Technological Forecasting & Social Change 177 (2022) 121513

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Digital platform capability and organizational agility of emerging market

manufacturing SMEs: The mediating role of intellectual capital and the
moderating role of environmental dynamism
Adeel Ahmed a, Sabeen Hussain Bhatti b, *, Ismail Gölgeci c, Ahmad Arslan d
a
Al Qadir University, Punjab, Pakistan
b
Management Studies Department – Business School, Bahria University Islamabad, Pakistan
c
Department of Business Development and Technology, Aarhus University, Denmark
d
Department of Marketing, Management & International Business, Oulu Business School, University of Oulu, Finland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this study, we untangle the relationship between digital platform capability and organizational agility in the
Digital platform capability (DPC) manufacturing sector small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by investigating the mediating role of intel­
Organizational agility (OA) lectual capital and the moderating role of environmental dynamism. Using a time-lagged two-wave survey of 227
Intellectual capital (IC)
manufacturing SMEs, we tested our proposed hypotheses using structural equational modeling (SEM). Our results
Environmental dynamism (ED)
Manufacturing SMEs
reveal that digital platform capability is positively associated with the agility of SMEs and that all three intel­
lectual capital dimensions (i.e., human, organizational, and relational capital) mediate this relationship. We also
found that environmental dynamism has a negative moderating role on digital platform capability and intel­
lectual capital. Environmental dynamism curbs SMEs’ abilities to turn their digital platform capabilities into
increased intellectual capital. Our results shed light on the importance of intellectual capital in creating
improved organizational agility for manufacturing SMEs through digital platform capability within the boundary
conditions of environmental dynamism.

