See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/371862958

Change Management Methods and Tools for Digital Transformation - A

systematic Literature Review

Conference Paper · June 2023

CITATIONS READS

0 1,805

4 authors:

Isabel Fischer Marcel Papert

Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg
8 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION 19 PUBLICATIONS 276 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Thomas Goertler Moritz Gimnich

Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg
10 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Isabel Fischer on 26 June 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CHANGE MANAGEMENT METHODS AND TOOLS FOR
DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION
A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
Isabel Fischer *
Marcel Papert **
Thomas Goertler **
Moritz Gimnich **
* University of Bamberg, Chair for Supply Chain Management, 96052 Bamberg,
Germany, isabel.fischer@uni-bamberg.de, corresponding author
** University of Bamberg, Chair for Supply Chain Management, 96052 Bamberg,
Germany, marcel.papert@uni-bamberg.de; thomas.goertler@uni-bamberg.de;
moritz-thomas.gimnich@stud.uni-bamberg.de

ABSTRACT
Purpose
Change management (CM), with its methods and tools, facilitates the implementation of
transformation processes in companies and along entire supply chains (SCs). However, with
the emergence of fast-moving and disruptive digital transformation (DT), traditional CM
tools may no longer be sufficient and may reach their limits. This study reviews the applica-
bility of existing CM tools in the context of DT.
Design/methodology/approach
Drawing on a systematic literature review and a detailed content analysis, we offer concep-
tual insights into the applicability of CM methods in the digital era. This is reflected in an
extensive study of the intersection of CM and DT literature.
Findings
We identified various CM methods and tools become relevant for organizations when in-
tending to undergo DT. Analysing these, we found shortcomings in traditional CM ap-
proaches during DT. We therefore conclude that companies need to adapt their CM proce-
dures towards a more dynamic approach in order to maintain competitive SCs when con-
fronted with digitally shaped environments.
Research limitations/implications
This study is conceptual in nature and is based on results from content analysis of the extant
literature. As such, it offers potential for further analysis in the form of empirical studies to
validate the findings.
Practical implications
Our findings support SC actors in adapting their existing CM tool portfolio for going digital
when confronted with environments of digital disruptions.
Original/value
This study considers the well-established approach of CM in conjunction with the current
phenomenon of DT, which possesses disruptive potential for entire SCs.

Keywords: Change Management, Digital Transformation, Systematic Literature Review,

Strategy, Vision, Leadership, Technology.

1
1. INTRODUCTION
Digital transformation (DT) and its associated changes have posed major challenges to compa-
nies since the beginning of digitization (Roblek et al., 2021). Digital technologies such as Big
Data, Cloud Computing or Robotic Process Automation (Agrawal and Narain, 2018;
Büyüközkan and Göçer, 2018) promote technological change not only in individual companies
but also across entire supply chains (SCs), generating substantial uncertainty and complexity
(Spieth et al., 2021). To seize the advantages of digital technologies in companies and SCs,
these need to be implemented efficiently. In this context, change management (CM) helps to
anchor innovations in companies and SCs (Errida et al., 2017; Fawcett and Waller, 2014; Stank
et al., 2011). These include the introduction of new operating procedures, adequate communi-
cation about the changes, and education and training, but also challenging tasks such as reduc-
ing resistance among unsettled employees, with the aim of creating acceptance of the change
and the new processes (Flechsig et al., 2022; Milliken, 2012).
Change management as an established concept offers measures to ensure the long-term success
of transformative activities (Dörries et al., 2021; Henke et al., 2020). However, when it comes
to the implementation of digital technologies, traditional CM approaches might reach a limit
and do not sufficiently take into account the challenges arising from the implementation of a
disruptive digitalization project. Against this background, this paper investigates whether the
applicability of traditional CM approaches is given in a digital context or whether adjustments
are necessary to support this comprehensive transformation. Therefore, the research question
that arises from these considerations is as follows: What change management methods and tools
are required to manage digital transformation projects?
The purpose of this study is thus to advance our understanding of CM techniques in the context
of digital transformation in companies and supply chains in turbulent times. Based on a sys-
tematic literature review (vom Brocke et al., 2009), we examined 36 publications towards CM
methods and tools for DT projects. By applying a content analysis (Mayring, 2019), we assessed
the articles in terms of their suitability for digital transformation processes. The analysis re-
vealed several CM methods and tools that are presented in a structured form. The authors be-
lieve the results can advance the necessary research on CM in DT and that they are managerially
important for practitioners working in the DT context.
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides the conceptual background and explains
the relevant terms of CM and DT for this research. In Chapter 3 we introduce our methodology.
Section 4 presents our findings concerning CM methods and tools for digital transformation.
Finally, Section 5 offers a conclusion, limitations, and avenues for further research.

2. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

2.1. Change Management

2.1.1. Definition of Change Management
Change management is an approach to dealing successfully with change processes in order to
achieve the transition to a desired end state. These processes result, for example, from strategic
growth, the evolution of business models, competitive advantage, technological innovation, or
supply chain redesign (Philip, 2021; Hughes et al., 2023). Hence, the development and imple-
mentation of goal-oriented strategies are linked to CM (Giebe, 2019). To realize this, the CM
process serves to align expectations, to communicate the need for change, and to provide edu-
cation and training for employees to support the transition (Milliken, 2012).

