Risk Mitigation in Supply Chain Digitization: System Modularity and Information Technology Governance

Firms face significant risk when they adopt digital supply chain systems to transact and coordinate with their partners. Drawn upon modular systems theory, this study proposes that system modularity mitigates the risk of adopting digital supply chain systems and therefore motivates firms to digitize more of their supply chain operations. The study theorizes how the risk-mitigating effect of system modularity can be enhanced by the allocation of decision rights to the IT (information technology) unit. The main logic is that IT managers with more domain IT knowledge can better utilize their knowledge in decision making to achieve effective system modularity. We tested these theoretical propositions using a survey study of Chinese companies and found empirical support. We also found that the allocation of decision rights to the IT unit does not directly mitigate the perceived risk of digital supply chain systems, which highlights the role of decision allocation to the IT unit as a key moderator in risk mitigation. The study generates theoretical and practical implications on how IT governance and system modularity may jointly mitigate risk and foster supply chain digitization

Digital maturity variables and their impact on the enterprise architecture layers

This study examines the variables of digital maturity of companies. The framework for enterprise architectures Archimate 3.0 is used to compare the variables. The variables are assigned to the six layers of architecture: Strategy, Business Environment, Applications, Technology, Physical and Implementation and Migration. On the basis of a literature overview, 15 “digital maturity models” with a total of 147 variables are analyzed. The databases Scopus, EBSCO – Business Source Premier and ProQuest are used for this purpose

ADAPTING THROUGH ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE IN CAPITAL PROJECTS ORGANIZATIONS

Organizational change can be defined as an alteration of a core aspect of an organization’s operation, structure, or culture. Previous research on organizational change mainly has focused on different types of technical changes, such as alternative project delivery methods and strategies to adopt the design-build approach successfully. Also, previous studies have focused on the project level changes instead of organizational level responses. Here I show using a proposed change model and performing thematic, and analysis, that there exist common responses, and challenges across different types of capital projects organizations studied. The results show that responses to change will differ as a function of the type of change, and the organization’s capabilities and resources. Furthermore, when performing organizational changes, the impact on “people” within the organization should be closely studied and monitored, while taking into account other challenges that might impact the organization. For drivers of change, the main themes were related to Market shift. Clients/owners’ needs, and Sustainability. On the other hand, the organizational responses’ main themes were related to Restructuring, Communication, Partnerships, Training, Recruitment, Internal capabilities, organizational design, and supportive leadership. While for challenges, the main themes were mainly related to Resistance to change, the nature of the industry, and retaining the workforce. One of the major challenges faced during the research was motivating the organizations to participate. Various organizations showed interest and then decided not to join, while others that participated had to review their responses multiple times, and were concerned about revealing their “Trade secrets”. Future work should build on this effort and consider the responses and analyze them as a function of types of change, Moreover, future research should consider asking the interviewees to “weight” the responses to avoid wrong conclusions due to the low number of in-text mentions. This research will help capital project organizations to be aware of the main areas of concern during the journey of change and help them to learn from previous experiences from other organizations

Platforms and Digital Transformation in Logistics (PLATO):TNO 2024-R10279 // 11206387-002-GEO-0002

Final report of the PLATO projec

Digital transformation maturity: A systematic review of literature

The goal of this paper is to present contemporary developments in the field of digital maturity models. By conducting a systematic literature review finally 24 relevant studies including 22 different models were identified and various characteristics of different digital maturity models were extracted. Focus was placed on the dimensions used to measure digital maturity in different model approaches. Special light was shed on organizational culture and to what extent it is represented in the models. Among other things, the findings indicate, that dimensions applied in various models can be very different and that just a few models incorporate transformational in addition to digital capabilities. In particular, organizational culture as a dedicated dimension of digital maturity is represented already in a few models, which indicates the growing importance of culture as an enabler of digital transformation efforts. Beside a comprehensive overview of the most widely used dimensions measuring digital maturity, a synthesis of the most frequently addressed cultural attributes is presented in this paper as well. This review finally reveals that most of the existing models give an incomplete picture of digital maturity, that cultural attributes reflecting a digital culture are not integrated systematically, and that digital maturity models specific to the domain of services are clearly under-represented. It also clearly demonstrates that research about digital transformation maturity as a holistic concept is scarce and needs more attention by research in the future

