Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-12
Digitalization and network capability as enablers of business model innovation and sustainability performance: The moderating effect of environmental dynamism
In the face of relentless global competition and regulatory pressures, the imperative for firms to digitally transform has become critical. This is particularly salient for Chinese manufacturing firms as they strive for sustainability, a multidimensional construct comprising both economic and environmental performance. Leveraging dynamic capabilities theory, this study aims to unravel the intricate interplay between digitalization, network capability, business model innovation (BMI), and environmental dynamism in shaping a firm’s sustainability performance. Our research is driven by a compelling question: How do digitalization and network capabilities impact firms’ sustainability performance, and what roles do BMI and environmental dynamism play in this relationship? To answer this question, we employed a robust survey-based methodology encompassing 1600 Chinese manufacturing firms, yielding 255 completed and validated responses. The findings reveal that network capability mediates the influence of digitalization on two types of BMI—novelty-centered and efficiency-centered. Further, these forms of BMI act as mediators between digitalization and network capability, and the two dimensions of sustainability: economic and environmental performance. Notably, environmental dynamism serves as a double-edged sword. It negatively moderates the impact of digitalization on efficiency-centered BMI, but positively moderates the influence of network capability on the same. Our study offers nuanced theoretical and practical implications. It extends dynamic capabilities theory by elucidating how digital and network capabilities can be leveraged for sustainable outcomes via business model innovation. Moreover, the research provides managerial insights, particularly for Chinese manufacturing firms, on navigating the complex landscape of digital transformation toward sustainability. Considering these insights, we recommend that firms prioritize network capabilities and strategically innovate their business models to harness the full potential of digital transformation. Simultaneously, organizations should be cognizant of the environmental dynamism within which they operate, as it can both hinder and enable their journey toward sustainability.
AmaraDBChenH (2020) Investigating the effect of multidimensional network capability and eco-innovation orientation for sustainable performance. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy22(6): 1297–1309. DOI: 10.1007/s10098-020-01871-6.
2.
AmitRZottC (2001) Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal22(6–7): 493–520. DOI: 10.1002/smj.187.
3.
ArmstrongJSOvertonTS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research14(3): 396–402. DOI: 10.1177/002224377701400320.
4.
AzadeganAPatelPCZangoueinezhadA, et al. (2013) The effect of environmental complexity and environmental dynamism on lean practices. Journal of Operations Management31(4): 193–212. DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2013.03.002.
5.
BagSGuptaSKumarS (2021) Industry 4.0 adoption and 10R advance manufacturing capabilities for sustainable development. International Journal of Production Economics231(January), Article: 107844. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107844.
6.
BarneyJ (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management17(1): 99–120. DOI: 10.1177/014920639101700108.
7.
BaronRAMarkmanGD (2003) Beyond social capital: the role of entrepreneurs’ social competence in their financial success. Journal of Business Venturing18(1): 41–60. DOI: 10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00069-0.
8.
BattlesonDAWestBCKimJ, et al. (2016) Achieving dynamic capabilities with cloud computing: an empirical investigation. European Journal of Information Systems25(3): 209–230. DOI: 10.1057/ejis.2015.12.
9.
BeckerJ-MKleinKWetzelsM (2012) Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Planning45(5): 359–394. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2012.10.001.
10.
BharadwajAEl SawyOAPavlouPA, et al. (2013). Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly37(2): 471–482. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43825919.
11.
BroekhuizenTLJEmrichOGijsenbergMJ, et al. (2021) Digital platform openness: drivers, dimensions and outcomes. Journal of Business Research122(January): 902–914. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.001.
12.
BuerS-VSeminiMStrandhagenJO, et al. (2021) The complementary effect of lean manufacturing and digitalisation on operational performance. International Journal of Production Research59(7): 1976–1992. DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1790684.
13.
Casadesus-MasanellRZhuF (2013) Business model innovation and competitive imitation: the case of sponsor-based business models. Strategic Management Journal34(4): 464–482. DOI: 10.1002/smj.2022.
14.
CenamorJRönnberg SjödinDParidaV (2017) Adopting a platform approach in servitization: leveraging the value of digitalization. International Journal of Production Economics192(October): 54–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.12.033.
15.
CenamorJParidaVWincentJ (2019) How entrepreneurial SMEs compete through digital platforms: the roles of digital platform capability, network capability and ambidexterity. Journal of Business Research100(July): 196–206. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.035.