1. Introduction
Organizations have used the flexibility and efficiency provided by
technology to better cope with the continuously evolving world. This
includes such technology as big data analytics, the Internet of Things
(IoT), digital platforms, social media technologies, and cloud computing
that enable better connectivity, effective communication, and higher
automation (Li et al., 2020). Organizations can attain a sustainable
competitive advantage through the efficient utilization and manage­
ment of these digital technologies (Sakas et al., 2014). Digital platform
capability (DPC), defined as an organization’s ability to use the latest
advanced digital tools and technologies as competitive instruments
(Cenamor et al., 2019), can have a substantial impact on a firm’s
competitive advantage (Mikalef and Pateli, 2017; Rai and Tang, 2010),
innovation (Sedera et al., 2016), and performance (Cenamor et al.,
2019).
According to Chen and Siau (2020), organizational agility (OA),
defined as the ability to identify and react efficiently to market
opportunities at the firm level (Sambamurthy et al., 2003), also provides
a promising lens for the study of the implications of external dynamism
on organizational performance. Environmental volatility and higher
uncertainty in global markets coupled with exponential technological
advancements have led businesses to calibrate their capacity so that they
can rapidly and flexibly respond (Shams et al., 2021; Tallon and Pin­
sonneault, 2011). Many firms turn to information technology (IT) ca­
pabilities to better cope with the turbulence and market fluctuations
(Martinez-Caro et al., 2020) and to develop their OA. As such, OA has
been characterized as a strategic corporate imperative for a business to
survive and succeed (Huang et al., 2014), and more recent research has
established that organizations can improve their performance through
agility that is driven by digital capabilities (Felipe et al., 2020).
Even though SMEs are predominantly affected by technological ad­
vancements and can leverage their DPC to foster their OA, they are also
embedded in the context in which such advancements take place.
Sadeghi et al. (2019) argued that the environment has a significant
impact on SMEs and that changes in technological infrastructure and the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sbhatti.buic@bahria.edu.pk (S.H. Bhatti), i.golgeci@btech.au.dk (I. Gölgeci), ahmad.arslan@oulu.fi (A. Arslan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121513
Received 30 April 2021; Received in revised form 11 January 2022; Accepted 15 January 2022
Available online 19 January 2022
0040-1625/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A. Ahmed et al.
specific cultures in emerging markets may impact how SMEs are affected
by changes in their environment. Thus, their behavior is conditioned by
environmental dynamism (ED), defined as the level of unpredictability
and instability in the firm’s environment (Chan et al., 2016). The un­
stable and dynamic environment in many emerging markets signifies the
need for firms to deal with several diverse stakeholders and undertake
compound and contrasting processes (Jafari-Sadeghi et al., 2021c).
Thus, researchers have called for more studies on intellectual capital and
agility in the context of emerging markets (Ferraris et al., 2021). Pre­
vious researchers have also argued that dynamism signifies the irregu­
larity and instability of the changes in the organizational environment
that lead to ambiguity in decision-making processes (Aldrich, 1979;
Dubey et al., 2019). Accordingly, it is essential to understand how or­
ganizations leverage DPC in the effective implementation of digital
platforms in order to pursue OA while accounting for ED. Researchers
have stressed the importance of further exploration of the relationship
between technical IT capabilities and OA (Gao et al., 2020). However,
studies have not yet accounted for the potential moderating role of ED.
Scholars like Mubarik et al. (2018) have contended that the industry
4.0 (I4.0) revolution has amplified the role of intangible resources
critical to the attainment of a competitive advantage (Mahmood and
Mubarik, 2020). Intellectual capital (IC) is defined as an integrated set of
intangible resources, including relational, organizational, and human
capital, which are necessary for firms to gain a competitive advantage
(Liu and Jiang, 2020). Researchers have argued that IC plays a crucial
role in leveraging strategic capabilities like DPC and in attaining a firm’s
competitive advantage (Mubarik et al., 2019). DPC can enhance OA
through IC and its dimensions of human capital, relational capital, and
organizational capital (Chu et al., 2006; Mubarik et al., 2019). There­
fore, we expect intellectual capital to connect DPC and OA and explain
how firms can translate their DPC into OA. Nonetheless, extant research
has not yet examined the mechanisms which convey the influence of
DPC on OA.
In view of these arguments and the identified gaps, the purpose of
this research is to explore the link between DPC and OA in
manufacturing SMEs and, in so doing, use the dynamic capabilities
theory to account for the moderating role of ED and the meditating role
of IC. We ask the research question of “When and how does the DPC of
manufacturing SMEs contribute to their OA?” We believe this research
question to be of interest because it helps untangle the relationship
between DPC and OA by addressing the questions of when (i.e., the
moderating role of ED) and how (i.e., the mediating role of IC) DPC can
help manufacturing SMEs enhance their OA. We used time-lagged data
collected in two phases from firms belonging to an industrial zone in
Pakistan to test our hypotheses. The sample consisted of 227 SMEs and
data were analyzed through SEM and Preacher and Hayes’ process
method.
This paper contributes to research on DPC, IC, and OA in several
ways. First, we assess the link between DPC and OA and explain how
DPC is linked to the OA of manufacturing SMEs in emerging markets.
Emerging market SMEs are significantly under-researched in the specific
context of DPC (Jafari-Sadeghi et al., 2021b). In addition, scholars have
highlighted the need to increase our understanding of the role of digital
capabilities in relation to OA, especially in volatile, uncertain, complex,
and ambiguous contexts as is often the case in emerging markets (e.g.,
Troise et al., 2022). Hence, our paper fills these specific gaps in the
extant literature. Second, through the theoretical lens of DC, we focus on
the role of IC in relation to DPC in enhancing OA since researchers have
hinted that the underlying mechanisms of this relationship should be
explored (Gao et al., 2020). Untangling the link between DPC and OA
highlights the important role of IC in utilizing DPC and achieving greater
levels of OA amid the external uncertainty and dynamism which SMEs
face in emerging markets. Third, we assess IC through the three sub­
dimensions of human capital, organizational capital, and relational
capital and their distinct roles in enhancing OA. Finally, we examine the
role of ED in moderating between DPC and IC in manufacturing SMEs
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 177 (2022) 121513
during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan. The
COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected all businesses and espe­
cially SMEs (Caballero-Morales, 2021). Thus, it is pertinent to study the
impact of such a dynamic and unstable environment on the factors
which affect the agility of organizations (Al-Omoush et al., 2020).
Building on these contributions, this study provides recommendations to
practitioners in SME manufacturing on how OA can be enhanced
through DPC and IC.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, we define the
variables and explain them in light of the previous literature, followed
by hypotheses development and model presentation. Next, we discuss
the methodology adopted in the paper, including the sample’s context,
sampling procedure, and the measures used in the study. In the last
section, we discuss the results, practical and theoretical implications,
limitations, and possible avenues for future research.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development
2.1. Dynamic capabilities theory
Dynamic capabilities (DC) theory has been used extensively in the
literature to understand the importance of a firm’s strategic capabilities
and their effects on competitive performance (Teece, 2007). DC theory
emphasizes the maintenance and development of superior operational
capabilities which are necessary to perform and synchronize operational
processes (Schilke et al., 2018). It rests on the position that dynamic
capabilities can alter the current positions and resources of firms as well
as their operational capabilities, thereby leading to new positions and
paths to make the best use of their strategic assets (Schilke et al., 2018).
Previous researchers have also used DC theory to fully understand
IT-related capabilities and firm-level outcomes (Al-Omoush et al., 2020;
Dubey et al., 2019; Mandal, 2019; Xiao et al., 2020). However, this
theory has mainly been explored in developed nations where emerging
markets that are unique in the economic and sociocultural environment
have their own resources and capabilities (Jafari-Sadeghi et al., 2021a,
b). We use this theoretical approach to propose and test our theoretical
model in emerging markets.
2.2. Digital platform capability
Sedera et al. (2016) referred to digital platforms as a way to develop
the information technology infrastructure, and they include social
media, mobile computing, and e-commerce platforms that have gradu­
ally expanded the boundaries of firms and enabled them to digitally
create conglomerates with their partners. Digital platforms are strategic
tools and dematerialization processes, and they can bring noteworthy
cost reductions and increase revenues (Esposito De Falco et al., 2017).
They disrupt conventional businesses, transform the structures of key
industries, and force traditional firms to reassess their business models.
Digital platforms support business operations by providing different
technical elements, such as software and hardware devices, that help
organizations coordinate within and outside their organizations for a
smooth business flow (Cenamor et al., 2019). They also allow ease of
connectivity, bring different outside knowledge resources, and provide
an opportunity to maintain collaboration among partners in supply
chains.
Nonetheless, adopting and using digital platforms is not an easy ride.
After the implementation of digital platforms, organizations may face
the adoption of different technology or change-related challenges within
their boundaries or with their partners, including uncertainty in re­
lationships, exchange of risks, and hazards that impact organizational
outcomes. These challenges bring the concept of DPC into the picture to
effectively utilize digital platforms and overcome challenges associated
with the adoption of digital platforms (Wang et al., 2016). According to
Cenamor et al. (2019), DPC refers to the organization’s ability to use the
latest advanced digital tools and technologies as competitive
A. Ahmed et al.
instruments. DPC is essential for the deployment of ICT-based resources
and technologies together with other resources inside and outside the
firm (Mikalef and Pateli, 2017). DPC enables organizations to integrate
strategic knowledge sources through digital technology to better
respond to dynamic environments (Cenamor et al., 2019).
2.3. Intellectual capital
Apart from providing valuable product development and services,
intellectual assets also help organizations to maintain the competitive
advantage which results from competitive dynamic environments and
changing customer needs (Battisti et al., 2015). After the I4.0 revolution,
the relationship between machines and humans was developed along­
side changes in organizational structures and characteristics. This
highlights the importance of IC in the era of I4.0, and researchers argue
that stepping into the I4.0 revolution requires strong IC (Mahmood and
Mubarik, 2020).
McDowell et al. (2018) defined IC as “the economic value of an or­
ganization’s intangible assets, such as rational capital, organizational
capital and human capital” (p. 2). In the context of a knowledge econ­
omy, IC helps a firm succeed and enables the economy to grow (Pop­
kova et al., 2015). According to Mahmood and Mubarik (2020), IC
comprises the relationships and knowledge of organizations as con­
verted into firm performance. With the development of the knowledge
economy and the advancement of new technologies, IC is gradually
replacing traditional factors, including land and labor, and becoming a
critical part of the manufacturing sector (Bontis et al., 2015).
IC enhances competitive advantage and the manufacturing indus­
try’s value. As such, it underpins an organization’s innovation, predic­
tive ability, foresight, and ensuing development (Bhatti et al., 2020).
Seminal studies in innovation and management research, including the
works of McDowell et al. (2018), Hsu and Fang (2009), Saxena (2015),
and Liu and Jiang (2020), have discussed IC based on the three di­
mensions of human capital, organizational capital, and relational capi­
tal. We adopt their conceptualization and discuss each dimension in
turn.
2.3.1. Human capital
An organization’s human capital is referred to as the collective ca­
pabilities of an organization’s employees to solve problems and to better
connect with customers and suppliers (Mubarik et al., 2018). Human
capital comprises the skills, overall knowledge, experiences, and profi­
ciency of an organization’s employees (Edvinsson, 1997). Individual
qualities, such as problem-solving, creative thinking, and attitude are
also considered to be a part of human capital by many researchers, for
example, Russo and Fouts (1997) and Mouritsen (1998). Researchers
have argued that individual abilities, skills, and knowledge will help
improve an organization’s performance (Baima et al., 2021; Mahmood
and Mubarik, 2020). The improvement of human capital via education
and training leads to an improvement in organizational performance.
Accordingly, human capital is an essential dimension of IC.
2.3.2. Relational capital
Relational capital is defined as “the extent to which people in a
particular work unit form high-quality relationships resulting in the
exchange of knowledge and learning from each other” (Carmeli and
Azeroual, 2009, p.88). Organizations are connected with external
stakeholders, such as suppliers and customers, through these relation­
ships, and relational capital plays a vital role in forming relationships
among organizations and their stakeholders. It also influences re­
lationships among internal employees of organizations (Mahmood and
Mubarik, 2020; Rezaei et al., 2020). Relational capital includes strong
understanding and collaboration among partners, higher trust levels,
and especially stronger relationships among an organization’s strategic
partners.
3
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 177 (2022) 121513
2.3.3. Organizational capital
Organizational capital consists of all the resources of knowledge that
are non-human (Mahmood and Mubarik, 2020). Organizational capital
is the firm’s capacity to organize and develop rare resources in order to
rapidly adapt to changes in the business environment. It also entails the
integration of business processes to transform current resources into
organizational processes and successfully implement business strategies
(Liu and Jiang, 2020).
According to Stewart (1997), organizational capital serves two pur­
poses. The first purpose is to organize knowledge transfer to preserve the
firm’s existing knowledge and avoid leaks. The second purpose is to
connect different stakeholders to experts, including sources of knowl­
edge, expertise, and data in a timely manner. As knowledge sharing is
based on different types of transmissions, a well-organized firm struc­
ture must be in place. This helps organizations and people to connect
with different actors and information sources via efficient structural
frameworks and effective network channels (Harris, 2000). Thus,
organizational capital is a key asset for the firm and a dimension of IC
(Hsu and Fang, 2009; Saxena, 2015).
2.4. Organizational agility
OA is the firm’s capacity to rapidly react to changes in its market
(Lee, 2004). Different researchers have conceptualized agility in various
ways, including agility as a process (Sambamurthy et al., 2003) and as a
combination of IT, system, and strategic agility (Lowry and Wilson,
2016). Still others have described agility as an organizational level
capability, while Lu and Ramamurthy (2011) saw agility as a composite
of “market capitalizing agility” (ability to innovate products or services
as per customer demands) and “operational adjustment agility” (capa­
bility to change internal operations to cater to demand changes).
Complexity and uncertainty in the market climate enable businesses
to react promptly and to be agile. Enterprises that concentrate on
responsiveness to consumer demands in a constantly evolving dynamic
world prioritize the development and application of agility in their
business processes (Gligor et al., 2015; Shams et al., 2021). According to
Sambamurthy et al. (2003), OA is the organization’s ability to identify
different opportunities in an imperfect market and take necessary pre­
cautionary measures to timely cope with the situation and take advan­
tage of such opportunities. Agile organizations have the potential to
quickly explore novel ways of doing things, proactively predict and
