. Research focusing on digital
transformation in business and management is driven by work that takes
an internal perspective, i.e. a resource-based view, as well as an external
perspective, i.e. one of structural change, and a change in the way value
is/can be created as a result. With the former, existing research has
addressed the role of strategy, dynamic capabilities, and the use of big
data to in particular successfully tackle digital transformation in com-
panies. For the second aspect, extensive work in the eld has dealt with
different questions regarding structural change and its consequences at
different levels. Against the background of the possible (and actual)
consequences of change (DT) for companies, entire industries, and sec-
tors, it is not surprising that a large number of the published contribu-
tions deal with alternative or new forms of value creation. Research
regarding both perspectives was presented in Section 4, while the evo-
lution of keywords, as depicted in Fig. 3, has illustrated this emphasis in
S. Kraus et al.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
12
existing research in recent years.
The activities regarding the structuring of current research further
indicate that the aforementioned two perspectives have been/can be
studied in depth within the contexts of B2B or B2C; both are inuenced
by internal as well as external inuences. However, existing research
suggests that work in the B2B context is predominantly concerned with
the use of new digital technologies to improve or enable entirely new
products, processes, procedures, etc. in an organization. The research
also suggests that the use of new digital technologies in the B2B context
is a key factor in the development of new products, processes, and
procedures. B2C work on the other hand has more of an external
(customer) perspective, and is interested in how collaboration and re-
lationships with customers can be improved/will change as a result of
DT developments. It from this could perhaps be concluded that some
researchers focus on technology (B2B), while others focus on people
(B2C). The papers covered in this study and presented in Section 4
indicate as much, with the framework reecting this as well.
To the knowledge of the authors, this paper is the rst to address the
topic of DT from an evolutionary perspective focusing on the areas of
business and management. It exceeds the scope of the existing literature
that so far has been limited to certain domains (see Hofacker et al., 2020
or Li, 2020b). The framework proposed is viewed as a solid basis for
further discussion, criticism, and support. As the fast pace of DT is likely
to support rapid change in general, and the two areas of business and
management in particular, the themes identied and highlighted in the
framework can also serve as a basis for additional future research.
The ndings presented in this paper show the growing number of
publications dedicated to DT in the elds of business and management.
Focusing on publications between 2010 and 2020, the authors found
only few publications in the period between 2010 and 2015. A signi-
cant increase in publications started in 2018. The transition from 2018
to 2019 appears to have been the moment when research on DT took off,
and has continued since then. Research on the topic in the two areas
covered appears particularly advanced in and driven by developed
countries, particularly Germany, the USA, Italy, and the UK. Researchers
in these countries also appear to prefer to work with one another,
probably because of the existing expertize in researching DT in the two
areas, driving further work on the rst research question that focuses on
the evolution of the topic in the areas of business and management. Even
though DT as a research eld in the two areas is still in its infancy, the
evidence provided does in fact show several recently published articles
in ABS ≥2 stars journals from 2016 onwards, which have been cited 100
times or more.
The second research question posed was interested in determining
the themes that have been studied in the two areas regarding DT. The
results very nicely show that with the increase in publications, and over
time, the topics themselves have become more diverse. While in 2017
and 2018 only two/four topics dominated, the keyword analysis for
2019 and 2020 suggested not only new issues, but an apparently
stronger focus in terms of emphasis as well. The ndings also indicate
that “Industry 4.0” is a dominant topic of interest regarding DT in the
areas of business and management (it was studied in all the years
covered in the keyword analysis but one: 2018). The topics “big data”,
“strategy”, and “change management” comprised the list of the most
frequently mentioned keywords in the articles studied since 2018. The
driving keywords of 2019 and 2020 appear very closely linked to other
prominent topics in the areas of business and management such as dy-
namic capabilities, business model innovation, or value creation. In
Fig. 6. Framework relating DT to the areas of business and management.
S. Kraus et al.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
13
addition to the keyword analysis, and to develop a more in-depth un-
derstanding of the thematic evolution of research on DT in the two areas
examined, the authors of this paper utilized further analyses which ul-
timately led to ve dominant themes.
These ndings were synthesized in Fig. 6, presenting a framework
that displays thematic research areas, ranging from studies aimed at
theoretically, conceptually, and empirically developing research on DT
in the two areas. Exiting research covers studies that highlight the
structural changes required at different levels in companies, sectors, and
industries to be prepared for DT. Given the structural changes required
by DT, extant studies also address the impact and consequences of DT
internally (i.e., change in business models or organizational congura-
tions, or the need for developing certain DT-related dynamic capabil-
ities) and externally (i.e., the need for new forms of collaborations with
customers due to changes in behavior). Researchers are interested in
studying DT within the contexts of B2C and B2B. The ndings indicate
that research has moved from a focus on B2C to B2B, suggesting further
specialization of DT research in the two areas. From 2019 onwards, a
particular interest has been the exploration of dynamic capabilities in
the context of DT. These are seen as key capabilities, not only in terms of
being ready for DT, but also able to exploit its potential. Finally, and also
unsurprisingly, research on DT highlights the relevance of strategic re-
sponses for increasing the success of the change process in a company.
It can be concluded that this paper has developed and presented a
detailed and comprehensive overview of current accomplishments in DT
research in the areas of business and management published in ABS ≥2
stars journals between 2010 and 2020, and has outlined the eld’s
thematic evolution during the time frame covered. The proposed
framework brings together and links relevant and recent research ave-
nues regarding DT in the areas of business and management. Its focus on
the business and management literature in this study has broadened the
limited perspective taken by other recent reviews.
6.2. Implications for practice
The ndings of this study provide useful information to practitioners
(e.g., entrepreneurs and managers) for understanding both the oppor-
tunities and challenges arising from DT – not only on the individual rm
level, but on the interrm level as well. This improved understanding
can also be crucial in terms of relationships with relevant stakeholders
such as customers, suppliers, and business partners, most notably when
considering that DT leads to structural changes which call for even more
collaboration between different actors to increase the likelihood of
beneting from DT. This improved understanding is also relevant for
preparing companies internally, helping place them in a better position
to cope with DT and its effects on the business and its operations.
Simultaneous investments are necessary here in the areas of education,
training company employees, and digital infrastructure.
Policymakers too may also nd the contributions of this paper useful,
especially in how they provide a ne-grained understanding of the
connectivity between DT taking place at different levels and in different
contexts, i.e. the rm level or sector/industry levels, and B2B and B2C.
Considering that DT means change, and structural change in particular,
the ndings presented in this paper can be seen as relevant inputs for
guiding the success of this change process. This understanding, com-
bined with the need for developing specic dynamic capabilities and
having dedicated responses in place in the form of DT strategies, can
help policymakers design and implement more informed policies aimed
at sustainable DT that benets a wide variety of actors.
Education and training are also signicant for DT change. The
themes identied in this study that relate to it can be considered sound
starting points for adapting or revising DT education in the elds of
business and management in an evidence-based way. The results pro-
vide relevant information for subjects such as strategic management,
marketing, consumer behavior, innovation management, and supply
chain management, as well as human resource management or digital
business development.
