Digital Transformation: Quo Vadit?

Abstract

Digital transformation (DT) has become an important theme in information systems (IS) and adjacent fields (Carroll et al. 2023; Hanelt et al. 2021; Kraus et al. 2021; Piccoli, Grover, and Rodriguez 2024; Schallmo et al. 2024; Van Veldhoven and Vanthienen 2022; Verhoef et al. 2021; Vial 2019). This is of course unsurprising given the widespread interest in how digital technologies occasion change in markets, societies at large, and the political landscape (Bareikytė et al. 2024; Cowburn 2024; Davidson et al. 2023; Faik, Barrett, and Oborn 2020; Majchrzak, Markus, and Wareham 2016; Tana, Breidbach, and Burton-Jones 2023). Coming to terms with these changes, their outcomes, and unintended consequences is, therefore, both important and timely. However, fully understanding these phenomena questions extant theories (Nambisan et al. 2017; Yoo 2013; Yoo, Henfridsson, and Lyytinen 2010; Yoo et al. 2024) and warrants us to pause and more carefully consider how IS as a field has tackled ‘DT’ and what challenges this entails (see also, Markus and Rowe 2021). This special issue comes down to two motivations that made us organise and call for papers. One motivation is rooted in the abovementioned observations that cumulatively point to the diverse reverberations that digital technologies have across levels, processes, and actors altogether raising important questions for scholarship about DT (Baiyere et al. 2023; Yoo, Henfridsson, and Lyytinen 2010; Yoo et al. 2024). We, as a field, need to reflect on the implications of the assumptions shaping the narratives around DT. For example, DT has become shorthand for “change” driven by digital technology (see also, Markus 2004). Further, DT has also been discussed as being desirable to contemporary organisations, which implies that the discussion exhibits a favourability bias (Davidsson 2015, 2017). Revisiting underlying assumptions is important to avoid perceptions of DT as, for example, a ‘misnomer’ (Kane 2018). Put differently, revisiting these assumptions was one key aspect that we had in mind when we were working on the call for papers for this special issue, which emphasises ‘frontiers’ in research about DT. We wanted our special issue to foreground shifting baselines (Davison and Tarafdar 2018) where phenomena related to DT gradually overflow our conventional concepts and models and call for novel conceptualizations (Mousavi Baygi, Introna, and Hultin 2021). We sensed a need for studies and theorising that developed our understanding of DT in terms of its contents, levels of analysis, and processes that would contribute to widening our conceptual apparatuses and empirical accounts. This leads to the second motivation. Given that our first motivation calls for plurality (Markus and Rowe 2023), it becomes critical to work toward a path of research where knowledge related to DT is systematically developed. More specifically, there is a need to engage with the plurality of DT literature with stringency. We argue that many problems result from the frequent yet somewhat uncritical adoption of the compound term ‘DT’, sidestepping to an extent engagement with theories that tackled either the ‘digital’ or the ‘transformation’ long before the term ‘DT’ was invented (Baiyere et al. 2023; Besson and Rowe 2012; Markus and Rowe 2021; Wessel et al. 2021). The problem is straightforward: as long as ‘DT’ remains loosely applied, these criticisms will persist and legitimately so (Markus and Rowe 2021; Rowe and Markus 2023). If we are to solve these problems, engaging with these criticisms and their implications must be a top priority for developing theories and constructs related to DT (see also, Rivard 2020; Suddaby 2010). These motivations made us seek papers that specifically put ‘DT’ as a construct centre-stage and further developed its meaning, application, or impact. We asked authors to specify what DT means to them and to identify the frontiers their papers aimed to advance. In this editorial, we first explain a “stringency in plurality” approach to help advance research about DT and showcase the papers in the special issue in this context before providing an overview of each paper. We then highlight critical frontiers for future research advanced by these papers and offer additional frontiers based on our reflections from editing the special issue. As a result, we offer a research agenda to motivate deeper studies on how the field considers DT. We hope this editorial, and the special issue will provide a fresh take that helps researchers conduct the next wave of DT research in a way that respects the plurality of the discourse while enabling a tradition of generating DT-related knowledge systematically. IS and the associated transformations have imposed a ‘management puzzle’ (Rivard et al. 2004) upon organisations long before the term ‘DT’ was invented. Indeed, accounts of transformation loom large and have a long history in research associated with organisations. Economists have addressed industrial transformations from as early as the 1930s, explaining that general-purpose technologies required changes in industrial contexts that led to societal changes (Smil 2021; Wright 1997). For example, energy production has shaped people, societies, and businesses for centuries (Smil 2018). Management researchers started to consider organisational transformation in the second half of the twentieth century, with seminal works by Pettigrew (1985, 1987), Mintzberg (1979) and Mintzberg and Waters (1985) setting the stage for a debate about ‘radical organisation change’ (Anderson and Tushman 1986; Greenwood and Hinings 1996; Romanelli and Tushman 1994; Tushman and Romanelli 1985). This literature grew to become rich, diverse, and significant in size (see, e.g., Poole and Van De Ven 2021). IS have also research on organisational transformation and as of the literature on and Yoo 2012; and Rivard Rivard and and organisational transformation e.g., the overview Besson and Rowe from seminal works