Decision-Making Model for Reinforcing Digital Transformation Strategies Based on Artificial Intelligence Technology
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Corporate Digital Transformation Strategy
2.2. Influence Factors of Digital Transformation Strategies
2.3. Dynamic Capability View and SERM Model
3. Methods
3.1. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
3.2. Research Framework and Variables
3.3. Research Process and Data Collection
4. Results
4.1. Comparison of Evaluation Variables
4.2. Comparison of Evaluation Areas between the Demander and Provider Groups
4.3. Comparison of Evaluation Factors between the Demander and Provider Groups
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Berman, S.; Marshall, A. The next digital transformation: From an individual-centered to an everyone-to-everyone economy. Strategy Leadersh. 2014, 42, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nash, H. KPMG CIO Survey 2019. Available online: https://home.kpmg/kz/en/home/insights/2019/09/cio-survey.html (accessed on 5 March 2022).
- Lim, W.M. History, lessons, and ways forward from the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Qual. Innov. 2021, 5, 101–108. [Google Scholar]
- Feroz, A.K.; Zo, H.; Chiravuri, A. digital transformation and environmental sustainability: A review and research agenda. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitzgerald, M.; Kruschwitz, N.; Bonnet, D.; Welch, M. Embracing digital technology: A new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Mana. Rev. 2014, 55, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- IDC Forecasts Improved Growth for Global AI Market. Available online: https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS47482321 (accessed on 5 March 2022).
- Son, H.S. A study on governance of intelligent information society by digital transformation. Public Law 2021, 49, 199–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Regina, P.; De Capitani, E. Digital Innovation and Migrants’ Integration: Notes on EU Institutional and Legal Perspectives and Criticalities. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soni, G.; Kumar, S.; Mahto, R.V.; Mangla, S.K.; Mittal, M.L.; Lim, W.M. A decision-making framework for Industry 4.0 technology implementation: The case of FinTech and sustainable supply chain finance for SMEs. Technol. Forecast. Social. Chang. 2022, 180, 121686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomber, P.; Koch, J.A.; Siering, M. Digital Finance and FinTech: Current research and future research directions. J. Bus. Econ. 2017, 87, 537–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quévat, A.; Heinze, A. The digital transformation of preventive telemedicine in France based on the use of connected wearable devices. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 2020, 39, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sajid, S.; Volkova, N.; Wilson, J.A.; Opoku-Asante, E. Using text mining and crowdsourcing platforms to build employer brand in the US banking industry. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 2022, 41, 6–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vial, G. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 118–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, R.C. Artificial intelligence strategy for advertising and media industries: Focused on in-depth interviews. J. Korea Contents Assoc. 2018, 18, 102–115. [Google Scholar]
- Verhoef, P.C.; Broekhuizen, T.; Bart, Y.; Bhattacharya, A.; Dong, J.Q.; Fabian, N.; Haenlein, M. Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 889–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitsios, F.; Kamariotou, M. Artificial intelligence and business strategy towards digital transformation: A research agenda. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brock, J.K.U.; Von Wangenheim, F. Demystifying AI: What digital transformation leaders can teach you about realistic artificial intelligence. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2019, 61, 110–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ismail, M.H.; Khater, M.; Zaki, M. Digital business transformation and strategy: What do we know so far. Camb. Serv. Alliance 2017, 10, 1–35. [Google Scholar]
