Next Article in Journal
Study on Shaft Soft Rock Deformation Prediction Based on Weighted Improved Stacking Ensemble Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Predicting Smart Tablet Preferences in Turkish E-Commerce Platforms Using Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning Techniques
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 16
Issue 2
10.3390/app16020833
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Reviewing and Mapping the Digital Transformation Process of SMEs

by
Antonios Kargas
1,*,
Dimitrios Drosos
1,
Faidon Komisopoulos
1,
Dimitrios Katsianis
2,
Eleni Chaniotaki
1,
Theodoros Rokkas
1,
Athanasios Andriopoulos
1,
Vasileios Argyroulis
1,
Spyridon Filios
1,
Georgios Loumos
1,
Dimitrios Kokkinis
3 and
Konstantinos Alvertos
3
1
Department of Business Administration, University of West Attica, 12243 Athens, Greece
2
Department of Digital Industry Technologies, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 34400 Psachna, Greece
3
Department of Informatics and Telecommunications, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15772 Athens, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2026, 16(2), 833; https://doi.org/10.3390/app16020833
Submission received: 16 October 2025 / Revised: 6 December 2025 / Accepted: 5 January 2026 / Published: 14 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Mechanical Engineering)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Digital transformation is crucial for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as it enhances organizational efficiency, productivity, and competitiveness by enabling process automation, cost reduction, and faster decision-making. It also allows for SMEs to leverage emerging technologies, improve customer engagement, and access new markets, thereby fostering innovation and sustainable growth. The proposed study aims to reveal the most significant aspects regarding the digital transformation in the SME business environment. Even though the concept of digital transformation has gained much research interest, SMEs still face significant obstacles, including limited financial resources, a shortage of skilled personnel, and resistance to change within organizational culture. A systematic literature review on the digital transformation of SMEs was conducted to reveal the enablers and obstacles encountered by these businesses in their pursuit of digital maturity. This review underscores the importance of human resources and digital maturity, emphasizing the need for a digitally skilled workforce and a culture of continuous learning. The results can enforce future research on this subject and could focus on the relationship between digital transformation and organizational performance, the role of digital entrepreneurship, and the long-term effects of digital transformation, providing valuable insights to help SMEs navigate the complexities of digital transformation and achieve sustainable growth.

1. Introduction

In the contemporary era of pervasive digitization and advanced technology, the digital transformation of business processes is a crucial and innovative imperative for organizations. Digital transformation is more than just implementing technologies across the various business operations and designing digital strategies [1], but rather encompasses a wholistic restructuring of organizational frameworks to enhance agility and flexibility and to adopt new business models [2,3,4].
Digital transformation involves redesigning conventional processes into sophisticated systems, profoundly impacting organizational functions and interactions with the public, collaborators, and workforce [5]. Such a complex systemic endeavor [4,6] is regarded by both scholars and practitioners as a key source to achieve organizational efficiency and business competitiveness [7]. Existing research demonstrates that digital transformation can foster business innovation, enhance customer experience, improve organizational performance, and strengthen market competitiveness [8,9,10,11]. It also has significant impacts on promoting technological innovation [12,13,14], improving financial performance [8,9], reinforcing organizational resilience [10], and enhancing the quality of relationships with the customer community [11]. It is a shift beyond traditional technical progress mechanisms [15], revolutionizing literature creation, dissemination, and consumption, and challenging traditional paradigms [16].
As far as small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are concerned, the existing literature reveals that they face difficulties, while the overall level of digital adaptation among SMEs remains low, and they significantly lag behind large enterprises [17,18,19,20,21]. The smaller the company, the lower the likelihood of adopting new digital solutions [19]. Moreover, SMEs are often more vulnerable to external crises that threaten market stability compared to larger firms, due to their limited resources—a phenomenon known as the “liability of smallness”. However, the adoption of digital technologies by SMEs to support sustainability outcomes remains poorly understood [22,23].
Even though there exists research on the drivers and the barriers for the digital transformation of SMEs, more theoretical and empirical research in needed [24,25] in order to reduce uncertainty risks when implementing digital strategies [26]. A primary driver of digital transformation is the pursuit of increased organizational efficiency and productivity, alongside with factors such as technology and human capital [2,6,27]. It enables process automation, cost reduction, and faster decision-making, while its landscape is complex, involving multiple systems across the enterprise. Effective implementation requires developing digital capabilities aligned with organizational policies and structures. However, limited financial resources, the implementation’s complexity, and the shortage of skilled personnel and competing priorities often lead companies to neglect the digitization process [28].
At the same time, the business environment is changing due to various digital technologies. Consumers now have access to multiple media channels, facilitating active interaction with companies and other consumers. They navigate various touchpoints, presenting businesses with opportunities to engage potential customers. At the organizational level, small, innovative, and rapidly growing digital entities have surpassed many traditional companies [2]. Such an environment is rather challenging especially when it comes to small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who also face limited access to financial, organizational, and cognitive resources [29]. These limitations result in a growing digital gap between SMEs and large corporations [30,31], preventing young entrepreneurs from entering business environment since success seems less possible or difficult to achieved.
Existing research on entrepreneurship mainly puts emphasis on skills and capabilities [32], the behavior of entrepreneurs [33], and their operating context [34], trying to indicate the factors that can lead them to business success [35,36]. However, the wide diffusion of digital technologies reshaped entrepreneurship, influencing how SMEs identify opportunities, design business models, and scale their activities. In this sense, digital transformation should be studied not only as a technological or organizational redesign, but also as an entrepreneurial process, as it affects opportunity recognition, resource mobilization, and value chain creation within SMEs. Even though research progress exists, there is still a research gap regarding the interrelationship between digital transformation and entrepreneurship, especially when it comes in the ways the former changed or the reshaped from the scratch the latter [37].
Moreover, there exist research gaps related to digital transformation and its relationship with a company’s age, size, and revenue. As far as the company’s size is concerned, large firms have an advantage related with opportunities to reach easier financial, technological, and human resources [38], while digital transformation for small- and medium-sized enterprises gathers research interest from both academics and businessmen as well [39]. It should not be neglected that SMEs are usually structured in a more agile way, an issue highly related to the ease to conduct changes when needed [40]. Moreover, small- and medium-sized companies are more eager to adapt to digital business environments in order to ensure their viability and to achieve higher success and growth rates [41]. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many SMEs adopted various digital tools and developed digital applications to face the challenges that occurred to reach their clients and to address their needs [42]. On the other hand, a company’s age may directly affect its digital transformation maturity, especially when we refer to startups or digital narrative companies [43]. The issue around a company’s age is still undergoing research to answer whether or not startups, besides their small business experience, are more digitally mature compared to older and well-established companies [44].
Another issue with controversial opinions is the relationship between digital transformation and business revenues. Even though there exists a theoretical link connecting digital transformation with increased revenues [45], empirical results do not support it, providing insight that revenues are lower than expected after major investments in digital transformation [46]. This evidence suggests that an indirect relationship may occur between cost minimization [47] and efficient resource usage [48], which are both related to the digital transformation process, while researchers suggest that further empirical analysis is needed [49].
Current research aims to enlighten the relationship between digital transformation and several aspects of the business life of SMEs. Building on previous literature reviews conducted up to 2019, this study focuses on the period 2020–2024 in order to capture how the digital transformation of SMEs has evolved in the post-COVID era. Specifically, this paper aims to enlighten the following objectives:
(1)
To systematically map the recent research on the digital transformation of SMEs and identify the main themes and research streams that have emerged after 2020;
(2)
To uncover and synthesize the key enablers and obstacles of the digital transformation of SMEs by combining a systematic literature review with text-mining and topic modeling techniques.