in the early and on how and of of with and to studies of transformation and 1996; and this literature has developed accounts of organisational transformations rooted in of these works from a and when a one with on is important to that many of these in the digital (Markus and Rowe 2021; et al. 2017). The that are to the of many a of these important systems and the in systems that as to contemporary digital technologies et al. 2017). In how and become or is, and an important for DT as the term ‘transformation’ has a history of being in related to so has the term ‘digital’ been in in IS and and researchers have been with for and 2016; and and 2010). by them as and was to the and a for to seek and 2024; et al. 2023; and and 2013; Yoo, Henfridsson, and Lyytinen 2010; Yoo et al. 2024). these transformations be to that is, the of technologies contexts (Baiyere et al. 2023; et al. 2013; and change and transformation from also a critical theme that IS researchers have to with for many (Rivard et al. 2004). this models of DT have in research and that have shaped how we of this in ‘DT’ as a in the debate to where it is the first to have had a is that of Vial DT as a that to the of an and models to and (see also, et al. 2024; and 2016; and 2017). In this digital technologies a in and in and (see also, Verhoef et al. 2021). to these by digital technologies to and and while to as and systems 2019). Hanelt et al. offer a with a on organisational change by DT. Hanelt et is based on (1985, work as these authors their of DT based on key and are in with as and that DT et al. 2021). to the processes and that these to outcomes, as the adoption of technologies and of organisational (see also and 2024). are the consequences of DT at levels, organisational and societal (see also, et al. 2024). The Hanelt et emphasises the and of the need for and with digital et al. 2021). The an of how DT be as organisational are many models of DT in IS and have their in the in two models in this is to the we aimed to the of how DT is by on two of the key papers that have an important in shaping this of to that we to about we need to how the or to these seminal DT research is required to a with and in and Markus 2023). in theorising and DT is to the IS However, this is with must be a way to this plurality and of We to this in this is to a that the to scholarship about DT while a means to advance research in a these we identify of DT that become we of DT as organisations also and at is that we to DT as that is across and levels, more the This the as point to DT research the that we important in this and of and DT novel in that context is is DT are the implications of in our of The in of how to about developing constructs related to which is we on each in terms of its for construct (Rivard 2020; Rowe and Markus 2023; Suddaby 2010). so we for construct a and it remains what we when we of DT. we need to on one we argue that researchers the or of DT from which their research are in the IS field are and research when the and when constructs for the and and how a to means that conceptual to be For example, is at when a is on a yet research fields advance when studies their One important of extant DT research is that it is a ‘misnomer’ (Kane 2018) or that term is so loosely that one term of in our field with (Markus and Rowe as these reflect about the of DT to phenomena that our field has been of for transformation (see Wessel et al. 2021). The is researchers in DT need to its One way to is to DT in that its (Rivard 2020; Suddaby 2010). This either developing or a that these and of to concepts (see the discussion e.g., Wessel et al. 2021). there are as digital et al. digital Henfridsson, and Lyytinen 2010; Yoo et al. digital (Nambisan and (Baiyere et al. 2023), being of how these from DT to and the concepts (see also, Piccoli, Grover, and Rodriguez 2024). so is what the that the term ‘DT’ comes with and Markus 2023). We authors in our to what by DT. For example, and developed a novel of DT based on of that or and the is based on the and where DT (see also, and 2024; and 2022; Tana, Breidbach, and Burton-Jones 2023). studies consider DT et al. 2023). DT with an bias conceptual by the of and need to approach it with a critical For example, one of the papers in the special issue, and the of DT and a of to and of the assumptions in DT our field to mind when DT warrants about the that the that constructs related to or developed in DT research have (Baiyere et al. 2023; Piccoli, Grover, and Rodriguez 2024). For example, DT be to organisational transformation in of its the of both processes et al. 2021). has been to organisational raising the of these (see, e.g., the overview et al. while to them at the The critical of constructs to concepts that become and based on work and developed Suddaby 2010). The term ‘DT’ has become a to research on the as 2017). One is the of what is to be (Markus and Rowe 2023). the to be that DT is an et al. 2021; Vial Wessel et al. 2021). to knowledge that to businesses and Faik, Barrett, and Oborn 2020; Majchrzak, Markus, and Wareham then this to The for IS is to of and organisations and what consider to be Indeed, working on the conceptual in DT we need to to with an as it is that have been in adjacent For in our special issue, and how in the context of the on at the of The work both and that or to or as and have been addressed in research et al. the has a on how these in DT in the context of papers of the special issue provide of how authors in DT research by DT research and concepts from adjacent fields (see also, and However, on concepts from adjacent fields comes with implications for the of the 2010). The is that authors a to the assumptions of the and developing it with as a Indeed, conceptual when as the concepts that we This is theories and theories are from For example, while many studies in DT research are studies are to which is important for at et al. 2024). The of is to our field to by DT on levels of The is, DT The of research about DT on the of organisation where