What Determines the Digital Transformation of SRDI Enterprises?—A Study of the TOE Framework-Based Configuration
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Model Construction
3.1. Technological Dimension
3.2. Organizational Level
3.3. Environmental Dimensions
3.4. Construction of Digital Transformation Driver Model for SRDI Enterprises
4. Research Design
4.1. Research Method: fsQCA
4.2. Variable Design
4.2.1. Outcome Variables
4.2.2. Conditional Variables
4.3. Case Selection
4.4. Data Calibration
5. Empirical Analysis
5.1. Necessary Condition Analysis
5.2. Conditional Grouping Analysis
5.2.1. Analysis of Groupings with High Digital Transformation
- (1)
- Organization-environment linkage. Organizational-environmental linkage type refers to the linkage matching between organizational and environmental conditions jointly contributing to the digital transformation of SRDI enterprises. Grouping 1 (~IO∗CS∗MT∗~GS∗CP) shows that SRDI firms with a digital strategy, a high-quality executive team, and high industry competitive pressure can achieve a high level of digital transformation despite the lack of innovation output and government subsidies. About 34.57% of the case firms can be explained by Grouping 1. When SRDI firms face intense industry competitive pressure, the executive team will develop a digital strategy that is in line with the industry development trend. Even if the lack of government subsidies does not provide financial support for the firm’s R&D and innovation activities and the firm’s innovation output is not satisfactory, the SRDI firms can also achieve a high level of digital transformation; because the firms themselves have certain market share and product uniqueness and their market position is difficult to be replaced, they can also achieve a high level of digital transformation.
- (2)
- Pressure-strategy synergy. Pressure-strategy synergistic type refers to the linked match between industry competitive pressure and company strategy together to help the digital transformation of SRDI firms. Grouping 2 (~TI*IO∗CS∗~MT∗~GS∗CP) shows that SRDI firms with digital strategies complemented by certain innovation outputs when facing high industry competitive pressures can achieve a high level of digital transformation even in the absence of a high-quality executive team and government subsidies. Approximately 24.71% of the case firms can be explained by Grouping 2. SRDI firms can also contribute to a high level of digital transformation when faced with high industry competitive pressure, guided by the company’s digital strategy and complemented by certain innovative outputs.
- (3)
- Organization-led. Organizational dominant refers to the synergy between the executive team and the organizational conditions such as the firm’s strategy for the digital transformation of SRDI firms. Grouping 3 (~TI*~IO∗CS∗MT∗GS∗~CP) suggests that even facing lower competitive pressure in the industry, SRDI firms with high-quality executive teams, which formulate their digital strategies based on the future development trend of the industry, supplemented by specific government subsidies, can achieve a high level of digital transformation. About 29.04% of the case firms can be explained by Grouping 3. When SRDI firms are facing lower industry competitive pressure, high-quality executive teams can foresee the future development trend of the industry and prioritize key resources and funds to ensure the implementation of the company’s digital strategy. At the same time, government subsidies also provide enterprises with certain support for digital transformation funds to alleviate the pressure on enterprise funds and stimulate enterprises to achieve a high-level of digital transformation.
- (4)
- All-factor-driven. All-factor-driven refers to the linkage and matching between technology, organization, and environmental conditions that jointly help manufacturing firms’ digital transformation. Grouping 4 (IO∗CS∗MT∗GS∗CP) suggests that SRDI firms with a digital strategy, a high-quality executive team, and facing high industry competitive pressures, complemented by higher innovation output and government subsidies, are better able to achieve a high level of digital transformation. About 40.43% of the case firms can be explained by Grouping 4. When SRDI firms face intense industry competitive pressure, the executive team develops a digital strategy that is aligned with the industry development trend. At the same time, government subsidies provide financial support for R&D and innovation activities, and under the leadership of a top team with a strong digital sensibility, digital inputs and R&D results are rapidly transformed, thus more effectively facilitating enterprises to achieve a high level of digital transformation.