2. Literature Review

The proposed research applies a systematic literature review (SLR) approach to reveal how digital transformation is implemented in SME business environments in relation to the enablers and obstacles they may face. Even though the methodology originates from the medical field [50], it soon passed to many other scientific fields including business studies (i.e., [51,52]). It aims to provide a systematic review of evidence on a specific topic by using both qualitative and quantitative analysis of content [53,54]. It aims to provide a well-established knowledge base on a proposed topic of analysis by providing transparent protocols of research [55] in order to enhance future research [56].
The whole research process consists of three main stages [57], including (a) planning, (b) conducting the review, and, finally, (c) reporting the results. Of course, each one of the proposed stages can be further analyzed in several methodological steps such as collecting the research material, providing descriptive analysis of this material, categorizing the material according to several topics, and, of course, evaluating the quality of the material and its relevance to the topic under research [58].
Researchers spent significant time finalizing the review question, following the instructions of De Menezes and Kelliher [54]. Their aim was to have a broad but focused vision of the research domain so as to reach the exact nature of the research topic and set appropriate objectives. In order to clarify all these aspects and the theoretical context of the subject area as well, researchers reviewed several seminal papers and agreed to follow five of them when developing their research focus. The choice was based on the research’s relevance and the paper’s impact in terms of citations.
The first paper was written in 2015 [59] and put emphasis on a specific sectional (manufacturing SMEs) and regional (Germany) era. The SLR was conducted for a period between 2013 and 2015 and included nine articles, aiming to examine the awareness, readiness, and capability of SMEs to adopt digital transformation needs and challenges. The results were mainly related to the firms’ size as an obstacle to effective adaptation to digital conditions. A few years later, Tarute et al. [60] conducted a literature review on the period 2003–2018 and used 13 articles to identify the internal and external factors that play a critical role in the effective digital transformation of SMEs. The results indicate that capabilities, resources, and changes in the business model are the core internal factors, while as far as external factors are concerned, these include governmental regulation, industry-related factors (such as industry maturity, needs, and expectations), and external factors including opportunities for collaboration/customization/strategic alternatives/embedded trust with other firms or organizations.
Zaheer et al. [61] conducted a structured literature review until 2019 and used 133 articles to provide research guidance related to digital entrepreneurship, putting emphasis on digital startups. The results indicate that there exists a lack of cohesive frameworks in the field of digital entrepreneurship, while existing knowledge is quite fragmented and disjointed. Isensee et al. [62] provided insight into the relationships between organizational culture, environmental sustainability, and the digitalization of SMEs by conducting a systematic literature review for the period 2009–2019. They used 80 articles to propose thirteen key dimensions and to identify ten links between the key constructs. Finally, Meier [63] conducted a systematic literature review for the period 2000–2019 and used 77 articles to synthesize the heterogenous enablers and obstacles of SME digitalization. The results indicate ten different technological foci and 38 enablers that affect all SMEs, albeit differently, as a result of the heterogeneity between SMEs.

