Literature Review

2.1 Disruptive technologies

In the 1990s, Christensen starting publishing a series of articles on the influence of technology
and markets leading to the evolution of Christensen’s 1997 disruptive innovation theory(Bower
& Christensen, 1995; C. M. Christensen, 2013; Llewellyn Evans, 2017). Disruptive technology is
commonly defined as “technology that can fundamentally change not only established
technologies but also the rules and business models of a given market, and often business and
society overall”; the term (and concept) was first introduced in the mid-1990s by Harvard
Business School scholars in the context of business innovation (Bower & Christensen, 1995;
Harshadeep & Young, 2020). In the last years, management scholars have paid great attention to
the concept of disruptive innovation, i.e. the process through which an innovation changes the
rules of competition in a given industry, bringing newcomers and start-ups to the top ranks of
that industry (Bower & Christensen, 1995; C. Christensen, 2003; Danneels, 2004; Urbinati,
Chiaroni, Chiesa, Franzò, & Frattini, 2018). Disruptive technologies are an integral part of the
modern world (Sepasgozar & Davis, 2018; Ullah, Sepasgozar, & Wang, 2018). Disruptive
technologies, a term coined by Professor Clayton Christensen and colleagues, are defined as a set
of technologies that displaces the existing methods or technologies and shakes up the industry to
open new avenues for innovation and business development (Danneels, 2004; Ullah et al., 2018).
On the one hand, they are revolutionizing the modern world; on the other, they present a
challenge for traditional industries While such digital technologies are vital for an industry’s
growth, their adoption and usage are always questioned, perhaps due to their disruptive nature
(Sepasgozar & Davis, 2018; Ullah et al., 2018). Disruptive innovation describes the process
through which a new product, service or business model deeply changes the nature of
competition, bringing new companies (newcomers or start-ups) to the top ranks of that industry.
(Bower & Christensen, 1995; Urbinati et al., 2018). Disruptive technologies are not just
replacing humans: they are improving services, products and productivity and, in many cases,
changing how markets operate, removing the barriers of entry for new companies to take on the
giants (Fenwick & Vermeulen, 2016; Llewellyn Evans, 2017).

Disruptive innovations technologies include the internet of things (IoT), clouds, software, big
data, 3D scanning, wearable technologies, virtual and augmented realities (VR and AR), and
artificial intelligence (AI), robotic and block chain. (Bird & Emery, 2009; Ullah et al., 2018).
The adoption of the( IoT) internet of things has the potential to improve operational processes,
reduce costs and risks due to its transparency, traceability, adaptability, scalability, and flexibility
(Haddud, DeSouza, Khare, & Lee, 2017; Zhou, Chong, & Ngai, 2015). The use of block chain in
Human Resource Management function will help the collaboration (and more importantly
consensus) between parties in updating skill and knowledge of employees. This function will
also providing an update information about what industry needs and what training provider has
to do to meets the need of industry (Bilton, 2006; Fachrunnisa & Hussain, 2020). The world has
become accustomed to the use of robotics While robots will continue and expand the levels of
service that they provide in manufacturing facilities they have now expanded to the
office(Barber, Fitzgerald, Pontisso, & Howell, 2006; Llewellyn Evans, 2017). The use of AI is
growing fast and has been adopted by various industries. (Paljak, 2019). AI helps to sharpen
marketing strategies and to reach potential clients through social media and emails, there by
streamlining their work flow (Abramovich; Ullah et al., 2018). AI and its technologies (machine
learning, deep learning, chatbot, neural network, virtual assistant and others) are fundamentally
reshaping the business and organizational processes of companies (Kuzey, Uyar, & Delen, 2014;
PwC, 2019; Wamba-Taguimdje, Wamba, Kamdjoug, & Wanko, 2020). However, the challenges
facing the emergence of the IoT are numerous (technical and social) and these challenges must
be overcome in order to ensure effective IoT adoption and diffusion (Haddud et al., 2017;
Whitmore, Agarwal, & Da Xu, 2015).