2
2.1.2. Theoretical Models of Change Management
The scientific literature understands Kurt Lewin’s Three Step Model as the precursor to any
CM model (Bellantuono et al., 2021). In a business context, the core idea of Lewin’s work is
that change implies new behaviors and that old behaviors in companies must be discarded be-
fore change processes can take place (Bellantuono et al., 2021). Originally, Lewin (1939) ar-
gued within his field theory that unknown situations can be psychologically described as a cog-
nitively unstructured region for the individual, and that, accordingly, it is unclear which actions
are necessary to achieve a certain goal, which ultimately results in generally uncertain behavior.
Lewin (1947) asserted, in the subsequent Three Step Model, that social habits lead to a general
resistance to change and that these very habits must be broken in the first step by accelerating
forces to unfreeze them. To increase the performance of a group, the second step is to change
the behavior, which Lewin (1947) described as the moving phase, and then to consolidate it,
which he referred to as refreezing. Lewin (1947) stated that, because of the opposing forces,
groups tend to revert to the original behavior, so the new state must be consolidated.
John Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model is one of the most widely used CM models (Bel-
lantuono et al., 2021). In the first step, a sense of urgency must be evoked to achieve the neces-
sary cooperation (Kotter, 1996). The second step involves establishing a guiding coalition be-
cause change cannot happen through one person alone (Kotter, 1996). According to the third
step, a shared vision must be created, as it will keep the goal in mind, motivate employees, and
support coordination (Kotter, 1996). The fourth stage encompasses the need for the vision and
strategy to be communicated by the leading coalition in order to increase understanding and
commitment among employees so that resistance to change processes is reduced (Kotter, 1996).
While the first four steps already promote the empowerment of employees, further barriers must
be removed with the fifth step, which can arise from structures, skills, systems, or superiors
(Kotter, 1996). In addition, according to the sixth step, short-term successes must be planned
and created to demonstrate the benefit of the change and potentially to engage more employees
(Kotter, 1996). The seventh step restricts the sixth in the sense that short-term successes are to
be celebrated, but “victory” should not be declared too hastily, especially when the sense of
urgency has diminished. Finally, the eighth step describes how a fundamental culture of change
is essential because shared values versus behavioral norms are more difficult to change.
In addition to the models mentioned here, several others exist, such as those of Nadler and
Tushman (1980), Tichy (1983), and Burke and Litwin (1992). However, Lewin's (1947) Three
Step Model provides a useful framework for conceptualizing planned change (Greer and Ford,
2009) and is therefore selected alongside Kotter's (1996) model.

2.2. Digital Transformation

In an era of Industry 4.0, which is seen as a new chapter in the management and control of the
industrial value chain, the term DT often comes up (Ghobakhloo and Iranmanesh, 2021). There
is, as yet, no generally accepted definition for DT. However, Uhl and Gollenia (2014) consid-
ered DT to be a specialized type of business transformation in which information technology
(IT) plays a dominant role in transforming the strategy, structure, culture, and processes of
companies. According to Aasi et al. (2022), this requires an overarching organizational change
and the implementation of digital technologies. Hanelt et al. (2021) expressed themselves in a
similar way, defining DT as an organizational change that is triggered and shaped by the wide-
spread use of digital technologies. It is characterized by continuous change and, at the same
time, often exhibits an episodic character (Hanelt et al., 2021). According to Philip (2021), such
an episode, and thus the DT, can be planned or forced. A planned DT occurs as a result of
internal factors, such as when companies seek competitive advantage and therefore make a

3
conscious decision to invest in technological innovations (Philip, 2021). In contrast, extrinsic
or exogenous factors force companies into a forced transformation, which is characterized by a
low degree of voluntariness and often rapid and unprepared implementation (Philip, 2021).
According to Oswald and Krcmar (2018), a data-driven view is the starting point for DT pro-
cesses taking place on a macro and micro level, with the former describing the entire ecosystem
of a market, while the latter limits the view to the individual company. Nonetheless, a DT is an
immensely resource-intensive and complex process that can be further characterized by inevi-
tability, irreversibility, rapidity, and uncertainty (Ghobakhloo and Iranmanesh, 2021).

2.3. Change Management in the Context of Digital Transformation

Digital transformation requires comprehensive organizational change (Aasi et al., 2022).
Change processes result, among other aspects, from technological innovation (Philip, 2021).
For this reason, change management is a useful concept to handle these change processes. Dö-
rries et al. (2021) compared Lewin and Kotter’s CM models to the dimensions of DT. Bel-
lantuono et al. (2021) also analyzed DT in relation to CM literature. Digital transformation can
be considered a specialized type of business transformation, in which IT is really important for
the transformation of strategy, structure, and culture, as well as the processes of companies (Uhl
and Gollenia, 2014). Kotter’s model contains these aspects in its various phases. In addition,
Lewin’s model describes how social habits can lead to resistance to change (Lewin, 1947). For
example, a forced DT is associated with a low level of voluntariness (Philip, 2021). Therefore,
according to the model, these habits must be unfrozen, moved, and refrozen (Lewin, 1947). To
provide a theoretical framework for this study, we use the models of CM to examine the meth-
ods and tools used in the context of DT.
For the possible adaptation of CM in relation to DT, it is also necessary to consider existing
obstacles, as well as supporting factors (Dörries et al., 2021). Challenges include the coordina-
tion of collaboration, time constraints, and the transmission of information (Dörries et al.,
2021). Factors that can lead to the success of CM in DT include suitable communication to
circumvent and overcome resistance, the involvement of all those involved in the change, and
adequate management of the change (Dörries et al., 2021).
From the preceding comparison, we can further conclude that the CM methods and tools iden-
tified in the literature should be reviewed for their suitability to overcome these challenges, as
well as for supporting the DT with the help of the success factors.

2.4. The Importance of Change Management for Digital

Transformation of Supply Chain Management
Digital transformation is also an emergent topic in Supply Chain Management (SCM) (e.g.,
Agrawal and Narain, 2018; Henke et al., 2020). Companies are endeavoring to integrate inno-
vative digital technologies into their operations in order to stay competitive in a digital era
(Alexander et al., 2022; Hartley and Sawaya, 2019). These include, for example, Big Data, the
Internet of Things, Robotic Process Automation, Cloud Computing, or additive manufacturing,
to name a few (Agrawal and Narain, 2018; Büyüközkan and Göçer, 2018). Reasons for adopting
digital technologies in the supply chain (SC) include maintaining fitness in the digital age
(Agrawal and Narain, 2018), as well as flexibility, operational effectiveness in the form of time
and cost savings, rapid data-exchange capabilities between SC actors, or quality improvements
(Flechsig et al., 2022). These reasons, among others, lead overall to higher SCM efficiency for
the focal company, as well as its SC partners.