adapt to developments, and seize opportunities (Al-Omoush et al., 2020;
Oh and Teo, 2006). Agile organizations are ready for the uncertainty of
the business environment and for market volatility. They can afford the
opportunity and can quickly respond to gain competitive advantage in
the situation (Madhok and Marques, 2014). Sharifi et al. (2006) stated
that organizational performance is also based on OA.
OA enables firms to redesign and streamline their business opera­
tions to achieve accuracy, cost-effectiveness, and swift response in their
organizational processes. It is also helpful to establish the corporation’s
network in order to leverage capabilities, logistics, supplier knowledge,
and other assets. Finally, through prompt responses to customers’
changing demands, agile organizations can enhance loyalty and
customer satisfaction (Khalifa et al., 2008). An agile firm’s capability to
respond according to the changes in the marketplace helps it achieve
better performance in the market (Salehzadeh et al., 2017; Zaheer and
Zaheer, 1997). However, researchers have argued that OA literature is
primarily only linked to organizational reactions to peripheral pro­
cesses. Thus, it is pertinent to require appropriate explanations in order
to understand the underlying processes in more detail (Dabić et al.,
2021).
2.5. Environmental dynamism
ED refers to the level of unpredictability and instability in a firm’s
environment (Chan et al., 2016). According to Pagell and Krause (2004),
A. Ahmed et al.
ED is the volatility and unpredictability of the organization’s environ­
ment. It is considered an important factor in operational management
and environmental management (Maletič et al., 2018). Researchers like
Raymond (2005) and Sousa and Voss (2008) have suggested that orga­
nizations need to develop their infrastructures as per the requirements of
the external environment to achieve high performance of SMEs.
A manufacturing firm in the context of the industrial environment
has a shorter product life cycle. Their demand changes frequently, and
these changes in production and regulation are associated with a higher
degree of dynamism (Azadegan et al., 2013; Chan et al., 2016). This also
requires higher information from associated processes (Melville and
Ramirez, 2008). Thus, as ED significantly impacts business processes
and relationships, manufacturing firms must promptly adopt the latest
IT infrastructure to respond to dynamic environments.
2.6. Hypotheses development
DPC plays a pivotal role in enabling firms to develop complementary
technologies and services (e.g., Xiao et al., 2020). Firms with greater
levels of DPC are better positioned to effectively develop, integrate, and
utilize digital platforms and technologies. Furthermore, DPC as a
capability based on streamlining business processes and enabling rapid
decision making and implementation (Cenamor et al., 2019) allows
organizations to swiftly carry out their strategic decisions and initiatives
and thus makes them more agile. As such, DPC helps firms to promptly
and effectively react to the dynamic environment.
The literature has also established that digital technologies can
enable the initiation of forward-looking strategies to make organizations
more agile (Sambamurthy et al., 2003). Bresciani et al. (2021) main­
tained that firms can improve their processes and services through the
continuous digital transformation process by effectively responding to
complex, changing environments. IT-enabled capabilities, such as IT
competencies (Lu and Ramamurthy, 2011), strategic IT alignment
(Tallon and Pinsonneault, 2011), IT assimilation (Martinez-Caro et al.,
2020), and information processing capability (Huang et al., 2014), have
been previously linked with agility. Dubey et al. (2020) argued that data
technology enables business managers to identify the dynamic changes
in their environment and improve their OA. Researchers like Nissen and
von Rennenkampff (2017) established that modern digital capabilities
are essential for higher OA. Similarly, Mandal (2019) discovered that
digital capabilities assist firms in the careful selection of resources for
obtaining enough capabilities to rapidly counter environmental
changes, and such firms can thus swiftly redesign their skills and capa­
bilities. We expect that DPC can also create flexibility and swiftness in
the organization, thereby helping it to sustain itself in the market. As
such, DPC is helpful for an organization to achieve higher OA. Thus, we
propose:
H1: Digital platform capability is positively associated with the organi­
zational agility of manufacturing SMEs.
There is a visible shift in the debate on human capital due to
emerging digital technologies, such as I4.0 infrastructure (Cusumano
et al., 2019; Flores et al., 2020). Digital platforms are an important
element of the I4.0 infrastructure. Some recent studies have highlighted
that characteristics such as innovative business models, efficient use of
social media, and continuously adapted cognitive and social skills are
important for human capital in the changing organizational context
(Baima et al., 2021; Flores et al., 2020; Pinzone et al., 2017). Firms that
effectively apply their DPC are likely to improve their human capital due
to the enabling role of digital technologies in the improvement of a
firm’s workforce and its efficiency in completing organizational tasks.
Hence, it is logical to expect DPC to positively influence human capital
in an organization.
Since human capital is essential for every organization, the effective
management of human capital can contribute to speed and
4
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 177 (2022) 121513
responsiveness in organizational processes and decision making (Al-O­
moush, 2021). In particular, human capital can support a firm’s
achievement of OA through individuals who promptly put their abilities,
skills, and knowledge into use to respond to dynamic conditions. Firms
that invest in human capital can enjoy a workforce that is agile and
dynamic in the face of a dynamic environment. Likewise, human capital
can be an important basis on which to build a firm’s OA. Collectively,
human capital can be implemented to cope with multifaceted changes
and subsequent organizational adjustments and achieve OA amid dy­
namic business environments.
The direct link between DPC and OA has already been demonstrated
in the paper. Given the previously hypothesized linkages between DPC
and OA, we further argue that human capital is expected to positively
mediate this relationship as it is closely associated with both constructs.
Hence, we hypothesize that:
H2: Human capital mediates the positive relationship between digital
platform capability and organizational agility.
Organizational capital consists of different structures and processes
through which business transactions are performed and is comprised of
the different tangible and intangible materials that an organization can
offer, including copyrights, different software systems, trademarks,
processes database, and organizational culture (Zameer et al., 2020). It
is also important to mention that organizational capital is strongly
linked to knowledge (e.g., Mahmood and Mubarak, 2020). This
knowledge base is strengthened by the regular and efficient transfer of
knowledge from both upstream and downstream sources (Zhang et al.,
2020). There is also evidence in the extant literature that digital plat­
forms and associated capabilities can significantly enhance the effi­
ciency of such knowledge transfer mechanisms (e.g., Sun et al., 2020),
thereby strengthening organizational capital.
The greater availability of resources and knowledge sources means
that firms with high organizational capital can speedily leverage their
resources and achieve greater agility. Firms with greater organizational
capital can be expected to be more agile and to be better at utilizing DPC
toward the development of agile capabilities because organizational
capital underlines a firm’s capacity to organize and develop rare re­
sources and to rapidly adapt to the changes in the business environment.
As such, greater availability of organizational capital can be expected to
enhance OA and enable better leveraging of DPC in achieving OA. In
other words, we expect that organizational capital functions as a linking
pin between DPC and OA and conveys the influence of DPC on OA.
H3: Organizational capital mediates the positive relationship between
digital platform capability and organizational agility.
Relational capital is also a significantly researched topic. Lazzarotti
et al. (2017), Mubarik et al. (2019), and Naghavi and Mubarak (2019)
indicated that relational capital is characterized by interaction, close­
ness, and goodwill among the employees of an organization and external
stakeholders, upstream suppliers, strategic partners, and downstream
clients. There is a consensus among scholars that relational capital is
strengthened when there are efficient communication mechanisms and
collaboration between an organization and its partners (e.g., Ramadas
et al., 2018). Digital platforms are a mechanism that can significantly
strengthen communication and collaboration between the organization
and its partners and act as a relational lubricant (e.g., Cenamor et al.,
2019) when such capabilities are present and strong. For example, a
firm’s DPC can help improve the relational capital dimension of IC as
digital technologies foster value co-creation and business-to-business
branding and facilitate innovation networks (Hofacker et al., 2020).
Thus, firms applying their DPC can be in a better position to develop
relational capability.
In the specific context of emerging market SMEs, studies have also
highlighted the potential positive influences of relational capital on OA
A. Ahmed et al.
(e.g., Gligor et al., 2015; Al-Omoush, 2021). Firms can leverage their
relational capital and the trust-based collaboration opportunities it
brings to quickly react to environmental changes and volatile market
demands. Thus, relational capital could help organizations sustain
themselves in a competitive environment (Mubarik et al., 2019). Social
networks among different stakeholders across the value chain may
augment the awareness of the market and thus provide an effective way
for firms to engage in knowledge exchange processes (Gupta et al.,
2019) in situations in which knowledge is critical for achieving firm
agility (Al-Omoush et al., 2021). We expect that higher relational capital
can enhance OA and propose that relational capital can become a sig­
nificant mediating mechanism between DPC and the firm agility rela­
tionship. Thus, our next hypothesis is:
H4: Relational capital mediates the positive relationship between digital
platform capability and organizational agility.
It is commonly accepted that ED is a profound force and an instru­
mental boundary condition for firms (see, e.g., Dubey et al., 2020; Xiao
et al., 2020). In fact, competitive advantage is often defined as the fit
between a firm’s strategy and its external environment (Powell, 1992).
Some SMEs might be unable to sustain the unpredictable changes in the
environment due to the profound influence of ED and thus suffer loss.
Therefore, it is necessary to be aware of and account for environmental
changes. Organizations in the design of their structures must keep in
mind the role of the environment in which they compete (Li et al., 2020;
Sousa and Voss, 2008).
Researchers agree that rapid and consistent ED can neutralize or
render obsolete any generated benefits for the firms (Chen et al., 2014).
The successful application of novel strategic capabilities, such as DPC,
often depends on the conduciveness of the external environment (Teece,
2007). Organizations may not be able to achieve high levels of human
capital in the presence of high environmental uncertainty and dynamism
even if they have DPC because people tend to avoid working in risky and
unpredictable conditions. High levels of ED may also curb market visi­
bility and block access to state-of-the-art technologies (Gölgeci et al.,
2021), curtailing the role of DPC in the improvement of human capital.
This means that low ED is likely to be more conducive than high ED for
the utilization of DPC to achieve high human capital in an organization.
In consideration of these arguments, we state our next hypothesis:
H5: Environmental dynamism negatively moderates the relationship be­
tween digital platform capability and human capital such that the rela­
tionship between digital platform capability and human capital is stronger
when the environmental uncertainty faced by the manufacturing organi­
zation is low rather than high.
ED is typically associated with greater uncertainty and unpredict­
ability which is unfavorable to firm operations (Gligor et al., 2015). The
uncertainty associated with high ED clouds the judgment of top man­
agement and complicates the behavior of firm members (Carson et al.,
2006). According to Altschuller et al. (2010), firms invest more in digital
technologies to improve OA, especially when high turbulence occurs in
the environment.
Under highly dynamic environments, manufacturers may not be able
to entirely focus on evidence or information obtained within the orga­
nizational structures. They ought to have access to more reliable and
appropriate external knowledge to correctly forecast changes and
reduce volatility. Firms faced with high ED may find themselves with no
certainty as to how to invest in DPC and how to use it in the pursuit of
the development of greater levels of IC. Likewise, the uncertainty that
ED breeds can impede effective use of DPC in an external environment in
which organizational actors cannot be decisive about the right tech­
nology to choose and the right time to adopt it, which can harm the
development of organizational capital.
5
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 177 (2022) 121513
H6: Environmental dynamism negatively moderates the relationship be­
tween digital platform capability and organizational capital such that the
relationship between digital platform capability and organizational cap­
ital is stronger when the environmental uncertainty faced by
manufacturing organization is low rather than high.
Relational capital comprises several relationships, including power
relationships, market relationships, and mutual collaboration among
stakeholders (Kang et al., 2007; Mom et al., 2015; Mubarik et al., 2016).
The role of relational capital has manifoldly increased due to the
growing complexity of modern-day business processes which are con­
nected through data from different stakeholders (Zahoor and Gerged,
2021). Thus, these relationships are not only affected by internal factors
but also by external factors which play a significant role in shifting the
balance of these relationships. A dynamic and unstable environment can
strongly influence firms’ capabilities and thus negatively impact rela­
tional outcomes (Xiao et al., 2020). Researchers have underlined the
challenges of unstable and unpredictable environments in translating
knowledge resources and digital capabilities across SMEs into relational
capital (Yu and Huo, 2019; Zahoor and Gerged, 2021). Thus, we expect
that firms may be in a worse position to translate their DPC into better
relational capital in the presence of higher ED. In light of these above
arguments, we propose:
H7: Environmental dynamism negatively moderates the relationship be­
tween digital platform capability and relational capital such that the
relationship between digital platform capability and relational capital is
stronger when the environmental uncertainty faced by the manufacturing
organization is low rather than high.
Our conceptual model is depicted in Fig. 1. The detailed definitions
of the constructs are provided in Appendix A.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research context
SMEs play a vital role in Pakistan’s economic growth, and the
contribution of SMEs to the GDP of Pakistan is 30% (Bokhari et al.,
2020). The emergence of the COVID-19 global pandemic has posed new
challenges for firms belonging to all walks of life (Al-Omoush et al.,
2020). SMEs in Pakistan are also affected by COVID-19. There is a need
to transform the business paradigm from the traditional view toward the
latest tools to manage the challenges faced due to this pandemic
(Mahmood and Mubarik, 2020). Researchers have argued that after the
evolution of I4.0, there is a need for digital transformation for both large
businesses and SMEs (Bresciani et al., 2021). COVID-19 has also created
challenges for organizational survival in the global marketplace. These
challenges require organizations to quickly respond and efficiently work
to continue the business operations and efficiently and effectively
manage their supply chains. Due to this pandemic, organizations are
required to build resilience to sustain them in the market.
3.2. Data collection and sample
To test this study’s proposed hypotheses, we surveyed
manufacturing SMEs of the Hattar Industrial Estate in the Khyber Pak­
htunkhwa province, Pakistan. The purpose behind the choice of this
sampling frame was that Hattar Industrial Estate is one of the largest
industrial estates in Pakistan’s northern province. Another reason for
choosing this sampling frame is that Hattar Industrial Estate is adjacent
to Punjab cities like Taxila, Rawalpindi, and Islamabad. Their major
products are cement, steel, pharmaceuticals, food, beverages, textiles,
cooking oil, etc. which are supplied to Punjab province. Those industries
which were registered with Hattar Industrialist Association were chosen
for data collection. A structured questionnaire was used to collect data
A. Ahmed et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 177 (2022) 121513