- IBM. Digital Transformation: Creating New Business Models Where Digital Meets Physical; IBM: Armonk, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- IDC. Digital Transformation (DX): An Opportunity and an Imperative; IDC: Needham, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, T.H.; Nguyen, V.H.; Huy, D.T.N. Transforming the University Management Model in the Concept of Digital Transformation. Rev. Geintec-Gest. Inov. E Tecnol. 2021, 11, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinze, A.; Griffiths, M.; Fenton, A.; Fletcher, G. Knowledge exchange partnership leads to digital transformation at Hydro-X Water Treatment. Ltd. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 2018, 37, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Westerman, G.; Bonnet, D.; McAfee, A. Leading Digital: Turning Technology into Business Transformation; Harvard Business Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Schwertner, K. Digital transformation of business. Trakia J. Sci. 2017, 15, 388–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bharadwaj, A.; El Sawy, O.A.; Pavlou, P.A.; Venkatraman, N. Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Q. 2013, 37, 471–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stromback, J. Decision-making and leadership challenges in partner-based, owner-managed companies. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 2021, 40, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reis, J.; Amorim, M.; Melão, N.; Matos, P. Digital transformation: A literature review and guidelines for future research. In Τrends and Advances in Information Systems and Technologies. WorldCIST’18 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 747, pp. 411–421. [Google Scholar]
- Hai, T.N.; Van, Q.N.; Thi Tuyet, M.N. Digital transformation: Opportunities and challenges for leaders in the emerging countries in response to COVID-19 pandemic. Emerg. Sci. J. 2021, 5, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chanias, S.; Myers, M.D.; Hess, T. Digital transformation strategy making in pre-digital organizations: The case of a financial services provider. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 17–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.W.; Oh, S.J. Analysis of success cases of InsureTech and Digital Insurance Platform based on artificial intelligence technologies: Focused on Ping an Insurance Group Ltd. in China. Korea Intell. Inf. Syst. Soc. 2020, 26, 71–90. [Google Scholar]
- Côrte-Real, N.; Oliveira, T.; Ruivo, P. Assessing business value of big data analytics in European firms. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 70, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, K.S.; Wäger, M. Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Plan. 2019, 52, 326–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hinings, B.; Gegenhuber, T.; Greenwood, R. Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Inf. Organ. 2018, 28, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, M.; Rust, T.R. Artificial intelligence in service. J. Serv. Res. 2018, 21, 155–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, W.S.; Yang, J.W. Crafting sustainable human resource management strategies in the era of artificial intelligence. Korea Bus. Rev. 2020, 24, 189–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matt, C.; Hess, T.; Benlian, A. Digital transformation strategies. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2015, 57, 339–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenhardt, K.M.; Martin, J.A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 1105–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fenech, R.; Baguant, P.; Ivanov, D. The changing role of human resource management in an era of digital transformation. J. Manag. Inf. Decis. Sci. 2019, 22, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Correani, A.; De Massis, A.; Frattini, F.; Petruzzelli, A.M.; Natalicchio, A. Implementing a digital strategy: Learning from the experience of three digital transformation projects. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2020, 62, 37–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ. Sci. 1994, 5, 14–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Christensen, C.M. Marketing strategy: Learning by doing. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1997, 75, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 509–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, D.S. Mechanism-Based View: A New Strategy Paradigm for Holistics Management; Seoul Economic Management: Seoul, Korea, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Sakakibara, M.; Cho, D.S. Cooperative R&D in Japan and Korea: A comparison of industrial policy. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 673–692. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, K.T.; Kim, B.Y. Digital transformation strategy based on artificial intelligence technology of global platform company: A case of Google. Creat. Innov. 2022, 15, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, D.S.; Ku, S.W. Case study on convergence strategies of high-technology companies. Bus. Stud. 2007, 8, 53–84. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.H.; Cho, D.S. POSCO’s key to success: TMT’s role based on mechanism-based view. J. CEO Manag. Stud. 2013, 16, 65–86. [Google Scholar]
