sustainability
Article
Research on Successful Factors and Influencing Mechanism of
the Digital Transformation in SMEs
Xin Zhang, Yaoyu Xu * and Liang Ma






Citation: Zhang, X.; Xu, Y.; Ma, L.
Research on Successful Factors and
Influencing Mechanism of the Digital
Transformation in SMEs.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052549
Academic Editor: Antonella Petrillo
Received: 19 January 2022
Accepted: 15 February 2022
Published: 23 February 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052549
School of Management Science and Engineering, Shandong University of Finance and Economics,
Jinan 250014, China; zhangxin@sdufe.edu.cn (X.Z.); maliang@sdufe.edu.cn (L.M.)
* Correspondence: 13869112368@163.com
Abstract: In the era of the digital economy, digital transformation (DT) has become a new approach
for firms to gain competitive advantages in a context of intense and dynamic market competition.
Companies in almost all industries have undergone or are currently undergoing DT. Due to limited
resources and capabilities, the digitalization process of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
is relatively slow, so it is critical to ascertain the key factors and paths that affect the success of DT for
SMEs to optimize the allocation of resources. However, there is very little research on the DT of SMEs.
In response to this literature gap, the purpose of this study is to discover the key factors of the DT in
SMEs and explore their interaction mechanisms. From a holistic perspective, this study has identified
six key factors from three dimensions of technology, organization, and environment, and based on
the resource-based view and resource-dependence theory, constructed an action mechanism model.
Structural equation modeling was used to analyze the data collected from 180 SMEs in China. The
results show that technological and environmental factors have a positive impact on organizational
capabilities, and then promote the success of DT of SMEs. Organizational capabilities play an
intermediary role in the influence of technological and environmental factors on DT. In addition,
employee skills positively moderate the relationship between organizational capabilities and the
success of DT. This study contributes to the conceptual framework and management implications in
the DT field. Our study provides practitioners with profound insights into the enterprise’s DT and
suggests that enterprises attach importance to the improvement of organizational capabilities, and
use strategy and talents as important resources to promote the success of enterprise DT.
Keywords: digital transformation (DT); small and medium-sized enterprises (SME); success factors;
employee skills
1. Introduction
With the development and application of digital technologies, such as big data, cloud
computing, Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence, and blockchain, China’s digital
economy is showing rapid development, and the pace of digitization is accelerating, which
has brought new disruptive changes to the economy and society [1]. Digital technology, dig-
ital innovation, and digitalization are fundamentally altering business processes, products,
services, and relationships [2], as well as driving enterprises to fundamentally change the
way they do business and the mindset of their employees, as well as forcing restructuring
for survival [3]. Digital transformation (DT) has become a new approach for many firms to
gain competitive advantages in a context of intense and dynamic market competition [4].
Many organizations have applied DT, with a positive impact on organization business per-
formance [5] and productivity, leading to an increase in their superiority [6], and achieving
breakthrough innovations and sustainable development [7].
However, DT has proven difficult for many organizations and is often poorly under-
stood [8]. Although many enterprises engage in DT and invest resources in intelligent
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549 2 of 18

operation and construction, the results of this work have not reached the desired level. Ac-
cording to the latest McKinsey research report, the current success rate for DT in enterprises
is only 20%. Due to the small scale, limited resources, insufficient capabilities, and other
restrictions, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face higher barriers to digital
innovation than large enterprises, and it is more difficult to successfully implement DT.
Moreover, DT is a complex system engineering, which is affected by the interaction of many
factors to jointly promote the success of DT. While navigating the complexities associated
with the DT of enterprises, many SMEs’ managers find themselves overwhelmed by the
range of possible factors to consider, what the key points are, how to develop a digitization
roadmap before embarking on a DT [9], and are at a loss for starting and directing the
activities of DT. Therefore, it is necessary to identify and clarify the key antecedents and
impact mechanisms affecting the success of DT in SMEs, which is of great significance
for enterprise resource allocation, promoting the implementation and success of DT, and
achieving sustainable development.
Many useful explorations have been conducted on DT in recent years, the studies
on the driving or success factors, mechanisms, paths, and impacts of DT are gradually
increasing. However, most studies are practical introductions and descriptive summaries
of the DT phenomenon. For example, Cichosz et al. [10] use case study methods to refine
the success factors for DT; Osmundsen et al. [11] summarize the driving factors and success
factors for enterprise DT through a literature review. Due to the lack of large-sample
empirical research, it is difficult to verify the universality of relevant factors, their internal
mechanism is not clear, and the relationship between these factors is rarely discussed.
Therefore, based on these research gaps, this study raised the following objectives:
(1) To identify the critical factors of successful DT in SMEs from a holistic perspective.
(2) To explore the interaction mechanism of technological, organizational, and environ-
mental factors on the success of DT.
(3) To examine the moderating effect of employee skills.
This study takes China’s SMEs as the research object. On the basis of previous studies,
the technology–organization–environment framework is adopted to identify the critical
factors for the success of DT in SMEs, and empirically analyze the mechanism of their effect
on DT by using structural equation models (SEM). The study found that the success of DT
is the result of the interaction of technological, organizational, environmental factors. IT
resources (IT infrastructure and IT management capabilities) and environmental support
(government support and partnerships) have an indirect positive impact on DT through
improving organizational capabilities (digital strategy and top management). Moreover,
employee skill positively moderates the relationship between organizational capabilities
and DT, which partly explains the generation of differentiated value. This study enriches
and expands the research in the field of DT, which helps to deepen the knowledge and
understanding of SMEs to promote the success of DT by prioritizing the allocation of critical
resources. Meanwhile, it provides SME managers with a methodology for DT and strategic
guidance for the management practice of enterprises.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Enterprise Digital Transformation
Although DT has received significant attention in both scholarship and business
practice, there is still no consensus definition [11,12]. Some scholars view it as a strategy [8],
a process [12], or a business model [13]. Typically, they emphasize “the use of new digital
technologies [...] to enable major business improvements” [7]. With the development of
theory and practice, scholars have come to realize that the DT of enterprises requires
not only the use of technology, but also reshaping of the company’s vision, strategy,
organizational structure, process, capabilities, and culture to adapt to the ever-changing
digital business environment [14], the purpose of DT is to create value, which includes but
is not limited to operational efficiency, customer experience improvement, business model
enhancement, strategic differentiation, competitive advantage, stakeholder relationship
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549 3 of 18

improvement, cost savings, and so on [12]. However, taking into account the current status
and characteristics of DT of SMEs in China, as well as the transformational commonalities
of different industries, this study defines DT as strategic interventions that enhance the
digital capability of an organizational to improve its business processes, products, services,
and operations management.
For SMEs, DT focused on the business dimension or on basic business processes,
products, and business models [15]. However, beyond the conditions that belong to large
companies, SMEs face three additional constraints: scarcity of resources, lack of specialist
expertise, and limited market influence. Therefore, the prerequisites for DT of SMEs are
different than those for larger organizations. A previous study [16] explains that SME
actors can carry out DT through the availability of digital platforms, digital investment,
social capital development, building business teams, and improving the ability of all orga-
nizational members. It is also argued by scholars [17] that DT requires more than technical
capabilities but management capabilities as well, such as work process design, business
strategy training, and human resources investment in digital literacy capability. Moreover,
the DT process requires innovative culture, pioneering top management, effective govern-
ment support, and so on. In short, certain conditions or resources are necessary for SMEs to
realize DT, and it is of great practical importance to analyze the key factors that determine
the realization of DT of SMEs.

