Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:52:49.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identification of Human and Organizational Key Design Factors for Digital Maturity – A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

M. Schneider ,
T. Hellweg  and
J. S. Menzefricke
M. Schneider
Affiliation:
Paderborn University, Germany
T. Hellweg*
Affiliation:
Paderborn University, Germany
J. S. Menzefricke
Affiliation:
Paderborn University, Germany
*
talea.hellweg@upb.de

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper examines how human and organizational factors need to be designed to achieve strong technological maturity of either the products or the production process. In a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fs/QCA), a combination of intensive training and strong worker participation is found to be associated with strong technological maturity in the two organizational contexts: firms with a strong entrepreneurial culture and in large firms oriented towards customer-oriented innovation. Overall, the paper uncovers designs or causal recipes for a successful digital transformation.

Keywords

human-centred designindustry 4.0performance indicatorsdigital maturity
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 791 - 800
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2022.

References

Appelfeller, W. and Feldmann, C. (2018), Die digitale Transformation des Unternehmens, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 10.1007/978-3-662-54061-9.Google Scholar
Arendt, L. (2008), “Barriers to ICT adoption in SMEs: how to bridge the digital divide?”, Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 93–108. 10.1108/13287260810897738.Google Scholar
Becker, J., Knackstedt, R. and Pöppelbuß, J. (2009), “Developing Maturity Models for IT Management”, Business & Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 213–222. 10.1007/s12599-009-0044-5.Google Scholar
Berghaus, S. and Back, A. (2016), “Stages in Digital Business Transformation. Results of an Empirical Maturity Study”, MCIS 2016 Proceedings, No. 22.Google Scholar
Bouwman, H., Nikou, S. and Reuver, M. de (2019), “Digitalization, business models, and SMEs: How do business model innovation practices improve performance of digitalizing SMEs?”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 43 No. 9, p. 101828. 10.1016/j.telpol.2019.101828.Google Scholar
Brynjolfsson, E. and McAfee, A. (2014), The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies, WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Buer, S.-V., Strandhagen, J.W., Semini, M. and Strandhagen, J.O. (2021), “The digitalization of manufacturing: investigating the impact of production environment and company size”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 621–645. 10.1108/JMTM-05-2019-0174.Google Scholar
Desouza, K.C., Awazu, Y., Jha, S., Dombrowski, C., Papagari, S., Baloh, P. and Kim, J.Y. (2008), “Customer-Driven Innovation”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 35–44. 10.1080/08956308.2008.11657503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eller, R., Alford, P., Kallmünzer, A. and Peters, M. (2020), “Antecedents, consequences, and challenges of small and medium-sized enterprise digitalization”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 112, pp. 119–127. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erol, S., Jäger, A., Hold, P., Ott, K. and Sihn, W. (2016), “Tangible Industry 4.0: A Scenario-Based Approach to Learning for the Future of Production”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 54, pp. 13–18. 10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.162.Google Scholar
Fiss, P.C. (2011), “Building Better Causal Theories. A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 393–420. 10.5465/amj.2011.60263120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagne, M., Koestner, R. and Zuckerman, M. (2000), “Facilitating Acceptance of Organizational Change: The Importance of Self-Determination1”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 1843–1852. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02471.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geisberger, E.M. and Broy, M. (2012), “agendaCPS – Integrierte Forschungsagenda Cyber-Physical Systems”.Google Scholar
Goran, J., LaBerge, L. and Srinivasan, R. (2017), “Culture for a digital age”, McKinsey Quarterly.Google Scholar
Hobscheidt, D., Kühn, A. and Dumitrescu, R. (2020), “Development of risk-optimized implementation paths for Industry 4.0 based on socio-technical pattern”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 91, pp. 832–837. 10.1016/j.procir.2020.02.242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horváth, D. and Szabó, R.Z. (2019), “Driving forces and barriers of Industry 4.0: Do multinational and small and medium-sized companies have equal opportunities?”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 146, pp. 119–132. 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, S., Leber, U., Arntz, M., Gregory, T. and Zierahn, U. (2018), Betriebe und Arbeitswelt 4.0: Mit Investitionen in die Digitalisierung steigt auch die Weiterbildung, IAB-Kurzbericht (accessed 26 February 2020).Google Scholar
Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W. and Helbig, J. (2013), “Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0. Final report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group”, available at: https://www.acatech.de/publikation/umsetzungsempfehlungen-fuer-das-zukunftsprojekt-industrie-4-0-abschlussbericht-des-arbeitskreises-industrie-4-0/download-pdf?lang=wildcard.Google Scholar
