© This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.

0 license
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
The definitive publisher version is available online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101894
 Digitalisation Performance Assessment: A
Systematic Review
Nujud Alsufyani and Asif Qumer Gill
University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia.

Abstract
Organisations are showing a keen interest in digitalisation. However, they are
uncertain about how to determine the impact of digitalisation on organisation
performance outcomes. This places decision-makers in a challenging position to assess
the feasibility and intended performance outcomes of digitalisation. This paper aims to
address this important research need and provides the performance indicators,
measures, metrics and scales based on a systematic review of 30 selected papers. The
results from this review were synthesised using the “adaptive enterprise architecture”,
and “results and determinants” frameworks as theoretical lenses. This work will
benefit researchers and practitioners interested in studying the impact of digitalisation
on organisational performance.

Keywords: digital technology, digital transformation, digitalisation, organisation

performance, adaptive enterprise architecture

Introduction
Digitalisation is an emerging trend influencing enterprises to adapt and improve digital capabilities in
every aspect to survive and thrive. It enables enterprises to overcome uncertainties and respond to
business demands in an effective way (Deepu and Ravi, 2021). Digitalisation is not about only
technology adoption, rather, it is about fundamental “change” that occurs in “organisational strategy,
business processes, organisational knowledge and the whole socio-technical organisational system”
(Park and Saraf, 2016). As the organisation’s internal and external elements and their relationships have
been transformed by digital technology (Freitas Junior et al., 2020), it may directly and indirectly impact
the enterprise performance outcomes (Meng and Wang, 2020). The uncertain impact of digitalisation
on performance places the decision-makers in a challenging position who need to determine the
feasibility to invest and predict the intended performance outcomes. Although the influence of
digitalisation on performance outcomes has increasingly attracted attention from both scholars and
practitioners (Matthess and Kunkel, 2020), however, it is unclear what and how to measure the impact
of digitalisation on performance outcomes (Rungi, 2019; Verhoef et al., 2021). This draws our attention
to the following key research questions:
RQ1: What are the performance outcomes of digitalisation / digital transformation?
RQ2: What are the measures, scales and metrics of performance outcomes of digitalisation /
digital transformation?
RQ3: How to measure the performance outcomes of digitalisation / digital transformation?
To address the above-mentioned research questions, a systematic literature review approach
(Kitchenham and Charters, 2007; Rowe, 2018) is used to identify the digital performance indicators
(PI) and related elements. The results from this research were framed using the adaptive enterprise
architecture (EA) (Gill, 2015) and results and determinants (Fitzgerald et al., 1991) frameworks as
theoretical lenses. On the one hand, this research aims to provide a more holistic view from the EA
design perspective that may help scholars and practitioners to identify the performance outcome needs
of digitalisation when designing and implementing digital initiatives. On the other hand, it provides an
understanding of PI types and metrics to help decision-makers recognise them and make well-informed
decisions (Verhoef et al., 2021). Also, it highlights possible gaps for future research in this important
and timely area of study.
The paper is structured as follows. Firstly, it discusses the research background. Secondly, it illustrates
the systematic literature review research method. Thirdly, it presents the research results. Finally, before
concluding, it discusses the research results and important insights.

Research Background and Related Work

Although there is no single agreed definition of digitalisation, however, it commonly interchanges with
digitisation and digital transformation, while each term covers a different perspective. Digitisation
covers the technical aspect, while digitalisation covers both the social and the technical aspects
(Bockshecker et al., 2018). Digital transformation, on the other hand, covers much broader aspect that
goes beyond social and technical aspects, including the rapid adaptation of innovative digital technology
(Bockshecker et al., 2018). In this paper, we focus on digitalisation, which can be defined as “the
manifold socio-technical phenomena and processes of adopting and using these technologies in a
broader individual, organisational and societal contexts” (Legner et al., 2017, p. 301). In that context,
digitalisation potentially can impact various aspects in organisations. Performance outcome is one of
those aspects that will be the focus of this research paper.
Organisation performance can be conceptualised as the ability of organisations to fulfil their aims and
goals side by side to their key competitors effectively (Cao and Zhang, 2011), also as the value outcomes
from meeting intended determinants. Since the performance measurement should be performed for
different classes (dimensions) of organisation performance, those performance outcomes could involve
financial and non-financial measures (Wardaya et al., 2019).
Digitalisation or digital transformation requires decision-makers to create a digital vision that explains
the need, plan and intended results of digitalisation (Westerman and Mcafee, 2012). Consequently, the
challenging aspects that decision-makers may face are the uncertainties, risks and disequilibrium
(Griffy-Brown et al., 2018; Michelfelder, 2018 ) of digitalisation influence or impact on organisational
design elements and their performance (Park and Saraf, 2016) due to the socio-technical nature of
digitalisation. As digitalisation, strategies and other organisational elements are interdependent,
digitalisation by itself may not fully explain the complex mechanisms of how it impacts organisational
performance (Park and Saraf, 2016).
There are several studies (e.g. Hanelt et al., 2017; Sener and Yuksel 2017; Nandkumar, Mani et al.,
2018, Cubric, 2020; Alhassan and Adam, 2021) that refer to digital performance from different
perspectives. However, a consolidated and systematic view of digitalisation performance using an
appropriate theoretical lens is missing. For instance, organisational performance has been the focus to
discuss the impact of digital solutions toward corporate sustainability transformation (Hanelt et al.,
2017). Nandkumar’s study discussed market value (Nandkumar et al., 2018), while Sener and Yuksel
discussed process performance (Sener and Yuksel, 2017). Also, other studies have focused on either
financial performance (Westerman et al., 2014; Sia et al., 2016), production performance (Cao et al.,
2019), productivity (Brynjolfsson et a., 2011) or digitalisation investment (Hess et al., 2016). This
review will systematically navigate and consolidate the literature on digitalisation/digital transformation
performance outcome indicators, measures, metrics, and scales using the theoretical lens of adaptive
EA and results and determinants frameworks. This is important to establish a foundation and
knowledgebase for developing digital performance theories and systems.
Literature established the use of EA as a way to enhance performance measurements (Hinkelmann et
al., 2016; Lange, Mendling and Recker, 2016; Hazen et al., 2017). There are several EA frameworks
such as The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF) (Andrew et al., 2016) and Zachman
(Zachman, 1987), however, these frameworks originated in the context of traditional architecture
methods and ontologies. For instance, TOGAF provides method for developing the architecture.
However, it does not explicitly mention the digital and its performance. Whereas Zachman framework
provides only generic ontology. Therefore, a contemporary adaptive EA (Gill, 2015) framework has
been selected because it has been originated in the context of digitalisation and digital ecosystem, which
is relevant to the scope of this study. It provides comprehensive layers for conceptualizing the digital
enterprise. Adaptive EA (Gill, 2015) provides 6 major architecture layers (Interaction, Human,
Technology, Environment, Facility, and Security). Adaptive EA discusses the performance element;
however, it does not explicitly provide detailed performance indicators or factors. Thus, the results and
determinants framework (Fitzgerald et al., 1991) has been used to complement the adaptive EA. The
results and determinants framework provides 6 types of factors for performance assessment:
competitive, Financial, Quality of Service, Flexibility, Resource Utilization, and Innovation. These are
further detailed in the theoretical lens section. One may adopt other theories or frameworks, which
could be used to frame similar studies; however, like any other study, this paper is limited to two
relevant frameworks (1) adaptive EA and (2) results and determinants for synthesizing and reporting
the results and insights. Future studies may use other theories, frameworks and perspectives as
appropriate to their research context and scope.

Research Method
This study applied a well-known systematic literature review (SLR) approach (Kitchenham and
Charters, 2007; Rowe, 2018) to scan, select, and synthesise the published literature in digitalisation its
impact on performance from an enterprise design perspective. Those SLR approaches are reviewed and
used as a guide to avoid any possible omissions. For instance, the use of two different frameworks to
map and analyse extracted data was inspired by Rowe (Rowe, 2018) SLR strategies to synthesis the
extracted data.The quality assessment measures by Dybå & Dingsøyr (2008) have also been applied to
assure the quality of the selected studies for this review. As noted earlier, this review research also used
the adaptive EA (Gill, 2015) and results and determinants (Fitzgerald et al., 1991) as theoretical lenses
to synthesis the extracted data from papers to identify the valuable insights from digital enterprise design
performance perspectives. This review is conducted as follows:

Research Identification Criteria

Research questions mainly guided our study. Additionally, this review encompassed papers only
published in English in the last five years between 2016 and 2021. It provided adequate inclusion of
recent literature. Articles that did not support the identified research question(s) were excluded from
this review.