Fig. 1. Research model.

from middle and top managers of manufacturing SMEs.
Based on the suggestions and procedures put forward in the litera­
ture (Katsikeas et al., 2016), time-lagged data were collected at two
different periods from the same respondents. In the first phase, data for
the independent, mediator, and moderator variables were collected in
October 2020. In the second phase, data for the dependent variable were
collected in December 2020. We implemented a time-lagged data
collection approach to remedy common-method variance concerns
(Podsakoff et al., 2012) and increased the confidence in the direction of
linkages as put forward in our hypotheses. Survey questionnaires were
distributed for each wave to middle and top managers in the
manufacturing SMEs, and completed questionnaires were collected one
week later. We distributed 300 questionnaires and 227 of them were
returned.
3.3. Measures
which affects the business operation (Pagell and Krause, 2004). The
scale of ED was adopted from the previous study of Azadegan et al.
(2013), Chan et al. (2016), and Li et al. (2020). All items were measured
on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly
agree”. A detailed list of the items related to the study constructs can be
found in Table 2.
3.4. Demographics
Table 1 shows the demographics for this study which was based on
227 respondents. The result shows that most of our respondents were
male, that is, 80.2%, and most respondents were 26‒35 years old
(54.6%). The reason the majority of the respondents were men is that the
manufacturing industry in Pakistan is male-dominated. The unit of
analysis was SME managers. Most of our respondents had work expe­
rience of less than ten years, that is, 82.4%. The demographics of

This study used DPC as an independent variable, IC as a mediator, OA Table 1

as a dependent variable, and ED as a moderator variable. DPC refers to Demographics.
the organization’s ability to use the latest advanced digital tools and Variables Category Frequency Percentage (%)
technologies as competitive instruments (Cenamor et al., 2019). In this Age 18–25 55 24.2
context, the organization uses DPC to enhance their OA. The measures of 26–35 124 54.6
DPC were adopted from a previous study by Cenamor et al. (2019). DPC 36–45 42 18.5
was measured on a two-dimensional scale, that is, platform integration 46–55 4 1.8
2 .9
and platform reconfiguration. >55
Gender Male 182 80.2
IC refers to the firm’s intangible assets which help the firm to gain a Female 45 19.8
competitive advantage. The measures of IC were adopted from the Experience <10 years 187 82.4
previous studies of Chen et al. (2009) and Liu and Jiang (2020). The 10–20 Years 35 15.4
three-dimensional scale of IC, which consists of human capital, rela­ 21–30 Years 3 1.3
> 30Years 2 .9
tional capital, and organizational capital, was used to check the medi­ Qualification Matric/Under Matric 7 3.1
ating effects of each individual dimension. Intermediate 41 18.1
OA refers to a firm’s efficient response to the external environment to Bachelor 86 37.9
sustain the market and make necessary decisions. The scale of OA was Master 68 30
MS/M.Phil. 25 11
adopted from the study of Al-Omoush et al. (2020).
ED means the unpredictability and uncertainty in the environment N = 227.

6
A. Ahmed et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 177 (2022) 121513

qualification show that 78.8% of our respondents had a bachelor’s or Table 2.

higher qualification, which means that our respondents were highly Convergent validity and reliability.
educated. Items Factor CR AVE Cronbach
Loading Alpha
4. Data analysis and results (λ)

Organizational Agility (OA) 0.881 0.596 0.907

4.1. Confirmatory factor analysis OA1 “Promptly pursuing the 0.80
opportunities and threats posed
by the evolution of the COVID-
4.1.1. Model fitness 19 crisis
To test model fitness, we used CMIN/Df and GFI (together called OA2 Sensing dynamic 0.855
absolute fit measures). Moreover, an incremental fit measure (CFI) and environmental changes posed by
AGFI’s parsimonious fit measures (i.e., AGFI) were used in the study the coronavirus pandemic
already underway and
(Keramati et al., 2010). The analysis revealed the following values:
predicting swiftly what to do
CMIN/Df = 3.107; adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) = 0.907; OA3 Improving the agility of 0.787
goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.915; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.952; decision making in responding
Tucker-Lewis coefficient (TLI) = 0.947; and root mean square error of to challenges posed by COVID-
19
approximation (RMSEA) = 0.054. The p-value of 0.000 for the model
OA4 Adapting resources, 0.782
also confirmed that the model was highly significant. This confirmed the processes, and technologies to
desired fitness of the model (CMIN/Df = 3.107 and p-value ≤ 0.05) as meet the needs of the changing
per the recommendations of Hair et al. (2010). environment caused by the
coronavirus pandemic
OA5 Considering new pricing, 0.657
4.1.2. Convergent validity and reliability
marketing, production, and/or
Table 2 depicts the standardized estimates of variables in its CFA. As alliance actions
per Cua et al. (2001), items with factor loadings above 0.5 were OA6 Our organization works hard 0.741
included. Next, average variance extracted (AVE) was calculated in MS to promote the flow of
∑ information with its suppliers
Excel with the help of the formula AVE = λ2/ n. Here, λ = the stan­
and customers”
dardized factor loadings of the items, and n = the number of construct Digital Platform Capability 0.894 0.549 0.896
items. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), AVE values of 0.50 or (DPC)
higher specify adequate convergent validity, so our data supports DPC1 “Our platform easily 0.640
adequate reliability. accesses data from our partners’
∑ ∑ ∑ IT systems
Next, we calculated construct reliability as ( λ) 2/ ( λ) 2+ δ,
2 DPC3 Our platform has the 0.636
δ=1- λ . The rule of thumb for construct reliability (CR) is that an esti­ capability to exchange real-time
mate of 0.70 or higher suggests good reliability (Netemeyer et al., 2003). information with our partners
The data shows that the CR value was above 0.70 which indicates that DPC4 Our platform easily 0.771
the data is reliable. aggregates relevant information
from our partners’ databases (e.
The values of Cronbach alpha demonstrated the internal consistency g., operating information,
or reliability of each item on the questionnaire. The standard to check business customer performance,
reliability for its acceptability is ≥ 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). The data cost information etc.)
shows that the Cronbach alpha value was above 0.70 which indicates DPC5 Our platform is easily 0.636
adapted to include new partners
that the data is reliable.
DPC6 Our platform can be easily 0.799
The rule of thumb for a construct reliability (CR) estimate is that 0.70 extended to accommodate new
or higher suggests good reliability (Netemeyer et al., 2003). Reliability IT applications or functions
between 0.60 and 0.70 may be acceptable provided that other indicators DPC7 Our platform can be easily 0.827
of a model’s construct validity are good. The data shows that the CR extended to accommodate new
IT applications or functions
value is above 0.70 which indicates that the data is reliable. DPC8 Our platform consists of 0.840
The above-mentioned values of Cronbach’s alpha demonstrate the modular software components,
internal consistency or reliability of each of the questionnaire items. The most of which can be reused in
standard to check the reliability for its acceptability is ≥ 0.70 (Nunnally, other business applications”
Human Capital (HC) 0.798 0.523 0.840
1978). The data shows that the Cronbach alpha value is above 0.70
HC1 “Employees have suitable 0.708
shows that the data is reliable. education to fulfill their jobs
HC3 Employees hold suitable work 0.793
4.1.3. Discriminant validity experience for accomplishing
Table 3 shows discriminant validity and the Heterotrait-Monotrait their job successfully
HC5 Employees understand that 0.730
Ratio (HTMT). The results of this study confirm the validity of our doing this job well is a reward in
variables, and all the values obtained from HTMT are below 0.90 itself
(Henseler et al., 2015) which confirms the discriminant validity in our HC6 Considering the time spent on 0.644
data. the job, employees feel
thoroughly familiar with their
tasks
4.1.4. Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix HC7 Mastering their jobs means a 0.714
Table 4 represents the descriptive statistics which include mean and lot to our employees”
standard deviation values. The correlation among all the variables is also Organizational Capital (OC) 0.915 0.608 0.910
mentioned in the table. The table shows that the mean value is above 3 OC1 “Employees realize the 0.672
relationships among authority,
and that the standard deviation is within the range, that is, between +1 responsibility, and benefit
and − 1. Hence, all the values of variables are within the range. Table 4 0.706
shows that all of the items are positively correlated except the variable (continued on next page)
ED. The correlations between ED and DPC and ED and organizational

