Review of Managerial Science

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00768-8

ORIGINAL PAPER

Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods

study on big data analytics capabilities and innovation
in enhancing organizational performance

Maria Orero‑Blat1 · Daniel Palacios‑Marqués2 · Antonio Luis Leal‑Rodríguez3 ·

Alberto Ferraris4,5

Received: 1 August 2023 / Accepted: 28 April 2024

© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
Digital Transformation (DT) and Big Data Analytics Capabilities (BDAC) enable
SMEs to adapt to rapidly changing markets, innovate, and maintain relevance in the
digital age. This research explores the impact of DT on SME performance through
the lens of BDAC and innovation, from a multi-methods approach and applying the
Dynamic Capabilities view. It asserts that simply investing in DT doesn’t ensure
enhanced performance. Analyzing 183 Spanish SMEs from various sectors, the
study highlights the need for creating specific conditions that enable DT to posi-
tively impact performance. The integration of PLS-SEM and fsQCA methodologies
provides a comprehensive analysis of BDAC as pivotal in optimizing SME perfor-
mance through DT, emphasizing the necessity of strategic alignment with innova-
tion. This nuanced approach, combining the predictive power of PLS-SEM and the
configurational insights of fsQCA, demonstrates that investment in DT alone is insuf-
ficient without fostering conditions conducive to innovation. Our empirical insights
offer actionable guidance for managers utilizing BDA or contemplating technologi-
cal investments to elevate firm performance which go in the direction of increasing
their innovation capabilities. Additionally, these findings equip policymakers with a
nuanced understanding, enabling the design of tailored measures promoting DT in
SMEs anchored in the nuances of BDAC and innovation capabilities.

Keywords Digital transformation · Big data analytics capabilities · Innovation ·

Performance · PLS-SEM · fsQCA

JEL Classification L16 · M15 · OD32

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 M. Orero‑Blat et al.

1 Introduction

Organizations are today "data-dependent". They use big data to identify new busi-
ness opportunities, improve processes and efficiency, better meet customer needs,
predict customer behaviour, and reshape business models (Ceipek et al. 2021; Kraus
et al. 2022b; Singh and Bala 2024).
According to a recent McKinsey study, although organizations have made sig-
nificant technology-driven changes over the past two years, they have captured
much less of the value than they initially expected. Moreover, top economic per-
formers -multinational companies- do significantly better than their peers. In top-
performing organizations, respondents report capturing a median of 50 percent
of the full revenue benefits that their recent transformations could have achieved,
compared with a median of 31 percent across all respondents—and 40 percent
of the maximum cost benefit, compared with 25 percent across all respondents
(McKinsey and Company 2022). Digital Transformation (hereafeter, DT) offers
also Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) a useful tool for creating value
and enhancing their performance in diverse marketplaces, including both devel-
oped and developing nations (Bertello et al. 2021). SMEs, representing over 99%
of EU businesses, are the backbone of the economy, necessitating the advance-
ment in digital transformation to sustain their critical role in the market. The
transition to digital technologies is essential for their growth, competitiveness,
and continued significant contribution to the European economy (Di Bella et al.
2023). Furthermore, it has been analyzed that SMEs with a more advanced use
of digital technology report more innovation practices than less digitalized ones,
so the industry gives us clues to the importance of innovation in this process
(Deloitte and Company 2019).
The most puzzle challenges facing organizations in the DT context today are
not only the implementation of the right technology but also the lack of adequate
skills and capabilities in the organization (Oberer and Erkollar 2018). Having
big data in the organization is not enough to develop a successful big data strat-
egy based on value creation, as the ability to acquire and analyse big data for
decision-making is crucial (Verhoef et al. 2016; Dremel et al. 2018). “Big data
analytics capabilities” (BDAC) is a concept that has arisen from the analysis of
this reality and offers new possibilities to extract value from data management
and achieve a competitive advantage. Several studies address this issue and its
key importance in the DT process of enterprises (Wamba et al. 2017; Akhtar
et al. 2019; Bresciani et al. 2021; Volberda et al. 2021; Shah 2022). Neverthe-
less, there’s a confusing explanation on the process of BDAC adoption. The role
of innovation and its significance in organizational performance that needs to be
further investigated (Nambisan et al. 2019; Firk et al. 2022). Some studies high-
light the lack of empirical research analysing the impact of BDA in strengthening
an organization’s innovation capabilities, since innovation has been studied in DT
as business model innovation and not as exploration and exploitation capabilities
(Wamba et al. 2017; Brand et al. 2021; Zareravasan 2023). Not only technologi-
cal and digital capabilities should be considered for an increase in organizational

13
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

performance, but also the capabilities of exploration and exploitation of oppor-

tunities (innovation capabilities), might mediate the positive relationship and
enhance the effects of DT, and BDAC on organizational performance. Another
concern is that most studies about big data analytics and innovation are focused
on big enterprises, so there is a gap in SMEs analysis (Maroufkhani et al. 2019;
Perdana et al. 2022a, b). Although most companies are proactive in promoting
DT, some SMEs still need to identify the strategic value of big data analytics
and innovation because it represents a challenge for them (Bertello et al. 2021).
According El Telbany et al. (2020) and from the standpoint of the consumer,
innovation was viewed as one of the less crucial prerequisites for DT in emerg-
ing economies. This could be because innovation is more of an organizational
direction set by the organization’s executives and strategy makers, who are more
constrained by budget and would prefer not to invest in new goods and services
or adopt novel business models that would necessitate significant organizational
restructuring. Moreover, recent studies only investigated the topic for the IT sec-
tor, so it is a real need to address the topic from the heterogeneity of sectors as
suggested by Upadhyay and Kumar (2020).
Therefore, we pose three central research questions concerning the role of inno-
vation in the DT process to be effective in increasing performance. First, and with a
probabilistic approach: Which is the role of BDAC and innovation in DT process?
In this question it is argued whether investment in DT translates into higher perfor-
mance per se, or whether the creation and promotion of BDAC is necessary to bring
about an increase in innovation and therefore, the increase in performance in a more
significant way. Secondly, and with a configurational approach: Which combina-
tion of conditions lead companies to a high level of performance in the DT process?
And, does innovation play a key role for SMEs with these challenges?
Different methods will give different results, so a combinatorial approach of PLS-
SEM and fsQCA methodology is proposed in order to solve the complementary
research questions (Mas-Tur et al. 2016). The combination of both methodologies
allows researchers to make a more robust assessment of the models and hypotheses,
as well as the predictive power from a symmetric and asymmetric perspective. The
fsQCA allows to strengthen the results of the sequential model analyzed with PLS-
SEM by identifying the combinations of antecedents that generate an outcome and
better predict and explain real-world business problems (Kumar et al. 2022). The
sample is composed of 183 Spanish organizations already committed with the pro-
cess of DT.
The article presents three significant contributions to the literature on DT and
BDAC within SMEs. Firstly, it assesses the role of BDAC and innovation in the DT
process, questioning whether investment in DT inherently leads to higher perfor-
mance or if fostering BDAC is crucial for amplifying innovation and thus perfor-
mance. Secondly, the research explores which specific conditions and combinations
lead to superior performance in DT, emphasizing the essential role of innovation
for SMEs facing such challenges. Lastly, through a unique combinatorial approach
using PLS-SEM and fsQCA methodologies, the study offers a robust evaluation of
models and hypotheses from both symmetric and asymmetric perspectives, high-
lighting innovation’s dual function as both a mediator and an outcome within the

13
 M. Orero‑Blat et al.

Dynamic Capabilities (DC) framework, crucial for SME resilience and competitive
advantage in a digitalized economy (Teece and Pisano 2003; Bibby and Dehe 2018).
Moreover, significant differences according to the size of companies and their
sector of activity will be highlighted with practical implications to help managers
and policymakers make more efficient DT strategies by focusing on improving inno-
vation capabilities, especially for SMEs that want to quickly reap the full benefits of
DT.

2 Theoretical Framework

2.1 Dynamic Capabilities View in the Digital Environment

The role of DC framework in DT and BDAC is pivotal, as these theories provide a

framework for understanding how organizations adapt, innovate, and maintain com-
petitive advantage in rapidly changing digital landscapes.
They offer foundational insights into the mechanisms through which organiza-
tions navigate and thrive DT, innovation, and the leveraging of BDAC. DC view
posits that the ability of a firm to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and
external competences is crucial in rapidly changing environments. This perspec-
tive is particularly relevant in the context of DT, where firms must continuously
adapt their strategies and operations to leverage technological advancements effec-
tively (Karimi and Walter 2015). On the other hand, the RBV theory emphasizes the
strategic value of unique, inimitable resources in gaining and sustaining competi-
tive advantage, underlining the importance of internal capabilities and resources in
fostering innovation (Lin and Wu 2014). The integration of BDAC as a dynamic
capability further exemplifies the theory’s application, demonstrating how firms can
enhance their operational and environmental performance by effectively managing
and analyzing large datasets (Sahoo et al. 2023). Together, these theories provide
a robust framework for understanding the strategic management of resources and
capabilities in the digital era, underscoring the interplay between an organization’s
internal strengths and the external digital landscape (Bibby and Dehe 2018; Mata-
razzo et al. 2021).

2.2 State of the Art of Digital Transformation and BDAC

DT has become a key driver in the strategic development of organizations, increased

by the need for agility, innovation, and competitive differentiation. Underpinning
this transformation is the deployment of BDAC, which are increasingly recognized
as a crucial DC that allows organizations to interpret and act upon vast quantities of
data with unprecedented speed and efficiency.
Current literature reveals a dual role of BDAC in the DT process (Kraus et al.
2022a). Firstly, it acts as a driver of innovation, allowing firms to uncover novel insights,
streamline processes, and tailor offerings to customer needs (Sahoo et al. 2023). Sec-
ondly, BDAC is instrumental in enhancing organizational adaptability and performance.

13
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

The ability to rapidly process and analyze data enables organizations to anticipate market
changes and respond proactively, maintaining competitiveness within dynamic market-
places (Corte-Real et al. 2017; Wamba et al. 2017).
With the aim of providing an overview of the main constructs of this research, the
approach from which we studied them and the main research gaps addressed in the
current state of the art literature in the Table 1.