7. Conclusion
Despite recent developments, research on the topic of DT is still in an
early stage. The present paper has mapped the thematic evaluation of
research on DT in the areas of business and management. It not only
highlights the top authors and countries that have contributed to the
development of the topic so far, but also outlines the journals with the
highest number of articles that have focused on DT in the two areas
examined. To achieve the overall aim of this paper, different methodo-
logical and analytical procedures were utilized to determine the domi-
nating themes during the period 2010–2020. Using the Web of Science
database, and including articles published in ABS journals with a rating
of two stars 2 or higher gathered and provided detailed information on
the high-quality work being done on the topic of DT.
The ndings of different analytical phases were connected to and
synthesized in a framework highlighting the current research themes
regarding DT in the areas of business and management, showing where
the body of knowledge has primarily been developed so far.
Like any research, the present study has its limitations. The research
approach chosen did not permit the inclusion of all research available on
DT in the areas of business and management. Consequently, the results
presented show the eld’s status quo at a specic moment in time. In
other words, the analysis is backward-oriented (Vallaster et al., 2019).
Moreover, and as a consequence of the methodology utilized in this
study, the identied articles themselves do not provide any information
about the context in which their respective research was carried out. It
therefore remains unclear whether the articles were cited with positive
or negative intentions. Additionally, the focus on the areas of business
and management also means that insight from only very specic
research areas could be provided. Efforts in other areas (including
related ones) with regards to the topic of DT were not considered, even
though they could be useful for complementing and advancing our un-
derstanding of this topic’s evolution over time.
As shown in this study, even though research on DT in the areas of
business and management has gained in interest recently (and from
2019 onwards in particular), this research eld remains fragmented,
entailing certain limitations which in turn open up several areas for
future research.
In the process of creating a more systematic understanding of DT in
the two areas, several topics appear promising and relevant for devel-
oping a completer, more integrative picture of the various aspects of DT.
To begin with, more research is needed that aims at developing a uni-
versal denition of the term DT from the perspective of business and
management. This is key, especially when considering how it un-
derscores the contributions of the topic not only to the two areas, but
also as DT research strives for a better understanding of the contribu-
tions from these areas to its overall study, involving different elds of
research and disciplines. There is also a need for more research that
studies DT and its consequences for different types of organizations and
industries. For example, it would be interesting to study whether and
how DT can support smaller companies in coping with their vulnera-
bility due to smallness. Future research may also study suitable strategic
responses for addressing DT in start-ups or more mature rms. Consid-
ering the role of dynamic capabilities in conjunction with DT, future
research could aim to discover the hindering and supportive internal and
external factors that different organizations face when developing dy-
namic DT capabilities. In addition to capabilities and strategies, DT
depends on the availability and use of digital technologies. Given the
current state of research, it appears relevant to initiate more research
aimed at studying the impact of certain technologies for realizing and
supporting different DT-related efforts, e.g. improving processes, oper-
ations, or business models. Research designs that address different
contexts such as B2B or B2C could further help advance our under-
standing of the role of these technologies for achieving DT-related
S. Kraus et al.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
14
purposes. It would also be interesting to investigate what research on DT
from a B2B context could learn from research on DT from a B2C context,
and vice versa, particularly in light of how existing research suggests
that different focal points are set in these “technology versus people”
contexts.
Regarding different industries and their approaches to DT, future
research should also investigate the consequences of progressive DT not
only in more (i.e. a variety of) industries, but also within different in-
dustries to develop a more ne-grained understanding. From this, more
specic solutions could be proposed. Considering the direct and indirect
costs related to DT (e.g., developing new and different dynamic capa-
bilities), it appears there is also a need for research aimed at developing
the qualitative and quantitative measures companies could use to assess
the success of their DT efforts. These could be crucial for smaller com-
panies in particular.
On a higher level, there appears to be a need for wider perspectives
regarding the study of DT (Kar et al., 2019; Parviainen et al., 2017). So
future research considering DT as an initiator of fundamental paradigm
shifts that go beyond the benets of the individual company to focus on
societal impacts appears to be very relevant as well. Against the back-
ground of the expected potentials of DT for improving not only indi-
vidual companies, but entire sectors and industries, and thus their
respective home countries, there is a clear need for research on DT
conducted in developing or less-developed countries which could
perhaps contribute to ideas promoting the prosperity of these nations.
Given the expertise developed to date regarding DT in advanced coun-
tries, collaborative research projects appear promising here.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sascha Kraus: Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing −
original draft. Susanne Durst: Writing −original draft, Writing −re-
view & editing. Jo˜
ao J. Ferreira: Methodology, Writing −review &
editing. Pedro Veiga: Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis.
Norbert Kailer: Supervision, Writing −review & editing. Alexandra
Weinmann: Conceptualization, Methodology.
References
Agarwal, R., Gao, G., (Gordon), DesRoches, C., & Jha, A. K. (2010). The digital
transformation of healthcare: current status and the road ahead. Information and
Organization, 21(4), 796–809. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0327
Aibinu, A. A., & Papadonikolaki, E. (2020). Conceptualizing and operationalizing team
task interdependences: BIM implementation assessment using effort distribution
analytics. Construction Management and Economics, 38(5), 420–446. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01446193.2019.1623409
Al-Busaidi, K. A., & Al-Muharrami, S. (2021). Beyond protability: ICT investments and
nancial institutions performance measures in developing economies. Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, 34(3), 900–921. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-
09-2019-0250
Andriole, S. J. (2017). Five myths about digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 58(3), 20–22.