Research Selection Strategies

This study included five well-known academic digital databases: IEEEXplore, Scopus, AIS eLibrary,
ScienceDirect, and Wiley. The digital databases were systematically searched using the search
keywords (digitalisation, performance, impact, effect). Those keywords were used to screen the title,
keywords, and abstracts of publications covering the period of 2016 to 2021 to establish research
directions based on the recent literature. It is anticipated that studies spread over 5 years provide
sufficient coverage. For testing purposes, the initial review in Scopus was conducted by using the search
string “(digitali?ation OR digi*) AND performance AND (impact OR effect)”. The purpose of the
search string testing was to ensure the identification of related studies. To avoid the risk of restricted
query that may automatically eliminate or omit important studies, step 1 is to retrieve all the papers
(hits) that have the keywords then manually exclude papers based on the review of paper titles. See
figure 1 for detailed screening and selection method.
 • Identify relevant
studies from selected All items, Keywords
23297
databases
Stage 1 • between 2016 -2020

• Exclude on the basis of Title = search keywords 168

titles
Stage 2

• Exclude studies on the

basis of abstracts,
duplicate studies and Abstract = keywo rds. 39
unnavailble to
Stage 3 download

• Obtain selected and Address research question. 30

relevant papers
Stage 4

Figure 1: Study Selection Method

Quality Assessment
Based on Dybå & Dingsøyr (2008), the quality assessment criteria were used to assess the selected
studies' quality for this research. The assessment criteria are defined in Table 1. The 30 extracted studies
satisfied the quality assessment criteria.
Quality criteria
Q1. Is the paper based on research?
To identify whether this study is based on research or experts reporting lessons learned.
Q2. Is there a clear statement of the aims of the research?
A clear declaration of study’s main outcomes and justification for the study was provided.

Q3. Is there an acceptable description of the context in which the research was carried out?
A clear description of the industry and nature of the organisation in which the study was conducted.
Q4. Is there a clear statement of findings?
An explicit description and discussion of research findings including the credibility of those findings, limitations, relevance to
research questions and justification for conclusion.
Q5. Is the study of value for research or practice?
The value is identified by the study’s contribution to current practice or literature including the identification of new research
directions.

Table 1: Quality Criteria

Table 2 provides a detailed overview of the selected studies' overall number retrieved from selected
databases at each stage. The majority of retrieved papers were found in the AIS database covering
almost 50% of the total selected studies in the last stage.

Database Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

/Screening stage
IEEE 363 57 3 3
Scopus 6074 65 13 9
ScienceDirect 613 8 2 2
AIS 8112 25 18 14
 Wiley 8135 13 3 2
Table 2: Research Result

Theoretical lens:
We used two kernel theories to systematically capture and analyse the review results. On the one hand,
adaptive EA (Gill, 2015) has been used, which can be illustrated as “fundamental concepts or properties
of an adaptive enterprise situated in its heterogenous networked environment, embodied in its elements,
relationships to each other and its environment, and in the adaptive principles of its secure adaptive
design, implementation planning, governance and evolution” (Gill et al., 2020, p.175). It has been used
because it provides guidance on six architecture layers and underpinning concrete elements (Figure 2):
Interaction, Human, Technology, Environment, Facility, and Security layers (Anwar and Gill, 2019).
Each layer is organised in terms of its underpinning elements. Firstly, the interaction layer includes the
actors and their interactions via different digital touchpoints, channels, and overall journey experience.
Channel is a communication medium that organisations offer to their clients, while touchpoint is a stage
or point in the process for initiating the interaction using the provided channel. Secondly, the human
layer covers the business, information, social and professional architecture domains. Thirdly, the
technology layer covers infrastructure, application, data and platform architecture domains. Fourthly,
the security layer deals with the security concern of every other element or factor across other layers in
the adaptive EA. Fifthly, environmental layer includes PESTEL (Political, Economic, Social,
Technological, Environmental and Legal) elements, which is used at the strategic level to analyse
macro-environment elements. The aim of this layer is to help decision-makers capturing the sources of
opportunities and risks (Witcher and Chau, 2010) when dealing with digital transformation. Finally, the
facility layer covers heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC), spatial, energy and ancillary
elements. Also, adaptability, in adaptive EA, is achieved through scanning and sensing changes (threats
and opportunities), interpreting and analysing them, deciding and responding to those changes for
adaptations across EA layers and elements. Adaptive EA was used because it provides a systematic
layered approach and concrete elements for designing and evolving digitally-enabled enterprises. Thus,
it has been used as a theoretical lens to frame and report research results.
Adaptive EA does not explicitly provide performance factors. Thus, to complement adaptive EA, the
results and determinants framework (Fitzgerald et al., 1991) is used, which is one of the common
performance measurement frameworks. It has been selected because it provides technology independent
clear six generic dimensions or classes for performance measurement: Competitiveness, Financial,
Quality of Service, Flexibility, Resource Utilisation and Innovation. This framework is composed of
two main types, which are results and determinants. On the one hand, the result’s underpinning
dimensions are financial and competitiveness performance measures. This represents the organisations’
final goals (lagging factors). On the other hand, the determinants cover measures related to resource
utilisation, innovation, flexibility, and quality performance (leading factors). In a nutshell, adaptive EA
provides guidance on the enterprise design layers and elements. The results and determinants
framework provides guidance on the performance dimensions, which can be related (performance
measurement of adaptive EA) to adaptive EA layers and underpinning elements (see Figure 2).
 Flexibility, Resource utilization,
Competitive, Financial, Quality,
Performance:
Innovation
Figure 2: Adaptive EA layers (Gill, 2015; Gill et al., 2020) integrated with Results and Determinants
performance dimensions (Fitzgerald et al., 1991)

Results
Thirty relevant papers were systematically selected in this study by applying the SLR method
(Appendix A). They were carefully selected and reviewed according to the 4-stage search method
described in (Figure 1). Data have been extracted and analysed using the adaptive EA framework
(elements and layers) and the results and determinants framework as integrated theoretical lenses
(Figure 2) to gain a comprehensive insight into the existing literature to answer the research questions.
The extracted digitalisation PIs were carefully reviewed using the adaptive EA elements and layers (see
Appendix B, C, D) to review and identify the existing literature support in assessing the performance
of the architecture layers and its underpinning elements that represent the enterprise design.

RQ1: What are the performance outcomes of digitalisation / digital transformation?

As noted in the background section, the literature about digitalisation impact on performance outcomes
is scattered, e.g. (Hanelt, Busse and Kolbe, 2017; Nandkumar, Mani and Bharadwaj, 2018). It is also
not clear how to effectively synthesise it. Thus, we used adaptive EA framework layers and elements
as a theoretical lens to systematically navigate and consolidate the scatter digitalisation performance
outcomes in the current literature. As such, we extracted data related to performance outcomes of
specific digitalisation aspects, using results and determinants framework, then synthesised it to related
layers in EA as PI. Also, we categorised each PI as a PI type using six generic performance dimensions
from the results and determinants framework (Fitzgerald et al., 1991). For instance, in study A20, we
identified and extracted the PI (market share) under the competitiveness performance dimension of the
results and determinants framework. This PI measures the impact of market intelligence capability
(leveraging market value capture), a digital business capability interpreted as a “business” under the
human layer of the adaptive EA. Similarly, other PIs are mapped to the results and determinants
framework dimensions and adaptive EA layers. As illustrated in Figure 3, firstly, we found that a large
cohort (73%) of the selected studies investigated the financial impact of digitalisation involving
financial profitability, cost efficiency or market value indicators. Secondly, 43% explored resource
utilisation as a determinant, while only one-third (33%) of the studies focused on the competitiveness
outcomes from sales growth and market share perspective. Surprisingly, only 16% of the studies
highlighted digitalisation's impact on innovation and 6% considered quality and flexibility performance
outcomes. Also, it is important to mention that the majority of the extracted PIs related to the resource
utilisation, while just 14 PIs of the extracted PIs were related to Financial (see figure 4). Figures 3 and
4 provide a clear contrast via two different views of the research results. Overall, we managed to extract
51 PIs across different performance dimensions, which will be discussed later in this paper. It can also
be observed (see Figures 3 and 4) that count of studies and PIs can be assigned to different and multiple
PI types or categories.

13

Figure 3: Count of Studies by PI Type Figure 4: Count of PI by PI Type

Interaction Layer

We extracted 12 PIs related to the interaction layer for digitalisation. It can be observed from Appendix
B that the majority of the indicators only address the actors’ interaction, and just one indicator has
included the influence of channels and touchpoint digitalisation. Most of them are financial and just one
indicator related to competitiveness, resource utilisation and flexibility. However, we noticed that only
6 papers (20%) recognised this layer, which clearly highlights gaps in the reviewed studies.

Human Layer

Most of the selected papers (77% of the selected studies - 23 studies) shed light on the outcomes of
digitalisation in the human layer (specifically business). As illustrated in Appendix C, we found 46 PIs
between results and determinants under the human layer. The majority of those indicators are resource
utilisation (37%) as determinants and financial (26%) as result dimensions. Almost all of those financial
indicators reported profitability over cost efficiency (10%). On the one hand, the majority of the selected
studies (60%) focused on determinant results with 33% on resource utilisation, 17% on innovation, 7%
on quality and 3% on flexibility. On the other hand, more than 50% of the selected paper shed light on
results, precisely financial outcomes (50%) and competitiveness, with 20% of the selected paper
covering result outcomes. Although the majority of those indicators are related to digitalisation in the
business layer, we found out that just 17% of the studies mainly focus on the social and professional
aspects. However, none of the selected studies recognised the digitalisation of information layer impact
on performance.

