1 INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, interest in digital transformation (DT) has surged. Yet, despite the plethora of available information, many initiatives continue to fall short.
This raises a crucial question: “Why do so many digital transformations fail?” Understanding the underlying reasons for these failures is essential for leadership teams to effectively engage with the DT process and increase the likelihood of success. Many see DT primarily leveraging innovative technologies to drive organisational change and boost business outcomes (Agarwal et al., 2010; Berman, 2012; Bharadwaj et al., 2013).
Vial (2019) defines DT as “a process that aims to improve an entity by triggering significant changes to its properties through combinations of information, computing, communication, and connectivity technologies”. Scholars, businesses, and policymakers widely believe that investing in DT is essential (Carroll, Conboy, & Wang, 2023).
Despite the pressure to transform in response to competitive pressures and global events like the COVID-19 pandemic, many DT efforts are poorly executed, especially in the initial and post-implementation stages (Carroll, Conboy, Hassan, et al., 2023; Carroll & Conboy, 2020). Reports indicate a failure rate exceeding 80% (Carroll et al., 2021; Tabrizi et al., 2019; Wade & Shan, 2020).
2 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION
Berman (2012) argues that DT entails radically transforming business practices through digital technologies to improve performance. This includes leveraging mobile technology for networking (Gunawan & Huarng, 2015), using big data analytics to enhance knowledge management (Rothberg & Erickson, 2017), boosting brand recognition via social media (Swani et al., 2017), and employing robotic process automation to optimise outcomes (Goksoy et al., 2012; Vajgel et al., 2021).
2.1 CONCEPTUAL DIVERSITY IN DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION
It is vital to differentiate between DT and IT-enabled change management. Wessel et al. (2021) stress distinguishing between these concepts to truly grasp DT. Baiyere et al. (2020) explain that integrating business process management logic within DT requires a shift in leadership approach, relaxing traditional controls. This dynamic points to the need for innovative strategies to stay competitive as customer needs evolve.
The challenge in defining DT and its roles is underscored by research indicating a blurred line between managerial decisions and industry trends (Wessel et al., 2021). This inconsistency hampers the leadership team’s understanding of the post-implementation phase (Carroll, Conboy, & Wang, 2023; Oludapo et al., 2023) and contributes to the high failure rate of DT efforts.
2.2 EXAMINING ASSUMPTIONS IN DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION
Despite considerable investments, many DT initiatives fall short of expectations. By challenging existing assumptions about DT through a problematisation approach (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011), the goal is to uncover the root causes of these failures.
This involves scrutinising underlying structures to reveal complexities and hidden issues within DT. Problematising assumptions is crucial for understanding why DT initiatives often fail, allowing organisations to identify subtle factors leading to unsuccessful outcomes. Sandberg & Alvesson (2010) suggest that problematisation aims to disrupt conventional thinking by turning accepted ideas into questions.
2.3 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION GUARANTEES SUCCESS
Most DT literature focuses on successful outcomes, reinforcing the assumption that DT initiatives lead to success. While DT integrates digital technologies to fundamentally change operations and deliver customer value, successful implementation yields improved efficiency, productivity, cost reduction, and faster decision-making (Akter et al., 2022; Shang & Seddon, 2002).
However, little research addresses post-implementation and failure factors. Studying failures provides insights into organisations’ challenges, such as leadership team inadequacies, resistance to change, or misalignment between technology and objectives (Kane et al., 2015).
2.3.1 ORGANISATIONS LEARN FROM SUCCESSFUL DIGITAL TRANSFORMATIONS
Current research emphasises the need to understand the transformation process, yet focusing solely on DT success does not help identify pitfalls. Organisations can learn valuable lessons from successful DTs, guiding their journey towards digital maturity.
Analysing successful cases reveals critical factors for success, such as a leadership team that understands the digital landscape, communicates a compelling vision, and drives change throughout the organisation (Ross et al., 2019). However, balancing this with failure analysis is crucial. Conducting failure analyses fosters a culture of learning and adaptation, which is essential for organisational growth (Edmondson, 2019).
2.3.2 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION ONLY IMPACTS ORGANISATIONS
DT has significant implications, both positive and negative, for organisations. Evaluating the costs and benefits of DT initiatives is essential, including potential disruptions to business models, processes, structures, workflows, and roles.
Most DT research focuses on organisational analysis (Carroll, Conboy, Hassan, et al., 2023; Carroll et al., 2021). DT can disrupt traditional structures, change employment patterns, and affect privacy and data security. Examining failures allows organisations to assess unintended consequences, evaluate ethical implications, and develop frameworks for responsible and sustainable DT implementations (Grover et al., 2022; Matzler et al., 2018; Warner & Wäger, 2019).
