Author :
Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine how digital maturity level affects coporate strategies, particularly after the rapid digitalization processes that came with the pandemic, it is aimed to explain how digitalization is included in the strategies of companies, how digitalization is handled on a departmental/functional basis between those who have invested in digitalization in the past and have reached a certain level of maturity and those who are at the beginning of the digital transformation process. The study was conducted in 26 manufacturing companies in Turkey within the organization in the ISO Second 500 List. The data were obtained by using both qualitative and quantitative methods, the method of in-depth interviews with 56 high level managers and survey with 132 employees. As a result of this study, there are differences in the corporate strategies of companies that are more mature in digitalization and companies that are at a lower level. Companies with a high level of digitalization have a high level of digitalization of products and services, as well as organization and processes. However, in companies with a low level of digitalization, the subject of products and services has been handled on the basis of the production department and digitized, but the organization and processes have not been sufficiently digitalized. While companies with high level of digitalization give importance to digitalization in all departments of R&D, finance, accounting, sales and marketing, companies with low level of digitalization give their focus to production and finance departments and partially support digital transformation in other departments. While trainings are given to increase the digital awareness of employees in mature companies in digitalization and the perspective on digital transformation is dominant in the corporate culture, it has been determined that employees in companies with low digital maturity level are supported only in necessary vocational training.
Keywords
Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine how digital maturity level affects coporate strategies, particularly after the rapid digitalization processes that came with the pandemic, it is aimed to explain how digitalization is included in the strategies of companies, how digitalization is handled on a departmental/functional basis between those who have invested in digitalization in the past and have reached a certain level of maturity and those who are at the beginning of the digital transformation process. The study was conducted in 26 manufacturing companies in Turkey within the organization in the ISO Second 500 List. The data were obtained by using both qualitative and quantitative methods, the method of in-depth interviews with 56 high level managers and survey with 132 employees. As a result of this study, there are differences in the corporate strategies of companies that are more mature in digitalization and companies that are at a lower level. Companies with a high level of digitalization have a high level of digitalization of products and services, as well as organization and processes. However, in companies with a low level of digitalization, the subject of products and services has been handled on the basis of the production department and digitized, but the organization and processes have not been sufficiently digitalized. While companies with high level of digitalization give importance to digitalization in all departments of R&D, finance, accounting, sales and marketing, companies with low level of digitalization give their focus to production and finance departments and partially support digital transformation in other departments. While trainings are given to increase the digital awareness of employees in mature companies in digitalization and the perspective on digital transformation is dominant in the corporate culture, it has been determined that employees in companies with low digital maturity level are supported only in necessary vocational training.
Keywords
- Arnetz BB, Wiholm C. (1997). Technological stress: psychophysiological symptoms in modern offices.
- Arnetz BB, Wiholm C. (1997). Technological stress: psychophysiological symptoms in modern offices. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 43(1), pp. 35-42.
- Andrews, K. R. (1987), The Concept Of Corporate Strategy, Irwin, New York, 3. Ed.
- Ansoff, I. H. (1987), “Strategic Management of Technology”, Journal of Business Strategy, 7(3), pp.28- 39.
- Barney, J. B. (1991), "Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage" Journal of Management, 17(1), pp.99-120.
- Barney, J. B. (1995), "Looking Inside for Competitive Advantage" Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), pp.49-61.
- Başkale, H. (2016). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlik, güvenirlik ve örneklem büyüklüğünün belirlenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 9(1), 23-28.
- Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4. Baskı). Nediham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
- Burns, T. E. and Stalker, G. M. (1961), The Management Innovation, Tavistock Publications, London (ENGLAND).
- Chandler, A. D. (1962), Strategy and Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
- Colli M., Madsen O., Berger U., Moller C., Vejrum W., Bockholt M. (2018). “Contextualizing The Outcome Of A Maturity Assessment For Industry 4.0”. IFAC PapersOnLine.
- Creswell J.W., Fetters M. D., Ivankova N.V., (2004). Designing a Mixed Methods Study in Primary Care, The Annals of Family Medicine, 2(1), pp.7-12.
- De Carolis, A., Macchi, M., Negri, E. and Terzi, S. (2017). “A Maturity Model For Assessing The DigitalReadiness Of Manufacturing Companies”. In: Lödding H., Riedel R., Thoben KD., von Cieminski G.,Kiritsis D. (eds) Advances in Production Management Systems. The Path to Intelligent, Collaborative andSustainable Manufacturing. APMS 2017. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 513, Springer.