Technology Layer

In this layer, just 20% of the selected studies (6 papers) recognised the performance outcomes for
technology perspective (Appendix D). The vast majority of those studies focus their interest on resource
utilisation aspect and financial with 5 and 4 studies respectively. Although papers A5 and A11 are the
only studies that recognised the digital infrastructure impact on performance, the rest of the 6 studies
reported the impact of digital technology and digital capabilities in general without specifying which
elements of the technology layer impact performance outcomes. This seems to draw our attention to
another gap in the literature despite the technology being an important part of digitalisation. Results of
the review indicate that there are 16 PIs identified from the extracted data associated with the technology
layer, with 6 financial, 5 resource utilisation, 3 competitiveness, 1 innovation, and 1 flexibility PI.
Security Layer, Environment Layer and Facility Layer

Unpredictably, we realised that A4 (1 study) emphasised digital technology and supply-chain platform
impact on financial and environmental performance. It is mediated by the outcomes coming from
“major changes in the modes of production and/or service provision, major changes in consumer
demographics, frequent and major changes in government regulations, and short product life cycle” (Li,
Dai and Cui, 2020, p. 7) which could represent environment layer. Yet, none of the 30 studies discussed
the security and facility regarding performance outcomes, which is a substantial gap to consider along
with other highlighted gaps in the existing literature studied in this paper.

RQ2: What are the measures, scales and metrics of performance outcomes of digitalisation
/ digital transformation?
To further strengthen the study results, we identified and extracted different measures, scales, and
metrics related to the type of PI, from the review of 30 selected studies. We mapped the extracted PI
into six main dimensions to navigate performance measures using the results and determinants
framework. As noted in Figure 5, we found 22 different measures related to six PI types. Almost 27%
of the studies reported the profitability indications of the financial performance outcomes, whereas less
than 10% indicated the market value and cost-effectiveness. Also, measures related to competitiveness
evaluate sales growth, market share and customer base, which are less than 7% of the selected studies
reviewed in this paper. The other four dimensions determine the means of performance: 50% of the
studies focus on the efficiency of resource utilisation and less than 10% on productivity, integration and
autonomy, 10% on the satisfaction of quality and 3% on the degree of efficiency and effectiveness of
innovation and flexibility (see Figure 5). Those numbers extracted from appendix B, C and D. In
appendix B, return on asset, revenue, and profit (the representation of those rows) are indicators that
measure the profitability. Thus, those PIs can assess the degree of 22 different measures.

15

3 3 3
2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Figure 5: Count of Studies by PI Type and Measure

Scales and metrics vary from financial or the other five performance dimensions. In financial
performance, metrics differ from ratio, mean or average depending on the type of scales or units used
to measure PI. 45% of the studies have extracted financial performance from the financial reports to
measure financial performance either by investigating the financial report numbers of a specific year or
comparing them to the previous year’s performance. Furthermore, less than 25% assess the financial
dimensions with a Likert scale method of 3, 5 or 7 -step scale to measure financial performance either
by comparing to previous year’s performance or competitor’s performance. We also noticed that the
other 5 non-financial performance dimensions are mostly evaluated with a Likert Scale method except
for some indicators. For example, A5 reported the impact of using a digital network (‘inter-bank’
financial telecommunication network (SWIFT)) to reduce the labour-capital ratio against previous
years.

RQ3: How to measure the performance outcomes of digitalisation / digital transformation?

RQ2 is mainly focused on the identification of the measures whereas RQ3 is about “how” to measure
those measures? Thus, RQ3 discusses the process or method of measurements (e.g., questionnaire,
interview). From this review, we found that the current literature seems to measure PI of digitalisation
using the questionnaire-based method, analysing the financial report, measuring the ratio of non-
financial aspect or qualitative interview method. Surprisingly, the vast majority (63%) measured the PI
with the questionnaire-based method, while 30% of the studies extracted the financial data, and 10%
calculated the ratio of non-financial indicators. Financial indicators in 9 studies, specifically, discussed
analysing extracted data from the financial reports, while most studies (12 studies) discussed the
measurement of financial indicators by applying the questionnaire-based method with a view to reflect
their financial performance. For example, profit, the most detected financial indicators in the selected
studies, has been assessed with a questionnaire-based method to measure the profitability of
digitalisation impact except A16.
It can be concluded, based on the above analysis and results, that a questionnaire-based method is
preferred over other methods to collect performance-related data, whether financial or non-financial
indicators. This is because that questionnaire-based methods seem useful for subjective measure,
efficient data collection, and confidentiality, while this might be challenged by low response-rate and
desirability bias (Patten, 2016).

Discussion
Over the period of last 5 years, digitalisation has increasingly been gaining attention from academics
and practitioners with regards to the study of digitalisation impacts. One aspect that we focus on is
digitalisation impact on performance outcomes since there is a current need among organisations “to
measure the performance improvements on key performance indicators (KPIs) to facilitate learning and
fine-tune the business model” (Verhoef et al., 2021, p. 895). However, there is no consensus among the
community about the PIs and the effect of digitalisation on performance outcomes. It has been noticed
that the literature on the “digitalisation” is scattered in terms of: (1) the performance outcomes of
digitalisation, (2) measures, scales and metrics of performance outcomes of digitalisation and (3) how
to measure that performance. Thus, this paper attempted to synthesise the literature discussing the topic
of digitalisation performance outcomes. In this review paper, we applied SLR as a research method to
systematically recognize and analyse the relevant literature using the adaptive EA and results and
determinants framework as theoretical lenses. These lenses helped to systematically identify and map
the performance outcomes to each adaptive EA layer and related performance dimensions.
From analysing those papers, we extracted performance outcomes as PIs and associated them with one
or more relevant adaptive EA layers and their underpinning element. We also identified the type of each
PI across six performance dimensions with the help of results and determinants framework. We also
identified PI measures, metrics and scale, where possible and applicable. As we navigated PI using the
adaptive EA and the results and determinants as theoretical frameworks to synthesis the extracted data
(see Appendix B, C, D), several valuable insights were observed, which are discussed as follows:
Firstly, a large set of 51 PIs was extracted from the 30 selected studies that are related to the
digitalisation of interaction, human and technology layers of the adaptive EA. Although, most of those
indicators focus on resource utilisation (extracted from 40% of the studies), two-thirds of the studies
focused on financial indicators, which are less than 30% of the extracted PIs (see Figure 2-3). It
reinforces and confirms that financial indicators and resource utilisation are essential when assessing
and planning digitalisation performance outcomes using the adaptive EA.
Secondly, just 23% of the PIs are related to the interaction layer (Figure 6); almost all of it is associated
with actors, while just one PI was associated with the digital channel and touchpoint. As a result, this
indicates that as a whole interaction layer and, more specifically, touchpoints, channel and experience
have not been explored in great length as factors that could impact performance. This marks the need
for further research to determine the digitalisation of interaction PIs and their influence on outcomes.

41

16

12

Figure 6: Count of PI by Layer

Thirdly, most of those PIs belong to the human layer of adaptive EA (Figure 6), more precisely they
are relevant to the business element (see 70% of those indicators in Appendix C). However, 17% of
those indicators discuss social and professional elements. Surprisingly, there is nothing for the
information element, which seems an important aspect of digitisation or digitalisation. However, this
study detected that most indicators related to the human layer identified several less supported areas,
especially the impact of information digitalisation, which clearly highlights the difference in focus in
the reviewed selected studies. For instance, this comes to our surprise where information is seen as a
core part of digitalisation (Gill, 2021).
Fourthly, it is evident from the analysis (Appendix D) that 20% of the selected studies placed particular
interest on technology layers and just 16 PIs are concluded from the extracted data (see Figure 6).
However, this indicates a clear gap in literature from the technology perspective (as noted in Appendix
D). Apart from the fact that digitalisation is just one factor of many organisational aspects that could
impact their performance outcomes directly or indirectly, it also plays a significant role in handling
different organisational tasks in the whole system. The digitalisation aspect could be captured as a cross-
cutting element in the enterprise design that can be related to other elements in the enterprise.
Fifthly, this review also reveals that the literature of digitalisation impact on outcomes seems to
overlook the security, environment and facility layers and underpinning elements. It indicates another
important gap that needs to be addressed in the literature to recognise the impact of security,
environment, and facility digitalisation on performance.
Sixthly, learning from this review was casted into a consolidated set of PIs, as illustrated in Table 6.
Those PIs are grouped under the six dimensions of performance with different aspects of the
organisation performance measures. Also, Figure 7 illustrates the number of studies discussing each PI
in the consolidated set. This is the first step towards developing a digital performance metamodel, which
will be discussed in future directions.
PI Type Measure PI Source
1 Market share A20 A23 A4 A11 A2 A19
Competitivenes

Market share
2 Internationalisation performance A13
s

3 Sales growth Sales growth A4 A12 A23 A24 A15

4 Customer base Customer acquisition A20
5 Degree of attractiveness Sales per customer A20
6 Enterprise efficiency ratio A7 A5
7 Cost efficiency Operating cost A3
8 Sales cost A3
9 Cost IT investment - infrastructure A2
Growth prediction market Enterprise stock market measures A7 A18
10
valuations
11 Market value Enterprise market value A16 A18 A28 A29
Financial

12 Income A21
13 Operating margin A5
14 Operating return on assets A10
15 Return on asset A3 A7 A9 A10 A11 A29
16 Profitability Return on investment A4 A15
17 Revenue A6 A19 A20 A29 A5 A11
18 Turnover A2 A29
Profit A4 A15 A2 A16 A12 A17
19
A23 A24 A27 A29
20 Degree of agility speed Enterprise agility A17
Flexi
bility

