This article empirically evaluates the effect of the digital matrix on the value base of public sector micro-organisations. The results indicate that the digital matrix is a factor that optimising the value base of government start-ups and has a significant impact on their productivity and performance. Indeed, the optimisation of resources, generated by the digital matrix, leads to business performance and operational efficiency at the strategic planning level. The interconnection between the matrix and the value chain favours the technical flexibility of operationalisation strategies in the value-based public sector micro-organisations’ management. Thus, the matrix allows young public sector micro-organisations to optimise their resources for a greater appropriation of the value created.
Amedzro St-HilaireW. (2020). Digital risk governance. Coll. Economics & public administration (p. 234). Springer.
2.
Amedzro St-HilaireW. (2021). Reconnecting governance configuration variables to enterprises contingency factors for optimizing productivity at the start-up level. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 34(6), 1630–1648. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-12-2019-0410
3.
Amedzro St-HilaireW. (2022). Disruptive leadership for organizations: Strategies and innovations in a digitalized economy (p. 450). Routledge.
4.
Amedzro St-HilaireW. (2023a). Leading with digital technologies governance in the state-owned enterprises. International Journal of Public Administration, 46(2), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1993898
5.
Amedzro St-HilaireW. (2023b). Multidimensional and global indicators for government start-ups’ risk decision-making. International Journal of Public Administration, 46(8), 537–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1998109
6.
BreidbachC. F., & MaglioP. P. (2016). Technology-enabled resource optimization: An empirical analysis of actors, resources, and practices. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.03.011
7.
CarnabuciG., & OpertI. E. (2013). Where do firms’ recombinant capabilities come from? Intra-organizational networks, knowledge, and firms’ ability to innovate through technological recombination. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 1591–1613.
8.
ChapmanR. L., SoosayC., & KandampullyJ. (2003). Innovation in logistics services and the new business model: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 33(7), 630–650. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030310499295
9.
ChenX., & SiauK. (2011). Impact of business intelligence and IT infrastructure flexibility on competitive performance: An organizational agility perspective. ICIS.
10.
ChenY., LinT., & YenD. C. (2014). How to facilitate inter-organizational knowledge sharing: The impact of trust. Information and Management, 51(5), 568–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.03.007
11.
CheungM., MyersM. B., & MentzerJ. T. (2010). Does relationship learning lead to relationship value? A cross-national supply chain investigation. Journal of Operations Management, 28(6), 472–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.01.003
12.
ChinW. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. InMarcoulidesG.(Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–358). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
ChurchillG. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.
14.
CohenW. M.,& LevinthalD. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
EkmanP., RaggioR. D., & ThompsonS. M. (2016). Service network resource optimization: Defining the roles of the generic actor. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.03.002
17.
FornellC.,& LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
18.
FornellC., & RobinsonW. (1983). Industrial organization and consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 403–412.
19.
SchniederjansD., & SchniederjansM. (2015). Quality management and innovation: New insights on a structural contingency framework. International Journal of Quality Innovation, 1(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40887-015-0004-8
20.
DavisD. F., & GolicicS. L. (2010). Gaining comparative advantage in supply chain relationships: The mediating role of market-oriented IT competence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0127-8
21.
FlemingL., & SorensonO. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9), 909–928. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.384
22.
FroehleC. M., RothA. V., ChaseR. B., & VossC. A. (2000). Antecedents of new service development effectiveness: An exploratory examination of strategic operations choices. Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050031001
23.
GebauerJ., & SchoberF. (2006). Information system flexibility and the cost efficiency of business processes. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(3), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00084
24.
HatalaJ., & George LuttaJ. (2009). Managing information sharing within an organizational setting: A social network perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(4), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20036
25.
HelfatC. E., & WinterS. G. (2011). Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: Strategy for the (n)ever changing world. Strategic Management Journal, 32(11), 1243–1250. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.955
26.
HenselerJ., RingleC. M., & SinkovicsR. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014
27.
IşıkÖ., JonesM. C., & SidorovaA. (2013). Business intelligence success: The roles of BI capabilities and decision Environments. Information and Management, 50(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2012.12.001
28.