Baber, W. W., Ojala, A., & Martinez, R. (2019). Effectuation logic in digital business
model transformation Insights from Japanese high-tech innovators. Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, 26(6/7), 811–830. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JSBED-04-2019-0139
Baiyere, A., Salmela, H., & Tapanainen, T. (2020). Digital transformation and the new
logics of business process management. European Journal of Information Systems, 29
(3), 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1718007
Baptista, J., Stein, M.-K., Klein, S., Watson-Manheim, M. B., & Lee, J. (2020). Digital
work and organisational transformation: Emergent Digital/Human work
congurations in modern organisations. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 29
(2), Article 101618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2020.101618
Barrett, A. K., & Stephens, K. K. (2016). The pivotal role of change appropriation in the
implementation of health care technology. Management Communication Quarterly, 31
(2), 163–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318916682872
Bartsch, S., Weber, E., Buettgen, M., & Huber, A. (2021). Leadership matters in crisis-
induced digital transformation: how to lead service employees effectively during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Service Management, 32(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0160
Bassano, C., Gaeta, M., Piciocchi, P., & Spohrer, J. C. (2017). Learning the models of
customer behavior: from television advertising to online marketing. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 21(4), 572–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10864415.2016.1355654
Battisti, E., Shams, S. M. R., Sakka, G., & Miglietta, N. (2020). Big data and risk
management in business processes: implications for corporate real estate. Business
Process Management Journal, 26(5), 1141–1155. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-03-
2019-0125
Baum, M., Danner-Schroeder, A., Mueller-Seitz, G., & Rabl, T. (2020). Organisational
emergence - interdisciplinary perspectives against the backdrop of the digital
transformation. Management Revue, 31(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-
9915-2020-1-31
Bejakovic, P., & Mrnjavac, Z. (2020). The importance of digital literacy on the labour
market. Employee Relations, 42(4), 921–932. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-07-2019-
0274
Benjamin, K., & Potts, H. W. W. (2018). Digital transformation in government: Lessons
for digital health? Digital Health, 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207618759168
Benlian, A., & Haffke, I. (2016). Does mutuality matter? Examining the bilateral nature
and effects of CEO-CIO mutual understanding. Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 25(2), 104–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2016.01.001
Bienhaus, F., & Haddud, A. (2018). Procurement 4.0: factors inuencing the digitisation
of procurement and supply chains. Business Process Management Journal, 24(4),
965–984. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2017-0139
Bjorkdahl, J. (2020). Strategies for digitalization in manufacturing rms. California
Management Review, 62(4), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125620920349
Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., & Moedas, C. (2018). Open innovation: Research, practices,
and policies. California Management Review, 60(2), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0008125617745086
Bohnsack, R., & Liesner, M. M. (2019). What the hack? A growth hacking taxonomy and
practical applications for rms. Business Horizons, 62(6), 799–818. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bushor.2019.09.001
Bondar, S., Hsu, J. C., Pfouga, A., & Stjepandi´
c, J. (2017). Agile digital transformation of
System-of-Systems architecture models using Zachman framework. Journal of
Industrial Information Integration, 7, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jii.2017.03.001
Bouncken, R. B., Kraus, S., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2021). Knowledge- and innovation-based
business models for future growth: digitalized business models and portfolio
considerations. Review of Managerial Science, 15(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11846-019-00366-z
Brock, J. K.-U., & von Wangenheimz, F. (2019). Demystifying AI: what digital
transformation leaders can teach you about realistic articial intelligence. California
Management Review, 61(4), 110–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504219865226
Brous, P., & Janssen, M. (2020). Trusted decision-making: data governance for creating
trust in data science decision outcomes. Administrative Sciences, 10(4), 81. https://
doi.org/10.3390/admsci10040081
Burton-Jones, A., Akhlaghpour, S., Ayre, S., Barde, P., Staib, A., & Sullivan, C. (2020).
Changing the conversation on evaluating digital transformation in healthcare:
Insights from an institutional analysis. Information and Organization, 30(1), Article
100255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.100255
Butschan, J., Heidenreich, S., Weber, B., & Kraemer, T. (2019). Tackling hurdles to
digital transformation - the role of competencies for successful Industrial Internet of
Things (IIoT) implementation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(4),
Article 1950036. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919619500361
Caliskan, A., Ozkan Ozen, Y. D., & Ozturkoglu, Y. (2021). Digital transformation of
traditional marketing business model in new industry era. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 34(4), 1252–1273. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-02-
2020-0084
Cambrosio, A., Limoges, C., Courtial, J., & Laville, F. (1993). Historical scientometrics?
Mapping over 70 years of biological safety research with coword analysis.
Scientometrics, 27(2), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02016546
Caputo, F., Cillo, V., Candelo, E., & Liu, Y. (2019). Innovating through digital revolution:
The role of soft skills and Big Data in increasing rm performance. Management
Decision, 57(8), 2032–2051. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2018-0833
Carr, N. G. (2003). IT doesn’t matter. Educause Review, 38, 24–38.
Carrero, J., Krzeminska, A., & Hartel, C. E. J. (2019). The DXC technology work
experience program: disability-inclusive recruitment and selection in action. Journal
of Management & Organization, 25(4), 535–542. https://doi.org/10.1017/
jmo.2019.23
Ceipek, R., Hautz, J., De Massis, A., Matzler, K., & Ardito, L. (2021). Digital
Transformation Through Exploratory and Exploitative Internet of Things
Innovations: The Impact of Family Management and Technological Diversication.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(1), 142–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jpim.12551
Cennamo, C., Dagnino, G. B., Di Minin, A., & Lanzolla, G. (2020). Managing Digital
Transformation: Scope of Transformation and Modalities of Value Co-Generation
and Delivery. California Management Review, 62(4), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0008125620942136
Cennamo, C., Marchesi, C., & Meyer, T. (2020). Two sides of the same coin?
Decentralized versus proprietary blockchains and the performance of digital
currencies. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(3), 382–405. https://doi.org/
10.5465/amd.2019.0044
Chanias, S., Myers, M. D., & Hess, T. (2019). Digital transformation strategy making in
pre-digital organizations: The case of a nancial services provider. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 28(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsis.2018.11.003
Chen, Y.-Y. K., Jaw, Y.-L., & Wu, B.-L. (2016). Effect of digital transformation on
organisational performance of SMEs: Evidence from the Taiwanese textile industry’s
web portal. Internet Research, 26(1), 186–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-
2013-0265
S. Kraus et al.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
15
Chierici, R., Tortora, D., Del Giudice, M., & Quacquarelli, B. (2021). Strengthening digital
collaboration to enhance social innovation capital: an analysis of Italian small
innovative enterprises. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(3), 610–632. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JIC-02-2020-0058
Correani, A., De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Natalicchio, A. (2020).
Implementing a Digital Strategy: Learning from the Experience of Three Digital
Transformation Projects. California Management Review, 62(4), 37–56. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0008125620934864
Cortez, R. M., & Johnston, W. J. (2020). The Coronavirus crisis in B2B settings: Crisis
uniqueness and managerial implications based on social exchange theory. Industrial
Marketing Management, 88, 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2020.05.004
Cozzolino, A., Verona, G., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2018). Unpacking the Disruption Process:
New Technology, Business Models, and Incumbent Adaptation. Journal of
Management Studies, 55(7), 1166–1202. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12352
Crupi, A., Del Sarto, N., Di Minin, A., Gregori, G. L., Lepore, D., Marinelli, L., &
Spigarelli, F. (2020). The digital transformation of SMEs - a new knowledge broker
called the digital innovation hub. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(6),
1263–1288. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2019-0623
Cukusic, M. (2021). Contributing to the current research agenda in digital transformation
in the context of smart cities. International Journal of Information Management, 58,
Article 102330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102330
Culot, G., Orzes, G., Sartor, M., & Nassimbeni, G. (2020). The future of manufacturing: A
Delphi-based scenario analysis on Industry 4.0. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 157, Article 120092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120092
Del Giudice, M., Scuotto, V., Garcia-Perez, A., & Petruzzelli, A. M. (2019). Shifting
Wealth II in Chinese economy. The effect of the horizontal technology spillover for
SMEs for international growth. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145,
307–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.03.013
Deline, M. B. (2018). Framing resistance: identifying frames that guide resistance
interpretations at work. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(1), 39–67. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0893318918793731
Dengler, K., & Matthes, B. (2018). The impacts of digital transformation on the labour
market: Substitution potentials of occupations in Germany. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 137, 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.024
Denicolai, S., & Previtali, P. (2020). Precision Medicine: Implications for value chains
and business models in life sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151,
Article 119767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119767
Depaoli, P., Za, S., & Scornavacca, E. (2020). A model for digital development of an
interaction-based approach. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27
(7), 1049–1068. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-06-2020-0219
der Schaft, A., Lub, X., der Heijden, B., & Solinger, O. N. (2020). The inuence of social
interaction on the dynamics of employees’ psychological contracting in digitally
transforming organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
29(2), 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1656284
Di Gregorio, A., Maggioni, I., Mauri, C., & Mazzucchelli, A. (2019). Employability skills
for future marketing professionals. European Management Journal, 37(3), 251–258.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.004
Diller, M., Asen, M., & Spath, T. (2020). The effects of personality traits on digital
transformation: Evidence from German tax consulting. International Journal of
Accounting Information Systems, 37, Article 100455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
accinf.2020.100455
Dong, J. Q. (2019). Moving a mountain with a teaspoon: Toward a theory of digital
entrepreneurship in the regulatory environment. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 146, 923–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.050
Dremel, C., Herterich, M. M., Wulf, J., Waizmann, J.-C., & Brenner, W. (2017). How
AUDI AG established big data analytics in its digital transformation. MIS Quarterly
Executive, 16(2), 81–100. 〈https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2
.0-85020132577&partnerID=40&md5=41e3cb708743f4298a3fda4e3aaa57f2〉.