21 Degree of flexibility HR flexibility A12

22 Degree of encouragement Talent management performance A1
Innovation

23 Degree of innovation efficiency Enterprise innovation efficiency A18

Degree of innovation Enterprise innovative effectiveness A13 A15 A17 A18
24
effectiveness
25 Demand rationalization A30
26 Satisfaction Purchases quality A30
27 Customer satisfaction A23
Quality

28 Availability Availability A23

29 Awareness A23
Reliability
30 Brand associations A23
31 Responsiveness Consumer attitudes A23
32 Customer retention A15
33 Ecotourism performance A26
34 Enterprise in ecosystem connectivity A8
35 HR development performance A1
36 Business flexibility A14
37 Cost-effective use of IT A14
Resource utilisation

38 IT for asset utilisation A14

39 Efficiency IT for growth A14
40 Labor-capital ratio A5
41 Market value capture A20
42 Market value creation A20
43 Operational performance A25 A30
44 Procurement savings A30
45 Environmental performance A4
46 HR efficiency A12
 47 Efficiency/ integration Process digitisation A8
48 Work performance A1
49 Productivity Employee job performance A22
50 Information visualisation A8
51 Degree of autonomy Business unit IT autonomy A11

Table 6: Consolidated set of PI digital performance

Figure 7: Number of studies discussing each PI

Finally, this paper also reviewed the measures, scales, and metrics that the existent literature has adopted
to assess the effect of digitalisation on performance results (see Appendix B, C, D). Measures were
analysed and synthesised based on the type of PIs, which were initially extracted using the results and
determinants framework. The main extracted measures are profitability, market value, cost-
effectiveness, market share, sales, customer base, product attractiveness, efficiency, productivity,
satisfaction, responsiveness, availability, reliability, innovation, and flexibility (see Figure 5). Scales
and metrics, on the other hand, vary from financial to the other five performance dimensions. While
scales for non-financial measures usually use the Likert Scale method of 3, 5 or 7 -step scale, financial
measures mainly use financial report numbers or the Likert Scale method. Metrics, on the other hand,
differ from ratio, mean or average. However, some of the papers (A4, A15, A17, A24, A29, A30) used
the mean as a way to summarise the ordinal or categorical data, which does not seem appropriate from
a scientific and statistical analysis perspective. This is because ordinal or categorical data cannot be
summarised using the mean. It can be summarised using either mode or median. This clearly indicates
the further opportunity for scientific and theory-based research in this important area of research, which
needs to have both research rigor and practical applicability. Also, this review indicates that most of the
methods (data collection) used in the selected studies were the questionnaire-based method, financial
report, ratio of non-financial aspect or qualitative interview method.
In summary, this paper provided a synthesised body of knowledge, insights and research gaps related
to digitalisation performance measurement using the adaptive EA and results and determinants
framework as a theoretical lens. This intends to provide a systematic adaptive EA design-driven
approach to assess the impact of digitalisation on performance. We interestingly noticed that some PIs
could be related to multiple EA layers. It highlights the interdependent and integrative impact of
digitalisation. This shows another important area of further research because it is not about the
digitalisation impact on individual layers or elements; instead, we need to approach and further
investigate it using holistic systems thinking approach. This will avoid sub-optimisation of layers,
elements or parts of an enterprise when dealing with assessing and planning digitalisation performance
outcomes. The results from this study can be further analysed to design a system of digital performance
indicators for a particular industry vertical or enterprise context. This is an interesting future research
opportunity where several aspects could be investigated for a specific context such as the relevance and
importance of each identified PI to the business nature, size and strategic direction. Moreover, it is
important to note here that PIs are of a statistical and analytical nature. Future studies may investigate
the use of analytics and artificial intelligence to predict the effective achievement of certain levels
(maturity) of digital transformation and relevant performance of an enterprise.
This research paper provided some important insights using the adaptive EA framework and results and
determinants framework, which have not been discussed before. However, like similar studies, this
research also has some limitations, which are worth mentioning. It is important to note that research is
limited to publicly available literature from the selected database. This could have excluded certain
studies in digitalisation performance impact. However, this research reviewed a large number of 30
studies to provide adequate coverage of the literature. Further, to ensure the quality of the selected
studies in this paper, we also applied the quality assessment criteria, which clearly indicated the
acceptable quality of selected papers. It is also important to note here that human error and research
bias risks were mitigated through regular meetings and feedback iterations between the researcher and
senior author of this paper, who have extensive experience conducting similar types of research. Any
conflict about the study selection and review results was resolved through rationalise and constructive
argumentation. Thus, we have full confidence in this research results, which seem to open up a number
of areas of further research in “digital by design” and its impact on performance outcomes. Further, the
contribution of this study is not only limited to a typical SLR study; rather, it also provides an adaptive
EA design-driven (EA layers and elements) approach to identity and measure the relevant PI, which
has not been discussed before. Hence, it also draws our attention to the need and concept of “digital by
design”. Further, it is important to note here that vendor-independent and research-based adaptive EA
has been used in this study to avoid any commercial and non-scientific biases.

Conclusion
This paper discussed the important and timely topic of digitalisation impact on organisation
performance outcomes. This was done by reviewing a set of 30 selected studies using the adaptive EA
and results and determinants framework as theoretical lenses. This review provided a number of insights
and areas of further research across five layers of adaptive EA design, which highlighted the need for
assessing the impact of digitalisation of (digital EA): digital interaction, digital human, digital
technology, digital facility, digital environment, and digital security layers and underpinning elements.
Overall, this review's findings highlighted several gaps for future research and the development and
evaluation of generic yet adaptable digital performance ontology using scientific research methods.
Such generic ontology can be used for developing consistent and adaptive EA driven digital
performance assessment and improvement models.