2.2. Success Factors of Digital Transformation

The implementation of DT is a complex process, accompanied by many internal and
external factors, and the existence of these factors is likely to lead to the success or failure
of DT. Therefore, identifying success factors (that is, factors that would tend to increase
the likelihood of success) and related leadership practices, as well as understanding their
nature and root causes, are important prerequisites for achieving DT.
In recent years, various scholars have described a range of underlying factors that
influence the overall success of DT [18]. With the development of technology, scholars
have become more and more deeply aware of the changes that IT brings to society and
life, and information and communication technology has become an important force for
enterprises to change their business models and operational strategies [19], and it is also
one of the most important drivers for companies seeking to implement DT [20]. In addition,
organizational structure [21] and culture [14] have also proven to be important factors of DT.
Enterprise innovation, customer centricity, business model, governance, and technology-
related aspects are also considered cornerstones of achieving DT [22]. Recent research
shows that organizations must align changes with their strategy to accomplish DT, and a
digital business strategy can support organizational transformation and achieve the desired
goals of DT [23]. Moreover, the DT process requires pioneering top management, effective
government support, collaboration, innovation, and so on [18].
Table 1 lists some studies of the factors of successful organizational DT. While most
studies focus on descriptive analysis and normative discussion of DT practice, the total
number of large-sample empirical studies on the underlying success factors of DT is limited,
and those that have been conducted do not uniformly identify the same factors. On the
other hand, the research that has been conducted mainly focuses on large enterprises or
manufacturing, ignoring the special situation of SMEs. Relative to the important position of
SMEs in the social economy and the relative lag in the process of DT, we believe that taking
SMEs as the research objects and exploring the critical factors and influencing mechanisms
of DT represent the distinctive theoretical value and practical significance of this research.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549 4 of 18

Table 1. Summary of the literature reviewed.

Reference Method Context Success Factor

Top management support, Digital readiness
[24] Literature review General organization (technical capabilities, human resources, and
knowledge), Strategically relevant projects
Digital strategy, Operational backbone,
[25] Case study General organization
Digital services platform
Organizational factors (pilot projects, prepare
for future, customer needs, autonomy,
employee qualifications, culture, data use,
management support, usability),
Environmental factors (connectivity,
[26] Qualitative research Manufacturing
transparency, collaboration, hybrid value
creation, standards), Technology factors
(infrastructure, reliability, relevance,
adaptability, security, completeness,
availability, real-time data)
Supportive organizational culture,
Well-managed transformation activities,
Leveraging external and internal knowledge,
[11] Literature review General organization
Engagement of employees, IS capabilities,
Dynamic capabilities, Digital business
strategy, Aligned business and IS
Customer centricity, Governance, Innovation,
[18] Exploratory factor analysis General organization
Resource attainment
Strategic vision, Strategic alignment, Culture
of innovation, Know-how and intellectual
[14] Survey interview Large private companies
property, Digital capability,
Technology assets
Leadership, Supportive organizational
culture, Employee and partner engagement,
Aligning business and IT strategies, Process
standardization and data integration,
[10] Multiple case studies Logistics service providers
Employee training and skills development,
Agile transformation management,
Leveraging internal and external
(technological) knowledge
Innovation characteristics, External factors
(the access to the thought leaders,
[27] Exploratory case study Industrial firms consultants, and bridging organizations),
Internal factors (top management,
governance structure)
Information technology, Employee skills,
[5] Regression analysis SMEs
Digital strategy

3. Theoretical Background, Conceptual Model, and Hypotheses

3.1. Resource-Based View and Resource-Dependence Theory
The resource-based view (RBV) posits that the competitive advantage of an enterprise
comes from a combination of valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and irreplaceable re-
sources and capabilities that are under its control [28]. The theoretical arguments of RBV
highlight the management of firm resources as the basic units of analysis and indicate that
resource heterogeneity across firms accounts for differential performance. For example,
Verhoef et al. [29] state that DT is inherently multidisciplinary, as it involves changes in
strategy, organization, information technology, the supply chain, and marketing, and each
phase of the DT has its corresponding resources, structure, growth strategy, metrics, and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549 5 of 18

goals. A general consensus exists that DT requires a combination of multiple complemen-

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19
tary resources. Therefore, the RBV provides a useful lens through which to view DT in
SMEs [5].
Resource-dependence theory (RDT) provides directions for organizations to deal with
on contingencies
external in the
constraints. external
RDT environment,
characterizes and holds
corporations asthat to understand
an open the behaviors
system, dependent on
of an organization,
contingencies in the it is crucial
external to examineand
environment, their ecology.
holds RDT
that to recognizes
understand thethe influence
behaviors of
of an
external factors on organizational behaviors, e.g., the need for interactions
organization, it is crucial to examine their ecology. RDT recognizes the influence of external between firms,
allowing
factors oneach company to
organizational compete e.g.,
behaviors, withtherivals
need[30].
for Regarding
interactionsthe subjects
between of this
firms, study,
allowing
enterprises do not operate in isolation from the external environment.
each company to compete with rivals [30]. Regarding the subjects of this study, enterprises While acquiring
resources
do and building
not operate in isolation capacities
from thefor DT, inenvironment.
external addition to improving the efficiency
While acquiring resourcesofand in-
ternal resource
building allocation,
capacities for DT,itin continues
additiontotobeimproving
necessary theto pay attention
efficiency to the acquisition
of internal resource
of resources
allocation, in the external
it continues to be environment
necessary to pay andattention
to adjusttodependence
the acquisitionon external resources
of resources in the
to allow environment
external all available resources
and to adjust to be effectively on
dependence mobilized
external to improvetothe
resources level
allow allofavailable
DT.
In summary,
resources the RBVmobilized
to be effectively is related to toimprove
the concept of internal
the level of DT.resources, and the RDT is
related to externalthe
In summary, factors
RBV[30]. Through
is related theoretical
to the conceptsynthesis,
of internalitresources,
can be used to explain
and the RDTthe is
relationship
related between
to external resources
factors and the performance
[30]. Through of DT from
theoretical synthesis, it cana holistic
be usedperspective.
to explain the
relationship between resources and the performance of DT from a holistic perspective.
3.2. Proposed Conceptual Model and Hypotheses Formulation
3.2. Proposed Conceptual Model and Hypotheses Formulation
Based on the existing research results, this study identifies six critical factors of
Based DT,
successful on theandexisting
draws research
on RBV and results,
RDTthis to study
propose identifies six critical factors
that technological of suc-
and environ-
cessful
mental DT, and have
factors drawsa on RBV and
positive RDTon
impact to organizational
propose that technological
capabilities,and andenvironmental
then promote
factors have of
the success a positive impactOrganizational
DT of SMEs. on organizational capabilities,
capabilities playandan then promote the
intermediary rolesuccess
in the
of DT of SMEs. Organizational capabilities play an intermediary
influence of technological and environmental factors on DT, and employee skill posi- role in the influence of
technological and environmental factors on DT, and employee skill
tively moderates the relationship between organizational capabilities and DT. The con- positively moderates
the relationship
ceptual model is between
shown inorganizational
Figure 1. capabilities and DT. The conceptual model is
shown in Figure 1.

Environmental
Environmental Factors
Factors
Employees
Employees skill
skill
Government
Government support
support
Organizational
Organizational Factors
Factors

Partnership
Partnership Digital
Digital strategy
strategy
Digital
Digital
Transformation
Transformation
Technological
Technological Factors
Factors Top
Top management
management
IT
IT infrastructure
infrastructure

IT management
IT management
capability
capability

Figure 1. Conceptual model and research hypothesis.