- Makadok, R. Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 387–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahra, S.A.; Nielsen, A.P. Sources of capabilities, integration and technology commercialization. Strateg. Manag. J. 2002, 23, 377–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zollo, M.; Winter, S.G. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organ. Sci. 2002, 13, 339–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aromaa, E.; Eriksson, P. Management of innovation in small service companies. South Asian J. Bus. Manag. Cases 2014, 3, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.; Wu, L.Y. Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance under the resource-based view framework. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 407–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. An Eigenvalue Allocation Model for Prioritization and Planning; University of Pennsylvania Energy Management and Policy Center: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1972; pp. 28–31. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Udo, G.G. Using analytic hierarchy process to analyze the information technology outsourcing decision. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2000, 100, 421–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Y.H.; Kim, B.Y. The effective factors on continuity of corporate information security management: Based on TOE framework. Information 2021, 12, 446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, T.J.; Eom, J.G. A study on the management strategy mechanism of the premium consumer electronics market based on Ser-M framework: Focused on LG Electronics’ case. Korean Assoc. Bus. Educ. 2020, 35, 509–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, S.K.; Kim, B.Y. A decision-making model for adopting a cloud computing system. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seol, J.N.; Choi, E.K. An analysis of platform strategy and network effects of GAFA. J. Broadcasting Telecommun. Res. 2018, 4, 104–140. [Google Scholar]
- Acemoglu, D.; Autor, D.H. Skills, tasks, and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. In Handbook of Labor Economics; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 4, pp. 1043–1171. [Google Scholar]
- Sandberg, J.; Holmström, J.; Lyytinen, K. Digitization and phase transitions in platform organizing logics: Evidence from the process automation industry. MIS Q. 2020, 44, 129–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nylén, D.; Holmström, J. Digital innovation strategy: A framework for diagnosing and improving digital product and service innovation. Bus. Horiz. 2015, 58, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ong, E.C.; Tan, C.L. Soft TQM, agility, and knowledge management deliver organizational performance: A study of Malaysian manufacturing organizations in the electrical and electronics sector. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 2022, 41, 28–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rwehumbiza, D.A. Huawei’s linkages with local firms in Tanzania: Idiosyncratic benefits and risks. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 2021, 40, 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Evaluation Area | Evaluation Factor | Definition | Related Literature |
---|---|---|---|
Subject | Chief Executive Officer (CEO) | Chief Executive Officer’s interest in artificial intelligence technology and digital transformation leadership | [10,11,12,24,29,30,32,33,49,53] |
Core talent | Securing and managing key talent to lead AI technology | ||
Technical development organization | Core organizational activities and support that lead the development of artificial intelligence technology | ||
Business strategy organization | Strategic organization leading the AI-based digital transformation innovation business | ||
Environment | Compliance and regulation | Compliance and regulations affecting the development of artificial intelligence and digital technology | [10,19,27,57,58,59,60,61] |
Industry competition | Intensifying competition and changing industrial structure among companies promoting artificial intelligence technology development and digital transformation. | ||
Market digitization | Changes by digital-based market environment and expanding customer acceptance of digital technology | ||
Social responsibility | Changes in social awareness of artificial intelligence and expansion of corporate social responsibility roles | ||
Resource | Technology | Changes in social awareness of artificial intelligence and expansion of corporate social responsibility roles | [1,4,13,25,28] |
Big Data quality | High quality big data collected on business activities and user usage and experiences | ||
Data related infrastructure | Data center or infrastructure for AI technology development and data collection and management | ||