References
Alhassan, M. D., & Adam, I. O. (2021). The effects of digital inclusion and ICT access on the quality
of life: A global perspective. Technology in Society, 64, 101511.
Andrew, J. (2016) TOGAF® Version 9.1 - A Pocket Guide, The open Group.
Anwar, M. J. and Gill, A. Q. (2019) ‘A Review of the Seven Modelling Approaches for Digital
Ecosystem Architecture’, in 2019 IEEE 21st Conference on Business Informatics (CBI). IEEE, pp. 94–
103. doi: 10.1109/CBI.2019.00018.
Bockshecker, A., Hackstein, S. and Baumöl, U. (2018) ‘Systematization of the term digital
transformation and its phenomena from a socio-technical perspective – A literature review’, Research
Papers. Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2018_rp/43 (Accessed: 4 March 2021).
Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L. and Kim, H. (2011) ‘Strength in numbers: How does data-driven decision-
making affect firm performance?’, in International Conference on Information Systems 2011, ICIS
2011. AIS/ICIS Administrative Office, pp. 541–558. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1819486.
Cao, G., Duan, Y. and Cadden, T. (2019) ‘The link between information processing capability and
competitive advantage mediated through decision-making effectiveness’, International Journal of
Information Management, 44, pp. 121–131. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.003.
Cao, M. and Zhang, Q. (2011) ‘Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm
performance’, Journal of Operations Management, 29(3), pp. 163–180. doi:
10.1016/j.jom.2010.12.008.
Cubric, M. (2020). Drivers, barriers and social considerations for AI adoption in business and
management: A tertiary study. Technology in Society, 62, 101257.
Deepu, T. S. and Ravi, V. (2021) ‘Exploring critical success factors influencing adoption of digital twin
and physical internet in electronics industry using grey-DEMATEL approach’, Digital Business, 1(2),
p. 100009. doi: 10.1016/j.digbus.2021.100009.
Dybå, T. and Dingsøyr, T. (2008) ‘Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic
review’, Information and Software Technology, 50(9–10), pp. 833–859. doi:
10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006.
Fitzgerald, L, Johnston, R, Brignall, S, Silvestro, R. and Voss, C. (1991) ‘Performance Measurement in
Service Businesses’, Management Accounting, (January 1991), pp. 34–36.
Freitas Junior, J. C., Cabral, P. M. F. and Brinkhues, R. A. (2020) ‘Digital Transformation: The Gap
Between Digital Leadership and Business Performance Business Performance’, in ISLA 2020.
Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/isla2020/20.
Gill, A. Q. (2015) Adaptive Cloud Enterprise Architecture, World Scientic Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
WORLD SCIENTIFIC. doi: 10.1142/9363.
Gill, A. Q. et al. (2020) ‘Adaptive architecture and principles for securing the iot systems’, in Advances
in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Springer, Cham, pp. 173–182. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-50399-
4_17.
Gill, A. Q. (2021) ‘A Theory of Information Trilogy: Digital Ecosystem Information Exchange
Architecture’, Information, 12(7), p. 283. doi: 10.3390/info12070283.
Griffy-Brown, C., Earp, B.D. and Rosas, O., (2018). Technology and the good society. Technology in
Society, 52, pp.1-3.
Hanelt, A., Busse, S. and Kolbe, L. M. (2017) ‘Driving business transformation toward sustainability:
exploring the impact of supporting IS on the performance contribution of eco-innovations’, Information
Systems Journal, 27(4), pp. 463–502. doi: 10.1111/isj.12130.
Hazen, B. T. et al. (2017) ‘Enterprise architecture: A competence-based approach to achieving agility
and firm performance’, International Journal of Production Economics, 193, pp. 566–577. doi:
10.1016/J.IJPE.2017.08.022.
Hess, T. et al. (2016) ‘Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy’, MIS Quarterly
Executive, 15(2), pp. 123–139. doi: 10.4324/9780429286797-7.
Hinkelmann, K. et al. (2016) ‘A new paradigm for the continuous alignment of business and IT:
Combining enterprise architecture modelling and enterprise ontology’, Computers in Industry, 79, pp.
77–86. doi: 10.1016/J.COMPIND.2015.07.009.
Kitchenham, B. and Charters, S. (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in
software engineering. EBSE Technical Report.
Lange, M., Mendling, J. and Recker, J. (2016) ‘An empirical analysis of the factors and measures of
Enterprise Architecture Management success’, European Journal of Information Systems, 25(5), pp.
411–431. doi: 10.1057/EJIS.2014.39.
Legner, C. et al. (2017) ‘Digitalization: Opportunity and Challenge for the Business and Information
Systems Engineering Community’, Business and Information Systems Engineering, 59(4), pp. 301–
308. doi: 10.1007/s12599-017-0484-2.
Li, Y., Dai, J. and Cui, L. (2020) ‘The impact of digital technologies on economic and environmental
performance in the context of industry 4.0: A moderated mediation model’, International Journal of
Production Economics, 229(May 2019), p. 107777. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107777.
Matthess, M. and Kunkel, S. (2020). Structural change and digitalization in developing countries:
Conceptually linking the two transformations. Technology in society, 63, p.101428.
Meng, F. and Wang, W. (2020) ‘Research on the Mechanism of Digitalization to the improvement of
Manufacturing Enterprises Performance Based on Mediating Effect’, 2020 6th IEEE International
Conference on Information Management, ICIM 2020, pp. 122–126. doi:
10.1109/ICIM49319.2020.244683.
Michelfelder, D. P. (2018). Risk, disequilibrium, and virtue. Technology in Society, 52, pp. 32-38.
Nandkumar, A., Mani, D. and Bharadwaj, A. (2018) ‘Market Returns to Digital Innovations: A Group
Based Trajectory Approach’, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1), p. 15241. doi:
10.5465/ambpp.2018.15241abstract.
Park, Y. and Saraf, N. (2016) ‘Investigating the complexity of organizational digitization and firm
performance: A set-theoretic configurational approach’, AMCIS 2016: Surfing the IT Innovation Wave
- 22nd Americas Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–10.
Patten, M. (2016) ‘Questionnaire Research’, Questionnaire Research. doi: 10.4324/9781315265858.
Rowe, F. (2018) ‘Being critical is good, but better with philosophy! From digital transformation and
values to the future of IS research’, European Journal of Information Systems, 27(3), pp. 380–393. doi:
10.1080/0960085X.2018.1471789.
Rungi, M. (2019) ‘Digitalization: Size Doesn’t Matter, Put Focus on Product-and-Service, Not on
Process’, IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, pp.
741–745. doi: 10.1109/IEEM44572.2019.8978749.
Sener, E. and Yuksel, A. N. (2017) ‘The reflections of digitalization at organizational level: industry
4.0 in Turkey’, Pressacademia, 6(3), pp. 291–300. doi: 10.17261/pressacademia.2017.688.
Sia, S. K., Soh, C. and Weill, P. (2016) ‘How DBS Bank Pursued a Digital Business Strategy’, MIS
Quarterly Executive, 15(2). Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol15/iss2/4 (Accessed: 7 April
2021).
Verhoef, P. C. et al. (2021) ‘Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda’,
Journal of Business Research, 122, pp. 889–901. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022.
Wardaya, A. et al. (2019) ‘Mediating effects of digital technology on entrepreneurial orientation and
firm performance: Evidence from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Indonesia’,
International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 8(5), pp. 692–696. doi:
10.35940/ijeat.E1098.0585C19.
Westerman, G., Bonnet, D. and Mcafee, A. (2014) ‘The Nine Elements of Digital Transformation
Opinion & Analysis’, MIT Sloan Management Review.
Westerman, G. and Mcafee, A. (2012) A major research initiative at the MIT Sloan School of
Management Research Brief The Digital Advantage: How Digital Leaders Outperform Their Peers in
Every Industry.
Witcher, B. and Chau, V. (2010) Strategic management: Principles and practice. Andover: Cenage
Learning.
Zachman, J. A. (1987) ‘A framework for information systems architecture’, IBM Systems Journal,
26(3), pp. 276–292. doi: 10.1147/sj.263.0276.

APPENDIX
APPENDIX A. Selected Studies
ID Literature Paper

A1 Betchoo, N. K. (2016) ‘Digital transformation and its impact on human resource management: A case analysis of two unrelated businesses in the
Mauritian public service’, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Innovative Business Practices for the
Transformation of Societies, EmergiTech 2016, pp. 147–152. doi: 10.1109/EmergiTech.2016.7737328.

A2 Rungi, M. (2019) ‘Digitalisation: Size Doesn’t Matter, Put Focus on Product-and-Service, Not on Process’, IEEE International Conference on
Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, pp. 741–745. doi: 10.1109/IEEM44572.2019.8978749.

A3 Meng, F. and Wang, W. (2020) ‘Research on the Mechanism of Digitalization to the improvement of Manufacturing Enterprises Performance Based
on Mediating Effect’, 2020 6th IEEE International Conference on Information Management, ICIM 2020, pp. 122–126. doi:
10.1109/ICIM49319.2020.244683.

A4 Li, Y., Dai, J. and Cui, L. (2020) ‘The impact of digital technologies on economic and environmental performance in the conte xt of industry 4.0: A
moderated mediation model’, International Journal of Production Economics, 229(May 2019), p. 107777. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107777.

A5 Scott, S. V., Van Reenen, J. and Zachariadis, M. (2017) ‘The long-term effect of digital innovation on bank performance: An empirical study of
SWIFT adoption in financial services’, Research Policy, 46(5), pp. 984–1004. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.010.

A6 Zhou, Y. et al. (2021) ‘The impact of HRM digitalisation on firm performance: investigating three-way interactions’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, 59(1), pp. 20–43. doi: 10.1111/1744-7941.12258.

A7 Forcadell, F. J., Aracil, E. and Úbeda, F. (2020) ‘The Impact of Corporate Sustainability and Digitalization on International Banks’ Performance’,
Global Policy, 11(S1), pp. 18–27. doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12761.

A8 Da Silva Freitas, J. C., Gastaud Maçada, A. C. and Brinkhues, R. A. (2017) ‘Digital capabilities as key to digital business performance’, AMCIS
2017 - America’s Conference on Information Systems: A Tradition of Innovation, 2017–August(2015), pp. 1–10.
A9 Fabian, N. E. et al. (2021) ‘The value of being different: Industry digital fashion, firm digital skills and financial performance’, International
Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2020 - Making Digital Inclusive: Blending the Local and the Global, pp. 0–9.

A10 Chi, M., Zhao, J. and Li, Y. (2016) ‘Digital Business Strategy and Firm Performance: The Mediation Effects of E-collaboration Capability’, Wuhan
International Conference On E-Business: 2016 Proceedings, 58, pp. 86–97. Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/whiceb2016/58.

A11 Queiroz, M. et al. (2020) ‘Digital Infrastructure, Business Unit Competitiveness, and Firm Performance Growth: The Moderating Effects of Business
Unit IT Autonomy’, Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3, pp. 5643–5652. doi: 10.24251/hicss.2020.693.

A12 Park, Y. and Saraf, N. (2016) ‘Investigating the complexity of organisational digitisation and firm performance: A set-theoretic configurational
approach’, AMCIS 2016: Surfing the IT Innovation Wave - 22nd Americas Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–10.

A13 Ortiz de Guinea, A. and Raymond, L. (2018) ‘IT Ambidexterity Configurations for Competitive Performance: An Exploratory Study of the Digital
Ecodynamics of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises’, MCIS 2018 Proceedings.

A14 Aasi, P. and Rusu, L. (2017) ‘Facing the digitalisation challenge: Why organisational culture matters and how it influences IT governance
performance’, Information Systems Development: Advances in Methods, Tools and Management - Proceedings of the 26th International Conference
on Information Systems Development, ISD 2017.

A15 Nwankpa, J. K. and Roumani, Y. (2016) ‘IT capability and digital transformation: A firm performance perspective’, 2016 International Conference
on Information Systems, ICIS 2016, pp. 1–16.

A16 Beutel, S. (2018) ‘The relationship between digital orientation and firm performance’, International Conference on Information Systems 2018, ICIS
2018, pp. 1–9.

A17 Murawski, M. et al. (2018) ‘How digital business strategy affects profitability: Opening the “black box” of performance’, Americas Conference on
Information Systems 2018: Digital Disruption, AMCIS 2018, (2013).

A18 Mani, D., Bharadwaj, A. and Nandakumar, A. (2016) ‘Digital centricity and innovation performance’, International Conference on Information
Systems 2016 Proceedings, pp. 1–13.

A19 Leischnig, A., Woelfl, S. and Ivens, B. S. (2016) ‘When does digital business strategy matter to market performance?’, International Conference
on Information Systems 2016 Proceedings, pp. 1–16.