Figure 1. Conceptual model and research hypothesis.
3.2.1. Environmental Factors
3.2.1.Using
Environmental Factors
the RBV, SMEs show limited resources and capabilities, and often cannot com-
pete Using the RBV,
with larger SMEs show
enterprises usinglimited resources
their solitary and capabilities,
resources and often
and capabilities. cannot
Therefore,
compete the
omitting withsupport
larger enterprises using their
of external parties, SMEs solitary
cannotresources and[4].
achieve DT capabilities. Therefore,
Realizing the signifi-
omitting
cance andthe support
vitality of external
of SMEs, manyparties, SMEs have
governments cannot achieve policies,
provided DT [4]. Realizing the sig-
funding, specific
nificance and
programs, andvitality of SMEs,
counseling many
in their governments
national economic have provided
plans policies,
to support andfunding,
improvespe-
the
cific programs, and counseling in their national economic plans to support
conditions of SMEs and enable them to acquire performance growth and lasting com- and improve
the conditions
petitiveness of SMEs[31].
in markets andStudies
enable have
themshown
to acquire performancepolicies
that government growthandandsupport
lasting
competitiveness in markets [31]. Studies have shown that government policies and sup-
port are important factors for the successful DT of enterprises [32]. The government can
develop and strengthen policies and programs to support SMEs’ DT agenda, creating
specific policies, support, and counseling initiatives, customized training programs, and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549 6 of 18

are important factors for the successful DT of enterprises [32]. The government can de-
velop and strengthen policies and programs to support SMEs’ DT agenda, creating specific
policies, support, and counseling initiatives, customized training programs, and collab-
oration ecosystems [33]. Moreover, the success of DT must also change organizations
by creating a dynamic partner ecosystem [4]. In this ecosystem, an organization must
show agility in building partnerships across industries as well as with customers. For
inter-organizational relationships, RDT proves that the formation of inter-organizational
relationships can help organizations acquire resources to reduce uncertainty and interde-
pendence. Similarly, by establishing collaboration with their partners, SMEs can improve
their business performance and achieve growth, even in the face of limited resources [34].
Thus, government support and partnerships, as important environmental factors, can have
a significant impact on the success of DT. However, given the varying results of DT under
the same environmental conditions, we have reason to doubt the validity of direct impact.
According to RBV, only valuable, rare, incompletely imitable, and irreplaceable resources
and capabilities can produce competitive advantages [28]. It can be understood that only
when external resources are transformed into the unique capabilities of an organization
can it create value. Therefore, we believe that external environmental factors influence the
results of DT through organizational factors, and we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Government support is positively related to digital strategy.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Government support is positively related to top management.
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Partnership is positively related to digital strategy.
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Partnership is positively related to top management.

3.2.2. Technological Factors

Information technology is most important for companies to achieve DT [7], which
is conducive to optimizing business processes, thereby creating customer and corporate
value [29]. However, IT infrastructure itself is insufficient for gaining competitive advan-
tage, because it is too easily imitated by other organizations, and it is their use within a
specific context that enables firms to discover new ways to create value [7]. Consistent
with this view, Carr [35] argues that unless a technology is proprietary to a company, it
ultimately cannot provide a competitive advantage on its own; instead, technology should
be a means to achieve strategically potent ends. When digital technologies enter an orga-
nization, they interact with organizational antecedents, organizational characteristics in
particular (including the organizational strategy and legacy), and managerial characteristics
(such as the top management team), to initiate DT [36].
The adoption of digital technologies widely permeates the organization, transcend-
ing traditional company boundaries, and it requires a strategy to coordinate the entire
transformation to reach a defined goal [21]. On the other hand, advancements in tech-
nology have brought about changes in corporate economic value, business innovation,
and competitive patterns and they have increasingly provided the foundation for digital
strategies. Previous research generally indicates that digital technologies play a central role
in creating and strengthening social and industry-level disruptions that trigger strategic
responses in the organization [7]. In other words, digital technology induces new forms
of business strategies by altering the value creation paths that organizations have previ-
ously relied upon to remain competitive, providing technical support for their effective
implementation as well. In addition, IT can help enable leadership and organizational
performance [37]. Investment in and use of IT infrastructure are considered to provide
enhanced decision-making capabilities, increased efficiency, and improved productivity,
playing an important role in management capabilities and corporate performance [38].
Research shows that when it is combined with organizational leadership, IT can develop
unique organizational capabilities, thereby enhancing organizational performance [37].
Organizations must know how to use these tools properly in the form of IT functions and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549 7 of 18

be willing to do so. Therefore, we believe that technology is driving the company’s digital
strategy and providing support to top management.
IT infrastructure resources and IT management capabilities are generally regarded
as important IT strategic choices [39]. IT infrastructure resources are non-competitive
resources, while IT management capabilities are competitive resources that it is difficult for
competitors to imitate, such that organizations usually require an effective combination
of IT infrastructure and IT management capabilities to obtain IT business value [40]. In
summary, this research proposes the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5 (H5). IT infrastructure is positively related to digital strategy.
Hypothesis 6 (H6). IT infrastructure is positively related to top management.
Hypothesis 7 (H7). IT management capability is positively related to digital strategy.
Hypothesis 8 (H8). IT management capability is positively related to top management.

3.2.3. Organizational Factors

As the important guarantee and capabilities for the DT of enterprises, digital strategy
and top management have attracted the most attention from researchers and practition-
ers [41]. Research and practical experience show that digital strategy is the key to the
success of enterprises’ DT plans [42]. Organizations that digitally transform their business
processes and organizational structures show a clear and coherent digital strategy [8]. By
emphasizing digital leadership, agile and scalable digital operations, digital customer
experience and emerging digital innovations, and coordinating the DT process, a digital
strategy can support organizational transformations and achieve the expected goals of
DT [23]. Recent research shows that companies require a digital strategy to coordinate all
mandatory resources to achieve and enhance competitiveness [43]. On the contrary, the
lack of a digital strategy leads to poor decision-making and a waste of resources [44].
In addition, the success of the enterprise is mostly contingent upon the motivation of
the top managers and their abilities to develop successful resource recombination. A good
leader is essential for any transformation, including DT [10]. According to Accenture’s data,
58% of leaders they interviewed said that their digital construction is in the charge of top
managers, which also shows that the most important part is top management. On the one
hand, the more that top managers support DT, the lower the resistance that the company
will face in the internal integration process, which is more conducive to increasing the
company investment in DT, seizing the benefits of DT, and the ability to predict future
development [26]. On the other hand, managerial leadership is the primary factor for
the success of DT [10]. The abilities of managers to continuously monitor market trends,
perceive and seize technological opportunities, and turn them into business opportunities
is more important than ever [2]. At the same time, as the coordinator of the change, the
leaders encourage stakeholders to participate in the DT process and allocate resources
appropriately, so that the DT can develop smoothly. As such, we propose that:
Hypothesis 9 (H9). Digital strategies have a positive effect on the success of the DT of SMEs.
Hypothesis 10 (H10). Top management has a positive effect on the success of DT of SMEs.

3.2.4. Effects of Employee Skill as a Moderator

Competitiveness and innovation lie in the skills and capabilities of the workforce.
Indeed, the ability of a firm to remain competitive during uncertain times is largely due
to the capacity of its employees to update previous skills and acquire new ones [45]. To
carry out an appropriate DT, in particular, employees need to have or acquire adequate
digital skills. Prior research shows that human factors can significantly impact DT capacity
in an organization [46], so organizations must work to increase their employee’s skills.
Organizations expect employees to be involved in continuous learning and must form a
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549 8 of 18

team with the right blend of skills required by different projects [29]. Employee participation
is an important condition for the implementation of a DT plan. Our investigation shows
that maturing digital organizations build skills to realize the strategy. Digitally maturing
organizations are four times more likely to provide employees with the needed skills than
organizations at lower ends of the spectrum are [47]. Therefore, employee skill is among
the key factors in the success of DT [48].
There is evidence that specific DT outcomes may be moderated by a host of personal,
contextual, and cultural factors, which should be taken into account when implementing
DT [49]. Employees are the most important executors of enterprises’ digital strategy and top
management concepts, and their own skills and knowledge affect execution and the degree
to which digital strategy and top management can affect the results of DT. Employees’
expectations of participation and competence are related to increased support and response
for DT and affect its process. This study proposes the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 11 (H11). Employee skill moderates the linkage between digital strategy and the
success of SMEs’ DT.
Hypothesis 12 (H12). Employee skill moderates the linkage between top management and the
success of SMEs’ DT.

