What Is Necessary for Digital Transformation of Large Manufacturing Companies? A Necessary Condition Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
2.1. Organizational Ability and Digital Transformation
2.2. Organizational Motivation and Digital Transformation
2.3. External Opportunities and Digital Transformation
3. Empirical Analysis
3.1. Research Methodology
3.2. Data
3.3. Variable Measurement
3.3.1. Outcome Variable
3.3.2. Antecedent Condition
4. Data Analysis and Discussion
4.1. Necessary Conditions in Kind Analysis
4.1.1. Organizational ability
4.1.2. Organizational Motivation
4.1.3. External Opportunity
4.2. Necessary Conditions in Degree Analysis
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Contribution
5.2. Practical Implications
5.3. Limitations and Future Research
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fu, Y.; Zhu, G.; Zhu, M.; Xuan, F. Digital Twin for Integration of Design-Manufacturing-Maintenance: An Overview. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 2022, 35, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Child, J. Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice. Sociology 1972, 6, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siachou, E.; Vrontis, D.; Trichina, E. Can Traditional Organizations Be Digitally Transformed by Themselves? The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity and Strategic Interdependence. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 124, 408–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P. Connecting the Parts with the Whole: Toward an Information Ecology Theory of Digital Innovation Ecosystems. Mis Q. 2021, 45, 397–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cennamo, C. Competing in Digital Markets: A Platform-Based Perspective. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 35, 265–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, A.; Klarner, P.; Hess, T. How Do Chief Digital Officers Pursue Digital Transformation Activities? The Role of Organization Design Parameters. Long Range Plan. 2020, 53, 101890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, J.; Taylor, M.S.; Seo, M.-G. Resources for Change: The Relationships of Organizational Inducements and Psychological Resilience to Employees’ Attitudes and Behaviors toward Organizational Change. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 727–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, E.; Büttgen, M.; Bartsch, S. How to Take Employees on the Digital Transformation Journey: An Experimental Study on Complementary Leadership Behaviors in Managing Organizational Change. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 143, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herold, D.M.; Fedor, D.B.; Caldwell, S.D. Beyond Change Management: A Multilevel Investigation of Contextual and Personal Influences on Employees’ Commitment to Change. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajagopalan, N.; Spreitzer, G.M. Toward a Theory of Strategic Change: A Multi-Lens Perspective and Integrative Framework. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1997, 22, 48–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, J.B.; Xu, Y.S.; Li, W.L. A Study on the Strategic Momentum of Smes’ Digital Transformation: Evidence from China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2024, 200, 123038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awa, H.O.; Ojiabo, O.U. A Model of Adoption Determinants of Erp within Toe Framework. Inf. Technol. People 2016, 29, 901–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bos-Nehles, A.; Townsend, K.; Cafferkey, K.; Trullen, J. Examining the Ability, Motivation and Opportunity (Amo) Framework in Hrm Research: Conceptualization, Measurement and Interactions. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2023, 25, 725–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, D.K.; Broekhuizen, T.; Dong, J.Q.; Verhoef, P.C. Leveraging Synergy to Drive Digital Transformation: A Systems-Theoretic Perspective. Inf. Manag. 2023, 60, 103836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annarelli, A.; Battistella, C.; Nonino, F.; Parida, V.; Pessot, E. Literature Review on Digitalization Capabilities: Co-Citation Analysis of Antecedents, Conceptualization and Consequences. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 166, 120635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karimi, J.; Walter, Z. The Role of Dynamic Capabilities in Responding to Digital Disruption: A Factor-Based Study of the Newspaper Industry. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2015, 32, 39–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helfat, C.E.; Martin, J.A. Dynamic Managerial Capabilities. J. Manag. 2014, 41, 1281–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Wei, Z.; Liang, Q. Top Management Team Diversity and Strategic Change: The Moderating Effects of Pay Imparity and Organization Slack. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2011, 24, 267–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.; Tian, Z. Environmental Uncertainty, Resource Orchestration and Digital Transformation: A Fuzzy-Set Qca Approach. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 139, 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loonam, J.; Eaves, S.; Kumar, V.; Parry, G. Towards Digital Transformation: Lessons Learned from Traditional Organizations. Strateg. Chang. 