16.
ChanHKYeeRWYDaiJ, et al. (2016) The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on green product innovation and performance. International Journal of Production Economics181, Part B(November): 384–391. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.12.006.
17.
ChenYWangYNevoS, et al. (2014) IT capability and organizational performance: the roles of business process agility and environmental factors. European Journal of Information Systems23(3): 326–342. DOI: 10.1057/ejis.2013.4.
18.
ChenYCovielloNRanaweeraC (2021) When change is all around: how dynamic network capability and generative NPD learning shape a firm’s capacity for major innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management38(5): 574–599. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12595.
19.
ChiLRavichandranTAndrevskiG (2010) Information technology, network structure, and competitive action. Information Systems Research21(3): 543–570. DOI: 10.1287/isre.1100.0296.
20.
ChinWWMarcolinBLNewstedPR (2003) A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research14(2): 189–217. DOI: 10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018.
21.
CuiYJiaoH (2011) Dynamic capabilities, strategic stakeholder alliances and sustainable competitive advantage: evidence from China. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society11(4): 386–398. DOI: 10.1108/14720701111159235.
DillmanDA (2007) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: Wiley.
24.
DouglasSPCraigCS (2007) Collaborative and iterative translation: an alternative approach to back translation. Journal of International Marketing15(1): 30–43. DOI: 10.1509/jimk.15.1.030.
25.
DubeyRGunasekaranAChildeSJ, et al. (2019) Can big data and predictive analytics improve social and environmental sustainability?Technological Forecasting and Social Change144(July): 534–545. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.020.
26.
DurmusogluSSKawakamiT (2021) Information technology tool use frequency in new product development: the effect of stage-specific use frequency on performance. Industrial Marketing Management93(February): 250–258. DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.01.014.
27.
ElliotS (2011) Transdisciplinary perspectives on environmental sustainability: a resource base and framework for IT-enabled business transformation. MIS Quarterly35(1): 197–236. DOI: 10.2307/23043495.
28.
Ernstsen SidselNWhyteJThuesenC, et al. (2021) How innovation champions frame the future: three visions for digital transformation of construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management147(1), Article: 05020022. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001928.
29.
FlynnBBHuoBZhaoX (2010) The impact of supply chain integration on performance: a contingency and configuration approach. Journal of Operations Management28(1): 58–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2009.06.001.
30.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39–50. DOI: 10.1177/002224378101800104.
31.
FrancescoCMonicaFJacopoB, et al. (2022) The co-evolutionary relationship between digitalization and organizational agility: ongoing debates, theoretical developments and future research perspectives. Technological Forecasting and Social Change176(March): Article: 121383. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121383.
32.
FrankAGDalenogareLSAyalaNF (2019) Industry 4.0 technologies: implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production Economics210(April): 15–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.004.
33.
GhobakhlooM (2020) Determinants of information and digital technology implementation for smart manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research58(8): 2384–2405. DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1630775.
34.
GhoshSHughesMHodgkinsonI, et al. (2022) Digital transformation of industrial businesses: a dynamic capability approach. Technovation113(May), Article: 102414. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102414.
35.
GillaniFChathaKASadiq JajjaMS, et al. (2020) Implementation of digital manufacturing technologies: antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Production Economics229(November), Article: 107748. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107748.
36.
GoduscheitRCFaullantR (2018) Paths toward radical service innovation in manufacturing companies—a service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management35(5): 701–719. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12461.
37.
GuoHWangCSuZ, et al. (2020) Technology push or market pull? Strategic orientation in business model design and digital start-up performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management37(4): 352–372. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12526.
38.
GuoJZhouSChenJ, et al. (2021) How information technology capability and knowledge integration capability interact to affect business model design: a polynomial regression with response surface analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change170(September), Article: 120935. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120935.
39.
GuptaSMeissonierRDraveVA, et al. (2020) Examining the impact of Cloud ERP on sustainable performance: a dynamic capability view. International Journal of Information Management51(April), Article: 102028. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.10.013.
40.
HairJFRisherJJSarstedtM, et al. (2019) When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review31(1): 2–24. DOI: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.
41.
HaneltABusseSKolbeLM (2017) Driving business transformation toward sustainability: exploring the impact of supporting IS on the performance contribution of eco-innovations. Information Systems Journal27(4): 463–502. DOI: 10.1111/isj.12130.