4
Relevant literature concurs that in profound SC changes, such as the implementation of digital
technologies, CM methods are indispensable (Fawcett and Waller, 2014; Hughes et al., 2023;
Milliken, 2012). With SCM being a multifaceted discipline, there is great potential for change
in this area. In addition to the implementation of modern technologies, other examples of SC-
related change are outsourcing assembly processes, a JIT implementation, roll-outs of new
product lines, or the introduction of sustainable practices (Errida et al., 2017; Greer and Ford,
2009; Thakur and Mangla, 2019). Hughes et al. (2023) recently emphasized the need for SCs
to become more resilient in order to deal with disruptions such as COVID-19 or Brexit, whereby
a profound redesign of current processes is required. It becomes clear that companies can only
survive in today's business environment if SC processes are constantly adapted to current con-
ditions (Fawcett and Waller, 2014; Milliken, 2012; van Hoek et al., 2010, van Hoek, 2020).
The multifaceted design of the SCM discipline not only catalyzes change (Greer and Ford,
2009) but also presents major challenges. Therefore, Ellinger and Ellinger (2014) argued that
SC managers need CM competencies to foster collaboration among all partners in the chain.
For the authors, a good SC leader is characterized by actively driving SC change. Stank et al.
(2011) underlined this by stating that SC managers need to strive for radical innovation to real-
ize the strategic potential of SCM. Thakur and Mangla (2019) added that managers should ac-
tively take CM initiatives when facing change. However, Ellinger and Ellinger (2014) found
that SC managers explicitly lack CM competencies, which require specific training.
It becomes clear that any changes or modifications in the supply chain require sufficient CM.
Fawcett and Waller (2014) even stated that CM might create competitive advantage for com-
panies dealing with change. The above-mentioned SC changes also include the DT and, in ad-
dition, the implementation of digital technologies. Therefore, a coordinated CM, with its meth-
ods and tools, is indispensable, which will be evaluated in the subsequent chapters.

3. METHODOLOGY
In line with vom Brocke et al. (2009), we performed a systematic literature review (SLR) to
identify relevant studies for our research focus on CM and DT. We followed their five-step
process to identify and refine literature samples for our scope of investigation. As pointed out
in the introduction, we examine the following research question: What change management
methods and tools are required to manage digital transformation projects? To examine this
research question, we searched for appropriate literature that is relevant to the object of the
study. Since this work examines CM in the context of DT, we reflected on these terms enriched
by various synonyms in the search string. We used Boolean operators and truncation characters
to combine the keywords into the following term:
("Change Management" OR "Implementation Management" OR "Organizational Change")
AND ("Digital Transformation" OR "Digital Change" OR "Digital Implementation" OR "Dig-
ital Technology")
We applied this search string in the five academic databases Business Source Ultimate, Science
Direct, Web of Science, Springer Link and Emerald. The search was performed using the Ad-
vanced Search Option in Title (TI) OR Keywords (KW) OR Abstract (AB) fields, without lim-
iting the search period. The data export took place in June 2022, which marks the upper limita-
tion of our data sample. As search specifications, we focused on academic journal articles as
well as research and review articles to ensure the quality of the publication in our literature
sample. Searching for this the string yielded a total of 178 results, of which the majority of
papers with 110 results originated from the Web of Science database. The sample was reduced
to 141 hits after the removal of duplicates. In order to maintain a clear focus of the relevant

5
literature, we applied two deselection criteria in the screening and evaluation process. The first
deselection criterion filtered the articles according to the research question formulated in the
introduction. Articles that do not relate to this question, in that they do not refer to either sub-
areas of digital transformation or any form of change in companies, are excluded from further
consideration. The second exclusion criterion refers to the discipline of the regarded publica-
tions. Literature results with a too strong or too specific focus on IT or a certain technology as
well as publications examining the public sector, social media or marketing were omitted for
the following screening process in order to specify the focus of the paper. The screening of the
titles reduced the final sample to 98 publications and evaluating the abstracts yielded 74 rele-
vant hits. In total, 36 articles were considered relevant for answering the research question. For
ensuring replication of the review process, Table 3.1 serves as a research protocol and summa-
rizes the steps we applied.
Table 3.1 Research Protocol for Literature Review
Business Source Ulti- Science Web of Springer
Databases Emerald
mate (via EBSCOhost) Direct Science Link
Search field Title, Abstract, Keywords

Data range No limitation of the search period up to the data export in June/2022
Research Articles, Articles,
Boolean/ Phrase, Aca- Journal
Search specifications
demic Journals, Articles
and Review Early Bus. and
Articles
Articles Access Mgmt.
Number of hits with search
string
45 23 110 0 0
The first exclusion criterion arises from the research question formulated in the
introduction. Articles that do not relate to this question, in that they do not refer
Deselection criterion I
to either sub-areas of digital transformation or any form of change in compa-
nies, are excluded from further consideration.
Literature results with a focus on IT that is too strong or specific, the public sec-
Deselection criterion II
tor, media, or marketing, are excluded from this paper.
After duplicate removal 141
After title screening 98
After abstract screening 74
After full-text screening 36

Regarding the analysis of the final sample, we applied the qualitative content analysis method
following Mayring (2019). Here, the research contributions were systematically examined and
evaluated through the formation of category systems. The author proposed two approaches for
the creation of the categorization systems: while the deductive categorization develops the cat-
egories on the basis of existing theoretical concepts on the material at hand, in the inductive
definition the categories are summarily derived from the material. In this paper, we followed
the inductive approach as it offers the possibility to represent the content of the studies as
closely to the subject matter as possible and without bias or presuppositions. Two authors, who
then discussed it with the other authors, carried the coding. After several iterations, the coding
was finalised.

4. RESULTS
In the following, the authors present the findings from the literature review and shows CM
methods and tools that are relevant for digital transformation projects.

6
4.1. Literature Review Results
In order to present the results of our review, Table 4.1 provides an indication of the papers
towards CM methods and tools in the context of DT projects.