3 WHY DO SO MANY DIGITAL TRANSFORMATIONS FAIL?
The main focus is business continuity to uncover why so many DTs fail. The researchers reviewed extensive research offerings to examine deeper assumptions, find new themes, and understand how organisations can sustain DT efforts.
3.1 WHAT ARE THE MAIN REASONS DT FAILS?
The critical role of careful implementation in aligning DT initiatives with organisational goals cannot be overstated. The case of GE (Colvin, 2018) underscores the importance of an implementation roadmap to drive strategy. For example, transitioning to Industry 4.0 has prompted many manufacturers to adopt DT.
We use this method for diagnosing organisational issues, fostering innovation, and developing robust strategies by addressing root causes rather than symptoms, ultimately leading to deeper understanding and sustainable improvements.
The intent of GE was right, but it got lost in the process of doing everything at once. Without a clear vision, driving the digital transformation at the scale of a GE-level enterprise is a suicide mission. Despite the heavy investments and best-in-class talent, the digital initiatives did not succeed due to the lack of balance between the business needs and capabilities.
The biggest pitfalls causing the digital strategies to fail are:
Ghobakhloo & Fathi (2020) note that “the transition for typical manufacturers should be commensurate with their organisational, operational and technical particularities. When aligned with the firm’s core strategies, capabilities and procedures, digitisation of certain operations and processes can offer superior competitiveness even in the Industry 4.0 era.”
Rushing implementation strategies leads to poor outcomes. Poor coordination and flawed technology implementations are leading DT failure causes (Berg, 2001; Bernroider et al., 2014; Jafari-Sadeghi et al., 2022; Sherer et al., 2003). Hastening strategies often lead to failure, not just in the digital era but historically. This includes biases like the “Not-Invented-Here Syndrome” (Arias-Pérez & Vélez-Jaramillo, 2022) and unrealistic expectations that digital technologies alone can solve all problems.
A well-conceived strategy for unforeseen events is vital for business survival in changing economic landscapes (Barnes, 2001; Doughty, 2000). Despite high DT failure rates (Carroll et al., 2021; Tabrizi et al., 2019), organisations prepare for and adapt to unexpected disruptions. Unaddressed events in projects lead to “distress,” a term Baghizadeh et al. (2019) used for adverse conditions requiring urgent responses.
Organisations need a comprehensive DT distress plan to mitigate technology DT failure, detailing resource preparation, particularly people, to alleviate fears and facilitate technology adoption.
| Theme | Factors Leading to Failure | Exemplary Papers |
| Technology | Lack of awareness about current trends | Ghobakhloo and Fathi (2020) |
| Lack of proper planning | Berg (2001), Sherer et al. (2003) | |
| Resistance to new technology adoption | Arias-Pérez and Vélez-Jaramillo (2022) | |
| Failure to address the new technology “shock” | Baghizadeh et al., (2019), Sherer et al., (2003) | |
| Lack of new technology success metrics | Arias-Pérez and Vélez-Jaramillo (2022), Berg (2001) |
3.2 INNOVATION FACTORS LEADING TO DT FAILURE
Many organisations fail in their transformation efforts due to misguided strategic restructuring. This often happens when innovation does not align with organisational goals. Rothmann & Koch (2014) describe how organisations waste creative potential by maintaining failing strategies instead of exploring new ones.
i. Not having a clarity on what digital transformation means
ii. Not having the buy-in from the management
iii. Doing everything at once
iv. Absence of quantifiable metrics to measure the digital progress
v. Lack of a change management plan
The digital transformation failure case study highlighted the critical importance of proper planning, stakeholder alignment, and change management in successfully transitioning to modernized business processes and technologies.
“Not-Invented-Here Syndrome” (NIH Syndrome) is a cultural phenomenon in organisations where employees or leaders exhibit a resistance to using or valuing ideas, products, or solutions developed externally. This resistance stems from a preference for internally created solutions, often driven by a sense of pride, territoriality, or distrust of external contributions. NIH Syndrome can hinder innovation, collaboration, and the adoption of potentially superior or cost-effective solutions, ultimately impacting the organisation’s overall performance and competitive advantage. Addressing NIH Syndrome requires fostering a more open and collaborative culture that values diverse perspectives and external insights.
Work pressure hinders new idea generation at both individual and organisational levels. Organisations should encourage open communication, early failure identification, and innovative approaches before costs escalate.
Research indicates that ambidextrous organisations consistently outperform their peers. Defined by O’Reilly and Tushman (2004), these organisations effectively integrate breakthrough efforts into senior management structures.