4. Research Method and Data Analyses

4.1. Measurement and Data Collection
This study uses a questionnaire survey to verify the research model. The measurement
items are extracted from previous publications and reworded or modified to suit this
study. The items for IT infrastructure and IT management capability are taken from
Lu and Ramamurthy [50], including four measurement items respectively. The scale of
digital strategy is adapted from Gurbaxani and Dunkle [14], with a total of five items.
Top management refers to the level of corporate leaders’ support for DT and their own
leadership assessment, so the scale refers to Wang et al. [51] and Mihardjo et al. [52]. The
measurement items for government support are adapted from Wang, Xue, Liang, Wang,
and Ge [51], including four items. The items of partnership are adapted from Sanders and
Premus [53]. The items for DT are drawn from the work of Nwankpa and Roumani [54].
All items are measured on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). In addition, we used two control variables, such as industry and firm age, to explain
the variance in the dependent variable.
The survey was conducted in China, so we invited three English-speaking experts
whose native language is Chinese to translate the questions to ensure the accuracy of the
translation. After the questionnaire was designed, a preliminary test was conducted with
20 questionnaires, which were distributed to SMEs owners and managers to evaluate the
clarity, logical consistency, and effectiveness of the questionnaire. The survey questionnaires
were distributed through a professional online questionnaire survey platform used by a
large number of researchers that provides quality guarantees [55]. In our study, a total of
342 questionnaires were collected, 162 invalid questionnaires were removed, and 180 valid
questionnaires were retained and used. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for the
surveyed enterprises.

4.2. Measurement Model

In this study, the structural equation modeling (SEM) method was used for data
analysis. SEM is a comprehensive and effective method to verify the relationship between
latent constructs and observed variables. It can measure the variance of latent variables
more accurately and is widely used in empirical research in the fields of management
and sociology. At present, there are two main estimation methods of SEM, namely, the
covariance-based SEM and the variance-based SEM. Some researchers have posited that
variance-based SEMs, such as partial least squares SEM (PLS-SEM), can analyze and ex-
plain the variance of dependent variables to the greatest extent, verify the relationship
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549 9 of 18

between multiple variables in the same research model, and have fewer statistical identi-
fication issues than covariance-based SEM [56]. Moreover, it is ideally suited to models
with relatively small sample sizes, and it can handle exploratory analyses and formative
constructs [57]. Therefore, this study uses PLS-SEM for data analysis and model testing.

Table 2. Sample demographic information.

Measure Items Size/Percentage Measure Items Size/Percentage

Agriculture, Forestry, Animal
5, 2.7% 21–50 18, 10%
Husbandry, and Fishery
Industry and Construction 54, 30% 51–100 33, 18.3%
Wholesale and Retail Trade 13, 7.2% Firm scale 101–300 62, 34.4%
Accommodation and (people)
7, 3.8% 301–1000 49, 27.2%
Industry Catering Industry
Transportation, Storage, and Post 12, 6.6% More than 1000 15, 8.3%
Information Transmission, Software,
and Information 70, 38.8% Less than 1 3, 1.6%
Technology Services
Other 19, 10.5% 1–5 15, 8.3%
Less than 3 1, 0.5% 5–10 34, 18.8%
Annual revenue
Firm age 3–5 23, 12.7 10–50 52, 28.8%
(million)
(year) 6–10 57, 31.6% 50–100 28, 15.5%
More than 10 99, 55% 100–500 30,16.6%
Firm scale
20 and below 3, 1.6% More than 500 18, 10%
(people)

Using Smart PLS 3.0 software to test the reliability and validity, the results are shown
in Table 3. Reliability is assessed with Cronbach’s alpha (Cα), composite reliability (CR),
and average variance extracted (AVE). The results for the quality criteria are shown in
Table 3. All Cα and CR values exceed the thresholds of 0.70, and all AVE values are above
the recommended threshold of 0.50, so all the indicators show good reliability. We use factor
loading and the square root of the AVE to measure convergent validity and discriminant
validity, respectively. The results show that all of the factor loadings are greater than 0.7 at
a significance level of p < 0.01, suggesting good convergent validity, and the square root
for each factor’s AVE is larger than the correlation coefficients with other factors (Table 3),
which confirms discriminant validity.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and inter-construct correlations.

Cronbach’s
Items CR AVE DS DT GS ITI ITM PA TM
Alpha
DS 0.823 0.876 0.587 0.766
DT 0.707 0.837 0.631 0.688 0.795
GS 0.812 0.876 0.638 0.597 0.548 0.799
ITI 0.767 0.851 0.589 0.646 0.463 0.382 0.768
ITM 0.789 0.864 0.614 0.794 0.633 0.588 0.542 0.784
PA 0.728 0.846 0.648 0.623 0.669 0.595 0.523 0.686 0.805
TM 0.804 0.885 0.719 0.619 0.648 0.397 0.436 0.601 0.591 0.848
Note(s): digital strategy (DS); digital transformation (DT); government support (GS); IT infrastructure (ITI); IT
management capability (ITM); partnership (PA); top management (TM).

4.3. Structural Model

To ensure consistency of the estimation, the consistent PLSs estimation method, and
PLSs bootstrapping (N = 5000) were separately used to estimate the coefficients and their
significance of each path. Figure 2 shows the path coefficients in the test results obtained
using structural modeling. In the environment dimension, it was found that government
support has a positive effect on digital strategy (β = 0.169, t = 2.2, p < 0.05), and the partner-
ship positively affects top management (β = 0.325, t = 3.053, p < 0.01), so Hypothesis 1 (H1)
and Hypothesis 4 (H4) are supported. The relationships between government support
and top management and between partnership and digital strategy are not significant, so
 using structural modeling. In the environment dimension, it was found that govern
support has a positive effect on digital strategy (β = 0.169, t = 2.2, p < 0.05), and the
nership positively affects top management (β = 0.325, t = 3.053, p < 0.01), so H1 and H
supported. The relationships between government support and top management
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549 between partnership and digital strategy are not significant, so H2 and H3 are
10 of 18 rejecte

the technological dimension, IT infrastructure has a significant positive impact on d

strategy (β = 0.288, t = 3.891, p < 0.001), but not on top management, so H5 is valid, w
Hypothesis 2 (H2) and Hypothesis 3 (H3) are rejected. In the technological dimension,
H6 is IT
not supported.
infrastructure hasIT management
a significant capability
positive has positive
impact on digital strategy (β effect ont =both
= 0.288, 3.891,digital
egy (βp =< 0.001),
0.535,butt =not
7.616,
on toppmanagement,
< 0.001) and top management
so Hypothesis (βwhile
5 (H5) is valid, = 0.351, t = 3.258,
Hypothesis 6 (H6)p < 0.00
is not supported. IT management capability has positive effect
H7 and H8 are both supported. In the organizational dimension, it was found that on both digital strategy
= 0.535, t = 7.616, p < 0.001) and top management (β = 0.351, t = 3.258, p < 0.001), so
digital(βstrategy (β = 0.465, t = 6.591, p < 0.001) and top management (β = 0.361, t = 5.13
Hypothesis 7 (H7) and Hypothesis 8 (H8) are both supported. In the organizational dimen-
0.001)sion,
have a significantly
it was found that both positive effect(β
digital strategy on= DT,
0.465,which supports
t = 6.591, the top
p < 0.001) and acceptance
manage- of H9
H10. The
ment (βcontrol
= 0.361, variables, industry,
t = 5.138, p < 0.001) and firm positive
have a significantly age did not
effect on significantly
DT, which supports affect th
the acceptance
pendent variables. of H9 and Hypothesis 10 (H10). The control variables, industry, and firm age
did not significantly affect the dependent variables.

