İşletmelerin Dijital Dönüşüm Olgunluğunun Sürdürülebilir Performanslarına Etkisi

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı dijital dönüşüm olgunluğu (DDO) ile sürdürülebilir performans (SP) arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Araştırmada nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılmış, veri toplama aracı olarak anket tekniği tercih edilmiştir. Araştırma örneklemi, çeşitli sektörlerde ve işletmelerin üretim, pazarlama, ar&ge, muhasebe ve bilgi teknolojileri birimlerinde görev yapan ve çalışmalarında teknoloji yoğun faaliyet gösteren kişilerden (328 kişi) oluşmaktadır. Veriler analizinde SPSS kullanılmıştır. Dijital dönüşüm olgunluğu; stratejik yönelim&kültürel uyum, teknolojik yeterlilik ve yönetişim olmak üzere üç boyutta, sürdürülebilir performans ise süreç performansı ve sonuç performansı olmak üzere iki boyutta incelenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre araştırma sorunsalını oluşturan her iki hipotezde kabul edilmiştir. Genel anlamda bir değerlendirme yapıldığında işletmelerin sürdürülebilir performansı yakalamasının ve artırmasının önemli koşullarından birisinin, dijital dönüşüm olgunluk düzeylerini artırmaları olduğunu söylemek mümkündür. Spesifik bir değerlendirme yapılacak olursa elde edilen bulgulara göre dijital olgunluğun stratejik yönelim&kültürel uyum boyutu her iki performans türü (süreç-sonuç) içinde kritik bir unsur iken sonuç performansı için teknolojik yeterlilik boyutu daha önemli süreç performansı içinse yönetişim boyutu daha önemlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital Dönüşüm
• Dijital Olgunluk
• Sürdürülebilir Performans
• Süreç Performansı
• Sonuç Performansı

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışmanın tüm hazırlanma süreçlerinde etik kurallara uyulmuştur.

Teşekkür

Verilerin toplanması aşamasındaki yardımlarından dolayı Emine ORHAN, Zeynep KÖMÜR ve Engin YILDIRIM’a ve Gösterdikleri yoğun ilgi ve emeklerinden dolayı Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi Editör Kurulu’na ve sağladıkları katkılarında dolayı hakemlere teşekkür ederim.

THE EFFECT OF DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION MATURITY OF BUSINESSES ON THEIR SUSTAINABLE PERFORMANCE

Öz

The purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between digital transformation maturity (DTM) and sustainable performance (SP). In the research, the relational screening model, one of the quantitative research methods, was used, and the survey technique was preferred as the data collection tool. The research sample consists of people (328 people) who work in the production, marketing, R&D, accounting and information technology units of various sectors and businesses and who are technology-intensive in their work. SPSS were used in the data analysis. Digital transformation maturity was examined in three dimensions: strategic orientation & cultural adaptation, technological competence and governance, and sustainable performance was examined in two dimensions: process performance and outcome performance. According to the research results, both hypotheses constituting the research problem were accepted. When a general evaluation is made, it is possible to say that one of the important conditions for businesses to achieve and increase sustainable performance is to increase their digital transformation maturity levels. If a specific evaluation is to be made, the findings show that the strategic orientation & cultural adaptation dimension of digital maturity is a critical element in both types of performance (process-outcome), while the technological competence dimension is more important for outcome performance, and the governance dimension is more important for process performance.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital Transformation
• Digital Maturity
• Sustainable Performance
• Process Performance
• Outcome Performance