Du, W., Pan, S. L., & Huang, J. (2016). How a latecomer company used IT to redeploy
slack resources. MIS Quarterly Executive, 15(3), 195–213. 〈https://www.scopus.co
m/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85011961663&partnerID=40&md5=f643c0ed8c
a70a4c7122c2450f13aaf2〉.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, D. L., Coombs, C., Constantiou, I., Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., …
Upadhyay, N. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on information management
research and practice: Transforming education, work and life. International Journal of
Information Management, 55, Article 102211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2020.102211
Echterfeld, J., & Gausmeier, J. (2018). Digitising product portfolios. International Journal
of Innovation Management, 22(5), Article 1840003. https://doi.org/10.1142/
S1363919618400030
Eden, R., Burton-Jones, A., Casey, V., & Draheim, M. (2019). Digital transformation
requires workforce transformation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 18(1), 1–17. https://doi.
org/10.17705/2msqe.00005
Ekman, P., Thilenius, P., Thompson, S., & Whitaker, J. (2020). Digital transformation of
global business processes: the role of dual embeddedness. Business Process
Management Journal, 26(2), 570–592. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-02-2019-0080
Endres, H., Helm, R., & Dowling, M. (2020). Linking the types of market knowledge
sourcing with sensing capability and revenue growth: Evidence from industrial
rms. Industrial Marketing Management, 90, 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2020.06.004
Evans, J. R., Foster, S. T., & Guo, Z. (2013). A retrospective view of research in the
quality management journal: a thematic and keyword analysis. Quality Management
Journal, 20(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10686967.2013.11918090
Evans, N., & Price, J. (2020). Development of a holistic model for the management of an
enterprise’s information assets. International Journal of Information Management, 54,
Article 102193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102193
Faik, I., Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. (2020). How information technology matters in societal
change: an affordance-based institutional logics perspective. MIS Quarterly, 44(3),
1359–1390. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/14193
Ferreira, J. J. M., Fernandes, C. I., & 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, 583–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.013
Fischer, M., Imgrund, F., Janiesch, C., & Winkelmann, A. (2019). Directions for future
research on the integration of SOA, BPM, and BRM. Business Process Management
Journal, 25(7), 1491–1519. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-05-2018-0130
Fischer, M., Imgrund, F., Janiesch, C., & Winkelmann, A. (2020). Strategy archetypes for
digital transformation: Dening meta objectives using business process
management. Information & Management, 57(5), Article 103262. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.im.2019.103262
Fletcher, G., & Grifths, M. (2020). Digital transformation during a lockdown.
International Journal of Information Management, 55, Article 102185. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102185
Forcadell, F. J., Aracil, E., & Ubeda, F. (2020). Using reputation for corporate
sustainability to tackle banks digitalization challenges. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 29(6), 2181–2193. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2494
Frank, A. G., Mendes, G. H. S., Ayala, N. F., & Ghezzi, A. (2019). Servitization and
Industry 4.0 convergence in the digital transformation of product rms: A business
model innovation perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141,
341–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.01.014
Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarication. Social
Networks, 1(3), 215–239.
Fritze, M. P., Eisingerich, A. B., & Benkenstein, M. (2019). Digital transformation and
possession attachment: examining the endowment effect for consumers’
relationships with hedonic and utilitarian digital service technologies. Electronic
Commerce Research, 19(2), 311–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-018-9309-8
Furr, N., & Shipilov, A. (2019). Digital Doesn’t Have to Be Disruptive The best results can
come from adaptation rather Than reinvention. Harvard Business Review, 97(4),
94–104.
Galindo-Martin, M.-A., Castano-Martinez, M.-S., & Mendez-Picazo, M.-T. (2019). Digital
transformation, digital dividends and entrepreneurship: A quantitative analysis.
Journal of Business Research, 101, 522–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2018.12.014
Garzoni, A., De Turi, I., Secundo, G., & Del Vecchio, P. (2020). Fostering digital
transformation of SMEs: a four levels approach. Management Decision, 58(8),
1543–1562. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2019-0939
Gastaldi, L., Appio, F. P., Corso, M., & Pistorio, A. (2018). Managing the exploration-
exploitation paradox in healthcare: Three complementary paths to leverage on the
digital transformation. Business Process Management Journal, 24(5), 1200–1234.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-04-2017-0092
Gerth, A. B., & Peppard, J. (2016). The dynamics of CIO derailment: How CIOs come
undone and how to avoid it. Business Horizons, 59(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bushor.2015.09.001
Gfrerer, A., Hutter, K., Fuller, J., & Strohle, T. (2021). Ready or not: managers’ and
employees’ different perceptions of digital readiness. California Management Review,
63(2), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125620977487
Goh, J. M., & Arenas, A. E. (2020). IT value creation in public sector: how IT-enabled
capabilities mitigate tradeoffs in public organisations. European Journal of
Information Systems, 29(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0960085X.2019.1708821
Goul, M. (2018). APC Forum: Poised between ‘a wild west of predictive analytics’ and ‘an
analytics of things westworld frontier’. MIS Quarterly Executive, 17(4), 333–347.
〈https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85058483035&partner
ID=40&md5=4c1992e0269d8e64558f250f0458f9b0〉.
Govindarajan, V., & Immelt, J. R. (2019). The only way manufacturers can survive. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 60(3), 24.
Gray, P., El Sawy, O. A., Asper, G., & Thordarson, M. (2013). Realizing strategic value
through center-edge digital transformation in consumer-centric industries. MIS
Quarterly Executive, 12(1), 1–17. 〈https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?
eid=2-s2.0-84878701086&partnerID=40&md5=0ce79864eedf44c44e98418e9
fdf2b57〉.