Government
Government
support
support 0.16 Industry
Industry Firm
Firm age
age
9*
-0
. 03
7

Digital
Digital strategy
strategy 0.05 0.078
Partnership
Partnership 0.005 0.4
0.3 6 5**
25 * Digital
Digital
**
Transformation
Transformation in
in
**
8 8* ***
SMEs
SMEs
IT
IT infrastructure
infrastructure 0.20 0.3
61
.091 Top
Top
management
*

management
**
35

*
1**
0.5

. 3 5
IT management
IT management 0
capability
capability
Note(s):***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05
Figure 2. Results of structure model analysis.
Figure 2. Results of structure model analysis.
4.4. Mediating Effect
This study
4.4. Mediating Effectuses the generally accepted bootstrap method to test the mediating effects
of organizational factors (digital strategy and top management) between environmental
This study
factors, uses thefactors,
technological generally
and DT. accepted
We use the bootstrap
PROCESS method
SPSS macro todeveloped
test the by mediatin
fects of organizational
Hayes to test mediation,factors (digital
using the strategy
bias-corrected andand
method top
themanagement)
percentile methodbetween
to test env
the mediating effect, and the confidence level for the confidence intervals
mental factors, technological factors, and DT. We use the PROCESS SPSS macro d is 95%. The results
are shown in Table 4. Following the criterion of mediating effect from [58], we conclude
oped that
by organizational
Hayes to test mediation, using the bias-corrected method and the perce
factors (digital strategy and top management) act as a partial mediator
method to test
between the mediating
environmental factorseffect, and support
(government the confidence leveland
and partnership) forDT the confidence inte
performance,
is 95%.asThe
well results
as betweenaretechnology
shown infactors
Table(IT4.infrastructure
Following and the IT
criterion
management of mediating
capability) effect
and DT. In particular, digital strategy acts as a full mediator between IT infrastructure
[58], we conclude that organizational factors (digital strategy and top management) a
and DT.
a partial mediator between environmental factors (government support and partner
and DT 4.5. performance,
Moderating Effect as well as between technology factors (IT infrastructure an
management This study uses multilevel
capability) and DT. regression analyses to
In particular, explorestrategy
digital the moderating
acts asrolea of
full med
employee skill between organizational factors and DT. The results are respectively shown
between IT infrastructure and DT.
in Tables 5 and 6. In Table 5, Model 1 presents the effect of digital strategy on DT. Model 2
presents the effects of both digital strategy and employee skill on DT, and Model 3 presents
the effects of digital strategy, employee skill, and their interaction effect on DT. Thus, R-
square change simply indicates the variation in constructs’ explanatory power regarding
DT. In this study, we analyze the moderating role of employee skill, and its most important
result is in giving the interaction effects. It is found that employee skill positively moderates
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549 11 of 18

the relationship between digital strategy (Table 5), top management (Table 6), and DT, so
Hypothesis 11 (H11) and Hypothesis 12 (H12) are both supported.

Table 4. Results of mediating effects.

Coefficient Bias-Coefficient Percentile Mediation

M/(IV)/(DV) Items Effect Existence
SE T 95% CI 95% CI
DS/(GS)/(DT) Direct effect 0.230 0.066 3.509 0.101 0.359 0.101 0.359 Partial
Indirect effect 0.321 0.057 5.632 0.224 0.445 0.214 0.438
DS/(ITI)/(DT) Direct effect 0.037 0.072 0.521 −0.104 0.179 −0.104 0.179 Full
Indirect effect 0.424 0.056 7.571 0.322 0.550 0.319 0.538
DS/(ITM)/(DT) Direct effect 0.244 0.088 2.764 0.070 0.417 0.070 0.417 Partial
Indirect effect 0.389 0.078 4.987 0.263 0.569 0.253 0.559
TM/(PA)/(DT) Direct effect 0.444 0.063 7.099 0.321 0.568 0.321 0.568 Partial
Indirect effect 0.226 0.049 4.612 0.137 0.336 0.136 0.328
TM/(ITM)/(DT) Direct effect 0.383 0.066 5.824 0.253 0.513 0.253 0.513 Partial
Indirect effect 0.249 0.049 5.082 0.161 0.351 0.160 0.348
Notes: independent variable (IV); mediator (M); dependent variable (DV); digital strategy (DS); digital transfor-
mation (DT); government support (GS); IT infrastructure (ITI); IT management capability (ITM); partnership (PA);
top management (TM).

Table 5. Analysis of moderating role of employee skill in the relationship between digital strategy
and DT.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Effect Variable
β T Value β T Value β T Value
Main effect digital strategy 0.683 12.489 0.516 6.751 0.542 7.060
employee skill 0.235 3.071 0.246 3.236
digital strategy
Moderating effect 0.114 2.053
× employee skill
Adjusted R squared 0.464 0.488 0.497
R squared change 0.467 0.027 0.012
F change 155.976 *** 9.432 *** 4.216 *
*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

Table 6. Analysis of moderating role of employee skill in the relationship between top management
and DT.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Effect Variable
β T Value β T Value β T Value
Main effect top management 0.645 11.269 0.444 6.667 0.541 7.725
employee skill 0.340 5.111 0.329 5.100
top management
Moderating effect 0.206 3.556
× employee skill
Adjusted R squared 0.413 0.486 0.517
R squared change 0.416 0.075 0.034
F change 126.983 *** 26.126 *** 12.647 ***
*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

Figure 3 shows that employee skill affects the relationship between digital strategy
and DT. In Figure 3, the x-axis gives the extent of digital strategy, and the y-axis gives the
extent of DT. The dashed line and the continuous line indicate the relationship between
digital strategy and DT under conditions of high employee skill and low employee skill,
respectively. The same meaning for employee skill is shown in Figure 4. This confirms that
employee skill can moderate the relationship between organizational factors and DT.
 top management
derating effect top management 0.206 3.556
Moderating × employee
effect skill 0.206 3.556
× employee skill
sted R squared 0.413 0.486 0.517
Adjusted R squared 0.413 0.486 0.517
quared change 0.416 0.075 0.034
R squared change 0.416 0.075 0.034
F changeSustainability 2022, 14, 2549 126.983*** 26.126*** 12.647*** 12 of 18
F change 126.983*** 26.126*** 12.647***
*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.
*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

5
5
4
4 Low employee
Digial transformation

Low employee

Digial transformation
skill
3 skill
3 High employee
skill High employee
2 skill
2
1
Low digital 1strategy High digital strategy
Low digital strategy High digital strategy
Figure 3. The moderating effect of employee skill in the relationship between digital strategy and
DT. Figure 3.
Figure 3. The
Themoderating
moderatingeffect
effectofofemployee
employee skill
skill in in
thethe relationship
relationship between
between digital
digital strategy
strategy and and
DT.
DT.

5
5
4.5
4.5
4
4
Digial transformation

3.5
Digial transformation

3.5
3 Low employee skill
3 Low employee skill
2.5
2.5 High employee skill
High employee skill
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
Low top management High top management
Low top management High top management

Figure 4. The moderating effect of employeeeffect

Themoderating
moderating skill in the relationship between top management and management
DT.
Figure
Figure 4.
4. The effect ofofemployee
employee skill
skill in in
thethe relationship
relationship between
between top top
management and
and
DT. DT.
5. Discussion 5. Discussion
5. Discussion
This study contributes
This studyto the understanding
contributes of the antecedents
to the understanding of theand processesand
antecedents of DT
processes of DT in
This study contributes to the understanding of the antecedents and processes of DT
SMEsSMEs
in SMEs and helps and helps SMEs
to carry to scientific
out carry out and
scientific and effective
effective resourceresource allocation
allocation in the in the process
in SMEs and helps SMEs to carry out scientific and effective resource allocation in the
of DT. This study empirically examines the impact mechanism of seven key resources from
three dimensions of technology (IT infrastructure and IT management capacity), organiza-
tion (digital strategy, top management, employee skills), and environment (government
support and partnership) on DT. The results suggest some important findings.
First, from the perspective of technology, neither IT infrastructure nor IT management
capabilities can directly affect DT, but through the intermediary role of organizational
capabilities (digital strategy, top management), and then have a positive impact on DT. This
suggests that technology is a prerequisite for DT, and DT is impossible without suitable
technology, however, only driving technology forward is not enough to gain benefits from
DT [26]. It is important to leverage enterprise IT resources to support and adapt to digital
strategies and top management capabilities. This result is consistent with the complemen-
tary view of RBV that IT resources by themselves cannot generate competitive advantages,
unless IT is effectively integrated with the business and management of the enterprise
and evolves into an irreplaceable dynamic capability to realize IT value [7,37]. This can
explain why many companies have made intelligent investments, but not achieved the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549 13 of 18