2.2 Organizational performance

Organizational performance is multidimensional, connected to its goals and objectives, and may
be defined as an organization’s ability to use its resources efficiently, and to produce outputs that
are consistent with its objectives and relevant for its users (Leitão, Pereira, & Gonçalves, 2019;
Peterson, Gijsbers, & Wilks, 2003). Organizational performance is the measure of an
organization’s progress and development. It shows how well an organization is accomplishing its
goals and objectives. Organizational performance is an analysis of a company’s performance as
compared to goals and objectives (Koohang, Paliszkiewicz, & Goluchowski, 2017; Otley, 1999).
Organizational performance is essential to survival and organizational success (Durst,
Hinteregger, & Zieba, 2019; Richard, Devinney, Yip, & Johnson, 2009). Consequently, its
measurement is expected to be critical for all types of organizations to evaluate the actions taken
by firms and managers (Asree, Zain, & Razalli, 2010; Durst et al., 2019). Various organizations
furthermore are strategically expected to achieve positive performance outcomes (Chan, Shaffer,
& Snape, 2004; Tseng & Lee, 2009). Superior organizational performance is typically
characterized by profitability, growth and market value (Cho & Pucik, 2005; Nwankpa & Datta,
2017). Naturally, scholars have devoted a great deal of time and effort in understanding the
causal structure of organizational performance and in explaining the variations in performance
among competing businesses (March & Sutton, 1997; Nwankpa & Datta, 2017). Organizational
performance is consisting of the capabilities of product development, novel services, prediction
of business and risks, and improving the ability of encountering new data in the market (Gold,
Malhotra, & Segars, 2001; Haghighi, Bagheri, & Kalat, 2015). Organizational performance is a
multi-dimensional concept which examines the organization’s condition in comparison to
competitors (Haghighi et al., 2015; Mckeen, Zack, & Singh, 2006). More precisely, measuring
performance provides organizations the necessary feedback regarding both the efficiency and
effectiveness of their activities and efforts and thus more informed decisions will be possible
(Durst et al., 2019; Neely, Adams, & Kennerley, 2002).

Objective measures of organizational performance are accounting measures such as return on

equity, return on investment, profit margin, market share or cash flow from operations or
financial market measures such as earnings-per share, stock price, market value/capitalization
(Durst et al., 2019; Richard et al., 2009). Concerning the
conceptualization of organizational performance, four main elements should be taken into
consideration: effectiveness; efficiency; relevance; and financial viability (Leitão et al., 2019;
Lusthaus, 2002). People are the organization’s most important asset (Boudreau, 1996; Leitão et
al., 2019). and so the way an organization manages people’s impacts has a major influence on
organizational performance (Leitão et al., 2019; Moreno, ÁVILA, & García-Contreras, 2018).
organizational performance needs to embrace other indicators, such as firm’s capacity to manage
and improve its connections to suppliers, customers, local community, and society (M.-S. Kim &
Thapa, 2018; Kotler, 1997). It reflects the firm’s ability to meet
clients’ demands, and align its behavior and commercial offers with societal values in
consideration (M.-S. Kim & Thapa, 2018; Menon, Menon, Chowdhury, & Jankovich, 1999).
However, (Singh, Mathiassen, & Mishra, 2015; Zhang, Khan, Lee, & Salik, 2019) stated in their
study that material technologies are applied for technological issues in organizations. . In the
modern business world, TI has become a central focus of top management in various
organizations. It is argued that in the turbulent markets, those firms succeed that have modern
technology used for products and services (Coccia, 2017; Zhang et al., 2019). Organizations seek
to make their best efforts to improve their performance which reflects the way organizations
benefit from tangible and in tangible resources to achieve their objectives and the success of
organizations is largely dependent on their performance, which relates to their abilities to
effectively implement strategies to achieve organizational goals (Abusweilem & Abualoush,
2019; Obeidat, 2016).

2.3 Critical Success Factors

Factors of disruptive technologies

1.Artificial Intelligence(AI)

AI refers to the performance of complex and intelligent functions such as those done by the
human brain but with computers and intelligent programs and minimal human intervention
(Kehoe, Patil, Abbeel, & Goldberg, 2015; Ullah et al., 2018). AI can allow any organization to
achieve the following: (i) increase the efficiency of operations, maintenance and supply chain
operations, optimize and improve the customer experience, improve products and services
(Kuzey et al., 2014; PwC, 2019; Wamba-Taguimdje et al., 2020).