2018, 27, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanelt, A.; Bohnsack, R.; Marz, D.; Antunes Marante, C. A Systematic Review of the Literature on Digital Transformation: Insights and Implications for Strategy and Organizational Change. J. Manag. Stud. 2021, 58, 1159–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Müller, J.; Kunisch, S. Central Perspectives and Debates in Strategic Change Research. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 457–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermeulen, F. On Rigor and Relevance: Fostering Dialectic Progress in Management Research. Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48, 978–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dul, J. Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA) logic and methodology of “necessary but not sufficient” causality. Organ. Res. Methods 2016, 19, 10–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dul, J.; Hauff, S.; Bouncken, R.B. Necessary Condition Analysis (Nca): Review of Research Topics and Guidelines for Good Practice. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2023, 17, 683–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, H.; Kuvaas, B. Using Necessary Condition Analysis in Managerial Psychology Research: Introduction, Empirical Demonstration and Methodological Discussion. J. Manag. Psychol. 2023, 38, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voss, G.B.; Sirdeshmukh, D.; Voss, Z.G. The Effects of Slack Resources and Environmentalthreat on Product Exploration and Exploitation. Acad. Manag. J. 2008, 51, 147–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vial, G. Understanding Digital Transformation: A Review and a Research Agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 118–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentley, F.S.; Kehoe, R.R. Give Them Some Slack—They’re Trying to Change! The Benefits of Excess Cash, Excess Employees, and Increased Human Capital in the Strategic Change Context. Acad. Manag. J. 2018, 63, 181–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 509–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J. Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: The Nature and Microfoundations of (Sustainable) Enterprise Performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 1319–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helfat, C.E.; Peteraf, M.A. Managerial Cognitive Capabilities and the Microfoundations of Dynamic Capabilities. Strateg. Manag. J. 2015, 36, 831–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.L.; Ahmed, P.K. Dynamic Capabilities: A Review and Research Agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2007, 9, 31–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brochet, F.; Loumioti, M.; Serafeim, G. Speaking of the Short-Term: Disclosure Horizon and Managerial Myopia. Rev. Account. Stud. 2015, 20, 1122–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laverty, K.J. Economic “Short-Termism”: The Debate, the Unresolved Issues, and the Implications for Management Practice and Research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996, 21, 825–860. [Google Scholar]
- Lumpkin, G.T.; Brigham, K.H. Long–Term Orientation and Intertemporal Choice in Family Firms. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2011, 35, 1149–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.; Shi, W.; Prescott, J.E.; Yang, H. In the Eye of the Beholder: Top Managers’ Long-Term Orientation, Industry Context, and Decision-Making Processes. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 3114–3145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Ezzamel, M.; Cai, Z. Managerial Power Theory, Tournament Theory, and Executive Pay in China. J. Corp. Financ. 2011, 17, 1176–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, G.R.; Hill, C.W. Transaction Cost Analysis of Strategy-Structure Choice. Strateg. Manag. J. 1988, 9, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’reilly Iii, C.A.; Main, B.G.; Crystal, G.S. Ceo Compensation as Tournament and Social Comparison: A Tale of Two Theories. Adm. Sci. Q. 1988, 33, 257–274. [Google Scholar]
- Scherer, F.M. The Causes and Consequences of Rising Industrial Concentration. J. Law Econ. 1979, 22, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haushalter, D.; Klasa, S.; Maxwell, W.F. The Influence of Product Market Dynamics on a Firm’s Cash Holdings and Hedging Behavior. J. Financ. Econ. 2007, 84, 797–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gawer, A.; Cusumano, M.A. Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2014, 31, 417–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, J.-L.; Zhu, G.; Zhu, M.L.; Xuan, F.Z. A Data-Physics Integrated Approach to Life Prediction in Very High Cycle Fatigue Regime. Int. J. Fatigue 2023, 176, 107917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.-K.; Fan, J.L.; Zhu, G.; Zhu, M.L.; Xuan, F.Z. Data-Driven Approach to Very High Cycle Fatigue Life Prediction. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2023, 292, 109630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dul, J.; Van Der Laan, E.; Kuik, R. A Statistical Significance Test for Necessary Condition Analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 2018, 23, 385–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, J.L.Y.; Wu, A.; Xu, S.X. Corporate Governance and Returns on Information Technology Investment: Evidence from an Emerging Market. Strateg. Manag. J. 2011, 32, 595–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourgeois, L.J. On the Measurement of Organizational Slack. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1981, 6, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, Y.; Xu, G.; Liu, H. Compensation Gap, Retrenchment Strategy and Organizational Turnaround: A Configurational Perspective. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2020, 33, 925–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lay, G.; Copani, G.; Jäger, A.; Biege, S. The Relevance of Service in European Manufacturing Industries. J. Serv. Manag. 2010, 21, 715–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haarhaus, T.; Liening, A. Building Dynamic Capabilities to Cope with Environmental Uncertainty: The Role of Strategic Foresight. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 155, 120033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, K.S.; Wäger, M. Building Dynamic Capabilities for Digital Transformation: An Ongoing Process of Strategic Renewal. Long Range Plan. 2019, 52, 326–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, X.; Li, M.; Wang, Y.; Mardani, A. Does Digital Transformation Improve the Firm’s Performance? From the Perspective of Digitalization Paradox and Managerial Myopia. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 163, 113868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobides, M.G.; Cennamo, C.; Gawer, A. Towards a Theory of Ecosystems. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 39, 2255–2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, M.; Imgrund, F.; Janiesch, C.; Winkelmann, A. Strategy Archetypes for Digital Transformation: Defining Meta Objectives Using Business Process Management. Inf. Manag. 2020, 57, 103262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Mean | Min | Max | S.D. |
---|---|---|---|---|
Slack | 0.6928 | 0.2043 | 2.6117 | 0.3762 |
Dynamic | 0.0180 | −0.4714 | 0.5840 | 0.2247 |
Myopia | 0.1000 | 0 | 0.0061 | 0.0009 |
Gap | 8.1909 | 0.8807 | 22.6849 | 6.3766 |
Concentration | 0.1324 | 0.0293 | 0.6588 | 0.0964 |
Industry | 0.3136 | 0.0398 | 0.8578 | 0.2886 |
Digital | 0.0138 | 0.0002 | 0.1011 | 0.0185 |
Conditions | Effect Size (d) | p-Value | Precision | Necessary | Range | Order |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Slack | 0.103 * | 0.081 | 98.2% | No | low | 5 |
Dynamic | 0.340 *** | 0.000 | 97.6% | Yes | large | 3 |
Myopia | 0.607 ** | 0.021 | 97.3% | Yes | very large | 1 |
Gap | 0.028 | 0.926 | 99.7% | No | / | / |
Concentration | 0.023 | 0.573 | 97.9% | No | / | / |
0.584 ** | 0.017 | 97.0% | Yes | very large | 2 | |
Industry | 0.333 *** | 0.000 | 97.6% | Yes | large | 4 |
Hypotheses | Result |
---|---|
Hypothesis 1 (H1): A high level of organizational slack is necessary for a high level of digital transformation in manufacturing companies. | Not verified |
Hypothesis 2 (H2): A high level of dynamic capability is necessary to achieve a high level of digital transformation in manufacturing companies. | Verified |
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Low-level managerial myopia is necessary for high-level digital transformation of manufacturing companies. | Verified |
Hypothesis 4 (H4): A high-level pay gap is necessary for high-level digital transformation of manufacturing companies. | Not verified |
Hypothesis 5 (H5): High-level industry concentration is necessary for the high-level digital transformation of manufacturing companies. | Not verified |
Hypothesis 6 (H6): Low-level industry concentration is necessary for the high-level digital transformation of manufacturing companies. | Verified |
Hypothesis 7 (H7): High-level industrial digitalization is necessary for high-level digital transformation of manufacturing companies. | Verified |
Grade | Level | Slack | Dynamic | Myopia | Gap | Concentration | Industry |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Initial | 0 (0.000) | NN | NN | 79.4% (0.484) | NN | 79.4% (0.529) | NN |
10% (0.010) | NN | 1.7% (−0.453) | 71.4% (0.435) | NN | 71.9% (0.482) | NN | |
20% (0.020) | NN | 9.7% (−0.369) | 63.4% (0.386) | 0.6% (1.016) | 64.3% (0.434) | NN | |
30% (0.030) | NN | 17.8% (−0.284) | 55.3% (0.337) | 1.3% (1.173) | 56.7% (0.386) | 0.4% (0.043) | |
Growth | 40% (0.041) | 2.2% (0.256) | 25.8% (−0.199) | 47.3% (0.288) | 2.1% (1.330) | 49.2% (0.339) | 13.9% (0.153) |
50% (0.051) | 7.1% (0.376) | 33.8% (−0.115) | 39.3% (0.239) | 2.8% (1.486) | 41.6% (0.291) | 27.3% (0.263) | |
60% (0.061) | 12.1% (0.495) | 41.8% (−0.030) | 31.2% (0.190) | 3.5% (1.643) | 34.0% (0.244) | 40.8% (0.373) | |
Promotion | 70% (0.071) | 17.0% (0.615) | 49.8% (0.054) | 23.3% (0.141) | 4.2% (1.799) | 26.5% (0.196) | 54.2% (0.483) |
80% (0.081) | 22.0% (0.734) | 57.8% (0.139) | 15.2% (0.093) | 4.9% (1.956) | 18.9% (0.148) | 67.7% (0.593) | |
90% (0.091) | 27.0% (0.853) | 65.9% (0.224) | 7.2% (0.044) | 5.6% (2.112) | 11.4% (0.101) | 81.1% (0.704) | |
100% (0.101) | 31.9% (0.973) | 73.9% (0.308) | NA | 6.4% (2.269) | 3.8% (0.053) | 94.6% (0.814) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, Z.; Wu, M.; Yin, J. What Is Necessary for Digital Transformation of Large Manufacturing Companies? A Necessary Condition Analysis. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3837. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093837
Zhang Z, Wu M, Yin J. What Is Necessary for Digital Transformation of Large Manufacturing Companies? A Necessary Condition Analysis. Sustainability. 2024; 16(9):3837. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093837
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Ziye, Meiying Wu, and Jiajie Yin. 2024. "What Is Necessary for Digital Transformation of Large Manufacturing Companies? A Necessary Condition Analysis" Sustainability 16, no. 9: 3837. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093837