This integration ensures a strategic alignment of exploratory and exploitative activities, supported by dual structures and flexible resource allocation.
The leadership team plays a crucial role in balancing these activities, fostering a culture of innovation and efficiency. Additionally, ambidextrous organisations excel in business model innovation, adapting and evolving their business models to capture new opportunities and maintain a competitive edge.
Ambidextrous organisations achieve sustained superior performance by maintaining both short-term and long-term innovation.
This highlights the need for unified stakeholder objectives in various initiatives. However, the transformation of people during DT is often overlooked. Are people evolving with DT, or are they stagnant? Current research urges bridging this gap, linking human actions and innovation (Fernandez-Vidal et al., 2022).
Business Model Innovation: An additional critical factor in DT failure is the lack of business model innovation. Organisations often attempt to implement DTs without reconsidering their existing business models, leading to misalignment between new technologies and traditional business practices (Gebauer et al., 2020).
Business model innovation involves rethinking how a company creates, delivers, and captures value in the digital age. Without this re-evaluation, digital initiatives may fail to deliver expected benefits, as they do not integrate seamlessly with the core business strategy.
Successful DT requires a holistic approach that includes revisiting and potentially overhauling the business model to ensure it effectively supports and leverages new digital capabilities.
3.2.1 Tackling Innovation Failures
To mitigate these risks, organisations should adopt a multifaceted strategy:
• Encourage Ambidexterity: Promote an organisational culture that balances exploiting existing capabilities with exploring new opportunities. Structuring teams can achieve this to focus on incremental improvements and breakthrough innovations.
• Foster Open Communication: Implement mechanisms for transparent and open communication across all levels of the organisation to ensure alignment and facilitate the sharing of innovative ideas.
• Revisit Business Models: Regularly review and adapt business models to align with DT goals, ensuring that technological advancements are fully integrated into the strategic framework.
• Invest in People: Focus on continuous human capital development to ensure employees evolve alongside technological advancements, maintaining relevance and adaptability.
By addressing these innovation factors, organisations can better navigate the complexities of DT, avoiding common pitfalls and enhancing their chances of achieving sustainable success.
| Theme | Factors Leading to Failure | Exemplary Papers |
| Innovation | Lack of coordinated ideas | Cennamo et al. (2020), Loonam et al. (2018), O’Reilly and Tushman (2004) |
| Lack of cross-functional teams | Piepponen et al. (2022), O’Reilly and Tushman (2004) | |
| Lack of strategic structure | Loonam et al. (2018), Uhlenbruck et al. (2003) | |
| Pressure to maintain failed projects | Loonam et al. (2018), Verhoef et al. (2021), Rothmann and Koch (2014) | |
| Lack of corporate governance mechanisms | Guenzi and Habel (2020), Verhoef et al. (2021), O’Reilly and Tushman (2004) |
4 MANAGEMENT FACTORS LEADING TO DT FAILURE
A DT process without leadership readiness is like “changing the wheel of a moving vehicle” (Baiyere et al., 2020). Another major hurdle is the leadership team’s failure to formulate and communicate effectively (Sarker & Lee, 1999).
As with any change initiative, the leadership team will communicate a consistent message to the employees throughout the reengineering initiative. Otherwise, confusion and lack of commitment result from the leadership team’s contradicting signals and symbols (Sarker & Lee, 1999).
The types of leadership team performance failures include lack of:
• Communication of a clear vision
• Active redesign and implementation engagement
• Empathy towards team members
• Consistent goal communication
• Commitment to plans by acknowledging interdependencies between teams
• Ensuring continuity in management and strategic direction (Gerth & Peppard, 2016; Sarker & Lee, 1999).
The leadership team’s resistance to change is another significant barrier (Audzeyeva & Hudson, 2017). Moore (2004) encapsulates the challenge: “For most executive teams, battling the inertia demon is the biggest challenge they face. Sad to say, the demon usually wins” (p. 91).
4.1 CHANGE IS CEREBRAL
The leadership team’s resistance to change is a formidable barrier to DT success. This resistance, often termed senescence in organisational behaviour, reflects a state where leadership’s capacity to adapt and embrace new methodologies diminishes over time.
Senescence can be likened to organisational aging, where established routines and comfort zones become entrenched, making innovation and adaptation increasingly challenging (Audzeyeva & Hudson, 2017).
4.1.1 Definition
Senescence in leadership refers to the gradual decline in the adaptability and responsiveness of leadership teams to new challenges and changes. This decline is not only about aging but encompasses a broader spectrum of resistance rooted in entrenched behaviours, fear of the unknown, and a reluctance to disrupt the status quo (Audzeyeva & Hudson, 2017).