2.Robotics

Robotics involves AI-equipped robots conducting complicated tasks with precision (Kehoe et
al., 2015; Ullah et al., 2018). Robotics may differ on dimensions such as whether a robot must
be automatically controlled or could be autonomous or whether a robot must be reprogrammable.
At a broader level, any machine that can be used to carry out complex actions or tasks in an
automatic manner may be considered a robot (Broussard, 2018; Raj & Seamans, 2019).

3.Internet of Things (IoT)

it as a novel internet-based paradigm that connects a variety of things or objects around us
through wireless or wired technologies for attaining desired goals. A stand-out characteristic is
the “intelligence” of these devices, which enables them to self-configure using sensors, rather
like the human nervous system (Ullah et al., 2018). IoT creates new opportunities for the use of
electronic devices by interconnecting them. The devices perceive and collect environmental
information and transmit this information to other devices (Radu, 2020; Statista, 2019).

4. Block chain

Block chain is an open-source, distributed ledger equipped with cryptographic techniques that
enables trust among parties (M Bublitz et al., 2019; Urban & Pineda, 2018). The use of block
chain technology can increase productivity, decrease operational IT cost and increase security
(Fachrunnisa & Hussain, 2020; S.-K. Kim, Kim, & Huh, 2019). Block chain has developed as a
technology that contributes to increasing the intelligence of cities. This is described as a
distributed, replicated, and secure digital register that allows contracting parties to see a system
of records that are immutable (Allam & Dhunny, 2019; Radu, 2020).

5. Network Tools

Networking is the use of digital telecommunications to enable devices over a network to share
resources with each other. These computing devices exchange data through wired or wireless
connections using data links (Sepasgozar & Davis, 2018; White & Banks, 2017). Networking has
been used in various domains such as co-coordinating multi-site projects through federated
clouds (Petri, Beach, Rana, & Rezgui, 2017; Ullah et al., 2018).

6. Virtual Reality

The commonly accepted definition for VR is the use of computer-generated 3D environment,

that the user can navigate and interact with, resulting in real-time simulation of one or more of
the user’s five senses (Guttentag, 2010; Yung & Khoo-Lattimore, 2019). VR technologies are
those visualization techniques referred to pure virtual presence, and now a days are attracting
much attention for improving communications in professional work and shared spaces (Benford,
Greenhalgh, Reynard, Brown, & Koleva, 1998; Wang, Wu, Wang, Chi, & Wang, 2018).

7. 3D printing:
The term 3DP refers to a range of additive manufacturing processes, which create products by
building up layers of plastic, metal or other material, directly from digital design files (Candi &
Beltagui, 2019; Holmström & Partanen, 2014). adoption of 3DP extends the digital
transformation of information based processes into the more challenging realm of the digitization
of
physical processes (Candi & Beltagui, 2019; Rindfleisch, O'Hern, & Sachdev, 2017).

8. Wearable technology

Wearable technology and gadgets comprise electronic devices that have been incorporated into
clothing or wearable accessories (Sepasgozar & Davis, 2018; Skibniewski, 2014) . Most of these
gadgets use the internet, sensors and scanners with one-way or two-way communication between
the gadget and a receiver, allowing real-time communication between the device and consumers
(Sepasgozar & Davis, 2018; Shirowzhan, Sepasgozar, Zaini, & Wang, 2017).

Factors of organizational performance

9. Efficiency

Efficiency refers to increasing employee productivity, by reducing or streamlining internal

processes. Efficiency enhancement can be realized by removing barriers to information flow via
connecting previously unconnected parties and reducing information asymmetries through the
availability of more accurate and timely information. (Migdadi, Zaid, Al-Hujran, & Aloudat,
2016; Zhu, 2004). Efficiency can continuously support superior organizational performance, if it
is used for expanding and deepening inter organizational interdependence and coordination
(Migdadi et al., 2016; Wu, Zhong, & Mei, 2011).