3. Materials and Methods

Using the above-mentioned seminal papers (that cover the period up to 2019), the research focus aimed on conduct a systematic literature review for the period after 2020 up to 2024 to reveal the internal and external drivers (enablers and obstacles) of digital transformation when it comes to SMEs, in order to answer the question “where research should go from this point and after”. So, the set objectives were to map the research conducted on the topic of the digital transformation of SMEs to enlighten the enablers and obstacles that occurred and to recognize the research gaps so as to propose a future research agenda. From that point on, the research strategy followed, aiming to minimize bias, determine the exact terms of research, select the databases to conduct the research, and apply the necessary inclusion and exclusion criteria.
In line with established guidelines for systematic literature reviews in management and business research, this review followed three main stages: planning, conducting the review, and reporting the results. During the planning stage, the authors refined the review question, identified the relevant conceptual domains, and defined the explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria with respect to document type, language, time frame, and topical relevance to SME digital transformation. In the conducting stage, a structured search strategy was implemented across four major databases using predefined search strings and a multi-step screening process (title, abstract, and full-text assessment) carried out independently by multiple reviewers. Finally, in the reporting stage, all decisions regarding database selection, search terms, screening criteria, and data extraction procedures were documented and complemented by quantitative text-mining analyses (bigrams, keyness, and topic modeling).
As far as the search strings are concerned, the authors adopted a focused yet transparent strategy in order to balance precision and coverage. In the initial search stage, a relatively narrow string was employed combining ‘digital transformation’ AND ‘SMEs’ AND (‘enablers’ OR ‘obstacles’) so that the core pool of records would explicitly address the digital transformation of SMEs in relation to facilitating or constraining factors, as these terms are well established in the literature. During the subsequent full-text screening stage, closely related expressions such as ‘drivers’, ‘barriers’, ‘challenges’, and ‘success factors’ were not introduced as additional search terms in the database queries but were instead used as inclusion criteria when the overall scope of a paper was clearly aligned with the identification of the factors that facilitate or hinder the digital transformation of SMEs, even if different terminology was employed by the authors. In this way, the analysis captures a broader family of terms that describe positive and negative influences on digital transformation, while keeping the initial search results manageable and conceptually coherent.
In addition, using all possible synonyms (e.g., ‘drivers’, ‘barriers’, ‘challenges’, ‘success factors’) directly in the database queries would have generated a much larger number of initial hits, but with substantial conceptual noise, including studies on general success factors for SMEs without a clear link to digital transformation. The final corpus of 81 articles therefore reflects the outcome of a rigorous multi-stage screening process. The research process research included the following:
  • Titles, abstracts, and keywords for “digital transformation” AND “SMEs”.
  • All content for “enablers” OR “Obstacles”.
The databases used were (a) EBSCO Business Source Complete, (b) Emerald, (c) Scopus-Elsevier, and (d) Science Direct. The above-mentioned databases have high coverage in business and management research [51,54,64,65], while researchers had access to full articles.
As far as the inclusion/exclusion criteria are concerned, these were related with taking into consideration only (a) peer-reviewed papers (b) published in international papers and (c) written in the English language. Such criteria were adopted to ensure the validity of the scientific content [64], the highest possible impact [66,67], and the scientific acceptance of the academic and business communities [52]. Following such a research approach, we excluded papers in other languages and scientific works such as conference papers and proceedings, book chapters, monographs, and press articles [57]. Researchers avoided excluding papers based on the journal’s ranking, since such an approach could exclude significant studies coming from less prominent journals or different scientific disciplines.
Initial results provided a significant number of scientific articles, indicating an increased interest regarding the digital transformation of SMEs during the pandemic and in the post-COVID-19 era. Researchers spent significant time removing irrelevant studies based on title screening, while the team adopted as principal not to exclude papers at this stage when there was uncertainty about their relevance to the main research question. The same principle was adopted when the title did not provide enough evidence about the field or focus of the study. Each paper was evaluated by three independent researchers to ensure that at least two out of three agree about its relevance. The whole approach ensured that only non-relevant articles would be excluded during this first preliminary phase.
After this phase, the remaining papers were then reviewed by three researchers different to the initial ones. During the second phase of inclusion/exclusion, researchers read all abstracts to verify the paper’s relevance to the proposed research. The research team included papers with both quantitative and qualitative approaches to include every possible kind of empirical evidence. Since enabler/obstacle strings were located in the main text, the researchers decided to expand their review to the full texts as well, following the critical appraisal methodology presented by Jones and Evans [68] in order to assess the validity of the selected studies.
Finally, the selected papers were evaluated by another three academic researchers, not being involved in the review procedure at any stage, to assure the paper’s relevance with the research, alongside the robustness of the criteria adopted to the whole process. By mutual agreement, the total number of manuscripts was reduced to 81, as presented in Table 1.
After the end of the above-mentioned procedure, the list of studies to be included was released and the data extraction process began. This process is described in the next section, while it should be mentioned that this phase was performed with digital means to reduce human error and to document this process [57,69].