4.1.2 Explanation
Leadership team senescence manifests in several ways:
• Complacency: The leadership team may become complacent, relying on past successes and established practices, which can stifle innovation.
• Fear of Failure: There is often a fear of failure associated with adopting new technologies or strategies. This fear can paralyse decision-making and prevent proactive change.
• Lack of Vision: A leadership team resistant to change may lack a clear vision for the future, making it challenging to inspire and mobilise their teams towards transformation.
• Inertia: As Moore (2004) encapsulates, battling the “inertia demon” is a significant challenge. Inertia represents the force that keeps organisations tethered to their current state, resisting change.
4.1.3 Rationale
Understanding and addressing senescence is critical for several reasons:
• Competitive Edge: In a rapidly evolving business landscape, staying competitive requires agility and a willingness to embrace change. Leadership teams that fail to overcome senescence risk falling behind more adaptive competitors.
• Innovation: Innovation is the lifeblood of modern organisations. Overcoming resistance to change is essential to foster a culture of continuous improvement and creative problem-solving.
• Employee Morale: Leadership resistance can negatively impact employee morale and engagement. Employees look to their leadership team for direction and inspiration; a resistant leadership team can create a culture of stagnation and frustration.
4.1.4 Tackling Senescence
Organisations will actively combat senescence within their leadership teams to successfully navigate the complexities of DT. This involves several strategic approaches:
i. Cultivating a Growth Mindset: Encourage the leadership team to adopt a growth mindset, where challenges are viewed as opportunities for development rather than threats. This mindset shift is crucial for fostering resilience and adaptability.
ii. Leadership Development: Continuous development programs can equip leadership teams with the skills and knowledge to embrace change. These programs should focus on emotional intelligence, visionary thinking, and strategic agility.
iii. Fostering Open Communication: Open and transparent communication channels can help alleviate fears and uncertainties associated with change. Leadership teams should actively dialogue with their teams, addressing concerns and demonstrating commitment to transformation.
iv. Setting Clear Goals: Establishing clear, achievable goals for DT can provide a roadmap for the leadership team. This clarity helps reduce ambiguity and align leadership efforts with organisational objectives.
v. Celebrating Successes: Recognising and celebrating small wins in the transformation journey can build momentum and reinforce the benefits of change. This positive reinforcement can help mitigate resistance and build a culture of continuous improvement.
Effective DT leadership requires a combination of technical expertise (Cortellazzo et al., 2019; Singh & Hess, 2017), organisational agility (Singh & Hess, 2017), and emotional intelligence (Usai et al., 2020).
Managing and motivating individuals through transformation demands an emotional connection based on trust and loyalty (Carroll, Conboy, & Wang, 2023).
| Theme | Factors Leading to Failure | Exemplary Papers |
| Management Lack of adequate guidelines | Sarker and Lee (1999), Matt et al. (2016) | |
| Lack of proper training | Gerth and Peppard (2016), Sarker and Lee (1999) | |
| Lack of top management readiness | Gerth and Peppard (2016), Matt et al. (2016), Sarker and Lee (1999) | |
| Resistance to change | Audzeyeva and Hudson (2017), Moore (2004) | |
| Lack of effective communication | Matt et al. (2016) |
4.2 INFORMATION SYSTEM FACTORS LEADING TO DT FAILURE
Alter (2008) defines a system as one in which “human participants and/or machines perform work (processes and activities) using information, technology, and other resources to produce informational products and/or services for internal or external customers” (p. 451).
This definition highlights the complex interplay between human and technological elements essential for successful DT.
Disagreements between the leadership team and middle management during user engagement and process involvement can significantly hinder DT efforts.
This challenge is evident in various sectors, such as entertainment (Dobusch & Schüßler, 2014), finance (Audzeyeva & Hudson, 2017), and healthcare (Abraham & Junglas, 2011).
When there is a lack of alignment between different management levels, the implementation of DT initiatives often stalls, leading to inefficiencies and resistance to change.
Granting autonomy to middle management and employees is crucial for successful DT. However, if these individuals perceive themselves as inadequate or ill-equipped to handle new technologies, it can undermine the entire transformation effort.
Social factors also contribute to DT failures, including regulatory uncertainties, total cost uncertainties, and security concerns (Edu et al., 2021; Smith & Jamieson, 2006; Wheeler, 2017). Regulatory complexity can impede DT efforts, as navigating intricate regulations can be challenging for organisations.
Furthermore, government funding for DT initiatives, particularly in healthcare, often faces hurdles due to the unknown and difficult-to-justify total ownership costs (Grieger et al., 2007).