10. Customer satisfaction:

A high degree of customer satisfaction can lead to customer retention and increased market share
(Migdadi et al., 2016; Subramanian, Gunasekaran, Yu, Cheng, & Ning, 2014). satisfied
customers are more likely to use repeatedly the same services and thus, exhibit loyalty
(Kirakosyan & Dănăiaţă, 2014; Migdadi et al., 2016). Customer satisfaction is essential for
consideration because it refers to the “final satisfaction” for a customer (Agnihotri, Dingus, Hu,
& Krush, 2016; Grewal & Sharma, 1991).
11.Innovativeness
Innovativeness can be broadly defined as “an organization's tendency to master, implement, and
develop processes or products new to the organization, although the processes or products may
not be new to its local or foreign competitors” (Durst et al., 2019; Luk et al., 2008). It is a
continuous and systematic process, developed overtime, and which focuses on the transformation
of ideas into “successful reality” (Bessant & Tidd, 2007; Durst et al., 2019).

12.Responsiveness
Responsiveness is “the extent to which a firm responds to market changes, and it results from a
firm's proactive interaction with its external environment” (Durst et al., 2019; Wei & Wang,
2011). Yet, according to (Bernardes & Hanna, 2009; Durst et al., 2019) “responsiveness refers to
the actions or behavior of a system using a series of capabilities to address changes triggered by
stimuli”.

13.Organizational success

Organizational success is an integrative term encompassing various aspects of organizational

functioning. For example, according to (Durst et al., 2019; Flamholtz & Aksehirli, 2000).
organizational success may have several dimensions, such as: acquisition and development of
resources necessary to run the firm; development of day-to-day operational systems;
development of the management systems necessary for the long-term functioning of the
organization; and finally, development of the organizational culture crucial to guide the firm
(Durst et al., 2019; Flamholtz & Aksehirli, 2000).

14.Agility
Agility can be defined as the organizational ability of an organization constantly to detect
competitive opportunities and threats and respond through innovative actions in the form of new
product introductions, new process improvements, new alliances, or other similar
competitive actions (Durst et al., 2019; Kamhawi, 2012). In other words, agility refers to the
speed with which an organization detects and responds to environmental threats and
opportunities (Durst et al., 2019; Tallon & Pinsonneault, 2011).

15. Organizational sustainability

Organizations, sustainability can be defined as “the result of the activities of an organization,
voluntary or, governed by law, that demonstrate the ability of the organization to maintain viable
its business operations (including financial viability as appropriate) whilst not negatively
impacting any social or ecological systems” (Durst et al., 2019; Vonk & Shackelford, 2012).

16. Employee relations

Employment relation is the relationship between the organization and employees (Guest,
Conway, & Dewe, 2004; Tseng & Lee, 2009). found that employment relationship means
whether an organization and its employees maintain a close and positive relationship, or in other
words whether employees and management are on the same side. (Neill & Rose, 2006; Tseng &
Lee, 2009).

2.4 Literature roundup and contribution

Disruptive technologies have enormous potential to enhance the underlying economics of

specific business processes, to drive higher productivity, make workflows more efficient, speed
up the supply chain and transform the back-office. In addition to boosting productivity, our
research reveals that disruptive technologies are also making a difference to quality and cost. It
can vastly improve a company’s efficiency, employee productivity, engagement, collaboration
and communication, but only if the right technology is chosen and implemented properly to
increase the performance of organization.
References

Abramovich, G. Mind-Blowing Stats about Artificial Intelligence: Preuzeto.