KaiC., & MeiC. (2011). Effects of service quality innovation and corporate image on customer’s satisfaction and loyalty of air cargo terminal. International Journal of Operations Research, 8(4), 36–47.
29.
KanoL., TsangE. W. K., & YeungH. W. (2020). Global value chains: A review of the multi-disciplinary literature. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(4), 577–622. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00304-2
30.
KimD., KumarV., & KumarU. (2012). Relationship between quality management practices and innovation. Journal of Operations Management, 30(4), 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2012.02.003
31.
KyriakopoulosK. (2011). Improvisation in product innovation: The contingent role of market information sources and memory types. Organization Studies, 32(8), 1051–1078. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611410833
32.
LaursenK. (2012). Keep searching and you’ll find: What do we know about variety creation through firms’ search activities for innovation?Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1181–1220. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dts025
33.
LiaoJ., KickulJ. R., & MaH. (2009). Organizational dynamic capability and innovation: An empirical examination of internet firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2009.00271.x
34.
LiebeskindJ. P., OliverA., ZuckerL., & BrewerM. B. (1996). Social networks, learning, and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organization Science, 7(4), 428–443.
35.
LönnqvistA., & PirttimäkiV. (2006). The measurement of business intelligence. Information Systems Management, 23(1), 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1201/1078.10580530/45769.23.1.20061201/91770.4
36.
MartinX., & SalomonR. (2003). Knowledge transfer capacity and its implications for the theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(4), 356–373. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400037
37.
MöllerK., & SvahnS. (2004). Crossing east–west boundaries: Knowledge sharing in intercultural business networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(3), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.10.011
38.
OuchiW. G. (1977). The Relation between Organizational Structure and Control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(19), 95–113.
39.
ParastM. (2011). The effect of Six Sigma projects on innovation and firm performance. International Journal of Project Management, 29(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.01.006
40.
Perdomo-OrtizJ., González-BenitoJ., & GalendeJ. (2006). Total quality management as a forerunner of business innovation capability. Technovation, 26(10), 1170–1185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.09.008
41.
PopovičA., HackneyR., CoelhoP. S., & JakličJ. (2012). Towards business intelligence systems success: Effects of maturity and culture on analytical decision making. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 729–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.08.017
42.
PowellW. W., KoputK. W., & Smith-DoerrL. (1996). Inter-organizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.
43.
RamakrishnanT., JonesM. C., & SidorovaA. (2012). Factors influencing business intelligence (BI) data collection strategies: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems, 52(2), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.10.009
44.
RousselP., DurrieuF., CampoyE., & El AkremiA. (2002). Structural equation methods: Research and application in management. Economica.
45.
SantosF. M., & EisenhardtK. M. (2005). Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science, 16(5), 491–508. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0152
46.
ShanksG., AdamF., & DalyM. (2012). Embedding business intelligence systems within organizations. InRespícioA., & BursteinF.(Eds.), Fusing decision support systems into the fabric of the context (pp. 113–124). IOS Press.
47.
SherP. J., & LeeV. C. (2004). Information technology as a facilitator for enhancing dynamic capabilities through knowledge management. Information and Management, 41(8), 933–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.06.004
48.
ThomasL. D. W., AutioE., & GannD. M. (2014). Architectural leverage: Putting platforms in context. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 198–219. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2011.0105
49.
TrkmanP., & DesouzaK. C. (2012). Knowledge risks in organizational networks: An exploratory framework. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2011.11.001
50.
Valette-FlorenceP. (1988). Spécificités et apports des méthodes d’analyse multivariée de la deuxième génération. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 3(4), 23–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/076737018800300402
51.
WangC. L., & AhmedP. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00201.x
52.
WatsonH., & WixomH. (2007). Enterprise agility and mature BI capabilities. Business Intelligence Journal, 12(3), 13–28.
53.
YeohW., KoroniosA., & GaoJ. (2008). Managing the implementation of business intelligence systems: A critical success factors framework. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 4(3), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.4018/jeis.2008070106
54.
ZahraS. A., & GeorgeG. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134351
55.
ZahraS. A., SapienzaH. J., & DavidssonP. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00616.x
56.
ZolloM., & WinterS. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780