Gregory, R. W., Kaganer, E., Henfridsson, O., & Ruch, T. J. (2018). IT consumerization
and the transformation of IT governance. MIS Quarterly, 42(4), 1225–1253. https://
doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2018/13703
Guenzi, P., & Habel, J. (2020). Mastering the digital transformation of sales. California
Management Review, 62(4), 57–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125620931857
Guinan, P. J., Parise, S., & Langowitz, N. (2019). Creating an innovative digital project
team: Levers to enable digital transformation. Business Horizons, 62(6), 717–727.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.07.005
Gurbaxani, V., & Dunkle, D. (2019). Gearing up for successful digital transformation. MIS
Quarterly Executive, 18(3), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.17705/2msqe.00017
Gurhan-Canli, Z., Sarial-Abi, G., & Hayran, C. (2018). Consumers and brands across the
globe: research synthesis and new directions. Journal of International Marketing, 26
(1), 96–117. https://doi.org/10.1509/jim.17.0063
Gust, G., Flath, C. M., Brandt, T., Stroehle, P., & Neumann, D. (2017). How a traditional
company seeded new analytics capabilities. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(3), 215–230.
Guy, J.-S. (2019). Digital technology, digital culture and the metric/nonmetric
distinction. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 55–61. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.005
S. Kraus et al.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
16
Hagberg, J., Sundstrom, M., & Egels-Zand´
en, N. (2016). The digitalization of retailing: an
exploratory framework. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,
44(7), 694–712. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-09-2015-0140
Handeld, R. (2019). Shifts in buyer-seller relationships: A retrospective on Handeld
and Bechtel (2002). Industrial Marketing Management, 83, 194–206. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.08.012
Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2021). A Systematic Review
of the Literature on Digital Transformation: Insights and Implications for Strategy
and Organizational Change. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1159–1197.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12639
Hansen, A. M., Kraemmergaard, P., & Mathiassen, L. (2011). Rapid adaptation in digital
transformation: A participatory process for engaging is and business leaders. MIS
Quarterly Executive, 10(4), 175–185. 〈https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?
eid=2-s2.0-84864571613&partnerID=40&md5=fa226f61b4209188f75ae6f5
a3373ab0〉.
Hansen, R., & Sia, S. K. (2015). Hummel’s digital transformation toward omnichannel
retailing: Key lessons learned. MIS Quarterly Executive, 14(2), 51–66. 〈https://www.
scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84936934530&partner
ID=40&md5=a0032302d71fe980d546c17bd95efbe2〉.
Hartley, J. L., & Sawaya, W. J. (2019). Tortoise, not the hare: Digital transformation of
supply chain business processes. Business Horizons, 62(6), 707–715. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bushor.2019.07.006
Harwood, S., & Eaves, S. (2020). Conceptualising technology, its development and
future: The six genres of technology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 160,
Article 120174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120174
Hausberg, J. P., Liere-Netheler, K., Packmohr, S., Pakura, S., & Vogelsang, K. (2019).
Research streams on digital transformation from a holistic business perspective: a
systematic literature review and citation network analysis. Journal of Business
Economics, 89(8–9), 931–963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-019-00956-z
Hazee, S., Zwienenberg, T. J., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Faseur, T., Vandenberghe, A., &
Keutgens, O. (2020). Why customers and peer service providers do not participate in
collaborative consumption. Journal of Service Management, 31(3), 397–419. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2018-0357
He, Q., Meadows, M., Angwin, D., Gomes, E., & Child, J. (2020). Strategic alliance
research in the era of digital transformation: perspectives on future research. British
Journal of Management, 31(3), 589–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12406
Heavin, C., & Power, D. J. (2018). Challenges for digital transformation–towards a
conceptual decision support guide for managers. Journal of Decision Systems, 27,
38–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2018.1468697
Hensmans, M. (2021). How digital fantasy work induces organizational ideal reversal?
Long-term conditioning and enactment of digital transformation fantasies at a large
alternative bank (1963-2019). Organization, 28(1), 132–163. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1350508420968185
Hess, T., Benlian, A., Matt, C., & Wiesb¨
ock, F. (2016). Options for formulating a digital
transformation strategy. MIS Quarterly Executive, 15(2), 123–139. 〈https://www.sco
pus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85011959099&partnerID=40&md5=6fb58
c898148e5fa1970287aa0174399〉.
Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and
transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1),
52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004
Hofacker, C., Golgeci, I., Pillai, K. G., & Gligor, D. M. (2020). Digital marketing and
business-to-business relationships: a close look at the interface and a roadmap for the
future. European Journal of Marketing, 54(6), 1161–1179. https://doi.org/10.1108/
EJM-04-2020-0247
Hofmann, P., Samp, C., & Urbach, N. (2020). Robotic process automation. Electronic
Markets, 30(1), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00365-8
Horv´
ath, D., & Szab´
o, R. Z. (2019). Driving forces and barriers of Industry 4.0: Do
multinational and small and medium-sized companies have equal opportunities?
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.techfore.2019.05.021
Huarng, K.-H., Bresciani, S., & Ferraris, A. (2020). Experiential interaction design model.
Journal of Business Research, 118, 486–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.07.017
Huber, C., & G¨
artner, C. (2018). Digital transformations in healthcare professionals’
work: Dynamics of autonomy, control and accountability. Management Revue, 29(2),
139–161. https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2018-2-139
Hughes, T., & Vafeas, M. (2019). Marketing agency/client service-for-service provision in
an age of digital transformation. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 26(3–4),
265–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2019.1611080
Iivari, N., Sharma, S., & Venta-Olkkonen, L. (2020). Digital transformation of everyday
life - How COVID-19 pandemic transformed the basic education of the young
generation and why information management research should care? International
Journal of Information Management, 55, Article 102183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2020.102183
Jackson, N. C. (2019). Managing for competency with innovation it change in higher
education: Examining the pitfalls and pivots of digital transformation. Business
Horizons, 62(6), 761–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.08.002
Jammulamadaka, N. (2021). Enabling processes as routines that facilitate cognitive
change. Management Decision, 59(3), 653–668. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-
2019-1311
Jean, R.-J. B., Kim, D., Lien, Y.-C., & Ro, S. (2020). The moderating effect of virtual
integration on intergenerational governance and relationship performance in
international customer-supplier relationships. International Marketing Review, 37(3),
579–592. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-03-2019-0102
Jiang, Y., & Katsamakas, E. (2010). Impact of e-book technology: Ownership and market
asymmetries in digital transformation. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
9(5), 386–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2010.06.003
Jocevski, M., Ghezzi, A., & Arvidsson, N. (2020). Exploring the growth challenge of
mobile payment platforms: A business model perspective. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, 40, Article 100908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
elerap.2019.100908
Kaiser, I., & Stummer, C. (2020). How the Traditional Industrial Manufacturer Miele
Established a New Smart Home Division. Research-Technology Management, 63(4),
29–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2020.1762446
Kamalaldin, A., Linde, L., Sjodin, D., & Parida, V. (2020). Transforming provider-
customer relationships in digital servitization: A relational view on digitalization.
Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2020.02.004
Kane, G. C. (2019). The technology fallacy people are the real key to digital
transformation. Research-Technology Management, 62(6), 44–49. https://doi.org/
10.1080/08956308.2019.1661079
Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A. N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy, not
technology, drives digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 14, 1–25.