Impact of the Information Technology Unit on Information Technology-Embedded Product Innovation

Organizations increasingly embed IT into physical products to develop new product innovations. However, there is wide variance in the outcomes of the IT-embedded product (ITEP) innovation process. In this paper, we posit that the IT unit’s involvement in the ITEP innovation process could positively influence the outcomes. ITEP innovations become part of complex ecosystems in which they interact with their developers, customers, and other ITEPs. These developments suggest new roles for IT units of organizations. Yet, there is dearth of theory explaining how the IT unit of a firm could contribute to the firm’s development of ITEP innovations in ways to create customer value and improve firm performance. This paper seeks to address this gap. ITEP innovations present new challenges for organizations. This paper builds on complexity science to articulate the challenges and explain how the IT unit can increase an organization’s capacity to cope with them. First, the paper adopts Wheeler’s (2002) “net-enabled business innovation model” to structure the key stages of innovation that an organization goes through in developing new ITEPs. Second, the paper articulates IT-specific uncertainties and challenges entailed in each of the four stages. Third, the paper develops hypotheses explaining how the IT unit could increase the effectiveness of each stage by helping to address these uncertainties and challenges. Finally, the paper empirically tests and finds support for the hypotheses in a sample of 165 firms. The paper contributes to the literature on IT-enabled business innovations by developing and validating a new theoretical explanation of how IT units increase the effectiveness of the ITEP innovation process

Learning from Trump and Xi? Globalization and innovation as drivers of a new industrial policy. Bertelsmann GED Focus 2020

Technological innovations are essential drivers of longterm and sustainable growth. Accordingly, there currently is a debate in Germany and the EU as to whether a new, strategic industrial policy can be an answer to the complex dynamics of digitization. Products of this discussion are, for example, the Industrial Strategy 2030 published by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy in November 2019 and the Franco-German Manifesto for a European Industrial Policy for the 21st Century. The focus here is on the question of how the EU and its member states can maintain their innovative and thus competitive ability in the face of diverse challenges. However, there is no standard recipe for building and expanding the innovative capacity of an economy. Different countries rely on different strategies that can be equally successful. An important distinguishing feature is the role of the state. A clear example of divergent innovation models are China and the USA. Although both countries have completely different approaches to an innovation-promoting industrial policy, both models are characterized by major technological successes. With an analysis of the Chinese and American innovation system, this study highlights the main features and success factors of both innovation models and discusses whether and to what extent these factors are transferable to the European and German case. Five fields of action for an innovation-promoting industrial policy in the EU and Germany emerge from this analysis • Implementation of a long-term innovation strategy • Expansion of venture capital • Expansion of cluster approaches at EU level • Thinking and strengthening of cybersecurity at EU level • Creation of uniform and fair conditions for competition In addition to these fields of action, which are relevant both for the EU and for individual member states, industrial policy measures in the following three areas could be useful for Germany. In particular: • Improvement of framework conditions for research and development • Gearing the education and research system more strongly towards entrepreneurship and innovation • State as a pioneer and trailblazer in new technologies In their implementation, however, strategic European and German industrial policies face a trade-off between the protection and promotion of legitimate self-interests on the one hand and the defense against economically damaging protectionism and ill-considered state interventionism on the other. The so-called “mission orientation” can make a significant contribution here: Accordingly, industrial policy should serve to address specific societal challenges (e. g. globalization, digitization, demographic change, climate change) and be coherently targeted towards these objectives. Furthermore, industrial policy is to be driven in parallel by different actors. Above all, it is a joint task of business and politics to enable a competitive business location where the state ensures good competition- promoting framework conditions and the private actors implement concrete actions