42.
HaneltABohnsackRMarzD, et al. (2021) A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: insights and implications for strategy and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies58(5): 1159–1197. DOI: 10.1111/joms.12639.
43.
HenselerJChinWW (2010) A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects between latent variables using partial least squares path modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal17(1): 82–109. DOI: 10.1080/10705510903439003.
44.
HenselerJFassottG (2010) Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: an illustration of available procedures. In: VinziVEChinWWHenselerJ, et al. (eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications. Springer, 713–735.
45.
HenselerJRingleCMSarstedtM (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science43(1): 115–135. DOI: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
HuangKWuLDyersonR, et al. (2012) How does a technological firm develop its competitive advantage? A dynamic capability perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(4), 644–653. DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2011.2176340.
48.
JacobsMAYuWChavezR (2016) The effect of internal communication and employee satisfaction on supply chain integration. International Journal of Production Economics171(January): 60–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.10.015.
49.
JiaoHYangJZhouJ, et al. (2019) Commercial partnerships and collaborative innovation in China: the moderating effect of technological uncertainty and dynamic capabilities. Journal of Knowledge Management23(7): 1429–1454. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0499.
50.
KleinSPSpiethPHeidenreichS (2021) Facilitating business model innovation: the influence of sustainability and the mediating role of strategic orientations. Journal of Product Innovation Management38(2): 271–288. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12563.
51.
KockNHadayaP (2018) Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: the inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. Information Systems Journal28(1): 227–261. DOI: 10.1111/isj.12131.
52.
LatifiM-ANikouSBouwmanH (2021) Business model innovation and firm performance: exploring causal mechanisms in SMEs. Technovation107(September), Article: 102274. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102274.
53.
LiF (2020) The digital transformation of business models in the creative industries: a holistic framework and emerging trends. Technovation92-93(April-May), Article: 102012. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2017.12.004.
54.
LiD-YLiuJ (2014) Dynamic capabilities, environmental dynamism, and competitive advantage: evidence from China. Journal of Business Research67(1): 2793–2799. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.007.
55.
LiLSuFZhangW, et al. (2018) Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: a capability perspective. Information Systems Journal28(6): 1129–1157. DOI: 10.1111/isj.12153.
56.
LiYDaiJCuiL (2020) The impact of digital technologies on economic and environmental performance in the context of industry 4.0: a moderated mediation model. International Journal of Production Economics229(November), Article: 107777. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107777.
57.
LiLTongYWeiL, et al. (2022) Digital technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their impacts on firm performance: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Information & Management59(8), Article: 103689. DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2022.103689.
58.
LindellMKWhitneyDJ (2001) Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology86(1): 114–121. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114.
59.
LoeserFReckerJBrockeJV, et al. (2017) How IT executives create organizational benefits by translating environmental strategies into Green IS initiatives. Information Systems Journal27(4): 503–553. DOI: 10.1111/isj.12136.
60.
LongSLiaoZ (2021) Are fiscal policy incentives effective in stimulating firms’ eco-product innovation? The moderating role of dynamic capabilities. Business Strategy and the Environment30(7): 3095–3104. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2791.
61.
LowryPBGaskinJ (2014) Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: when to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication57(2): 123–146. DOI: 10.1109/TPC.2014.2312452.
62.
LowryPBCaoJEverardA (2011) Privacy concerns versus desire for interpersonal awareness in driving the use of self-disclosure technologies: the case of instant messaging in two cultures. Journal of Management Information Systems27(4): 163–200. DOI: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222270406.
63.
LudwigGPembertonJ (2011) A managerial perspective of dynamic capabilities in emerging markets: the case of the Russian steel industry. JEEMS Journal of East European Management Studies16(3): 215–236. DOI: 10.5771/0949-6181-2011-3-215.
64.
LyytinenKYooYBolandRJJr (2016) Digital product innovation within four classes of innovation networks. Information Systems Journal26(1): 47–75. DOI: 10.1111/isj.12093.
65.
MacKenzieSBPodsakoffPMPodsakoffNP (2011) Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly35(2): 293–334. DOI: 10.2307/23044045.
MezgerF (2014) Toward a capability-based conceptualization of business model innovation: insights from an explorative study. R&D Management44(5): 429–449. DOI: 10.1111/radm.12076.
68.