Kappelman, L., Johnson, V., Torres, R., Maurer, C., & McLean, E. (2019). A study of
information systems issues, practices, and leadership in Europe. European Journal of
Information Systems, 28(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0960085X.2018.1497929
Kar, A. K., Ilavarasan, V., Gupta, M. P., Janssen, M., & Kothari, R. (2019). Moving beyond
Smart Cities: Digital Nations for Social Innovation & Sustainability. Information
Systems Frontiers, 21(3), 495–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09930-0
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07421222.2015.1029380
Kathan, W., Matzler, K., & Veider, V. (2016). The sharing economy: Your business
model’s friend or foe? Business Horizons, 59(6), 663–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bushor.2016.06.006
Kauffman, R. J., Li, T., & Van Heck, E. (2010). Business network-based value creation in
electronic commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(1), 113–143.
https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415150105
Knudsen, D.-R. (2020). Elusive boundaries, power relations, and knowledge production:
A systematic review of the literature on digitalization in accounting. International
Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 36, Article 100441. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.accinf.2019.100441
Kodama, M. (2020). Digitally transforming work styles in an era of infectious disease.
International Journal of Information Management, 55, Article 102172. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102172
Kohli, R., & Johnson, S. (2011). Digital transformation in latecomer industries: CIO and
CEO leadership lessons from Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10
(4), 141–156. 〈https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol10/iss4/3/#:~:text=aisel.aisnet.
org/misqe/vol10/iss4/3〉.
Kohtamaki, M., Parida, V., Oghazi, P., Gebauer, H., & Baines, T. (2019). Digital
servitization business models in ecosystems: A theory of the rm. Journal of Business
Research, 104, 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.027
Kraus, S., Richter, C., Papagiannidis, S., & Durst, S. (2015). Innovating and Exploiting
Entrepreneurial Opportunities in Smart Cities: Evidence from Germany. Creativity
and Innovation Management, 24(4), 601–616. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12154
Kraus, S., Roig-Tierno, N., & Bouncken, R. B. (2019). Digital innovation and venturing:
an introduction into the digitalization of entrepreneurship. Review of Managerial
Science, 13(3), 519–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00333-8
Kraus, S., Jones, P., Kailer, N., Weinmann, A., Chaparro-Banegas, N., & Roig-Tierno, N.
(2021). Digital Transformation: An Overview of the Current State of the Art of
Research. SAGE Open, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211047576
Kraus, S., Breier, M., & Dasí-Rodríguez, S. (2020). The art of crafting a systematic
literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 16(3), 1023–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-
00635-4
Kretschmer, T., & Khashabi, P. (2020). Digital Transformation and Organization Design:
An Integrated Approach. California Management Review, 62(4), 86–104. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0008125620940296
Krishnamurthy, S. (2020). The future of business education: A commentary in the
shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Business Research, 117, 1–5. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.034
Kronblad, C. (2020aaa). Digital innovation in law dirms: The dominant logic under
threat. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(3), 512–527. https://doi.org/
10.1111/caim.12395
Kronblad, C. (2020bbb). How digitalization changes our understanding of professional
service rms. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(3), 436–454. https://doi.org/
10.5465/amd.2019.0027
Kumar, S., Kar, A. K., & Ilavarasan, P. V. (2021). Applications of text mining in services
management: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Information
Management Data Insights, 1(1), Article 100008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jjimei.2021.100008
Kushwaha, A. K., Kar, A. K., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). Applications of big data in
emerging management disciplines: A literature review using text mining.
International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 1(2), Article 100017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2021.100017
Latilla, V. M., Frattini, F., Franzo, S., & Chiesa, V. (2020). Organisational change and
business model innovation: an exploratory study of an energy utility. International
S. Kraus et al.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
17
Journal of Innovation Management, 24(4), Article 2050036. https://doi.org/10.1142/
S136391962050036X
Leydesdorff, L., & Vaughan, L. (2006). Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in
information science: Extending ACA to the Web environment. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(12), 1616–1628. https://doi.org/
10.1002/asi.20335
Li, F. (2020aaa). Leading digital transformation: three emerging approaches for
managing the transition. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 40(6), 809–817. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2020-0202
Li, F. (2020bbb). The digital transformation of business models in the creative industries:
A holistic framework and emerging trends. Technovation, 92–93, Article 102012.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.12.004
Liu, D.-Y., Chen, S.-W., & Chou, T.-C. (2011). Resource t in digital transformation:
Lessons learned from the CBC Bank global e-banking project. Management Decision,
49(10), 1728–1742. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741111183852
Magistretti, S., Dell’Era, C., & Petruzzelli, A. M. (2019). How intelligent is Watson?
Enabling digital transformation through articial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62
(6), 819–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.08.004
Manfreda, A., Ljubi, K., & Groznik, A. (2021). Autonomous vehicles in the smart city era:
An empirical study of adoption factors important for millennials. International
Journal of Information Management, 58, Article 102050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2019.102050
Martinez, F. (2019). Process excellence the key for digitalisation. Business Process
Management Journal, 25(7), 1716–1733. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-08-2018-
0237
Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital transformation strategies. Business &
Information Systems Engineering, 57(5), 339–343.
Mausson, L.-G., & Andersson, P. (2019). Private-public interaction in public service
innovation processes- business model challenges for a start-up EdTech rm. Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(5), 1106–1118. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-
10-2018-0297
McGrath, K., & Maiye, A. (2010). The role of institutions in ICT innovation: learning from
interventions in a Nigerian e-government initiative. Information Technology for
Development, 16(4), 260–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2010.498408
McGrath, R., & McManus, R. (2020). Digital transformation learning your way to a new
business model what’s your digital strategy? Harvard Business Review, 98(3),
125–133.
Michaelis, B., Rogbeer, S., Schweizer, L., & Oezleblebici, Z. (2021). Clarifying the
boundary conditions of value creation within dynamic capabilities framework: a
grafting approach. Review of Managerial Science, 15(6), 1797–1820. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11846-020-00403-2
Milian, E. Z., Spinola, M. D. M., & Carvalho, M. M. D. (2019). Fintechs: A literature
review and research agenda. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 34,
Article 100833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100833
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus:
a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11192-015-1765-5
Morath, F., & Münster, J. (2018). Online shopping and platform design with ex ante
registration requirements. Management Science, 64(1), 360–380. https://doi.org/
10.1287/mnsc.2016.2595
Nambisan, S., Wright, M., & Feldman, M. (2019). The digital transformation of
innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes. Research
Policy, 48(8), Article 103773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.018
Nasiri, M., Ukko, J., Saunila, M., & Rantala, T. (2020). Managing the digital supply chain:
The role of smart technologies. Technovation, 96–97, Article 102121. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102121
North, K., Aramburu, N., & Jose Lorenzo, O. (2020). Promoting digitally enabled growth
in SMEs: a framework proposal. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 33(1),
238–262. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-04-2019-0103
Nuccio, M., & Guerzoni, M. (2019). Big data: Hell or heaven? Digital platforms and
market power in the data-driven economy. Competition & Change, 23(3), 312–328.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1024529418816525
O’Halloran, D., & Grifn, W. (2019). Our Shared Digital Future-Responsible Digital
Transformation. World Economic Forum.