Effective DT requires clear alignment and cooperation between leadership and middle management, a supportive environment that empowers professionals, and careful consideration of regulatory and cost-related challenges.
Addressing these factors is critical to overcoming barriers and ensuring the success of DT initiatives.
| Theme | Factors Leading to Failure | Exemplary Papers |
| Information System | Inappropriate vested interest (power) | Audzeyeva and Hudson (2017), Dobusch and Schüßler (2014) |
| High degree of autonomy | Abraham and Junglas (2011), Glaser and Shaw (2022) | |
| Inability to calculate the total cost | Abraham and Junglas (2011), Guenzi and Habel (2020) | |
| Security issues | Edu et al. (2021), Smith and Jamieson (2006), Wheeler (2017) | |
| Regulatory uncertainty | Braithwaite (2002), Dobusch and Schüßler (2014) |
5 STRATEGIC DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION: ENHANCING BUSINESS OUTCOMES
In a dynamic business landscape, DT is imperative for organisations striving to improve business outcomes and maintain a competitive edge. Despite its importance, the high failure rates of DT initiatives underscore the necessity for a well-crafted strategic approach.
By delving into the root causes of these failures and implementing best practices, leadership teams can markedly increase their likelihood of success.
Below are three critical tips for the CEO, ten crucial steps for leadership teams and seven essential questions for ensuring a successful digital transformation.
Three Critical Tips for the CEO:
i. Prevent Delegation by the Leadership Team:
• Ensure that each leadership team member’s personal performance review objectives include all steps and questions related to the DT process. This alignment will drive accountability and maintain focus throughout the transformation journey.
ii. Implement a Cross-Functional Digital Governance Framework:
• Beyond standard governance, establish a cross-functional digital governance framework that integrates various business units, IT, and external partners. This framework should include detailed protocols for decision-making, resource allocation, and risk management across all levels of the organisation. It will also incorporate a dynamic feedback loop to rapidly identify and address emergent issues. This level of integration ensures that digital initiatives are not siloed but are harmoniously aligned with overall business strategy, allowing for more agile responses to market shifts and technological advancements.
iii. Develop a Dual-Speed IT Architecture:
• Traditional IT infrastructure can often become a bottleneck in digital transformation initiatives. To counter this, implement a dual-speed IT architecture. This approach bifurcates your IT system into two parallel streams: one dedicated to maintaining stable, core business operations (slow IT) and another focused on rapidly developing and deploying new digital innovations (fast IT). The fast IT stream should leverage cloud-native solutions, microservices architecture, and DevOps practices to accelerate innovation cycles. Meanwhile, the slow IT stream ensures robust support for existing systems. This dual-speed strategy enables your organisation to maintain operational integrity while continuously pushing the envelope on digital initiatives.
Incorporating these strategies – ensures a more resilient, adaptable, and forward-thinking approach to digital transformation, ultimately driving sustained competitive advantage and organisational growth.
5.1 TEN STEPS FOR SUCCESSFUL DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION
i. Cultivate a Growth Mindset: Foster a culture where challenges are seen as opportunities for development.
ii. Establish Clear Communication Channels: Ensure transparent communication across all organisational levels.
iii. Invest in Continuous Leadership Development: Equip the leadership team with the skills needed for change.
iv. Develop a Comprehensive Implementation Roadmap: Align DT initiatives with core strategies and capabilities.
v. Encourage Ambidexterity: Balance exploiting existing capabilities with exploring new opportunities.
vi. Revisit and Adapt Business Models: Regularly review business models to integrate new digital capabilities.
vii. Empower Middle Management: Grant autonomy and equip middle management for technological adoption.
viii. Develop a Comprehensive DT Distress Plan: To alleviate fears and facilitate adoption, prepare for unforeseen events.
ix. Establish Clear Goals and Metrics: Set and measure progress towards DT goals.
x. Celebrate Small Wins: Recognise and celebrate achievements to build momentum and reinforce benefits.
5.2 SEVEN PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS FOR THE LEADERSHIP TEAM FOR DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION SUCCESS
i. How are we aligning our DT initiatives with our core organisational strategies and capabilities?
ii. What mechanisms are in place to ensure open and transparent communication throughout the organisation during this transformation?
iii. How are we equipping our middle management and employees to handle new technologies and embrace change?
iv. What specific goals and metrics have we established to measure the success of our DT efforts? Are the metrics connected to each member of the leadership team’s performance review?
v. How are we revisiting and adapting our business models to fully integrate new digital capabilities?
vi. What plans do we have to address potential regulatory uncertainties and security concerns related to DT?
vii. How are we recognising and celebrating small wins to build momentum and reinforce the benefits of our transformation efforts?