4. Results

The corpus of this study included more than 81 documents (academic papers). Based on these papers, we cleaned (e.g., remove numbers), transformed (e.g., lowercase the words), and stemmed the words. The corpus was tokenized into bigrams because they provide a more accurate view of the factors related to digital transformation. In total, we acquired 87,000 different bigrams, and Figure 1 illustrates the frequency distribution of the top 20 bigrams.
Taking into account that we utilized three different sources of academic papers, we found it interesting to visualize the relative frequency of the top bigrams based on the source. As Figure 2 depicts, [digit transform] is the most frequent across the sources, as expected. Moreover, Emerald and Science Direct share the same four top bigrams: [digit transform], [digit technologi], [dynam capabl], and [busi model].
Various approaches have been proposed to measure keyness between corpora, like the Ratio metric [70] and the Odds Ratio [71]. Our keyness analysis revealed some differences, and two main factors may possibly explain these differences. First, the journals’ thematic focuses vary, while many journals from Emerald tend to address technology-driven topics, such as digital performance and digital strategy, within a firm’s context. Second, different research types require the utilization of different linguistic styles. In our corpus, two key terms (“western balkan” and “welsh gover”) appeared because of case studies with a regional focus. This suggests that some key terms may be influenced by specific linguistic or contextual features [72].
Keyness analysis was helpful because it revealed some characteristics of frequent bigrams and the role of abbreviations in our study. Keywords are linguistic markers which encode the essence or topical focus of a corpus. Therefore, they could potentially uncover a factor depending on how they connected to a document with other key terms. As a consequence, the frequency of a term within a (sub)corpus might not be enough to reveal a factor, and we suggest that a factor is a mixture of different key terms consistently found between different documents. From such point of view, it is possible to incorporate topic modeling and further thoroughly examine the relationship between keywords within a document/corpus and qualitatively assess the formation of different topics to identify the factors associated with the digital transformation of SMEs.
LDA analyzes words and documents to identify common aspects (topics), with the assumption that one document might cover different topics and that one word could be used simultaneously across different topics. We examined using expert opinions on different results based on the experimentation using few variables. First, the number of topics (k) was determined by research, and this is an important requirement in the LDA. Second, the number of bigrams were taken into account. In this work, we exclude bigrams with low frequencies (less than 0.001%). Third, the number of different documents (>3) included the bigram is another criterion we employed in order to avoid hapaxes. The results of the LDA are presented in Table 2.
The results are presented in a word cloud in Figure 3. A word cloud is a visual representation of text data where the frequency of each word is depicted by its size. This tool is particularly useful in academic research for identifying the prominent themes, trends, and patterns within large datasets, thereby facilitating qualitative analysis. Additionally, word clouds can enhance the interpretability of textual information, making it easier to communicate complex data insights.
Figure 4 presents a bigram collocations from the above-mentioned analysis. Collocations are combinations of words that frequently co-occur in a language, appearing together more often than would be expected by chance. In our corpus, we examined the collocations of bigrams based on different grouping variables like the year of publication (e.g., 2021, 2022) and the origin of the first author (Europe, Asia, and Other). We represented the collocation between the bigrams using a network representation. Each node of the network is a bigram, and the edge represents the frequency of occurrence. In all cases, we used a window of five bigrams (before and after) to calculate the frequency.
The results from a yearly basis indicate the existence of similarities, but significant differences as well. In 2021, the first year after the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the literature mainly puts emphasis on the terms reflecting immediate reactions rather than long-term strategic transformation processes. The dominant connections tend to emphasize basic digital tools, remote work arrangements, and short-term responses to ensure business continuity, with fewer, weaker links to performance, capabilities, or strategic orientation. By 2022, bigrams associated with technology adoption, process digitization, and initial forms of data use appear more central and more strongly connected, indicating that SMEs move from ad hoc reactions toward the more systematic use of digital tools. At the same time, there is a growing interest in the digital transformation as an organizational issue (not merely technical) with terms referring to management, change, and organizational aspects beginning to strengthen.
In 2023, clusters related to capabilities and learning and performance metrics showed stronger connectivity and more bridges to technology-focused bigrams, implying a shift from “using tools” towards “building capabilities” as a source for gaining competitive advantage and developing innovation. By 2024, the results indicate a strong linkage between strategy, leadership, ecosystem relations, and digital maturity. Bigrams related to transformation strategies, top management, external partnerships, policies, and internationalization show dense connections with digital capabilities and performance-related terms. Overall, the evolution from 2021 to 2024 suggests a shift from reactive tool-centric digitization towards strategically planned and capability-driven digital transformation.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The systematic literature review (SLR) on the digital transformation of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) provides a comprehensive understanding of the core elements that may accelerate and prevent SMEs from reaching a desirable level of digital maturity. Compared with earlier reviews on the subject, the post-2020 literature results presented reveal similarities and differences. Many of the core enablers and barriers identified previously remain significantly important and include business aspects such as leadership support, resource constraints, and organizational culture. However, the proposed results also put emphasis on issues such as digital resilience, data analytics, platform-based business models, and the long-term strategic integration of digital technologies. These differences have been partly driven by the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent change in the digital business ecosystem. Such differences justify the need to update research in light of new empirical insights.
The results support existing findings that indicate that technological readiness is not a stand-alone aspect capable of guaranteeing successful digital transformation [73]. Several businesses-oriented aspects can facilitate or retard the whole procedure, including leadership, resistance to change, organizational culture [74], and digital soft skills [75]. Of course, all of these elements should be tailored to a SME’s specific conditions and restrictions, taking into account industry specific characteristics, resource constraints, and national differences [76,77].
The review identifies several enablers that facilitate the digital transformation of SMEs. A significant enabler that arises for the research is the support needed from external stakeholders, such as government policies and academic institutions. The role of supporting environments has been highlighted by previous researchers, who described the consulting and practical role of public/governmental agencies and innovation laboratories [78,79]. Government initiatives can reduce financial barriers and provide the necessary infrastructure for digital transformation. Academic institutions play a crucial role in developing the skills and competencies required for digital transformation, thereby enhancing the capabilities of future employees and entrepreneurs. The adoption of emerging technologies is also pivotal in driving digital transformation. These technologies offer new opportunities for innovation and growth, enabling SMEs to stay competitive in a rapidly evolving market. These technologies offer tools and applications, but, moreover, create a series of new digital channels disrupting traditional distribution boundaries [80] while providing new paths to extract information from customers and employees [81].
The review also highlights the importance of a digitally aligned strategy. A clear roadmap that outlines how and when to implement digital changes can provide all stakeholders with a shared vision and direction [82]. This strategy should prioritize investments not only in technology, but also in people and processes, ensuring that the digital transformation efforts are holistic, agile, and integrated [83]. The success of management’s transformation to agile methodologies is crucial in this context, as it allows for SMEs to respond quickly to market changes and customer needs, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and innovation. Topics 8 and 9 are related to transformation strategy, top management support, human resources, and digital maturity. The results point out the importance of leadership, strategic alignment, and culture as key mediating mechanisms between digital investments and organizational performance. This aligns with prior research that highlights the role of managerial cognition, change management, and organizational readiness, but our results show that these factors also remain central in the post-2020 context.
Despite numerous enablers, SMEs face several obstacles that hinder their digital transformation efforts. Limited financial resources are a significant barrier, as many SMEs struggle to afford the necessary investments in digital technologies. Additionally, a shortage of skilled personnel and competing priorities often lead to the neglect of digitization processes. Organizational culture is another critical obstacle. Resistance to change and a lack of digital skills among employees can impede the adoption of digital technologies. The complexity of digital transformation, which involves multiple interconnected systems across the enterprise, further compounds these challenges. SMEs often lack the expertise to manage this complexity, leading to implementation failures. The results support existing research that indicate, as the main barriers for digital transformation, resource limitations, technical hurdles due to limited digital skills, lack of expertise to implement technologies, and higher risk aversion [40,84,85,86]. These challenges can slow down the pace of digital transformation and limit the ability of SMEs to compete in global markets. Improving external connections and opportunities, such as forming strategic partnerships and expanding into new markets, can help SMEs overcome these barriers and enhance their digital capabilities.
The role of human resources and digital maturity is also emphasized in the review. Topics 4 and 6, which emphasize performance, organizational capabilities, dynamic and digital capabilities, and organizational learning, reinforce the relevance of resource-based and dynamic capability views. Developing a digitally skilled workforce and fostering a culture of continuous learning are essential for successful digital transformation [87]. This includes providing training and development opportunities for employees, as well as creating an environment that encourages innovation and experimentation. The results suggest that digital transformation outcomes in SMEs are not only related to the implementation of technological resources, but moreover with the ability to integrate these resources through continuous learning and capability building. An organization’s dynamic and digital capabilities, such as its ability to adapt to new technologies and processes, are critical for achieving digital maturity and sustaining competitive advantage.
Topics 1, 2, 5, and 7 highlight the interplay between internal processes, emerging technologies, digital orientation, and external opportunities such as export performance and internationalization. Such an element is crucial to understanding the importance of the interrelation between internalist perspectives with institutional and ecosystem views. The results indicate that future research on the digital transformation of SMEs should move beyond purely technological or structural issues in order to adopt multi-level frameworks that integrate capabilities, strategy, human resources, and the external environment. Revealing topics related to innovation performance, digital orientation, and external opportunities indicates that digital entrepreneurship constitutes a transversal theme that cuts across several research streams. Such a result indicates that a stronger theoretical relationship between digital transformation and entrepreneurship research should be developed.
Within the context of the digital transformation of SMEs, entrepreneurship and organizational culture are strongly interrelated. Even in younger founded firms, the founders’ values, risk preferences, and strategic orientation develop an organizational culture. Such a newly arisen organizational culture can shape the framework under which digital opportunities are recognized and pursued. The review therefore suggests that organizational culture should be taken into account for both new established and mature SMEs when it comes to their digital transformation process. For both cases, culture acts as an early-stage enabler or barrier to digital entrepreneurship, influencing whether digital tools are used merely for short-term survival or are leveraged to support innovation, scalability, and long-term growth.