Capital and investment | Capital and investment priorities for AI technology development and enterprise-wide digital transformation | ||
Mechanism | Coordination | Conflict resolution and business process establishment activities due to digital transformation and organizational innovation | [12,19,24,26,29,30] |
Learning | Voluntary participation and continuous learning activities to strengthen digital technology-based organizational activities | ||
Selection | Strategic decision making to lead technology and innovation business | ||
Change supervision | Strategic change administration activities for developing the company-wide changes by digital transformation |
Section | Characters | Frequency | Ratio (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 21 | 87.5 |
Female | 3 | 12.5 | |
Total | 24 | 100.0 | |
Age | 30s | 1 | 4.2 |
40s | 15 | 62.5 | |
50s | 8 | 33.3 | |
Total | 24 | 100 | |
Work Experience | 10–20 years | 5 | 20.8 |
20–30 years | 18 | 75.0 | |
Over 30 years | 1 | 4.2 | |
Total | 24 | 100 | |
Professional Area | Demander Group | 12 | 50.0 |
Provider Group | 12 | 50.0 | |
Total | 24 | 100 |
Evaluation Areas | The Weights of Areas | Evaluation Factors | The Weights of Evaluation Factors | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Local | Local * | Priority | Global ** | Priority | ||
Subject | 0.592 | Chief Executive Officer (CEO) | 0.4794 | 1 | 0.2885 | 1 |
Core talent | 0.2895 | 2 | 0.1742 | 2 | ||
Technical development organization | 0.1192 | 3 | 0.0717 | 3 | ||
Business strategy organization | 0.1119 | 4 | 0.0674 | 4 | ||
Environment | 0.0954 | Compliance and regulation | 0.1566 | 3 | 0.0149 | 15 |
Industry competition | 0.4192 | 1 | 0.0399 | 8 | ||
Market digitization | 0.3168 | 2 | 0.0302 | 11 | ||
Social responsibility | 0.1074 | 4 | 0.0102 | 16 | ||
Resource | 0.1685 | Technology | 0.1768 | 3 | 0.0285 | 12 |
Big Data quality | 0.3718 | 1 | 0.0599 | 5 | ||
Data-related infrastructure | 0.1276 | 4 | 0.0206 | 14 | ||
Capital and investment | 0.3238 | 2 | 0.0522 | 7 | ||
Mechanism | 0.1441 | Coordination | 0.2134 | 3 | 0.0303 | 10 |
Learning | 0.1599 | 4 | 0.0227 | 13 | ||
Selection | 0.3706 | 1 | 0.0526 | 6 | ||
Change supervision | 0.256 | 2 | 0.0363 | 9 | ||
Total | 1 | 4 | 1 |
Evaluation Areas | The Weights of Areas | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Demander Group | Provider Group | |||
Importance | Priority | Importance | Priority | |
Subject | 0.5527 | 1 | 0.6209 | 1 |
Environment | 0.0731 | 4 | 0.1219 | 4 |
Resource | 0.2159 | 2 | 0.1288 | 2 |
Mechanism | 0.1583 | 3 | 0.1284 | 3 |
Total | 1 | 1 |
Evaluation Factors | The Weights of Evaluation Factors | Priority of Factors (by Global) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Local | Global | |||||
Demander Group | Provider Group | Demander Group | Provider Group | Demander Group | Provider Group | |
CEO | 0.4534 | 0.5016 | 0.2519 | 0.3202 | 1 | 1 |
Core talent | 0.2701 | 0.3071 | 0.1501 | 0.1961 | 2 | 2 |
Technical development organization | 0.1462 | 0.0961 | 0.0812 | 0.0613 | 3 | 3 |
Business strategy organization | 0.1302 | 0.0952 | 0.0724 | 0.0608 | 5 | 4 |
Compliance and regulation | 0.1462 | 0.1675 | 0.0111 | 0.0195 | 15 | 13 |
Industry competition | 0.4345 | 0.4036 | 0.0329 | 0.0470 | 11 | 6 |
Market digitization | 0.3203 | 0.3127 | 0.0242 | 0.0364 | 14 | 9 |
Social responsibility | 0.0990 | 0.1162 | 0.0075 | 0.0135 | 16 | 16 |
Technology | 0.1695 | 0.1843 | 0.0364 | 0.0216 | 9 | 12 |
Big Data quality | 0.3705 | 0.3729 | 0.0796 | 0.0437 | 4 | 7 |
Data-related infrastructure | 0.1306 | 0.1247 | 0.0280 | 0.0146 | 12 | 15 |
Capital and investment | 0.3295 | 0.3181 | 0.0708 | 0.0373 | 6 | 8 |
Coordination | 0.2192 | 0.2059 | 0.0338 | 0.0263 | 10 | 11 |
Learning | 0.1809 | 0.1401 | 0.0279 | 0.0179 | 13 | 14 |
Selection | 0.3273 | 0.4158 | 0.0504 | 0.0532 | 7 | 5 |
Change supervision | 0.2726 | 0.2382 | 0.0420 | 0.0305 | 8 | 10 |
4 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kim, K.; Kim, B. Decision-Making Model for Reinforcing Digital Transformation Strategies Based on Artificial Intelligence Technology. Information 2022, 13, 253. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13050253
Kim K, Kim B. Decision-Making Model for Reinforcing Digital Transformation Strategies Based on Artificial Intelligence Technology. Information. 2022; 13(5):253. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13050253
Chicago/Turabian StyleKim, Kyungtae, and Boyoung Kim. 2022. "Decision-Making Model for Reinforcing Digital Transformation Strategies Based on Artificial Intelligence Technology" Information 13, no. 5: 253. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13050253
APA StyleKim, K., & Kim, B. (2022). Decision-Making Model for Reinforcing Digital Transformation Strategies Based on Artificial Intelligence Technology. Information, 13(5), 253. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13050253