3 Research Models Development

In order to answer the two central research questions, two research models are elab-
orated that will be tested with PLS-SEM and fsQCA, respectively. The different
research hypotheses underpinning the proposed model for probabilistic analysis are
explained below.
The investment in DT leads to a greater market share, turnover, and financial
performance indicators. However, it should be aligned with faster and efficient pro-
cesses, plus an organizational structure that accompanies and facilitates the transfor-
mation (Mikalef et al. 2019a, b). DT, understood as a sufficient level of digital matu-
rity in the organization, has a significant influence on value creation (Wang et al.
2020), which also implies a positive effect in performance (Dalenogare et al. 2018).
In Italian SMEs, DT has led to an improvement of performance and value creation
(Matarazzo et al. 2021), and also in Chinese SMEs with key factors being digital
technology and digital strategy (Teng et al. 2022). In Do et al. (2022) DT has a posi-
tive impact on Vietnamese commercial bank’s performance.
From this literature review, the first hypothesis is derived:

H1. DT has a positive and significant effect on performance

DT aims to enhance resources related to technology upgrade and contribute to

achieving objectives such as reducing costs, creating new business opportunities,
and improving organizational processes. This process implies the enhancement of
resources related to technology upgrade which let employees to accomplish break-
through innovations in organizations (Nicolás-Agustín et al. 2021). To improve the
rate of innovation capabilities, organizations can foster behaviours and processes
that stimulate innovation and extract the benefits of DT, and thus enhancing the val-
ues of an innovation culture (Roblek et al. 2021). However, the relationship between
technology and personnel skills in the innovation process is still unclear, as noted by
Nambisan et al. (2019). Therefore, we derive the second research hypothesis:

H2. DT has a positive and significant effect on innovation

Regarding the impact of DT on the organization, we can also enunciate some

more actions such as the increase in the exchange of more fluid information (Nam-
bisan and Zahra 2016), or the increase in efficiency and productivity in operations
(Loebbecke and Picot 2015) as well as the increase in value for stakeholders (Choy
and Kamoche 2021). The DT plan must explicitly consider HR’s involvement in

13
 Table 1  Key notions and research gaps
Concept Key notions Importance and perspectives Research gaps

13
Digital transformation (DT) DT is the multifaceted and complex phenomenon DT requires a holistic perspective, considering the Developing new models to explore
that involves the integration of new technolo- interaction between external pressures and inter- the links between human and
gies, data, and processes to reshape an organiza- nal resource orchestration, which are influenced non-human related components
tion’s value proposition and operations for by complex mechanisms (Chen and Tian 2022) of DT (Feliciano-Cestero et al.
creating more value (Berman 2012; Verhoef and Research on dynamic capabilities approach 2023)
Bijmolt 2019; Kraus et al. 2021) concentrated on the degree of adaptability Developing a global cross-country
The desired outcome of DT includes higher user facilitated by the integration of digital technol- DT model to investigate the
satisfaction, new forms of service delivery, ogy (Chang et al. 2015). According to Nambisan effects of digital technology on
increased profitability, reduced operating et al. (2019, p. 14), "if orchestrated well, it can SMEs worldwide (Skare et al.
expenses, improved customer experience, ease adapt, integrate, and reconfigure firms’ resources 2023)
of integration of internal processes, opening and capabilities." Exploring sustainability practices
new market possibilities, and brand strength and linked to DT in SMEs (Costa-
empowerment (Mergel et al. 2019; Sheikh and Melo et al. 2023)
Goje 2021)
M. Orero‑Blat et al.
 Table 1  (continued)
Concept Key notions Importance and perspectives Research gaps
Big data analytics capabili- BDAC are a combination of human resources, big Dynamic capabilities are conceived as the ability There is an absence on consensus
ties (BDAC) data skills, advanced technologies, and large of an organization to purposefully reconfigure on the key assets needed to
data sets that generate analytical reports and its operational capabilities and create new ones, develop BDAC, and most studies
actionable information using mathematical, sta- according to market and environmental require- assume heterogeneity of organi-
tistical techniques, and machine learning tools ments (Teece 2007) zations (Mikalef et al. 2019a, b)
to improve performance (Mikalef et al. 2018; Dynamic capabilities are related to mediation and As a result, many organizations
Akhtar et al. 2019) improvement effects on operational capabilities focus their investments on a
Verhoef (2016) identified four key elements and their association with performance is proven uniform set of aspects, that is not
essential for integrating BDA into corporate in several studies such as Mikalef et al. (2017) representing reality well
strategy: people, processes, systems, and According Verhoef (2016) processes involve It’s interesting also to explore in
organization developing sufficient knowledge of business the context of DC and DT the
Specially, the people component involves acquir- principles and analytics and syncing BDAC to micro-foundations or sub-com-
ing and retaining workers with analytical business goals, to achieve dynamic capabilities petencies of organizations and
capabilities, passion for business, leadership (Corte-Real et al. 2017; Wamba et al. 2017) businesses are closely related to
qualities, and business knowledge, capable of culture and corporate identity
translating data-driven insights into simple
actions (Yang et al. 2023). The right systems
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

allow information-sharing, and cultural values

that support analytical decision-making function
are key factors for promoting and implementing
BDAC (Verhoef 2016)

Source: Own elaboration

13
 M. Orero‑Blat et al.

its execution, which indicates several benefits for the company, including speed,
increased accessibility and communication, better organizational processes, less
paperwork, and more motivation and productivity (Fenech et al. 2019).
Furthermore, a concrete level of digital maturity, which is how DT is understood
and measured in this study, is necessary for BDAC to be generated (Pramanik et al.
2019). In other words, if there is no DT, it will not be possible to generate BDAC
because the organization will not be prepared to develop a technological infrastruc-
ture that supports data, nor data management, nor will employees have the appropri-
ate skills. Therefore, the more homogeneous the development of DT, the greater the
impact on the organization’s BDAC. We state the following hypothesis:

H3. DT has a positive and significant effect on BDAC

Innovation capability was defined by Romijn and Albaladejo (2002) as the set of
skills and knowledge at the organizational level that are needed to absorb and master
existing technology, products, and processes to improve them and create new ones.
We must keep in mind that there are different types of innovation, mainly exploita-
tive and explorative. BDA facilitates new ways of innovating related to experimen-
tation at lower costs, improvisation, and fast failures. It allows cost savings there-
fore more possibilities of business opportunities which bring competitive advantage
(Barlette and Bailette 2022; Shah 2022). Companies that are proactive and focused
on promoting BDAC are more likely to increase product and service innovation
(Ransbotham and Kiron 2017; Mikalef et al. 2019a, b). Therefore, we hypothesize:

H4. BDAC have a positive and significant effect on innovation

BDAC improve agility, which is key to increasing performance in turbulent envi-

ronments such as the ones we are experiencing today (Ceipek et al. 2021; Barlette
and Baillette 2022). In addition, BDAC also improve business value and market per-
formance according to Wamba et al. (2017) and Raguseo and Vitari (2018). BDAC
leads to increased competitiveness and performance (Gupta and George 2016) and
Su et al. (2021) tests this relationship and contributes with reviews of the literature
on each dimension of BDAC in its relationship with performance.
Maroufkhani et al. (2019) conducted a systematic review of the literature on
BDAC and performance, where it was found that 14 papers studied financial per-
formance and 27 studied non-financial performance. For the reasons above the next
hypothesis is posited:

H5. BDAC have a positive and significant effect on performance

According to the studies of Rosenbusch et al. (2011) or Zhang and Hartley (2018)
innovation positively affect organizational performance in SMEs, because it is an
aggregated effect resulting from positive and negative mediating effects. It is con-
nected to new product performance, process innovation. Moreover, the effect is
increased by several factors such as promoting a real innovation orientation, R&D
spending, or collaboration with external partners in the case of small companies.

13
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

Welch et al. (2020) further elaborate on the long-term reinforcing and synergistic
effects that the dynamic management of exploitative and explorative capabilities can
have on firm performance. Moreover, operational performance is improved through
a variety of innovation approaches, including product, process, organizational, and
marketing innovation (Kafetzopoulos and Psomas 2016). From this literature review
the following hypothesis is posited:

H6. Innovation has a positive and significative effect on performance

DT can lead to increased innovation in an organization due to value creation, but

certain capabilities that create other innovation capabilities are necessary for this
effect to be real and latent (Matarazzo et al. 2021). BDAC, considered as dynamic
capabilities, are necessary for this positive effect on innovation to be effective. Cer-
tain organizational capabilities are also necessary for the DT process to have a direct
effect on increasing organizational performance (Su et al. 2021). BDAC highlight the
importance of different resources in different contexts to achieve the common goal
of contributing to value-driven decision making based on BDA, leading to increased
competitiveness (Shah 2022). Investment in digital skills training by organizations
is positively related to performance. For example, having high-performance multi-
disciplinary teams guarantees a comprehensive understanding of big data issues and
leads to more valuable decision-making based on data insights. The implementation
of DT in an organization can led to resistance to change and scepticism towards staff
who are not trained, motivated, and prepared to be an active part of it (Maroufkhani
et al. 2020). Innovation could mediate the relationship between DT and performance
(Nambisan et al. 2019), but not all organizations adopting BDA solutions have seen
the expected performance improvement. Having BDAC developed in the organi-
zation usually imply a strategic innovative orientation (Baiyere et al. 2020). How-
ever, a developed ambidextrous innovation capability is needed to notice this effect
in its entirety. Therefore, DT is a necessary condition for increased performance,
but not sufficient, as innovation plays a key role in this relationship (Maroufkhani
et al. 2019). Thus, in the last research hypothesis, we propose a sequential mediation
model in which the variables add value to the relationships to achieve the objective
of increasing performance.

H7. The impact of DT on performance is sequentially mediated by BDAC and

innovation

From the hypothesis development, the research model can be (Fig 1) derived.
In order to study the different constructs altogether rather than their relation-
ships and hypotheses separately, we use the fsQCA methodology. To do so, we also
include some firm characteristics associated with innovation performance in DT
processes such as firm size, turnover, internationalization and firm age.
The size of a firm in terms of number of employees or turnover has always been
an indicator of its potential agility and flexibility, closely related to performance.
However, the results obtained in some studies are contradictory, as large firms have
the most financial resources to increase their performance, for example through

13
 M. Orero‑Blat et al.

Fig. 1  Research model for probabilistic analysis. Source: Own elaboration

investments in DT and BDAC (Diego et al. 2023). On the other hand, SMEs (our
focus of study) may show more responsiveness and flexibility in the face of adversity
or in decision-making, which is more aligned with corporate DT (Maroufkhani et al.
2020). Therefore, it will be interesting to study it from a configurational perspective.
The internationalization of a firm is also related to an increase in its global perfor-
mance, especially in the context of SMEs, often as a result of digitalization (Bhandari
et al. 2023; Wen et al. 2023). The firm age condition has been studied extensively in
the literature in different contexts because it refers to the experience accumulated by
the firm, but it can also be an indicator of an outdated and out-of-date firm in the con-
text of DT (Almodóvar et al. 2021; Diego et al. 2023). Considering this, we establish
the different propositions for the configurational analysis of this study. Moreover, the
research model for configurational analysis is developed in Fig 2.