Abusweilem, M., & Abualoush, S. (2019). The impact of knowledge management process and
business intelligence on organizational performance. Management Science Letters, 9(12),
2143-2156.
Agnihotri, R., Dingus, R., Hu, M. Y., & Krush, M. T. (2016). Social media: Influencing
customer satisfaction in B2B sales. Industrial marketing management, 53, 172-180.
Allam, Z., & Dhunny, Z. A. (2019). On big data, artificial intelligence and smart cities. Cities,
89, 80-91.
Asree, S., Zain, M., & Razalli, M. R. (2010). Influence of leadership competency and
organizational culture on responsiveness and performance of firms. International Journal
of Contemporary hospitality management.
Barber, K., Fitzgerald, H., Pontisso, R., & Howell, T. (2006). Paperback Oxford Canadian
Dictionary: Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press.
Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., Reynard, G., Brown, C., & Koleva, B. (1998). Understanding and
constructing shared spaces with mixed-reality boundaries. ACM Transactions on
computer-human interaction (TOCHI), 5(3), 185-223.
Bernardes, E. S., & Hanna, M. D. (2009). A theoretical review of flexibility, agility and
responsiveness in the operations management literature. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management.
Bessant, J., & Tidd, J. (2007). Innovation and entrepreneurship: John Wiley & Sons.
Bilton, C. (2006). Management and creativity: From creative industries to creative management:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Bird, C. D., & Emery, N. J. (2009). Insightful problem solving and creative tool modification by
captive nontool-using rooks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 106(25), 10370-10375. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901008106
Boudreau, J. (1996). Human Resources and Organization Success; Cornell University, School of
Industrial and Labor Relationss. Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies: Ithaca,
NY, USA.
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: catching the wave.
Broussard, M. (2018). Artificial unintelligence: How computers misunderstand the world: Mit
Press.
Candi, M., & Beltagui, A. (2019). Effective use of 3D printing in the innovation process.
Technovation, 80, 63-73.
Chan, L. L., Shaffer, M. A., & Snape, E. (2004). In search of sustained competitive advantage:
the impact of organizational culture, competitive strategy and human resource
management practices on firm performance. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 15(1), 17-35.
Cho, H. J., & Pucik, V. (2005). Relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth,
profitability, and market value. Strategic management journal, 26(6), 555-575.
Christensen, C. (2003). The innovator's solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth:
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH INST INC 1550 M ST., NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20005
USA.
Christensen, C. M. (2013). The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms
to fail: Harvard Business Review Press.
Coccia, M. (2017). Sources of technological innovation: Radical and incremental innovation
problem-driven to support competitive advantage of firms. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 29(9), 1048-1061.
Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda.
Journal of product innovation management, 21(4), 246-258.
Durst, S., Hinteregger, C., & Zieba, M. (2019). The linkage between knowledge risk
management and organizational performance. Journal of Business Research, 105, 1-10.
Fachrunnisa, O., & Hussain, F. K. (2020). Blockchain-based human resource management
practices for mitigating skills and competencies gap in workforce. International Journal
of Engineering Business Management, 12, 1847979020966400.
Fenwick, M., & Vermeulen, E. P. (2016). The Future of Capitalism:'Un-Corporating'Corporate
Governance. Lex Research Topics in Corporate Law & Economics Working Paper(2016-
4).
Flamholtz, E. G., & Aksehirli, Z. (2000). Organizational success and failure:: an empirical test of
a holistic model. European Management Journal, 18(5), 488-498.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational
capabilities perspective. Journal of management information systems, 18(1), 185-214.
Grewal, D., & Sharma, A. (1991). The effect of salesforce behavior on customer satisfaction: an
interactive framework. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 11(3), 13-23.
Guest, D., Conway, N., & Dewe, P. (2004). Using sequential tree analysis to search for ‘bundles’
of HR practices. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(1), 79-96.
Guttentag, D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tourism
management, 31(5), 637-651.
Haddud, A., DeSouza, A., Khare, A., & Lee, H. (2017). Examining potential benefits and
challenges associated with the Internet of Things integration in supply chains. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management.
Haghighi, M. A., Bagheri, R., & Kalat, P. S. (2015). The Relationship of Knowledge
Management and Organizational Performance in Science and Technology Parks of Iran.
Independent Journal of Management & Production, 6(2), 422-448.