7
A. Ahmed et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 177 (2022) 121513

Table 2. (continued ) of AVE is higher in all of the correlations among the variables, which
Items Factor CR AVE Cronbach also fits the criteria of discriminant validity.
Loading Alpha
(λ) 4.3. Hypotheses testing
OC2 Employees effectively
construct an information system Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypotheses
OC3 Employees effectively utilize 0.823 proposed in the study with the use of AMOS software. Many researchers
their information system
have used the SEM technique to test similar models (e.g., Gawankar
OC4 Employees know well about 0.870
the contents of a company’s et al., 2020; Henseler et al., 2015). SEM was used to test the hypotheses
culture of direct effect, mediating effect, and moderated mediation effect. These
OC5 Employees clearly recognize 0.801 can be tested by using software AMOS version 24. The Preacher and
the company’s perspective Hayes process in AMOS with 2000 bootstrap samples was used to test the
OC6 Employees can operate an 0.757
efficient business process
mediating effect; likewise, the Preacher and Hayes process method in
OC7 Employees can effectively 0.812 AMOS with 2000 bootstrap samples was used to test the moderated
share their knowledge with each mediation effect. In both instances, confidence intervals of 95%, esti­
other” mates of standard errors, and p-values were obtained.
Relational Capital (RC) 0.832 0.549 0.880
Table 5 shows the direct effect calculated by using SEM. Results show
RC2 “Employees have mutual 0.783
respect with the partners that DPC is positively linked to OA of manufacturing SMEs (H1 sup­
RC3 Employees have mutual trust 0.778 ported). This shows that manufacturing SMEs having higher DPC which
with the partners will lead toward higher OA.
RC4 Employees have personal 0.805 The mediating effect for the research model was calculated by using
friendships with the partners”
Environmental Dynamism (ED) 0.862 0.609 0.860
Structural Equation Modeling in AMOS. Table 6 shows the mediating
ED1 “Major changes in the modes 0.733 effect of the subdimensions of IC between DPC and OA. For Hypothesis
of production and/or service H2, results show that human capital mediates the relationship between
provision DPC and OA. The p-value is <0.05, and upper and lower confidence
ED2 Major changes in Consumer 0.810
intervals do not include zero. Hence, H2 is supported. The mediating
demographics
ED3 Frequent and major changes 0.811 effect of organizational capital between DPC and OA shows a significant
in government regulations relationship (p<0.05), and zero does not exist between upper and lower
ED4 Short product life cycle” 0.765 confidence intervals. Hence, H3 is supported.
Note: AVE =
∑
λ2/ n, CR= (
∑
λ) 2/ (
∑
λ) 2+
∑
δ, δ=1- AVE. Table 6 shows that the mediating effect of relational capital between
DPC and OA is positive and significant. The result suggests that rela­
tional capital mediates between this relationship. The p-value is <0.05,
Table 3. and upper and lower confidence intervals do not include zero. Hence, H4
Discriminant validity. is supported.
Variables OA DPC HC OC ED RC For moderation effect, the Preacher and Hayes process method was
used to calculate Structural Equation Modeling in AMOS. Table 7 shows
Organizational Agility (OA) 1
Digital Platform Capability 0.788 1 the results for hypotheses H5, H6, and H7. The results show the signif­
(DPC) icant effect of ED moderation at low, medium, and high low values of IC
Human Capital (HC) 0.7 0.69 1 dimensions. Fig. 2 also shows that the slopes for focal concepts intersect,
Organizational Capital (OC) 0.707 0.749 0.885 1 which signifies that ED moderates the relationship between DPC and the
Environmental Dynamism 0.038 0.029 0.017 0.029 1
(ED)
three IC dimensions. Thus H5, H6, and H7 are supported.
Relational Capital (RC) 0.686 0.643 0.882 0.758 0.042 1
5. Discussion and implications

Digital platforms are key enablers of multisided and multilateral

Table 4.
Descriptive statistics, correlation matrix and the square root of AVE. processes that influence firms to dynamically manage their portfolios to
improve the competitive position of their product lines (Rai and Tang,
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
2010). Recently, digital platforms have become both challenging and
Organizational 0.772 important for organizations and, in particular, for manufacturing SMEs
Agility
(Cenamor et al., 2019). Digital technologies bring changes to individuals
Digital Platform .711** 0.740
Capability and organizations alike. Employees are continuously engaged in various
Organizational .639** .676** 0.779 activities that generate a large amount of data for organizations that is
Capital increasingly touted as the world’s most valuable resource (Economist,
Human Capital .612** .605** .763** 0.723 2017). Organizations are compelled to use these increasingly ubiquitous
Relational .613** .571** .676** .718** 0.740
Capital
and indispensable yet challenging platform capabilities to process and
Environmental .035 − 0.023 − 0.026 .013 .039 0.780 leverage data for superior value creation. They are bound to invest in
Dynamism digital technologies to convert their traditional business approaches to
Mean 3.9170 3.7193 3.6142 3.7850 3.8164 3.9207 e-business to gain a competitive advantage over a competitor which also
Std. Deviation .65671 .62989 .68864 .58894 .55307 .88641
leads to OA (Martinez-Caro et al., 2020). However, the contextualized
understanding of methods through which organizations take advantage
capital are negative.
All the values on the diagonal of the tables represent the square root Table 5.
of AVE. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), the square root of AVE Direct effects.
of a particular variable should be higher than all the possible correla­ Hypothesis Construct Estimate SE CR p-value Decision
tions with other variables. The above Table 4 shows that the square root H1 DPC→OA .469 .076 6.289 *** Supported

8
A. Ahmed et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 177 (2022) 121513

Table 6.
Mediation effect.
Hypothesis Construct Std. Effects 95% CI p-value Decision
Lower Upper

H2 DPC→OC→OA .205 .103 .304 .001 Supported

H3 DPC→HC→OA .181 .087 .285 .001 Supported
H4 DPC→RC→OA .183 .092 .282 .001 Supported

Table 7.
Moderation effects.
Hypothesis Construct Std. Effects 95% CI p-value Decision
Lower Upper

H5 DPCxED→HC (Low) .681 .502 .877 0.001 Supported

DPCxED→HC (Medium) .578 .409 .750 0.001 Supported
DPCxED→HC (High) .474 .193 .731 0.001 Supported
H6 DPCxED→ OC (Low) 0.825 0.643 1.026 0.001 Supported
DPCxED→ OC (Medium) 0.747 0.572 0.921 0.001 Supported
DPCxED→ OC (High) 0.668 0.390 0.930. 0.001 Supported
H7 DPCxED→ RC (Low) 0.569 0.378 0.790 0.001 Supported
DPCxED→ RC Medium) 0.508 0.332 0.689 0.001 Supported
DPCxED→ RC (High) 0.448 0.167 0.712 0.001 Supported

of digitalization is not yet developed to its full extent.
The purpose of our research was to fill this gap by untangling the
indirect role of DPC in OA through IC. This study also examined the
moderator role of ED. The findings of the study show that DPC will
enhance OA; moreover, all three types of IC, namely human capital,
organizational capital, and relational capital, mediate the positive
relationship between DPC and OA. We also found evidence that ED
negatively moderates the relationship between DPC and IC.
Our findings are consistent with and build upon previous literature in
this domain. Other researchers have established the positive impact of
digital capabilities (Dubey et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020), especially
platform capabilities, on performance outcomes at the organizational
level (Cenamor et al., 2019; Xiao et al., 2020), including OA (Chen and
Siau, 2020; Mandal, 2019; Mikalef and Pateli, 2017). Prior studies on
OA have also established that it has clear links to human capital (e.g.,
Dyer and Schafer, 2003), organizational capital (e.g., Skare and Sor­
iano, 2021), and relational capital (e.g., Cai et al., 2014). We extend
these findings and reveal that IC meditates the link between DPC and
OA, and ED weakens the link between DPC and IC.
5.1. Theoretical implications
This study contributes in several ways to the theorization and un­
derstanding of DCs, and particularly DPC, in the context of
manufacturing SMEs. First, based on the finding that DPC plays a posi­
tive role in the development of OA, we strengthen and offer empirical
evidence for the lesser-researched literature stream which has high­
lighted the importance of DPCs for their agility and competitiveness (e.
g., Björkdahl, 2020; Bresciani et al., 2021). Hence, our paper strengthens
the theorization of both DPC and OA for manufacturing firms, especially
in emerging markets where digital capabilities have been found to
improve performance and overcome environmental uncertainties (e.g.,
Khin and Ho, 2019). This important finding that DPC enhances OA leads
to further theoretical implications on the important role of IC in this
context.
Our findings depict that IC (comprised of human capital, organiza­
tional capital, and relational capital) is positively associated with OA. It
also mediates the relationship between DPC and OA and conveys the
role of DPC in OA. The importance of IC to the study of different orga­
nizational capabilities like OA has been established in prior literature (e.
g., Al-Omoush, 2021; Hsu and Fang, 2009). However, prior research has
primarily focused on the role of external factors in strengthening DPC,
particularly at the industrial level (e.g., Gawer, 2014). We strengthen
the theorization of these constructs by being one of the rare studies to
specifically highlight how IC (human capital, organizational capital, and
relational capital) enhances OA and mediates the link between DPC and
OA. In the specific context of emerging markets, prior scholars have
shown that IC enhances OA and its different dynamics (e.g., Al-Omush
et al., 2020; Baima et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2018). However, incor­
porating the key role played by DPCs in this context enhances the
theorization of both OA and IC in the emerging markets context due to
the importance of digital platforms in the current business climate for
firms of all sizes.
Finally, COVID-19 has profoundly impacted the manufacturing in­
dustry, and the study of the role played by ED is necessary to identify
that ED can significantly influence the relationship between DPC and IC.
The study’s findings show that ED plays a negative moderating role and
that the managers of manufacturing organizations need to consider the
outside environment in order to maintain the smooth functioning of
business operations in manufacturing SMEs that operate in emerging
markets. In particular, our study highlights the perils of ED concerning
the link between DPC and IC. It offers a cautionary note on the inter­
action between ED and DPC in explaining IC and ensuing OA. As such,
our study showcases another dark side of ED in emerging countries like
Pakistan (Gölgeci et al., 2019) and how it curtails the development of IC
and OA of emerging market manufacturing SMEs.
5.2. Managerial implications
Our paper also offers several managerial implications. The trans­
formation into digital technology benefits the ability of organizations to
manage a growing number of relationships among stakeholders and the
increasing exchange of information within and across organizations
(McAfee et al., 2012). However, the implementation of digital technol­
ogy in an organization is currently limited, and most of a firm’s effort
regarding digitalization is unsuccessful (Frishammar et al., 2018). The
adoption of digital technology has become a strategic but complicated
decision for every organization which involves core routines and re­
sources (Yeow et al., 2018). More specifically, we show that the sole use
of ICT does not bring significant improvement in terms of the attainment
of greater levels of OA but instead requires a DPC to perform to achieve
the desired results.
Due to the scarcity of resources and capabilities, manufacturing
SMEs must understand the hurdles that affect the implementation of
digital platforms in the organization. Manufacturing SMEs have limited
resources due to their size. Thus, they often face issues regarding the