expected returns. IT infrastructure and IT management capabilities bring about the changes
of enterprise business innovation and competitive models, induce new forms of business
strategies, and provide necessary technical support for the effective implementation of
digital strategies [36]. This supports the view of Carr [35] that technology is a means. In
addition, the combination of IT management capabilities and organizational leadership can
improve decision-making capabilities and efficiency, thereby improving the level of digital
transformation implementation. Therefore, organizations must know how to correctly tap
the value of these tools in the form of IT functions, and the compatibility between new
technology and digital strategy plays a significant role in the implement of DT.
Secondly, we confirm the general view in the existing scholarship that digital strategy
and top management are the key factors for the success of DT [5,24,25]. Enterprises with
digital strategies, as well as top management support and leadership, are more likely to
achieve DT. With an emphasis on digital leadership, agile and scalable digital operations,
digital customer experience and emerging digital innovations, and coordinating the DT
process, a digital strategy can support organizational transformation and achieve the
expected goals of DT [23]. This is consistent with prior research suggesting that companies
should adopt a digital strategy to coordinate all mandatory resources to achieve and
enhance competitiveness [43]. It is also in line with the practical experience that SMEs
undergoing a transformation are more likely to follow a plan [59], and the lack of a digital
strategy leads to poor decision-making and a waste of resources [44]. Additionally, top
management also has a positive effect on the success of DT, which validates existing
research [26]. A good manager is constantly sensing and seizing technological and market
opportunities to translate them into business opportunities, is able to support and motivate
employees and partners to be active parts of the DT process, and also provides execution
and very strong governance to move the transformation forward [10].
Moreover, this study found that employee skill positively moderates the relationship
between organizational factors (digital strategy and top management) and DT. This means
that the companies with a high proportion of qualified employees are more likely to achieve
DT, which also confirms the findings of recent studies that digitalization depends on human
capital as well as technological resources [60]. Empirical examination shows that employee
skill does not directly affect DT, but their high-tech absorptive and innovation capabilities
enhance the impact of digital strategy and top management on DT. The implementation of
digital projects usually requires well-educated employees, and existing literature suggests
that skilled employees are necessary for disruptive digitalization [60]. Furthermore, based
on a shared enthusiasm and digital identity [5] those employees are central to rebuilding
values, norms, and organizational behavior during the transformation process [61].
Finally, regarding the effect of environment, government support and partnership
resources complement each other, and influence DT by influencing enterprise digital
strategy and top management capabilities respectively. The government supports and
promotes the formulation and implementation of digital strategies for SMEs by providing
funding, policies, counseling and programs, and other assistance [33]. This result verifies
the effectiveness of relevant government policies and is consistent with the development
characteristics of Chinese enterprises. Generally speaking, the development of SMEs in
China is greatly influenced by the government’s guidelines, and it is highly possible to
change the enterprise’s strategy to respond to the government’s development plans and
move towards the DT road [62]. However, government support does not improve top
management. The possible explanation is that the government strategy ignores the digital
literacy of corporate executives, which is related to the way the government supports
it. As a complement, the partnership can just make up for the shortcomings in this area.
Cooperation and collaboration with customers, suppliers, IT providers, and stakeholders
contribute to knowledge sharing, which will enrich the decision-making capabilities of
managers. Value co-creation behavior (such as jointly formulating plans, solving problems
together, and making flexible adjustments) between partners can effectively reduce decision-
making errors and positively promote the improvement of top management. However,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549 14 of 18

the impact of the partnership on digital strategy is not supported, which shows that most
of the cooperation between enterprises is in the business aspect, and does not touch the
core strategic level. Enterprises need to work together to create stronger value chains for
DT [26].

6. Conclusions and Implications

SMEs are lagging behind large companies in digitalization, which has a negative
impact on performance. Although SMEs are economically important, people know little
about the key resources and process mechanisms for the successful DT in SMEs. We
set three goals to address this knowledge gap. Based on the complementary RBV, we
first identified the main resources in three dimensions: technology (IT infrastructure, IT
management capabilities), organization (digital strategy, top management, and employee
skills), environment (government support, partnerships). Secondly, we empirically tested
the interrelationship between these factors and their impact on DT. Then, we investigated
whether employee skills moderate the effect of organizational capabilities on DT. The results
of the survey of 180 Chinese SMEs show that technological and environmental resources
promote the improvement of organizational capabilities, and organizational capabilities are
positively correlated with DT, and mediate the impact of technological and environmental
resources on DT. Employee skill is one of the reasons for the difference in corporate value.
This study contributes to our knowledge of the resources that need to be configured for
this transformation process, and how to make use of their value, and then help managers
to develop more effective strategies addressing the complexity arising from DT.

6.1. Research Implications

This research has certain theoretical implications. First, this study enriches the research
in the fields of IT, strategic management, and DT by exploring the mechanism of DT’s
multiple factors. Most existing studies use qualitative analysis or case studies to identify
key factors [10,11,32], lacking the universality of empirical verification, and some studies
determine the value of factors by examining the direct impact of various factors on DT [5],
ignoring the complexity of DT. Based on the complementary resource-based theories, this
study fully considers technological, organizational, and environmental resources, identifies
the key elements for the success of DT in SMEs, and examines the relationship between the
three-dimensional factors and their influence mechanism on DT. Our findings can deepen
the understanding of the value creation of technology and environmental resources, further
revealing the complex mechanism of enterprises’ DT process, thus enriching the research
in related fields.
Secondly, this study provides a new perspective for understanding the impact of
employee skill on DT. Existing literature suggests that skilled employees are necessary for
disruptive digitalization [5,60], but there lacks discussion of its impact mechanism. This
study empirically examines the complementary effects of employee skills and other factors
and finds that employee skills do not directly promote DT, but by enhancing the impact of
digital strategy and top management on DT, that is, employee skill positively moderates the
relationship between organizational capabilities and DT. This finding enriches the cognition
of employee skill on DT and the boundary conditions of DT.
Finally, this study takes SMEs as the research object, enriches the DT knowledge of
SMEs. Existing DT research mainly focuses on large enterprises, manufacturing industries,
and other enterprises with resource advantages, but lack sufficient understanding of DT in
SMEs [16]. This study focuses on the DT problem of SMEs, explores its key resources and
transformation mechanism, thus filling the gaps in the relevant literature.

6.2. Management Implications

From the study findings, at least three important implications are worthy of practition-
ers’ consideration to promote DT in SMEs:
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549 15 of 18

First, the key for managers is to understand what resources need to be configured for
the transformation process. Based on existing research results, this study identified seven
key resources that affect the success of DT in SMEs from a systematic perspective, which
helps managers understand the success factors more clearly, and can be used to evaluate
the company’s readiness for DT, identifies and improves the areas of resource weakness
and pre-employment supports firm decision-making, thus increasing the possibility of
successful DT.
Secondly, this study helps managers to develop more effective strategies addressing
the complexity arising from DT. This study empirically tested the influence mechanism
of each element on DT. The acquisition of enterprise IT resources and external resources
(government support, partnerships) is crucial to the implementation of DT, but its value
needs to be enhanced through organizational capabilities. When carrying out resource
allocation and planning, managers should pay attention to the matching of technology,
business, and strategy [63], and actively embed in the upstream and downstream industrial
chain to achieve value co-creation [26], so as to support the formulation and implementation
of the enterprise digital strategy [64]. Based on this, managers can know whether to address
and optimize the complexity caused by the interaction of various factors.
Finally, SME managers need to support and train employees to acquire the necessary
digital skills [60]. This will naturally change their existing roles and also affect the identities
of employees and the identity of the organization as a whole [65]. Managers need to
support employees to develop accordingly [66] and create a digital-related identity and
role within the organization [67].