Kaynakça

1. Agustian, K., Mubarok., E. S., Zen, A. ve Wiwin, W. (2023). The ımpact of digital transformation on business models and competitive advantage. Technology and Society Perspectives (TACIT), 1(2):79-93.
2. Ahmad, H., Yaqub, M. ve Lee, S. H. (2024). Environmental , social , and governance related factors for business investment and sustainability: a scientometric review of global trends. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26, 2965-2987.
3. Alessa, N., Akparep, J. Y., Sulemana, I. ve Agyemang, A. O. (2024). Does stakeholder pressure influence firms environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure? Evidence from Ghana. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 1-22.
4. Allal-Chérif, O., Costa, C. J. ve Berenguer, K. J. U. (20239. Born to be sustainable: how to combine strategic disruption, open ınnovation, and process digitization to create a sustainable business. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113379.
5. Armistead, C. (1999). Knowledge management and process performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(2), 143-157.
6. Aslanova, I. V. ve Kulichkina, A. I. (2020). Digital maturity: definition and model. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, 138, 443–449.
7. Azhari, P., Faraby, N., Rossmann, A., Steimel, B. ve Wichmann, K. S. (2014). Digital transformation report, Köln: Neuland GmbH & Co. KG.
8. Bag, S., Wood, L. C., Xu, L., Dhamija, P. ve Kayikci, Y. (2020). Big data analytics as an operational excellence approach to enhance sustainable supply chain performance resources. Conservation and Recycling, 153, 104559.

