With the digital economy still in its infancy, there is still a lack of academic research focusing on the complex antecedent configurations of enterprise digital transformation and their temporal evolution. Drawing on the theoretical perspective of strategy tripod, this study uses the data from 2014–2019 of A-share listed companies and employs the dynamic fsQCA approach to identify the "causal recipes" for achieving a high-level digital transformation. From the perspective of the strategic tripod, the conceptual framework is composed of three sets of causal conditions: including institutional conditions (i. e. , level of marketization as a formal institution; regional Guanxi culture as an informal institution), industrial conditions (i.e., industry munificence, industry dynamism, and industry complexity), and dynamic capabilities (sensing capability, absorptive capability, and reconfiguration capability).
The analysis confirms that all conditions consisting of the strategic tripod are significant to enterprise digital transformation. Institutional conditions ensure legitimacy for digital transformation, industrial conditions influence enterprises' willingness to implement digital transformation, and conditions related to firm dynamic capabilities determine the effectiveness of digital transformation. Notably, enterprise digital transformation is not solely driven by any single factor. Instead, all these three kinds of conditions play significant roles in influencing the digital transformation of enterprises. Then the coexistence of multiple antecedent configurations for high-level digital transformation is identified, which is consistent with the strategic tripod. The qualitative comparative analysis reveals that there are four typical patterns of high-level digital transformation in the three phases of 2014-2015, 2016-2017, and 2018-2019, including "emphasis on institutions", being "institutional-industrial driven", "industrial utilization", and "the synergy among the three dimensions of the strategy tripod". Additionally, it is found that there are three typical patterns in each phase. The diversity of digital transformation configurations apparently reflects the strategic and managerial wisdom of enterprises which constantly explore the potential of digital transformation and gradually open up various transformation paths. Consistent with the development characteristics of the emerging economy, enterprise digital transformation has undergone a transition process that has been dominated by macro-, meso- and micro-level factors, respectively, across three time periods. Specifically, in the early stage of digital transformation development, it was led by institutions, followed by industrial policy stimulation, and finally deepened and developed through enterprise innovation. That is, institution-related conditions were the main drivers of digital transformation from 2014-2015. Then from 2016-2017, the incentive role of industry factors in digital transformation became more important; and from 2018-2019, digital transformation focused on leveraging the enterprises' own dynamic capabilities. Thus, the key drivers of enterprise digital transformation have been shifting from being institution-oriented (at the macro-level), to industry factor-driven (at the meso-level) and recently towards enterprise internal factor-driven (at the micro-level).
Moreover, the analysis results of regional heterogeneity show that the role of the industry-related conditions is more pronounced for enterprises undergoing a relatively high-level digital transformation in the eastern region, while the institutional background matters more for enterprises in the central region, and all three aspects of the strategy tripod (i. e. , institutional factors, industry conditions and enterprises' internal capabilities) are indispensable for enterprises in the western region to enhance their digital transformation.
This study makes threefold contributions as follows. First, it extends the extant research on the antecedents to enterprise digital transformation by simultaneously considering the institution- industry and enterprise-related causal conditions in an integrative framework with solid support from the strategy tripod perspective. Second, it applies the fsQCA approach to identify the equivalent configurations of high-level digital transformation, providing a finer-grained understanding of the causal conditions under which high-level digital transformation occurs and thus producing insights more closely aligned with the complex realities of how enterprises can improve the effectiveness of digital transformation than conventional research approaches. Third, the findings provide the recipe for managers to make good use of institutional factors, industrial conditions, and dynamic capabilities to succeed via digital transformation. They also provide both theoretical and practical insights for policymakers who are dedicated to driving enterprise digital transformation.
Song Jing
,
Hu Xi
. The Antecedent Configurations of Firm Digital Transformation and Their Evolution: A Dynamic fsQCA Approach from the Strategy Tripod Perspective[J]. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 2025
, 42(1)
: 81
-91
.
DOI: 10.6049/kjjbydc.2023040402
[1] 吴非, 胡慧芷, 林慧妍, 等.企业数字化转型与资本市场表现——来自股票流动性的经验证据[J].管理世界, 2021, 37(7): 130-144,10.
[2] 陈一华, 张振刚, 黄璐.制造企业数字赋能商业模式创新的机制与路径[J].管理学报, 2021, 18(5): 731-740.
[3] 李健旋.中国制造业智能化程度评价及其影响因素研究[J].中国软科学, 2020, 349(1): 154-163.
[4] 杜勇, 黄丹华.“同命相连”:供应链网络中企业数字化转型的同群效应[J].财经科学, 2023, 67(3): 74-92.