By following these steps and asking these questions, organisations can navigate the complexities of digital transformation and achieve meaningful, sustainable change.
6 SEVEN SUPER METRICS TO DEMONSTRATE DIGITAL MATURITY AND HOLD LEADERSHIP TEAM ACCOUNTABLE: ESSENTIAL FOR LEADERSHIP TEAM’S ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW
For each metric, the leadership team’s annual performance review will include a thorough evaluation based on these metrics. Performance benchmarks are set high to foster a culture of excellence and ensure that digital transformation is not just a superficial change but deeply embedded in the organisation’s DNA.
6.1 ENSURING LEADERSHIP ACCOUNTABILITY
Integrating these super metrics into the leadership team’s performance review process is a priority to ensure that digital transformation efforts are initiated, sustained, and continuously improved. Organisations can secure their digital future and achieve an enduring competitive advantage by holding the leadership accountable through clear, ambitious metrics.
6.1.1 Digital Revenue Contribution
Metric: Percentage of total revenue directly attributable to digital channels and initiatives.
Minimum Expectation: 40%
Rationale: Digital channels must significantly contribute to the organisation’s revenue stream, showcasing effective digital strategy execution and market engagement.
6.1.2 Post-Digital Transformation Innovation Continuity
Metric: Number of post-transformation innovation projects initiated and successfully completed annually.
Minimum Expectation: 5 significant projects per year
Rationale: To sustain digital maturity, continuous innovation is essential. This metric ensures the organisation remains dynamic and adaptable, fostering ongoing growth and relevance.
6.1.3 Digital Transformation Benefits Realisation
Metric: Percentage of digital transformation benefits realised versus projected benefits.
Minimum Expectation: 90%
Rationale: This metric measures the effectiveness and impact of digital transformation initiatives, ensuring the projected benefits are realised and contribute to the organisation’s overall success.
6.1.4 Digital Innovation Rate
Metric: Number of new digital products or significant updates to existing products launched annually.
Minimum Expectation: 4 major launches per year
Rationale: Continuous innovation demonstrates the organisation’s commitment to staying ahead in the digital arena, ensuring relevance and competitive advantage.
6.1.5 Internal Digital Adoption
Metric: Percentage of internal processes that are digitised and automated.
Minimum Expectation: 80%
Rationale: A high level of internal digital adoption signifies an efficient, agile, and responsive organisation, reducing operational costs and improving productivity.
6.1.6 Digital Skills Proficiency
Metric: Proportion of employees who have completed advanced digital skills training and certification.
Minimum Expectation: 75%
Rationale: Ensuring the workforce is proficient in digital skills is critical for executing digital strategies effectively, fostering innovation, and maintaining competitive advantage.
6.1.7 Accountability Retention Index
Metric: Percentage of accountability retained by leadership without delegation to subordinates.
Minimum Expectation: 90% of vital digital initiatives’ accountability is retained by leadership
Rationale: Preventing over-delegation of critical responsibilities ensures that leaders remain directly involved in driving digital transformation, maintaining oversight and accountability for outcomes.
7 CONCLUSION
DT is not a simple endeavour but a complex, multifaceted process fraught with potential pitfalls. The high failure rates of DT initiatives underscore the importance of understanding the nuanced reasons behind these failures. Each aspect requires careful consideration and strategic planning, from technological challenges to innovation misalignment, management deficiencies, and information system issues.
Organisations will move beyond the assumption that DT guarantees success and instead adopt a balanced approach that values success and failure analyses. This involves cultivating a learning culture that encourages experimentation, resilience, and agility. Leadership readiness, effective communication, and empathy drive successful DT efforts. Moreover, addressing regulatory uncertainties and security concerns is vital for a comprehensive DT strategy.
By acknowledging and addressing these challenges, organisations can improve their chances of successful DT. This requires a commitment to continuous improvement, a willingness to challenge existing assumptions and a strategic approach that aligns DT initiatives with organisational goals. Only then can organisations fully harness the potential of DT to drive meaningful and sustainable change.