MikalefPKrogstieJPappasIO, et al. (2020) Exploring the relationship between big data analytics capability and competitive performance: the mediating roles of dynamic and operational capabilities. Information & Management57(2), Article: 103169. DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2019.05.004.
69.
MikalefPPateliAvan de WeteringR (2021a) IT architecture flexibility and IT governance decentralisation as drivers of IT-enabled dynamic capabilities and competitive performance: the moderating effect of the external environment. European Journal of Information Systems30(5): 512–540. DOI: 10.1080/0960085X.2020.1808541.
70.
MikalefPvan de WeteringRKrogstieJ (2021b) Building dynamic capabilities by leveraging big data analytics: the role of organizational inertia. Information & Management58(September), Article: 103412. DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2020.103412.
71.
MourtzisD (2020) Simulation in the design and operation of manufacturing systems: state of the art and new trends. International Journal of Production Research58(7): 1927–1949. DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1636321.
72.
MuJ (2014). Networking capability, network structure, and new product development performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management61(4): 599–609. DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2014.2359160.
73.
MuJBenedettoAD (2012) Networking capability and new product development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management59(1): 4–19. DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2011.2146256.
74.
Najafi-TavaniSNajafi-TavaniZNaudeP, et al. (2018How collaborative innovation networks affect new product performance: product innovation capability, process innovation capability, and absorptive capacity. Industrial Marketing Management73(August): 193–205. DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.02.009.
75.
NasiriMUkkoJSaunilaM, et al. (2020) Managing the digital supply chain: the role of smart technologies. Technovation96–97(August-September), Article: 102121. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102121.
76.
NayalKRautRDYadavVS, et al. (2022) The impact of sustainable development strategy on sustainable supply chain firm performance in the digital transformation era. Business Strategy and the Environment31(3): 845–859. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2921.
77.
NunnallyJC (1978) Psychometric Theory. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
78.
NwankpaJKDattaP (2017) Balancing exploration and exploitation of IT resources: the influence of digital business intensity on perceived organizational performance. European Journal of Information Systems26(5) 469–488. DOI: 10.1057/s41303-017-0049-y.
79.
PaganiMPardoC (2017). The impact of digital technology on relationships in a business network. Industrial Marketing Management67(November): 185–192. DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.009.
80.
PanSLZhangS (2020) From fighting COVID-19 pandemic to tackling sustainable development goals: an opportunity for responsible information systems research. International Journal of Information Management55(December), Article: 102196. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102196.
81.
PanSLCarterLTimY, et al. (2021) Digital sustainability, climate change, and information systems solutions: opportunities for future research. International Journal of Information Management63(April), Article: 102444. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102444.
82.
PaolucciEPessotERicciR (2021) The interplay between digital transformation and governance mechanisms in supply chains: evidence from the Italian automotive industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management41(7): 1119–1144. DOI: 10.1108/IJOPM-09-2020-0672.
83.
ParidaVPatelPCWincentJ, et al. (2016) Network partner diversity, network capability, and sales growth in small firms. Journal of Business Research69(6): 2113–2117. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.017.
84.
ParidaVPesämaaOWincentJ, et al. (2017) Network capability, innovativeness, and performance: a multidimensional extension for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development29(1–2): 94–115. DOI: 10.1080/08985626.2016.1255434.
85.
PartanenJKohtamäkiMPatelPC, et al. (2020) Supply chain ambidexterity and manufacturing SME performance: the moderating roles of network capability and strategic information flow. International Journal of Production Economics221(March), Article: 107470. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.08.005.
86.
ParviainenPTihinenMKääriäinenJ, et al. (2017) Tackling the digitalization challenge: how to benefit from digitalization in practice. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management5(1): 63–77. DOI: 10.12821/ijispm050104.
87.
PatiRKNandakumarMKGhobadianA, et al. (2018) Business model design–performance relationship under external and internal contingencies: evidence from SMEs in an emerging economy. Long Range Planning51(5): 750–769. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2018.01.001.
88.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBJeong-YeonL, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879–903. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
89.
PouloudiNCurrieWWhitleyE (2016) Entangled stakeholder roles and perceptions in health information systems: a longitudinal study of the U.K. NHS N3 network. Journal of the Association for Information Systems17(2): 107–161. DOI: 10.17705/1jais.00421.
90.