[5] 吴非, 常曦, 任晓怡.政府驱动型创新:财政科技支出与企业数字化转型[J.财政研究, 2021, 42(1): 102-115.
[6] PENG M W, SUN S L, PINKHAM B, et al.The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod[J].Academy of Management Perspectives, 2009, 23(3): 63-81.
[7] VIAL G.Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda[J].The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2019, 28(2): 118-144.
[8] KOZANOGLU D C, ABEDIN B.Understanding the role of employees in digital transformation: conceptualization of digital literacy of employees as a multi-dimensional organizational affordance[J].Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 2021, 34(6): 1649-1672.
[9] SU Z F, PENG M W, XIE E.A Strategy tripod perspective on knowledge creation capability: strategy tripod perspective on knowledge creation capability[J].British Journal of Management, 2016, 27(1): 58-76.
[10] BAO Y C, SU Z F, NOBLE C H.Determinants of new product development speed in china: a strategy tripod perspective[J].Technovation, 2021, 106(41): 102291.
[11] 肖旭, 戚聿东.产业数字化转型的价值维度与理论逻辑[J].改革, 2019, 32(8): 61-70.
[12] DESS G G, BEARD D W.Dimensions of organizational task environments[J].Administrative Science Quarterly, 1984, 29(1): 52.
[13] ANDERSON P.Organizational environments and industry exit: the effects of uncertainty, munificence and complexity[J].Industrial and Corporate Change, 2001, 10(3): 675-711.
[14] CHEN H Q, ZENG S X, LIN H, et al.Munificence, dynamism, and complexity: how industry context drives corporate sustainability: industry context and corporate sustainability[J].Business Strategy and the Environment, 2017, 26(2): 125-141.
[15] 冯长利, 张明月, 刘洪涛, 等.供应链知识共享与企业绩效关系研究——供应链敏捷性的中介作用和环境动态性的调节作用[J].管理评论, 2015, 27(11): 181-191.
[16] CHEN H, TIAN Z.Environmental uncertainty, resource orchestration and digital transformation: a fuzzy-set QCA approach[J].Journal of Business Research, 2022, 139(65): 184-193.
[17] 阳镇, 陈劲, 凌鸿程.地区关系文化、正式制度与企业双元创新[J].西安交通大学学报(社会科学版), 2021, 41(5): 52-64.
[18] 庄旭东, 王仁曾.市场化进程、数字化转型与区域创新能力——理论分析与经验证据[J].科技进步与对策, 2022, 39(7): 44-52.
[19] VERETENNIKOVA A, KOZINSKAYA K.Modeling the impact of the institutional environment on the development of digital platforms and the sharing economy[J].Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 2022, 15(5): 257-273.
[20] 卜令通, 许亚楠, 陈传明, 等.中国制造企业创新战略变革模式选择——基于战略三角框架的模糊集定性比较分析[J].科技进步与对策, 2022, 39(11): 104-113.
[21] TEECE D J.Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance[J].Strategic Management Journal, 2007, 28(13): 1319-1350.
[22] ELLSTROM D, HOLTSTROM J, BERG E, et al.Dynamic capabilities for digital transformation[J].Journal of Strategy and Management, 2022, 15(2): 272-286.
[23] 李晓伟, 聂淑君, 王伟平.创业投资对异质性创新的甄别效应及作用机制[J].科技进步与对策, 2019, 36(16): 9-18.
[24] 张永珅, 李小波, 邢铭强.企业数字化转型与审计定价[J].审计研究,2021,37(3): 62-71.
[25] BOYD B.Corporate linkages and organizational environment: a test of the resource dependence model[J].Strategic Management Journal, 1990, 11(6): 419-430.
[26] 袁胜军, 李享, 吴俊.知识搜索对企业创新质量的影响研究——冗余资源和吸收能力的调节作用[J].审计与经济研究, 2021, 36(3): 99-106.
[27] 盛宇华, 朱赛林.高技术企业多元化战略对创新持续性的影响——动态能力的调节作用[J].科技进步与对策, 2020, 37(17): 73-82.
[28] 张明, 陈伟宏, 蓝海林.中国企业“凭什么”完全并购境外高新技术企业——基于94个案例的模糊集定性比较分析(fsQCA)[J].中国工业经济, 2019, 36(4): 117-135.
[29] FISS P C.Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research[J].Academy of Management Journal, 2011, 54(2): 393-420.
[30] 欧忠辉, 蔡猷花, 胡慧芳.知识网络嵌入情境如何激活企业双元创新——基于QCA的研究[J].科研管理, 2021, 42(6): 94-101.