P1. Innovation is an influential element in organizational performance

P2. BDAC is an influential element in organizational performance
P3. DT is an influential element in organizational performance
P4. Firm size is an influential element in organizational performance
P5. Turnover is an influential element in organizational performance
P6. Internationalization is an influential element in organizational performance
P7. Firm age is an influential element in organizational performance

13
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

Fig. 2  Research model for configurational analysis. Source: Own elaboration

4 Methodology

4.1 Data Collection

The study conducted a platform-based questionnaire distributed in July 2022, using

a private URL to access the screening questions to ensure that respondents had the
necessary organizational and DT skills. Six statements were established to check if
the company pre-selected complied with the minimum DT required, such as having
cross-cutting digitalization plans and a budget earmarked for DT. The target audi-
ence of the study were companies with a turnover equal to or greater than 7 million
euros actively engaged in the process of DT in Spain. The respondents answered the
questions on a Likert scale of 1–7, and 183 valid responses were obtained.

4.2 Sample Characteristics

SMEs are crucial to the European Union’s economy, forming over 99% of all busi-
nesses. These enterprises not only embody the entrepreneurial spirit of the EU but
also serve as primary job creators, employing millions and fostering innovation. The
"Annual Report on European SMEs 2022/2023" projects their performance, under-
scoring the vital role SMEs play and the challenges they face (Di Bella et al. 2023).
In the Spanish context, according to the INE Q1 2022 survey “ICT in compa-
nies”, only 3.77% of companies with less than 10 employees implement big data
in their organization, 12,67% of companies with 10 to 49 employees, 23.34% of
companies with 50 to 249 employees and 44.20% of companies with more than
250 employees (Instituto Nacional de Estadística 2022a, b). These data also point

13
 M. Orero‑Blat et al.

out the empirical need of elaborating insights and recommendations for SMEs to
overcome this challenge, as there’s a need felt by companies to understand, adopt
and implement big data analytics within their organizational process. Regarding the
respondent’s profile, the sample is gender-distributed in 46% female and 54% male
distribution, ranging in age from 18 to 39 a 55% of the respondents, and from 40 to
66 a 45% of the respondents. With respect to their professional management posi-
tion within the organization, 18.03% were CEOs or general managers, 12.57% were
CIOs, and 16.94% were transformation managers. The other managerial positions
are mainly marketing managers (8.74%), financial managers (6.01%) and operations
managers (4.37%).
The sectors of study are heterogenic. Companies in the information technology
sector can be highlighted as the majority in our study (ICT services) (28.42%),
as well as financial services (15.3%) and logistics (12.02%). This is followed by
non-financial services companies (6.56%), as well as the metal-mechanical sector
(4.37%) and the more traditional sectors comprising footwear, textiles, wood, and
toys (3.83%) and tourism (3.83%).
In relation to the number of employees, one third of the companies belong to the
group of large companies, but 66% are SMEs. This sample was deliberately selected
to be able to observe differences with the constructs and hypotheses in companies of
different sizes. It is a convenience sample, and therefore it was necessary to include
companies that were more advanced in the process of DT and with a greater mastery
of BDAC to carry out the study with academic rigor.

4.3 Variable Definition and Measures

Validated and adapted scales according to the results of a previous Delphi study
conducted with managers of Spanish SMEs and academic experts were used for
this study. All items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The scales and measures used in the questionnaire
employed be found in Appendix 1. Firm size was measured according the recom-
mendations of the European Commission (2003/361/EC), considering a large com-
pany the ones with more than 250 employees.

4.4 Data Analysis

A combinatorial approach of PLS-SEM and fsQCA methodologies has been used

for data analysis. Partial Least Squares is a composite-based approach to structural
equation modelling, which allows testing complex models with latent constructs,
including the predictive approach (Hair et al. 2019; Leal-Rodríguez et al. 2023). For
some time, it was argued that this technique is suitable for social science research
insofar as their assumptions, present fewer restrictions regarding the normality of the
variables or the sample size (Hair et al. 2014). However, several authors have com-
mented that a mean-centered symmetric approach leads to an incomplete perspec-
tive of the effects of the variables on the outcome (Woodside 2013; Rasoolimanesh

13
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

et al. 2021). For this reason, there is a call to complement it with the use of asym-
metric methodologies that analyze cases as individuals and combinations of varia-
bles leading to a specific level of outcome, such as fuzzy-set qualitative comparative
analysis (fsQCA).
The use of these two methodologies in tandem overcomes the limitations of both
separately and increases the credibility of prescriptions as managerial recommenda-
tions (Hair and Sarstedt 2021). As explained in Rasoolimanesh et al. (2021), PLS-
SEM is first applied to estimate the measurement and structural model, applying the
reliability and validity criteria (Hair et al., 2019). This is followed by the assessment
of the model’s predictive power. Next, the latent variable scores are extracted from
the PLS-SEM analysis, and the fsQCA analysis is started. This, in turn, has five sub-
steps: calibrate the continuous latent variables, establish the necessary conditions
(those in which the consistency is greater than 0.9 (Ragin 2000), create the truth
table where the configurations with a consistency lower than 0.75 are eliminated
due to the sample size (Ragin 2006), and finally perform the sufficiency analysis to
finally analyze the most consistent solutions.
Some studies in the field that have used the PLS-SEM method in an effective and
validated way to explore BDAC are Wamba et al. (2017), Mikalef et al. (2019a, b),
Munir et al. (2022), Leal-Rodríguez et al. (2023).

5 Results

5.1 Symmetric Analysis (PLS‑SEM)

5.1.1 Measurement Model

First, it is necessary to mention that the constructs involving DT, innovation and per-
formance are modelled in mode A, with a reflective approach. Hence, the evaluation
of the measurement model should comprise for such constructs the following steps:
Individual item reliability, composite reliability, convergent validity, and discrimi-
nant validity with the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT). The Table 2 reveals that
most of the items achieve outer loadings of at least 0.707. Only two items belonging
to the DT scale are below 0.707, yet they are very close to this threshold and as the
composite reliability is very good it is recommended to keep them in the scale as
Hair et al. (2014) indicate. In addition, it is verified at the construct level that the
Chronbach Alpha, composite reliability, and Rho A indicators are above 0.7 (Hair
et al. 2019), hence indicating that the constructs satisfy the composite reliability
requirement. Besides, the average variance extracted (AVE) exceeds 0.5, and there-
fore the constructs satisfy convergent validity according to the criteria of Fornell and
Larcker (1981), indicating that ≥ 50% of the indicator variance should be accounted
for. Finally, the model attains discriminant validity by applying the HTMT approach
(Henseler et al. 2015).
Secondly, the BDAC construct is modelled in Mode B (formative approach), and
therefore the analysis of potential collinearity and the assessment of outers weights must
be followed to check its validity and relevance. It should be noted that due to problems

13
 Table 2  Results of measurement model
Construct/ Outer loading Outer weight Variance Inflation Cronbach’s Alpha rho_A Composite Reli- Average Variance
Dimension/ Factor (VIF) ability Extracted (AVE)

13
Indicator

Digital Transformation 0.909 0.910 0.925 0.552

[Mode A]
Q19_BDA_TD1 0.776 0.142 2.305
Q19_BDA_TD10 0.697 0.126 1.731
Q19_BDA_TD2 0.776 0.146 2.324
Q19_BDA_TD3 0.737 0.124 2.088
Q19_BDA_TD4 0.782 0.142 2.207
Q19_BDA_TD5 0.731 0.132 2.122
Q19_BDA_TD6 0.617 0.131 1.721
Q19_BDA_TD7 0.721 0.130 1.842
Q19_BDA_TD8 0.736 0.134 1.899
Q19_BDA_TD9 0.834 0.140 2.817
BDAC 0.891 0.892 0.948 0.902
[Mode B]
BDAGES 0.952 0.539 2.820
Q20_BDA_GES1 0.719 0.142 1.851
Q20_BDA_GES2 0.736 0.151 2.018
Q20_BDA_GES3 0.820 0.174 2.502
Q20_BDA_GES4 0.727 0.154 1.905
Q20_BDA_GES5 0.830 0.178 2.557
Q20_BDA_GES6 0.706 0.163 1.755
Q20_BDA_GES7 0.570 0.116 1.531
Q20_BDA_GES8 0.713 0.127 1.928
Q20_BDA_GES9 0.747 0.150 1.855
M. Orero‑Blat et al.

BDATEC 0.947 0.514 2.820

 Table 2  (continued)
Construct/ Outer loading Outer weight Variance Inflation Cronbach’s Alpha rho_A Composite Reli- Average Variance
Dimension/ Factor (VIF) ability Extracted (AVE)
Indicator

Q20_BDA_TEC1 0.724 0.244 1.547

Q20_BDA_TEC2 0.593 0.156 1.421
Q20_BDA_TEC3 0.736 0.230 1.614
Q20_BDA_TEC4 0.714 0.216 1.635
Q20_BDA_TEC5 0.733 0.248 1.523
Q20_BDA_TEC6 0.804 0.282 1.820
Innovation 0.920 0.922 0.934 0.611
[Mode A]
Q23_INNOV1 0.767 0.145 2.069
Q23_INNOV2 0.732 0.141 1.785
Q23_INNOV3 0.720 0.124 1.791
Q23_INNOV4 0.816 0.144 2.746
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

Q23_INNOV5 0.817 0.150 2.453

Q23_INNOV6 0.790 0.136 2.240
Q23_INNOV7 0.813 0.155 2.492
Q23_INNOV8 0.800 0.139 2.431
Q23_INNOV9 0.775 0.145 2.282
Performance 0.841 0.847 0.880 0.513
[Mode A]
Q22_PERF2 0.736 0.229 1.736
Q22_PERF3 0.659 0.178 1.436
Q22_PERF4 0.771 0.227 1.790
Q22_PERF5 0.759 0.208 1.881

13
 Table 2  (continued)
Construct/ Outer loading Outer weight Variance Inflation Cronbach’s Alpha rho_A Composite Reli- Average Variance
Dimension/ Factor (VIF) ability Extracted (AVE)

13
Indicator

Q22_PERF6 0.713 0.176 1.677

Q22_PERF7 0.661 0.177 1.676
Q2_PERF1 0.703 0.197 1.571

Source: Own elaboration from SmartPLS software version 3.2.9 (Ringle et al. 2015)
M. Orero‑Blat et al.
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

of multicollinearity (VIF greater than 0.5) the BDAC dimension related to staff skills
has been removed from the model, in accordance with the criteria of Hair et al. (2014).
According to Petter et al. (2007), strong multicollinearity across items is indicated by a
variance inflation factor (VIF) larger than 3.3. In our situation, the maximum VIF value
for indicators was 2.820, which is far less than this important cut-off. Therefore, it can
be concluded that the model under study does not have any multicollinearity issues.
As mentioned, the DT, innovation, and performance variables of this first model
are in reflective mode (mode A), so it will be necessary to check the potential discri-
minant validity through the HTMT criterion, which must be less than 0.9, according
to the criteria of Henseler et al. (2015). These authors discovered that traditional
methods for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based Structural Equation
Modelling, specifically the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the evaluation of cross-
loadings, exhibit notably low sensitivity, thereby inadequately detecting issues in
discriminant validity. Thus, Henseler et al. (2015) suggest to employ the HTMT
(Heterotrait-Monotrait) criteria, a novel approach for discriminant validity assess-
ment in variance-based SEM. The HTMT criteria, which involve comparing heter-
otrait-heteromethod correlations against monotrait-heteromethod correlations, dem-
onstrate a high sensitivity rate and effectively identify discriminant validity issues.
With regard to BDAC, since this construct is modelled in Mode B (formative), there
is no need to report its HTMT value. This is shown in Table 3.