- Dess, G. G. and Miller, A. M. (1996), Strategic Management, McGraw-Hill, New York (USA), 2. Ed.
- Farjoun, M. (2002), “Towards an Organic Perspective on Strategy”, Strategic Management Journal, 23(7), pp.561-594.
- Hax, A. C. and Majluf, N. S. (1988), “The Concept of Strategy and The Strategy Formation Process”, Econ Papers, 18(3), pp.99-109.
- Hofer, C. W. and Schendel, D. (1978), Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts, West Pub., Chicago (USA).
- Hulin, C., Netemeyer, R., and Cudeck, R. (2001). Can a Reliability Coefficient Be Too High? Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 10, Nr. 1, 55-58.
- Johnson, G., Scholes, K, & Whittington, R. (2008), Exploring Corporate Strategy: Texts and Cases,8th Edition .Prentice Hall International, United Kingdom.
- Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A. N., Kıron, D. & Buckley, N. (2017). “Achieving Digital Maturity Adapting Your Company To A Changing World”. MIT Sloan Management Review, Research Report.
- Laugen, B. T., Boer, H. and Acur, N. (2006), “The New Product Development Improvement Motives andPractices of Miles and Snow’s Prospectors, Analysers and Defenders”, Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(1), pp.85-95.
- Markides, C. (2004), “What is Strategy and How Do You Know If You Have One”, London Business School Review, 15(2), pp.5-12.
- Merriam, S. B. 1998. Qualitative reserach and case study applications in education. San Francisco:Jossey- Bass Inc.
- Miles, R. E. and Snow, C. (1978), Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGraw-Hill, New YorkMiller, D. (1987), “Strategy Making And Structure: Analysis And Implications For Performance”, Academy Of Management Journal, 30(1), pp.7-32.
- Mintzberg, H. (1978), “Patterns in Strategy Formation”, Management Science, 24(9), pp.934-948.
- Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. A. (1985), “Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent”, Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), pp.257-272.
- Pettigrew, Andrew M. (1977), “Strategy Formulation As a Political Process”, International Studies of Management & Organization, 7(2), pp.78-87.
- Pettigrew, A. M. and Whipp, R. (1991), Managing Change for Competitive Success, Blackwell, Oxford.
- Pfeffer, J. and Salancık, G. R. (1974), “The Bases and Use of Power in Organizational Decision Making: The Case of a University”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 19(4), pp.453-473.
- Planing, P. & Pfoertsch, W. (2016). “The Digital Business Transformation Paths From Manufacturer ToDigital Ecosystem Provider- Analyzing The Strategic Options Of Large Corporations Towards Digitalization”. Allied Academies Summer Internet Conference, 18, 2, 66-70.
- Porter, Michael E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. Free Press. ISBN 0-684-84148-7.
- Porter, M. E. (1996), “What is Strategy”, Harvard Business Review, Nov.-Dec., pp.1-20.
- Remane, G., Hanelt, A., Wiesboeck, F. and Kolbe, L. (2017). "Digital Maturity in Traditional Industries –An Exploratory Analysis". 25th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Guimarães, Portugal.Rumelt, R. P. (1984), “Toward A Strategic Theory Of The Firm”, In Competitive Strategic Management (Ed. R. Lamb R), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs - New Jersey (USA), pp.556–570.
- Salviotti, G., Gaur, A. & Pennarola, F. (2019). “Strategic Factors Enabling Digital Maturity: An Extended Survey”. MCIS 2019 Proceedings, 15, 1-13
- Steensen, E. F. (2014), “Five Types Of Organizational Strategy”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30,Teichert, R. (2019). “Digital Transformation Maturity: A Systematic Review Of Literature”. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 67, 6, 1673–1687.
- Thordsen, T., Murawski, M. & Bick, M. (2020). “How To Measure Digitalization? A Critical Evaluation OfDigital Maturity Models”. In: Hattingh M., Matthee M., Smuts H., Pappas I., Dwivedi Y., Mäntymäki M.(eds) Responsible Design, Implementation and Use of Information and Communication Technology. I3E 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12066, Springer, Cham.
- Yıldırım H. ve Şimşek A. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara.