5.2.2. Grouping Analysis of Non-High Digital Transformation
- (1)
- Grouping 5 represents the “all-factor absence type” (~TI*~IO∗~CS∗~MT∗~CP), meaning that when factors such as technology, organization, environment, and others are all missing, it often leads to low digital transformation. Approximately 43.20% of the case companies can be explained by Grouping 5. In cases where SRDI companies face intense industry competition pressure, their executive teams fail to focus on industry development trends in a timely manner, lack necessary guidance for digital transformation strategies, and do not invest in the required technology. This can easily result in digital transformation failure.
- (2)
- Grouping 6 represents the “single-technology type” (TI*IO∗~CS∗~MT∗~GS∗~CP), where companies in this grouping focus solely on technological factors such as research and development investment, while neglecting the impact of organizational environment factors like corporate strategy, executive teams, government subsidies, and industry competition pressure. This also leads to a non-high level of digital transformation. Approximately 37.87% of the case companies can be explained by Grouping 6. In cases where SRDI companies face intense industry competition pressure, their executive teams fail to seize digital transformation opportunities, formulate digital transformation strategies, and lack government subsidy support. Even if there is significant technological investment and some innovation output, it becomes challenging to achieve successful digital transformation.
- (3)
- Grouping 7 represents the “technology-oriented type” (TI*~IO∗~CS∗MT∗~GS∗~CP), where in this configuration, if the executive team focuses solely on research and development investment and neglects the influence of external factors such as industry trends, without formulating a digital strategy, it can also lead to significant challenges in digital transformation. Approximately 22.02% of the case companies can be explained by Grouping7. In cases where SRDI companies face high industry competition pressure, even if the executive team can foresee future industry trends and increase technological investment, the lack of a clear digital strategy results in superficial digital transformation efforts. Digital transformation often requires substantial financial support, and in the absence of government subsidies, it often leads to digital transformation failure for businesses.
- (4)
- Grouping 8 represents the “organizational absence type” (TI*~IO∗~CS∗~MT∗GS∗CP), and approximately 19.45% of the case companies can be explained by Grouping 8. This configuration indicates that even though industry competition pressure and government subsidies may stimulate companies to increase their research and development investment, the lack of a high-quality executive team means that when the wave of the digital economy arrives, the company fails to formulate a digital strategy that adapts to industry trends. This ultimately leads to digital transformation failure.
5.3. Robustness Analysis
6. Conclusions and Policy Implications
6.1. Discussion and Conclusions
- (1)
- A clear digital strategy is a necessary condition for enterprises to realize high-level digital transformation of manufacturing processes. By comparing the groups, it can be seen that the realization of a high level of digital transformation of enterprises has formulated a clear and explicit digital strategy (Grouping 1–Grouping 4); on the contrary, a low level of digital transformation of enterprises has not formulated a digital strategy (Grouping 5–Grouping 8). The new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial change is developing rapidly, the global economy has shifted from incremental development to stock-based competition, the rigid constraints of resources and environment are increasing, and the development environment of enterprises is becoming more and more complex and changeable, with both opportunities and challenges. Comprehensively enhancing the sustainable development capability of enterprises and resolving uncertainties with digital transformation are the core of the current strategic transformation. To carry out digital transformation, the first and foremost task is to formulate a digital transformation strategy and make it an important part of the development strategy, incorporating the data-driven concepts, methods, and mechanisms in the overall development strategy. Focusing on the vision, goals, business ecology blueprint, and other broad strategic directions put forward in the overall development strategy of the enterprise, the digital transformation strategy is systematically designed, and the goals, directions, initiatives, and resource requirements for digital transformation are put forward. By connecting business, technology, management, and other related contents, and organically integrating with functional strategy, business strategy, and product strategy, it effectively supports the realization of the overall development strategy of the enterprise. Secondly, the formulation and implementation of a digital strategy essentially depends on the enterprise strategy management team, and to a certain extent, the decision logic, decision-making style, and risk preference of the executive team’s strategic decisions have a decisive impact on the effectiveness of the enterprise’s strategic decisions. Based on the theory of senior echelon, the gender, age, education, personal experience, and other characteristics of the executive team have a far-reaching impact on corporate strategic decision-making, and it is no exception for the strategic decision-making of enterprise digital transformation.
- (2)
- The external environment helps enterprises realize digital transformation, and industry competitive pressure plays a key role. From Grouping 1, Grouping 2, and Grouping 4, we can find that the three groupings of high digital transformation are faced with more intense industry competitive pressure. The higher the degree of competition in the industry, the more it can promote the digital transformation of enterprises. Specifically, the degree of competition in the industry is closely related to the performance of the enterprise, and higher industry competition will compress the profit margin of the enterprise, prompting the enterprise to improve the degree of product differentiation through digital transformation to reduce operating costs and improve business performance to meet the needs of business operators and owners. The higher the degree of competition in the industry, the greater the homogenization of products in the market. The more competitors in the industry, the higher the business risk due to the pressure of survival; in order to stabilize the market scale and ensure survival and development, enterprises tend to accelerate the digital transformation to enhance their competitiveness. In addition, government subsidies are an important policy tool for governments to influence micro-economic agents to carry out digital transformation. According to the theory of government intervention, governments have implemented targeted policy interventions, including financial subsidies, tax incentives, and the establishment of dedicated funds, to promote the digital development of enterprises. On one hand, government grants directly provide financial support to enterprises, making them willing to invest funds in high-risk, long-cycle digital transformation projects. On the other hand, it helps enterprises to release positive signals to the outside world, optimizes the external financing environment, strengthens investor confidence, improves enterprise risk tolerance, and helps managers to choose high-risk investment projects such as digital transformation.
6.2. Research Implications
- (1)
- Theoretical Insights. Firstly, previous research has conducted many useful studies on the drivers of digital transformation, but they are mostly limited to single-factor net effects. This paper uses the fsQCA method to explore the antecedent configuration of digital transformation and the synergistic relationship between factors, which complements the theoretical research on the drivers of enterprise digital transformation to a certain extent. Secondly, distinguishing from the previous digital transformation focusing on traditional manufacturing industries, this paper takes SRDI enterprises as the research object, further subdividing the types of transformation and studying the digital transformation of enterprises based on the TOE framework, which enriches the perspective of theoretical research and expands the understanding of the transformation and upgrading of enterprises from the micro level.
- (2)
- Practical insights. On the one hand, enterprises need to actively embrace the digitalization process and develop a clear and explicit digital strategy. From the four grouping paths of high-level digital transformation, it is easy to see that a clear and definite digital strategy is an important influencing factor contributing to the digital transformation of SRDI enterprises. In addition, the cognition and action of top managers on digital transformation will influence the formulation of the enterprise digital strategy, and the role of top managers should be fully emphasized. As top managers, they should understand the importance of the digital transformation strategy in terms of cognition, match the resources needed for digital transformation in terms of action, and lead the promotion of the digital transformation strategy to the ground. On the other hand, in the context of the global digital economy, enterprises need to actively respond to the impact of digital change on the industry and enhance the long-term competitiveness of the industry through digital transformation. In addition, as most enterprises in China are in the exploration and development stage of digital transformation, the government needs to provide sufficient funds and liberal policies to improve the financing environment for enterprises to realize digital transformation and give them the momentum for digital transformation.
6.3. Research Limitations and Prospects
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhu, W.X.; Zhang, P.; Li, P.F.; Wang, Z.Y. Difficulties of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and Policy Efficiency Enhancement under the Epidemic Shock—Analysis Based on Two National Questionnaire Surveys. Manag. World 2020, 36, 13–26. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, J. Cultivating and Supporting More Specialized, Specialized and New “Small Giant” Enterprises. People’s Forum 2021, 31, 58–63. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, A.; Zhang, Y.F.; Liu, Y. Research on the Identification of Key Influential Factors for Digital Transformation of SRDI SMEs—A Survey Based on 1625 SRDI SMEs. Economics 2023, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagberg, J.; Sundstrom, M.; Egels-Zandén, N. The digitalization of retailing: An exploratory framework. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2016, 44, 694–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vial, G. Understanding Digital Transformation: A Review and a Research Agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 118–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ladnar, N.; Harder, D.; Palomo, R.; Zureck, A. Impact of corporate venture capital on digital business transformation: A case study om germany. J. Intell. Manag. Decis. 2023, 2, 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.L.; Sun, H. Influencing Factors of Second-Hand Platform Trading in C2C commerce. J. Intell. Manag. Decis. 2023, 2, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Artık, M.B.; Kula, V. Overcoming barriers to e-accounting adoption: A survey of accountants in Turkey. J. Corp. Gov. Insur. Risk Manag. 2023, 10, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watkins, M.; Ziyadin, S.; Imatayeva, A.; Kurmangalieva, A.; Blembayeva, A. Digital tourism as a key factor in the development of the economy. Econ. Ann.-XXI 2018, 169, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, R.; Gao, G.; DesRoches, C.; Jha, A.K. Research Commentary—The Digital Transformation of Healthcare: Current Status and the Road Ahead. Inf. Syst. Res. 2010, 21, 661–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katyeudo, K.; Oliveira, S.; Souza, R. Digital Transformation towards Education 4.0. Inform. Educ.—Int. J. 2022, 21, 283–309. [Google Scholar]
- Llopis-Albert, C.; Rubio, F.; Valero, F. Impact of digital transformation on the automotive industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 162, 120343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, X.; Qi, Y.D. The value dimension and theoretical logic of industrial digital transformation. Reform 2019, 8, 61–70. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, L.H.; Zhu, H.L.; Liu, W.H.; Dou, Y.F.; Wang, J.Z.; Cai, L.; Chen, Y.B.; Liao, X.; Wu, X.B.; Xie, K.; et al. Enterprise digital transformation and management: Research framework and outlook. J. Manag. Sci. 2021, 24, 26–35. [Google Scholar]
- Kong, W.J. Research on the influencing factors of transformation and upgrading of manufacturing enterprises: An empirical study based on a large sample questionnaire survey of manufacturing enterprises in Zhejiang Province. Manag. World 2012, 9, 120–131. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.F.; Guo, N.; Jiang, Y.P. Research on the identification of enterprise transformation factors. East. Econ. Manag. 2014, 28, 121. [Google Scholar]
- Li, L.; Su, F.; Zhang, W.; Mao, J.-Y. Digital Transformation by SME Entrepreneurs: A Capability Perspective. Inf. Syst. J. 2017, 28, 1129–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Cui, X. Seeking Change or Seeking Stability: A Study on the Influence Mechanism of Dynamic Capabilities on Digital Transformation of Enterprises. Dongyue Lect. Ser. 2022, 43, 88. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Z.; Chen, J.; Shang, H.C. What kind of experience drives digitalization: Executive academic experience and corporate digital transformation. Econ. Issues 2022, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Proksch, D.; Rosin, A.F.; Stubner, S.; Pinkwart, A. The influence of a digital strategy on the digitalization of new ventures: The mediating effect of digital capabilities and a digital culture. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2021, 3, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hess, T.; Matt, C.; Benlian, A.; Wiesböck, F. Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy. MIS Q. Exec. 2016, 15, 123–139. [Google Scholar]
- Zeng, H. Does the Market Competition Mechanism Promote the Digital Transformation of Enterprises?—A Quasi-Natural Experiment Based on the Negative List System for Market Access. Foreign Econ. Manag. 2023, 7, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Niu, X.Y. Effectiveness and Path Analysis of Government Subsidies to Assist Enterprises’ Digital Transformation. Oper. Manag. 2023, 7, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.J.; Song, T.B.; Huang, J.B. Enterprise digital transformation: “Follow the market” or “Do as the Romans do”?—A study of decision-making process based on institutional and cognitive theories. Res. Sci. 2022, 40, 1054–1062. [Google Scholar]
- Li, L.W.; Huang, Y.H.; Cheng, F. Resource allocation grouping and its role mechanism affecting the digital transformation of small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises—A qualitative comparative analysis based on fuzzy sets. Res. Sci. Technol. Manag. 2023, 43, 155–161. [Google Scholar]
- Qi, Y.D.; Du, B.; Wen, X. Digital strategic change of state-owned enterprises: Mission embedding and mode selection: A case study based on the digitalization typical practice of three central enterprises. Manag. World 2021, 37, 137. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, L.G.; Geng, W.Y.; Xiong, Y. How Dynamic Capabilities Facilitate Digital Transformation of Enterprises-Based on FsQCA Approach. Financ. Account. Mon. 2022, 12, 128–136. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- Tekic, Z.; Koroteev, D. From disruptively digital to proudly analog: A holistic typology of digital transformation strategies. Bus. Horiz. 2019, 62, 683–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hitt, M.A.; Kim, H.H. International Diversification: Effects on Innovation and Firm Performance in Product-Diversified Firms. Acad. Manag. J. 1997, 40, 767–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Wei, J.; Luo, L.J. Who is using government subsidies for innovation?—The joint moderating effect of ownership and factor market distortions. Manag. World 2015, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soluk, J.; Kammerlander, N. Digital transformation in familyowned Mittelstand firms: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2021, 30, 676–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, X.; Gao, X.; Zhao, T.Q.; Ding, S.T. Executive team heterogeneity and corporate digital transformation. China Soft Sci. 2022, 10, 83. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, J.; Li, S.J.; Huang, L.B. Research on the influencing factors of digital transformation of traditional manufacturing enterprises. Innov. Technol. 2020, 20, 22–34. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, F.; Hu, H.; Lin, H.; Ren, X. Corporate digital transformation and capital market performance: Empirical evidence from stock liquidity. Manag. World 2021, 37, 130–144. [Google Scholar]
- Qi, T.; Chen, L.H.; Wang, H.Q. Empirical analysis of the relationship between government R&D subsidies and innovation performance of new energy automobile enterprises: Based on the mediating moderating effects of R&D expenditures and technology level. Forecasting 2020, 39, 16–22. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, R.S.; Hua, X.L.; Qian, J.J. Research on the impact of interlocking director network on corporate innovation investment under the moderating effect of organizational redundancy and property right nature. J. Manag. 2018, 15, 217. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Q.D.; Sun, Y.R. Venture capital industry expertise, government subsidies and the quality of firms’ innovation output. Account. Newsl. 2021, 21, 48–52. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.Q.; Han, M.H. Research on antecedent grouping state of digital transformation of manufacturing enterprises--an analysis based on TOE theoretical framework. Technol. Manag. 2023, 25, 89–98. [Google Scholar]