consequences et al. 2021; Piccoli, Grover, and Rodriguez 2024; Vial Wessel et al. 2021). We argue there is to advance our understanding of DT by when and how it is when it is at the organisational (see also, et al. The is, in our significant transformations at levels of or are to as by et al. in the special issue. on these levels of will be to a extent when actors organisations. The to be by first accounts of societal of DT and industrial and and DT Breidbach, and Burton-Jones 2023), raising important in to these studies to DT on levels to how phenomena on these levels and 2024; et al. 2023). This means that DT on levels of that of the organisation is to be and on the of the The in DT will then authors to their studies from while to the of digital which will that studies and on and a in the special issue, the of digital and a to organisational based on DT of is on changes related to DT on and which are the of how to changes in the One way to about levels of is by and levels 1986; and and Wessel 2023; and Wessel to levels of also and Faik, Barrett, and Oborn point is to one approach to be more that from of that are addressed in DT for example, et al. from this special issue. levels of theories from to the phenomena are For example, in our and a rooted in theories et al. 2012; Wessel et al. 2019). In it is important to the to constructs in this to how them to DT is both with them yet also developing them This is when to levels of One of the papers in the special issue, et al. provide an of the levels with their of the and organisational to how changes in the of organisations to these levels and 2024; et al. 2023). The is levels of and so and or on important is If we is and it is a is also to are we at we the field at the of the or it has The implications of field work are significant and this comes down to being about the of when we DT our understanding of DT (see also, et al. The key issue is how when we DT to how we DT 2010). for example, that empirical studies have DT as an digital technology is to the of an et al. 2021). DT in this way means to it outcomes, which from underlying empirical a DT. or we DT to be et al. 2023), studies at it it has to an a of DT as a of change that or in the way wanted it to from studies that at a point when DT we need more work to DT or DT as as studies that for DT its The is that DT take to and by to what that we important accounts of For example, transformations are and their and more to transformation et al. As digital technologies and offer novel to be put to work in organisations and 2021; Piccoli, Grover, and Rodriguez 2024; Yoo 2010; Yoo et al. it to how these and to the in accounts of in is to and to work for while it is We need more studies that this to the in DT. and toward and in our of where processes us for when in these we and how these our of accounts of DT. We that we argue are important to research about DT is to either the in the extant debate of conceptual problems that in the DT We levels of analysis, and by on for constructs to specify the We also how papers that are in our special issue these in plurality approach from our engagement with papers to the special issue and our engagement in the debate about DT. we hope the will future we to frontiers of DT that to and In this we frontiers as and to conceptual and empirical and specifically a call for these of papers. We approach the of the frontiers of DT research by first engaging with papers in the special issue and then these with our understanding of DT a research agenda that for of DT. We first to the papers in the special issue to their to the DT discourse and the frontiers that (see for a at a that future research in In what we each and an overview of the by the authors in and how are an of the DT for of of the of the DT DT is and its and the of an path to a of research on of research or et al. The of DT the of a Digital on an DT. that the the organisational and the levels in the context of DT. et al. research digital technologies digital organisational and the of work and organisational and studies with research at processes of frontiers of research by DT the and of and The of knowledge is to and from across work and digital which or the agenda on as or of DT. and and a conceptual by engaging with two that DT which a to engaging with the of DT in future novel or is an approach to these of for in the and two DT and organisational and advance understanding of their in organisational a way to approach DT research from the and a path for future This a by assumptions in literature and on how future research across to organisational a to how in DT have been The on and and it with literature Vial work research each by assumptions about digital organisations, and assumptions on digital and these the authors have the to the of DT research frontiers by across This as a call to the in DT to novel This an the need to on DT on a a in the of by and to how DT (DT) organisational The authors on theories from digital and and and to that and the DT and an empirical approach on the that a and digital helps DT. a toward understanding and the of DT research This a conceptual and by as a novel approach to future on concepts from and The DT research for its on empirical observations of on works Burton-Jones et al. and and to argue that conceptualizations are an that enabling researchers to where digital technologies are and of a fully future challenges the of digital and the field to assumptions in and digital The for a toward theories that both the and of DT yet to This a by how digital technologies at the knowledge in the in the how their across work and in the context of DT. analysis, the authors concepts as and which how digital technologies either or more the these an a the of an in of more The authors by for more research on the of and in the of DT. This advanced a by a on DT (DT) to the and challenges in models of DT and the of the of DT. The research is based on a which the authors to advance a for of and which the of DT. This approach the and of DT