Osiyevskyy, O., Shirokova, G., & Ritala, P. (2020). Exploration and exploitation in crisis
environment: Implications for level and variability of rm performance. Journal of
Business Research, 114, 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.015
Osterlie, T., & Monteiro, E. (2020). Digital sand: The becoming of digital representations.
Information and Organization, 30(1), Article 100275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
infoandorg.2019.100275
Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the
information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441–453. https://doi.
org/10.1177/016555150202800601
Papagiannidis, S., Harris, J., & Morton, D. (2020). WHO led the digital transformation of
your company? A reection of IT related challenges during the pandemic.
International Journal of Information Management, 55, Article 102166. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102166
Parviainen, P., Tihinen, M., K¨
a¨
ari¨
ainen, J., & Teppola, S. (2017). Tackling the
digitalization challenge: How to benet from digitalization in practice. International
Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 5(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/
10.12821/ijispm050104
Pelletier, C., & Cloutier, L. M. (2019). Conceptualising digital transformation in SMEs: an
ecosystemic perspective. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 26(6/
7, SI), 855–876. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-05-2019-0144
Priyono, A., Moin, A., & Putri, V. N. (2020). Identifying Digital Transformation Paths in
the Business Model of SMEs during the COVID-19 Pandemic. In Journal of Open
Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (Vol. 6)(Issue 4). https://doi.org/
10.3390/joitmc6040104
Rahrovani, Y. (2020). Platform drifting: When work digitalization hijacks its spirit.
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 29(2), Article 101615. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jsis.2020.101615
Rane, S. B., Narvel, Y. A. M., & Bhandarkar, B. M. (2019). Developing strategies to
improve agility in the project procurement management (PPM) process Perspective
of business intelligence (BI). Business Process Management Journal, 26(1), 257–286.
https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-07-2017-0196
Rapaccini, M., Saccani, N., Kowalkowski, C., Paiola, M., & Adrodegari, F. (2020).
Navigating disruptive crises through service-led growth: The impact of COVID-19 on
Italian manufacturing rms. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 225–237. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.017
Reinartz, W., Wiegand, N., & Imschloss, M. (2019). The impact of digital transformation
on the retailing value chain. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 36(3),
350–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2018.12.002
Riasanow, T., Jaentgen, L., Hermes, S., Boehm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2020). Core,
intertwined, and ecosystem-specic clusters in platform ecosystems: analyzing
similarities in the digital transformation of the automotive, blockchain, nancial,
insurance and IIoT industry. Electronic Markets, 31(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12525-020-00407-6
Richard, S., Pellerin, R., Bellemare, J., & Perrier, N. (2021). A business process and
portfolio management approach for Industry 4.0 transformation. Business Process
Management Journal, 27(2), 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-05-2020-0216
Rodriguez-Lluesma, C., Garcia-Ruiz, P., & Pinto-Garay, J. (2021). The digital
transformation of work: A relational view. Business Ethics the Environment &
Responsibility, 30(1), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12323
Rossi, M., Festa, G., Devalle, A., & Mueller, J. (2020). When corporations get disruptive,
the disruptive get corporate: Financing disruptive technologies through corporate
venture capital. Journal of Business Research, 118, 378–388. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.004
Roth, S. (2020). Of wolves and dogs and other false distinctions: A rejoinder to Wallis.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 37(1), 182–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/
sres.2655
Roth, S., Schwede, P., Valentinov, V., Zazar, K., & Kaivo-oja, J. (2019). Big data insights
into social macro trends (1800-2000): A replication study. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 149, Article 119759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2019.119759
Rowe, F. (2018). Being critical is good, but better with philosophy! From digital
transformation and values to the future of IS research. European Journal of
Information Systems, 27(3), 380–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0960085X.2018.1471789
Rowe, F. (2020). Contact tracing apps and values dilemmas: A privacy paradox in a
neoliberal world. International Journal of Information Management, 55, Article
102178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102178
Royakkers, L., Timmer, J., Kool, L., & van Est, R. (2018). Societal and ethical issues of
digitization. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(2), 127–142. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10676-018-9452-x
Saarikko, T., Westergren, W. H., & Blomquist, T. (2020). Digital transformation: Five
recommendations for the digitally conscious rm. Business Horizons, 63(6), 825–839.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.07.005
Sabri, Y., Micheli, G. J. L., & Nuur, C. (2018). Exploring the impact of innovation
implementation on supply chain conguration. Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, 49, 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2018.06.001
S´
anchez, A. D., Rama, M., de la, C. D. R., & García, J. ´
A. (2017). Bibliometric analysis of
publications on wine tourism in the databases Scopus and WoS. European Research on
Management and Business Economics, 23(1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
iedeen.2016.02.001
Sandberg, J., Holmstrom, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2020). Digitization and phase transitions in
platform organizing logics: evidence from the process automation industry. MIS
Quarterly, 44(1), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/14520
Santos, T., Louca, J., & Coelho, H. (2019). The digital transformation of the public
sphere. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 36(6), 778–788. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sres.2644
Savastano, M., Bellini, F., D’Ascenzo, F., & De Marco, M. (2019). Technology adoption
for the integration of online-ofine purchasing Omnichannel strategies in the retail
environment. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 47(5),
474–492. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-12-2018-0270
Schaarschmidt, M., & Bertram, M. (2020). Digital business intensity and constructive
process deviance: a study of reactions to digitisation-focused process innovation.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 24(7), Article 2050065. https://doi.
org/10.1142/S1363919620500656
Schallmo, D., Williams, C. A., & Boardman, L. (2017). Digital transformation of business
models - best practice, enablers, and roadmap. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 21(8), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1142/S136391961740014X
Schallmo, D., Williams, C. A., & Boardman, L. (2019a). Digital Transformation Of
Business Models—Best Practice, Enablers, And Roadmap. In Digital Disruptive
Innovation (Vol. Volume 36, pp. 119–138). WORLD SCIENTIFIC (EUROPE),. https://
doi.org/10.1142/9781786347602_0005
Schallmo, D., Williams, C. A., & Lohse, J. (2019b). Digital strategy - integrated approach
and generic options. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(8), Article
1940005. https://doi.org/10.1142/S136391961940005X
Scholz, R. W., Czichos, R., Parycek, P., & Lampoltshammer, T. J. (2020). Organizational
vulnerability of digital threats: A rst validation of an assessment method. European
Journal of Operational Research, 282(2), 627–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejor.2019.09.020
S. Kraus et al.
International Journal of Information Management 63 (2022) 102466
18
Schwarzmueller, T., Brosi, P., Duman, D., & Welpe, I. M. (2018). How Does the Digital
Transformation Affect Organizations? Key Themes of Change in Work Design and
Leadership. Management Revue, 29(2), 114–138. https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-
9915-2018-2-114
Scuotto, V., Arrigo, E., Candelo, E., & Nicotra, M. (2020). Ambidextrous innovation
orientation effected by the digital transformation A quantitative research on fashion
SMEs. Business Process Management Journal, 26(5), 1121–1140. https://doi.org/
10.1108/BPMJ-03-2019-0135
Sebastian, I. M., Moloney, K. G., Ross, J. W., Fonstad, N. O., Beath, C., & Mocker, M.