5.1.2 Structural Model

In line with Hair et al. (2014), this study uses a bootstrapping technique (5000 ran-
dom resamples) to produce the standard errors, t-statistics, p-values, and 95% bias
corrected confidence intervals which enable the assessment of the statistical support
for the direct and indirect relationships proposed in the conceptual model. We see
in Table 4 the evaluation of the coefficient of determination, as the ­R2 or explained
variance. According to the criteria of Hair et al. (2014), values below 0.25 are clas-
sified as poor and low. In our model we do not have any but, we the BDAC with
0.749 which is considered as substantial effect. In preparadigmatic disciplines and
exploratory hypothesis testing, this criterion is used in contrast to Chin’s (1998) cri-
terion, which is used in disciplines such as marketing, with more empirically tested
scales and models and a more advanced frontier of knowledge.
As seen Table 4, we find empirical support for all the hypotheses except for direct
hypotheses 1 (DT ➜ Performance) and 5 (BDAC ➜ performance).

Table 3  Discriminant validity BDAC DT Innovation

assessment through the HTMT
ratio BDAC
DT N/A
Innovation 0.617 0.625
Performance 0.650 0.634 0.866

N/A: Not applicable

Source: Own elaboration from SmartPLS software version 3.2.9
(Ringle et al. 2015)

13
13
Table 4  Results of the structural model
Direct relationships Path coefficient T Statistics P Values 5.0% 95.0% Statistical support

DT—> Performance (H1) 0.044 0.403 0.344 -0.150 0.213 No

DT—> Innovation (H2) 0.246 1.771 0.038 0.013 0.467 Yes
DT—> BDA Capabilities (H3) 0.864 32.961 0.000 0.811 0.900 Yes
BDAC—> Innovation (H4) 0.379 2.462 0.007 0.086 0.605 Yes
BDAC- > Performance (H5) 0.158 1.295 0.098 -0.029 0.372 No
Innovation—> Performance (H6) 0.652 8.585 0.000 0.502 0.760 Yes
Indirect relationshipss Path coefficient T Statistics P Values 5.0% 95.0% Statistical support
DT—> BDAC- > Innovation 0.327 2.448 0.007 0.077 0.523 Yes
DT—> BDAC—> Performance 0.136 1.279 0.100 -0.023 0.330 No
DT—> Innovation—> Performance 0.161 1.731 0.042 0.011 0.312 Yes
BDAC- > Innovation—> Performance 0.247 2.324 0.010 0.065 0.416 Yes
DT—> BDAC- > Innovation—> Performance (H7) 0.213 2.313 0.010 0.058 0.363 Yes
Total indirect effect Path coefficient T Statistics P Values 5.0% 95.0% Statistical support
DT—> Performance 0.510 4.784 0.000 0.333 0.682 Yes
Constructs R2
BDA Capabilities 0.749
Innovation 0.345
Performance 0.618

Source: Own elaboration from SmartPLS software version 3.2.9 (Ringle et al. 2015)
M. Orero‑Blat et al.
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

We face a multiple or sequential mediation model in which not all the direct rela-
tionships are significant, even if they are positive, because the mediating variables
innovation and BDAC are needed for the impact on the organization to be tangible.
In other words, DT alone does not have an effective impact on the organization, nor
does investment in technology increase organizational performance. Instead, BDAC
and innovation in the organization are necessary for DT to be effective and translate
into improved organizational performance.

5.1.3 Predictive Analysis

This study evaluates the predictive power of a model by cross-validation with retained
data. To this aim, the SmartPLS software version 3.2.9 and the PLS-predict algorithm
are used. The Q2 value is used to examine the prediction accuracy of the model, where
positive values indicate that the prediction error is lower than PLS-SEM findings using
only mean values. According to Hair et al. (2019), if the Q2 values are greater than
0.5, as is the case for BDAC, the predictive power can be said to be highly robust. In
the study, the model meets the criteria at both the construct and indicator levels, which
confirms the predictive validity of the model (Ringle et al. 2015) (Table 5).

Table 5  Results of predictive Constructs RMSE MAE Q2_predict

analysis
BDA Capabilities 0.518 0.378 0.742
Innovation 0.849 0.608 0.302
Performance 0.855 0.635 0.290
Indicators RMSE MAE Q2_predict
BDATEC 0.539 0.416 0.697
BDAGES 0.585 0.415 0.639
Q23_INNOV6 1.008 0.780 0.175
Q23_INNOV7 1.092 0.848 0.215
Q23_INNOV8 1.064 0.791 0.180
Q23_INNOV4 1.104 0.826 0.171
Q23_INNOV9 1.076 0.824 0.187
Q23_INNOV2 1.047 0.787 0.152
Q23_INNOV1 1.033 0.797 0.200
Q23_INNOV5 1.038 0.807 0.214
Q23_INNOV3 1.098 0.869 0.129
Q22_PERF3 1.083 0.872 0.120
Q22_PERF5 1.078 0.785 0.115
Q2_PERF1 1.154 0.857 0.168
Q22_PERF4 1.071 0.832 0.194
Q22_PERF6 1.122 0.876 0.161
Q22_PERF2 1.043 0.808 0.151
Q22_PERF7 1.128 0.847 0.125

Source: Own elaboration from SmartPLS software version 3.2.9

(Ringle et al. 2015)
Legend: RMSE: root mean squared eror / MAE: mean absolute error

13
 M. Orero‑Blat et al.

5.2 Asymmetric Analysis (fsQCA)

Fuzzy sets Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) is an asymmetric method that

combines fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic. Asymmetric models with complexity theory
are important for several reasons: First, the correlation coefficient and beta cannot
adequately explain the association between two variables (possibly due to the non-
linear association between the independent and dependent variables). This problem
can be solved by applying fuzzy sets as this application offers multiple solutions but
can lead to the same result, so the business phenomena of DT, BDAC and innova-
tion is explained, aligned to the “strategic management” cluster (Kumar et al. 2022).
Although fsQCA was initially aimed at the analysis of small or medium samples,
Woodside (2013) points out that there are no limitations to its application to a large
sample. This approach is referred to in the literature as causal complexity (Kier and
McMullen 2018) that reflected by three properties in fsQCA: conjunction, equifinal-
ity, and asymmetry (Ragin 2006; Kier and McMullen 2018).
Therefore, two models were considered:

MODEL A: High organizational performance = f(INN,TD,BDAC,INT,SIZE,TU

RN,AGE)
MODEL B: ~ High organizational performance (i.e., low company perfor-
mance) =  ~ f(INN,TD,BDAC,INT,SIZE,TURN,AGE)

The tilde symbol ( ~) in Model B expresses the absence of the outcome. In this
particular case, the outcome is high organizational performance. Therefore, the
absence of the outcome corresponds to low organizational performance. The dif-
ferent conditions for this study have been explained in the theoretical section. In
addition, Appendix I details how each of the conditions has been measured in the
questionnaire used to collect the sample.
The initial stage of fsQCA is to choose the cut-offs in the data, which might range
from 0 to 1, then calibrate dependent and independent variables into fuzzy sets (Ragin
2008). Determining the thresholds for membership, non-membership, and maximum
membership ambiguity is the calibration process. In the language of fsQCA, dichoto-
mous conditions—also referred to as crisp-value conditions—can have a value of 0
or 1. Internationalization and firm size are transformed into a crisp set, as observed in
Table 6. The process outlined by Ordanini et al. (2014) is used to convert the 7-point
Likert scale that this study utilizes to measure constructs into fuzzy sets, using the
direct method for calibrating (Ragin 2008). According to Tho and Trang (2015), full
non-membership scores are set at 5, crossover points at 5.5, and full membership
thresholds at values greater than 6.3. The choice of opting for a full non-membership
of 5 instead of 4.5 is due to the distribution of values, which is based on the bias of
respondents to answer (Table 6) affirmatively (strongly agree), as in Backes-Gellner
et al. (2016).
According to Huarng and Roig-Tierno (2016) necessity analysis is the percent-
age of fuzzy set scores in a condition (across all cases) that are less than or equal
to the corresponding scores in the result. When a condition’s consistency score is
higher than 0.9, it is deemed required (Ragin 2000). The consistency and coverage

13
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

Table 6  Calibration of outcome and conditions

Cut-offs
Membership Cross-over Non-membership
point

Performance (PERF) 6.3 5.5 5

Innovation (INN) 6.3 5.5 5
Digital transformation (DT) 6.3 5.5 5
Big data analytics capabilities (BDAC) 6.3 5.5 5
Internationalization (INT) 1 = international company; 0 = regional/national company
Size (SIZE) 1 = SME (less than 250 employees) 0 = big company (more
than 250 employees)
Turnover (TURN) 5 3.5 2
Age (AGE) 37 23 13

Source: Own elaboration

of all conditions, calculated for the outcome’s presence and absence are displayed
in Table 7. With a consistency level above 0.9 (Schneider and Wagemann 2010), it
is outstood that innovation—a crucial component of both our model and the study
hypotheses—clearly has to happen in order for the outcome to materialize. This
means that, in our sample, high performance always happens when innovation is
present, in a context of DT and BDAC building. We thus emphasize its significance
and include it into the suggested research paradigm, validating the PLS-SEM analy-
sis’s outcome.