A20 Leischnig, A. et al. (2017) ‘From Digital Business Strategy to Market Performance: Insights into Key Concepts and Processes’, International
Conference on Information Systems 2017 Proceedings, pp. 0–16.

A21 Saldanha, T. J. V. et al. (2017) ‘Leveraging Digitalisation of Services for Performance: Evidence from the Credit Union Industry’, International
Conference on Information Systems 2017 Proceedings, pp. 0–19.

A22 Guzmán-Ortiz, C. V. et al. (2020) ‘Impact of digital transformation on the individual job performance of insurance companies in peru’, International
Journal of Data and Network Science, 4(4), pp. 337–346. doi: 10.5267/j.ijdns.2020.9.005.

A23 Chinakidzwa, M. and Phiri, M. (2020) ‘Impact of digital marketing capabilities on market performance of small to medium enterprise agro-
processors in Harare, Zimbabwe’, Business: Theory and Practice, 21(2), pp. 746–757. doi: 10.3846/btp.2020.12149.

A24 Wardaya, A. et al. (2019) ‘Mediating effects of digital marketing on dynamic capability and firm performance: Evidence from small and Medium-
sized Enterprises (SMEs) in Indonesia’, International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(1C2), pp. 461–464.

A25 Buer, S. V. et al. (2021) ‘The complementary effect of lean manufacturing and digitalisation on operational performance’, International Journal of
Production Research, 59(7), pp. 1976–1992. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1790684.

A26 Mekhum, W. and Torasa, C. (2020) ‘Effect of Knowledge Sharing and Digital Management to Performance on Ecotourism in Ranong Province,
Thailand’, Research in World Economy, 11(5), pp. 481–492. doi: 10.5430/rwe.v11n5p481.

A27 Nasiri, M. et al. (2020) ‘Digital-related capabilities and financial performance: the mediating effect of performance measurement systems’,
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 32(12), pp. 1393–1406. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2020.1772966.

A28 Jabr, W. and Zheng, Z. (2020) ‘Exploring firm strategy using financial reports: performance impact of inward and outward rela tedness with
digitisation’, European Journal of Information Systems, 00(00), pp. 1–21. doi: 10.1080/0960085X.2020.1829511.

A29 Abou-foul, M., Ruiz-Alba, J. L. and Soares, A. (2020) ‘The impact of digitalisation and servitisation on the financial performance of a firm: an
empirical analysis’, Production Planning and Control, 7287. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2020.1780508.

A30 Patrucco, A. S., Agasisti, T. and Glas, A. H. (2020) ‘Structuring Public Procurement in Local Governments: The Effect of Centralization,
Standardization and Digitalization on Performance’, Public Performance and Management Review. doi: 10.1080/15309576.2020.1851267.

APPENDIX B. Analysis of PI – Interaction layer and elements perspectives

 PI: This refers to a performance indicator.
 Description: This reports either definition or the reason of mapping a PI to a specific
architecture layer (A1-30 is referring to selected studies from Appendix A).
 PI Type: This refers to the category of a PI such as Competitiveness, Financial, Quality of
Service, Flexibility, Resource Utilisation and Innovation.
 Measure: This refers to measures or facts (data element) with reference to PIs.
 Metrics: The metrics refers to the processing PI measure (facts) using statistical analysis as per
scale/unit.
 Scale/unit: The scale or unit of a PI measure such as Likert scale and
Currency ($).
 Source: This refers to a literature source of a particular PI (A1-30 in Appendix A).
  Count: The count of studies discussing a particular PI.
 Metric Description: This refers to the description a metrics such as the mean or rate related to
a PI measure.
Actor
PI Description PI Type Measure Metric Scale/Un Source Count Metric
it Description
Market * Via the level of organisation Competitiv Market Mean A2 3-point A2 2 Mean of
share digitalisation A2 eness Share Likert A2 A19 market share
* Via digital ecodynamics 7-point
elements against competitors A19 Likert
A19
Return on In digitalised firm mediating by Financial Profitabil Rate $ A3 1 Return on
asset cost ity asset rate
Revenue Via digital ecodynamics element Financial Profitabil - 7-point A19 1
against competitors ity Likert

Turnover Via the level of organisation Financial Profitabil Mean 3-point A2 1 Mean of
digitalisation ity Likert turnover
(efficienc
y)
Profit General profitability Financial Profitabil Mean A2 3-point A16 2 Mean of profit
* via the level of organisation ity Likert A2 A2
digitalisation A2 $ A16
* “Operating income before
depreciation divided by sales” via
holistically digitalised
organisation A16
Market “sum of market value of its Financial Market Tobin’s $ A16 1 Tobin’s Q
value common equity, the liquidated value Q ratio ratio
value of preferential stock and ratio
total debt) divided by the
replacement cost of assets (total
assets)” via holistically digitalised
organisation.
Operating As mediating factor in digitalised Financial Cost Rate $ A3 1 Operating
cost firm Efficienc cost rate
y
Sales cost As mediating factor in digitalised Financial Cost Rate $ A3 1 Sales cost rate
firm Efficienc
y
IT Via the level of organisation Financial Cost Mean 3-point A2 1 Mean of IT
investment - digitalisation Likert investment
infrastructur
e
Enterprise Capability of process flexibility Flexibility Degree Mean 5-point A17 1 Mean of
agility and flexible strategy, customer of agility Likert enterprise
responsiveness agility
Enterprise in Collaborative process Resource Efficienc - - A8 1 -
ecosystem utilisation y
connectivity
Information The ability to display data/info Resource Productiv - - A8 1 -
visualisation visually utilisation ity
Channel
PI Description PI Type Measure Metric Scale/Un Source Count Metric
its Description
Income Net income via digitised customer Financial Net Profit Mean $ A21 1 Mean of
access and core services via income
market intelligence capability

Touchpoint
PI Description PI Type Measure Metric Scale/Un Source Count Metric
its Description
Income Net income via digitised Financial Net Profit Mean $ A21 1 Mean of
touchpoint services and core income
services via market intelligence
capability
APPENDIX C. Analysis of PI – Human layer and elements perspectives
Business
PI Description PI Type Measure Metric Scale/Un Source Count Metric
its Description
Income Net income via digitised business Financial Net Profit Mean $ A21 1 Mean of
transaction, core services and income
customer services access
Profit * Via HR flexibility and efficiency Financial Profitabil Ave A12 5-point A12 7 Mean of profit
against competitors A12 ity Likert A15
Mean A12 A17 A17
* via innovative new or improved A15 A17 A23
product/services or digital A24 A27 7-point A24
transformation relative to A29 Likert A27
competitors A15 A15 A23 A29
A24 A29
* Via innovation & or agility A17
4-point
* Via digital market capabilities or Likert
Determinant Market performance A27
against previous year A23
* Via digital market capabilities and
dynamic capability A24
* Via digital-related capabilities
mediated by performance
measurement systems in 3 years A27
* Via digital servitisation against
previous years A29
Revenue * Natural logarithm of X year Financial Profitabil Mean A6 7-point A6 3 Mean of
revenue of each organisation via ity A29 Likert A20 revenue
digital mature human resource A20 A29 A29
management A6
* Via leveraging market value
capture and creation relative to
competitors A20
* Revenue per employee via digital
servitisation against previous years
A29
Return on * Via the interaction between Financial Profitabil Ratio A7 $ A7 A7 2 Return on
asset corporate sustainability and ity A29 asset
digitalisation A7 Mean 7-point ratio/mean
A29 Likert
* Via digital servitisation against A29
previous years A29
Turnover Fixed asset turnover via digital Financial Profitabil Mean 7-point A29 1 Mean of
servitisation against previous years ity Likert turnover
(efficienc
y)
Return on Via innovative new or improved Financial Profitabil Mean 7-point A15 1 Mean of
investment product/services or digital ity Likert return on
transformation relative to (efficienc investment
competitors y)
Enterprise * Price-to-book-value and annual Financial Growth Ratio $ A7 2 Stock/market
stock equity returns via the interaction Predictio A18 valuation ratio
market between corporate sustainability and n A7
measures digitalisation A7
Market
* Long-term abnormal stock returns valuation
via Innovation Efficiency (12 s A18
months stock return adjust by risk-
free rate) A18
Enterprise * “future earnings relative to the Financial Market Tobin’s $ A18 A18 3 Tobin’s Q
market current book value” via Value Q ratio A28 A28 ratio/ mean of
value digitalisation of firm offerings (ratio A28 A18 A29 market value
of the market cap for a firm over the 7-point
firm’s total assets) A28 Mean Likert
A29 A29
 * via Innovation Efficiency
Effectiveness A18
* Market capitalisation via digital
servitisation against previous years
A29
Enterprise “Ratio of non-interest expenses to Financial Cost Ratio $ A7 1 Enterprise
efficiency total net income” via the interaction Efficienc efficiency
ratio between corporate sustainability and y ratio
digitalisation
Internatio “To expand their market by selling Competitiv Market Mean - A13 1 Mean of
nalisation services abroad” via digital eness share internationalis
performan ecodynamics (Dynamic capabilities ation
ce + IT ambidexterity) measured by %
of total abroad sales
Market * Via leveraging market value Competitiv Market - 7-point A20 2
share capture and creation relative to eness share Likert A23
competitors A20
* Via digital market capabilities or
Determinant Market performance
against previous year A23
Sales * Via HR flexibility and efficiency Competitiv Sales Ave A12 5-point A12 4 Sales growth
growth against competitors A12 eness growth Likert A23 average/mean
Mean A12 A24
* Via innovative new or improved A15 A24 A15
product/services or digital 7-point
transformation competitors relative Likert
to competitors A15 A23 A24
A15
* Via digital market capabilities or
Determinant Market performance
against previous year A23
* Via digital market capabilities
dynamic capability A24