REFERENCES
Abraham, C., & Junglas, I. (2011). From cacophony to harmony: A case study about the IS implementation process as an opportunity for organizational transformation at Sentara Healthcare. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSIS.2011.03.005
Agarwal, R., Gao, G. G., DesRoches, C., & Jha, A. K. (2010). Research commentary—The digital transformation of healthcare: Current status and the road ahead. Information System Research, 21(4), 796–809. https://doi.org/10.1287/ISRE.1100.0327
Akter, S., Michael, K., Uddin, M. R., McCarthy, G., & Rahman, M. (2022). Transforming business using digital innovations: The application of AI, blockchain, cloud and data analytics. Annals of Operations Research, 308(1–2), 7–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10479-020-03620-W/TABLES/9
Alter, S. (2008). Defining information systems as work systems: Implications for the IS field. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5), 448–469. https://doi.org/10.1057/EJIS.2008.37/FIGURES/3
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.0188
Arias-Pérez, J., & Vélez-Jaramillo, J. (2022). Ignoring the three-way interaction of digital orientation, Not-invented-here syndrome and employee’s artificial intelligence awareness in digital innovation performance: A recipe for failure. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, Article 121305. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2021.121305
Audzeyeva, A., & Hudson, R. (2017). How to get the most from a business intelligence application during the post-implementation phase? Deep structure transformation at a UK retail bank. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1057/EJIS.2014.44
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Sonnenstuhl, W. J. (1996). The organizational transformation process: The micropolitics of dissonance reduction and the alignment of logics of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 477–506. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393939
Baghizadeh, Z., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., & Schlagwein, D. (2019). Review and critique of the information systems development project failure literature: An argument for exploring information systems development project distress. Journal of Information Technology, 35(2), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268396219832010
Baiyere, A., Salmela, H., Tapanainen, T., Mendling, J., Pentland, B. T., & Recker, J. (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
Barnes, J. C. (2001). A guide to business continuity planning. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Guide_to_Business_Continuity_Planning.html?id=pLZ7QgAACAAJ
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Berg, M. (2001). Implementing information systems in health care organizations: Myths and challenges. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 64(2–3), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1386-5056(01)00200-3
Berman, S. J. (2012). Digital transformation: Opportunities to create new business models. Strategy and Leadership, 40(2), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878571211209314/FULL/PDF
Bernroider, E. W. N., Wong, C. W. Y., & Lai, K. H. (2014). From dynamic capabilities to ERP enabled business improvements: The mediating effect of the implementation project. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 350–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2013.05.006
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 37(2), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:2.3
Braithwaite, J. (2002). Rules and principles: A theory of legal certainty. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, 27(6), 47–82. https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-4744365325&origin=inward&txGid=fd13353ccc839e94e363e6ccef42df3f&featureToggles=FEATURE_NEW_DOC_DETAILS_EXPORT:1
Bresciani, S., Huarng, K. H., Malhotra, A., & Ferraris, A. (2021). Digital transformation as a springboard for product, process and business model innovation. Journal of Business Research, 128, 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2021.02.003
Carroll, N., & Conboy, K. (2020). Normalising the “new normal”: Changing tech-driven work practices under pandemic time pressure. International Journal of Information Management, 55, Article 102186. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJINFOMGT.2020.102186
Carroll, N., Conboy, K., Hassan, N. R., Hess, T., Junglas, I., & Morgan, L. (2023). Problematizing assumptions on digital transformation research in the information systems field. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 53(1), 508–531. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05322
Carroll, N., Conboy, K., & Wang, X. (2023). From transformation to normalisation: An exploratory study of a large-scale agile transformation. Journal of Information Technology, 2023, Article 026839622311644. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962231164428
Carroll, N., Hassan, N. R., Junglas, I., Hess, T., & Morgan, L. (2021). Managing and sustaining digital transformations. European Journal of Information Systems. https://www.callforpapers.co.uk/managing-sustaining-digital-transformations
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
Colvin, G. (2018). What the Hell Happened at GE? Fortune. https://fortune.com/longform/ge-decline-what-the-hell-happened
Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., & Zampieri, R. (2019). The role of leadership in a digitalized world: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(AUG). https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2019.01938
Edu, A. S., Agozie, D., & Agoyi, M. (2021). Digital security vulnerabilities and threats implications for financial institutions deploying digital technology platforms and application: FMEA and FTOPSIS analysis. PeerJ Computer Science, 7, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.7717/PEERJ-CS.658/SUPP-2
Fernandez-Vidal, J., Antonio Perotti, F., Gonzalez, R., & Gasco, J. (2022). Managing digital transformation: The view from the top. Journal of Business Research, 152, 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2022.07.020
Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D., & Welch, M. (2013). Embracing digital technology. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(2), 1–12. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/embracing-digital-technology