Table 7  Analysis of necessary Outcome: Presence (of high Outcome: Absence (of
conditions performance) high performance)
Consistency Coverage Consistency Coverage

INN 0.919077 0.805749 0.451243 0.321466

-INN 0.226030 0.336380 0.727328 0.879570
TD 0.868760 0.766227 0.457094 0.327597
-TD 0.237619 0.350066 0.673818 0.806654
BDAC 0.860935 0.764602 0.875293 0.347492
-BDAC 0.237619 0.350066 0.698525 0.452538
INT 0.293978 0.645217 0.198927 0.354783
-INT 0.706022 0.520292 0.801073 0.479708
SIZE 0.377575 0.476500 0.510483 0.523500
-SIZE 0.622424 0.610097 0.489517 0.389903
TURN 0.661747 0.654422 0.534373 0.429425
-TURN 0.423039 0.527870 0.569966 0.577926
AGE 0.505745 0.573064 0.556192 0.512121
-AGE 0.569433 0.612247 0.536324 0.468583

Source: Own elaboration from fsQCA 3.0 software

13
 M. Orero‑Blat et al.

We began sufficiency analysis by producing and evaluating the truth table, based
on frequency and consistency values (Ragin 2008). Frequency in this case referred
to the number of observations for each possible combination and consistency refers
to the degree to which cases correspond to the set-theoretic relationships expressed
in a solution (Fiss 2011), and a consistency threshold of 0.75 is suggested (Ragin
2006). A higher level of consistency means that the solution is more accurate in
explaining the outcome of interest. The output from fsQCA software offers three
different solutions: complex, parsimonious, and intermediate (Ragin 2008). In this
analysis, a combination of the intermediate and parsimonious solution is used for
the presence of the outcome, whilst only the parsimonious solution was considered
in the absence of the outcome.
The results could be observed in Table 8 and 9.
In Tables 8 and 9 we observe the resulting configurations, i.e. the paths that can
be followed to achieve high performance, or low performance, in each case. From
the presence of the outcome, we are going to focus mainly on the 1st configuration,
which represents 78% of the cases and which indicates that a high degree of inno-
vation, DT and BDAC lead to high performance. This result represents the model
presented in this research and triangulates the results obtained in the probabilistic
approach with PLS-SEM.
Configurations 4, 5 and 6 underline the decisive role of innovation for outcome
presence. Conditions such as experience or internationalization appear interchangea-
bly in the configurations but do not play a key role in the configurations. For this rea-
son, these conditions have not been theoretically underpinned. However, innovation
remains stable, as well as the presence of BDAC as an antecedent, in two of them.
The case of configuration 2 is remarkable because 12% of the cases are repre-
sented by young companies, which do not have a high degree of DT or BDAC,
but do have innovation capabilities, which lead to high performance. This may
be due to the adhocratic or innovation culture that certain companies possess and
makes them develop these key capabilities for high performance quickly. Finally,
configuration 3 represents 33% of the cases, corresponding to the large compa-
nies included in the sample to be able to contrast SMEs with them. The role of
innovation is not present in this configuration, but DT and BDAC are needed for
high performance.
Contrary to PLS-SEM, fsQCA analysis assumes that there is asymmetry between
the variables used. Therefore, we observe configurations leading to the inverse of
the outcome (low levels of performance) that are very different from those leading
to high levels of performance (Ragin 2008; Ciampi et al. 2021).
In the analysis of the configurations that lead to the inverse of the outcome,
we highlight configurations 1 and 2, which represent 43% and 59% of the cases
respectively, where the absence of innovation leads small firms to low levels of
performance.
Configurations 4, 6 and 7 are also noteworthy, as they support and triangulate the
results highlighted in the study. Firms that have acquired technological resources
(DT) but have not developed BDAC, cannot extract the full value of these resources
and therefore perform poorly compared to those that do develop these capabilities.

13
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

Table 8  Analysis of sufficient conditions for presence of the outcome*

High performance
Configuration number 1 2 3 4 5 6
INN ● ● ● c● c● c●
TD ● ○ ● ● ●
BDAC ○ ○ c● ●
INT c● c○
SIZE
TURN ● ● ○
AGE ○ ○ c● c●
Raw coverage 0.7846 0.1206 0.3393 0.1396 0.4148 0.2675
Unique coverage 0.0506 0.0343 0.0141 0.0158 0.0012 0.0066
Consistency 0.8975 0.7541 0.8816 0.8873 0.8719 0.8571
Solution coverage 0.8701
Solution consistency 0.8466

Source: Own elaboration from fsQCA 3.0 software

*Black circles preceded by the letter “c” indicate the presence of a core condition. Large white circles
preceded by the letter “c” indicate the absence of a core condition. Small black circles indicate the pres-
ence of a particular condition. Small white circles indicate the absence of a particular condition. Blank
spaces indicate that the condition is not relevant for the configuration

Table 9  Analysis of sufficient conditions for absence of the outcome*

LOW PERFORMANCE
CONFIGURATION NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

INN ○ ○ ○
TD ○ ○
BDAC ● ● ○
INT ○ ○ ○
SIZE
TURN ○
AGE ● ● ●
RAW COVERAGE 0.4382 0.5983 0.2518 0.1843 0.5448 0.3313 0.1843
UNIQUE COVERAGE 0.0304 0.0418 0.0327 0.0215 0.0242 0.0208 0.0108
CONSISTENCY 0.9217 0.8953 0.8153 0.7761 0.9245 0.8540 0.8235
SOLUTION COVERAGE 0.8282
SOLUTION CONSISTENCY 0.8264

Source: Own elaboration from fsQCA 3.0 software

*Black circles indicate the presence of a particular condition and white circles indicate the absence of a
particular condition. Blank spaces indicate that the condition is not relevant for the configuration.

13
 M. Orero‑Blat et al.

The remaining control conditions are indifferent (size, internationalization or

experience).
Therefore, and going back to the research propositions stated in the theoreti-
cal framework, we can say that for both the presence and absence of the outcome
(organizational performance) the firm size condition (measured as number of
employees) does not affect the outcome. All propositions are thus fulfilled except
proposition 4.

6 Discussion

This research has dissected the complex interplay between DT, BDAC, and innova-
tion, examining their collective impact on SME performance. Grounded in empirical
data from Spanish SMEs and bolstered by a multi-methodological approach, the find-
ings resonate with international studies while unveiling nuances distinct to SMEs.
Comparatively, this study echoes the conclusions of Mergel et al. (2019), Wang
et al. (2020), Kraus et al. (2021), Do et al. (2022) and Teng et al. (2022) regarding
the positive ripple effect of DT on firm performance in various contexts, includ-
ing China, Vietnam and Italy. However, our results diverge by emphasizing that
DT’s effect is not inherently sufficient to elevate performance unless it is sequen-
tially mediated by BDAC and innovation capabilities. In addition, Teng et al. (2022)
include in their study the variable of digital competences as mediators of this rela-
tionship, which we can approximate with our BDAC and their key role in our model.
The sequential mediation framework delineated in this study indicates that
BDAC’s pivotal role is to catalyze the DT process, thereby engendering innovation
and, subsequently, enhancing performance. This phenomenon aligns with insights
from Thoeben et al. (2017) and Bresciani et al. (2021). Notably, this pattern stands
in stark contrast to evidence from larger entities, where innovation may not be as
pivotal due to alternate compensatory resources.
Our configurational analysis, through fsQCA, lends further support by highlight-
ing innovation as a linchpin for high performance, especially in more diminutive
firms and young companies. It offers new perspective on the data that the PLS-SEM
methodology alone might not reveal due to symmetry assumption (Kumar et al.
2022). This insight reinforces Deloitte and Company (2019) revelation on the criti-
cality of innovation in digitally mature SMEs across various national landscapes and
also Maroufkhani et al. (2019), Matarazzo et al. (2021) and Yuliantari et al. (2021)
which focused on in Balinese SMEs.
However, the study unveils an intriguing dynamic within SMEs that innovation
capability can catalyze performance even in the absence of extensive DT or BDAC
development, aligning with the work of Volberda et al. (2021) across various Euro-
pean contexts. This underscores a unique strategic pathway for SMEs: that fostering
an innovation-centric culture could offer a trajectory to elevated performance, poten-
tially bypassing the extensive resource investments often associated with DTs.

13
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

7 Conclusions

7.1 Theoretical Implications

In this research, we propose four main theoretical contributions that offer compre-
hensive answers to the three research questions presented in the introduction:
Firstly, our study provides a nuanced perspective on the Dynamic Capabilities’
theory, highlighting the interplay between DT, BDAC, and innovation. We assert
that BDAC and innovation serve as essential mediators, facilitating the strategic
reconfiguration of resources that enable SMEs to navigate the complexities of DT.
This contribution enriches the dynamic capabilities framework, underscoring that
it is not the mere presence of digital technologies but their strategic augmentation
through BDAC that sparks innovation and ultimately fortifies SME performance.
Secondly, addressing the first question and third on the role of BDAC and inno-
vation, our study establishes that investment in digital technologies per se is not a
panacea for improved performance. Rather, it is the strategic enhancement of BDAC
that acts as a springboard for innovation, which in turn significantly boosts perfor-
mance. Our probabilistic analysis demonstrates that BDAC and innovation are not
mere byproducts of DT; instead, they are critical mediators that convert technologi-
cal investments into actionable insights and market opportunities, underscoring their
indispensability for effective DT.
We underscore the role of innovation in SMEs as a critical component of DC,
seen not just as an outcome but as a fundamental driver of transformation and com-
petitive advantage. Our findings indicate that for SMEs, particularly smaller ones
with limited resources, fostering an innovative culture is paramount. Such inno-
vation-driven dynamism is especially crucial for SMEs as they seek to capitalize
on DT and BDAC, ensuring that they are not merely consumers of technology but
active innovators in their respective markets. Moreover, it also complements the
dynamic capabilities framework by emphasizing innovation. This expands the con-
tributions offered in some studies such as Côrte-Real et al. (2017) (which evaluated
BDA impact on competitive advantage and performance and considered BDA as a
strategic investment in DT processes), and Rialti et al. (2019) that investigated it
large European firms, or Zhang et al. (2021) and Wang et al. (2023) who proved this
on different samples of Chinese enterprises.
In response to the second question regarding the combination of conditions that lead
to high performance, our configurational analysis highlights that a synergetic interplay
between various conditions is essential. Among these, innovation capacity emerges as
a linchpin. In environments where SMEs confront the challenges of limited resources
and rapid market changes, innovation’s role is amplified. It is not merely an additional
benefit but a central element that enables SMEs to navigate the DT process successfully
and achieve enhanced performance levels. Lastly, the importance of a sequential model
is revealed in how SMEs transition from digital adoption to performance enhance-
ment. The study contends that the impact of DT on performance is not linear but occurs
through a sequential stimulation of BDAC and innovation.

13
 M. Orero‑Blat et al.

Together, these insights challenge conventional wisdom regarding the DT-per-

formance nexus and advocate for a strategic, nuanced approach to leveraging tech-
nology within the DC’s framework. This research not only contributes to academic
discourse but also offers practical implications for SMEs operating in the fast-paced
digital economy.