9. Banerjee, R. ve Gupta, K. (2017). The effects of environment sustainability and R&D on corporate risk-taking: International evidence. Energy Economics, 65(1), 1-15.
10. Benn, S., Dunphy, D. ve Griffiths, A. (2006). Enabling change for corporate sustainability: An integrated perspective. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 13(3), 156-165.
11. Berghaus, S. ve Back, A. (2016). Stages in digital business transformation: Results of an empirical maturity study. MCIS 2016 Proceedings, 1-13.
12. Berghaus, S., Back, A. ve Kaltenrieder, B. (2017). Digital Maturity & Transformation Report 2017. Universität St. Gallen & Crosswalk. Erişim tarihi ve adresi: 14.08.2024. www.crosswalk.ch/dmtr2017
13. Bess, G., King, M. ve LeMaster, P. L. (2004). Process evaluation: How it works. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research Journal, 11(2), 109-120.
14. Bharadwaj, A. S. (2013). Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471-482. Bressanelli, G., Adrodegari, F., Perona, M. ve Saccani, N. (2018). Exploring how usage-focused business models enable circular economy through digital Technologies. Sustainability, 10(3), 639.
15. Chandrakant, R. ve Rajesh, R. (2023). Social sustainability, corporate governance, and sustainability performances: an empirical study of the effects. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 14(7), 9131-9143.
16. Chiong, P. T. N. (2010) Examination of corporate sustainability disclosure level and ıts ımpact on financial performance. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Multimedia, Cyberjaya, Selangor.
17. Choi, S. ve Ng, A. (2011). Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and price effects on consumer responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 269-282.
18. Cuganesan, S., Dunstan, K. ve Grant, B. (2019). Management control systems and sustainability performance: The mediating role of organizational culture. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(5), 1507-1530.
19. Dafri, W. ve Al-Qaruty, R. (2023). Challenges and opportunities to enhance digital financial transformation in crisis management. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8(1), 100662.
20. Davenport, T. H. ve Short, J. E. (1990). The new industrial engineering: Information technology and business process redesign. Sloan Management Review, 31(4), 11-27.
21. Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Blome, C. ve Papadopoulos, T. (2019). Big data and predictive analytics and manufacturing performance: integrating institutional theory, resource‐based view and big data culture. British Journal of Management, 30(2), 341-361.
22. Dyllick, T. ve Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and The Environment, 11(2), 130-141.
23. Eisenhardt, K. M. ve Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they?. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10), 1105-1121.
24. Elmassah, S. ve Mohieldin, M. (2020). Digital transformation and localizing the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Ecological Economics, 169, 106490, 1-10.
25. Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D. ve Welch, M. (2013). Embracing digital technology a new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(2):1-16.
26. Ghobakhloo, M. (2020). Industry 4.0, digization, and opportunities for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 1-21.
27. Gill, M., Vanboskırk, S., Evans, P. F., Nail, J., Causey, A. ve Glazer, L. (2016). The digital maturity model 4.0 benchmarks: digital business transformation playbook. Erişim tarihi ve adresi: 14.08.2024. https://forrester.nitrodigital.com/pdf/Forresters%20Digital%20Maturity%20Model%204.0.pdf
28. Govindan, K., Rajeev, A., Padhi, S. S. ve Pati, R. K. (2020). Supply chain sustainability and performance of firms: A meta-analysis of the literatüre. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 137, 101923.
29. Guandalini, I. (2022). Sustainability through digital transformation: a systematic literature review for research guidance. Journal of Business Research, 148, 456-471.
30. Gunarathne, N. ve Lee, K. H. (2021). Corporate cleaner production strategy development and environmental management accounting: A contingency theory perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 308, 127402.
31. Hammer, M. ve Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation a manifesto for business revolution. New York: Harper Collins.
32. Hristov, I., Appolloni, A., Chirico, A. ve Cheng, W. (2021). The role of the environmental dimension in the performance management system: A systematic review and conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 293, 126075.
33. Iqbal, Q., Ahmad, N. H. ve Ahmad, B. (2021). Enhancing sustainable performance through job characteristics via workplace spirituality: A study on SMEs. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 12(3), 463-490.
34. Ittner, C. D. ve Larcker, D. F. (1997). The performance effects of process management techniques. Management Science, 43(4), 522-534.
35. Kagermann, H. ve Wahlster, W. (2022). Ten years of Industrie 4.0. Sci, 4(3), 26.
36. Kamble, S. S., Gunasekaran, A. ve Gawankar, S. A. (2020). Achieving sustainable performance in a data-driven agriculture supply chain: A review for research and applications. International Journal of Production Economics, 219, 179-194.
37. Kane, G.C., Palmer, D., Nguyen P. A., Kiron, D. ve Buckley, N. (2017). Achieving digital maturity. MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(1), 1-29.
38. Karagöz, Y. (2014). SPSS 21.1 Uygulamalı Biyoistatistik. Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
39. Keidanren (Japan Business Federation) (2018). Society 5.0-Co-Creating the Future (Excerpt). Erişim tarihi ve adresi: 14.08.2024. https://www.keidanren.or.jp/en/policy/2018/095.html
40. Kitsios, F. ve Kamariotou, M. (2021). Artificial Intelligence and Business Strategy towards Digital Transformation: A Research Agenda. Sustainability, 13(4), 2025.
41. Knouch, M. ve Çetin, O. (2022). The mediating role of environmental collaboration in the effect of green supply chain management on the firm sustainable performance: evidence from Algeria. Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(2), 212-221.