Customer * Acquiring new customers via Competitiv Customer - 7-point A20 1 -

acquisition leveraging market value capture and eness base Likert
creation relative to competitors
Sales per * Via leveraging market value Competitiv Degree of - 7-point A20 1 -
customer capture and creation relative to eness attractive Likert
competitors ness

Market Leveraging Knowledge about Resource Efficienc - 7-point A20 1 -

value customers for offering development utilisation y Likert
creation via market intelligence capability
Market Leveraging Knowledge about Resource Efficienc - 7-point A20 1 -
value competitors for pricing via market utilisation y Likert
capture intelligence capability
Process Automate business processes Resource Efficienc - - A8 1 -
digitisation utilisation y/
integratio
n
Operation * “Production lead time, product Resource Degree of Ave A25 5-point A25 2 Operational
al quality, process flexibility, process utilisation efficienc Mean Likert A30 performance
performan uptime, and production cost per y A30 A25 A30 average/mean
ce unit” via lean manufacturing +
digitalisation compering with
competitors A25
* “Value adding activities and
minimises wait times and waste” via
digitalised procurement structural
A30
Ecotouris Number of visitors via “knowledge Resource Efficienc Mean/ 5-point A26 1 Mean/ Median
m sharing related to ecotourism, utilisation y Median Likert Ecotourism
performan tourists’ attraction, and digital performance
ce management system and ICT”
Procureme Buying goods and services at Resource Cost Mean 5-point A30 1 Mean of
nt savings appropriate prices, lower or in line utilisation efficienc Likert procurement
with those budgeted via digitalised y savings
procurement structural
Customer Relative to competitors via Resource Efficienc Mean 7-point A15 1 Mean of
retention innovative new or improved utilisation y Likert customer
product/services or digital retention
transformation
HR Knowledge/ skills/ professional Resource Degree of Mean 4-point A1 1 Mean of HR
developme development via digital utilisation efficiency Likert development
nt transformation performance
performan
ce
Work Boost productivity/ value of work / Resource Degree of Mean 4-point A1 1 Mean of work
performan responsiveness and adaptation via utilisation productiv Likert performance
ce digital transformation ity

Employee “task performance, contextual Resource Productiv - - A22 1

job performance, and counterproductive utilisation ity
performan behavior” via digital transformation -
ce
Demand Ability to bundle the requests from Quality Satisfacti Mean 5-point A30 1 Mean of
rationalisa internal customers into frame on Likert demand
tion agreements via digitalised rationalisation
procurement structural
Consumer Via digital market capabilities Quality Responsi - 7-point A23 1 -
attitudes against previous year veness Likert
Awareness Via digital market capabilities Quality Reliabilit - 7-point A23 1 -
against previous year y Likert
Availabilit Via digital market capabilities Quality Availabil - 7-point A23 1 -
y against previous year ity Likert
Brand Via digital market capabilities Quality Reliabilit - 7-point A23 1 -
association against previous year y Likert
s
Customer Via digital market capabilities Quality Satisfacti - 7-point A23 1 -
satisfactio against previous year on Likert
n
Purchases Buying goods and services that Quality Satisfacti Mean 5-point A30 1 Mean of
quality satisfy the needs of the internal on Likert purchases
clients via digitalised procurement quality
structural
Enterprise Ratio of granted patents to the total Innovation Degree of Ratio - A18 1 Enterprise
innovation of inventors involved in their innovatio innovation
efficiency creation digitised a firm’s innovation n efficiency
portfolio via digitised a firm’s efficienc ratio
innovation portfolio y
Enterprise “Developing and selling new Innovation Degree of Mean 7-point A13 4 Enterprise
innovative services/products” A13 innovatio A13 A15 Likert A15 innovative
effectivene n A17 A15 effectiveness
ss * Via digital ecodynamics (Dynamic effective A17 ratio/mean
capabilities + IT ambidexterity) ness Ratio 5-point A18
measured by % of new services sales A18 Likert
A13 A17
* Via digital transformation A15
* Via Digital Business Strategy A17
* via digitised a firm’s innovation
portfolio measured by (number of
new products scaled by its R&D
capital) A18
Talent Creativity and talent via digital Innovation Degree of Mean 4-point A1 1 Mean of talent
manageme transformation encourag Likert management
nt ement performance
performan
ce
 Enterprise Capability of process flexibility and Flexibility Degree of Mean 5-point A17 1 Mean of
agility flexible strategy, customer agility Likert enterprise
responsiveness via innovation speed agility

Social
PI Description PI Type Measure Metric Scale/Units Source Count Metric
Description
Return on Net income divided by total assets Financial Profitability Mean $ A10 1 Mean of
asset via e-collaboration capabilities in 3 return on asset
years
Operating “Ratio of operating income to Financial Profitability Mean $ A10 1 Mean of
return on assets” via capabilities of e- operating
assets collaboration in 3 years return on
assets
Enterprise Collaborative process Resource Efficiency - - A8 1 -
in ecosystem utilisation
connectivity
Cost “Extent, efficiency, and value of IT Resource Efficiency Ave 5-point A14 1 Cost-
effective use used in the business” via utilisation Likert effectiveness
of IT organisational culture average
IT for “How effective IT is in learning, Resource Efficiency Ave 5-point A14 1 IT
growth being innovative, gaining utilisation Likert effectiveness
competitive advantage, and average
changing and improving” via
organisational culture
IT for asset “How successfully IT has used Resource Efficiency Ave 5-point A14 1 asset
utilisation knowledge-based assets in an utilisation Likert utilisation of
organisation” via organisational IT average
culture
Business “How IT has helped the business Resource Efficiency Ave 5-point A14 1 Business
flexibility respond to internal and external” utilisation Likert flexibility
via organisational culture average

Professional
PI Description PI Type Measure Metric Scale/Un Source Count Metric
its Description
Return on Net income divided by total assets Financial Profitability Ratio $ A9 1 Return on
asset via digital skills or digital skill and asset ratio
functional skill
Profit Via HR flexibility and efficiency Financial Profitability Ave 5-point A12 1 Profit average
against competitors Likert
Sales Via HR flexibility and efficiency Competit Sales Ave 5-point A12 1 Sales growth
growth iveness growth Likert average
HR “Increase in: overtime hours, part- Resource Degree of Ave Three A12 1 HR efficiency
efficiency time workers and temporary utilisatio efficiency binary average
workers” via IT implementation n measures
(spending, use, and training) as
mediating factor
HR “Job rotation, multi-skilling and Flexibilit Degree of Ave Two A12 1 HR flexibility
flexibility adoption of flexible working hours” y flexibility binary average
via IT implementation (spending, measures
use, and training) as mediating Y/N
factors

APPENDIX D. Analysis of PI – Technology layer and elements perspectives

Infrastructure
PI Description PI Type Measure Metric Scale/Un Source Count Metric
its Description
Enterprise Operating expenses to operating Financial Cost Ratio $ A5 1 Enterprise
efficiency income via digital network SWIFT efficiency efficiency
ratio ratio
Operating Gross pre-tax operating profits Financial Operation Ratio $ A5 1 Operating
margin divided by revenue via digital profitability margin ratio
network SWIFT
Return on Net income divided by total assets in Financial Profitability Ave Growth A11 1 Return on
asset 2 years via digital infrastructure with /mean rate $ asset
less business unit IT autonomy average/mean

Revenue * Total sales via digital network Financial Profitability Ratio Growth A5 2 Revenue
SWIFT A5 A5 rate $ A5 A11 ratio/average/
mean
* via digital infrastructure with less Ave / 5-point
business unit IT autonomy against mean Likert
competitors A11 A11 A11 /
Growth
*in 2 years via digital infrastructure rate $
with less business unit IT autonomy A11
A11
Return on * via digital technology or digital Financial Profitability Mean 7-point A4 2 Mean of
investment technology mediated by supply (efficiency) Likert A15 return on
chain platform in past three years A4 investment
* via innovation, digital
transformation or IT capabilities
relative competitors A15
Profit * via digital technology or digital Financial Profitability Mean 7-point A4 2 Mean of profit
technology mediated by supply Likert A15
chain platform in past three years A4
* General profitability via
innovation, digital transformation or
IT capabilities relative to
competitors A15
Sales * via digital technology or digital Competit Growth of Mean 7-point A4 2 Mean of sales
growth technology mediated by supply iveness sales Likert A15 growth
chain platform in past three years A4
* via innovation, digital
transformation or IT capabilities
relative competitors A15
Market * via digital technology or digital Competit Market Mean 7-point A4 2 Market share
share technology mediated by supply iveness share A4 Likert A4 A11 average/mean
chain platform in past three years A4
Ave / 5-point
* via digital infrastructure with mean Likert
greater business unit IT autonomy A11 A11
against competitors A11