7.2 Practical Implications

It is important to emphasise that before conducting this study, many Spanish execu-
tives we worked with, were unaware and ignorant of key concepts and processes of
DT and data-driven orientation. Many companies simply see DT as a forced change
process, often required and influenced by partners, customers, or suppliers, in which
they are struggling to survive.
With regards to the descriptive analysis of the results, we can obtain some
very interesting insights that are of great interest for managers and policymakers.
For example, medium-sized companies with up to 500 employees have an average
BDAC level of 5.7 out of 7, while small companies have a lower level of 5.4/7,
which shows the barriers to entry in terms of DT of companies with fewer finan-
cial resources and less attractive to attract talent with high digital skills, as may be
the case of small and micro-enterprises. This is in line with the study of Perdana
et al. (2022a, b). In addition, we have also looked at the differences in BDAC lev-
els according to sectors of activity and we highlight the ICT services, financial ser-
vices, and logistics sector with a higher average BDAC, between 5.9 and 5.6 out
of 7. These results are in line with the McKinsey Report (McKinsey and Company
2022). This is not surprising but reaffirms the importance of this sector at regional
and national level as a spearhead for the promotion and consolidation of DT.
Non-financial services, tourism, or more traditional sectors such as footwear-tex-
tile-wood and toys, have had to reinvent themselves in the wake of the crisis caused
by the Covid-19 pandemic. They have a lower BDAC level of approximately 5.5/7.
This might be because the financial investment needed for DT can be a barrier of
this process, where small companies have fewer resources to do so.
Companies in the lower stage belong to the agri-food, metal-mechanical and non-
mechanical processing sectors. These are more traditional sectors where less impor-
tance is given to the DT of products and processes and customer orientation but are
more oriented towards “business to business” -B2B- (Ribeiro-Navarrete et al. 2021).
This demonstrates a challenge at the structural level for some sectors to harness the
full value of big data and exploit their investments and efforts in DT due to their
inability to make data-driven decisions or train their managers and staff in BDA.
We also conclude with the importance of BDAC and innovation in increasing
organizational performance in in SMEs, which currently support the bulk of employ-
ment and economic activity. If companies that are not yet part of the active process
of DT and invest resources and time in them do not start to foster change, they are
destined to fail. This is not a complex, albeit costly task, and requires good planning,
analysis of the situation, clear objectives, and good advice to change work processes
to be competitive in the market. Therefore, it is a priority to start raising awareness

13
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

and educating people in digital capabilities and innovation mindset, so that they will
be committed to this process and then organizational resources and capabilities will
be properly managed. Moreover, we advise top managers to drive and guide this
transformation by empowering people who have strong problem-solving skills with
regard to big data processes so they exploit its potentialities.
In addition, to see which specific actions managers should focus on to improve the
organizational situation, we have analysed the underlying values of each construct
that have the highest factor loadings analysed with PLS-SEM methodology. Looking
at the organization’s BDAC, managers should focus on continuously examining inno-
vative opportunities, and using generic software modules to develop new systems. In
addition, it is also interesting to encourage interdepartmental cooperation and collab-
oration between business analysts and line staff so that decisions are made based on
the knowledge and experience of all employees on different topics. Furthermore, the
growing accessibility and affordability of big data tools and technologies is another
important factor propelling the expansion of the SME market through the use of big
data. With data processing and storage prices falling, SMEs can now access and ben-
efit from advanced analytics capabilities that were previously exclusive to giant cor-
porations. Furthermore, the development of software-as-a-service (SaaS) and cloud
computing models has made it simpler for them implement big data solutions without
having to make a sizable upfront investment.
In relation to the recommendations for policymakers, we would like to highlight
the importance of specific programs focused on the particularities and needs of SMEs,
which despite not having great investment possibilities in high technologies, can obtain
great benefits from DT and impact on their performance if certain capabilities are devel-
oped. Therefore, it is essential that governments focus on promoting the innovation capa-
bilities and BDAC of SMEs through aid programs and subsidies for the acquisition and
implementation of technology, consulting and advisory services for the implementation
of BDAC, as well as courses. training in digital and innovation skills and values.

7.3 Limitations and Future Lines of Research

Regarding the limitations of the study, it must be highlighted that the survey used
for this research relies on self-reported data. Although it is a common approach,
some managers might be biased in responding about their organization’s capabili-
ties or performance depending on their recent experience or situational knowledge.
To this end, we have tried to ask some pre-screening questions to see if the respond-
ent was the right person, but in some cases, this may not be sufficient to eliminate
this bias. Therefore, we recognise this limitation and as a future step we propose a
sampling with multiple respondents to improve the internal validity of the results.
Another limitation is that in this study it is not possible to consider the passage of
time or how long it has taken for organizations to become the way they are. This
would require a longitudinal study, which we are planning for next year, to support
further the links provided and as it was recommended in Wamba et al. (2020).
Within the future lines of research, we consider that big data has great potential
not only to transform business but to be a significant factor in ensuring competitive

13
 M. Orero‑Blat et al.

advantage for businesses. For this reason, organizations need a proper comprehensive
understanding of the antecedents of BDAC in the organizations and how could they
develop these capabilities in a fast and efficient way to be supportive in this matter.
In addition, and due to the results of the study in which innovation is declared as key
to achieve high performance in contexts of DT, it would be very interesting to study
the organizational culture and innovation-oriented values that can make a company
develop these capabilities and therefore be able to increase its performance.

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

Digital Transformation (Nicolás‑Agustín et al. 2021)

Rate 1 to 7 the following aspects according to your perception within your company,
1 being ’strongly disagree’, 2 ’disagree’, 3 ’somewhat disagree’, 4 ’indifferent’, 5
’more agree than disagree’, 6 ’agree’ and 7 ’strongly agree’ for the current situation
of your organization.

1. A flexible organizational structure that allows us to deal with the changes

brought about by digital transformation
2. Digitization of products and services offered to customers.
3. Digital communication channels with our employees, such as corporate portals,
WhatsApp groups, digital newsletters and corporate social networks.
4. Digital communication channels with our suppliers: digital orders, centralized
purchasing, EDI, etc.
5. Digital order forms (include B2b or b2c).
6. Use of digital applications for internal financial statements or Blockchain.
7. Extracting information from big data analysis for decision making 8.
8. Use of digital surveys to measure customer satisfaction.
9. Use of metrics to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of digital channels:
CRM, web visits, digital channel visits, social media interactions, etc.
10. Use of dashboards to analyze the company’s results.

Big Data Analytical Capabilities (Adapted from Kim et al. 2012)

Rate 1 to 7 the following aspects according to your perception within your com-
pany, 1 being ’strongly disagree’, 2 ’disagree’, 3 ’somewhat disagree’, 4 ’indiffer-
ent’, 5 ’more agree than disagree’, 6 ’agree’ and 7 ’strongly agree’ for the current
situation of your organization.
About organization’s technology infrastructure

1. If we have multiple offices or employees work outside the central office (telecom-
muting, branch offices and mobile devices), all of them are connected to the
central office to share analytical information.

13
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

2. There are no identifiable communication bottlenecks within our organization for

sharing analytical information.
3. Software applications can be used simultaneously on multiple analytics platforms.
4. Information is shared seamlessly across our organization, regardless of location.
5. Generic software modules are widely used in the development of new systems.
6. We continually examine innovative opportunities for the strategic use of business
analytics.

About BDA management capacity:

1. We perform business analysis planning processes systematically.

2. We frequently adjust business analysis plans to better adapt to changing conditions
in the environment.
3. When we make business analysis investment decisions, we estimate the effect
they will have on the productivity of employees’ work.
4. When we make business analytics investment decisions, we project how much
these options will help end users make faster decisions at a lower cost.
5. In our organization, business analysts and line staff meet regularly to discuss
important issues and coordinate efforts.
6. In our organization, information is shared between business analysts and line staff
so that those making decisions or performing work have access to all available
information.
7. In our organization, the responsibility for analytical development is clear.
8. We constantly monitor the performance of the analytical function.
9. Our company is better than the competition at connecting parties, providing ana-
lytical methods, or incorporating detailed information into a business process.

About the big data skills of your organization’s staff:

1. Our analysis staff is very capable in programming skills.

2. Our analysis staff is very capable in data management and data maintenance.
3. Our analysis staff is very capable in decision support systems (e.g., expert sys-
tems, artificial intelligence, data warehousing, mining, markets, etc.).
4. Our analytical staff shows a high ability to learn new technologies and follow
technology trends.
5. Our analytics staff is very knowledgeable about factors critical to the success of
our organization.
6. Our analytics staff is very knowledgeable about the role of business analytics as
a means, not an end.
7. Our analytics staff is very capable of interpreting business problems and devel-
oping appropriate solutions.
8. Our analytics staff is very knowledgeable about the business environment.
9. Our analytical staff is very capable in executing work in a collective environment
and teaching others.

13
 M. Orero‑Blat et al.

10. Our analysis staff works closely with clients and maintains productive user-client
relationships.

Innovation (Jansen, 2005)

Rate, according to your perception and the information available to you, the innova-
tion of your company in relation to the average of your competitors, considering
a scale from 1 to 7, (being 1 ’much worse’, 2 ’a little worse’, 3 ’slightly worse’, 4
’average’, 5 ’better than average’, 6 ’much better’, and 7 ’much better’).

1. Creation of new ideas to solve situations that represent an obstacle and the invest-
ment of resources needed to solve it is higher than expected.
2. Search for new methods, techniques or work tools.
3. Generation of original solutions to problems.
4. Mobilizing support for innovative ideas.
5. Acquiring approval for innovative ideas.
6. Getting key members of the organization excited about innovative ideas.
7. Transformation of innovative ideas into useful applications.
8. Introduction of innovative ideas into the work environment in a systematic way.
9. Evaluation of the usefulness of innovative ideas.

Performance (Nakata, 2008)

Rate, according to your perception and the information available to you, the per-
formance of your company in relation to the average of your competitors, con-
sidering a scale from 1 to 7, (1 being ’much worse’, 2 ’a little worse’, 3 ’slightly
worse’, 4 ’average’, 5 ’better than average’, 6 ’much better’, and 7 ’much better’).

1. The quality of the product or service.

2. Success of new products or services
3. Customer retention rate
4. The level of sales and market share
5. Return on equity: ROA
6. Gross profit margin: EBITDA
7. Return on investment: ROI

8.5 Demographics SECTOR. In which main sector does the company fall?

1. Logistics
2. Non-metal processing
3. Footwear-textile-wood-toy
4. Agri-food
5. Non-financial services

13
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

6. Financial services
7. Metalworking
8. Tourism
9. ICT services

INTERNATIONALIZATION

1. Implantation at local level

2. Implantation at national level
3. Implantation at international level

TURNOVER. Indicate the approximate range of your company’s turnover for the
previous year. This data will be taken into account on an aggregate basis and never
on an individual basis.