42. Li, L. (2022). Digital transformation and sustainable performance: The moderating role of market turbulence. Industrial Marketing Management, 104, 28-37.
43. Lin, J. ve Mao, M. (2023). How does digital transformation affect sustainable ınnovation performance? the pivotal roles of digital technology-business alignment and environmental uncertainty. Sustainable Development, 32(4), 3163-3181.
44. Liu, D. Y., Chen, S. W. ve Chou, T. C. (2011). Resource fit in digital transformation: Lessons learned from the CBC Bank global e-banking Project. Management Decision, 49(10), 1728-1742.
45. Matt, C., Hess, T. ve Benlian, A. (2015). Digital transformation strategies. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 57(5), 339–343.
46. Morioka, S. N. ve De Carvalho, M. M. (2016). A systematic literature review towards a conceptual framework for ıntegrating sustainability performance into business. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 134–146.
47. Nicolăescu, E., Alpopi, C. ve Zaharia, C. (2015). Measuring corporate sustainability performance, Sustainability, 7, 851–865.
48. Pagani, M. ve Pardo, C. (2017). The impact of digital technology on relationships in a business network. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 185-192.
49. Parviainen, P., Tihinen, M., Kääriäinen, J. ve Teppola, S. (2017). Tackling the digitalization challenge: how to benefit from digitalization in practice. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 5(1), 63-77.
50. Petrini, M. ve Pozzebon, M. (2010). Integrating sustainability into business practices: learning from Brazilian firms. Brazilian Administration Review, 7(4), 362-378.
51. Prihandono, D., Wijaya, A.P., Wiratama, B., Prananta, W. ve Widia, S. (2024). Digital transformation to enhance Indonesian SME performance: Exploring the impact of market competition and digital strategy. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 22(2), 103-113.
52. Rogers, D. L. (2016). The digital transformation playbook: Rethink your business for the digital age. Columbia: Columbia Business School Publishing.
53. Sala, S., Farioli, F. ve Zamagni, A. (2013). Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(9), 1653–1672.
54. Savastano, M., Zentner, H., Spremić, M. ve Cucari, N. (2022). Assessing the relationship between digital transformation and sustainable business excellence in a turbulent scenario. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 1-22.
55. Schaltegger, S. ve Wagner, M. (2006) Integrative management of sustainability performance, measurement and reporting. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 3, 1-19.
56. Schaltegger, S. ve Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222-237.
57. Schmitz, J. ve Leoni, G. (2019). Accounting and auditing at the time of blockchain technology: a research agenda. Australian Accounting Review, 29(2), 331-342.
58. Shahiduzzaman, M. D., Kowalkiewicz, M., Barrett, R. ve McNaughton, M. (2017). Digital business: Towards a value centric maturity model Part A. Queensland: PWC Chair in Digital Economy.
59. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. ve Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
60. Teichert, R. (2019). Digital transformation maturity: a systematic review of literature. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 67(6), 1673-1687.
61. Utesheva, A., Simpson, J. R. ve Cecez–Kecmanovic, D. (2016). Identity metamorphoses in digital disruption: A relational theory of identity. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(4), 344-363.
62. VanBoskirk, S. ve Gill, M. (2016). The Digital Maturity Model 4.0–Benchmarks: Digital Business Transformation Playbook. Erişim tarihi ve adresi: 14.08.2024. https://www.forrester.com/report/The-Digital-Maturity-Model-40/RES131801
63. Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2),118-144.
64. Volberda, H. W., Khanagha, S., Baden-Fuller, C., Mihalache, O. R. ve Birkinshaw, J. (2021). Strategizing in a digital world: Overcoming cognitive barriers, reconfiguring routines and introducing new organizational forms. Long Range Planning, 54(5), 102-110.
65. Wamba, S. F., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, S. J. F., Dubey, R. ve Childe, S. J. (2017). Big data analytics and firm performance: Effects of dynamic capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 70, 356-365.
66. Warner, K. S. R. ve Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3): 326-349.
67. World Economic Forum (2018). Digital Transformation Initiative Maximizing the Return on Digital Investments, Erişim tarihi ve adresi: 14.08.2024. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/DTI_Maximizing_Return_Digital_WP.pdf
68. Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O. ve Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research commentary—The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724–735.
69. Zeng, F., Lee, S. H. N. ve Lo, C. K. Y. (2020). The role of ınformation systems in the sustainable development of enterprises: A systematic literature network analysis. Sustainability, 12, 3337.
70. Zhai, H., Yang, M. ve Chan, K. C. (2021). Does digital transformation enhance a firm's performance? Evidence from China. Technology in Society, 68(8), 101841.
71. Zhou, D., Saeed, U. F. ve Agyemang, A. O. (2024). Assessing the role of sustainability disclosure on firms’ financial performance: evidence from the energy sector of belt and road ınitiative countries. Sustainability, 16(2), 930.
72. Zhou, K. Z., Yim, C. K. ve Tse, D. K. (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on technology-and market-based breakthrough innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 42-60.
73. Zimek, M. ve Baumgartner, R. J. (2017). Corporate sustainability activities and sustainability performance of first and second order. 18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production Conference (ERSCP): Skiathos, Greece. Erişim tarihi ve adresi: 14.08.2024. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320612163_Corporate_sustainability_activities_and_sustainability_performance_of_first_and_second_order
74. Zollo, M. ve Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339-351.