6.3. Limitations and Further Research

Although we have sought rigor throughout this study, some limitations remain that
must be considered when interpreting the findings and conducting future research. First,
the survey objects of this study are 180 local Chinese SMEs. The uniqueness of the regional
scenario and the limited sample size implies that the study results must be further verified,
which can be regarded as a limitation. Future research can consider using larger samples in
a wider range to improve the generality of the conclusions. In addition, the study is also
limited in that it did not verify the impact and relationship of many more factors [68]. This
study only explores the impact relationships among six critical factors, thus reducing the
complexity of DT. Future research should include additional factors into their model. For
example, technological innovation, dynamic capabilities, corporate cultures and structures,
industrial vitality, and others could be reviewed. Finally, this study does not conduct an
in-depth analysis by industry. Although we take the industry as a control variable and find
that its influence on the dependent variable is not significant, the digital transformation of
different industries has its own unique characteristics, and the analysis of specific industries
will have greater practical significance.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.Z. and Y.X.; methodology, Y.X.; software, Y.X.; vali-
dation, Y.X. and L.M.; formal analysis, Y.X.; investigation, Y.X.; resources, Y.X.; data curation, Y.X.;
writing—original draft preparation, Y.X.; writing—review and editing, Y.X. and L.M.; visualization,
Y.X.; supervision, L.M.; project administration, X.Z.; funding acquisition, X.Z. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was funded by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 21AZD022).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The dataset generated and analyzed in this study is not publicly
available. Dataset is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549 16 of 18

References
1. Yoo, Y. The Tables Have Turned: How Can the Information Systems Field Contribute to Technology and Innovation Management
Research? J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2013, 14, 227–236. [CrossRef]
2. Karimi, J.; Walter, Z. The Role of Dynamic Capabilities in Responding to Digital Disruption: A Factor-Based Study of the
Newspaper Industry. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2015, 32, 39–81. [CrossRef]
3. Hartl, E.; Hess, T. The Role of Cultural Values for Digital Transformation: Insights from a Delphi Study. In Proceedings of the
23rd Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2017), Boston, MA, USA, 10–12 August 2017.
4. Chen, C.-L.; Lin, Y.-C.; Chen, W.-H.; Chao, C.-F.; Pandia, H. Role of Government to Enhance Digital Transformation in Small
Service Business. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1028. [CrossRef]
5. Eller, R.; Alford, P.; Kallmünzer, A.; Peters, M. Antecedents, consequences, and challenges of small and medium-sized enterprise
digitalization. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 112, 119–127. [CrossRef]
6. Sahu, N.; Deng, H.; Mollah, A. Investigating the Critical Success Factors of Digital Transformation for Improving Customer Experience;
Association for Information Systems: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2018.
7. Vial, G. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 118–144. [CrossRef]
8. Kane, G.C.; Palmer, D.; Phillips, A.N.; Kiron, D.; Buckley, N. Strategy, Not Technology, Drives Digital Transformation. MIT Sloan
Manag. Rev. Deloitte Univ. Press 2015, 14, 1–25.
9. Kiron, D.; Kane, G.C.; Palmer, D.; Phillips, A.N.; Buckley, N. Aligning the Organization for its Digital Future. MIT Sloan Manag.
Rev. 2016, 58.
10. Cichosz, M.; Wallenburg, C.M.; Knemeyer, A.M. Digital transformation at logistics service providers: Barriers, success factors and
leading practices. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2020, 31, 209–238. [CrossRef]
11. Osmundsen, K.; Iden, J.; Bygstad, B. Digital Transformation: Drivers, Success Factors, and Implications. MCIS 2018 Proc. 2018,
37, 1–16.
12. Pucihar, A.; Borštnar, M.K.; Kittl, C.; Ravesteijn, P.; Clarke, R.; Bons, R. Conceptualizing Digital Transformation in Business
Organizations: A Systematic Review of Literature. In Proceedings of the 30TH Bled eConference: Digital Transformation–From
Connecting Things to Transforming Our Lives, Bled, Slovenia, 18–21 June 2017; p. 427.
13. Remane, G.; Hanelt, A.; Nickerson, R.; Kolbe, L. Discovering Digital Business Models in Traditional Industries. J. Bus. Strategy
2017, 38, 41–51. [CrossRef]
14. Gurbaxani, V.; Dunkle, D. Gearing Up For Successful Digital Transformation. Mis Q. Exec. 2019, 18, 209–220. [CrossRef]
15. Fachrunnisa, O.; Adhiatma, A.; Lukman, N.; Majid, M.N.A. Towards SMEs’ digital transformation: The role of agile leadership
and strategic flexibility an empirical study from Indonesia and Malaysia. J. Small Bus. Strategy 2020, 30, 169–175.
16. Li, L.; Su, F.; Zhang, W.; Mao, J.Y. Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: A capability perspective. Inf. Syst. J. 2018,
28, 1129–1157. [CrossRef]
17. Besson, P.; Rowe, F. Strategizing information systems-enabled organizational transformation: A transdisciplinary review and new
directions. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2012, 21, 103–124. [CrossRef]
18. Mhlungu, N.S.M.; Chen, J.Y.J.; Alkema, P. The underlying factors of a successful organisational digital transformation. SA J. Inf.
Manag. 2019, 21. [CrossRef]
19. Chatterjee, S.; Moody, G.; Lowry, P.B.; Chakraborty, S.; Hardin, A. Information Technology and organizational innovation:
Harmonious information technology affordance and courage-based actualization. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2020, 29, 101596. [CrossRef]
20. Lucas, H.; Agarwal, R.; Clemons, E.K.; El Sawy, O.A.; Weber, B. Impactful Research on Transformational Information Technology:
An Opportunity to Inform New Audiences. MIS Q. 2013, 37, 371–382. [CrossRef]
21. Matt, C.; Hess, T.; Benlian, A. Digital Transformation Strategies. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2015, 57, 339–343. [CrossRef]
22. Oswald, G.; Kleinemeier, M. Shaping the Digital Enterprise; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; p. 3319409670.
23. Alexander, L.; Steffen, W.; Bjoern, I.; Daniel, H. From Digital Business Strategy to Market Performance: Insights into Key Concepts and
Processes; AIS Electronic Library (AISeL): Seoul, Korea, 2017.
24. Stief, S.E.; Eidhoff, A.T.; Voeth, M. Transform to Succeed: An Empirical Analysis of Digital Transformation in Firms. Int. J. Econ.
Manag. Eng. 2016, 10, 1833–1842.
25. Sebastian, I.M.; Ross, J.W.; Beath, C.; Mocker, M.; Moloney, K.G.; Fonstad, N.O. How Big Old Companies Navigate Digital
Transformation. Mis Q. Exec. 2017, 16, 197–213.
26. Vogelsang, K.; Liere-Netheler, K.; Packmohr, S.; Hoppe, U. Success factors for fostering a digital transformation in manufacturing
companies. J. Enterp. Transform. 2018, 8, 121–142. [CrossRef]
27. Steiber, A.; Alänge, S.; Ghosh, S.; Goncalves, D. Digital transformation of industrial firms: An innovation diffusion perspective.
Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2020, ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
28. Barney, J.; Wright, M.; Ketchen, D. The Resource-Based View of the Firm. J. Manag. 2001, 27, 171–180.
29. Verhoef, P.C.; Broekhuizen, T.; Bart, Y.; Bhattacharya, A.; Qi Dong, J.; Fabian, N.; Haenlein, M. Digital transformation: A
multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 889–901. [CrossRef]
30. Tehseen, S.; Muneeb, D.; Mahmoud, A.; Hack-Polay, D.; Yeong, H.Y.; Nawaz, F. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the
Digital Business Sector: Examining Six Theories About Digital SME Success. In Impact of Globalization and Advanced Technologies on
Online Business Models; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 135–153.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549 17 of 18