9
A. Ahmed et al.
Fig. 2.. Slope of moderation effect of environmental dynamism between digital platform capability and intellectual capital.
implementation of digital technologies. The platform approach may
enable manufacturing SMEs to successfully implement digital technol­
ogies that enhance the organization’s agility. These platforms help or­
ganizations create intellectual value in their organizations which will
benefit the organization in the long run. This study’s findings show the
indirect role of DPC in OA through IC. It shows that the agility of
manufacturing SMEs is increased by having DPC which enhances the
organization’s IC. Thus, managers focus their attention on improving
human, organizational, and relational capital which would make their
organizations more agile and flexible and thus able to better respond in
the context of technological and environmental changes.
Further, the results of the moderating variable of ED help managers
of manufacturing SMEs understand how environmental factors like
COVID-19 impact business performance and how timely action is
required to enhance the agility of manufacturing SMEs.
10
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 177 (2022) 121513
6. Conclusion, limitations, and future research
In the era of I4.0, digital manufacturing platforms enable firms to
adopt data-driven strategies during all the product life cycle phases,
ranging from raw material procurement to all the subsequent value-
adding processes. They develop efficient vertically- and horizontally-
integrated manufacturing systems (Frank et al., 2019). DPC enables
organizations to integrate strategic knowledge sources while reconfi­
guring internal and external resources to better respond to dynamic and
volatile environments (Cenamor et al., 2019). DPC for such firms is
directly linked to their competitiveness and performance. However, the
complexity of digitalization and digital technologies indicates that the
DPC and agility link is further mediated by IC, that is, all three di­
mensions of human capital, organizational capital, and relational capital
intervene in this relationship. This relation is also negatively moderated
by ED.
Although this research is one of the first studies to empirically test
the role of DPC in OA in the emerging market manufacturing SMEs, the
A. Ahmed et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 177 (2022) 121513

study is not without limitations. The study focuses on IC in terms of trust and supply chain flexibility, to investigate the impact of digital
human, relational, and organizational capital. Future research may use platforms in manufacturing SMEs.
other dimensions of IC, such as technological, social, and innovation
dimensions. The second limitation of this study regards data collection. Author statement
Data were collected from specific geographical locations in Pakistan,
that is, manufacturing SMEs from Hattar Industrial Area, which limits Adeel Ahmad and Dr. Sabeen Hussain Bhatti: Idea conceptuali­
the generalizability of the findings. However, in view of the specificity of zation, data collection and analysis, project management, writing paper
the Pakistani emerging market context, this study offers a good basis for and revision.
future studies to explore these dynamics in other sectors in Pakistan. Dr. Ismail Gölgeci and Dr. Ahmad Arslan: Theoretical develop­
Finally, this study has examined the moderating role of ED. Future ment, writing paper and revision.
research can consider other moderators, such as interorganizational

Appendix A

Variable Definition No of Reference (items adapted from)

items

Digital Platform “Digital platform capability refers to the use of digital information technology which will be 8 (Rai and Tang, 2010; Cenamor et al.,2019)
Capability helpful regarding the exchange of different activities among partners. This can be done
through platform integration and configuration” (Cenamor et al.,2019)
Intellectual Capital “Intellectual capital is the intangible resource of the organization includes skills, knowledge, Liu and Jiang, 2020; Chen, Shih, and Yang
training or information which helpful for the organization to gain competitive advantage”. (2009),
(Liu and Jiang, 2020).
Human Capital “Human capital is the intangible asset of the company which includes level of education, 7
experience, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of the employee”. (Liu and Jiang, 2020).
Organizational “Organizational capital ability of the firm to transform according to market requirement and 8
Capital to quickly accept environmental changes” (Liu and Jiang, 2020).
Relational Capital “Relational capital refers to the establishment of network of the organization’s business. The 4
network includes customers, supplier and stakeholder of the organization in order to enhance
the corporation among these for the smooth flow of business operation” (Chan et al.,2016)
Environmental “Environmental dynamism is the degree of instability and volatility of the firm’s 4 Azadegan et al., 2013; Chan et al., 2016)
dynamism environment.”
Organizational “Organizational agility is the capability of the organization to identify the opportunities of 6 (Sambamurthy et al., 2003; Nafei, 2016;
agility imperfect market and take necessary proactive measure in order to respond to get opportunity Wamba et al., 2019; Al-Omoush et al., 2020)
timely when needed. It is the ability of the organization to change themselves according to
demand of market.” (Al-Omoush et al., 2020)

References Bresciani, S., Ferraris, A., Romano, M., Santoro, G., 2021. Digital Transformation
Management for Agile Organizations: a Compass to Sail the Digital World. Emerald
Group Publishing, Bingley.
Al-Omoush, K.S., 2021. Understanding the impact of intellectual capital on e-business
Cai, Z., Liu, H., Huang, Q., Liang, L., Shen, X.L., 2014. Relational capital and
entrepreneurial orientation and competitive agility: an empirical study. Inf. Syst.
performance: assessing the mediating role of supply chain agility and the moderating
Front. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10092-7. Early view available online at.
role of environmental contexts. In: The Proceedings of 2014 47th Hawaii
Al-Omoush, K.S., Simón-Moya, V., Sendra-García, J., 2020. The impact of social capital
International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 4229–4238.
and collaborative knowledge creation on e-business proactiveness and
Carmeli, A., Azeroual, B, 2009. How relational capital and knowledge combination
organizational agility in responding to the COVID-19 crisis. J. Innov. Knowl. 5 (4),
capability enhance the performance of work units in a high technology industry.
279–288.
Strateg. Entrep. J. 3 (1), 85–103.
Aldrich, H.E., 1979. Organizations and Environments. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
Carson, S.J., Madhok, A., Wu, T., 2006. Uncertainty, opportunism, and governance: the
NJ.
effects of volatility and ambiguity on formal and relational contracting. Acad.
Altschuller, S., Gelb, D.S., Henry, T.F., 2010. IT as a resource for competitive agility: an
Manag. J. 49 (5), 1058–1077.
analysis of firm performance during industry turbulence. J. Int. Technol. Inf.
Cenamor, J., Parida, V., Wincent, J., 2019. How entrepreneurial SMEs compete through
Manage. 19 (1), 39–60.
digital platforms: the roles of digital platform capability, network capability and
Azadegan, A., Patel, P.C., Zangoueinezhad, A., Linderman, K., 2013. The effect of
ambidexterity. J. Bus. Res. 100, 196–206.
environmental complexity and environmental dynamism on lean practices. J. Oper.
Chan, H.K., Yee, R.W., Dai, J., Lim, M.K., 2016. The moderating effect of environmental
Manage. 31 (4), 193–212.
dynamism on green product innovation and performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 181,
Baima, G., Forliano, C., Santoro, G., Vrontis, D., 2021. Intellectual capital and business
384–391.
model: a systematic literature review to explore their linkages. J. Intellect. Cap. 22
Chen, C.J., Shih, H.A., Yang, S.Y., 2009. The role of intellectual capital in knowledge
(3), 1469–1930.
transfer. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 56 (3), 402–411.
Battisti, G., Gallego, J., Rubalcaba, L., Windrum, P., 2015. Open innovation in services:
Chen, X., Siau, K., 2020. Business analytics/business intelligence and IT infrastructure:
knowledge sources, intellectual property rights and internationalization. Econ.
impact on organizational agility. J. Organ. End User Comput. 32 (4), 138–161.
Innov. New Technol. 24 (3), 223–247.
Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Nevo, S., Jin, J., Wang, L., Chow, W.S., 2014. IT capability and
Bhatti, S.H., Vorobyev, D., Zakariya, R., Christofi, M., 2020. Social capital, knowledge
organizational performance: the roles of business process agility and environmental
sharing, work meaningfulness and creativity: evidence from the Pakistani
factors. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 23 (3), 326–342.
pharmaceutical industry. J. Intellect. Cap. 22 (2), 243–259.
Chu, P.Y., Lin, Y.L., Hsiung, H.H., Liu, T.Y., 2006. Intellectual capital: an empirical study
Björkdahl, J., 2020. Strategies for digitalization in manufacturing firms. Calif. Manage.
of ITRI. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 73 (7), 886–902.
Rev. 62 (4), 17–36.
Cua, K.O., McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G., 2001. Relationships between implementation
Bokhari, I.H., Muhammad, A.B., Zakaria, N., 2020. Succession planning, strategic
of TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance. J. Oper. Manage. 19 (6),
flexibility as predictors of business sustainability in family-owned SMEs: moderating
675–694.
role of organization improvisation. Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. (PJCSS) 14 (1),
Cusumano, M.A., Gawer, A., Yoffie, D.B., 2019. The Business of Platforms: Strategy in the
368–387.
Age of Digital Competition, Innovation, and Power. Harper Business, New York.
Bontis, N., Janošević, S., Dženopoljac, V., 2015. Intellectual capital in Serbia’s hotel
Dabić, M., Stojčić, N., Simić, M., Potocan, V., Slavković, M., Nedelko, Z., 2021.
industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 27 (6), 1365–1386.
Intellectual agility and innovation in micro and small businesses: the mediating role
Caballero-Morales, S.O., 2021. Innovation as recovery strategy for SMEs in emerging
of entrepreneurial leadership. Journal of Business Research 123, 683–695.
economies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Res. Int. Bus. Finance 57, 101396.