1. From 7M€ to 11M€.

2. From 12M€ to 20M€
3. From €21M to €50M
4. From 51M€ to 100M€
5. From €100M to €200M
6. More than €200M

FIRM SIZE. Please indicate the approximate range of your company’s current
number of employees. This data will be taken into account on an aggregate basis
and never on an individual basis.

1. Less than 50 employees

2. 51 to 250 employees
3. 251 to 500 employees
4. More than 500 employees

FIRM AGE. Year of company foundation.

Author contributions All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation,
data collection and analysis were performed by Maria Orero-Blat, Antonio Leal Rodríguez, Daniel Pala-
cios Marqués and Alberto Ferraris and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All
authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. The
data collection of this study was funded by “Cátedra de Empresa y Humanismo” of University of Valen-
cia, and the authors want to acknowledge Prof. Tomás Gonzalez Cruz for his help and support along the
development of this research.

Data Availability My manuscript has no associate data.

13
 M. Orero‑Blat et al.

Declarations
Competing interests The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content
of this article.

Data transparency All data and materials as well as software application or custom code support their
published claims and comply with field standards.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permis-
sion directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.

References
Akhtar P, Chen H, Ali M, Ali T (2019) Investigating the role of big data analytics capabilities in pro-
moting firm performance: an empirical study of Chinese and Pakistani firms. Inf Syst Front
21:681–697
Almodóvar P, Nguyen QTK, Verbeke A (2021) An integrative approach to international inbound sources
of firm-level innovation. J World Bus 53:1–12
Backes-Gellner U, Kluike M, Pull K, Schneider MR, Teuber S (2016) Human resource management
andradical innovation: a fuzzy-set QCA of US multinationals in Germany, Switzerland, and the
UK. Journal of Business Economics 86:751–772
Baiyere AS, Salmela H, Tapanainen T (2020) Digital transformation and the new logics of business pro-
cess management. Eur J Inf Syst 29:238–259
Barlette Y, Bailette D (2022) Big data analytics for competitive advantage: conceptual framework and
research agenda. J Bus Res 144:554–567
Berman S (2012) Digital transformation: opportunities to create new business models. Strategy Leadersh
40:16–24
Bertello A, Ferraris A, Bresciani S, De Bernardi P (2021) Big data analytics (BDA) and degree of inter-
nationalization: the interplay between governance of BDA infrastructure and BDA capabilities. J
Manag Gov 25:1035–1055
Bhandari KR, Zámborský P, Ranta M, Salo J (2023) Digitalization, internationalization, and firm perfor-
mance: a resource-orchestration perspective on new OLI advantages. Int Bus Rev 32:102135
Bibby L, Dehe B (2018) Building big data analytics capabilities for the future: a dynamic capabilities
approach. J Bus Res 86:197–210
Brand M, Tiberius V, Bican PM, Brem A (2021) Agility as an innovation driver: towards an agile front
end of innovation framework. Rev Manag Sci 15:157–187
Bresciani S, Ciampi F, Meli F, Ferraris A (2021) Using big data for co-innovation processes: Mapping
the field of data-driven innovation, proposing theoretical developments and providing a research
agenda. Int J Inf Manag 60:102347
Ceipek R, Hautz J, Petruzzelli AM, De Massis A, Matzler K (2021) A motivation and ability perspec-
tive on engagement in emerging digital technologies: the case of internet of things solutions. Long
Range Plan 54:101991
Chang KH, Chen YR, Huang HF (2015) Information technology and partnership dynamic capabilities in
international subcontracting relationships. Int Bus Rev 24:276–286
Chen H, Tian X (2022) Resource orchestration for digital transformation: A systematic review and future
research agenda. J Bus Res 135:647–658
Chin WW (1998) Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Q vii-xvi

13
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

Choy KL, Kamoche K (2021) Digital transformation and value creation: a stakeholder perspective. Tech-
nol Forecast Soc Change 164:120478
Ciampi F, Demi S, Magrini A, Marzi G, Papa A (2021) Exploring the impact of big data analytics capa-
bilities on business model innovation: the mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation. J Bus Res
123:1–13
Côrte-Real N, Oliveira T, Ruivo P (2017) Assessing business value of big data analytics in European
firms. J Bus Res 70:379–390
Costa Melo I, Alves Junior PN, Queiroz GA, Yushimito W, Pereira J (2023) Do We Consider Sustain-
ability When We Measure Small and Medium Enterprises’ (SMEs’) Performance Passing through
Digital Transformation? Sustainability 15:4917
Dalenogare LS, Kapper M, Tortorella GL (2018) Digital transformation in the industry 4.0 context: a
review. Int J Prod Econ 195:318–330
de Diego RE, Almodóvar P, del Valle ID (2023) What drives strategic agility? Evidence from a fuzzy-set
qualitative comparative analysis (FsQCA). Int Entrep Manage J 19:599–627
Deloitte & Company (2019) The performance of Small and Medium Sized Businesses in a digital world.
https://​www2.​deloi​tte.​com/​conte​nt/​dam/​Deloi​tte/​es/​Docum​ents/​Consu​ltoria/​The-​perfo​rmance-​of-​
SMBs-​in-​digit​al-​world.​pdf
Di Bella L, Katsinis A, Laguera Gonzalez J, Odenthal L, Hell M, Lozar B (2023) Annual Report on
European SMEs 2022/2023. Publ Off Eur Union Luxemb. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2760/​02870​5,JRC13​
4336
Do TD, Pham HAT, Thalassinos EI, Le HA (2022) The impact of digital transformation on performance:
Evidence from Vietnamese commercial banks. J Risk Financial Manag 15:21
Dremel C, Overhage S, Schlauderer S, Wulf J (2018) Towards a capability model for big data analytics.
Proceedings der 13. Int Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI 2017), St. Gallen, S. 1141–1155
El-Telbany O, Abdelghaffar H, Amin H (2020) Exploring the digital transformation gap: evidence from
organizations in emerging economies.
Feliciano-Cestero MM, Ameen N, Kotabe M, Paul J, Signoret M (2023) Is digital transformation threat-
ened? A systematic literature review of the factors influencing firms’ digital transformation and
internationalization. J Bus Res 157:113546
Fenech T, Deakins D, Tamasy C (2019) The impact of digital transformation on human resource manage-
ment. J Bus Res 98:375–386
Firk S, Gehrke Y, Hanelt A, Wolff M (2022) Top management team characteristics and digital innovation:
Exploring digital knowledge and TMT interfaces. Long Range Plan 55:102166
Fiss PC (2011) Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization
research. Acad Manage J 54:393–420
Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. J Mark Res 18:39–50
Gupta JND, George B (2016) Toward an improved measurement of data and analytics capabilities. J Bus
Res 69:517–527
Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2014) A primer on partial least squares structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications
Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM (2019) When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM.
Eur Bus Rev 29:2–24
Hair JF, Sarstedt M (2021) Explanation plus prediction—The logical focus of project management
research. Project Manage J 52:319–322
Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in vari-
ance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Marketing Sci 43:115–135
Huarng KH, Roig-Tierno N (2016) Qualitative comparative analysis, crisp and fuzzy sets in knowledge
and innovation. J Bus Res 69:5181–5186
Instituto Nacional de Estadística (2022a) Empresas con menos de 10 empleados: Las TIC en las empresas
(primer trimestre de 2022)– Análisis de Big Data. https://​www.​ine.​es/​jaxi/​Datos.​htm?​tpx=​53924
Instituto Nacional de Estadística (2022b) Empresas con 10 o más empleados: Las TIC en las empresas
(primer trimestre de 2022) por agrupación de actividad económica (excepto CNAE 56, 64–66 y
95.1) y tamaño de la empresa. Análisis de Big Data. https://​www.​ine.​es/​jaxi/​Datos.​htm?​tpx=​53911
Jansen J (2005) Ambidextrous organizations: a multiple-level study of absorptive capacity, exploratory
and exploitative innovation and performance (No. 55)
Kafetzopoulos D, Psomas E (2016) The relationship between innovation and firm performance: an empir-
ical analysis. Int J Produc Perform Manag 65:39–58

13
 M. Orero‑Blat et al.

Karimi J, Walter Z (2015) The role of dynamic capabilities in responding to digital disruption: A factor-
based study of the newspaper industry. J Management Inf Syst 32:39–81
Kier AS, McMullen JS (2018) Entrepreneurial imaginativeness in new venture ideation. Acad Manage J
61:2265–2295
Kim KJ, Lim CH, Lee DH, Lee J, Hong YS, Park K (2012) A concept generation support system for
product-service development. Service Science 4(4):349–364
Kraus S, Breier M, Lim WM, Dabić M, Kumar S, Kanbach D, Ferreira JJ (2022a) Literature reviews as
independent studies: guidelines for academic practice. Rev Manage Sci 16:2577–2595
Kraus S, Durst S, Ferreira JJ, Veiga P, Kailer N, Weinmann A (2022b) Digital transformation in business
and management research: An overview of the current status quo. Int J Inf Manage 63:102466
Kraus S, Jones P, Kailer N, Weinmann A, Chaparro-Banegas N, Roig-Tierno N (2021) Digital transforma-
tion: An overview of the current state of the art of research. SAGE Open 11:21582440211047576
Kumar S, Sahoo S, Lim WMK, S, Bamel, U, (2022) Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA)
in business and management research: A contemporary overview. Technol Forecast Soc Change
178:121599
Leal-Rodríguez AL, Sanchís-Pedregosa C, Moreno-Moreno AM, Leal-Millán AG (2023) Digitalization
beyond technology: Proposing an explanatory and predictive model for digital culture in organiza-
tions. J Innov Knowl 8:100409
Lin Y, Wu LY (2014) Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance under the resource-
based view framework. J Bus Res 67:407–413
Loebbecke C, Picot A (2015) Reflections on societal and business model transformation arising from
digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda. J Strategic Inf Syst 24:149–157
Maroufkhani P, Wagner R, Wan Ismail WK, Baroto MB, Nourani M (2019) Big data analytics and firm
performance: A systematic review. Information 10:226
Maroufkhani P, Tseng ML, Iranmanesh M, Ismail WKW, Khalid H (2020) Big data analytics adop-
tion: Determinants and performances among small to medium-sized enterprises. Int J Inf Manag
54:102190
Mas-Tur A, Roig-Tierno N, Soriano DR (2016) Barriers to women entrepreneurship. PLS vs. QCA: do
different methods yield different results?. In Proceedings of International Academic Conferences
(No. 3305622). Int Inst Soc Econ Sci
Matarazzo MP, Penco L, Profumo G, Quaglia R (2021) Digital transformation and customer value crea-
tion in Made in Italy SMEs: a dynamic capabilities perspective. J Bus Res 123:642–656
McKinsey & Company (2022) Three New Mandates for Capturing a Digital Transformation’s Full Value.
https://​www.​mckin​sey.​com/​busin​ess-​funct​ions/​mckin​sey-​digit​al/​our-​insig​hts/​three-​new-​manda​tes-​
for-​captu​ring-a-​digit​al-​trans​forma​tions-​full-​value
Mergel I, Edelmann N, Haug N (2019) Defining digital transformation: results from expert interviews.
Government Inf Q 36:101385
Mikalef P, Boura M, Lekakos G (2017) Exploring the characteristics and the sources of big data projects:
an empirical study. J Bus Res 70:320–327
Mikalef P, Boura M, Lekakos G (2019a) Exploring the impact of big data analytics on innovation. Infor-
mation & Management 56:103–120
Mikalef P, Giannakos M, Pappas IO (2018) Big data analytics capabilities: a systematic literature review
and research agenda. IseB 16:547–578
Mikalef P, Pappas IO, Krogstie J, Giannakos MN (2019b) Digital transformation: review, development
and future directions. J Bus Res 100:360–371
Munir R, Siddiqi J, Hussain M, Saif-Ur-Rehman M (2022) Big data analytics and social media market-
ing: an empirical investigation of small and medium enterprises. J Bus Res 141:98–109
Nakata C, Zhu Z, Kraimer ML (2008) The complex contribution of information technology capability to
business performance. Journal of Managerial Issues 485–506
Nambisan S, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A, Song M (2019) Digital innovation management: reinventing
innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Q 43:1101–1121
Nambisan S, Zahra SA (2016) Digital entrepreneurship: toward a digital technology perspective of entre-
preneurship. Entrep Theory Pract 41:1029–1055
Nicolás-Agustín JL, García-Peñalvo FJ, Zangrando V (2021) Does digital transformation enhance inno-
vation capacity in organizations? Lit Rev Sustainability 13:2009
Oberer B, Erkollar A (2018) Leadership 4.0: Digital leaders in the age of industry 4.0. Int J Organiz
Leadersh. Retrieved from: https://​papers.​ssrn.​com/​sol3/​papers.​cfm?​abstr​act_​id=​33376​44 Con-
sulted: 15/03/2022

13
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

Ordanini A, Parasuraman A, Rubera G (2014) When the recipe is more important than the ingredi-
ents: a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of service innovation configurations. J Serv Res
17:134–149
Perdana A, Lee HH, Arisandi D, Koh S (2022a) Accelerating data analytics adoption in small and mid-
size enterprises: a singapore context. Technol Soc 69:101966
Perdana A, Lee HH, Koh S, Arisandi D (2022b) Data analytics in small and mid-size enterprises: ena-
blers and inhibitors for business value and firm performance. Int J Account Inf Syst 44:100547
Petter S, Straub D, Rai A (2007) Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS
Q 31:623–656
Pramanik S, Guha D, Chatterjee S (2019) Digital transformation and its impact on big data analytics
capability: an exploratory study. J Bus Res 98:417–428
Ragin CC (2000) Fuzzy-set social science. Univ Chicago Press
Ragin CC (2006) Set relations in social research: evaluating their consistency and coverage. Polit Anal
14:291–310
Ragin CC (2008) Measurement versus calibration: a set‐theoretic approach
Raguseo E, Vitari C (2018) Big data analytics capabilities and performance: a systematic literature
review and research agenda. in proceedings of the 51st Hawaii Int Conf Syst Sci
Ransbotham S, Kiron D (2017) The benefits and challenges of the digital business transformation. MIT
Sloan Manage Rev 58:1–12
Rasoolimanesh SM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Olya H (2021) The combined use of symmetric and asym-
metric approaches: partial least squares-structural equation modeling and fuzzy-set qualitative
comparative analysis. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 33:1571–1592
Rialti R, Zollo L, Ferraris A, Alon I (2019) Big data analytics capabilities and performance: evidence
from a moderated multi-mediation model. Technol Forecast Soc Change 149:119781
Ribeiro-Navarrete S, Botella-Carrubi D, Palacios-Marqués D, Orero-Blat M (2021) The effect of digitali-
zation on business performance: an applied study of KIBS. J Bus Res 126:319–326
Ringle CM, Wende S, Will A (2015) SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH
Roblek V, Meško M, Pušavec F, Likar B (2021) The role and meaning of the digital transformation as a
disruptive innovation on small and medium manufacturing enterprises. Front Psychol 12:592528
Romijn H, Albaladejo M (2002) Determinants of innovation capability in small electronics and software
firms in southeast England. Res Policy 31:1053–1067
Rosenbusch N, Brinckmann J, Bausch A (2011) Is innovation always beneficial? a meta-analysis of the
relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. J Bus Ventur 26:441–457
Sahoo S, Upadhyay A, Kumar A (2023) Circular economy practices and environmental performance:
analysing the role of big data analytics capability and responsible research and innovation. Bus
Strateg Environ 32:6029–6046
Schneider CQ, Wagemann C (2010) Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis
(QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comparat Sociol 9:397–418
Shah TR (2022) Can big data analytics help organizations achieve sustainable competitive advantage?
Dev Enq Technol Soc 68:101801
Sheikh SA, Goje SK (2021) The impact of digital transformation on organizational performance: a litera-
ture review. J Organiz Change Manage 34:404–427
Singh S, Bala N (2024) Industry 4.0: Its evolution and future prospects. In Industry 4.0. CRC Press
Skare M, de Obesso MDL, Ribeiro-Navarrete S (2023) Digital transformation and European small and
medium enterprises (SMEs): a comparative study using digital economy and society index data. Int
J Inf Manage 68:102594
Su CH, Nguyen TH, Li M, Cheng CC (2021) Big data analytics capabilities and firm performance: a sys-
tematic review and research agenda. J Bus Res 131:57–70
Teece D, Pisano G (2003) The dynamic capabilities of firms. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg
Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance. Strateg Manage J 28:1319–1350
Teng X, Wu Z, Yang F (2022) Research on the relationship between digital transformation and perfor-
mance of SMEs. Sustainability 14:6012
Tho ND, Trang NTM (2015) Can knowledge be transferred from business schools to business organiza-
tions through in-service training students? SEM and fsQCA findings. J Bus Res 68:1332–1340
Thoeben KV, Vos J, Waller MA (2017) Beyond digital transformation: why culture, talent, and organiza-
tional design matter. Deloitte Review 20:96–109

13
 M. Orero‑Blat et al.

Upadhyay P, Kumar A (2020) The intermediating role of organizational culture and internal analytical
knowledge between the capability of big data analytics and a firm’s performance. Int J Inf Manage
52:102100
Verhoef PC, Bijmolt TH (2019) Digital transformation: a review and synthesis. J Brand Manage 26:1–14
Verhoef PC, Kooge E, Walk N (2016) Creating value with big data analytics: making smarter marketing
decisions. Routledge
Volberda HW, Khanagha S, Baden-Fuller CM, Mihalache OR, Birkinshaw J (2021) Strategizing in a
digital world: overcoming cognitive barriers, reconfiguring routines and introducing new organiza-
tional forms. Long Range Plann 54:102110
Wamba SF, Akter S, Edwards A, Chopin G, Gnanzou D (2017) How big data can make big impact: find-
ings from a systematic review and a longitudinal case study. Int J Prod Econ 183:230–246
Wamba SF, Dubey R, Gunasekaran A, Akter S (2020) The performance effects of big data analytics and
supply chain ambidexterity: The moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Int J Prod Econ
222:107–498
Wang S, Zhang R, Yang Y, Chen J, Yang S (2023) Has enterprise digital transformation facilitated the
carbon performance in Industry 4.0 era? evidence from Chinese industrial enterprises. Comput Ind
Eng 184:109576
Wang Y, Wang Y, Yang Y, Shi Y (2020) How does digital transformation affect organizational perfor-
mance? the roles of information technology investment intensity and innovation capability. Inf
Manage 57:103166
Welch H, Brodie S, Jacox MG, Bograd SJ, Hazen EL (2020) Decision-support tools for dynamic manage-
ment. Conserv Biol 34:589–599
Wen K, Alessa N, Marah K, Kyeremeh K, Ansah ES, Tawiah V (2023) The impact of corporate govern-
ance and international orientation on firm performance in smes: evidence from a developing coun-
try. Sustainability 15:5576
Woodside AG (2013) Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: calling for adoption of
a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. J Bus
Res 66:463–472
Yang Y, Shamim S, Herath DB, Secchi D, Homberg F (2023) The evolution of HRM practices: big data,
data analytics, and new forms of work. Rev Managerial Sci 1–6
Yuliantari NPY, Pramuki NMWA (2021) The role of digital transformation and digital innovation to SMEs
performance in Bali-Indonesia. International Journal of Science and Management Studies 4(6):9–16
Zareravasan A (2023) Boosting innovation performance through big data analytics: an empirical investi-
gation on the role of firm agility. J Inform Sci 49:1293–1308
Zhang J, Long J, von Schaewen AME (2021) How does digital transformation improve organizational
resilience?—findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. Sustainability 13:11487
Zhang Q, Hartley K (2018) The effect of innovation on SME performance: a measurement approach. J
Small Bus Manage 56:142–157

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

13
Beyond digital transformation: a multi‑mixed methods study…

Authors and Affiliations

Maria Orero‑Blat1 · Daniel Palacios‑Marqués2 · Antonio Luis Leal‑Rodríguez3 ·

Alberto Ferraris4,5

* Maria Orero‑Blat
[email protected]
Daniel Palacios‑Marqués
[email protected]
Antonio Luis Leal‑Rodríguez
[email protected]
Alberto Ferraris
[email protected]
1
Departamento de Dirección de Empresas, Universitat de València, Avda Tarongers S/N,
46022 Valencia, Spain
2
Departamento de Organización de Empresas, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camí de Vera
S/N, 46022 Valencia, Spain
3
Departamento de Administración de Empresas y Marketing, Universidad de Seville, Av. de
Ramón y Cajal, 1, 41018 Sevilla, Spain
4
Department of Business Administration, University of Turin, Corso Unione Sovietica 218 Bis,
10134 Turin, Piamonte, Italia
5
Gnosis: Mediterranean Institute for Management Science, School of Business, University
of Nicosia, 2417 Nicosia, Cyprus

13