Table 4.1: Overview of selected papers

Authors Year Title
Organizational Aspects in Achieving a Successful Digital Transformation: Case of an ERP
Aasi et al. 2022
System Change
Digital Transformation Models for the I4.0 Transition: Lessons from the Change Manage-
Bellantuono et al. 2021
ment Literature
‘We want change’, but who's we? How to transition cultural change in the digital era as a
Berges and Kon 2019
team
The impact of digital transformation on formal and informal organizational structures of
Bonanomi et al. 2020
large architecture and engineering firms
Bordeleau & Felden 2019 After the Plan: An Exploration of the Digitalization Application Barriers
Cortellazzo et al. 2019 The Role of Leadership in a Digitalized World: A Review
Das Change Management weiterentwickeln. Aktuelle Herausforderungen, Erfolgsfaktoren
Dörriers et al. 2021
und Anpassungen für die digitale Transformation
Elangovan et al. 2021 6B Model for Business-Aligned Digital Transformation
The bright side and the dark side of top management support in Digital Transformaion – A
Elbanna & Newman 2022
hermeneutical reading
Evans et al. 2021 Digital Enterprise Transformation: Lessons Learnt From Expert Experience
Gfrerer et al. 2021 Ready or Not: Managers' and Employees' Different Perceptions of Digital Readiness
Ghobakhloo & Iran- Digital transformation success under Industry 4.0: a strategic guideline for manufacturing
2021
manesh SMEs
Giebe 2019 The Chief Digital Officer–Savior for the Digitalization in German Banks?
Girrbach 2018 Change Management towards Digitalization and Innovation
Gudergan et al. 2019 Patterns of Digitization – What differentiates digitally mature organizations?
The impact of digital transformation on salespeople: an empirical investigation using the
Guenzi & Nijssen 2021
JD-R model
A Systematic Review of the Literature on Digital Transformation: Insights and Implications
Hanelt et al. 2021
for Strategy and Organizational Change
Kadir & Broberg 2020 Human well-being and system performance in the transition to industry 4.0
Are We Stuck in the Predigital Age? Embracing Technology-Mediated Change Manage-
Kanitz & Gonzalez 2021
ment in Organizational Change Research
Digital transformation in latecomer industries: CIO and CEO leadership lessons from
Kohli & Johnson 2011
Encana oil & gas (USA) inc
The ‘how’ of benefits management for digital technology: From engineering to asset man-
Love & Matthews 2019
agement
Machado et al. 2021 Digital organisational readiness: experiences from manufacturing companies
Investigating the elicitation of employees’ support towards digital workplace transfor-
Meske & Junglas 2020
mation
Mugge et al. 2020 Patterns of Digitization: A Practical Guide to Digital Transformation
How can chief operating officers succeed in driving, growing and transforming their busi-
Ng 2021
nesses with digital technology?
Philip 2021 Viewing Digital Transformation through the Lens of Transformational Leadership
The Role and Meaning of the Digital Transformation as a Disruptive Innovation on Small
Roblek et al. 2021
and Medium Manufacturing Enterprises
Five Management Pillars for Digital Transformation Integrating the Lean Thinking Philos-
Romero et al. 2019
ophy
Sathananthan et al. 2020 Digital Value Dependency Framework for Digital Transformation
Attitude towards Change Management in Digitization Initiatives in an Organization – A
Sen & Gupta 2020
Survey
Shirish & Batuek- Technology renewal, user resistance, user adoption: status quo bias theory revisited
2021
ueno
Technological Frames in the Digital Age: Theory, Measurement Instrument, and Future
Spieth et al. 2021
Research Areas
Stefanic et al. 2019 More than technological evolution: organizational and business impact of Industry 4.0
The influence of social interaction on the dynamics of employees’ psychological contract-
van der Schaft et al. 2020
ing in digitally transforming organizations

7
 Learning & Development in Times of Digital Transformation: Facilitating a Culture of
Vey et al. 2017
Change and Innovation
Windt et al. 2019 Understanding Leadership Challenges and Responses in Data-driven Transformations

4.2. Change Management Methods and their Suitability for the

Support of Digital Transformation
The literature analysis identified several relevant points regarding the practical implementation
of change in the context of DT, relating to the phases of implementation, vision and strategy,
the use of technology, and collaboration in companies and along supply chains. Further, we
also identify requirements and challenges for executives.

4.2.1. Phases of Implementation

We synthesized the pertinent literature into three phases of implementing change in organiza-
tions and supply chains. This involves aspects to be ensured or observed in advance (referred
to below as the preliminary phase), supporting or accompanying measures during implementa-
tion (implementation phase), and activities following implementation that are intended to en-
sure its sustainable success (subsequent phase). Throughout all phases, CM has a supporting
function, as it can assist with intervention and ensure a smooth change process (Giebe, 2019).
The starting point and reason for initiating a change is the recognition that existing organiza-
tional structures no longer fit the changing environment and need to be changed. In the prelim-
inary phase, it is important to inform and communicate sufficiently within the organization and
to point out the necessity for the change in order to prepare all those involved. Possible frictions
need to be reduced, since an announcement about changes in the daily working environment is
perceived as a disruptive event (Kadir and Broberg, 2020; van der Schaft et al., 2020). The aim
in this phase is to develop an organization-wide understanding of why investments in new tech-
nologies are made and, at the same time, to determine whether the necessary competencies for
dealing with the new technology are in place (Kadir and Broberg, 2020). If central competen-
cies are scare, organizations face a capability gap that needs to be closed before implementation,
for example, internally, through coordinated training and education measures, or externally, by
acquiring competencies from other SC players (Bellantuono et al., 2021; Sen and Gupta, 2020).
If the environment, structures, and attitudes of all of the stakeholders are receptive to the up-
coming changes, the implementation phase can continue (Gfrerer et al., 2021).
In this phase employees must actively participate in the change, as involvement and social in-
teraction during change processes facilitate understanding and awareness. Therefore, change
leaders should continuously inform people about the ongoing changes and establish a system
for collecting feedback from the users. Missing out these activities can trigger frustration among
employees and foster an overly hesitant use of new technologies, resulting in a shift to old ways
of working. Furthermore, it should be ensured that all stakeholders know how to use the new
technologies; at the same time, they need sufficient freedom for exploration and adaptation
(Kadir and Broberg, 2020; van der Schaft et al., 2020).
In the subsequent phase the focus lies on standardizing new ways of working and dismantling
obsolete structures (Kadir and Broberg, 2020). Life-cycle management systems should be es-
tablished to maintain and improve the new digital solutions by taking user feedback into account
(Kadir and Broberg, 2020). In addition, it is useful to designate a person, such as the chief
digital officer (CDO), as a contact person for any questions or concerns (Giebe, 2019). The
CDO is also the person responsible for anchoring a culture of change throughout the entire

8
organization with the help of a long-term digital strategy (see also point 4.2), which includes a
fundamental openness to new or innovative business models (Giebe, 2019; Roblek et al., 2021).