Kane, G. (2019), “The Technology Fallacy. People are the real key to digital transformation”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 44–49. 10.1080/08956308.2019.1661079.Google Scholar
Borštnar, Kljajić, and Pucihar, M., A. (2021), “Multi-Attribute Assessment of Digital Maturity of SMEs”, Electronics, Vol. 10 No. 8, p. 885. 10.3390/electronics10080885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knospe, O., Drewel, M., Mittag, T., Pierenkemper, C. and Hobscheidt, D. (2018), “Leistungssteigerung durch Industrie 4.0 für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen”, Zeitschrift für wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb, Vol. 113 No. 1-2, pp. 83–87. 10.3139/104.111867.Google Scholar
Kuusisto, O., Kääriäinen, J., Hänninen, K. and Saarela, M. (2021), “Towards a Micro-Enterprise–Focused Digital Maturity Framework”, International Journal of Innovation in the Digital Economy, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 72–85. 10.4018/IJIDE.2021010105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindbeck, A. and Snower, D.J. (2000), “Multitask Learning and the Reorganization of Work: From Tayloristic to Holistic Organization”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 353–376. 10.1086/209962.Google Scholar
Lipsmeier, A. (2021), “Systematik zur Entwicklung von Digitalisierungsstrategien für Industrieunternehmen”, Dissertation, Fakultät für Maschinenbau, Universität Paderborn, Paderborn, 2021.Google Scholar
Misangyi, V.F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P.C., Crilly, D. and Aguilera, R. (2017), “Embracing Causal Complexity. The Emergence of a Neo-Configurational Perspective”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 255–282. 10.1177/0149206316679252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (2019), Getting Skills Right: Future-Ready Adult Learning Systems, OECD Publishing. 10.1787/9789264311756-en.Google Scholar
OECD (2021), The Digital Transformation of SMEs, OECD Studies on SMEs and Entrepreneurship, OECD Publishing, Paris. 10.1787/bdb9256a-en.Google Scholar
Osborne, S. and Hammoud, M.S. (2017), “Effective Employee Engagement in the Workplace”, International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, Vol. 16 No. 1. 10.5590/IJAMT.2017.16.1.04.Google Scholar
Park, Y., Fiss, P.C. and El Sawy, O.A. (2020), “Theorizing the Multiplicity of Digital Phenomena: The Ecology of Configurations, Causal Recipes, and Guidelines for Applying QCA”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 1493–1520. 10.25300/MISQ/2020/13879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pöppelbuß, J. and Röglinger, M. (2011), “What makes a useful maturity model? A Framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management”, ECIS 2011 Proceedings, No. 28.Google Scholar
Ragin, C.C. (2000), Fuzzy-set social sciences, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Ragin, C.C. (2008), Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, D., Bohn, U. and Crummener, C. (2017), Culture First!: Von den Vorreitern des digitalen Wandels lernen Change Management Studie 2017, München.Google Scholar
Schnasse, F., Menzefricke, J.S., Gabriel, S., Hobscheidt, D., Parlings, M., Kühn, A. and Dumitrescu, R. (2020), Identification of sociotechnical changes caused by Industry 4.0. 10.15480/882.3132.Google Scholar
Schneider, C.Q. and Wagemann, C. (2006), “Reducing complexity in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Remote and proximate factors and the consolidation of democracy”, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 751–786. 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00635.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, C.Q. and Wagemann, C. (2012), Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9781139004244.Google Scholar
Schneider, M. (2018), “Digitalization of Production, Human Capital, and Organizational Capital”, in Harteis, C. (Ed.), The Impact of Digitalization in the Workplace: An Educational View, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 39–52. 10.1007/978-3-319-63257-5_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuh, G., Anderl, R., Dumitrescu, R., Krüger, A. and Hompel, M. ten (2020), “Industrie 4.0 Maturity Index. Managing the Digital Transformation of Companies – UPDATE 2020 – (acatech STUDY)”.Google Scholar
Steiber, A., Alänge, S., Ghosh, S. and Goncalves, D. (2021), “Digital transformation of industrial firms: an innovation diffusion perspective”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 799–819. 10.1108/EJIM-01-2020-0018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teichert, R. (2019), “Digital Transformation Maturity: A Systematic Review of Literature”, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 1673–1687. 10.11118/actaun201967061673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teo, T.S. and King, W.R. (1997), “Integration between Business Planning and Information Systems Planning: An Evolutionary-Contingency Perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 185–214. 10.1080/07421222.1997.11518158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virkkala, P., Saarela, M., Hänninen, K., Kujala, J. and Simunaniemi, A.-M. (2020), “Business Maturity Models for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Systematic Literature Review”, Management, pp. 137–155. 10.26493/1854-4231.15.137-155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohlgemuth, V., Wenzel, M., Berger, E.S. and Eisend, M. (2019), “Dynamic capabilities and employee participation: The role of trust and informal control”, European Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 760–771. 10.1016/j.emj.2019.02.005.Google Scholar