6. Policy and Practical Implications

The results of the post-2020 studies have several practical implications related to the management and policymaking stakeholders of SMEs. When it comes to digital transformation, Topics 6 and 9 enlighten the importance of factors such as human resources, digital literacy and organizational learning. Developing or enriching the workforce of SMEs should be a priority for state decisionmakers and policy developers. Supporting initiatives such as subsidized training programs and micro-credentials on digital skills could act as facilitators that help SMEs to attract and retain digitally skilled employees. Public body organizations and business clusters could also support an intermediate role between SMEs and universities, vocational training centers, and innovation labs/hubs that provide tailored up-skilling opportunities.
Moreover, a well-defined digital transformation strategy seems to play a significant role, as Topics 4 and 8 suggest. SMEs can also benefit from leadership’s commitment to the whole digital transformation process, while performance-oriented use of digital technologies may accelerate the procedure. Owners and managers should be reskilled to avoid (just) adopting digital technologies before defining strategic priorities, required capabilities, and expected business outcomes. Advisory services, business consultancy agencies, and strategy development workshops can help SMEs to align digital initiatives with overall business goals and to monitor progress over time.
As far as Topics 1, 2, 5, and 7 are concerned, the results indicate that governments and regional authorities can facilitate the digital transformation of SMEs by providing stable funding instruments and by reducing administrative barriers. Moreover, governmental initiatives should target on providing collaborative platforms where SMEs could experiment with emerging technologies, such as testbeds and digital innovation hubs. On the other hand, SMEs should also understand that the digital business environment requires synergies and extended clustering. Even partnership with larger firms with substitutable products/services should be part of their business strategy, while SMEs should be encouraged to engage in collaborations with technology providers and international networks in order to leverage external knowledge, access new markets, and mitigate resource constraints.
Finally, given the heterogeneity of SMEs, policy measures and managerial guidelines should be differentiated according to firm size, sector, and stage of digital maturity in order to act effectively. For example, micro-firms may require more basic skills development and guidance for infrastructure adoption, while digitally mature SMEs may benefit from advanced analytics, automation, and data-driven business models. Tailoring interventions to these different profiles can increase the effectiveness and efficiency of public support.