- Xue, Y. The Influence of Background Characteristics of Executive Team on Corporate Green Technology Innovation under the Perspective of Heterogeneity. Ph.D. Thesis, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.J. Audit Industry Expertise and Financial Reporting Restatements—An Empirical Study Based on the Perspectives of Industry Competitiveness and Institutional Shareholding. Account. Newsl. 2021, 21, 31–34. [Google Scholar]
- Cai, Y.H.; Cao, Y.J.; Chen, G.H.; Liang, J. Multiple concurrent causality of R&D investment in high-tech enterprises: A study based on fuzzy set qualitative comparison analysis. China Sci. Technol. Forum 2022, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, Y.Z.; Jia, L.D. Group perspective and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): A new path for management research. Manag. World 2017, 155. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, J.Q.; Luo, J.L.; Du, Y.Z.; Yan, J.Q.; Zhong, J. When do institutional environment and psychological cognition activate entrepreneurship? A study based on QCA method. Sci. Sci. Technol. Manag. 2019, 40, 114–131. [Google Scholar]
- Fiss, P.C. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 393–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable Dimension | Variable | Full Affiliation | Intersection Point | Completely Unaffiliated |
---|---|---|---|---|
Outcome variable | Degree of digital transformation (DTL) | 5.26 | 3.58 | 2.17 |
Technical Dimension | Technology inputs (TI) | 0.20 | 0.10 | 0.07 |
Innovation outputs (IO) | 5.72 | 4.19 | 1.52 | |
Organizational dimensions | company strategy (CS) | 4 | 3 | 1 |
Management Team (MT) | 3.79 | 3.25 | 3.0 | |
Environmental dimension | Government subsidies (GS) | 16.80 | 15.73 | 12.90 |
Industry Competitive Pressure (CP) | 9.33 | 3.06 | 1.23 |
Conditional Variable | High Digital Transformation | Low Digital Transformation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Consistency | Coverage | Consistency | Coverage | |
TI | 0.582819 | 0.597048 | 0.584604 | 0.633781 |
~TI | 0.642509 | 0.593753 | 0.628314 | 0.614476 |
IO | 0.678258 | 0.634282 | 0.618282 | 0.611893 |
~IO | 0.584985 | 0.591522 | 0.630464 | 0.674663 |
CS | 0.731665 | 0.86857 | 0.300133 | 0.377058 |
~CS | 0.475246 | 0.390859 | 0.865383 | 0.779312 |
MT | 0.696674 | 0.794736 | 0.356331 | 0.430178 |
~MT | 0.500487 | 0.423542 | 0.829972 | 0.743308 |
GS | 0.684866 | 0.628992 | 0.60692 | 0.589891 |
~GS | 0.553461 | 0.570902 | 0.618282 | 0.674936 |
CP | 0.688116 | 0.833486 | 0.352032 | 0.451253 |
~CP | 0.546961 | 0.443712 | 0.870099 | 0.74699 |
High Digital Transformation Antecedents Configuration | Non-High Digital Transformation Antecedents Configuration | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parameterization | Grouping 1 | Grouping 2 | Grouping 3 | Grouping 4 | Grouping 5 | Grouping 6 | Grouping 7 | Grouping 8 |
TI | ⊗ | |||||||
IO | ⊗ | ● | ⊗ | ● | ⊗ | ● | ||
CS | ||||||||
MT | ⊗ | ● | ||||||
GS | ⊗ | ⊗ | ● | ● | ● | |||
CP | ⊗ | ● | ||||||
Raw coverage | 0.3457 | 0.2471 | 0.2904 | 0.4043 | 0.432 | 0.3787 | 0.2202 | 0.1945 |
Unique coverage | 0.1258 | 0.0499 | 0.0543 | 0.1291 | 0.0583 | 0.0521 | 0.0565 | 0.0102 |
Consistency | 0.9193 | 0.9661 | 0.9470 | 0.9163 | 0.8719 | 0.8852 | 0.8776 | 0.9406 |
Solution coverage | 0.6429 | 0.6357 | ||||||
Solution consistency | 0.9352 | 0.8543 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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/).
Share and Cite
Qi, P.; Xu, C.; Wang, Q. What Determines the Digital Transformation of SRDI Enterprises?—A Study of the TOE Framework-Based Configuration. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13607. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813607
Qi P, Xu C, Wang Q. What Determines the Digital Transformation of SRDI Enterprises?—A Study of the TOE Framework-Based Configuration. Sustainability. 2023; 15(18):13607. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813607
Chicago/Turabian StyleQi, Peipei, Can Xu, and Qi Wang. 2023. "What Determines the Digital Transformation of SRDI Enterprises?—A Study of the TOE Framework-Based Configuration" Sustainability 15, no. 18: 13607. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813607
APA StyleQi, P., Xu, C., & Wang, Q. (2023). What Determines the Digital Transformation of SRDI Enterprises?—A Study of the TOE Framework-Based Configuration. Sustainability, 15(18), 13607. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813607