(2017). How big old companies navigate digital transformation. MIS Quarterly
Executive, 16(3), 197–213. 〈https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s
2.0-85028657634&partnerID=40&md5=1f34a6b050d9ab3df9189ccfb00905b0〉.
Secundo, G., Rippa, P., & Cerchione, R. (2020). Digital Academic Entrepreneurship: A
structured literature review and avenue for a research agenda. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 157, Article 120118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2020.120118
Seepma, A. P., de Blok, C., & Van Donk, D. P. (2021). Designing digital public service
supply chains: four country-based cases in criminal justice. Supply Chain
Management-An International Journal, 26(3), 418–446. https://doi.org/10.1108/
SCM-03-2019-0111
Sestino, A., Prete, M. I., Piper, L., & Guido, G. (2020). Internet of Things and Big Data as
enablers for business digitalization strategies. Technovation, 98, Article 102173.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102173
Seyedghorban, Z., Samson, D., & Tahernejad, H. (2020). Digitalization opportunities for
the procurement function: pathways to maturity. International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, 40(11), 1685–1693. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-
04-2020-0214
Shashi, Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., & Ertz, M. (2020). Agile supply chain management:
where did it come from and where will it go in the era of digital transformation.
Industrial Marketing Management, 90, 324–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2020.07.011
Singh, A., & Hess, T. (2017). How chief digital ofcers promote the digital
transformation of their companies. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(1), 1–17. 〈https
://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85014654667&partner
ID=40&md5=58e3527a26d8926b68ab65d99206770d〉.
Sivarajah, U., Irani, Z., Gupta, S., & Mahroof, K. (2020). Role of big data and social media
analytics for business to business sustainability: A participatory web context.
Industrial Marketing Management, 86, 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2019.04.005
Sousa-Zomer, T. T., Neely, A., & Martinez, V. (2020). Digital transforming capability and
performance: a microfoundational perspective. International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, 40(7–8), 1095–1128. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-
06-2019-0444
Steinhauser, S., Doblinger, C., & Huesig, S. (2020). The relative role of digital
complementary assets and regulation in discontinuous telemedicine innovation in
european hospitals. Journal of Management Information Systems, 37(4), 1155–1183.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2020.1831778
Steininger, D. M., & Gatzemeier, S. (2019). Digitally forecasting new music product
success via active crowdsourcing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146,
167–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.04.016
ˇ
Svarc, J., Laˇ
znjak, J., & Dabi´
c, M. (2020). The role of national intellectual capital in the
digital transformation of EU countries. Another digital divide? Journal of Intellectual
Capital. , Article 823971. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2020-0024
Szalavetz, A. (2019). Industry 4.0 and capability development in manufacturing
subsidiaries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 384–395. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.027
Tangi, L., Janssen, M., Benedetti, M., & Noci, G. (2021). Digital government
transformation: A structural equation modelling analysis of driving and impeding
factors. International Journal of Information Management, 60, Article 102356. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102356
Taylor, S. A., Hunter, G. L., Zadeh, A. H., Delpechitre, D., & Lim, J. H. (2020). Value
propositions in a digitally transformed world. Industrial Marketing Management, 87,
256–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.10.004
Tekic, Z., & Koroteev, D. (2019). From disruptively digital to proudly analog: A holistic
typology of digital transformation strategies. Business Horizons, 62(6), 683–693.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.07.002
Teubner, R. A., & Stockhinger, J. (2020). Literature review: Understanding information
systems strategy in the digital age. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 29(4),
Article 101642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2020.101642
Traneld, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing
Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British
Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Trantopoulos, K., Von Krogh, G., Wallin, M. W., & Woerter, M. (2017). External
knowledge and information technology: Implications for process innovation
performance. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/
2017/41.1.15
Tronvoll, B., Sklyar, A., Sorhammar, D., & Kowalkowski, C. (2020). Transformational
shifts through digital servitization. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 293–305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.005
Troshani, I., Janssen, M., Lymer, A., & Parker, L. D. (2018). Digital transformation of
business-to-government reporting: An institutional work perspective. International
Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 31, 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
accinf.2018.09.002
Upadhyay, P., & Khemka, M. (2020). Linkage between social identity creation and social
networking site usage: the moderating role of usage intensity. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 33(6), 1321–1335. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-
2019-0021
Vallaster, C., Kraus, S., Merig´
o Lindahl, J. M., & Nielsen, A. (2019). Ethics and
entrepreneurship: A bibliometric study and literature review. Journal of Business
Research, 99, 226–237.
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda.
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsis.2019.01.003
vom Brocke, J., Schmid, A. M., Simons, A., & Safrudin, N. (2021). IT-enabled
organizational transformation: a structured literature review. Business Process
Management Journal, 27(1), 204–229. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-2019-0423
Wang, W., Mahmood, A., Sismeiro, C., & Vulkan, N. (2019). The evolution of equity
crowdfunding: Insights from co-investments of angels and the crowd. Research
Policy, 48(8), Article 103727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.003
Wenzel, M., Kraemer, H., Koch, J., & Reckwitz, A. (2020). Future and Organization
Studies: On the rediscovery of a problematic temporal category in organizations.
Organization Studies, 41(10), 1441–1455. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0170840620912977
Wenzel, M., & Will, M. G. (2019). The communicative constitution of academic elds in
the digital age: The case of CSR. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146,
517–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.006
Westerman, G. (2016). Why Digital Transformation Needs a Heart. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 58(1), 19–21.
Westerman, G., Soule, D. L., & Eswaran, A. (2019). Building Digital-Ready Culture in
Traditional Organizations. MIT Sloan Management Review, 60(4), 59–68.
Wiesboeck, F., & Hess, T. (2020). Digital innovations Embedding in organizations.
Electronic Markets, 30(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00364-9
Wiesboeck, F., Hess, T., & Spanjol, J. (2020). The dual role of IT capabilities in the
development of digital products and services. Information & Management, 57(8),
Article 103389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2020.103389
Wrede, M., Velamuri, V. K., & Dauth, T. (2020). Top managers in the digital age:
Exploring the role and practices of top managers in rms’ digital transformation.
Managerial and Decision Economics, 41(8), 1549–1567. https://doi.org/10.1002/
mde.3202
Wright, G., Van Der Heijden, K., Bradeld, R., Burt, G., & Cairns, G. (2004). The
psychology of why organizations can be slow to adapt and change. Journal of General
Management, 29(4), 21–36.
Ylijoki, O., & Porras, J. (2019). A recipe for big data value creation. Business Process
Management Journal, 25(5), 1085–1100. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-03-2018-
0082
Zekic-Susac, M., Mitrovic, S., & Has, A. (2021). Machine learning based system for
managing energy efciency of public sector as an approach towards smart cities.
International Journal of Information Management, 58, Article 102074. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102074
S. Kraus et al.