31. Kraja, Y.; Osmani, E.; Molla, F. The Role of the Government Policy for Support the SME-s. Acad. J. Interdiscip. Stud. 2014,
3, 391–396. [CrossRef]
32. Tarutė, A.; Duobienė, J.; Klovienė, L.; Vitkauskaitė, E.; Varaniūtė, V. Identifying factors affecting digital transformation of SMEs,
JurIdentifying factors affecting digital transformation of SMEs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic
Business (ICEB) 2018, Guilin, China, 2–6 December 2018.
33. Pelletier, C.; Cloutier, L.M. Conceptualising digital transformation in SMEs: An ecosystemic perspective. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev.
2019, 26, 855–876. [CrossRef]
34. Lin, Y.-C.; Chen, C.-L.; Chao, C.-F.; Chen, W.-H.; Pandia, H. The Study of Evaluation Index of Growth Evaluation of Science and
Technological Innovation Micro-Enterprises. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6233. [CrossRef]
35. Carr, N.G. IT doesn’t matter. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2003, 81, 41–49. [CrossRef]
36. Hanelt, A.; Bohnsack, R.; Marz, D.; Antunes Marante, C. A Systematic Review of the Literature on Digital Transformation:
Insights and Implications for Strategy and Organizational Change. J. Manag. Stud. 2020, 58, 1159–1197. [CrossRef]
37. Mahdi, N.S. The influence of information technology (IT) on organization leadership and performance. Period. Eng. Nat. Sci.
2019, 7, 1618–1625.
38. Li, H.; Sajjad, N.; Wang, Q.; Muhammad Ali, A.; Khaqan, Z.; Amina, S. Influence of Transformational Leadership on Employees’
Innovative Work Behavior in Sustainable Organizations: Test of Mediation and Moderation Processes. Sustainability 2019,
11, 1594. [CrossRef]
39. Armstrong, C.P.; Sambamurthy, V. Information Technology Assimilation in Firms: The Influence of Senior Leadership and IT
Infrastructures. Inf. Syst. Res. 1999, 10, 304–327. [CrossRef]
40. Melville, N.; Kraemer, K.; Gurbaxani, V. Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT
business value. MIS Q. 2004, 28, 283–322. [CrossRef]
41. North, K.; Aramburu, N.; Lorenzo Oswaldo, J. Promoting digitally enabled growth in SMEs: A framework proposal. J. Enterp. Inf.
Manag. 2019, 33, 238–262. [CrossRef]
42. Bharadwaj, A.; Sawy, O.A.E.; Pavlou, P.A.; Venkatraman, N. Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights.
MIS Q. 2013, 37, 471–482. [CrossRef]
43. Yeow, A.; Soh, C.; Hansen, R. Aligning with new digital strategy: A dynamic capabilities approach. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2018,
27, 43–58. [CrossRef]
44. Hess, T.; Matt, C.; Benlian, A.; Wiesböck, F. Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy. MIS Q. Exec. 2016,
15, 123–139.
45. Araújo, J.; Pestana, G. A framework for social well-being and skills management at the workplace. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2017,
37, 718–725. [CrossRef]
46. Kwon, E.H.; Park, M.J. Critical factors on firm’s digital transformation capacity: Empirical evidence from Korea. Int. J. Appl. Eng.
Res. 2017, 12, 12585–12596.
47. Kane, G. The technology fallacy: People are the real key to digital transformation. Res. Technol. Manag. 2019, 62, 44–49. [CrossRef]
48. Cetindamar Kozanoglu, D.; Abedin, B. Understanding the role of employees in digital transformation: Conceptualization of
digital literacy of employees as a multi-dimensional organizational affordance. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020, ahead-of-print.
[CrossRef]
49. Trenerry, B.; Chng, S.; Wang, Y.; Suhaila, Z.S.; Lim, S.S.; Lu, H.Y.; Oh, P.H. Preparing Workplaces for Digital Transformation: An
Integrative Review and Framework of Multi-Level Factors. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12. [CrossRef]
50. Lu, Y.; Ramamurthy, K. Understanding the Link Between Information Technology Capability and Organizational Agility: An
Empirical Examination. MIS Q. 2011, 35, 931–954. [CrossRef]
51. Wang, N.; Xue, Y.; Liang, H.; Wang, Z.; Ge, S. The dual roles of the government in cloud computing assimilation: An empirical
study in China. Inf. Technol. People 2019, 32, 147–170. [CrossRef]
52. Mihardjo, L.; Sasmoko, S.; Alamsjah, F.; Djap, E. The influence of digital leadership on innovation management based on dynamic
capability: Market orientation as a moderator. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2019, 9. [CrossRef]
53. Sanders, N.R.; Premus, R. Modeling the relationship between firm IT capability, collaboration, and performance. J. Bus. Logist.
2005, 26, 1–23. [CrossRef]
54. Nwankpa, J.K.; Roumani, Y. IT Capability and Digital Transformation: A Firm Performance Perspective. In Proceedings of the
37th International Conference on Information Systems, Dublin, Ireland, 11–14 December 2016; pp. 1–16.
55. Zhang, X.; Ma, L.; Xu, B.; Xu, F. How social media usage affects employees’ job satisfaction and turnover intention: An empirical
study in China. Inf. Manag. 2019, 56, 103136. [CrossRef]
56. Shiau, W.-L.; Sarstedt, M.; Hair, J.F. Internet research using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
Internet Res. 2019, 29, 398–406. [CrossRef]
57. Chen, R.; Sharma, S.K.; Rao, H.R. Members’ site use continuance on Facebook: Examining the role of relational capital.
Decis. Support Syst. 2016, 90, 86–98. [CrossRef]
58. Prebensen, N.K.; Xie, J. Efficacy of co-creation and mastering on perceived value and satisfaction in tourists’ consumption.
Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 166–176. [CrossRef]
59. Blackburn, R.A.; Hart, M.; Wainwright, T. Small business performance: Business, strategy and owner-manager characteristics. J.
Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2013, 20, 8–27. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2549 18 of 18

60. Sousa, M.J.; Rocha, Á. Skills for disruptive digital business. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 94, 257–263. [CrossRef]
61. Fisher, G.; Kotha, S.; Lahiri, A. Changing with the times: An integrated view of identity, legitimacy, and new venture life cycles.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 2016, 41, 383–409. [CrossRef]
62. Henao Ram-rez, A.M.; López-Zapata, E. Analysis of the factors influencing adoption of 3D design digital technologies in
Colombian firms. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2021, ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
63. Sabherwal, R.; Sabherwal, S.; Havakhor, T.; Steelman, Z. How does strategic alignment affect firm performance? The roles of
information technology investment and environmental uncertainty. MIS Q. 2019, 43, 453–474. [CrossRef]
64. Chanias, S.; Myers, M.D.; Hess, T. Digital transformation strategy making in pre-digital organizations: The case of a financial
services provider. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 17–33. [CrossRef]
65. Bouncken, R.; Barwinski, R. Shared digital identity and rich knowledge ties in global 3D printing—A drizzle in the clouds?
Glob. Strategy J. 2021, 11, 81–108. [CrossRef]
66. Fitzgerald, M.; Kruschwitz, N.; Bonnet, D.; Welch, M. Embracing digital technology: A new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan
Manag. Rev. 2014, 55, 1.
67. Fredrich, V.; Bouncken, R.B.; Kraus, S. The race is on: Configurations of absorptive capacity, interdependence and slack resources
for interorganizational learning in coopetition alliances. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 101, 862–868. [CrossRef]
68. Werth, O.; Schwarzbach, C.; Rodríguez Cardona, D.; Breitner, M.H.; Graf von der Schulenburg, J.-M. Influencing factors for the
digital transformation in the financial services sector. Z. Gesamte Versicher. 2020, 109, 155–179. [CrossRef]