Harshadeep, N. R., & Young, W. (2020). Disruptive Technologies for Improving Water Security
in Large River Basins. Water, 12(10), 2783.
Holmström, J., & Partanen, J. (2014). Digital manufacturing-driven transformations of service
supply chains for complex products. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal.
Kamhawi, E. M. (2012). Knowledge management fishbone: a standard framework of
organizational enablers. Journal of Knowledge Management.
Kehoe, B., Patil, S., Abbeel, P., & Goldberg, K. (2015). A survey of research on cloud robotics
and automation. IEEE Transactions on automation science and engineering, 12(2), 398-
409.
Kim, M.-S., & Thapa, B. (2018). Relationship of ethical leadership, corporate social
responsibility and organizational performance. Sustainability, 10(2), 447.
Kim, S.-K., Kim, U.-M., & Huh, J.-H. (2019). A study on improvement of blockchain
application to overcome vulnerability of IoT multiplatform security. Energies, 12(3), 402.
Kirakosyan, K., & Dănăiaţă, D. (2014). Communication management in electronic banking.
Better communication for better relationship. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
124, 361-370.
Koohang, A., Paliszkiewicz, J., & Goluchowski, J. (2017). The impact of leadership on trust,
knowledge management, and organizational performance: A research model. Industrial
Management & Data Systems.
Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation and control.
Kuzey, C., Uyar, A., & Delen, D. (2014). The impact of multinationality on firm value: A
comparative analysis of machine learning techniques. Decision Support Systems, 59, 127-
142.
Leitão, J., Pereira, D., & Gonçalves, Â. (2019). Quality of Work Life and Organizational
Performance: Workers’ Feelings of Contributing, or Not, to the Organization’s
Productivity. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(20),
3803.
Llewellyn Evans, G. (2017). Disruptive technology and the board: The tip of the iceberg.
Economics and Business Review, 3(1).
Luk, C.-L., Yau, O. H., Sin, L. Y., Alan, C., Chow, R. P., & Lee, J. S. (2008). The effects of
social capital and organizational innovativeness in different institutional contexts.
Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 589-612.
Lusthaus, C. (2002). Organizational assessment: A framework for improving performance:
IDRC.
M Bublitz, F., Oetomo, A., S Sahu, K., Kuang, A., X Fadrique, L., E Velmovitsky, P., . . . P
Morita, P. (2019). Disruptive technologies for environment and health research: an
 overview of artificial intelligence, blockchain, and internet of things. International
journal of environmental research and public health, 16(20), 3847.
March, J. G., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Crossroads—organizational performance as a dependent
variable. Organization science, 8(6), 698-706.
Mckeen, J. D., Zack, M. H., & Singh, S. (2006). Knowledge management and organizational
performance: an exploratory survey. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 39th
Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06).
Menon, A., Menon, A., Chowdhury, J., & Jankovich, J. (1999). Evolving paradigm for
environmental sensitivity in marketing programs: a synthesis of theory and practice.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(2), 1-15.
Migdadi, M. M., Zaid, M. K. S. A., Al-Hujran, O. S., & Aloudat, A. M. (2016). An empirical
assessment of the antecedents of electronic-business implementation and the resulting
organizational performance. Internet Research.
Moreno, E. F., ÁVILA, M., & García-Contreras, R. (2018). Can gender be a determinant of
organizational performance and knowledge sharing in public sector organizations? AD-
minister(32), 137-160.
Neely, A. D., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2002). The performance prism: The scorecard for
measuring and managing business success: Prentice Hall Financial Times London.
Neill, S., & Rose, G. M. (2006). The effect of strategic complexity on marketing strategy and
organizational performance. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 1-10.
Nwankpa, J. K., & Datta, P. (2017). Balancing exploration and exploitation of IT resources: the
influence of Digital Business Intensity on perceived organizational performance.
European Journal of Information Systems, 26(5), 469-488.
Obeidat, B. Y. (2016). Exploring the relationship between corporate social responsibility,
employee engagement, and organizational performance: The case of Jordanian mobile
telecommunication companies. International Journal of Communications, Network and
System Sciences, 9(09), 361.
Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: a framework for management control systems
research. Management accounting research, 10(4), 363-382.
Paljak, F. (2019). Enabling Technology Adoption in Conservative Industries: A Case Study
within Private Real Estate Development.
Peterson, W., Gijsbers, G., & Wilks, M. (2003). An organizational performance assessment
system for agricultural research organizations: concepts, methods, and procedures.
Petri, I., Beach, T., Rana, O. F., & Rezgui, Y. (2017). Coordinating multi-site construction
projects using federated clouds. Automation in Construction, 83, 273-284.
PwC, P. (2019). Sizing the Prize (2017). https://www. pwc.