RanaNPChatterjeeSDwivediYK, et al. (2021) Understanding dark side of artificial intelligence (AI) integrated business analytics: assessing firm’s operational inefficiency and competitiveness. European Journal of Information Systems31(3): 364–387. DOI: 10.1080/0960085X.2021.1955628.
91.
RiccardoADariaBDmitryI, et al. (2021) Costs of resilience and disruptions in supply chain network design models: a review and future research directions. International Journal of Production Economics235(May), Article: 108103. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108103.
92.
RingleCMSarstedtMStraubDW (2012) Editor’s comments: a critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in 'MIS Quarterly'. MIS Quarterly36(1): iii–xiv. DOI: 10.2307/41410402.
93.
SaebiTLienLFossNJ (2017) What drives business model adaptation? The impact of opportunities, threats and strategic orientation. Long Range Planning50(5): 567–581. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2016.06.006.
94.
SchneiderSKokshaginaO (2021) Digital transformation: what we have learned (thus far) and what is next. Creativity and Innovation Management30(2): 384–411. DOI: 10.1111/caim.12414.
95.
ShamimSZengJShariqSM, et al. (2019) Role of big data management in enhancing big data decision-making capability and quality among Chinese firms: a dynamic capabilities view. Information & Management56(6), Article: 103135. DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2018.12.003.
96.
ShetSVPereiraV (2021) Proposed managerial competencies for Industry 4.0 – implications for social sustainability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change173(December), Article: 121080. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121080.
97.
ShmueliGKoppiusOR (2011) Predictive analytics in information systems research. MIS Quarterly35(3): 553–572. DOI: 10.2307/23042796.
98.
SjödinDParidaVPalmiéM, et al. (2021) How AI capabilities enable business model innovation: scaling AI through co-evolutionary processes and feedback loops. Journal of Business Research134(September): 574–587. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.05.009.
99.
SolukJKammerlanderN (2021) Digital transformation in family-owned Mittelstand firms: a dynamic capabilities perspective. European Journal of Information Systems30(6): 676–711. DOI: 10.1080/0960085X.2020.1857666.
100.
SonB-GKimHHurD, et al. (2021) The dark side of supply chain digitalisation: supplier-perceived digital capability asymmetry, buyer opportunism and governance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management41(7): 1220–1247. DOI: 10.1108/IJOPM-10-2020-0711.
101.
Sousa-ZomerTTNeelyAMartinezV (2020) Digital transforming capability and performance: a microfoundational perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management40(7/8): 1095–1128. DOI: 10.1108/IJOPM-06-2019-0444.
102.
SriteMKarahannaE (2006) The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly30(3): 679–704. DOI: 10.2307/25148745.
103.
SuJLiuJ (2012). Effective dynamic capabilities in complex product systems: experiences of local Chinese firm. Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China4(3): 174–188. DOI: 10.1108/17561411211288895.
104.
SudusingheJISeuringS (2022) Supply chain collaboration and sustainability performance in circular economy: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Production Economics245(March), Article: 108402. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108402.
105.
SyedTABlomeCPapadopoulosT (2020) Resolving paradoxes in IT success through IT ambidexterity: the moderating role of uncertain environments. Information & Management57(6), Article: 103345. DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2020.103345.
106.
TanFTCOndrusJTanB, et al. (2020) Digital transformation of business ecosystems: evidence from the Korean pop industry. Information Systems Journal30(5): 866–898. DOI: 10.1111/isj.12285.
107.
TeeceDJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal28(13): 1319–1350. DOI: 10.1002/smj.640.
108.
TeeceDJ (2010) Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning43(2): 172–194. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003.
109.
TeeceDJ (2018) Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning51(1): 40–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007.
110.
TeeceDPisanoG (1994) The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change3(3): 537–556. DOI: 10.1093/icc/3.3.537-a.
TeubnerRAStockhingerJ (2020) Literature review: understanding information systems strategy in the digital age. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems29(4), Article: 101642. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsis.2020.101642.
113.
ThomasRCarsten LundP (2020) Digitization capability and the digitalization of business models in business-to-business firms: past, present, and future. Industrial Marketing Management86(April): 180–190. DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.11.019.
114.
TimYPanSLBahriS, et al. (2018) Digitally enabled affordances for community-driven environmental movement in rural Malaysia. Information Systems Journal28(1): 48–75. DOI: 10.1111/isj.12140.
115.