11
A. Ahmed et al.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., 2019. Big data analytics capability in supply
chain agility: the moderating effect of organizational flexibility. Manage. Decis. 57
(8), 2092–2112.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Bryde, D.J., Giannakis, M., Foropon, C., …,
Hazen, B.T., 2020. Big data analytics and artificial intelligence pathway to
operational performance under the effects of entrepreneurial orientation and
environmental dynamism: a study of manufacturing organisations. Int. J. Prod. Econ.
226, 107599.
Dyer, L., & Shafer, R.A. (2003). Dynamic organizations: achieving marketplace and
organizational agility with people. CAHRS Working Paper available online at
https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/77135/WP03_04.pdf?seque
nce=1&isAllowed=y.
Economist. (2017). The world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data. The
Economist. Available online at https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/05/06/
the-worlds-most-valuable-resource-is-no-longer-oil-but-data.
Edvinsson, L., 1997. Developing intellectual capital at Skandia. Long Range Plann. 30
(3), 366–373.
Esposito De Falco, S., Renzi, A., Orlando, B., Cucari, N., 2017. Open collaborative
innovation and digital platforms. Prod. Plann. Control 28 (16), 1344–1353.
Felipe, C.M., Leidner, D.E., Roldán, J.L., Leal-Rodríguez, A.L., 2020. Impact of IS
capabilities on firm performance: the roles of organizational agility and industry
technology intensity. Decis. Sci. 51 (3), 575–619.
Ferraris, A., Degbey, W.Y., Singh, S.K., Bresciani, S., Castellano, S., Fiano, F.,
Couturier, J., 2021. Microfoundations of strategic agility in emerging markets:
empirical evidence of Italian MNEs in India. J. World Bus. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jwb.2021.101272. In Press correct proof available online at.
Flores, E., Xu, X., Lu, Y., 2020. Human Capital 4.0: a workforce competence typology for
Industry 4.0. J. Manuf. Technol. Manage. 31 (4), 687–703.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Frank, A.G., Dalenogare, L.S., Ayala, N.F., 2019. Industry 4.0 technologies:
implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 210,
15–26.
Frishammar, J., Cenamor, J., Cavalli-Björkman, H., Hernell, E., Carlsson, J, 2018. Digital
strategies for two-sided markets: a case study of shopping malls. Decis. Support Syst.
108, 34–44.
Gao, P., Zhang, J., Gong, Y., Li, H., 2020. Effects of technical IT capabilities on
organizational agility: the moderating role of IT business spanning capability. Ind.
Manage. Data Syst. 120 (5), 941–961.
Gawankar, S.A., Gunasekaran, A., Kamble, S., 2020. A study on investments in the big
data-driven supply chain, performance measures and organisational performance in
Indian retail 4.0 context. Int. J. Prod. Res. 58 (5), 1574–1593.
Gawer, A., 2014. Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: toward an
integrative framework. Res. Policy 43 (7), 1239–1249.
Gligor, D.M., Esmark, C.L., Holcomb, M.C., 2015. Performance outcomes of supply chain
agility: when should you be agile? J. Oper. Manage. 33, 71–82.
Gölgeci, I., Arslan, A., Dikova, D., Gligor, D.M., 2019. Resilient agility in volatile
economies: institutional and organizational antecedents. J. Organ. Change Manage.
33 (1), 100–113.
Gölgeci, I., Arslan, A., Khan, Z., Kontkanen, M., 2021. Foreign firm operations and skills
development of local employees in violence-hit countries. Technol. Forecast. Social
Change 162, 120376.
Gupta, V.K., Wieland, A.M., Turban, D.B., 2019. Gender characterizations in
entrepreneurship: a multi-level investigation of sex-role stereotypes about high-
growth, commercial, and social entrepreneurs. J. Small Bus. Manage. 57 (1),
131–153.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.D, 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th
Ed. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Harris, L., 2000. A theory of intellectual capital. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 2 (1), 22–37.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43 (1),
115–135.
Hofacker, C., Gölgeci, I., Pillai, K.G., Gligor, D.M., 2020. Digital marketing and business-
to-business relationships: a close look at the interface and a roadmap for the future.
Eur. J. Mark. 54 (6), 1161–1179.
Hsu, Y.H., Fang, W., 2009. Intellectual capital and new product development
performance: the mediating role of organizational learning capability. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 76 (5), 664–677.
Huang, P.Y., Pan, S.L., Ouyang, T.H., 2014. Developing information processing
capability for operational agility: implications from a Chinese manufacturer. Eur. J.
Inf. Syst. 23 (4), 462–480.
Jafari-Sadeghi, V., 2021a. Internationalisation, risk-taking and export compliance: a
comparative study between economically advanced and developing country. Int. J.
Entrep. Small Bus. 43 (3), 384–410.
Jafari-Sadeghi, V., Mahdiraji, H.A., Bresciani, S., Pellicelli, A.C., 2021b. Context-specific
micro-foundations and successful SME internationalisation in emerging markets: a
mixed-method analysis of managerial resources and dynamic capabilities. J. Bus.
Res. 134, 352–364.
Jafari-Sadeghi, V., Sukumar, A., Pagán-Castaño, E., Dana, L.P., 2021c. What drives
women towards domestic vs international business venturing? An empirical analysis
in emerging markets. J. Bus. Res. 134, 647–660.
Kang, S.C., Morris, S.S., Snell, S.A., 2007. Relational archetypes, organizational learning,
and value creation: extending the human resource architecture. Acad. Manage. Rev.
32 (1), 236–256.
Katsikeas, C.S., Morgan, N.A., Leonidou, L.C., Hult, G.T.M., 2016. Assessing performance
outcomes in marketing. J. Mark. 80 (2), 1–20.
12
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 177 (2022) 121513
Keramati, A., Mehrabi, H., Mojir, N., 2010. A process-oriented perspective on customer
relationship management and organizational performance: an empirical
investigation. Ind. Mark. Manage. 39 (7), 1170–1185.
Khalifa, M., Yu, A.Y., Shen, K.N., 2008. Knowledge management systems success: a
contingency perspective. J. Knowl. Manage. 12 (1), 119–132.
Khin, S., Ho, T.C., 2019. Digital technology, digital capability and organizational
performance: a mediating role of digital innovation. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 11 (2),
177–195.
Lazzarotti, V., Manzini, R., Nosella, A., Pellegrini, L., 2017. Innovation ambidexterity of
open firms. The role of internal relational social capital. Technol. Anal. Strateg.
Manage. 29 (1), 105–118.
Lee, H.L., 2004. The triple-A supply chain. Harv. Bus. Rev. 82 (10), 102–113.
Li, Y., Dai, J., Cui, L., 2020. The impact of digital technologies on economic and
environmental performance in the context of industry 4.0: a moderated mediation
model. Int. J. Prod. Econ., 107777
Liu, C.H., Jiang, J.F., 2020. Assessing the moderating roles of brand equity, intellectual
capital and social capital in Chinese luxury hotels. J. Hosp. Tour. Manage. 43,
139–148.
Lowry, P.B., Wilson, D., 2016. Creating agile organizations through IT: the influence of
internal IT service perceptions on IT service quality and IT agility. J. Strateg. Inf.
Syst. 25 (3), 211–226.
Lu, Y., Ramamurthy, K., 2011. Understanding the link between information technology
capability and organizational agility: an empirical examination. MIS Q. 35 (4),
931–954.
Madhok, A., Marques, R., 2014. Towards an action-based perspective on firm
competitiveness. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 17 (2), 77–81.
Mahmood, T., Mubarik, M.S., 2020. Balancing innovation and exploitation in the fourth
industrial revolution: role of intellectual capital and technology absorptive capacity.
Technol. Forecast. Social Change 160, 120248.
Maletič, M., Maletič, D., Gomišček, B., 2018. The role of contingency factors on the
relationship between sustainability practices and organizational performance.
J. Cleaner Prod. 171, 423–433.
Mandal, S., 2019. The influence of big data analytics management capabilities on supply
chain preparedness, alertness and agility: an empirical investigation. Inf. Technol.
People 32 (2), 297–318.
Martínez-Caro, E., Cegarra-Navarro, J.G., Alfonso-Ruiz, F.J., 2020. Digital technologies
and firm performance: the role of digital organisational culture. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Change 154 (C).
McAfee, A., Brynjolfsson, E., Davenport, T.H., Patil, D.J., Barton, D., 2012. Big data: the
management revolution. Harv. Bus. Rev. 90 (10), 60–68.
McDowell, W.C., Peake, W.O., Coder, L., Harris, M.L., 2018. Building small firm
performance through intellectual capital development: exploring innovation as the
“black box. J. Bus. Res. 88, 321–327.
Melville, N., Ramirez, R., 2008. Information technology innovation diffusion: an
information requirements paradigm. Inf. Syst. J. 18 (3), 247–273.
Mikalef, P., Pateli, A., 2017. Information technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and
their indirect effect on competitive performance: findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA.
J. Bus. Res. 70, 1–16.
Mom, T.J., van Neerijnen, P., Reinmoeller, P., Verwaal, E., 2015. Relational capital and
individual exploration: unravelling the influence of goal alignment and knowledge
acquisition. Organ. Stud. 36 (6), 809–829.
Mouritsen, J., 1998. Driving growth: economic value added versus intellectual capital.
Manage. Account. Res. 9 (4), 461–482.
Mubarik, M.S., Chandran, V.G.R., Devadason, E.S., 2018. Measuring human capital in
small and medium manufacturing enterprises: what matters? Soc. Indic. Res. 137
(2), 605–623.
Mubarik, M.S., Govindaraju, C., Devadason, E.S., 2016. Human capital development for
SMEs in Pakistan: is the “one-size-fits-all” policy adequate? Int. J. Soc. Econ.
Mubarik, M.S., Naghavi, N., Mahmood, R.T., 2019. Intellectual capital, competitive
advantage and the ambidexterity liaison. Hum. Syst. Manage. 38 (3), 267–277.
Naghavi, N., Mubarak, M.S., 2019. Negotiating with managers from South Asia: india, Sri
Lanka, and Bangladesh. In: Ebner, N., Khan, M.A. (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of
Cross-Cultural Business Negotiation. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp. 487–514.
Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden, W.O., Sharma, S., 2003. Scaling Procedures: Issues and
Applications. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Nissen, V., von Rennenkampff, A., 2017. Measuring the agility of the IT application
