From AI To Digital Transformation. The AI Readiness Framework
From AI To Digital Transformation. The AI Readiness Framework
From AI To Digital Transformation. The AI Readiness Framework
Jonny Holmstrom
PII: S0007-6813(21)00074-4
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.03.006
Reference: BUSHOR 1768
Please cite this article as: Holmstro¨m J., From AI to digital transformation: The AI readiness framework
Business Horizons, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.03.006.
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2021 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
From AI to digital transformation:
Jonny Holmström
of
Umeå University
Sweden
ro
[email protected]
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
0
From AI to digital transformation:
Abstract
Strategies and means for selecting and implementing digital technologies that realize firms’
goals in digital transformation have been extensively investigated. The recent surge in
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies has amplified the need for such investigation, as they
are being increasingly used in diverse organizational practices, creating not only new
opportunities for digital transformation but also new challenges for managers of digital
transformation processes. In this paper I present a framework intended to assist efforts to
address one of the first of these challenges: assessment of organizational AI readiness, i.e., an
organization’s ability to deploy AI technologies to enable digital transformation, in four key
of
dimensions: technologies, activities, boundaries and goals. I show that it can facilitate
analysis of an organization’s current socio-technical AI status, and future prospects for its
ro
fuller value-adding socio-technical deployment. The AI readiness framework invites fuller
theorizing of the roles that AI can, and will, play in digital transformation.
-p
re
Keywords: Artificial intelligence, AI readiness, digital transformation
lP
na
ur
Jo
1
INTRODUCTION
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been touted as a means for organizations to cut costs and
(Davenport, 2018; Iansiti & Lakhani, 2020). Today, AI technologies are being increasingly
and playing an increasing role in contemporary organizing (Boden, 2016; Seidel et al. 2018).
of
decision-making, manufacture, and design (Kittur et al. 2019). The AI systems involved can
ro
be described as rational agents that autonomously respond to inputs—with little or no user
-p
intervention—by performing tasks guided by their underlying models and functions
re
(Bostrom, 2014; Canhoto & Clear, 2020). In this manner, AI technologies constitute a new
lP
are still struggling to reap their full potential. For instance, a recent McKinsey report
ur
suggested that while the business world is beginning to harness these technologies and their
Jo
benefits, fundamental transformation barriers remain (Boutetiere & Reich, 2018). For
organizations to reap the full potential of digital technologies in general and AI in particular,
they need to enable mutual adaptation of technology and organization. However, digital
technologies such as AI are said to be notoriously challenging and dynamic, as their adoption
adopting AI in their operations is that AI platforms vary in both scope and complexity, which
hinders familiarity with them and hence their deployment to obtain competitive advantage
(Iansiti & Lakhani, 2020). This springs partly from the ‘black box’ nature of the algorithms
2
(sets of digital instructions implemented to achieve defined goals) dictating AI responses,
which are difficult to understand for members of organizations that are being increasingly
shaped by AI (Hallinan & Striphas, 2014; Lindgren & Holmström, 2020; Pasquale, 2015). AI
platforms are likely to transform organizations in qualitatively different ways from other
Since AI technologies have human-like cognitive capabilities (Huang & Rust, 2018),
of
including knowing, learning, perceiving, sensing, acting, communicating and reasoning, their
ro
deployment may have far-reaching consequences for organizations and various associated
-p
ecosystem actors, including consumers, vendors, frontline service providers, and other
re
stakeholders (Fernandes & Oliveira, 2021). However, there is a huge gap between the AI
lP
hype touted by AI vendors and its actual use in organizations. Thus, the importance of
organizations’ AI readiness in ongoing digital transformation has been recognized (Li et al.,
na
2017; Pan, 2016). Moreover, there is a clear need for deeper exploration of AI’s impact on
ur
organizational activities, boundaries and goals, including the mechanisms and processes
Jo
involved in harnessing its power in digital transformation (Aldrich & Ruef 2006).
For the purposes of this paper I define AI readiness as an organization’s abilities to deploy
and use AI in ways that adds value to the organization. I present a novel approach (the AI
readiness framework) to assess and visualize four key dimensions of this readiness:
technologies, activities, boundaries, and goals. The framework has been applied in workshop
and future potential) in each dimension. It highlights the risks and challenges involved in
ends, for which success rates are often low (e.g. Agarwal et al., 2010). The multi-dimensional
3
AI readiness framework also provides a pragmatic tool that facilitates efforts to meet the
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The next section provides the theoretical
background and outlines the scope of the paper. The following sections describe the
concluding section summarizes the key contributions and limitations of the study.
of
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
ro
AI and Digital Transformation
-p
Digital technologies are radically changing the way firms operate (Henfridsson and Bygstad,
re
2013; Jonsson et al., 2018) and it is hard to deal with organizing without considering digital
lP
technology (Kallinikos et al., 2013). Simply put, digital technologies are integral to
na
contemporary firms to the extent that organizing and digitization are two sides of the same
coin. Digital technologies are seen as ‘‘products or services that are either embodied in
ur
49). As such, they exist in the shape of digital platforms (e.g., Tiwana et al., 2010) or artifacts
with digitized components (e.g., Ekbia, 2009). While there is a broad range of digital
technology types, a common theme for all types of digital technology is the decoupling of
digital information from the physical form of the material device (Yoo et al., 2010).
It must be clear that digitalization cannot occur without digitization. Digitization is the
conversion of analog to digital, whereas digitalization is the use of digital technologies and
digitized data to impact how work gets done, how customers and firms engage and interact,
and how revenue streams are created. Digitization refers to the internal optimization of
processes (e.g., work automation) which often results in cost reductions. Conversely,
4
digitalization is process that goes beyond the implementation of technology to imply a deeper
change to the entire business model and the evolution of work (see Table 1).
In the end, very few businesses have undergone successful digital transformations. For
of
instance, Kane et al (2017) found in a global study that only 25% of organizations had
ro
transformed into digital businesses, 41% were on transformative journeys, and 34% invested
-p
more time talking about the digital transformation trend than they did acting on it. What is
re
noteworthy form this study, however, is that 85% of executives stated that attaining digital
lP
Despite various conceptualizations of digital transformation (Vial, 2019; Wessel et al. 2020),
ur
it is widely agreed that digital technologies, especially in the form of AI, can massively
Jo
transform organizations (Constantinides et al., 2018; Davenport, 2018). Hence, in the last
decade increasing attention has been paid to the process and associated tensions as
organizations deploy AI in their operations (Agarwal et al., 2010; Hinings et al., 2018). Inter
alia, managers must decide whether to focus on exploiting existing technologies or invest in
new AI technologies for the future (e.g. Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Raisch et al., 2009).
They also face pressures to change rapidly in order to keep up with competitors and investors’
demands, while avoiding rash decisions and carefully taking stock of long-term shifts in the
5
The increasing utilization of digital technologies linked to various kinds of datasets has given
rise to diverse AI capabilities designed to augment organizational capabilities (e.g. Khrais &
Shidwan, 2020). Examples include provision of on-line conversation through text or text-to-
speech by chatbots to advanced digital services such as fraud detection and personalized
organizational capabilities, there have been few conceptual and empirical investigations of
of
specific context with a specific (and limited) dataset (e.g. Brynjolfsson et al., 2018). The
ro
notion of AI readiness is especially important for wider AI applications due to their greater
complexity.
-p
re
lP
disruptive effects on goals, boundaries, and activities (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006). Thus, as AI has
na
estimation, and image recognition (Agrawal et al., 2018; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014;
Brynjolfsson et al., 2018). Thus, ‘digital transformation’ is considered a broader concept than
deeply entangled with several layers of organizational reality. Hence, recent academic interest
technology’s power to transform firms’ activities, boundaries, and goals (Wessel et al., 2020;
6
The AI readiness framework is designed to enable the capture and tracing of an organization’s
facilitate efforts to address key bottlenecks. It focuses attention on four key dimensions of the
fabric of organizational life: technologies, activities, boundaries, and goals. Technologies play
major roles in digital transformation by definition, and the others correspond to three
environments (Aldrich 1979; Aldrich & Roef, 2006). Transformations of elements associated
of
with each of these dimensions may be difficult to achieve as they take place against a
ro
background of the daily reproduction of routines. Thus, in the framework presented here the
-p
dimensions are considered separately for clarity, although they are clearly interdependent.
re
The process is illustrated in the following sub-sections by the first practical application of the
lP
framework, in which an insurance firm’s AI readiness was assessed by a team of the firm’s
na
Technologies
Jo
Debates about digital technologies’ effects on organizations and the nature of work seem to
have greatly intensified recently. This may largely be due to the rapid emergence and scaling
of new digital technologies (Huang et al., 2017), together with new and increased concerns
about their consequences associated with their increasing levels of complexity (Sandberg et
al., 2020). The new digital technologies developed and implemented in recent years have had
major effects, with large-scale transformations of occupations, job roles and entire industries
(Acemoglu & Autor, 2011; Mokyr et al., 2015). Several key functional qualities of digital
technologies, such as editability and generativity (Kallinikos et al., 2013; Yoo et al., 2010),
have been identified that shape firms’ activities, boundaries and goals (Alaimo et al., 2020).
Thus, the insurance firm’s management team initially focused on the technology dimension in
7
the workshop. Using the questionnaire shown in Appendix 1, with the author acting as a
facilitator, the management team awarded the firm a score of 4 (‘excellent’) for their current
AI technology portfolio in terms of value it adds to their organization. This portfolio included
a chatbot function, with functionality that they did not intend to expand due to an assumption
that the best customer interactions were phone-mediated. The firm’s customer ratings had
been very high for many years and they did not see a reason to change channels. Their AI
technology portfolio also included data analytics capacities based on TensorFlow and
Tableau. The rating for their future AI technology portfolio was lower, 2 (moderate) on the 0-
of
4 scale, because they had no strategy for using any further AI technology to add value to their
ro
organization. They merely intended to continue to use the chatbot function on their website,
-p
and analyze data using TensorFlow and Tableau. See full ratings in Appendix 2.
re
lP
Activities
Previous studies have shown that algorithm-governed digital systems can enable
na
organizations to perform activities more effectively and augment their capacities, but they
ur
also have affordances that can have radically differing consequences from planned changes
Jo
(Neff & Nagy, 2016). They can also organize, manage, and control many activities delegated
to them by humans, but this control is not always obvious or transparent (Feltzmann et al.,
organizations and reshape occupational boundaries (Faraj et al., 2018). Activities that may be
affected by such digital transformation include the handling of money transfer via mobile
banking (Malar et al., 2019), the emergent use of sensor-based technologies in the automotive
insurance industry (Marabelli et al., 2017), and fundamental AI-mediated changes in work
practices (Jarrahi, 2018). Thus, in the workshop, after appraising the insurance firm’s
technological status the team next considered the activities dimension, and awarded the firm a
score of 2 (‘moderate’) in terms of their AI’s value-adding support for key activities. The
8
activities supported by AI technology at the time of the workshop were customer support and
data analytics. There were no concrete plans to expand these activities, or push for deeper use
of AI, but there was evidence of some enthusiam for expansion in the future as a score of 3
(‘high’) was awarded for the firm’s strategies for supporting future activities with AI.
Boundaries
Changes that occur in digital transformation may involve expansion, contraction or even
disappearance of boundaries (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006). Scholars have been concerned with
of
boundary change in relation to mergers and acquisitions (Henningsson and Carlsson, 2011),
ro
organizations establishing new digital innovation units (Nylén et al., 2014), layoffs of
-p
organizational members (Spencer, 2018), and skill replacements (Gekara & Thanh Nguyen,
re
2018). Boundary changes may also arise from physical products being increasingly enhanced
lP
with digital components such as sensors, and linear value creation being dissolved by drawing
on newly incorporated digital capabilities that allow addition of novel services during their
na
lifecycles. For example, adding sensors in work contexts enables new forms of service
ur
arrangements (Jonsson et al., 2018; Westergren et al., 2019). Another example of boundary
Jo
change is the emergence of the ‘gig economy’ with people increasingly working from remote
Clearly, in order to exploit the affordances of digital technologies, an organization must have
the ability to identify and implement appropriate boundary changes. Thus, in the workshop,
the management team considered boundaries as the third dimension of AI readiness and
awarded the firm a score of just 1 (‘low’) on the 0-4 scale for value-adding changes in
organizational boundaries associated with their use of AI. The only boundary-stretching
examples they mentioned were experiments with smart home solutions and emergence of big,
complex and unstructured datasets from such experiments. In the long run their boundaries
9
with customers and real estate owners are likely to change, but current intiatives that could
induce or include boundary changes did extend beyond these experiments. However, the
participants expressed enthusiam about these experiments and hoped that some of the tested
ideas would be realized in the future, leading to a self-reported score of 2 (moderate) for
Goals
Digital transformation may have profound effects on organizations’ ‘deep structure’, e.g.,
of
their goals and identities (Wessel et al., 2020). The process of creating, capturing and
ro
delivering value from digital transformation provides opportunities to create new processes,
-p
products, services, and ultimately new goals, typically by drawing on the affordances
re
associated with digital technologies. Cross-disciplinary research has shown that
lP
organizational identity has important effects, as ‘who we are’ has implications for ‘what we
do’, which should be ideally both be clear and in sync (Ravasi et al., 2020). The alignment of
na
organizational activities with organizational identity (Santos & Eisenhardt 2005) also has
ur
major implications for digital transformation efforts. For example, Baiyere et al. (2020) have
Jo
demonstrated needs to consider, and if necessary adjust, business process management when
introducing new digital products and service offerings. Similarly, Gregory et al. (2015) have
from conflicting needs, such as simultaneous needs for IT agility and stability). Thus, in the
workshop the management team finally used the AI readiness framework to focus on the
goals dimension, and awarded their insurance firm a score of 0, indicating that their present
AI use provides no value-added support for attainment of the organization’s goals. The
participants engaged in a debate about ways in which some new startups have entered the
market and seemed to appeal to the young customer base. For example, Hedvig (a purely
10
digital startup in the insurance industry driven by AI) has taken a big slice of the market in the
Nordic countries. They also discussed US-based insurance companies’ stronger reliance on AI
than their European counterparts, which they attributed partly to technological factors and
partly to ethical issues (the managers insisted that they did not want to ‘cross an ethical line’
by finding out more about their customers). However, they expressed some interest in
increasing use of AI to provide value-adding support for the organization’s goals in the future,
of
ro
[Insert Table 2 About Here]
-p
re
lP
The proposed model (rooted in research streams summarized in Table 2) frames the
na
relationships between digital technology and the other dimensions, i.e.,. activities, boundaries
and goals. Thus, it moves beyond the prevailing assumption that treats technology as an entity
ur
that is distinct from the other dimensions, and includes it as an integral part of organizational
Jo
fabric. It also avoids the frequently black-boxed representation of technology, which has
transformation. A further distinctive feature of the model is that the four dimensions can be
considered both separately from each other and holistically when analyzing organizational AI
readiness.
Experiences with AI have shown that it can greatly changes an organizations’ workforce,
required skills and ways of both communicating and cooperating (e.g. Ransbotham et al.,
11
2017). AI and digital transformation go hand in hand, but a systematic effort is needed to
maximize the potential of this relationship. The presented AI readiness framework focuses
boundaries and goals—to facilitate acquisition of a rich picture of a firm’s AI readiness. The
ranging from 0 to 4 for each dimension, the framework provides a convenient means for
of
ro
-p
[Insert Figure 1 About Here]
re
lP
To illustrate the visualization potential of the model, Figure 2 presents results from the
na
workshop using the framework for measuring the insurance organization’s AI readiness. The
ur
assessment session showed that the organizational members felt comfortable with the current
Jo
technology status, but less confident about the firm’s ability to harness the value-adding
potential of new technologies in the future. In a similar vein, there was a relatively high level
were less certain of how AI supports/relates to future activities. Uncertainty was strongest and
most pervasive regarding AI’s support for, and relations to, boundaries and goals, so
12
According to Crossan, Lane & White (1999), a good framework has three key requirements.
First, it should identify the phenomenon of interest—in this case AI readiness. Second, the
key premises or assumptions underlying the framework must be stated. A key premise
and that digital transformation through AI affects all dimensions. Third, the relationships
among elements of the framework must be described. The presented AI readiness framework
focuses attention on each of the dimensions separately, but it is also intended to promote
consideration of interactions among elements associated with the dimensions, and tensions
of
associated with AI-mediated digital transformation. I hope that it will help practitioners
ro
identify and manage the links between the dimensions and the tensions inherent in digital
transformation processes.
-p
re
lP
To handle digital transformation effectively, employees must work together in a new way,
members need to learn from each other in order to respond more quickly and consistently to
ur
changes in the market and within their own organization. Corporate cultures also need to
Jo
move toward a digital mindset where innovation is rewarded, and additional digital expertise
can be brought in to help organizations to embrace the digital world and acquire the necessary
skills and knowledge. In addition, organizations need tools and frameworks to enable them to
avoid ‘reinventing the wheel’ and steer digital transformation efforts in an appropriate
facilitating the assessment of key organizational capabilities (or lack thereof) in relation to
four dimensions: technologies, activities, boundaries, and goals. For example, use of the
framework in the case considered here suggests that the firm had some capabilities related to
technologies and activities, but found building capabilities related to boundaries and goals
more challenging. Thus, it illustrates the potential utility of assessing and visualizing AI
13
readiness in the four key dimensions for enabling organizations to develop their AI readiness
CONCLUSIONS
AI is a key driver of digital transformation in today’s organizations, largely due to its utility in
provides some of the greatest opportunities and poses some of the most severe challenges
facing organizations. However, many leaders have little idea how to address them. They
of
recognize that AI plays crucial roles in organizations’ performance, but not how their firms
ro
can deploy it to achieve desired performance outcomes and promote effective digital
transformation.
-p
re
lP
Many organizations primarily focus on performance outcomes related to AI, which are
obviously important, but only one aspect of AI governance. Moreover, various studies have
na
shown that sometimes short-term hits in performance must be accepted during AI-mediated
ur
digital transformation in four key dimensions: technologies, activities, boundaries and goals.
Thus, it can be used to help organizations design and develop their AI-based business
bottlenecks.
From an evolutionary perspective, it can also be used to investigate the development of firms’
AI-related learning in each of the dimensions. Some organizations begin with a largely blank
slate, so they must initiate rules or principles and experiment with them until they find the
14
most effective or appropriate AI use for them. Organizations that begin with inadequate
knowledge or experience will feel strong pressure to learn by doing. Organizations that have
acquired routines or organizing procedures from existing workplaces may find it easier to
muddle through the initial stages, but nonetheless must learn to anticipate and cope with
with AI, and the presented framework may assist acquisition of this understanding.
of
ro
[Insert Appendix 1 Here]
-p
re
lP
15
REFERENCES
Acemoglu, D. & Autor, D.H. (2011). Skills, Tasks and Technologies: Implications for
Employment and Earnings, Handbook of Labor Economics 4, 1043–1171.
Agarwal, R., Gao, G. (Gordon), DesRoches, C., & Jha, A. K. (2010). Research Commentary
—The Digital Transformation of Healthcare: Current Status and the Road Ahead, Information
Systems Research 21(4), 796–809.
Agrawal, A. K., Gans, J. S., & Goldfarb, A. (2018). Exploring the impact of artificial
intelligence: Prediction versus judgment (No. w24626). National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Alaimo, C., Kallinikos, J., & Valderrama, E. (2020). Platforms as service ecosystems:
of
Lessons from social media. Journal of Information Technology, 35(1), 25-48.
ro
Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall.
-p
Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations Evolving, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
re
Publications.
lP
Baiyere, A., Salmela, H., & Tapanainen, T. (2020). Digital transformation and the new logics
of business process management. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(3), 238-259.
na
Boden, M. (2016). AI: Its nature and future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
University Press.
Jo
Boutetiere, H., & Reich, A (2018). Unlocking Success in Digital Transformations. McKinsey
Digital, October.
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and
prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., & Syverson, C. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the modern
productivity paradox: A clash of expectations and statistics. In The Economics of Artificial
Intelligence: An Agenda. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Canhoto, A. I., & Clear, F. (2020). Artificial intelligence and machine learning as business
tools: A framework for diagnosing value destruction potential. Business Horizons, 63(2), 183-
193.
Constantinides, P., Henfridsson, O., & Parker, G.G., 2018. Introduction—platforms and
infrastructures in the digital age. Information Systems Research 29(2), 381–400.
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework:
From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522-537.
16
Davenport, T. H. (2018). The AI advantage: How to put the artificial intelligence revolution
to work. Boston: MIT Press.
Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., & Sayegh, K. (2018). Working and organizing in the age of the learning
algorithm. Information and Organization, 28(1), 62-70.
Felzmann, H., Fosch-Villaronga, E., Lutz, C., & Tamò-Larrieux, A. (2019). Transparency you
can trust: Transparency requirements for artificial intelligence between legal norms and
contextual concerns. Big Data & Society, 1-14.
of
Fernandes, T. & Oliveira, E. (2021). Understanding consumers’ acceptance of automated
technologies in service encounters: drivers of digital voice assistants adoption. Journal of
ro
Business Research, Vol. 122 No. 1, 180-191.
-p
Gekara, V. O., & Thanh Nguyen, V. X. (2018). New technologies and the transformation of
work and skills: a study of computerisation and automation of Australian container terminals.
re
New Technology, Work and Employment, 33(3), 219-233.
lP
Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 200–226.
na
Gregory, R. W., Keil, M., Muntermann, J., & Mähring, M. (2015). Paradoxes and the Nature
of Ambidexterity in IT Transformation Programs, Information Systems Research 26(1), 57–
80.
ur
Hallinan B. & Striphas T (2014) Recommended for you: the Netflix Prize and the production
Jo
Henfridsson, O., & Bygstad, B. (2013). The generative mechanisms of digital infrastructure
evolution. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 907–931.
Henningsson, S., & Carlsson, S. (2011). The DySIIM model for managing IS integration in
mergers and acquisitions. Information Systems Journal, 21(5), 441-476.
Hinings, B., Gegenhuber, T., & Greenwood, R., (2018). Digital innovation and
transformation: an institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28(1), 52–61.
Huang, J., Henfridsson, O., Liu, M. J., & Newell, S. (2017). Growing on steroids: Rapidly
scaling the user base of digital ventures through digital innovation. MIS Quarterly, 41(1),
301-314.
Huang, M.H. & Rust, R.T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, 155-172.
17
Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. (2020). Competing in the Age of AI: Strategy and Leadership When
Algorithms and Networks Run the World. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in
organizational decision making. Business Horizons, 61(4), 577-586.
Jonsson, K., Mathiassen, L., & Holmström, J. (2018). Representation and mediation in
digitalized work: evidence from maintenance of mining machinery. Journal of Information
Technology, 33(3), 216-232.
Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The ambivalent ontology of digital
artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 357-370.
Kane, G.C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A.N., Kiron, D., Buckley, N. (2017). Achieving Digital
Maturity, MIT Sloan Management Review. Boston, MA, USA.
of
Khrais, L.T. & Shidwan, O.S. (2020). Mobile commerce and its changing use in relevant
ro
applicable areas in the face of disruptive technologies. International Journal of Applied
Engineering Research, Vol. 15 No 1, 12-23.
-p
Kittur A, et al. (2019) Scaling up analogical innovation with crowds and AI. Proc. Natl. Acad.
re
Sci USA116, 1870–1877.
Lehdonvirta, V. (2018). Flexibility in the gig economy: managing time on three online
lP
Li, B. H., Hou, B. C., Yu, W. T., Lu, X. B., & Yang, C. W. (2017). Applications of artificial
intelligence in intelligent manufacturing: A review. Frontiers of Information Technology &
Electronic Engineering, 18(1), 86–96.
ur
Intelligence: Building Blocks For A Research Agenda, Journal of Digital Social Research
(2:3), 1–15.
Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., & Boland, R. J. (2016). Digital product innovation within four classes
of innovation networks. Information Systems Journal, 26(1), 47–75.
Malar, D. A., Arvidsson, V., & Holmstrom, J. (2019). Digital transformation in banking:
Exploring value co-creation in online banking services in India. Journal of Global
Information Technology Management, 22(1), 7-24.
Marabelli, M., Hansen, S., Newell, S., & Frigerio, C. (2017). The light and dark side of the
black box: Sensor-based technology in the automotive industry. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, 40(1), 16.
Mokyr, J., C. Vickers & Ziebarth, N.L. (2015). The History of Technological Anxiety and the
Future of Economic Growth: Is This Time Different?, Journal of Economic Perspectives
29(3), 31–50.
18
Monteiro, E., & Parmiggiani, E. (2019). Synthetic Knowing: The Politics of the Internet of
Things. MIS Quarterly, 43(1), 167-184.
Neff, G., & Nagy, P. (2016). Talking to Bots: Symbiotic Agency and the Case of Tay.
International Journal of Communication, 10, 4915-4931.
Nylén, D., & Holmström, J. (2015). Digital innovation strategy: A framework for diagnosing
and improving digital product and service innovation. Business Horizons, 58(1), 57-67.
Nylén, D., Holmström, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2014). Oscillating between four orders of design:
The case of digital magazines. Design Issues, 30(3), 53-68.
Pan, Y. (2016). Heading toward artificial intelligence 2.0. Engineering, 2(4), 409–413.
Paschen, J., Wilson, M., & Ferreira, J. J. (2020). Collaborative intelligence: How human and
of
artificial intelligence create value along the B2B sales funnel. Business Horizons, 63(3), 403-
414.
ro
Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and
-p
Information. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
re
Perlow, L., Okhuysen, G., & Repenning, N. (2002). The speed trap: Exploring the
relationship between decision making and temporal context. Academy of Management
lP
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational
na
Ransbotham, S., Kiron, D., Gerbert, P., & Reeves, M. (2017). Reshaping business with
artificial intelligence: Closing the gap between ambition and action. MIT Sloan Management
Jo
Review, 59(1).
Ravasi, D., Tripsas, M., & Langley, A. (2020). Exploring the strategy-identity nexus.
Strategic Organization, 18(1), 5-19.
Sandberg, J., Holmström, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2020). Digitization and Phase Transitions in
Platform Organizing Logics: Evidence from the Process Automation Industry. MIS Quarterly,
44(1), 129-153.
Seidel, S., Berente, N., Lindberg, A., Lyytinen, K., & Nickerson, J. V. (2018). Autonomous
tools and design: a triple-loop approach to human-machine learning. Communications of the
ACM, 62(1), 50-57.
Spencer, D. A. (2018). Fear and hope in an age of mass automation: debating the future of
work. New Technology, Work and Employment, 33(1), 1-12.
19
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010). Platform evolution: Coevolution of
platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems
Research, 21(4), 675–687.
Vial, G., 2019. Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. Journal
of Strategic Information Systems 28(2), 118–144.
Wessel, L., Baiyere, A., Ologeanu-Taddei, R., Cha, J., & Jensen, T. (2020). Unpacking the
difference between digital transformation and IT-enabled organizational transformation.
Journal of Association of Information Systems, 22(1).
Westergren, U. H., Holmström, J., & Mathiassen, L. (2019). Partnering to create IT-based
value: A contextual ambidexterity approach. Information and organization, 29(4).
Wimelius, H., Mathiassen, L., Holmström, J., & Keil, M. (2021). A paradoxical perspective
of
on technology renewal in digital transformation. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 198-
225.
ro
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research commentary—the new organizing
-p
logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Information systems
research, 21(4), 724-735.
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
20
Table 1. Key digital constructs
of
Digital Transformation Digital transformation is the Matt et al. 2015; Vial 2019
profound transformation of
ro
organizational activities,
boundaries and goals to leverage
the opportunities of digital
technologies -p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
21
Table 2. Research streams related to digital transformation dimensions
of
Goals Change in goals, triggered Baiyere et al., 2020; Gregory et
by changes in digital al., 2015.
technology
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
22
Figure 1. Scorecard for the AI readiness framework
of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
23
Figure 2. Completed AI readiness framework scorecard for the focal insurance firm
of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
24
Appendix 1: Questionnaire for the AI readiness framework
Technologies
Our present AI
technology portfolio
Present
adds value to our
organization
We have a strategy for
using our AI
Future technology portfolio to
add value to our
organization
Activities
of
Our present key
activities are
ro
Present supported by AI in
ways that add value to
our organization
Future
We have a strategy for
using AI to support
key activities in ways
-p
re
that add value to our
organization
lP
Boundaries
Our present
organizational
boundaries are
na
Present
stretched by AI use in
ways that add value to
our organization
ur
boundaries in ways
that add value to our
organization
Goals
Our present AI use
supports our goals in
Present
ways that add value to
our organization
We have a strategy for
using AI to support
Future our goals in ways that
add value to our
organization
25
Appendix 2: Questionnaire for the AI readiness framework and scores awarded for the
insurance firm
Technologies
Our present AI
technology portfolio
Present
adds value to our
organization
We have a strategy for
using our AI
Future technology portfolio to
of
add value to our
organization
Activities
ro
Our present key
activities are
Present supported by AI in
ways that add value to
our organization
-p
re
We have a strategy for
using AI to support
Future key activities in ways
lP
Our present
organizational
boundaries are
Present
stretched by AI use in
ur
26