4.2.2. Vision and Strategy

The literature emphasizes the importance of a suitable long-term vision and strategy, as both
elements are seen as prerequisites for a successful digitization project (Romero et al., 2019;
Bordeleau and Felden, 2019; Roblek et al., 2021). The literature sees the CDO as responsible
for this, as this role can influence the corporate strategy and mindset of senior management
(Giebe, 2019). Strategic responsibility in general is located among the top management, which
should concretize its vision of the DT through focused and systemic changes, which at the same
time also forms the basis for the transformation to a digital culture (Bellantuono et al., 2021;
Girrbach, 2018; Roblek et al., 2021). For successful implementation of the vision and strategy,
sufficient communication is essential, as well as embedding them in all of the activities of ex-
ecutives (Mugge et al., 2020). To support implementation of the strategy, it is useful to break it
down into practices to be adapted and to create clearly articulated performance metrics that can
be used as a basis for evaluating the success and effectiveness of the practices introduced
(Elangovan et al., 2021). The results from unsuccessful initiatives should also be critically an-
alysed, allowing for adjustment if necessary (Bordeleau and Felden, 2019; Machado et al.,
2021).

4.2.3. The Role of Technology

Technology plays a vital role in assisting with change. As such, technologies such as artificial
intelligence can be used to analyze data sets and to automatically detect and respond to changes
based on customer feedback (Hanelt et al., 2021). According to Evans et al. (2021), digital
platforms are necessary for legal changes and a rapid response to market changes. To manage
the cultural change required for successful DT, Berges and Kon (2019) emphasized the use of
apps to promote an intensive assessment of employees and supervisors in the company. The
literature presents specific requirements for the application of these technologies. As such, the
use should be demand-driven and oriented (Bordeleau and Felden, 2019; Love and Matthews,
2019). Further, technologies should include functionalities that enable networking and connect-
edness among employees, which is a supporting factor for DT (Meske and Junglas, 2020). Ac-
cording to Cortellazzo et al. (2019), digital technologies must be internalized and integrated
into employees’ daily tasks. Successful adoption requires a reduction of the resistance that IT
employees face in the process, for example, by increasing employees’ self-efficacy in
perceiving change by investing in their professional skills (Shirish and Batuekueno, 2021).
The literature also contains suggestions on how the management of technological change can
be carried out. For this purpose, Spieth et al. (2021) presented a measurement tool that explains
and evaluates the diversity of technological framework conditions on an individual level. Thus,
appropriate tools help to assess the actors’ understanding of the change taking place in the com-
pany and to understand why they either show resistance to the introduction of new technologies
or use the technologies differently in each case (Spieth et al., 2021). Furthermore, Sathananthan
et al. (2020) presented a framework for estimating the benefits of digital projects; they added
that this can measure the value of the technologies for these projects, enabling the prioritization
and effective management of these projects and ultimately transformational change.
Kanitz and Gonzalez (2021) presented a possible restructuring of pure CM toward technology-
enabled CM. According to the authors, the use of digital technologies permeates the practice of
change. By collecting and analyzing data, a holistic overview of the progress of change is cre-
ated and measures can be adjusted accordingly. The authors see CM as a continuous process,
where stakeholders can collaborate using technology to implement change. Among other

9
things, faster feedback can be facilitated between those who manage change and those who
implement it, and rapid communication can be established (Kanitz and Gonzalez, 2021).

4.2.4. Cooperation in Companies and along Supply Chains

As the focus of CM does not lie on technology, but on people and how they deal with it (Ng,
2021), we consider the collaboration in companies and SCs when implementing digital change.
For effective collaboration and knowledge sharing in DT, Bonanomi et al., (2020) emphasized
the importance of informal organizational structures – interpersonal relationships that are not
formally predetermined or developed by the formal structure of an organization. The authors
substantiated this using the example of superiors often being doubtful about digital technolo-
gies, as well as employees avoiding hierarchies to inform themselves and rather seeking advice
outside of these structures (Bonanomi et al., 2020). This is consistent with the findings of Cor-
tellazzo et al. (2019), who stated that organizational boundaries within and between all stake-
holders need to be overcome in order to democratize the decision-making process. Ng (2021)
also concluded that cross-functional teams are superior to single silos for fostering cooperation
and information sharing.
Furthermore, according to Cortellazzo et al. (2019), digitalization offers an opportunity to ex-
ploit new possibilities for communication, for example, via virtual teams, which can increase
speed and access to information, as well as efficiency. In this context, the authors stated that
DT allows stakeholders to be involved in real time, which requires their participation. Active
participation fosters the technical skills of employees, as well as diminishing stakeholder con-
cerns as they actively engage with the new technology (Kadir and Broberg, 2020). To accom-
pany changes in companies through the implementation of DT, a focus is also placed on corpo-
rate culture. A cosmopolitan culture of recognition among employees, supervisors, and teams
is important to promote collaboration, as it fosters an encouraging feedback culture and open-
mindedness among all stakeholders, which promotes innovation and increases competitiveness
(Berges and Kon, 2019; Roblek et al., 2021). Further, The employment of change agents and
consultants as learning and development professionals is recommended (Vey et al., 2017)

4.2.5. Requirements for Executives

When managing change in the context of DT, executives must consider various requirements.
Managers at every level need to demonstrate behaviors such as caring or empathy toward em-
ployees, thus achieving a culture of community (Philip, 2021). In managing DT, leaders must
prepare employees for longer-lasting learning regarding digital competencies (Berges and Kon,
2019). The aim is to foster an organization-wide digital readiness for future DT initiatives and
to ensure a higher level of commitment to digital change. This can be achieved through appro-
priate training for the development of digital skills (Berges and Kon, 2019; Gfrerer et al., 2021)
and must be established in the psychological contract (Philip, 2021). This digital readiness and
commitment must also be shown by the leaders themselves (Bellantuono et al., 2021; Bordeleau
and Felden, 2019; Elangovan et al., 2021; Gfrerer et al., 2021). This manifests itself in the
analysis of the competitive environment and the evaluation of opportunities and risks when
introducing new technologies (Bellantuono et al., 2021). The required leadership style should
be transformative and innovative (Stefanic et al., 2019). Hanelt et al. (2021) identified three
leadership skills: DT awareness, or being familiar with the diversity and quantity of data and
with different technologies and their characteristics; DT acceleration, which fosters the devel-
opment of novel digital processes and products based on the available resources; and, lastly,
DT harmonization capabilities, encompassing organizational change processes.
Moreover, executives must be capable of assessing the company’s level of digital maturity and
defining DT goals on this basis (Bellantuono et al., 2021). Leaders should hold workshops to