systems landscape. In: In proceedings der 13. Internationalen
TagungWirtschaftsinformatik, St Gallen, Switzerland. Available online at. https
://www.wi2017.ch/images/wi2017-0130.pdf.
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI.
Oh, L.B., Teo, H.H., 2006. The impacts of information technology and managerial
proactiveness in building net-enabled organizational resilience. In: IFIP International
Working Conference on the Transfer and Diffusion of Information Technology for
Organizational Resilience. Boston, MA. Springer, pp. 33–50.
Pagell, M., Krause, D.R., 2004. Re-exploring the relationship between flexibility and the
external environment. J. Oper. Manage. 21 (6), 629–649.
Pinzone, M., Fantini, P., Perini, S., Garavaglia, S., Taisch, M., Miragliotta, G., 2017. Jobs
and skills in Industry 4.0: an exploratory research. In: IFIP International Conference
on Advances in Production Management Systems. Cham. Springer, pp. 282–288.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P., 2012. Sources of method bias in social
science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63
(1), 539–569.
Popkova, E.G., Yurev, V., Stepicheva, O., Denisov, N., 2015. Transformation and
concentration of intellectual capital as a factor of economic growth in the modern
economy. Reg. Sect. Econ. Stud. 15 (1), 53–60.
A. Ahmed et al.
Powell, T.C., 1992. Organizational alignment as competitive advantage. Strateg. Manage.
J. 13 (2), 119–134.
Rai, A., Tang, X., 2010. Leveraging IT capabilities and competitive process capabilities
for the management of interorganizational relationship portfolios. Inf. Syst. Res. 21
(3), 516–542.
Ramadass, S.D., Sambasivan, M., Xavier, J.A., 2018. Collaboration outcomes in a public
sector: impact of governance, leadership, interdependence and relational capital.
J. Manage. Gov. 22 (3), 749–771.
Raymond, L., 2005. Operations management and advanced manufacturing technologies
in SMEs. J. Manuf. Technol. Manage. 16 (8), 936–955.
Rezaei, M., Jafari-Sadeghi, V., Bresciani, S., 2020. What drives the process of knowledge
management in a cross-cultural setting: the impact of social capital. Eur. Bus. Rev.
Russo, M.V., Fouts, P.A., 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental
performance and profitability. Acad. Manag. J. 40 (3), 534–559.
Sadeghi, V.J., Nkongolo-Bakenda, J.M., Anderson, R.B., Dana, L.P., 2019. An institution-
based view of international entrepreneurship: a comparison of context-based and
universal determinants in developing and economically advanced countries. Int. Bus.
Rev. 28 (6), 101588.
Sakas, D., Vlachos, D., Nasiopoulos, D., 2014. Modelling strategic management for the
development of competitive advantage, based on technology. J. Syst. Inf. Technol.
16 (3), 187–209.
Salehzadeh, R., Pool, J.K., Mohseni, A.M., Tahani, G., 2017. Factors influencing
organisational performance: the role of knowledge sharing and organisational
agility. Int. J. Bus. Excell. 11 (3), 344–356.
Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., Grover, V., 2003. Shaping agility through digital
options: reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary
firms. MIS Q. 237–263.
Saxena, G., 2015. Imagined relational capital: an analytical tool in considering small
tourism firms’ sociality. Tour. Manage. 49, 109–118.
Schilke, O., Hu, S., Helfat, C.E., 2018. Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-
analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future
research. Acad. Manage. Ann. 12 (1), 390–439.
Sedera, D., Lokuge, S., Grover, V., Sarker, S., Sarker, S., 2016. Innovating with enterprise
systems and digital platforms: a contingent resource-based theory view. Inf. Manage.
53 (3), 366–379.
Shams, R., Vrontis, D., Belyaeva, Z., Ferraris, A., Czinkota, M.R., 2021. Strategic agility in
international business: a conceptual framework for “agile” multinationals. J. Int.
Manage. 27 (1), 100737.
Sharifi, H., Ismail, H.S., Reid, I., 2006. Achieving agility in supply chain through
simultaneous “design of” and “design for” supply chain. J. Manuf. Technol. Manage.
17 (8), 1078–1098.
Škare, M., Soriano, D.R., 2021. A dynamic panel study on digitalization and firm’s
agility: what drives agility in advanced economies 2009–2018. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Change 163, 120418.
Sousa, R., Voss, C.A., 2008. Contingency research in operations management practices.
J. Oper. Manage. 26 (6), 697–713.
Stewart, T.A., 1997. Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. Nicholas
Brealey Pub. Ltd., London.
Sun, Y., Wang, C., Jeyaraj, A., 2020. Enterprise social media affordances as enablers of
knowledge transfer and creative performance: an empirical study. Telemat. Inf. 51,
101402.
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 Q. 35 (2), 463–486.
Teece, D.J., 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg. Manage. J. 28 (13), 1319–1350.
Troise, C., Corvello, V., Ghobadian, A., O’Regan, N, 2022. How can SMEs successfully
navigate VUCA environment: the role of agility in the digital transformation era.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 174, 121227.
Wang, G., Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E.W., Papadopoulos, T., 2016. Big data analytics in
logistics and supply chain management: certain investigations for research and
applications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 176, 98–110.
Xiao, X., Tian, Q., Mao, H., 2020. How the interaction of big data analytics capabilities
and digital platform capabilities affects service innovation: a dynamic capabilities
view. IEEE Access 8, 18778–18796.
Yeow, A., Soh, C., Hansen, R., 2018. Aligning with new digital strategy: a dynamic
capabilities approach. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 27 (1), 43–58.
13
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 177 (2022) 121513
Yu, Y., Huo, B., 2019. The impact of environmental orientation on supplier green
management and financial performance: the moderating role of relational capital.
J. Cleaner Prod. 211, 628–639.
Zaheer, A., Zaheer, S., 1997. Catching the wave: alertness, responsiveness, and market
influence in global electronic networks. Manage. Sci. 43 (11), 1493–1509.
Zahoor, N., Gerged, A.M., 2021. Relational capital, environmental knowledge
integration, and environmental performance of small and medium enterprises in
emerging markets. Bus. Strategy Environ. 30 (8), 3789–3803.
Zameer, H., Wang, Y., Yasmeen, H., Mubarak, S., 2020. Green innovation as a mediator
in the impact of business analytics and environmental orientation on green
competitive advantage. Manage. Decis. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2020-0065.
Ahead of print available online at.
Zhang, H., Gupta, S., Sun, W., Zou, Y., 2020. How social-media-enabled co-creation
between customers and the firm drives business value? The perspective of
organizational learning and social capital. Inf. Manage. 57 (3), 103200.
Zhang, M., Qi, Y., Wang, Z., Pawar, K.S., Zhao, X, 2018. How does intellectual capital
affect product innovation performance? Evidence from China and India. Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manage. 38 (3), 895–914.
Mr. Adeel Ahmed is currenly associated with Al-Qadir University Punjab, Pakistan. He
completed his MS in Supply Chain Management from Bahria University Islamabad. Earlier
on, he did MBA in Marketing as well. He achieved a silver medal in his MS program. He has
experience of more than 5 years in industry and academia. His research interest include big
data analytics, logistics management, supply chain resilience, consumer behavior and
customer relationship management.
Dr. Sabeen Hussain Bhatti is Associate Professor in Bahria Business School, Bahria
University Islamabad. She has more than 17 years of experience in industry and academia
and worked on various R&D projects. She did her PhD in Engineering Management and
visited Warwick Business School, University of Warwick UK as a research fellow. Her
research focuses on the intersection of innovation management, project management and
supply chain management. She has published numerous papers in peer reviewed journals
like Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Journal of Product Innovation Man­
agement, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Intellectual Capital, British Journal of
Management, Project Management Journal and Employee Relations.
Dr. Ismail Gölgeci is an Associate Professor at Aarhus University, Herning, Denmark. His-
research has been published in Journal of International Business Studies, Human Re­
lations, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Industrial Mar­
keting Management, Journal of Business Research, International Business Review,
International Small Business Journal, International Marketing Review, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Production Planning & Control, Journal of
Knowledge Management, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, and amongst others. He is
an editorial review board member of Journal of Business Research and Review of Inter­
national Business and Strategy and guest editor at Industrial Marketing Management and
European Journal of Marketing. He is also senior associate editor of International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management.
Dr. Ahmad Arslan is currently working as an Associate Professor at Department of
Marketing, Management and International Business, Oulu Business School, University of
Oulu, Finland. He also holds the position of Honorary Chair in Business Management at the
University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. Previously, he has worked in academia in different
universities in the UK and Finland. His earlier research has been published in prestigious
academic journals like British Journal of Management, International Business Review,
International Marketing Review, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Journal
of Business Research, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Journal of Strategic Mar­
keting, Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Organizational Change Manage­
ment, Production Planning & Control, and Technological Forecasting and Social Change
among others. Moreover, he has also contributed book chapters to several edited hand­
books addressing different management related topics. Finally, he holds several editorial
board memberships and is currently a Senior Editor of International Journal of Emerging
Markets (Emerald).