processes, from of organisational The authors argue that understanding DT as an of will provide its enabling organisations to these changes This a by the to explain how digital DT processes organisations. a theorising the authors on the digital to how organisations in digital are by organisational and The key and how digital are and digital the of DT. The authors by that organisations digital are more to work the understanding of DT by its and for organisations call for in and our to the papers of the special issue led us to additional frontiers that we hope will future research about DT. of these frontiers at this point while we them are fully by our special issue. we assumptions in our These assumptions are the change technology theorising and DT is associated with “change” and et al. DT with change has as change is by digital technology at levels of and et al. However, the that it has a in the literature on DT a that in the to the or challenges that with we of the of the DT is that this aspect of DT is We argue that this on change be a organisations are so in of change that of the required to the DT is to the of change and to the in the DT We call for studies that the of the change by DT and the of in shaping the path and of DT DT is of in the of a it in with the as as with of the The of the as to the and explain the on DT has the of and the in the We that a from DT from a change to a that the of change the to of DT and If we the on the change the that DT research would of the becomes a is, the that we for and to DT phenomena by at change to where the is in the the we seek be at the of the change and that is which we the is from the DT literature is the of digital This is a the and of digital technology in DT is one of the important of DT Grover, and Rodriguez to of for example, organisational transformation that has been (Anderson and Tushman 1986; Greenwood and Hinings 1996; Romanelli and Tushman 1994; Tushman and Romanelli 1985). the and of digital technology in DT our from the literature and the papers in the special issue that a of the of digital technology in DT be to help DT from in industrial or societal transformations et al. 2010; and 2020; et al. The technology that this of DT literature to on the that digital technology is in the it must be DT. many of the around the conceptual of DT be to this (see Wessel et al. 2021). we call for a of digital technology in DT from a technology to what we term a The we are for is to the of digital technology to highlight that DT an on digital technology at the of of the DT that has the technology In the of in DT we call for studies to engage with DT as a that on the of the This is a from the on technology that has been the of transformation literature and Rowe 2012; Wessel et al. and a for IS research and et al. 2019). to DT from a an to knowledge that the of transformation and us from and to the for of DT. As scholarship the in the of digital technology the which the DT phenomena is and and 2023). that the in DT literature is the that DT is a toward a is, a toward a 2017; et al. 2017). a as the DT literature is with accounts of organisations or from their toward a more Indeed, many of DT scholarship are around the DT of in as many and and 2023; Wessel et al. 2021). This is a as it the transformation and for toward the transformation and and 2023). However, DT theorising to theorising comes with many For theorising organisations as the of DT literature and In it would be to or DT. this or of DT DT literature with a of We argue that a from the on the transformation accounts of organisations to theorising the of DT scholarship to both and digital organisations and 2021; and 2018). This is in digital technology and the of digital would to offer for of to et al. 2024). theorising is one in which we are and to the of digital technologies and its implications in the and that contexts need to to to being and In it calls for a of transformation as an as organisations and their based on the that this that to literature is the on the of DT. the this is a as many important in DT studies be to et al. 2021). However, in the to the of we have the so that of and the implications have become in our theorising and empirical In literature that to in DT are by the that we in this This is as the of a DT that from organisation future to (Baiyere et al. 2024; and et al. from research and and theories and and that to challenges of our et al. Wessel et al. 2023). to that a of is more to unintended consequences and be and 2017; and Yoo, and Lyytinen in the literature is that DT digital technology to and 2017; and or around digital technology to its and and as to technology as the to the of what be as to what For example, the transformation of from its on to a in the with has been as a of a transformation on key et al. 2024). be research is it is important to that be and is shaped by as key papers in the field have and et al. 2017). research to levels, so what DT means in the first is for a change in societal of and 2024) from for in organisations and about in plurality is in research the of a so researchers need to to the constructs that work with (see and a of questions related to the frontiers we DT around it is important to where this is need to the in its which calls on us researchers to be and about what we are and This special issue and its were to pause and reflect also to and research about DT. We that the IS field, how the papers in this to them and where the debate next to remains to be in these this an important in research that is both and This special issue would have been the help of many We are to for enabling us to call for papers in the first and then being with us as the We are also to the large of of had to more one paper. We how work this in these for We would also to our to have to the papers. are by means we would to the authors for of and for on which we is important for DT also for a to We would to for in the we would to of the at of and also and and for on of this and to the in significant The authors have to