com/gx/en/issues/analytics/assets/pwc-ai-analysis-sizing-the-prizereport. pdf>. Acesso
em, 20, 12.
Radu, L.-D. (2020). Disruptive Technologies in Smart Cities: A Survey on Current Trends and
Challenges. Smart Cities, 3(3), 1022-1038.
Raj, M., & Seamans, R. (2019). Primer on artificial intelligence and robotics. Journal of
Organization Design, 8(1), 1-14.
Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring organizational
performance: Towards methodological best practice. Journal of management, 35(3), 718-
804.
Rindfleisch, A., O'Hern, M., & Sachdev, V. (2017). The digital revolution, 3D printing, and
innovation as data. Journal of product innovation management, 34(5), 681-690.
Sepasgozar, S. M., & Davis, S. (2018). Construction technology adoption cube: An investigation
on process, factors, barriers, drivers and decision makers using NVivo and AHP analysis.
Buildings, 8(6), 74.
Shirowzhan, S., Sepasgozar, S., Zaini, I., & Wang, C. (2017). An integrated GIS and Wi-Fi
based Locating system for improving construction labor communications. Paper
presented at the ISARC. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and
Robotics in Construction.
Singh, R., Mathiassen, L., & Mishra, A. (2015). Organizational Path Constitution in
Technological Innovation. MIS quarterly, 39(3), 643-666.
Skibniewski, M. J. (2014). Information technology applications in construction safety assurance.
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 20(6), 778-794.
Statista, R. (2019). Internet of Things‐Number of connected devices worldwide 2015‐2025.
Statista Research Department. statista. com/statistics/471264/iot-number-of-connected-
devices-worldwide.
Subramanian, N., Gunasekaran, A., Yu, J., Cheng, J., & Ning, K. (2014). Customer satisfaction
and competitiveness in the Chinese E-retailing: Structural equation modeling (SEM)
approach to identify the role of quality factors. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(1),
69-80.
Tallon, P. P., & Pinsonneault, A. (2011). Competing perspectives on the link between strategic
information technology alignment and organizational agility: insights from a mediation
model. MIS quarterly, 463-486.
Tseng, Y.-F., & Lee, T.-Z. (2009). Comparing appropriate decision support of human resource
practices on organizational performance with DEA/AHP model. Expert Systems with
Applications, 36(3), 6548-6558.
Ullah, F., Sepasgozar, S. M., & Wang, C. (2018). A systematic review of smart real estate
technology: Drivers of, and barriers to, the use of digital disruptive technologies and
online platforms. Sustainability, 10(9), 3142.
Urban, M. C., & Pineda, D. (2018). Inside the Black Blocks: A Policymaker’s Introduction to
Blockchain, Distributed Ledger Technology and the “Internet of Value”: Mowat Centre
for Policy Innovation.
Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., Franzò, S., & Frattini, F. (2018). An exploratory analysis
on the contextual factors that influence disruptive innovation: the case of Uber.
International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 15(03), 1850024.
Vonk, J., & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of comparative
evolutionary psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wamba-Taguimdje, S.-L., Wamba, S. F., Kamdjoug, J. R. K., & Wanko, C. E. T. (2020).
Influence of artificial intelligence (AI) on firm performance: the business value of AI-
based transformation projects. Business Process Management Journal.
Wang, P., Wu, P., Wang, J., Chi, H.-L., & Wang, X. (2018). A critical review of the use of
virtual reality in construction engineering education and training. International journal of
environmental research and public health, 15(6), 1204.
Wei, Y. S., & Wang, Q. (2011). Making sense of a market information system for superior
performance: The roles of organizational responsiveness and innovation strategy.
Industrial marketing management, 40(2), 267-277.
White, R., & Banks, E. (2017). Computer Networking Problems and Solutions: An innovative
approach to building resilient, modern networks: Addison-Wesley Professional.
Whitmore, A., Agarwal, A., & Da Xu, L. (2015). The Internet of Things—A survey of topics and
trends. Information systems frontiers, 17(2), 261-274.
Wu, J.-N., Zhong, W.-J., & Mei, S.-E. (2011). Application capability of e-business, e-business
success, and organizational performance: Empirical evidence from China. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 78(8), 1412-1425.
Yung, R., & Khoo-Lattimore, C. (2019). New realities: a systematic literature review on virtual
reality and augmented reality in tourism research. Current Issues in Tourism, 22(17),
2056-2081.
Zhang, Y., Khan, U., Lee, S., & Salik, M. (2019). The influence of management innovation and
technological innovation on organization performance. a mediating role of sustainability.
Sustainability, 11(2), 495.
Zhou, L., Chong, A. Y., & Ngai, W. T. (2015). Supply chain management in the era of the
internet of things. International Journal of Production Economics, 159, 1-3.
Zhu, K. (2004). The complementarity of information technology infrastructure and e-commerce
capability: A resource-based assessment of their business value. Journal of management
information systems, 21(1), 167-202.