10
communicate the necessity of DT to stakeholders, to share milestones in the change project,
and to demonstrate its benefits (Bellantuono et al., 2021). As already mentioned, management
is responsible for creating a digital vision and strategy and for implementing an innovative
corporate culture (Bellantouno et al., 2021; Evans et al., 2021; Gudergan et al., 2019). It should
also establish a transition team that is assigned a defined role to manage DT initiatives, consist-
ing of different functional areas and hierarchical levels (Bellantuono et al., 2021). The team
should have a clear vision regarding the current business processes (Bellantuono et al., 2021)
and foster agile and decentralized decision-making (Bordeleau and Felden, 2019). In contrast
with the employees, executives do not need to possess adept technical knowledge (Windt et al.,
2019); rather, they need to understand how technologies can be applied (Cortellazzo et al.,
2019). Particularly important is the commitment of the Chief Executive Officers (CEO), as they
take responsibility for change projects (Evans et al., 2021). Kohli and Johnson (2011) outlined
that the success of DT requires close collaboration between the CEO and CIO. The latter is
responsible for communicating the benefits of IT, embedding digital technologies in operational
processes, seeking revenue-generating opportunities and guiding principles to be established
regarding information systems, and the efficient provision of IT services (Kohli and Johnson,
2011).
On their DT journey, managers will encounter many challenges, one of which is posed by in-
formal networks. Leaders must ensure that technically skilled employees do not feel overbur-
dened as a result of informal roles for which they are not formally recognized, as this would
lead to a reduction in their productivity (Bonanomi et al., 2020). In this context, they also need
to prevent knowledge loss when no formal structures are used. To achieve this, managers should
create an effective network for disseminating knowledge and make informal structures trans-
parent (Roblek et al., 2021; Windt et al., 2019). Another challenge lies in sufficient communi-
cation. Giebe (2019) stated that effective communication requires communicating challenges
with employees, establishing awareness, and developing strategies that engage and empower
all stakeholders. In this regard, Cortellazzo et al. (2019) found that messages should be con-
veyed clearly and in an appropriate manner. Appropriate communication with employees is
extremely relevant, as it can be a long time before they accept new technological solutions and
processes (Giebe, 2019). Therefore, building trust is particularly important, as employees have
privacy concerns when system implementations enhance surveillance (Cortellazzo et al., 2019).
Furthermore, top management support regarding system implementations also has its down-
sides (Elbanna and Newman, 2022; Guenzi and Nijssen, 2021). On the one hand, farsightedness
and increased communication of long-term strategic effects of a new system have a negative
impact on operational processes (Elbanna and Newman, 2022). On the other hand, employees
perceive a higher investment in digital technologies by top management as increased commit-
ment, which increases their uncertainties about the future and correspondingly raises their stress
levels (Guenzi and Nijssen, 2021). Paradoxically, CM activities, such as reducing concerns
about DT, have an opposing effect in that insecurities arise among employees about increased
requirements or higher workloads (Guenzi and Nijssen, 2021). This is in line with van der
Schaft et al. (2020), who emphasized that change leads to anxiety-filled expectations of the
future, which decreases employee motivation and commitment. Executives need to be aware of
these downsides of CM, e.g., an increase in stress levels due to a sense of urgency or proximity
to change. They need to implement further measures such as appropriate training and support
to minimize such negative effects (Guenzi and Nijssen, 2021). Furthermore, it is necessary to
analyze workloads to establish possible redesigns of activities (Guenzi and Nijssen, 2021).

11
5. CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This paper has attempted to explore the connection between CM and DT. Based on the literature
analysis, we examined relevant CM methods and tools that companies should take into account
when undergoing digital transformation projects. We clustered the needed actions in several
main topics: first, companies should be aware of the different phases of implementation as it
was already pointed out in the Three Step Model of Kurt Lewin (Lewin, 1974). To support
companies in surviving these phases, we examined needed actions at each stage of their DT
implementation journey. A second relevant consideration is the development of an appropriate
vision and strategy that reflects the goals of DT implementation. In order to create awareness
of the employees, this vision and strategy have to be disseminated in the entire organization.
Third, as a specific of DT, CM also needs to consider digital technologies in the design of their
implementation measures. We presented findings of pertinent literature toward the application
of technology in a condensed way. Forth, we found that collaboration between different actors
in the transforming organization need to collaborate and roles need to be explicitly distributed.
Lastly, executives of all levels have a special role in the process of managing change. In this
context, we examined the appropriate leadership style as well as needed managerial capabilities.
Further, we found challenges executives face when leading CM initiatives.
Considering the identified CM methods and tools, we state that in comparison to traditional
non-digital transformation initiatives, DT-related CM needs to be dynamic in order to be able
to face the unstable and turbulent business environment. Therefore, we recommend that the
rather static models of Kotter (Eight Step Change Model) and Lewin (Three Step Model) might
be adjusted for DT to be able to deal with the dynamic challenges of DT. One reason for this is
that digital technologies and their effects are so multifaceted that it is not possible to implement
them in companies according to a predefined, uniform concept. On the other hand, some instru-
ments of CM, such as top management support or communicating a sense of urgency, in con-
junction with an emphasis on long-term strategic goals, also have downsides in connection with
DT, as such activities increase uncertainty among employees. This marks the theoretical con-
tribution of our paper, which has examined the suitability of CM activities in connection with
the phenomenon of DT. However, the adaption of the models towards a framework that also
reflects the dynamics of DT marks an interesting avenue of further research. The existing mod-
els can be enriched by our findings in order to create a DT-suitable framework. In terms of a
practical contribution, our findings should create awareness among change managers and sup-
ply chain managers who are facing projects concerning the implementation of digital technol-
ogies. We encourage them to rethink existing CM methods toward a more dynamic approach
that is conducive to the turbulent times that entire supply chains are facing.
However, this study also comes with some limitations. First, it suffers from the general meth-
odological weaknesses of a systematic literature review. The findings of this paper build on the
36 papers identified, which represent just a fraction of the numerous publications in the research
area of CM and DT. We also did not perform a complementary forward and backward search,
which would have broadened the number of hits. A second limitation relates to the lack of an
additional categorization of our results according to the different industries to which the authors
refer. Lastly, because our results are based on a literature study, an empirical verification of the
results is missing, which offers interesting potential for further studies. Research should there-
fore be conducted, preferably in a practical environment, into the extent to which the methods
and tools of change management can specifically be adapted to DT, so that they provide differ-
ent solutions to various scenarios that executives can draw upon in the context of DT.