7. Limitations and Future Research

This study is subject to several limitations. First, the final corpus of 81 articles is biased towards studies conducted in European countries and manufacturing-oriented SMEs. Such geographical and sectoral orientation puts constraints on generalizability. Moreover, the identification of topics using LDA and the labeling of thematic clusters inevitably involve a degree of researcher interpretation, making it difficult to fully avoid overlap between topics. Finally, it should be mentioned that the heterogeneity of SMEs in terms of size, age, and digital maturity make the generalizability of results difficult, since existing research is scarce when it comes to differences between distinct SME profiles.
The literature review conducted and the above-mentioned limitations develop the future research agenda. The findings provide evidence for the need for more empirical studies on the digital transformation of SMEs. Such research should provide comparisons between various economic and geographical zones. For example, comparing the digital transformation’s differences between developing and developed countries is important, while it would be useful to examine the differentiation in framework analyses between research from different national contexts. Comparative cross-country designs and cross-sector analyses (e.g., industry vs. services) can clarify how institutional settings, industry dynamics, and ecosystem characteristics accelerate or do not accelerate the digital transformation.
The heterogeneity of SMEs should also be taken into account by explicitly differentiating studies between micro-, small-, and medium-sized firms, as well as between startups and established companies, family-owned and non-family firms, or low- and high-maturity digital profiles. Such a segmentation could improve researchers’ understanding of whether and how technological, organizational, and environmental factors vary across different SME types.
The findings reveal the core importance of human resources, digital skills, leadership, and organizational culture for the extension and depth of the digital transformation process. As part of future research, it would be useful to explore the role of micro-foundations, employee participation, and changes in management practices on the human resource management, organizational behavior, and learning perspectives of SMEs. Moreover, the results indicate that digital entrepreneurship cuts across several topics related to innovation, digital orientation, and external opportunities. Future research could aim to develop multi-level theoretical frameworks that integrate capabilities, strategies, human capital, and ecosystem conditions, providing a more holistic understanding of how SMEs navigate and leverage digital transformation. Such a framework can bridge digital transformation and entrepreneurship research by examining how digital technologies enable new venture creation, business model innovation, and internationalization pathways for SMEs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.K. and D.D.; methodology, E.C.; investigation, A.K. and D.K. (Dimitrios Katsianis); data curation, E.C.; writing—original draft preparation, F.K., D.K. (Dimitrios Katsianis), T.R., A.A., V.A., S.F., G.L., K.A. and D.K. (Dimitrios Kokkinis); writing—review and editing, A.K. and D.D.; visualization, E.C.; project administration, A.K.; funding acquisition, A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research project is implemented in the framework of H.F.R.I Call “Basic research Financing (Horizontal support of all Sciences)” under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan “Greece 2.0” funded by the European Union–NextGenerationEU (H.F.R.I. Project Number: 15088).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The research was conducted in accordance with the University of West Attica’s policy on the management and protection of personal data (https://research-ethics-comittee.uniwa.gr/, accessed on 8 March 2025). The Policy addresses the Protection of Personal Data in order to meet the requirements of the European Data Protection Regulation (GDPR–EU 2016/679).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Matt, C.; Hess, T.; Benlian, A. Digital transformation strategies. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2015, 57, 339–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Verhoef, P.C.; Broekhuizen, T.; Bart, Y.; Bhattacharya, A.; Dong, J.Q.; Fabian, N.; Haenlein, M. Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 889–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Fischer, M.; Imgrund, F.; Janiesch, C.; Winkelmann, A. Strategy archetypes for digital transformation: Defining meta objectives using business process management. Inf. Manag. 2020, 57, 103262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Vial, G. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 118–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Favoretto, C.; Mendes, G.H.S.; Oliveira, M.G.; Cauchick-Miguel, P.A.; Coreynen, W. From servitization to digital servitization: How digitalization transforms companies’ transition towards services. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2022, 102, 104–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Chen, H.; Tian, Z. Environmental uncertainty, resource orchestration and digital transformation: A fuzzy-set QCA approach. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 139, 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Parviainen, P.; Tihinen, M.; Kääriäinen, J.; Teppola, S. Tackling the digitalization challenge: How to benefit from digitalization in practice. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Proj. Manag. 2022, 5, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Peng, Y.Z.; Tao, C.Q. Can digital transformation promote enterprise performance? From the perspective of public policy and innovation. J. Innov. Knowl. 2022, 7, 100198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Ji, H.; Miao, Z.; Wan, J.; Lin, L. Digital transformation and financial performance: The moderating role of entrepreneurs’ social capital. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2022, 6, 1978–1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Zhang, J.; Long, J.; von Schaewen, A.M.E. How does digital transformation improve organizational resilience?—Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Matarazzo, M.; Penco, L.; Profumo, G.; Quaglia, R. Digital transformation and customer value creation in made in Italy SMEs: A dynamic capabilities perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 123, 642–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Li, F.; Trappey, A.J.; Lee, C.H.; Li, L. Immersive technology-enabled digital transformation in transportation fields: A literature overview. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 202, 117459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Xue, L.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, X.; Li, C. Can digital transformation promote green technology innovation? Sustainability 2022, 14, 7497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Jafari-Sadeghi, V.; Garcia-Perez, A.; Candelo, E.; Couturier, J. Exploring the impact of digital transformation on technology entrepreneurship and technological market expansion: The role of technology readiness, exploration and exploitation. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 124, 100–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Rymarczyk, J. Technologies, opportunities and challenges of the industrial revolution 4.0: Theoretical considerations. Entrep. Bus. Econ. Rev. 2020, 8, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Matt, D.T.; Modrák, V.; Zsifkovits, H. Industry 4.0 for SMEs: Challenges, Opportunities and Requirements; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–401. [Google Scholar]
  17. OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Digital Transformation of SMEs and Entrepreneurship; OECD: Paris, France, 2021; ISBN 978-92-64-39245-8. [Google Scholar]
  18. European Investment Bank. Building a Smart and Green Europe in the COVID-19 Era; European Investment Bank: Luxembourg, 2021; ISBN 978-92-861-4811-8. [Google Scholar]
  19. OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Measuring the Digital Transformation: A Roadmap for the Future; OECD: Paris, France, 2019; ISBN 978-92-64-31199. [Google Scholar]
  20. European Investment Bank. Evidence from the EIB Investment Survey; European Investment Bank: Luxembourg, 2021; p. 98. ISBN 978-92-861-5041-8. [Google Scholar]