Ghobakhloo, M., & Fathi, M. (2020). Corporate survival in Industry 4.0 era: The enabling role of lean-digitized manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-11-2018-0417/FULL/PDF
Glaser, J., & Shaw, S. (2022). Digital transformation success: What can health care providers learn from other industries? Innovations in Care Delivery, 12(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1056/CAT.21.0434
Goksoy, A., Ozsoy, B., & Vayvay, O. (2012). Business process reengineering: Strategic tool for managing organizational change an application in a multinational company. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/IJBM.V7N2P89
Gunawan, D. D., & Huarng, K. H. (2015). Viral effects of social network and media on consumers’ purchase intention. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2237–2241. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2015.06.004
Jafari-Sadeghi, V., Mahdiraji, H. A., Brdesee, H., & Alsaggaf, W. (2022). Decision-making strategy for digital transformation: A two-year analytical study and follow-up concerning innovative improvements in university e-services. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 17(1), 138–164. https://doi.org/10.3390/JTAER17010008
Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Philips, N. N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2016). Aligning the Organization for Its Digital Future. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(2), 1–15. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/aligning-for-digital-future
Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A. N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy, not Technology. MIT Sloan Management Review: Drives Digital Transformation. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/strategy-drives-digital-transformation
Loonam, J., Eaves, S., Kumar, V., & Parry, G. (2018). Towards digital transformation: Lessons learned from traditional organizations. Strategic Change, 27(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/JSC.2185
Matt, C., Hess, T., Benlian, A., & Wiesbock, F. (2016). Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy. MIS Quarterly Executive, 15(2). https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol15/iss2/6
Moore, G. A. (2004). Darwin and the demon: Innovating within established enterprises. Harvard Business Review, 7(8), 86–92. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15241955
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 6(5), 4–18. https://hbr.org/2004/04/the-ambidextrous-organization
Oludapo, S., Carroll, N., & Helfert, M. (2023). Investigating the post-implementation of digital transformations. Kent, UK: UK Academy for Information Systems (UKAIS).
Rahmati, P., Tafti, A., Westland, J. C., & Hidalgo, C. (2021). When all products are digital: Complexity and intangible value in the ecosystem of digitizing firms. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 45(3), 1025–1058. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2021/15384
Ross, J. W., Beath, C. M., & Mocker, M. (2019). Designed for digital: How to architect your business for sustained success. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/MITPRESS/12188.001.0001
Rothberg, H. N., & Erickson, G. S. (2017). Big data systems: Knowledge transfer or intelligence insights? Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(1), 92–112. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2015-0300
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2010). Ways of constructing research questions: Gapspotting or problematization? Organization, 18(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508410372151
Sarker, S., & Lee, A. S. (1999). IT-enabled organizational transformation: A case study of BPR failure at TELECO. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 8(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8687(99)00015-3
Shang, S., & Seddon, P. B. (2002). Assessing and managing the benefits of enterprise systems: The business manager’s perspective. Information Systems Journal, 12(4), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1046/J.1365-2575.2002.00132.X
Sherer, S. A., Kohli, R., & Baron, A. (2003). Complementary investment in change management and IT investment payoff. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(3), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025609613076
Singh, A., & Hess, T. (2017). How Chief Digital Officers Promote the Digital Transformation of their Companies. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(1). https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol16/iss1/5
Smith, S., & Jamieson, R. (2006). Determining key factors in E-government information system security. Information Systems Management, 23(2), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1201/1078.10580530/45925.23.2.20060301/92671.4
Stoeckli, E., Dremel, C., & Uebernickel, F. (2018). Exploring characteristics and transformational capabilities of InsurTech innovations to understand insurance value creation in a digital world. Electronic Markets, 28(3), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12525-018-0304-7/FIGURES/3
Swani, K., Milne, G. R., Brown, B. P., Assaf, A. G., & Donthu, N. (2017). What messages to post? Evaluating the popularity of social media communications in business versus consumer markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 62, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2016.07.006
Tabrizi, B., Lam, E., Girard, K., & Irvin, V. (2019). Digital transformation is not about technology. Harvard Business Review, 1(3), 2–35. https://hbr.org/2019/03/digital-transformation-is-not-about-technology
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSIS.2019.01.003
Venkatraman, N. (1994). IT-enabled business transformation: From automation to business scope redefinition. Sloan Management, 35(2), 72–78. http://www.cs.jyu.fi/el/tjtse56_10/TJTSE56_Syllabus_files/Venkatraman%20-%20IT%20Enabled%20Business%20Transformation%20-%20From%20Automation%20to%20Business%20Scope%20Redefinition.pdf
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2019.09.022
Wade, M., & Shan, J. (2020). Covid-19 has accelerated digital transformation, but may have made it harder not easier. MIS Quarterly Executive, 19(3). https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol19/iss3/7
Warner, K. S. R., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LRP.2018.12.001
Wessel, L., Baiyere, A., Ologeanu-Taddei, R., Cha, J., & Jensen, T. B. (2021). Unpacking the difference between digital transformation and it