Internatio “to expand their market by selling Competit Market Mean - A13 1 Mean of
nalisation services abroad” via digital iveness share internationali
performan ecodynamics (Dynamic sation
ce capabilities+IT ambidexterity) performance
measured by % of total abroad sales
Business decentralised IT structure Resource Degree of Ave / 5-point A11 1 Mean of
unit IT (autonomy across: “supplier utilisatio autonomy mean Likert autonomy
autonomy relations, production and operations, n
product and service enhancement,
sales and marketing, and customer
relations”
Labor Employee over assets via digital Resource Efficiency Ratio $ A5 1 Labor-capital
capital network SWIFT utilisatio by ratio
ratio n reduction

Customer Via innovation, digital Resource Efficiency Mean 7-point A15 1 Mean of
retention transformation or IT capabilities utilisatio Likert customer
relative to competitors n retention

Environme “reduction of air emission, reduction Resource Efficiency Mean 7-point A4 1 Mean of
ntal of wastewater, reduction of solid utilisatio Likert environmenta
wastes and improvement of the n l performance
firm’s environmental situation” via
performan digital technology or digital
ce technology mediated by supply
chain platform in past three years
HR “increase in: overtime hours, part- Resource Degree of Ave Three A12 1 HR efficiency
efficiency time workers and temporary utilisatio efficiency binary average
workers” via IT implementation n measures
(spending, use, and training) as
mediating factor
HR “job rotation, multi-skilling and Flexibilit Degree of Ave Two A12 1 HR flexibility
flexibility adoption of flexible working hours” y flexibility binary average
via IT implementation (spending, measures
use, and training) as mediating Y/N
factors

Enterprise “developing and selling new Innovatio Degree of Mean - A13 1 Mean of
innovative services”/products via digital n innovation innovation
effectivene ecodynamics (Dynamic capabilities effectivenes effectiveness
ss + IT ambidexterity) measured by % s
of new services sales

Application
PI Description PI Type Measure Metric Scale/Un Source Count Metric
its Description
Return on * via digital technology or digital Financial Profitability Mean 7-point A4 2 Mean of
investment technology mediated by supply (efficiency) Likert A15 return on
chain platform in past three years A4 investment
* via innovation, digital
transformation or IT capabilities
relative competitors A15
Profit * via digital technology or digital Financial Profitability Mean 7-point A4 2 Mean of profit
technology mediated by supply Likert A15
chain platform in past three years A4
* General profitability via
innovation, digital transformation or
IT capabilities relative to
competitors A15
Sales * via digital technology or digital Competit Growth of Mean 7-point A4 2 Mean of sales
growth technology mediated by supply iveness sales Likert A15 growth
chain platform in past three years A4
* via innovation, digital
transformation or IT capabilities
relative competitors A15
Market via digital technology or digital Competit Market Mean 7-point A4 1 Mean of
share technology mediated by supply iveness share Likert market share
chain platform in past three years

Internatio “to expand their market by selling Competit Market Mean - A13 1 Mean of
nalisation services abroad” via digital iveness share internationalis
performan ecodynamics (Dynamic capabilities ation
ce + IT ambidexterity) measured by % performance
of total abroad sales

Customer Via innovation, digital Resource Efficiency Mean 7-point A15 1 Mean of
retention transformation or IT capabilities utilisatio Likert customer
relative competitors n retention

Environme “reduction of air emission, reduction Resource Efficiency Mean 7-point A4 1 Mean of
ntal of wastewater, reduction of solid utilisatio Likert environmenta
performan wastes and improvement of the n l performance
ce firm’s environmental situation” via
digital technology or digital
technology mediated by supply
chain platform in past three years

HR “increase in: overtime hours, part- Resource Degree of Ave Three A12 1 HR efficiency
efficiency time workers and temporary utilisatio efficiency binary average
workers” via IT implementation n measures
(spending, use, and training) as
mediating factor
HR “job rotation, multi-skilling and Flexibilit Degree of Ave Two A12 1 HR flexibility
flexibility adoption of flexible working hours” y flexibility binary average
via IT implementation (spending, measures
use, and training) as mediating Y/N
factors
Enterprise “developing and selling new Innovatio Degree of Mean - A13 1 Mean of
innovative services”/products via digital n innovation innovation
effectivene ecodynamics (Dynamic capabilities effectivenes effectiveness
ss + IT ambidexterity) measured by % s
of new services sales

Data
PI Description PI Type Measure Metric Scale/Un Source Count Metric
its Description
Return on * via digital technology or digital Financial Profitability Mean 7-point A4 2 Mean of
investment technology mediated by supply (efficiency) Likert A15 return on
chain platform in past three years A4 investment
* via innovation, digital
transformation or IT capabilities
relative competitors A15

Profit * via digital technology or digital Financial Profitability Mean 7-point A4 2 Mean of profit
technology mediated by supply Likert A15
chain platform in past three years A4
* General profitability via
innovation, digital transformation or
IT capabilities relative to
competitors A15
Sales * via digital technology or digital Competit Growth of Mean 7-point A4 2 Mean of sales
growth technology mediated by supply iveness sales Likert A15 growth
chain platform in past three years A4
* via innovation, digital
transformation or IT capabilities
relative competitors A15
Market via digital technology or digital Competit Market Mean 7-point A4 1 Mean of
share technology mediated by supply iveness share Likert market share
chain platform in past three years

Internatio “to expand their market by selling Competit Market Mean - A13 1 Mean of
nalisation services abroad” via digital iveness share internationalis
performan ecodynamics (Dynamic capabilities ation
ce + IT ambidexterity) measured by % performance
of total abroad sales
Customer Via innovation, digital Resource Efficiency Mean 7-point A15 1 Mean of
retention transformation or IT capabilities utilisatio Likert customer
relative competitors n retention
Environme “reduction of air emission, reduction Resource Efficiency Mean 7-point A4 1 Mean of
ntal of wastewater, reduction of solid utilisatio Likert environmenta
performan wastes and improvement of the n l performance
ce firm’s environmental situation” via
digital technology or digital
technology mediated by supply
chain platform in past three years
HR “increase in: overtime hours, part- Resource Degree of Ave Three A12 1 HR efficiency
efficiency time workers and temporary utilisatio Efficiency binary average
workers” via IT implementation n measures
(spending, use, and training) as
mediating factor
HR “job rotation, multi-skilling and Flexibilit Degree of Ave Two A12 1 HR flexibility
flexibility adoption of flexible working hours” y flexibility binary average
via IT implementation (spending, measures
use, and training) as mediating Y/N
factors
Enterprise “developing and selling new Innovatio Degree of Mean - A13 1 Mean of
innovative services”/products via digital n innovation innovation
ecodynamics (Dynamic capabilities effectiveness
effectivene + IT ambidexterity) measured by % effectivenes
ss of new services sales s

Platform
PI Description PI Type Measure Metric Scale/Un Source Count Metric
its Description
Return on * via digital technology or digital Financial Profitability Mean 7-point A4 2 Mean of
investment technology mediated by supply (efficiency) Likert A15 return on
chain platform in past three years A4 investment
* via innovation, digital
transformation or IT capabilities
relative competitors A15
Profit * via digital technology or digital Financial Profitability Mean 7-point A4 2 Mean of profit
technology mediated by supply Likert A15
chain platform in past three years A4
* General profitability via
innovation, digital transformation or
IT capabilities relative to
competitors A15
Sales * via digital technology or digital Competit Growth Mean 7-point A4 2 Mean of sales
growth technology mediated by supply iveness Likert A15 growth
chain platform in past three years A4
* via innovation, digital
transformation or IT capabilities
relative competitors A15
Market Via digital technology or digital Competit Market Mean 7-point A4 1 Mean of
share technology mediated by supply iveness share Likert market share
chain platform in past three years

Internatio “to expand their market by selling Competit Market Mean - A13 1 Mean of
nalisation services abroad” via digital iveness share internationalis
performan ecodynamics (Dynamic capabilities ation
ce + IT ambidexterity) measured by % performance
of total abroad sales
Customer Via innovation, digital Resource Efficiency Mean 7-point A15 1 Mean of
retention transformation or IT capabilities utilisatio Likert customer
relative competitors n retention
Environme “reduction of air emission, reduction Resource Efficiency Mean 7-point A4 1 Mean of
ntal of wastewater, reduction of solid utilisatio Likert environmenta
performan wastes and improvement of the n l performance
ce firm’s environmental situation” via
digital technology or digital
technology mediated by supply
chain platform in past three years
HR “increase in: overtime hours, part- Resource Degree of Ave Three A12 1 HR efficiency
efficiency time workers and temporary utilisatio Efficiency binary average
workers” via IT implementation n measures
(spending, use, and training) as
mediating factor
HR “job rotation, multi-skilling and Flexibilit Degree of Ave Two A12 1 HR flexibility
flexibility adoption of flexible working hours” y flexibility binary average
via IT implementation (spending, measures
use, and training) as mediating Y/N
factors
Enterprise “developing and selling new Innovatio Degree of Mean - A13 1 Mean of
innovative services”/products via digital n innovation innovation
effectivene ecodynamics (Dynamic capabilities Effectivene effectiveness
ss + IT ambidexterity) measured by % ss
of new services sales