  21. Zaidi, S.H.; Rupeika-Apoga, R. Liquidity Synchronization, Its Determinants and Outcomes under Economic Growth Volatility: Evidence from Emerging Asian Economies. Risks 2021, 9, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Philbin, S.; Viswanathan, R.; Telukdarie, A. Understanding how digital transformation can enable SMEs to achieve sustainable development: A systematic literature review. Small Bus. Int. Rev. J. 2022, 6, e473, EISSN 2531-0046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Mago, S.; Modiba, F.S. Does informal finance matter for micro and small businesses in Africa? Small Bus. Int. Rev. 2022, 6, e415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Martínez-Caro, E.; Cegarra-Navarro, J.G.; Alfonso-Ruiz, F.J. Digital technologies and firm performance: The role of digital organisational culture. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 154, 119962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Truant, E.; Broccardo, L.; Dana, L.P. Digitalisation boosts company performance: An overview of Italian listed companies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 173, 121173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Paul, J.; Alhassan, I.; Binsaif, N.; Singh, P. Digital entrepreneurship research: A systematic review. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 156, 113507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Porfírio, J.A.; Carrilho, T.; Felício, J.A.; Jardim, J. Leadership characteristics and digital transformation. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 124, 610–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. 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, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  29. Skare, M.; de las Mercedes Obesso, M.; Ribeiro-Navarrete, S. Digital transformation and European small and medium enterprises (SMEs): A comparative study using digital economy and society index data. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2023, 68, 102594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. McAdam, M.; Crowley, C.; Harrison, R.T. Digital girl: Cyberfeminism and the emancipatory potential of digital entrepreneurship in emerging economies. Small Bus. Econ. 2020, 55, 349–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Giones, F.; Brem, A. Digital technology entrepreneurship: A definition and research agenda. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2017, 7, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kimmitt, J.; Dimov, D. The recursive interplay of capabilities and constraints amongst microfinance entrepreneurs. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2021, 27, 600–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Contin-Pilart, I.; Larraza-Kintana, M.; Martin-Sanchez, V. Entrepreneurs’ planning behavior and new firm performance. Manag. Res. 2020, 18, 307–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Ruiz-Palomino, P.; Martınez-Canas, R. From opportunity recognition to the start-up phase: The moderating role of family and friends-based entrepreneurial social networks. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2021, 17, 1159–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Watson, A.; Dada, O.; Lopez-Fernandez, B.; Perrigot, R. The influence of entrepreneurial personality on franchisee performance: A cross-cultural analysis. Int. Small Bus. J. Res. Entrep. 2020, 38, 605–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Donbesuur, F.; Boso, N.; Hultman, M. The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on new venture performance: Contingency roles of entrepreneurial actions. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 118, 150–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Corvello, V.; De Carolis, M.; Verteramo, S.; Steiber, A. The digital transformation of entrepreneurial work. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2022, 28, 1167–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Westerman, G.; McAfee, A. The Digital Advantage: How Digital Leaders Outperform Their Peers in Every Industry. The MIT Center for Digital Business, A Major Research Initiative at the MIT Sloan School of Management, November 2012. Available online: http://ide.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/TheDigitalAdvantage.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2025).
  39. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Moeuf, A.; Lamouri, S.; Pellerin, R.; Tamayo-Giraldo, S.; Tobon-Valencia, E.; Eburdy, R. Identification of critical success factors, risks and opportunities of Industry 4.0 in SMEs. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 58, 1384–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Ardito, L.; Raby, S.; Albino, V.; Bertoldi, B. The duality of digital and environmental orientations in the context of SMEs: Implications for innovation performance. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 123, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Dua, A.; Cheng, W.L.; Lund, S.; De Smet, A.; Robinson, O.; Sanghvi, S. 90 Digital Transformation Statistics: How Businesses are Using Digital to Drive Growth in 2021 and Beyond. McKinsey & Company, New York. 2021. Available online: https://www.pipartners.com (accessed on 20 October 2021).
  43. Sreenivasan, A.; Suresh, M. Digital transformation in start-ups: A bibliometric analysis. Digit. Transform. Soc. 2023, 2, 276–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Ribeiro-Navarrete, Β.; Martín Martín, J.M.; Guaita-Martínez, J.M.; Simón-Moya, V. Analysing cooperatives’ digital maturity using a synthetic indicator. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2023, 72, 102678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Iansiti, M.; Lakhani, K.R. Digital Ubiquity. How Connections, Sensors, and Data Are Revolutionizing Business. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2014, 92, 90–99. [Google Scholar]
  46. Gebauer, H.; Fleisch, E.; Lamprecht, C.; Wortmann, F. Growth paths for overcoming the digitalization paradox. Bus. Horiz. 2020, 63, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Kasperovica, L.; Lace, N. Factors influencing companies’ positive financial performance in digital age: A meta-analysis. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2021, 8, 291–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Clauss, T. Measuring business model innovation: Conceptualization, scale development, and proof of performance. RD Manag. 2017, 47, 385–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. da Costa, L.S.; Munhoz, I.P.; Pereira, L.; Santos Akkari, A.C. Assessing the digital maturity of micro and small enterprises: A focus on an emerging market. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2022, 200, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Cook, D.J.; Mulrow, C.D.; Haynes, R.B. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann. Intern. Med. 1997, 126, 376–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Abatecola, G.; Mandarelli, G.; Poggesi, S. The personality factor: How top management teams make decisions. A literature review. J. Manag. Gov. 2013, 17, 1073–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Aquilani, B.; Piccarozzi, M.; Abbate, T.; Codini, A. The role of open innovation and value co-creation in the challenging transition from industry 4.0 to society 5.0: Toward a theoretical framework. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. De Menezes, L.M.; Kelliher, C. Flexible working and performance: A systematic review of the evidence for a business case. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2021, 13, 452–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Merli, R.; Preziosi, M.; Acampora, A. How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 703–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Crossan, M.M.; Apaydin, M. A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. J. Manag. Stud. 2010, 47, 1154–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Macpherson, A.; Holt, R. Knowledge, learning and small firm growth: A systematic review of the evidence. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 172–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D. Producing a systematic review. In The Sage Handbook of Organization Research Methods; Buchanan, D.A., Bryman, A., Eds.; Sage Publications Ltd.: Cornwall, UK, 2009; pp. 671–689. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sommer, L. Industrial revolution-industry 4.0: Are German manufacturing SMEs the first victims of this revolution? J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 2015, 8, 1512–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Tarutė, A.; Duobienė, J.; Klovienė, L.; Vitkauskaitė, E.; Varaniūtė, V. Identifying factors affecting digital transformation of SMEs. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Electronic Business ICEB, Guilin, China, 2–6 December 2018; p. 373381. [Google Scholar]
  61. Zaheer, H.; Breyer, Y.; Dumay, J. Digital entrepreneurship: An interdisciplinary structured literature review and research agenda. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2019, 148, 119735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Isensee, C.; Teuteberg, F.; Griese, K.M.; Topi, C. The relationship between organizational culture, sustainability, and digitalization in SMEs: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 22944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Meier, A. Systematic review of the literature on SME digitalization: Multi-sided pressure on existing SMEs. Digitalization: Approaches, Case Studies, and Tools for Strategy. In Digitalization. Management for Professionals; Schallmo, D.R.A., Tidd, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 257–276. [Google Scholar]