12
REFERENCES
Aasi, P., Grahns, E., Geijer, R. and Rusu, L. (2022). “Organizational Aspects in Achieving a
Successful Digital Transformation: Case of an ERP System Change”, in Themistocleous, M.
and Papadaki, M. (Eds.), Information Systems (EMCIS 2021), pp. 653–666.
Agrawal, P. and Narain, R. (2018). Digital supply chain management: An Overview, IOP
Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., 455, pp. 1–6.
Alexander, A., Blome, C., Schleper, M.C. and Roscoe, S. (2022). “Managing the ‘new nor-
mal’: the future of operations and supply chain management in unprecedented times”, Inter-
national Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 42, No. 8, pp. 1061–1076.
Bellantuono, N., Nuzzi, A., Pontrandolfo, P. and Scozzi, B. (2021). “Digital Transformation
Models for the I4.0 Transition: Lessons from the Change Management Literature”, Sustaina-
bility, Vol. 13, No. 23, pp. 1–40.
Berges, R.P. and Kon, F. (2019). “‘We want change’, but who's we? How to transition cultural
change in the digital era as a team”, Strategic HR Review, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 210–214.
Bonanomi, M.M., Hall, D.M., Staub-French, S., Tucker, A. and Talamo, C.M.L. (2020). “The
impact of digital transformation on formal and informal organizational structures of large ar-
chitecture and engineering firms”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 872–892.
Bordeleau, F. and Felden, C. (2019). “After the Plan: An Exploration of the Digitalization
Application Barriers”, Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2019),pp. 1–10.
Büyüközkan, G. and Göçer, F. (2018). “Digital Supply Chain: Literature review and a pro-
posed framework for future research”, Computers in Industry, 97, pp. 157–177.
Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E. and Zampieri, R. (2019). “The Role of Leadership in a Digitalized
World: A Review”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 1–21.
Dörries, F., Wichering, M. and Kersten, W. (2021). “Das Change Management weiterentwi-
ckeln. Aktuelle Herausforderungen, Erfolgsfaktoren und Anpassungen für die digitale Trans-
formation”, Industrie 4.0 Management, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 50–54.
Elangovan, P., Seshadri, S. and Seetharaman, P. (2021). “6B Model for Business-Aligned Dig-
ital Transformation”, IT Professional, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 17–22.
Elbanna, A. and Newman, M. (2022). “The bright side and the dark side of top management
support in Digital Transformaion – A hermeneutical reading”, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, Vol. 175, pp. 1–16.
Ellinger, A. and Ellinger, A. (2014). “Leveraging human resource development expertise to
improve supply chain managers' skills and competencies”, European Journal of Training and
Development, Vol. 38, No. 1/2, pp. 118–135.
Errida, A. Lotfi, B. and Semma, E. (2017). “Supply chain management and organizational
change: Integrating an activity after its subcontracting in a Moroccan construction company”,
International Colloquium on Logistics and Supply Chain Management.
Evans, N., Qureshi, A. and Miklosik, A. (2021). “Digital Enterprise Transformation: Lessons
Learnt From Expert Experience”, in Garcia Perez, A. and Simkin, L. (Eds.), pp. 268–275.
Fawcett, S.E. and Waller, M.A. (2014). “Supply Chain Game Changers-Mega, Nano, and Vir-
tual Trends-And Forces That Impede Supply Chain Design (i.e., Building a Winning Team)”,
J. Bus. Logist., Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 157–164.

13
Flechsig, C. Anslinger, F. and Lasch, R. (2022). “Robotic Process Automation in purchasing
and supply management: A multiple case study on potentials, barriers, and implementation”,
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 1–40.
Gfrerer, A., Hutter, K., Füller, J. and Ströhle, T. (2021). “Ready or Not: Managers' and Em-
ployees' Different Perceptions of Digital Readiness”, California Management Review, Vol.
63, No. 2, pp. 23–48.
Ghobakhloo, M. and Iranmanesh, M. (2021). “Digital transformation success under Industry
4.0: a strategic guideline for manufacturing SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 1533–1556.
Giebe, C. (2019). “The Chief Digital Officer–Savior for the Digitalization in German Banks?”,
Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 6–15.
Girrbach, P. (2018). “Change Management towards Digitalization and Innovation”, in Dvou-
lety, O., Lukes, M. and Misar, J. (Eds.), pp. 357–368.
Greer, B.M. and Ford, M.W. (2009). “Managing change in supply chains: A process compar-
ison”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30, No.2, pp. 47–63.
Gudergan, G., Mugge, P., Kwiatkowski, A., Abbu, H., Michaelis, T.L. and Krechting, D.
(2019). “Patterns of Digitization – What differentiates digitally mature organizations?” 2019
IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (Itmc), pp. 1–8.
Guenzi, P. and Nijssen, E.J. (2021). “The impact of digital transformation on salespeople: an
empirical investigation using the JD-R model”, pp. 130–149.
Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D. and Marante, C.A. (2021). “A Systematic Review of the
Literature on Digital Transformation: Insights and Implications for Strategy and Organiza-
tional Change”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 58, No. 5, pp. 1159–1197.
Hartley, J.L. and Sawaya, W.J. (2019). “Tortoise, not the hare: Digital transformation of sup-
ply chain business processes”, Business Horizons, Vol. 62, No. 6, pp. 707–715.
Henke, M., Besenfelder, C., Kaczmarek, S. and Fiolka, M. (2020). “A Vision of Digitalization
in Supply Chain Management and Logistics”, Conference on Production Systems and Logis-
tics, pp. 277–286.
Houlihan, J.B. (1985). “International Supply Chain Management”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Materials Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 22–38.
Huan, S.H., Sheoran, S.K. and Wang, G. (2004). “A review and analysis of supply chain op-
erations reference (SCOR) model”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 9, No.1, pp. 23–29.
Hughes, M.M., Zhou, Z., Zinn, W. and Knemeyer, A.M. (2023). “Plastic response to disrup-
tions: Significant redesign of supply chains”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 44, No.1, pp.
80–108.
Kadir, B.A. and Broberg, O. (2020). “Human well-being and system performance in the tran-
sition to industry 4.0”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 76, pp. 1–13.
Kanitz, R. and Gonzalez, K. (2021). “Are We Stuck in the Predigital Age? Embracing Tech-
nology-Mediated Change Management in Organizational Change Research”, Journal of Ap-
plied Behavioral Science, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 447–458.
Kohli, R. and Johnson, S. (2011). “Digital transformation in latecomer industries: CIO and
CEO leadership lessons from Encana oil & gas (USA) inc”, MIS Quarterly Executive, Vol. 10,
No. 4, pp. 141–156.

14
Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Lambert, D.M., and Cooper, M.C. (2000). “Issues in Supply Chain Management”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 29, No.1, pp. 65–83.
Lewin, K. (1939). “Field Theory and Experiment in Social Psychology: Concepts and Meth-
ods”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp. 868–896.
Lewin, K. (1947). “Frontiers in Group Dynamics. Concept, Method and Reality in Social Sci-
ence; Social Equilibria and Social Change”, Vol. 1, pp. 5–41.
Love, P and Matthews, J. (2019). “The ‘how’ of benefits management for digital technology:
From engineering to asset management”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 107, pp. 1–15.
Machado, C.G., Winroth, M., Almstrom, P., Oberg, A.E., Kurdve, M. and AlMashalah, S.
(2021). “Digital organisational readiness: experiences from manufacturing companies”, Jour-
nal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 32, No. 9, pp. 167–182.
Mayring, P. (2021). Qualitative content analysis: a step-by-step guide. SAGE.
Meske, C. and Junglas, I. (2020). “Investigating the elicitation of employees’ support towards
digital workplace transformation”, Behaviour & Information Technology, pp. 1–17.
Milliken, A.L. (2012). “The Importance of Change Management in Supply Chain”, Journal of
Business Forecasting Vol. 31, pp. 4–9.
Mohanty, R.P. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2000). “Reengineering of a supply chain management
system: A case study”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 90–104.
Mugge, P., Abbu, H., Michaelis, T.L., Kwiatkowski, A. und Gudergan, G. (2020), “Patterns
of Digitization: A Practical Guide to Digital Transformation”, Research Technology Manage-
ment, Vol. 63 No. 2, S. 27–35.
Ng, D. (2021., “How can chief operating officers succeed in driving, growing and transforming
their businesses with digital technology?”, Journal of Securities Operations & Custody, Vol.
13, No. 4, pp. 308–319.
Park, K.O. and Koh, C.E. (2015). “Effect of change management capability in real-time envi-
ronment: an information orientation perspective in supply chain management”, Behaviour &
Information Technology, Vol. 34, No.1, pp. 94–104.
Philip, J. (2021). “Viewing Digital Transformation through the Lens of Transformational
Leadership”, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 31, No.
2, pp. 114–129.
Roblek, V., Meško, M., Pušavec, F. and Likar, B. (2021). “The Role and Meaning of the Dig-
ital Transformation as a Disruptive Innovation on Small and Medium Manufacturing Enter-
prises”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 1–18.
Romero, D., Flores, M., Herrera, M. and Resendez, H. (2019). “Five Management Pillars for
Digital Transformation Integrating the Lean Thinking Philosophy”, IEEE International Con-
ference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (Ice/Itmc), pp. 1–8.
Sathananthan, S., Gamrad, D. and Myrzik, J. (2020). “Digital Value Dependency Framework
for Digital Transformation”, ICEIS, pp. 643–655.
Sen, S. and Gupta, P. (2020). “Attitude towards Change Management in Digitization Initia-
tives in an Organization – A Survey”, Journal of General Management Research, Vol. 7, No.
2, pp. 27–39.

15
 Shirish, A. and Batuekueno, L. (2021). “Technology renewal, user resistance, user adoption:
status quo bias theory revisited”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 34,
No. 5, pp. 1–32.
Spieth, P., Röth, T., Clauss, T. and Klos, C. (2021). “Technological Frames in the Digital Age:
Theory, Measurement Instrument, and Future Research Areas”, Journal of Management Stud-
ies, Vol. 58, No. 7, pp. 1962–1993.
Stank, T.P., Paul D.J. and Autry, C.W. (2011). “The new supply chain agenda: a synopsis and
directions for future research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 41, No.10, pp. 940–955.
Stefanic, N., Bezic, H. and Greguric, P. (2019), “More than technological evolution: organi-
zational and business impact of Industry 4.0”, in Drezgic, S., Zikovic, S. und Tomljanovic, M.
(Hrsg.), S. 147–160.
Thakur, V. and Mangla, S.K. (2019). “Change management for sustainability: Evaluating the
role of human, operational and technological factors in leading Indian firms in home appli-
ances sector”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 213, pp. 847–862.
Uhl, A. and Gollenia, L.A. (2014). Digital enterprise transformation: A business-driven ap-
proach to leveraging innovative IT. Gower, Farnham, Burlington, VT.
van der Schaft, A., Lub, X., van der Heijden, B. and Solinger, O.N. (2020). “The influence of
social interaction on the dynamics of employees’ psychological contracting in digitally trans-
forming organizations”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 29,
No. 2, pp. 1–19.
van Hoek, R. (2020). “Responding to COVID-19 Supply Chain Risks—Insights from Supply
Chain Change Management, Total Cost of Ownership and Supplier Segmentation Theory”, in
Logistics, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 1–18.
van Hoek, R., Johnson, M., Godsell, J. and Birtwistle, A. (2010). “Changing chains”, The
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 230–250.
Vey, K., Fandel-Meyer, T., Zipp, J.S. and Schneider, C. (2017). “Learning & Development in
Times of Digital Transformation: Facilitating a Culture of Change and Innovation”, Interna-
tional Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 22–32.
vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Niehaves, B., Reimer, K., Plattfaut, R. and Cleven,
A. (2009). “Reconstructing the giant: On the importance of rigour in documenting the litera-
ture search process”, Vol. 161, No. 161.
Windt, B., Borgman, H. and Amrit, C. (2019). “Understanding Leadership Challenges and
Responses in Data-driven Transformations”, in Bui, T. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 4987–4996.

16

View publication stats