ToCKMAuJSCKanCW (2019) Uncovering business model innovation contexts: a comparative analysis by fsQCA methods. Journal of Business Research101(August): 783–796. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.042.
116.
TöytäriPTurunenTKleinM, et al. (2018) Aligning the mindset and capabilities within a business network for successful adoption of smart services. Journal of Product Innovation Management35(5): 763–779. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12462.
117.
VanceALowryPBEggettD (2015) Increasing accountability through user-interface design artifacts: a new approach to addressing the problem of access-policy violations. MIS Quarterly39(2): 345–366. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26628357.
118.
VerhoefPCBroekhuizenTBartY, et al. (2021) Digital transformation: a multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research122(January): 889–901. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022.
119.
VialG (2019). Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems28(2): 118–144. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003.
120.
von BrielFSchneiderCLowryPB (2019) Absorbing knowledge from and with external Partners: the role of social integration mechanisms. Decision Sciences50(1): 7–45. DOI: 10.1111/deci.12314.
121.
von DelftSKortmannSGelhardC, et al. (2019) Leveraging global sources of knowledge for business model innovation. Long Range Planning52(5), Article: 101848. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2018.08.003.
122.
WalterAAuerMRitterT (2006) The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing21(4): 541–567. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.005.
123.
WangCHuQ (2020) Knowledge sharing in supply chain networks: effects of collaborative innovation activities and capability on innovation performance. Technovation94–95(June–July), Article: 102010. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2017.12.002.
124.
WarnerKSRWägerM (2019) Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: an ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning52(3): 326–349. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001.
125.
WeberEUHseeC (1998) Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Management Science44(9): 1205–1217. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.44.9.1205.
126.
WeiZYangDSunB, et al. (2014) The fit between technological innovation and business model design for firm growth: evidence from China. R&D Management44(3): 288–305. DOI: 10.1111/radm.12069.
127.
WeilnhammerVSchmidJMittermeierI, et al. (2021) Extreme weather events in europe and their health consequences – a systematic review. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health233(April): Article: 113688. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2021.113688.
128.
WekingJStöckerMKowalkiewiczM, et al. (2020) Leveraging industry 4.0 – a business model pattern framework. International Journal of Production Economics225(July), Article: 107588. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107588.
129.
WesselLBaiyereAOlogeanu-TaddeiR, et al. (2021) Unpacking the difference between digital transformation and IT-enabled organizational transformation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems22(1): 102–129. DOI: 10.17705/1jais.00655.
130.
WestwoodRLowDR (2003) The multicultural muse: culture, creativity and innovation. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management3(2): 235–259. DOI: 10.1177/14705958030032006.
131.
WuHChenJJiaoH (2016) Dynamic capabilities as a mediator linking international diversification and innovation performance of firms in an emerging economy. Journal of Business Research69(8): 2678–2686. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.003.
132.
YangZHuangZWangF, et al. (2018) The double-edged sword of networking: complementary and substitutive effects of networking capability in China. Industrial Marketing Management68(January): 145–155. DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.10.010.
133.
YangLHuoBTianM, et al. (2021) The impact of digitalization and inter-organizational technological activities on supplier opportunism: the moderating role of relational ties. International Journal of Operations & Production Management41(7): 1085–1118. DOI: 10.1108/IJOPM-09-2020-0664.
134.
YuCZhangZLiuY (2019) Understanding new ventures’ business model design in the digital era: an empirical study in China. Computers in Human Behavior95(June): 238–251. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.027.
135.
YuanCXueDHeX (2021) A balancing strategy for ambidextrous learning, dynamic capabilities, and business model design, the opposite moderating effects of environmental dynamism. Technovation103(May), Article: 102225. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102225.
136.
ZhangHXiaoHWangY, et al. (2021) An integration of antecedents and outcomes of business model innovation: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Research131(July): 803–814. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.045.
137.
ZhaoXLynchJGJr.ChenQ (2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research37(2): 197–206. DOI: 10.1086/651257.
138.
ZhuQSarkisJ (2004) Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Operations Management22(3): 265–289. DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2004.01.005.
139.
ZhuXXiaoZDongMC, et al. (2019) The fit between firms’ open innovation and business model for new product development speed: a contingent perspective. Technovation86–87(August-September): 75–85. DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2019.05.005.
140.
ZottCAmitR (2007) Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science18(2): 181–199. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0232.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