  64. Newbert, S.L. Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions for future research. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 121–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. Sassanelli, C.; Rosa, P.; Rocca, R.; Terzi, S. Circular economy performance assessment methods: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 440–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  66. Ordanini, A.; Rubera, G.; DeFillippi, R. The many moods of inter-organizational imitation: A critical review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2008, 10, 375–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  67. Keupp, M.M.; Palmié, M.; Gassmann, O. The strategic management of innovation: A systematic review and paths for future research. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2012, 14, 367–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. Jones, T.; Evans, D. Conducting a systematic review. Aust. Crit. Care 2000, 13, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  69. White, A.; Schmidt, K. Systematic literature reviews. Complement. Ther. Med. 2005, 13, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. Kilgarriff, A. Simple Maths for Keywords. 2009. Available online: https://www.sketchengine.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2009-Simple-maths-for-keywords.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2023).
  71. Pojanapunya, P.; Todd, R.W. The influence of the benchmark corpus on keyword analysis. Regist. Stud. 2021, 3, 88–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  72. Gabrielatos, C. Keyness analysis Nature, metrics and techniques. In Corpus Approaches to Discourse, 1st ed.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2018; p. 34. [Google Scholar]
  73. Garzoni, A.; De Turi, I.; Secundo, G.; Del Vecchio, P. Fostering digital transformation of SMEs: A four levels approach. Manag. Decis. 2020, 58, 1543–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. Kargas, A.; Gialeris, E.; Komisopoulos, F.; Lymperiou, A.; Salmon, I. Digital Maturity and Digital Transformation Strategy among Greek Small and Medium Enterprises. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  75. Kargas, A.; Giannakis, A.; Foukas, I. Recognizing Skills and Competencies Required Under Industry 4.00s Framework for Achieving Business Digital Transformation. In Management Strategies for Sustainability; Pejic-Bach, M., Dogru, Ç., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  76. Frank, A.G.; Mendes, G.H.; Ayala, N.F.; Ghezzi, A. Servitization and Industry 4.0 convergence in the digital transformation of product firms: A business model innovation perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2019, 141, 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  77. Li, L.; Su, F.; Zhang, W.; Mao, J.Y. Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: A capability perspective. Inf. Syst. J. 2018, 28, 1129–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  78. Barann, B.; Cordes, A.K.; Hermann, A.; Chasin, F. Supporting Digital Transformation in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises: A Procedure Model Involving Publicly Funded Support Units. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA, 8–11 January 2019; pp. 4977–4986. Available online: https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/59935 (accessed on 10 October 2023).
  79. Schallmo, D.; Willams, C.A.; Boardman, L. Digital Transformation of Business Models-Best Practice, Enabler, and Roadmap. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2018, 21, 1740014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  80. Gouveia, F.D.; Mamede, H.S. Digital Transformation for SMES in the Retail Industry. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2022, 204, 671–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  81. Big Data, P.; Kargas, A. Big-Data Management: A Driver for Digital Transformation? Information 2021, 12, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  82. Ghobakhloo, M.; Iranmanesh, M. Digital transformation success under Industry 4.0: A strategic guideline for manufacturing SMEs. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2021, 32, 1533–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  83. Kargas, A.; Aretos, A. Transforming Strategic Management Using Agile Methodologies. In New Perspectives and Possibilities in Strategic Management in the 21st Century: Between Tradition and Modernity; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  84. Moeuf, A.; Pellerin, R.; Lamouri, S.; Tamayo-Giraldo, S.; Barbaray, R. The industrial management of SMEs in the era of Industry 4.0. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 1118–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  85. Frank, A.G.; Dalenogare, L.S.; Ayala, N.F. Industry 4.0 technologies: Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2019, 210, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  86. Agostini, L.; Nosella, A. The adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in SMEs: Results of an international study. Manag. Decis. 2019, 58, 625–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  87. Kargas, A.; Gkika, E.; Papakyriakopoulos, D.; Komisopoulos, F.; Psaromiligkos, Y. Interplay of Skills in the Digital Era: A European Perspective. In Leading and Managing in the Digital Era; Prastacos, G., Pouloudi, N., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; Volume 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Applsci 16 00833 g001
Figure 1. Bigram frequency distribution (top 20 terms).
Figure 1. Bigram frequency distribution (top 20 terms).
Applsci 16 00833 g001
Applsci 16 00833 g002
Figure 2. Bigram relative frequency distribution per source.
Figure 2. Bigram relative frequency distribution per source.
Applsci 16 00833 g002
Applsci 16 00833 g003
Figure 3. Word cloud.
Figure 3. Word cloud.
Applsci 16 00833 g003
Applsci 16 00833 g004
Figure 4. Collocation of bigrams for different publication years.
Figure 4. Collocation of bigrams for different publication years.
Applsci 16 00833 g004
Table 1. Results from the database search.
Table 1. Results from the database search.
Results from
Initial Research		Results After Title and Keywords AnalysisResults After Abstract and Full Text Analysis
EBSCO13030
Emerald154228642
Scopus-Elsevier3686
Science Direct194934233
Source: Elaboration of the dataset.
Table 2. Extracted topics.
Table 2. Extracted topics.
Topic NumberFive Top TermsLabelDescription
Topic 1social media, inform system, transformation process, product development, digit strategiDigital Processes ImplementedHow businesses reshape processes by using digital tools and strategies
Topic 2technology adopt, computer science, medium enterprises, digit twin, develop countriesEmerging Tech AdoptionTechnology adoption and relevant emerging tech trends
Topic 3manufacture SME, chang management, project management, success factor, project successSuccess of management’s transformation to agileEffort to implement digital management and departmental agility within the SMEs
Topic 4business performance, innovation performance, competitive advantage, organizational capabilities, firm performPerformance and CapabilitiesBusiness outcome
Topic 5digital tool, intellectual capital, digital division, tool adopt, digital businessDigital Vision and Digital OrientationVarious business elements as a result of an existing digital vision and/or an existing digital orientation
Topic 6dynamic capabilities, digital capabilities, digit literacy, job satisfaction, organizational learningDynamic and Digital CapabilitiesSkills and capabilities related to digital transformation
Topic 7firm performance, export performance, firm digit, data analytics, internet businessExtrovert opportunitiesExternal connections and opportunities, related to business external environment
Topic 8transform strategi, top manag, sme digit, digit strategi, digit innovStrategic Transformation intensityExistence of a transformation strategy from the management’s side
Topic 9human resourc, transform success, success determine, enabl factor, digit maturHuman Resource and Digital MaturityRole of HR and maturity in digital evolution
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kargas, A.; Drosos, D.; Komisopoulos, F.; Katsianis, D.; Chaniotaki, E.; Rokkas, T.; Andriopoulos, A.; Argyroulis, V.; Filios, S.; Loumos, G.; et al. Reviewing and Mapping the Digital Transformation Process of SMEs. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 833. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16020833

AMA Style

Kargas A, Drosos D, Komisopoulos F, Katsianis D, Chaniotaki E, Rokkas T, Andriopoulos A, Argyroulis V, Filios S, Loumos G, et al. Reviewing and Mapping the Digital Transformation Process of SMEs. Applied Sciences. 2026; 16(2):833. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16020833

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kargas, Antonios, Dimitrios Drosos, Faidon Komisopoulos, Dimitrios Katsianis, Eleni Chaniotaki, Theodoros Rokkas, Athanasios Andriopoulos, Vasileios Argyroulis, Spyridon Filios, Georgios Loumos, and et al. 2026. "Reviewing and Mapping the Digital Transformation Process of SMEs" Applied Sciences 16, no. 2: 833. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16020833

APA Style

Kargas, A., Drosos, D., Komisopoulos, F., Katsianis, D., Chaniotaki, E., Rokkas, T., Andriopoulos, A., Argyroulis, V., Filios, S., Loumos, G., Kokkinis, D., & Alvertos, K. (2026). Reviewing and Mapping the Digital Transformation Process of SMEs. Applied Sciences, 16(2), 833. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16020833

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop