Linköping University | Department of IEI

Master thesis, 30 hp | M. SC. Industrial Engineering and Management

Spring 2022 | LIU-IEI-TEK-A--22/04310—SE

Digital laboratories of
tomorrow
Exploring and solving the challenges that protocol-driven
laboratories face when digitally transforming

Isak Johansson
Victor Ullsten-Granlund

Supervisor: Daniel Ellström

Examinator: Daniel Kindström

Linköpings universitet
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
013-28 10 00, www.liu.se
Abstract
Digitalization, fueled by the innovation of new technologies and new ways of operating, is
disrupting both society and business. This includes laboratories, where new technologies alter the
way business can be made, thus requiring changes in key business elements such as corporate
strategy, business model and organizational structure. Due to the requirement of alternations on
both a strategic and operational level, performing a digital transformation presents numerous
challenges for a laboratory. Challenges which, if identified and understood, can be mitigated to
improve the chance of a successful transformation. Even though the numerous challenges that
digitalization presents for organizations, research on the topic is sparse, especially for protocol-
driven laboratories where a theoretical gap exists. Consequently, research on how such challenges
can be mitigated is lacking. The following thesis therefore aims to explore potential challenges
that protocol-driven laboratories are exposed to when performing a digital transformation; and
how these can be avoided.

To answer the purpose, an inaugural literature research was performed followed by a case study
of Pegasuslab to identify and analyze relevant challenges. Thereafter a subsequent gathering and
interpretation of literature was conducted, aimed at identifying areas of solutions to mitigate the
previously identified challenges. From the analysis, nine overarching themes of challenges were
identified, namely: Culture; Strategy; Value Creation; People & Skills; Relations; Security &
Regulations; Technology; Governance & Structure; and Leadership. Further, aggregated
challenges for each theme were analyzed and compared with current literature. From the
subsequent gathering and interpretation of literature, four areas of solutions were found, namely:
Defining a digital business strategy; Filling the competence gap; Increasing agility through a
digital culture; and Using customer data for value. Finally, the thesis concludes with how a digital
transformation affects the whole organizations. Thus, challenges for protocol-driven laboratories
goes beyond technology and may be encountered on multiple dimensions. To mitigate potential
challenges, top management commitment and resources are required to acquire a holistic and
unified view of the transformation.

II
Acknowledgements
We would like to extend our thanks to everyone who has supported us throughout the writing of
this master thesis and the entirety of our time at Linköping University. We have had five wonderful
years of learning and collaboration, culminating to this thesis. From writing this thesis, and from
the knowledge received at Linköping University by professors, lecturers, and teachers, we have
been prepared for our working lives and been given the ability to confidently take our first steps
into the unknown of our future. Thank you.

This thesis would not have been possible without the collaboration of Pegasuslab AB. There, we
would like to thank both Pegasuslab and Eurofins. A special thanks goes out to Johan Leveau, our
supervisor at Pegasuslab, for giving us the opportunity to conduct this thesis at the company as
well as for your willingness to work with us in ensuring that the thesis filled the needs and wants
of both Linköping University and Pegasuslab. We would also like to thank all the employees of
Eurofins and Pegasuslab that took time out from their days to participate in our interviews. Your
answers were not only crucial to the study, but also informative and inspiring.

We would also like to thank our supervisor from Linköping University Daniel Ellström for your
guidance through this thesis. We greatly appreciate the advice, readthroughs and re-readthroughs
as well as your flexibility in working with us. Without it, this thesis would not be the same as it is
today. A thank you as well to our opponents Elin Ransjö Zander, Carl-Philip Hedström and Stefan
Phung. Your feedback has helped push this thesis, and us, to new levels.

Thank you!

Linköping 2022-05-25 Linköping 2022-05-25

Isak Johansson Victor Ullsten Granlund

III
Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 DIGITALIZATION, AN EMERGING DRIVER FOR SUCCESS.............................................................................................. 2
1.2 SCOPE OF A DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION ................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 DIGITALIZATION’S INFLUENCE ON THE BUSINESS MODEL........................................................................................... 3
1.4 CUSTOMER-ORIENTED DIGITALIZATION FOR SERVICE-INDUSTRIES............................................................................... 4
1.5 EMERGING TRENDS OF DIGITALIZATION IN THE LABORATORY INDUSTRY ....................................................................... 5
1.6 UNDERSTANDING AND MITIGATING CHALLENGES WHEN GOING DIGITAL...................................................................... 5
1.7 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
1.8 DISPOSITION ................................................................................................................................................... 6
2 THEORETICAL REVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 8
2.1 CHALLENGES WHEN PERFORMING A DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION ................................................................................ 9
2.2 DIGITAL REALITY............................................................................................................................................. 10
2.3 DIGITAL AMBITION ......................................................................................................................................... 11
2.4 DIGITAL POTENTIAL ........................................................................................................................................ 12
2.5 DIGITAL FIT ................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.6 DIGITAL IMPLEMENTATION............................................................................................................................... 16
2.7 SYNTHETIZATION OF MODEL ............................................................................................................................. 18
3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 22
3.1 SCIENTIFIC VIEW ............................................................................................................................................ 23
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN .......................................................................................................................................... 23
3.3 RESEARCH PROCEDURE.................................................................................................................................... 25
3.4 QUALITY ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 32
3.5 ETHICAL ASPECTS ........................................................................................................................................... 36
4 CASE STUDY .......................................................................................................................................... 37
4.1 PEGASUSLAB AND ITS DESIRE TO TRANSFORM ...................................................................................................... 38
4.2 CHALLENGES GOING DIGITAL WITHIN PEGASUSLAB ............................................................................................... 38
5 ANALYSIS OF CHALLENGES ..................................................................................................................... 50
5.1 EXTRACTED CHALLENGES FOR PROTOCOL-DRIVEN LABORATORIES ............................................................................ 51
5.2 TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................ 52
5.3 SECURITY AND REGULATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 54
5.4 STRATEGY ..................................................................................................................................................... 55
5.5 GOVERNANCE AND STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................ 57
5.6 LEADERSHIP .................................................................................................................................................. 59
5.7 PEOPLE AND SKILLS ........................................................................................................................................ 61
5.8 RELATIONS.................................................................................................................................................... 63
5.9 VALUE CREATION ........................................................................................................................................... 64
5.10 CULTURE ...................................................................................................................................................... 66
6 AREAS OF SOLUTIONS ........................................................................................................................... 68
6.1 MITIGATION OF CHALLENGES............................................................................................................................ 69
6.2 DEFINING A DIGITAL BUSINESS STRATEGY ............................................................................................................ 70
6.3 FILLING THE COMPETENCE GAP ......................................................................................................................... 72
6.4 INCREASING AGILITY THROUGH A DIGITAL CULTURE ............................................................................................... 74
6.5 USING CUSTOMER DATA FOR VALUE................................................................................................................... 76
7 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 79
7.1 FULFILLMENT OF PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................... 80
7.2 PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTION ............................................................................................................................... 80
7.3 THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION ........................................................................................................................... 81
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................................... 91
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................................... 92
APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................................................... 97

IV
Index of figures
FIGURE 1: VISUALIZATION OF THE ROADMAP USED FOR CLASSIFICATION , DERIVED BY SCHALLMO AND DANIEL (2018). .......................... 9
FIGURE 2: OVERALL PHASES OF THE RESEARCH PROCEDURE ....................................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 3: PHASES PERFORMED DURING THE INAUGURAL LITERATURE RESEARCH ........................................................................... 26
FIGURE 4: PHASES DURING THE PERFORMED CASE STUDY.......................................................................................................... 29
FIGURE 5: PHASES PERFORMED DURING THE SUBSEQUENT GATHERING AND INTERPRETATION OF LITERATURE ..................................... 32

Index of tables
TABLE 1: SYNTHETIZATION OF IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES FOR DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION .................................................................. 20
TABLE 2: SYNTHETIZATION OF PROMINENT RESEARCH ON CHALLENGES WITHIN DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION ........................................ 21
TABLE 3: SUMMARIZATION OF META-DATA FROM PERFORMED INTERVIEWS ................................................................................. 29
TABLE 4: CLASSIFICATION OF THEMES COVERED FOR EACH INTERVIEW ......................................................................................... 30
TABLE 5: ACTIONS TAKEN TO ENSURE GOOD TRUSTWORTHINESS ................................................................................................ 34
TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES FROM THE CASE STUDY ...................................................................................... 51
TABLE 7: VISUALIZATION OF RELATION BETWEEN CASE STUDY AND LITERATURE FOR TECHNOLOGY.................................................... 53
TABLE 8: VISUALIZATION OF RELATION BETWEEN CASE STUDY AND LITERATURE FOR SECURITY & REGULATIONS .................................. 55
TABLE 9: VISUALIZATION OF RELATION BETWEEN CASE STUDY AND LITERATURE FOR STRATEGY ........................................................ 56
TABLE 10: VISUALIZATION OF RELATION BETWEEN CASE STUDY AND LITERATURE FOR GOVERNANCE & STRUCTURE ............................. 59
TABLE 11: VISUALIZATION OF RELATION BETWEEN CASE STUDY AND LITERATURE FOR LEADERSHIP .................................................... 61
TABLE 12: VISUALIZATION OF RELATION BETWEEN CASE STUDY AND LITERATURE FOR PEOPLE & SKILLS ............................................. 62
TABLE 13: VISUALIZATION OF RELATION BETWEEN CASE STUDY AND LITERATURE FOR RELATIONS ..................................................... 64
TABLE 14: VISUALIZATION OF RELATION BETWEEN CASE STUDY AND LITERATURE FOR VALUE CREATION ............................................ 66
TABLE 15: VISUALIZATION OF RELATION BETWEEN CASE STUDY AND LITERATURE FOR CULTURE........................................................ 67
TABLE 16: MAPPING OVER IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES WITH AREAS OF SOLUTIONS ........................................................................... 69

V
1 Introduction
The following chapter aims to introduce digital transformation and the consequences that
performing one can have on the organization. The chapter begins with discussing digitalization
and digital transformations, its relevance, and its scope. Thereafter, digital transformation is
studied through a business model perspective to highlight links and interdependencies. The
relevancy for digital transformation within service-industries in general and lab-industries in
specific is identified, followed by a chapter examining the relevance of studying challenges when
performing a transformation. The chapter is then finalized by presenting the purpose of the thesis,
the research questions, and the upcoming disposition.

1
1.1 Digitalization, an emerging driver for success
Digitalization is often identified as one of the major trends that will change business and society
in the near- and long-term future (Tihinen et al., 2016). If performed correctly, digitalization and
digital transformations have the possibility of leading to great success for companies and an overall
better organizational performance (Ivančić et al., 2018). This, as a digital transformation can result
in the optimization of resource utilization; reduced costs; increased employee efficiency and
productivity; and an increase in both customer loyalty and satisfaction (Kagermann et al., 2014;
Loebbecke & Picot, 2015). Furthermore, a digital business can improve the organizational learning
since the replacement of paper and manual processes allows the business to collect real-time data
which can be used to understand processes, performance, cost drivers and the causes of risks
(Markovitch & Willmott, 2014). The collection of real-time data can also lead to improved
decision-making where executives are able to make quicker and more accurate decisions
(Schreckling & Steiger, 2017). Thus, the data which an organization can access through
digitalization can be utilized to fuel its knowledge and resource base and has therefore become an
important currency in the current business landscape.

There are many drivers for digitalization, including technological breakthroughs; reduced entry
barriers; and changes in people’s expectations, behaviors, and attitudes (Schreckling & Steiger,
2017). The main driver is technological breakthroughs, such as cloud computing, analytics and big
data, the internet of things, and cyber-physical systems (Kowalkiewicz et al., 2017). These new
technologies open new opportunities and possibilities for organizations able to adapt. Further,
customers have become accustomed to always having access to everything regardless of location
which acts as a further driver for organizations to digitalize to adapt their value propositions
(Markovitch & Willmott, 2014). These drivers are not industry-specific, and are therefore
impacting all geographies and industries, although at different rates (Le Merle et al., 2011).
According to Bonnet and Nandan (2011, p.4), every industry is undergoing a digital
transformation, “some crisis-included, some as some as part of their core strategy, and some as
part of a more controlled transition process.”. Thus, it is becoming more and more important for
organizations and executives to stay up to date with their digitalization journeys. Yet, while
roughly 90 % of senior managers anticipate the need to digitalize their business, only 44 % are
preparing for the transformation needed (Kane, 2019). Additionally, while many companies realize
the need for digital transformation, only a small number of them successfully manage to complete
the requisite changes (Tabrizi et al., 2019). According to Tabrizi et al. (2019), one reason is the
fact that while technologies give companies and industries the opportunity to digitally transform,
they do not automatically make them happen. Instead, internal factors within the company are what
impacts the success of the transformation (Henriette et al., 2015; Ivančić et al., 2018; Kane, 2019).
Therefore, there is a need for both academia and industry to learn more about how to successfully
perform a digital transformation (Ivančić et al., 2018).

2
1.2 Scope of a digital transformation
Digitalization and digital transformation are two themes of increased interest among researchers
and managers over the past years (Kraus et al., 2021). In current literature, digitalization and digital
transformation are often used interchangeably (Schallmo & Daniel, 2018). However, Bloomberg
(2018) distinguishes between the two concepts finding digitalization as being about transforming
business operations to include further technology, such as automation. In contrast, digital
transformation refers to customer-driven strategic business transformation which often includes a
series of digitalization initiatives (Bloomberg, 2018). Thus, digital transformation includes not
only the use of new technology but also the changes of key business elements including business
model, corporate strategy, organizational structure and business processes (Kiron et al., 2016).
Hence, for a successful digital transformation, it is not enough to merely use as many technologies
as possible, but one must also define a clear vision, goals, and strategy (Schwertner, 2017). The
overall changes required for a digital transformation may also require the organization to generate
new paths for value creation (Svahn et al., 2017), innovate digital capabilities (Morakanyane et al.,
2017), and develop a digital culture (Kane, 2019). Hence, digital transformation requires changes
on both strategic and operational level, resulting in the likelihood of executives facing numerous
challenges along the way (Dhasarathy et al., 2020; Heavin & Power, 2018; Henriette et al., 2016;
Mahmood et al., 2019).

1.3 Digitalization’s influence on the business model

Historically, digital transformation has mostly been connected to data management and data
processing within the organization’s IT departments (Gimpel & Röglinger, 2015). However,
Gimpel and Röglinger (2015) explain how it is now affecting all departments within an
organization and how it has moved from administrative support to being a part of the
organization’s core business. Today, successful organizations understand that digital
transformation includes not only changes in technology, but also to the business model (Kiron et
al., 2016; Schallmo & Daniel, 2018). Therefore, when performing a digital transformation, current
business models must be reassessed since they might be irrelevant in a digital future (Rachinger et
al., 2018; Schreckling & Steiger, 2017). Companies that have a cohesive plan for how to integrate
the digital and physical components of operations can successfully transform their business models
and thus, stay competitive (Berman, 2012).

Since incentives for digital transformation affect an organization’s business model, the line
between the digitalization of products and services and the digitalization of business models are
being blurred (Schreckling & Steiger, 2017). When studying single elements within a business
model, research has shown that digitalization can for instance affect partnerships by transforming
them into more complex ecosystems (Iivari et al., 2016); the customer value proposition by
enhancing, extending, or redefining core elements (Berman, 2012); and internal infrastructure
management, key processes and activities (Rachinger et al., 2018). Therefore, understanding

3
digitalization from a business model perspective is of utmost importance, for both researchers and
practitioners (Berman, 2012). Rachinger (2018) further identifies an existing research gap on
digitalization in the context of business models due to empirical insights being limited.

1.4 Customer-oriented digitalization for service-industries

Digitalization and digital transformation are often connected to manufacturing industries,
however, changes concerning digital transformation are also highly affecting service-based
industries (Ivančić et al., 2018) such as laboratories. Thus, characteristics of digitalization within
service-based industries are of importance. Rai and Sambamurthy (2006) describe how there are
many drivers and opportunities specific for service-oriented industries for digital transformation
such as advancements in technologies to better understand customer’s needs. Since service
industries build on a close customer orientation, performing a digital transformation to increase
customer understanding can improve the company’s overall performance (Ivančić et al., 2018).
Furthermore, technology-based changes can allow for greater control of information and advanced
interaction between business partners which creates opportunities for how services can be
interrelated to produce value (Rai & Sambamurthy, 2006). There is also evidence that suggests
that companies can alleviate and overcome common constraints related to services, such as service
availability, by digitalizing (Laudien & Pesch, 2019).

Digital transformation within service-industries not only improves the company’s overall
performance due to its close customer orientation, but could also be essential for future survival
due to changing customer behavior (Schreckling & Steiger, 2017). Simultaneously as society is
becoming more and more digitalized, customer’s expectations and demands are changing
(Markovitch & Willmott, 2014). Today, customers expect most industries to have digital channels
and real-time reports (Markovitch & Willmott, 2014). Thus, since service-oriented industries have
a close customer orientation, and since customer expectations are changing, service-based
industries must be able to digitalize and digitally transform.

Despite digital transformation being a progressively dominant theme within research (Kraus et al.,
2021), there is still a lack of knowledge for how service-oriented organizations handle challenges
related to it as research on this topic is sparse (Laudien & Pesch, 2019). Further, society is currently
facing the rise of a service economy (Buera & Kaboski, 2012) where digitalization requires
manufacturing industries to rethink their value propositions to become more service oriented,
making the line between service and product blurry (Iivari et al., 2016). Thus, studying both digital
transformation and digitalization within service-oriented organizations is not just of interest for
theorists and service-industries of today, but also of tomorrow.

4
1.5 Emerging trends of digitalization in the laboratory industry
The service industry is a diffuse term and includes many types of businesses. In general, many
industries are moving towards becoming more service-oriented through servitization as companies
try to find new ways in which to compete (Lay, 2014). Earlier development of digitalization has
resulted in the creation of IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service), PaaS (Platform as a Service) and SaaS
(Software as a Service) (IBM Cloud Education, 2021). One industry that is currently moving, and
will keep moving, towards being more service oriented is the laboratory industry (Shute & Lynch,
2021). When laboratories become more automated and digital, the concept of LaaS, or Laboratory
as a Service, will be the next service concept to come (Shute & Lynch, 2021). The entire laboratory
industry is currently at the start of a journey that will enable companies to have laboratories that
are more and more sophisticated (Leveau, 2022). This move is something that Leveau (2022) calls
the move towards Lab 2.0. The industry will experience large technological drivers for
transforming digitally as more and more enabling technologies will become cheaper and easier to
use (Leveau, 2022).

The laboratory industry can be divided into two parts, hypothesis-driven laboratories, and
protocol-driven laboratories (Shute & Lynch, 2021). Hypothesis-driven laboratories are research
laboratories in which the research itself is the focus while protocol-driven laboratories are a more
commercialized type of laboratories (Leveau, 2022). In the protocol-driven laboratories, the result
is often a report to a customer with the requested information (Shute & Lynch, 2021). Historically,
protocol-driven laboratories have had low productivity, large requirements for reliability and a low
tolerance for errors. As digitalization, and the automation it can enable, can help companies
increase productivity while staying reliable, digitalization is of utmost interest for the industry
(Hellbach, 2020). Additionally, AI is predicted to transform laboratories in the future, further
increasing the level of digitalization required (Mladenic, 2021). This increases the need for know-
how knowledge regarding digital transformations in the laboratory industry. According to
Mladenic (2021, p.1) it is important for the industry “to be not only ready for today but also shape
our tomorrow”. However, as digitalization is transforming more and more processes within
laboratories, there is still a lack of theoretical knowledge and research on the challenges
laboratories performing a digital transformation face (Kanza, 2021), creating a theoretical gap for
the context.

1.6 Understanding and mitigating challenges when going digital

As previously mentioned, the digitalization process will affect a large portion of a company,
including the company’s business model (Laudien & Pesch, 2019). As an effect, large scale
changes will need to be made to accommodate the process. With large-scale change affecting the
business model, one can expect many challenges (Massa & Tucci, 2013), meaning that there is a
need to not only know what the common challenges are, but also to know how to avoid or mitigate
them (Senge et al., 1999). Understanding how to mitigate challenges before performing the

5
transformation is of high value for organizations as it can allow for a smoother transformation,
lowering the risk for oscillations, delays and aborted excursions (Greenwood & Hinings, 1988).
However, the challenges intrinsically connected to digital transformation, and consequently also
the solutions to those, have historically only had a small amount of consideration in research
(Heavin & Power, 2018). This, even though authors recognize the fact that digital transformation
regularly is ambiguous, complicated and not at all routine (Mahmood et al., 2019). In line with
this, Tabrizi et al. (2019) claim that most attempts at digitalization fail. They mostly meet some
type of challenge or make some mistake that turns out to be fatal (Heavin & Power, 2018).

Furthermore, Mladenic (2021) explicitly explains that for industries to shape their tomorrow, they
need to understand the challenges and opportunities of a digital transformation. This is somewhat
echoed by Erjavec et al. (2021) as they claim that every change causes disruption and that by
minimizing mistakes made during the transformation period negative impacts to the company can
be avoided by finding appropriate solutions to the challenges. Additionally, the small amount of
literature that does exist regarding the challenges when performing a digital transformation is
mostly not directed towards the service industry (Laudien & Pesch, 2019), and even less so the
protocol driven laboratories. The lack of research leads to there being a lack of literature for
guiding managers in their decision making (Heavin & Power, 2018). This means that learning
more about the challenges and potential mistakes that can be made, and how to avoid them, during
a digital transformation is of interest for both industry and academia.

1.7 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to explore potential challenges that protocol-driven laboratories are
exposed to when performing a digital transformation; and how these can be avoided.

In order to fulfill the purpose, crucial themes will need to be identified on both a strategic and
operational level to capture a holistic approach of the digital transformation. Theory on digital
transformation and the business model concept will be utilized for a comprehensive examination.
The purpose can be broken down into the following two research questions:
• What key challenges are prevalent for companies within protocol-driven laboratories when
performing a digital transformation?
• What strategic activities should companies within protocol-driven laboratories perform to
avoid identified challenges?

1.8 Disposition
Due to the high dependency between the two research questions, where the second research
question requires the first to be answered before initiation, the report has been structured to handle
the research questions sequentially. Further information regarding this separation is presented in
chapter 3, Methodology. Following the above introduction, a theoretical literature research is

6
presented to analyze the existing literature. The chapter is finalized with a synthetization which
serves as an input to the case study. After the literature research, the methodology is introduced in
detail to account for the thesis’ research design and research procedure. Thereafter, the performed
case study is presented. Here, collected data with the intention to answer the first research question
is introduced. After the case study, the analysis is presented. The analysis is split in two, where the
first section, named Analysis of challenges, aims to interpret the collected data from the case study
to answer the first research question. Thereafter, the second section, Areas of solutions, introduces
a subsequent gathering and interpretation of literature performed based on the previously identified
challenges to answer the thesis second research question. Finally, the conclusions are presented to
summarize how the findings fulfill the study’s purpose.

7
2 Theoretical review:
Challenges going
Theoretical reviewdigital
The following chapter aims to present the theoretical findings from the performed literature
research on challenges when performing a digital transformation. The chapter is divided into five
parts to cover challenges during all phases of a digital transformation as well as regarding all
elements of the business model. After the walkthrough of challenges identified from prominent
previous research, the findings are synthesized to form nine themes which constitute the output
from the literature research and the input for the case study. Links and interdependencies between
the themes are presented alongside a mapping of the utilized literature.

8
2.1 Challenges when performing a digital transformation
To achieve a comprehensive coverage of challenges throughout the journey of a digital
transformation, Schallmo and Daniel’s (2018) roadmap is used for classification. When choosing
the model for classification, literature on both digital transformation and business model
innovation were examined. Models on digital transformation, such as Esser’s Approach (Esser,
2014), were reviewed to cover the specific phenomenon and to ensure that challenges during all
phases of the transformation are covered. On the other hand, models on business model innovation,
such as the 4I-framework (Frankenberger et al., 2013), were investigated to capture the business
model perspective specified in the purpose. However, the roadmap by Schallmo and Daniel (2018)
was chosen as it builds on theories from both business model innovation as well as digital
transformation and was thus chosen as it utilizes the benefits from both streams of literature. The
roadmap consists of five phases, namely: Digital reality; Digital ambition; Digital potential;
Digital fit; and Digital implementation (Schallmo & Daniel, 2018), see Figure 1.

Figure 1: Visualization of the roadmap used for classification, derived by Schallmo and Daniel (2018).

To further emphasize and cover challenges in relation to the business model, the phase Digital
potential is elaborated using Osterwalder and Pigneur’s Business Model Canvas (2010). The
Business Model Canvas could be integrated in many of the phases, though as Digital potential
includes the design of the future business model (Schallmo & Daniel, 2018) and therefore also the
components within it, integrating the Business Model Canvas here was deemed most beneficial.
Osterwalder and Pigneur’s (2010) model was further chosen due to it being a widely approved
framework for expressing the business model (Strategyzer, 2015). Below, each phase is first
shortly explained followed by identified challenges from current literature.

9
2.2 Digital reality
The first phase, digital reality, refers to the organization gathering an understanding of their current
digital maturity and thus acts as the start of the digital transformation (Schallmo & Daniel, 2018).
This is of high relevance for laboratories since many struggle with correctly finding all the
challenges that they would want the digital transformation to alleviate (Erjavec et al., 2021). When
doing so, it is important to understand which areas within the organization that will be affected by
the digital transformation (Parviainen et al., 2017). At the start of the digital transformation, the
biggest challenge is, according to Fitzgerald et al. (2013), high level executives not understanding
the need to change due to complacency, causing a lack of urgency. As a result, managers do not
initiate the transformation (Tushman et al., 1986) and thus, never examines the organizations
digital reality. The challenge of lacking urgency can be especially prevalent if the company has
gained an organizational momentum after a long period of convergence (Tushman et al., 1986).
Within the laboratory industry, the lack of urgency is explained to be a big challenge since
employees have been trained to do things ‘the old-fashioned way’ and thus only sees extra costs
with a potential digital transformation, something that may cause resistance to transform (Scott-
Weathers, 2021).

Even if the need for change is recognized, organizations must overcome the challenge of inertia
causing existing resources and capabilities to act as barriers for the required disruption (Svahn et
al., 2017). This inertia can be caused by deeply embedded relations with suppliers and customers
(Andriole, 2017) as well as the organizational culture (Töytäri et al., 2017) by for instance the
development of innovation fatigue (Fitzgerald et al., 2014). The attitude from current employees
may further act as a barrier towards the digital transformation where older generations can be
‘technophobic’ (Fitzgerald et al., 2014). Furthermore, employees’ fear of being replaced by
machines (Tabrizi et al., 2019) and their fear of losing power (Fitzgerald et al., 2014) may cause
internal politics that can challenge the transformation.

To continue, it is important to first assess the current IT architecture of the organizations before
exploring which new technologies can be implemented as it has shown to be harder to integrate
new digital technologies with established core architecture than previously thought (Dhasarathy et
al., 2020). Legacy technology can therefore act as a barrier for digital transformation, with the risk
of leading to duplicate work if systems cannot be migrated to integrated solutions (Fitzgerald et
al., 2014). However, when studying the digital reality, one must not only focus on studying existing
technology but must also look at people as they fuel the digital transformation (Kane, 2019). New
analytical capabilities and skills will be required for employees (Vial, 2019) as well as leaders
(Kane, 2019). Assessing the existing skills, knowledge, and capabilities is therefore important,
though can be challenging (Vial, 2019). Finally, management should identify important
stakeholders within the organization and define a vision of the desired culture (Erjavec, 2021).
This, since a shift in organizational culture is likely to be the most challenging part when
laboratories perform a digital transformation (Erjavec et al., 2021).

10
2.3 Digital ambition
The second phase, digital ambition, includes defining and prioritizing objectives for the digital
transformation based on the organization’s digital reality (Schallmo & Daniel, 2018). In this phase,
it is important to analyze drivers, such as if customer or internal efficiency should be the priority
for the transformation (Heavin & Power, 2018), and define goals iteratively to then establish a
strategy for how to reach them (Matt et al., 2015; Parviainen et al., 2017). Many organizations try
to provide answers and solutions before understanding what problems they seek to solve through
a digital transformation (Tavares, 2021) and thus, do not benefit from the full potential of the
transformation (von Leipzig et al., 2017). Therefore, organizations who see digital transformation
as solely being about automating processes and not as opening routes to new ways of doing
business will find it challenging to reach the optimal result (Fitzgerald et al., 2014).

A vital challenge when defining goals is to decide on an appropriate speed for the transformation
(Bughin et al., 2018). Executives tend to have a short timeframe, only defining ambitions based
on today’s best practices and to get up to speed with competitors (Kane, 2019). Instead, Kane
(2019) describes how a 10-year horizon should be used to cover areas such as Internet of Things,
AI and new innovations. Further, another challenge is to define the scope by finding the digital
sweet spot where the organization can successfully utilize the digitalization without losing what
makes them competitive (Gimpel & Röglinger, 2015). A common mistake is only having small-
scale plans by solely looking for incremental changes, thus not dreaming big enough (Westerman
et al., 2011) nor challenging the current constraints (Gimpel & Röglinger, 2015). On the other
hand, Zupancic (2021) describes how large dreams of IoT, and Lab 4.0, a term derived from
Industry 4.0 to signify a lab in which every piece of equipment is ‘smart’ and operates in perfect
unison with each other, will require the need for customized software development, which can be
challenging for laboratories. An additional challenge with AI and automated machines is to
understand how to use them as tools rather than having them limit the organization (Mladenic,
2021).

Another challenge when defining digital ambition is to make sure that there is only one digital
strategy for all facilities and departments to ensure that everyone is working towards the same
goals (Westerman et al., 2011). To further improve the success rate, the digital strategy must align
with the organization’s vision and overall strategy (Dhasarathy et al., 2020; Vial, 2019). A
challenge when doing so is to look holistically to figure out the business strategy from the digital
transformation before studying possible tools and technologies such as machine learning (Tabrizi
et al., 2019). Finally, an additional challenge when defining goals is the often limited budget and
the consideration of how to use it (Fitzgerald et al., 2014; Lomas, 2021).

11
2.4 Digital potential
The third phase of the model described by Schallmo and Daniel (2018) is called digital potential.
This is the phase of the transformation during which different options emerge for what can be
changed in different parts of the business by altering or redesigning the business model (Schallmo
& Daniel, 2018). To further emphasize and to fully cover all the challenges related to the business
model, the overarching categories for the Business Model Canvas is used for categorization
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). As previously mentioned, the integration of the Business Model
Canvas with digital potential is beneficial as digital potential relates to the emergence of new
business model elements. Thus, the integration provides an additional depth for classification. The
four overarching categories of Osterwalder and Pigneur’s model (2010) are: Infrastructure,
Offering, Customers, and Finance.

2.4.1 Infrastructure
The overarching category called Infrastructure is related to the Business Model Canvas building
blocks Value Configuration, Core Competency and Partner Network. These building blocks
include the activities and resources of the company, how the company works with partners and the
competencies that are necessary for the operations (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). Here,
Westerman et al. (2011) describes one challenge being companies lacking strong integration, or
even relation, between their IT-units and their core business, meaning that the company lacks
knowledge on how to govern IT. An additional challenge is that some companies lack the requisite
technological infrastructure base and instead try to simply plant new systems on top of the old ones
(Westerman et al., 2011). This can be extra challenging since, as mentioned before, the integration
between new digital technologies and the architecture at the core of the business is often harder
than previously thought (Dhasarathy et al., 2020). Further, when digitally transforming, activities
within a company will change. As the organization’s workforce knows how to do their current
activities, and not potential future activities, the transformation can lead to employees missing the
necessary skills (Rachinger et al., 2018; Westerman et al., 2011). Furthermore, as every manager
can only influence their own unit, it is necessary for leadership to get every manager to accept and
work for the change (Westerman et al., 2011).

When becoming digital, a company will have new potential for different types of collaboration
between actors, both upstream and downstream (Vial, 2019). This may create higher dependencies
between the company and its partners which can make a company’s competitive edge more fragile
than before, causing the balance between control and flexibility to become challenging
(Mathiassen et al., 2017). As a transformation often requires the search for new partners, partner
integration, and co-development of offerings, there are many potential partner-related challenges
a company might encounter (Gimpel & Röglinger, 2015; Linde et al., 2020). For example, Linde
et al. (2020) describes that involving specialized partners in the value creation process and finding
new partners that fit the new requirements, such as cloud computing providers, can be challenging.

12
Furthermore, many companies lack the enterprise agility and coordination for activating
innovative partnerships even if they can find them (Tang & Kakar, 2020). Lacking integrative
capabilities, and if so developing them, is a large challenge for companies during a digital
transformation as it means that they are unable to deal with the changing value chains (Vaska et
al., 2021). According to Vaska et al. (2021), companies can also find that managing their relations
with customers, being able to shift roles in an evolving ecosystem, and changing activities and
processes are common challenges. There are also indications that digitalization strongly affects
value creation which has led to challenges with changing partner structures and activities to
accommodate this (Rachinger et al., 2018).

The decision regarding how comprehensive a digital transformation should be is always hard,
where one of the choices that have to be made includes the number of processes and activities that
should be automated (Heavin & Power, 2018). Additionally, Henriette et al. (2016) claims that
when introducing new technologies into the activities of a company, current employees may cause
resistance resulting in a challenge for management to overcome. Lastly, in terms of challenges
related to the infrastructure, there are many challenges related to data and security. Companies
need to face the challenge of what data to keep and integrate, what to discard and how to balance
security with accessibility (Heavin & Power, 2018). For laboratories, this manifest the challenge
of achieving acceptable cyber security levels (Lomas, 2021) and making the collection and usage
of data scalable (Tavares, 2021).

2.4.2 Offering
The sole building block found in the Offering category is the company’s value proposition
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010), describing what the company offers to its customers in its entirety.
One important challenge when changing the business model in the digitalization context is to
broaden the value proposition through the transformation by for example utilizing the digital
technology to modify the product or to create things such as smart services (Gimpel & Röglinger,
2015). When utilizing the digital transformation, a common mistake is that companies do not
answer questions such as: what data we access that they are currently not capturing, and does the
digital transformation allow us to offer a capability as a digital service (Parmar et al., 2014).
Furthermore, to fully access the opportunities for digital services, organizations will be challenged
as the transformations requires new types of leadership, increased organizational agility, and new
IT capabilities (Legner et al., 2017). Another challenge related to the organizations offering is to
find a balance between aggregation and personalization of the data that a company collects (Heavin
& Power, 2018).

13
One important, though sometimes hard, step in the digital transformation of a company is to decide
whether the focus should be internal efficiency, and thus low-cost, or customer value (Heavin &
Power, 2018). This is further supported as other authors claim that you cannot look at a digital
transformation as merely automating processes and increasing efficiency (e.g. (Fitzgerald et al.,
2014; Gimpel & Röglinger, 2015)). Additionally, Vaska et al (2021) found that digital
transformation has affected the capture, creation, and delivery of value in almost every industry,
further emphasizing the need for close consideration. However, only knowing that the customer
value will change is not enough if organizations do not understand the value delivery process as it
can lead to companies overpromising on additional value to their customers (Linde et al., 2020).
Linde et al. (2020) also explains that a potential mistake is to try to push out a digital business
model without understanding customer value. Schreckling and Steiger (2017) further support this
as they find that meeting the challenge of figuring out how digitalization can improve a company’s
customer value proposition is highly important. Lastly, a final challenge regarding the design of
customer value is that companies can take on too internal of a view and not enough of an external
one (Tabrizi et al., 2019). Instead, Tabrizi et al. (2019) advocates for the use of an outside-in
perspective, a perspective where a company uses the opinions and thoughts of external
stakeholders to guide the design of their offering, something that can be challenging for companies
who are not used to it. Utilizing this outside-in perspective is further important for lab companies
as Tavares (2021) claims a company in the industry will lose business if they do not deliver their
costumers customized products and services.

2.4.3 Customers
The customer segments, the distribution channel, and the relationship with its customer segments
are what makes up the pillar called customers (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). As previously
mentioned, it can be challenging for companies to manage customer relations when lacking
knowledge related to digital technologies (Vaska et al., 2021). There is also a great difference
between generations in regard to demands, meaning that it is challenging to try to communicate
with and meet all generations’ different demands at the same time (Henriette et al., 2016). In
combination, there is also a challenge in the consolidation and management of the customer
information from a large number of channels that spring from a digitalization (Gimpel &
Röglinger, 2015). This is but one of many challenges rising from the use of many channels and
trying to integrate them to ensure that all customers get the same experience regardless of if the
channel is physical or digital (Gimpel & Röglinger, 2015; Vial, 2019).

Another challenge is that customer do not, in general want to change which can lead to user
adoption being a slow and drawn out process (Erjavec, 2021). Therefore, Erjavec (2021) claims
that it is important to find key performance indicators, or KPIs, to track the adoption, something
that can be challenging. It is also challenging to find a balance in choosing which customer touch
points to digitalize and which not to (Westerman et al., 2014). Gimpel and Röglinger (2015)
emphasize that a challenge related to digitalization is to retain the digital customer and building

14
strong, loyal, and long-term relationships. Furthermore, companies can find it challenging to know
how to use the large amounts of new data to understand and segment customers better (Westerman
et al., 2014). Additionally, as customers are the main beneficiaries of a digitalization it is important
to meet the challenge of having open discussions with them to be able to get the best for them as
well as the company (Schreckling & Steiger, 2017). To do so, there is a need to find a way for
users to give feedback which is something that Erjavec (2021) has found can be challenging for
companies in the laboratory industry.

2.4.4 Finances
The fourth and final category is called finances and includes the structures of the costs and
revenues (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). As mentioned in the offering category, digitalization
affects the value capture of the company. Consequently, it becomes a challenge for companies to
seize the opportunity to reinvent how they make money that a digital transformation gives them
(Vaska et al., 2021). According to Linde et al. (2020), companies are in general not up for the
challenge of understanding the profit formula of the transformation. Further, Linde et al. (2020)
describes that it is challenging to calculate the hidden costs, such as the cost of hiring new staff
and IT development, of a digital transformation which leads to miscalculations and unsatisfactory
transformations. Furthermore, companies may also find it challenging to calculate the impact on
revised and new revenue streams (Linde et al., 2020). According to Linde et al. (2020), these two
in combination lead to companies feeling like they are not getting the desired return on investment.
Something that even further complicates the challenge of understanding the economics of going
digital is that companies simply should not utilize benchmarks based on similar firms (Bughin et
al., 2018). This, as new firms might be taking market shares and therefore be destabilizing the
values (Bughin et al., 2018). Bughin et al. (2018) also claims that the value created by a digital
transformation mostly benefits the customers, making it a challenge for companies to find value
for themselves. Finally, it is also challenging for organizations to identify and define appropriate
KPI’s to track the actual well-being of the transformation (Erjavec, 2021). According to Erjavec
(2021), finding appropriate KPI’s to track the effects of a digital transformation is difficult for
laboratories. Therefore, the author recommends laboratories to also use so called key experience
indicators, or KEI’s, to track things critical to the transformation where happiness, engagement,
and adoption are mentioned as examples of KEI’s that are appropriate for laboratories (Erjavec,
2021).

2.5 Digital fit

The penultimate phase, digital fit, aims to evaluate the fit between the digital potential and the
current business model to assure that customer requirements and business objectives are achieved
(Schallmo & Daniel, 2018). When evaluating the digital fit, it is critical to make sure that the
organization obtains a close fit between IT strategies, digital transformation strategies, and all other
corporate strategies (Matt et al., 2015). For executives, this integration between digitalization and
strategy can be a big challenge (Schreckling & Steiger, 2017). Though even if the strategies are

15
integrated, strategies developed solely within a company’s industry are likely to meet several
challenges (Bughin et al., 2018). Thus, Bughin et al. (2018) describes how strategies must consider
the development of new ecosystems in its environment.

To determine, prioritize and invest in the tools that best contribute to the organization’s strategic
objectives can be an extensive challenge since the large variety of tools and technologies available
may result in a ‘choice overload’ (Cotteleer et al., 2019). The overload of choices risks creating a
defensive mindset, freezing the transformation (Cotteleer et al., 2019). Further, the need for
prioritization may also develop a resource allocation problem for which areas and activities to
prioritize, such as whether to hire new or train current IT staff (Heavin & Power, 2018). Heavin
and Power (2018) explains how this can be extra challenging as it can be hard to compute the
return for activities in a digital transformation. It is not only resources that can be challenging to
allocate, but it can also be hard to allocate responsibility to find the right balance of responsibility
to engage employees (Gimpel & Röglinger, 2015).

An additional challenge for laboratories related to the choice and fit of technology and IT systems
is that many technologies do not have demo-versions which makes it hard to test them beforehand
(Scott-Weathers, 2021). Even though vendors may run down features and show basic usage, it can
be tough to get hands-on testing within the organization’s context (Scott-Weathers, 2021).
Furthermore, when assessing the digital fit in relation to technologies, organizations must also
consider the growing and ever-present threat of becoming a victim of cyber-attacks (Schreckling
& Steiger, 2017). This, since by raising the level of digital interaction through a digital
transformation, enterprises are increasingly exposed to cyber-threats (Legner et al., 2017). Finally,
laboratories must not only consider security threats, but also regulations such as GDPR; standards
such as ISO 9001 and ISO 15189; and guidelines such as Annex 11 and FAIR, potentially dictating
how the transformation can be done (Hren, 2021; Westerman et al., 2011). For laboratories, the
lack of standardization for equipment (Zupancic, 2021) and data-exchange standards (Hren, 2021)
can create further challenges when assessing the digital fit.

2.6 Digital implementation

The final phase, namely digital implementation, includes the finalization and implementation of
the new digital business model and the design of the potential digital customer experience
(Schallmo & Daniel, 2018). It can be challenging to avoid rushing the implementation even though
there might be a high customer demand (Linde et al., 2020). Organizations that stress the
implementation tend to set strict deadlines that are not reflective of the work needed, causing
unnecessary stress and resistance from employees (Parry et al., 2014). Parry et al (2014) also
claims that a challenge can be a low degree of confidence in the leadership of a project. As
previously mentioned, resistance (Henriette et al., 2016; Vial, 2019; Westerman et al., 2011) and
inertia (Vial, 2019) will be two key challenges when implementing the transformation due to
employees generally preferring business as usual. One additional reason for resistance and inertia

16
is the need for organizations to develop a digital culture (Vial, 2019), which is likely to be one of
the most challenging parts of the implementation (Erjavec et al., 2021; Fountaine et al., 2019).
Cultural issues do not only include inertia and resistance, but also internal politics which obstruct
large scale fixes (Westerman et al., 2011). It has further been found to be important and challenging
for companies to establish a creative autonomy within the organization as well as creating new
types of leadership roles to drive both the cultural and the digital shift (Legner et al., 2017; Vial,
2019).

Organizations who cannot navigate the needed cultural change, who are not agile or innovative
enough struggle with performing successful transformations (Kane, 2019). Performing agile
transformations are often very challenging yet necessary for a successful implementation (Fuchs
& Hess, 2018; Henriette et al., 2016). Fuchs and Hess (2018) explain challenges to include
incompatible social structures, missing agile mindset, inappropriate organizational structure,
lacking engagement from top management, and difficulties with coordinating between agile and
non-agile teams.

Digital transformations require new ways of thinking, and so does digital innovation (Mathiassen
et al., 2017). Hence, organizations implementing digital transformations face a challenge in
balancing new and established innovation capabilities (Mathiassen et al., 2017). Further,
traditional teams have struggled keeping up with the pace and agility of how digital teams work
(Dhasarathy et al., 2020). When implementing technologies and cultural change, organizations
must thus also align their structure and ways of working (Fountaine et al., 2019). Cross-functional
collaborations will be of higher importance which can challenge both the organizations’ structure
and culture (Vial, 2019). In addition, new leadership roles such as a CDO must be established
(Vial, 2019). The implementation of a digital transformation will require and value new skills,
such as analytical and technological, from the organization’s employees (Vial, 2019). Hence,
challenges will occur regarding training and transitioning current employees to form a digital
workforce by building new ‘know-how’ knowledge (Vial, 2019). The organization must also
redefine the recruitment and qualification process for future employees to consider the new skills
required which can be challenging (Rachinger et al., 2018). The implementation will also present
challenges for management and leadership. A common barrier for digital transformation includes
management lacking appropriate methods for successful transformation (Schreckling & Steiger,
2017). Further, executives may face challenges coordinating resources and information between
different units since power dynamics will change because of cultural and organizational changes
(Westerman et al., 2011). A new set of KPI’s are necessary for future governance (Rosen &
Lambert, 2018) which are often challenging to define and implement (Svahn et al., 2017).
Furthermore, managers also face the challenge of being able to handle core business
simultaneously as the transformation is implemented (Kane, 2019).

17
Studying technologies used within laboratories, one vital challenge is to integrate data cross-
systems and make it scalable (Tavares, 2021). Zupancic (2021) explains how the challenge is not
to implement as much software as possible, but rather to have them efficiently communicate with
each other. This can be extra challenging when trying to integrate physical equipment due to the
lack of standardization causing the potential need for internal software development (Zupancic,
2021). The implementation will not only be challenging in respect to integration, but also security
due to the rising threat of cyber-attacks (Schreckling & Steiger, 2017). Finally, due to the current
short technology cycles (Rachinger et al., 2018), a key challenge for an organization’s overall
digital journey is to update and upgrade the technology when needed and to not think that it is
done and over with after the first implementation (Svahn et al., 2017).

2.7 Synthetization of model

The following subsection aims to synthesize the findings of the above theory of potential
challenges executives face when performing a digital transformation. The aim of the synthetization
is to develop themes to be used to answer the study’s purpose. The synthetization is done by
connecting and grouping similar challenges into overarching themes and then clarifying links
between the identified challenges and themes. The process for how the themes has been
synthesized will be explained in more detail in section 3.3.1. From the previously presented
challenges, nine themes have been identified which are: Culture; Strategy; Value Creation; People
& Skills; Relations; Security & Regulations; Technology; Governance & Structure; and
Leadership. For an overview of the nine identified themes with corresponding grouped challenges,
see Table 1. Furthermore, Table 2 presents a mapping of identified challenges from prominent
researchers and special advisors based on the identified themes.

As can be seen in Table 2, many authors point to culture being one of the hardest challenges for
digital transformations. Accordingly, multiple challenges relating to company culture such as
inertia, enterprise agility, and establishing a digital driven ability constitute the first theme Culture.
Similarly, challenges such as defining business strategy, having too small-scaled plans and
timeframe builds up Strategy as the second theme. Further, Table 1 visualizes how challenges
connected to understanding, creating, and capturing value aggregate to the theme Value Creation.
To continue, People & Skills is established as a theme because of challenges such as the
development of new digital skills and employee resistance. Relations is constructed from
challenges both related to customer relations and partner relations. Further, challenges associated
with security risks, such as cyber-attacks, and regulations construct the sixth theme Security &
Regulations. On the other hand, challenges directly related to technology such as integration
challenges and legacy technology are grouped to form Technology. Governance & Structure is
formed through challenges connected organizational structure, management, and coordination
while Leadership is formed from challenges connected to direct leader influences such as lack of
urgency.

18
The nine themes identified are based on related concepts, thus, interdependencies exist. There is
also a degree of overlap between some categories where several challenges could conceivably
belong in more than one. This can for instance be the case for the themes Culture and People &
Skills. For example, incompatible social structures (Fuchs & Hess, 2018) has been grouped with
Culture even though it is related to People & Skills. This has been done as the relation between
these categories are as follows: Culture includes the broader general challenges relating to where
the culture needs to move towards. Contrary, People & Skills includes challenges similar to the
Culture category but is more directly connected to the organization’s employees. Similarly,
similarities can be found between the themes Leadership, Governance & Structure, and Strategy.
However, even though interdependencies exist between the themes, the themes aim to cover
different areas. The challenges in the Strategy theme refers to where the company should go in the
long-term, while Governance & Structure refers to challenges in the short-term management of
the company. Leadership consists of the more direct challenges regarding what leadership needs
to do as well as the mindset of the leadership.

The nine categories mentioned above, and also found in Table 1, give a good picture of the
potential challenges a company can face when digitally transforming. As the purpose of this study
is to explore the potential challenges a protocol driven lab might face, it is therefore a good starting
point that can be added to with the use of the empirical data that will be collected in this study.

19
Table 1: Synthetization of identified challenges for digital transformation

Culture Strategy Value Creation

• Developing a digital culture • Defining business strategy for • Understanding customer value
• Recognizing employees’ fears transformation • Considering the whole value
• Inertia • Not challenging current chain
• Establishing creative autonomy constraints • Involving partners
• Balancing new and established • Understanding prerequisites • Having digitalization translate to
innovation capabilities before investing customer value
• Innovation fatigue • Too small-scale plans • Balancing outside in and inside
• Lack of enterprise agility • Deciding appropriate speed out
• Incompatible social structures • Fusing with overall strategy • Satisfying all customer segments
• Establishing digital driven ability • Finding digital sweet spot • Utilizing customer input
• Too short timeframe • Revising revenue streams
• Unified strategy for all • Understanding value capture
departments
People & Skills Relations Security & Regulations
• Internal politics • Overlooking ecosystems • Threat of becoming victim to
• Establishing new digital skills • Lacking integrative capabilities cyber-attacks
• Resistance to change • Balancing flexibility and control • Dealing with regulatory issues
• Missing required competencies • Finding new digital partners • Countermeasures to ensure
• Substandard recruitment • Integrating partners security
• Degree of personalization • Balancing security vs accessibility
• Integrating multiple channels
• Gathering and using customer
data
Technology Governance & Structure Leadership
• Short technology cycles • Coordinating resources and • Lack of urgency
• Legacy technology information • Redistribution of power
• Need for customized software • Prioritize tools – choice overload • Not considering leadership
development • Limited funding • Developing new leadership skills
• Lacking requisite technological • Lack of appropriate methods • Establishing new leadership roles
infrastructure • Business and IT integration • Allocating responsibility
• Integrate with current IT • Misunderstanding the • Not rushing implementation
architecture economies of digital • Resource allocation problems
• Integrate cross-systems • Calculating ROI fairly • Missing agile mindset
• Data governance • Defining appropriate KPIs • Lack of top management
• Data selection • Establishing cross-functional engagement
• Lack of demo-versions for collaborations
systems • Inappropriate structure for agile
• Integrate non-standardized transformation
equipment • Coordinating between agile and
• Ensure scalability non-agile teams
• Not updating technology when • Handle core business
needed simultaneously

20
Table 2: Synthetization of prominent research on challenges within digital transformation

Authors

21
3 Methodology
The following chapter aims to clarify and motivate the research design and the research procedure
for the thesis. The chapter begins with a walkthrough of the scientific view of the authors, followed
by a section discussing the decisions on research design with regards to the purpose of the study.
Further, the research process is presented thoroughly, divided into the three main phases
Inaugural literature research, Case study, and Subsequent gathering and interpretation of
literature. For each phase, both data collection and data analysis are presented. Lastly, a quality
assessment and ethical aspects are presented and discussed.

22
3.1 Scientific view
All studies aim to create knowledge in some form, and this study was no different. As the authors
of this paper are both engineers their scientific and educational background have both been heavily
influenced by mathematics and the natural sciences. This has given them a natural predisposition
for wanting to find causal explanations, like A causes B, and for wanting all science to have the
same rigidity in testing as the natural sciences. Furthermore, the authors mainly believe that facts,
and therefore knowledge, are acceptable and valid when they can be objectively proven to be true,
meaning that the authors are both heavily influenced by positivism (Arbnor & Bjerke, 2008). The
influence from the positivism of both authors can be seen in the purpose of the thesis as it was
formulated to try to find key challenges and the possible solutions to solving these, indicating the
existence of absolute truth. However, as the study was based on qualitative data from interviews
that needed to be interpreted by the authors into a common understanding there were features of
hermeneutics in the study (Arbnor & Bjerke, 2008). Merging these different philosophies on
knowledge proved difficult as positivism calls for an objective truth (Arbnor & Bjerke, 2008) while
hermeneutics allows for subjectivity and a more nuanced version of the truth (Kvale et al., 2014).
This was exemplified in the interpretation of the collected data as the data was, by its nature,
subjective as it consisted of the thoughts and opinions of the interviewees, making it difficult to
find an objective truth.

3.2 Research design

The purpose of the study was to identify what challenges exist and how these challenges can be
avoided when performing a digital transformation within protocol-driven laboratories. Thus, the
unit of analysis chosen was a digital transformation while the context constitutes of protocol-driven
laboratories. The following section aims to present and motivate how the study was designed to
reach relevant conclusions. First, the choice between a qualitative and quantitative study was
discussed. Second, the decision of using a single-case study and the chosen case-company was
motivated. Third, the deductive, with elements of inductive, method of reasoning was explained
and motivated based on the study’s purpose.

3.2.1 Qualitative research

According to Bell et al. (2018), qualitative research distinct itself from quantitative by having a
higher focus on understanding concepts and experiences through a close involvement with subjects
while quantitative research usually aims to test predefined hypotheses. Due to the theoretical gap
identified regarding research on challenges when laboratories perform digital transformation
(Kanza, 2021), current literature would have been insufficient to devise the hypotheses needed to
perform quantitative research (Bell et al., 2018). Instead, both research questions required a more
explorative approach which, according to Bell et al. (2018), a qualitative design is well suited for.
This, since qualitative research is more focused on gathering an understanding from words rather
than numbers (Bryman, 2018) and thus, come forth from the studied phenomenon instead of from

23
the perspectives of the researchers (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2008). Furthermore, since the unit of
analysis of the study was a digital transformation, qualitative research was found suitable as it is
found to be great for examining and understanding processes (Pratt, 2009).

3.2.2 Single case study

The qualitative research design performed in this paper was a case study, which is a common
method to perform qualitative research (Yin, 2009). The underlying research design of a case study
builds on using one, or sometimes more, cases to investigate factors for a single objective
(Eisenhardt, 1989). The use of a case study was motivated because of the study’s aim to fill the
theoretical gap identified as Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) mentions that case studies are one of
the best approaches for bridging the gap between qualitative evidence to mainstream research.
Further, it was a good choice for this study as Dubois and Gadde (2002) explains how case studies
also provide unique ways of developing theory from insights into empirical phenomena, which is
seen as preferred for generating challenges for the specific context. According to Yin (2009) a case
study is the most appropriate choice in studies with an exploratory aim. Such studies generally try
to answer “why”, “how” and sometimes “what” questions. Since the purpose of this study was just
that, to explore challenges and solutions by answering a “what” question, a case study was further
an appropriate choice for the study. Additionally, Yin (2009) also states that case studies should
be the preferred method when the author lacks control over events and when the study focuses on
contemporary events. As the authors of this study had no control over the events researched, and
since digital transformation is a current phenomenon (Nadkarni & Prügl, 2021), the choice of using
a case study is further strengthened.

As the purpose of the study was to bridge a theoretical gap concerning challenges, the use of a
single case study was preferred over a multiple case study as it is often used to generate new theory
(Siggelkow, 2007). Due to the explorative nature of the study, a single case study was further
motivated as it allowed for a deeper understanding of the phenomenon and may allow for the
development of more complicated theory (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). However, even though
a single case study cannot completely prove theory, an individual case can, according to Siggelkow
(2007), be very powerful which further strengthened the choice as criticism against single case
studies often relates to them having low significance (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).

Case selection
When performing a case study, case selection is of high importance as it defines the population
and thus the entity from which samples can be drawn (Eisenhardt, 1989). Therefore, a high degree
of importance was placed on identifying an appropriate case for the purpose of the study. Due to
the context-specific nature of the study’s purpose, the case selection was performed through
purposeful sampling (Poulis et al., 2013) where contextual idiosyncrasies were highly considered
to find an ‘archetypical’ case to serve the theoretical purpose of the study. The selection further
considered, in accordance with Eisenhardt’s (1989) recommendation, theoretical sampling to

24
select the case that was most likely to extend the emergent theory. The final decision resulted in
the selection of Eurofins Pegasuslab (henceforth called Pegasuslab), who runs protocol-driven
laboratories to perform indoor environment analyses within the technical testing- and analysis
industry (Leveau, 2022) and was thus relevant for the study’s context. Furthermore, Pegasuslab
had identified the need to become more digital and is thus considering performing a digital
transformation which further aligns with the study’s research questions.

3.2.3 Deductive approach with inductive elements

According to Bell et al. (2018), business research can be built on deductive or inductive logic of
inquiry. A deductive strategy has its starting point in existing theory which then is used to form
hypothesis to validate, while an inductive strategy is grounded in empirical observations to build
theory (Bell et al., 2018). However, Bryman (2018) explains how most studies usually fall
somewhere in between with elements from both deductive and inductive strategy, which was the
case for this thesis. This, as Alvesson and Sköldberg (2008) describe that a deductive literature
study can precede an inductive analysis of empirical findings to accelerate the finding of patterns.
To ensure that the research was grounded in current literature, and to form a theoretical
understanding of important concepts related to the study’s purpose (Bell et al., 2018), deductive
logic of inquiry was implemented initially. However, due to the explorative nature of the study’s
two research questions, the grounded theory was not used to form hypothesis, but rather to build a
basis for the case study for new theory to form, showcasing elements of inductive logic (Bryman,
2018). Inductive elements were thus motivated as the explorative nature of the purpose supports
the characteristics of inductive logic, where theory is the outcome of research by drawing
generalizable inferences out of observations (Bell et al., 2018). These inductive elements were
especially prevalent when answering the first research question regarding challenges for protocol-
driven laboratories due to the theoretical gap for the context (Kanza, 2021). When addressing the
second research question regarding solutions, inductive logic was implemented once again because
the findings build on the collected data from the case study.

3.3 Research procedure

The foundation for the performed study was a combination between qualitative literature research
and a case study as Yin (2018) describes how added value can be gained from the combination of
multiple research methods. The literature review was performed to lay the foundation and create
an understanding before moving on to the case study, which according to Yin (2018) can lead to
stronger evidence. The overall research procedure can be visualized as three steps, see Figure 2.
The three steps were constructed due to the bilateral purpose of the study, both looking to identify
challenges and potential solutions. The first two phases, Inaugural literature research and Case
study, served to identify challenges prevalent for protocol-driven laboratories when performing a
digital transformation and thus answer the first part of the purpose. Once challenges had been
identified, the third phase Subsequent gathering and interpretation of literature, was performed to
identify possible solutions to the previously identified challenges and thus draw conclusions for

25
the second part of the purpose. Then, the findings were all analyzed to draw overall conclusions.
Below, a more detailed explanation of all three phases will be presented.

Inaugural literature Subsequent gathering and

Case study
research interpretation of literature

RQ1 RQ2
Figure 2: Overall phases of the research procedure

3.3.1 Inaugural literature research

The performed study had its starting point in literature research to gather a broad understanding of
the existing literature on digital transformation. Conducting literature research is a well-established
method for collecting data in scientific research (Björklund & Paulsson, 2012) and was thus
performed to collect literature to construct a synthesized model to help answer the research
questions of the study. The method was further chosen as Björklund and Paulsson (2012) explain
how literature research is an efficient method to collect literature which facilitates the construction
of a theoretical frame of reference while using limited resources. The literature review was
performed following the three major steps, inputs, processing, and outputs, discussed by Levy and
Ellis (2006) to ensure a comprehensive review. The inputs included the gathering and quality
checking of literature, followed by processing which included interpretation and synthetization,
finally followed by the outputs where the findings were combined to build the frame of reference
(Levy & Ellis, 2006). For an overview of performed phases, see Figure 3.

Gathering of Interpretation of Synthetization of

Research questions
literature data findings

Figure 3: Phases performed during the inaugural literature research

Gathering of literature
When gathering literature on digital transformation, digitalization, and corresponding challenges,
different databases where targeted to increase the depth and width of the literature background and
thus, improve the quality by identifying different perspectives on similar issues (Levy & Ellis,
2006). The databases used for the study included, but were not limited to, Linköping University
library, Google Scholar, Emerald, and ScienceDirect.

During the search for literature, keyword search was supplemented with both backward- and
forward search to advance the process. According to Levy and Ellis (2006), backward search can
help to further enhance knowledge on constructs, theory, and models as well as finding potential
inconsistencies. Similarly, Levy and Ellis (2006) explain how forward search can increase the
knowledge by identifying improvements to theory or new findings of relevance. Of the two,
forward search was mostly used to gather recent findings due to the novelty of the phenomenon

26
digital transformation. When first performing keyword search, multiple keywords were used to
find literature of relevance. Keywords used included, but was not limited to digital transformation
and digitalization in combination with challenges, barriers, issues, business model, business
model innovation, lab. All keywords used can be found in Appendix A.

When selecting literature, numerous pieces of literature were studied, browsed, and then ranked
based on relevance to the study’s research questions. Since digital transformation is increasingly
researched and thus evolving (Nadkarni & Prügl, 2021), consideration was kept between studying
both established and more recent studies in order to include the latest findings. Literature was
therefore not chosen solely based on number of citations, but rather based on a mixture of number
of citations, publication year, and publishing journal where literature published in the top MIS
journals (SJR, 2022) and top ranked IS conferences (Hardgrave & Walstrom, 1997) were
prioritized. Further, due to the practical orientation of digital transformation, research was
supplemented with insights from well-established consultancy firms such as McKinsey &
Company, Capgemini Invent, and Deloitte. In order to avoid the literature search becoming a
never-ending process (Levy & Ellis, 2006), the process was terminated once new articles were no
longer providing additional value but rather introduced familiar arguments to the ones already
studied. By that time, a total of 72 sources, including articles, conference proceedings, and
consultancy insights, of potential relevance had been identified.

Interpretation of literature
The start of the literature research aimed to gather an understanding of the phenomenon digital
transformation while the later part had a larger focus on challenges and understanding recurring
themes because of the study’s purpose. Hence, the 72 sources gathered were extracted of
challenges related to digital transformation identified from prominent researchers. When
performing this extraction, concrete challenges were prevalent within 29 of these papers. To ensure
that the extracted challenges covered the scope throughout a digital transformation journey and
covered the whole business model, identified challenges were classified using Schallmo and
Daniel’s (2018) roadmap and the overarching themes from Osterwalder and Pigneur’s (2010)
Business Model Canvas. When doing so, gaps between the extracted challenges and potential
areas, meaning phases and elements of the business model, were identified. This resulted in an
additional iteration of literature search following the same method as described above. When doing
so, new keywords such as phases, implementation, and ambition were combined with digital
transformation which resulted in an additional four sources, aggregating to a total of 33. For the
finalized list of sources from which concrete challenges were extracted, see Table 2.

Synthetization of findings
The extracted challenges on digital transformation proved to have many similarities and cross-
challenge links. To synthesize these links within the qualitative data, the process for thematic
analysis described by Bryman (2018) was followed. The thematic analysis was performed bottom-

27
up by first grouping similar challenges to outline aggregated challenges. This, since a bottom-up
approach ensures that the themes emerge from what is in the data (Braun & Clarke, 2012), leading
to a stronger connection between resulting themes and the performed literature research. The
grouping of aggregated challenges was performed in pair to allow for different opinions to spark
discussions resulting in a thorough combination process as a common pitfall is not spending
enough time interoperating the data (Braun & Clarke, 2012). After identifying aggregated
challenges, similar ones were grouped into 12 themes based on their underlying concepts. Once
the 12 themes were identified, a thorough examination of the themes was performed to identify
potential overlaps, resulting in the combination of three pairs of themes. This resulted in a total of
nine themes, which constituted the output from the literature review. The finalized themes with
corresponding aggregated challenges can be found in Table 1. Finally, interdependencies and links
between the nine themes were studied to gain a further understanding as solely presenting themes
risk leading to a vague understanding (Bryman, 2018).

3.3.2 Case study

The study performed in this paper was a qualitative case study where the information was gathered
using interviews. The use of interviews was chosen as it is one of the most commonly used methods
for data gathering in qualitative research (Bell et al., 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Furthermore,
Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) assert that interviews are often used in research concerning
strategic phenomena, which was the case for this paper, increasing the fit. Further, interviews are
a highly efficient way of collecting data regarding episodic events such as the digital
transformation which was the unit of analysis for this thesis (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).

The type of interviews used in this study were semi-structured interviews, a type of interview that
is conversational and allows participants to steer the interview (Longhurst, 2003). As the aim of
the study was to explore the challenges related to an industry where research was lacking, it was
important to not only get answers regarding the themes found in the frame of reference, but to also
allow for the interviewee to be able to give their own thoughts. During semi-structured interviews,
the interviewer has several themes or main questions that are always brought up (Bryman, 2018).
However, the interviewer is allowed to ask both follow-up questions and supplementary questions
when interesting areas to discuss are brought up (Bell et al., 2018; Bryman, 2018), making them
the optimal choice for the thesis. Furthermore, semi-structured interviews allow for changing the
order of the questions from one interview to another (Bryman, 2018). This made them appropriate
for this study as it gave the interviewer the ability to tailor each interview to the interviewee. The
full process of the case study, with all its parts, can be seen below in Figure 4, and will be further
explained below.

28
 Input from
Construction of Conduction of Interpretation and
Inaugural literature
interview guide interviews analysis of data
research

Figure 4: Phases during the performed case study

Construction of interview guide

To keep in line with what Bryman (2018) as well as Bell et al. (2018) asserts, an interview guide
was constructed before conducting the interviews. The interview guide, see Appendix B, was
constructed based on the nine themes identified from the synthetization of the literature review
with the addition of some background questions. As the interviews conducted were supposed to
be semi-structured, the questions in the interview guide were designed to achieve the balance
between being as open-ended as possible while still ensuring the collection of all the needed data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Furthermore, the questions were constructed using understandable
language and with the right balance of specificity and not leading the interviewee while giving the
interviewers flexibility in how they conduct the interview, which is in accordance with the
recommendations of Bell et al. (2018).

Conduction of interviews
To collect data, eight interviews were conducted over the course of two weeks. The number of
interviews were motivated as Trost (2010) describes how five to eight interviews are the preferred
number for qualitative research to focus on quality over quantity. Due to geographical limitations,
several interviews were conducted online and not in person. When selecting interviewees, a
strategic sample was performed due to its benefits of capturing numerous dimensions (Trost,
2010). Thus, the interviewees were chosen because of their position within the company, age, and
their knowledge profile. The interviewees' positions, the length of each interview, if it was
recorded as well as whether it was conducted physically or by distance can be found in Table 3.

Table 3: Summarization of meta-data from performed interviews

ID Interviewee position Time at company [y] Length [min] Distance/Physical

1 CEO of Pegasuslab 10 88 P
2 Quality and Environmental Manager 24 59 D
3 Lean Coordinator 2 64 D
4 Production Unit Manager 9 66 D
5 IT Solutions Manager 13 69 D
6 Sales and Marketing manager 10 58 D
7 Production Unit Manager 6 70 D
8 Regional IT Manager 25 61 D

At least 24 hours before every interview, a copy of the interview guide was sent by e-mail to the
interviewee to allow them to get familiar with the questions to ensure data of high quality (Trost,

29
2010). Before the start of each interview, regardless of if the interview was physical or not, the
interviewee was asked if they were okay with being recorded, informed that any opinions
expressed would be anonymously presented, and then asked if they still wanted to participate. If
they did, they were informed that the purpose of the interview was not to find a ‘correct’ answer,
but rather learn about their opinions and experience. Thereafter, the interview began.

As was dictated by the interview guide, all the interviews began with background questions to
understand the context of each interviewee’s expertise which is in line with the theories of Bryman
(2018). Furthermore, this was favorable in the context of the thesis as it allowed the interviewer to
modulate the order of the questions and choose which questions were asked to improve the quality
(Bell et al., 2018). The interview guide was continually changed during the process as Adams
(2015) claims that the interview guide should constantly be reassessed and modified if needed.
This meant that most interviewees were not asked all the questions in the interview guide. All
changes were done to make sure that there was enough time available for each interviewee to
elaborate as much as they could to increase the depth of knowledge gained. The themes that each
interviewee was asked about can be found in Table 4. During the interviews, the larger questions
found in the interview guide were followed up with specifying and supplementary questions when
needed to gain more in-depth answers and knowledge from the interviews (Kvale et al., 2014). To
ensure that the proper depth of information was achieved, different types of encouragement
techniques, such as the contrast questions recommended by Rautalinko (2019), were used. Both
authors of the thesis were present in all interviews. One person led the interview while the other
mainly took notes and at times provided supplementary questions when needed. After every
interview, both authors took the time to write down, on their own, what they felt were the main
takeaways from the interview as well as what observations that they had made during the interview.

Table 4: Classification of themes covered for each interview

Interview ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Technology x x x x x x
Security & Regulations x x x x
Strategy x x x x x x
Governance & Structure x x x x x x
Leadership x x x x x
People & Skills x x x x x x
Relations x x x x
Value Creation x x x
Culture x x x x x

30
Interpretation and analysis of data
The data collected from the interviews were analyzed using what Bryman (2018) defines as a
thematic analysis. This was done to connect and group the empirical findings to gather conclusions
of higher validity (Bryman, 2018). First, the recordings, transcriptions, and notes from the
interviews were read without taking any notes as solely going through the data can form interesting
thoughts of value (Trost, 2010). Second, the material was coded. This was done early after the
interviews had been conducted to become familiarized with the data and reduce the risk of getting
drowned in data at a later stage (Bryman, 2018). When coding, the principles of open coding
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998) were followed to ensure the interpretation of not only the obvious, but
all possible conclusions. Further, the coding was performed by both authors independently and
then compared to ensure high reliability (Pratt, 2009). When comparing the codes, the ones found
to be alike were discussed and combined with each other. However, during the first iteration, care
was taken to only combine codes that were interchangeable to not risk losing data and potential
dimensions of value (Bryman, 2018).

Once the initial coding had been performed, the process of combining codes to themes was
initiated. This was performed a few days after all the interviews had been performed and coded to
create a distance to the performed analysis (Trost, 2010). In contrast to when the literature research
described in section 3.3.1 was done, themes were defined directly from the codes. Thus, no topics
or aggregated codes were constructed. This was motivated as it enabled finding challenges on a
concrete and practical level, which was required as input for the second research question.
Because, if the themes became further aggregated to form more conceptual themes, identifying
context-specific solutions of relevance would have been bland. Hence, the themes were formed by
identifying repetitions of codes of relevance to the study’s research question which, according to
Bryman (2018), is the most common process. When coding the data, focus was put on identifying
findings applicable for all protocol-driven laboratories, as Tuli and Bharadwaj (2007) describes
how presented findings should be applicable beyond a specific context. Once complete, the
identified themes were compiled to form the output to the first research question, and as input to
the second.

3.3.3 Subsequent gathering and interpretation of literature

With a starting point in the output received from the case study consisting of challenges for
protocol-driven laboratories when performing a digital transformation, a secondary literature
research was conducted. This was performed with the aim of identifying potential solutions of
relevance to answer the second research question of the study. The literature review was performed
due to its benefit of being able to examine large amounts of data with limited resources (Björklund
& Paulsson, 2012). For an overview of the phases performed during the subsequent gathering and
interpretation of literature, see Figure 5.

31
 Challenges from case study Gathering of literature Interpretation of data

Figure 5: Phases performed during the subsequent gathering and interpretation of literature

Gathering of literature
The process of gathering literature followed the same methodology as described in section 3.3.1
where numerous of databases were investigated to identify multiple sources of relevance. Again,
both forward- and backward searching (Levy & Ellis, 2006) was utilized to complement the
keyword search. New keywords were established, such as: employer branding, managerial
development, and culture change management. To see all keywords used for the secondary
literature review, see Appendix C. The keywords used were derived from the challenges identified
from the case study to find relevant literature on possible areas of solutions. When gathering
literature, all sources were documented and rated depending on its relevance towards the second
research question. In addition to this, each source was briefly summarized to extract potential areas
of solutions. Due to the practical orientation of mitigating challenges for a digital transformation,
research was again complemented with insights from well-known consultancy firms such as
McKinsey & Company and Capgemini Invent. The gathering of literature was terminated once
new sources did not provide additional potential areas of solutions in order for the process to not
become never-ending (Levy & Ellis, 2006).

Interpretation of data
After gathering multiple relevant sources, common themes were extracted to form a list of potential
areas of solutions resulting in ten potential areas of solutions. Then, each area of solutions was
mapped towards the identified challenges from the case study to identify which areas could help
mitigate which challenges. When doing so, literature for each area of solutions was triangulated in
accordance with Bryman (2018) to increase the credibility of the analysis. After the mapping had
been performed, similar areas of solutions were grouped and aggregated to decrease the
interdependencies between. Further, to allow for depth over quantity, four areas of solutions were
chosen. When deciding on which areas of solutions to proceed with, two decision criteria were
formulated. First, the four areas should be as mutually exclusive as possible. Second, the areas
should be as collectively exhaustive as possible by covering as many of the identified challenges
as was achievable. After deciding which areas to proceed with, the corresponding sources were
further investigated and triangulated to form the base of the analysis.

3.4 Quality assessment

One of the most important parts of research and knowledge creation is that the result is of high
quality, requiring it to be both reliable and valid (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Yin, 2009). However,
the concepts of reliability and validity originate from quantitative research, and can thus be
difficult to apply to qualitative studies (Trost, 2010). Instead, Bell et al. (2018) states that good

32
qualitative research should focus on assessing the trustworthiness of the performed study.
Furthermore, generalizability is an area of importance to consider when it comes to research
quality (Lee & Baskerville, 2003). Due to this, the aspects of trustworthiness and generalizability
are presented below with assessments of the quality of the thesis concerning them.

3.4.1 Trustworthiness
As previously described, trustworthiness is often seen as a good indicator of the quality of a
qualitative study (Bryman, 2018; Trost, 2010). Bryman (2018) describes how trustworthiness can
be broken down into four dimensions: credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability. Credibility refers to the confidence of the study presenting truthful and accurate
findings; transferability to the extent the findings are applicable in other settings; dependability to
the extent that the study can be repeated with consistent findings; and confirmability to the degree
of neutrality of the findings (Bryman, 2018).

One limitation with the study’s design, potentially affecting its trustworthiness, was the length of
the interviews. Most interviews were limited to around 60 minutes, which resulted in it being
impossible to exhaust an interviewee’s knowledge regarding every category during the interview.
As the purpose of the study more so required the collection of deep level knowledge, gathering the
needed level of knowledge regarding some of the categories in every interview was prioritized
over gathering surface level knowledge regarding all categories in all interviews. Given that not
all interviewees were asked about all categories, there is a risk of some data being missed, thereby
lowering the trustworthiness and dependability of the case study. One potential remedy for this
would have been to retain or increase the number of interviews conducted while decreasing the
number of interview subjects by re-interviewing people when needed. However, during the final
interviews, the majority of data collected were duplicates of previously gathered information,
indicating that most challenges were covered, therefore this did not affect the trustworthiness that
greatly.

An additional issue with the trustworthiness of the study was the fact that the case company had
not yet performed their digital transformation. This meant that all challenges found were based on
the interview subject’s thoughts and best guesses. As a result, both the dependability and the
credibility of the study were potentially affected. This, because the data and opinions received
from the case study might prove to be wrong, and therefore not credible. Furthermore, the
dependability of the study may have been lessened as the study might not be able to be duplicate
with the same results as the empirical findings builds on subjectivity and predictions. To counter
this, all interviewees received the interview guide at least 24 hours before the interview to allow
time for deep reflection over how a potential digital transformation could affect their business. In
addition, multiple interviews were performed, allowing the findings to further achieve higher
dependability and credibility (Bryman, 2018; Johnson & Waterfield, 2004).

33
Even though some limitations exists, potentially affecting the study’s trustworthiness, many
actions were taken to allow for great trustworthiness and high quality data. These actions are
presented in Table 5. As transferability is akin to generalizability, the actions taken to assure good
transferability are the same as to ensure good generalizability and is presented in section 3.4.2.

Table 5: Actions taken to ensure good trustworthiness

Sub-principle Actions taken

Used multiple references with similar findings for literature review (Eisenhardt, 1989)
Described every theme to the interviewee to ensure mutual understanding (Trost, 2010)
Used coding of the data to minimize the loss of data (Pratt, 2009)
Gathered literature using multiple databases (Levy & Ellis, 2006)
Both authors attended all interviews to ensure a homogenous approach (Trost, 2010)
Credibility
Compared results with literature (Eisenhardt, 1989; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015)
Triangulation of data (Bryman, 2018; Johnson & Waterfield, 2004)
Continuous review by external parties (Krefting, 1991)
Use of respondent validation where the interviewee validated the transcript after each
interview (Bryman, 2018; Trost, 2010)

Transferability See section 3.4.2 for a thorough walkthrough

Transparency over method and collected data (Bryman, 2018)

The interview guide and any follow-up questions asked were saved (Trost, 2010)
Dependability
Used multiple coding technique (Johnson & Waterfield, 2004)
Purposeful sampling of case subject (Poulis et al., 2013)

Interview subjects chosen from a list without names (Kvale et al., 2014)
Conformability Case subjects with no personal connection to the researchers (Trost, 2010)
Length and roles for every interview-subject were recorded and saved

In research, the choice of literature is usually done by giving most weight to the source with the
most citations as that has been shown to be correlated with the quality of the paper (Tahamtan et
al., 2016) which has, in part, been mirrored in this study. However, as the subject studied is a new
and contemporary phenomenon, several new articles with a smaller number of citations were also
used. The reason for this was to gather relevant and up to date information on the topic. However,
it also means that their relevance was not as assured as the literature with higher number of
citations. While this resulted in a potentially slightly less creditable study, it was seen as an
acceptable risk to enable the use of the most up to date research. Further, some of the sources used
in this study were insights and studies created by consultancy firms. These have not been subject
to the same type of scientific rigor potentially making them less credible. However, as the material

34
used from consultancy firms were all produced by established and well-known firms, the data
utilized was seen as trustworthy.

Finally, the model created by Schallmo and Daniel (2018) played a very large role in the frame of
reference and the inaugural literature research conducted. This means that a degree of the
trustworthiness of the study is based on the trustworthiness of the model. However, as the model
was created by a professor and a Ph.D., and as it has been edited and exposed to the appropriate
scientific rigor, the model was deemed trustworthy.

3.4.2 Generalizability
The case company, Pegasuslab, is a company that runs a protocol-driven laboratory in the technical
testing and analysis industry (Leveau, 2022). The industry is very niche, and due to Pegasuslab
being a laboratory company, they are subject to many regulations and standards that are exclusive
to them, and companies like them (Hren, 2021). This means that generalizability was, in some
ways, hard to come by. However, as the aim was to explore challenges in a specific context, full
generalizability was not the point of the study. Instead, generalizability within the industry and the
studied phenomenon was desired. And as previous studies have shown that generalizability can be
found from both niche studies (Morse, 1999) and studies with a qualitative approach (Lee &
Baskerville, 2003). This meant that while the study was qualitative and based on one niche case,
it could achieve some degree of generalizability, especially in the desired context due to the
uniformity of the case company and the context (Lee & Baskerville, 2003). To achieve this, the
theories of Yin (2009) on achieving generalizability with case studies were utilized. Further,
multiple sources of evidence, e.g. repeated answers from multiple interviews and literature, were
actively strived for. Additionally, respondent validation was used to potentially increase the
generalizability (Trost, 2010). Furthermore, the study were based on prominent literature and later
compared to contemporary literature of similar studies, something that increased the
generalizability (Eisenhardt, 1989). As this study was based on a dual approach, with two literature
studies, this was done not once but twice, something that further increased the generalizability of
the thesis.
However, due to the size, global presence, and the market leading position of the case company,
the findings may not be generalizable for all protocol-driven laboratories. For instance, a small
laboratory without a strong parent company may transform during different conditions and thus be
exposed to different challenges. This is further strengthened by Kanza (2021) describing how
every laboratory must have its own digital journey. Thus, the findings from the single-case study
may not be applicable for the whole context, something which will be discussed further in the
conclusion.

35
3.5 Ethical aspects
According to Bell et al. (2018), how the participant in a study is treated in combination with what
the activities that the researchers carry out, are what ethics in research is about. As it is important
for researchers to protect the participants of their studies (Huyler & McGill, 2019), the ethics of
all actions and treatment of the participants were heavily considered. Kvale et al. (2014) claims
that most of the ethical issues related to interview based qualitative studies occur because the
research touches upon, and presents to the public, the interviewees opinions. Therefore, the main
thrust of the work to ensure a highly ethical study was focused on the interviews. To do so, the
categories called “Beginning the study” and “Collecting the data” from Huyler and McGill (2019)
were used in combination with the suggested counteractions. Examples of these were to clearly
state the purpose of the study to the interviewees and to inform the participants that they are under
no obligation at all to consent to participate. To further alleviate the potential ethical issues the
ESOMAR International code (2016) was adhered to, and the checklist for ethical issues produced
by Merriam (2015) was used for verification. One thing, among many, that was done to adhere to
the ESOMAR international code (2016) was that the interviewers presented themselves, the study,
and the fact that participation is voluntary before the start of every interview. Furthermore, the
participants in the interviews were chosen through a combination of their position, age, and
availability. This meant that the authors had no knowledge of their ethnicity or gender which meant
that potential ethical issues of the choice of interview objects was circumvented (Kvale et al.,
2014). To further guarantee the ethical reliability of this study, all participants were asked if they
were okay with being recorded and reminded that everything they said would be anonymous, but
may be used within the study.

36
4 Case study
The following chapter aims to present the data collected from the interviews performed during the
case study. The chapter begins with a short description, with information of interest to understand
some of the following challenges, about the case study. Then, data from the interviews is presented,
structured by the nine overarching themes previously identified. Thus, the data from all eight
interviews are presented concurrently.

37
4.1 Pegasuslab and its desire to transform
Pegasuslab is a protocol-driven laboratory within the technical testing and analysis industry,
offering a wide variety of indoor environment analyzes, technical support, and education programs
(Eurofins, 2022a). The company is the market leader, controlling a vast majority of the shares due
to the absence of direct competitors (Leveau, 2022). Organizationally, Pegasuslab is part of
Eurofins, which is constituted of over 900 laboratories located in 54 different countries (Eurofins,
2022b). Due to the organizational structure, Pegasuslab shares several support functions with
Eurofins Nordics, such as IT, IS (IT systems), and human resources (Leveau, 2022). Thus,
Pegasuslab does not have any regional IT or IS resources on site. From the interviews conducted,
all interview subjects saw the need to perform a digital transformation, where three interviewees
labeled it as a necessity to stay relevant. Further, both an internal and external pressure to transform
was raised where interviewees mentioned things such as time efficiency; improved value for
customers; cost cutting; improved traceability; and improved ease of use for the customers as
drivers for a digital transformation. A vast majority mentioned that they believe that the
organization is ready to transform, and that there is a shared engagement to commit internally.
Though, all interviewees agreed that there would be multiple challenges along the way.

4.2 Challenges going digital within Pegasuslab

The following section aims to present the data obtained from the eight interviews performed. The
data consists of extracted challenges and aspects of interests mentioned by the interview subjects.
The data is presented anonymously to follow the ethical guidelines mentioned in section 3.5.
Below, the data is structured based on the nine themes previously derived to form the base for
future analysis. All data reported has been validated with the respondents and is stated without any
personal interpretation.

4.2.1 Technology
When discussing technology, some interview objects mentioned that the technical maturity varied
a lot between different sites and departments. Regarding challenges implementing new technology,
the challenge of achieving good user-friendliness within the developed systems was raised. This
was elaborated by two participants who mentioned how this could be a generation issue, where it
could be extra challenging to design the systems so that workers of older age can use them
efficiently. Further, many interviewees mentioned the lack of competence regarding IT and
automatization within the lab staff, as their competence profile is highly focused on chemistry and
biology, as a challenge when implementing technology. This was further exemplified by three
respondents who discussed how the lack of knowledge creates a challenge for the lab staff to
identify where possible technological and digital solutions can be implemented, constituting a
challenge of initiating projects. Similarly, a couple of the participants raised the lack of knowledge
of developer-lingo amongst lab staff as a vital challenge since it creates difficulties in the
communication between the lab staff and developers. For instance, one interview subject

38
exemplified the challenge by expressing the difficulties for lab staff to define a precise enough
specification for the developers to understand exactly what is requested. When implementing new
technology, several participants identified the challenge of integrating different digital solutions.
Most of the respondents focused on the challenge of integrating software with hardware, while
some also mentioned a challenge in integrating new software with already existing software. One
interview object exemplified this by mentioning that getting systems to ‘talk with each other’ can
be a great challenge as each system has been built solely for its own specific usage. This was
further built upon by another participant who mentioned that some machines lack compatibility
with current systems, causing the need to build a custom bridge to integrate. However, another
respondent mentioned that even though custom bridges may be needed, it will not be that big of a
challenge since all systems are built in-house. Instead, the respondent pinpoints the lack of IT and
IS resources who can develop these bridges as the main challenge. Since Pegasuslab shares IT and
IS resources, finding the balance between generalizable solutions that can be used in multiple
laboratories, and solutions customized for the specific laboratory’s requirements, was highlighted
as an important challenge. One respondent further evolved the reasoning by explaining the risk of
solutions only becoming ‘good-enough’ due to the inertia from being part of a large and complex
group.

To continue, most of the interview subjects did not only see challenges implementing technology,
but also identifying and finding the right technology. This was mentioned by one respondent who
explained how the lab industry is lagging, approximately 30 years, behind in the development of
technology. Thus, there is a great challenge finding technology appropriate for the context as there
are no off-the-shelf solutions and a limited number of suppliers with knowledge of the lab industry.
In addition, two respondents mentioned how the variety of technology is further limited by the
specific requirements needed for the applications within the lab, enhancing the challenge.
Similarly, another interviewee brought up the challenge of finding machines that can be integrated
with the current architecture. One participant also highlighted how corporate politics, internal rules
and policies from Eurofins can constitute a challenge when searching for new technology as it
further limits the possibilities, sometimes without reasonable arguments. With respect to choosing
technology, another participant highlighted the challenge of performing a good enough risk
assessment. The process of searching for, and choosing, new technology was also raised as a
challenge during the interviews due to the requirement of involvement from multiple different
parties. For instance, a respondent mentioned how for example the automation expert, potential
external parties involved, IT, IT security, and IT solutions all might have to be involved. In
connection with this, the respondent highlighted the main challenge to be identifying and
allocating time for all the parties and competences needed.

39
Finally, the interviews also highlighted a couple of technological challenges prevalent after the
technology has been implemented. For instance, three respondents mentioned how it can be a
challenge to understand how gathered data can be used in an optimal way to improve value
creation. Another case subject mentioned how it can be a challenge to assure that good follow-up
for the implemented technology is performed. Further, many respondents highlighted challenges
in keeping the technology updated. According to three respondents, the main reason for this is that
the production must be up and running round-the-clock. Additionally, two interviewees explained
how there are regulations necessitating that results must be saved and accessible for ten years after
any performed testing. Both interviewees saw how this could constitute a challenge when updating
and renewing technology as the old data still must be accessible, even if the new technology does
not support the old formats.

4.2.2 Security and Regulations

When discussing security, every interview subject agreed that the organization actively worked
with IT-security. For instance, one participant explained how they have roughly five levels of
antivirus systems. A number of participants explained that the reason for this is that Eurofins was
the victim of a cyber-attack a few years ago. Since then, security has been prioritized and currently
forms a vital part in decision making concerning technology. Though, something which emerged
from many of the interviews was how these high levels of security can cause inertia and can thus
act as a challenge when performing a digital transformation. For instance, two respondents
explained how security policies limits the selection of technology and machines, further
intensifying the challenge of finding technology. Similarly, another participant highlighted how
the current processes for ensuring high security may result in extremely long lead times, especially
when the requests involve cloud-services, which at times can take half a year to gain approval. The
participant elaborated by explaining how the heavily administrative process becomes a bottleneck,
resulting in inertia which constitutes a challenge when driving digitalization initiatives. Further,
some interview subjects also pointed at the challenge of finding the balance between security and
flexibility. For instance, one participant mentioned how the high security levels make data less
accessible while another respondent exemplified how the strong firewalls create a challenge in
sharing information across systems. Concerning balancing security and accessibility, one
interviewee mentioned a challenge in defining a good structure for how to save and organize data
safely while still making it easy for employees to access and use. When it comes to employees,
one respondent identified a challenge in there being an unawareness and lack of knowledge
regarding data-security amongst non-IT-employees. Another participant elaborates on this by
mentioning that there is a challenge where employees realize the need to grant acceptance from
the security team at a very late stage in the process for new digitalization initiatives, resulting in
even longer lead times and inertia.

40
Concerning regulations, a majority of the sampled subjects mentioned that the many regulations
that exist within the industry do not regulate on a process-level and will thus not challenge a
potential digital transformation. However, two respondents explained how the organization must
be able to prove and validate that the result from activities which are automated or digitalized is at
least equally as good as if it was performed by humans. Here, one respondent found that the
validation process can be a big challenge, especially for activities related to water analysis as
regulations are extra strict when it comes to foodstuff. Finally, two respondents mentioned that it
might be a challenge to adjust to GDPR. However, another interviewee explained how the
organization does not handle that much private customer data and that there are legal resources
within the group that can help when there are any doubts.

4.2.3 Strategy
When it comes to strategy, many interviewees highlighted that there is a strong engagement and
willingness from top management to digitalize and improve the degree of automatization. Still, a
vast majority of the respondents explained that there is no direct digitalization strategy or goal
management. Several participants mentioned that it could be challenging to perform a digital
transformation without a strategy, where one explicitly saw challenges in determining long-term
priorities. Many interview subjects explained the decentralized structure of the group, where each
manager has a lot of freedom and is expected to act as an entrepreneur for their site. According to
several interviewees, this is one of the reasons for why it can be challenging to create an
overarching digitalization strategy. Thus, three participants identified that finding the balance
between global unity and local adaptation would be a big challenge concerning strategy. Two
respondents further described how the technological maturity differs greatly between different
countries and sites, and how they are at different phases of the journey, making it hard to apply the
same global directives for all laboratories. In contrast, another respondent described how it can be
challenging if you expect every individual site to adopt directives themselves since support from
the top and the support functions with relevant competence is needed.

Even though the challenges in defining a digitalization strategy for a group as complex and
decentralized as Eurofins, a vast majority of the interviewees agreed that it would be beneficial to
have one defining the long-term plans, scope, and future position. However, many participants
mentioned that creating such a strategy would involve many challenges, one even mentioning that
deriving such a strategy would be the single toughest challenge of the journey. When deriving a
digitalization strategy, two interview objects mentioned that defining an appropriate scope would
be a vital challenge. Similarly, one respondent mentioned how identifying the key factors of
interest when defining the strategy would constitute a challenge. Other interviewees mentioned a
challenge in being able to see the big picture and being able to identify how different digitalization
initiatives would affect each other and the rest of the operation. Additionally, some of the
respondents mentioned how the lack of competence within strategy, positioning and project
management would become a challenge when performing a digital transformation. For instance,

41
one respondent mentioned a challenge in getting the management group to think and work more
explicitly with strategy as this differs from how they have historically worked. Another respondent
expressed that one of the largest challenges is to guarantee that the right competences, within
strategy, goal management, and governance, is present amongst the managers pulling the strings.
As a nuance, other interview subjects expressed that the competences that do exist today do not
have the time it takes for visionary thinking as the daily production takes full priority.

According to one respondent one of the biggest challenges when performing a digital
transformation will be to choose the right path from the start as it is much harder to revert decisions
made during such a transformation. Similarly, another participant highlighted the challenge of
choosing ‘the correct’ projects and initiatives instead of jumping the gun on every potential project
that arises. One subject further expressed the challenge to dare to make big investments as this
might be needed at an early stage. To continue, some participants also saw potential challenges if
a digitalization strategy was derived. For instance, two mentioned a potential challenge in
integrating the digitalization strategy with the rest, where one respondent especially pointed out a
challenge in integrating it with the organization's IT-security strategy. Though, others mentioned
that the company’s overall strategy often revolves around efficiency and customer centricity and
thus did not see any challenge in integrating a potential digitalization strategy as it would rather
enhance the existing ones. Finally, one respondent saw a challenge in communicating the overall
strategy to make sure that it is interpreted and implemented similarly amongst all sites and
departments.

4.2.4 Governance and Structure

All interview subjects expressed that they believed that a digital transformation would affect both
the governance and the structure. A majority believed that a digital transformation would affect
the governance positively and simplify the coordination of the daily work once completed.
However, many interview objects agreed that one of the biggest challenges when performing a
digital transformation would be to do it while handling the core business simultaneously. This,
because production always has the highest priority. Additionally, two respondents highlighted that
it is almost impossible to predict the number of tests that needs to be run on any given day, making
it challenging to schedule time for the transformation. Similarly, another challenge identified, and
one of the largest according to one participant, is to perform the transformation with the current
resources. According to the respondent, it is the lab staff who is expected to run the projects which
is challenging due to time and competence, which will be discussed more in section 4.2.6.

As previously mentioned, Pegasuslab is part of Eurofins, which is a large and complex

organization. Several interviewees stated that performing a digital transformation in such a
complex organization would take time and be challenging. For instance, one participant explained
a potential challenge to adhere to all global principles and corporate politics when transforming.
Another respondent highlighted a challenge in resource allocation on a global level regarding

42
which sites should be prioritized, the one with highest pay-off or lowest digital maturity.
Furthermore, one subject saw a challenge in finding a balanced governance that is applicable on
multiple levels and for multiple departments.

Related to both governance and structure, a few respondents saw the need to become more agile
when transforming digitally. When doing so, one participant saw a challenge in balancing agility
and adhering to global strategies while another raised the challenge of finding the right
competences that can drive the transformation towards increased agility. To continue, one
respondent saw the need to create a bottom-up approach where suggestions for initiatives to drive
the digital transformation comes from the lab staff, though found this challenging in practice due
to low knowledge regarding how new technology can be utilized for added value. As a
contradiction, another respondent believed that the transformation should come from the top as
key initiatives are not simply found at some departments, especially when it comes to more
disruptive transformations. Regarding KPIs, one participant did not see the need to implement any
new. However, another interviewee believed that new KPIs are needed after the transformation.
When doing so, the interviewee believed that the biggest challenge would be to understand what
parts of the large amount of data that is relevant for the new KPIs. In addition, one participant
expressed that evaluating the utility and success of a project in a digital transformation would be
a challenge. In line with this, another subject claimed that understanding the effect a digital
initiative will have once finished early on will be a tough challenge. A final challenge regarding
governance was mentioned by one respondent who said that obtaining access to the large amount
of funding that is required to perform larger automatization projects. However, another respondent
evolved this reasoning by expressing that the main challenge is not the lack of funding available,
but rather to demonstrate a compelling enough business case.

When it comes to organizational structure, several respondents saw a challenge in identifying how
the optimal structure would look after a digital transformation, deciding who’s responsible for
what and allocating resources, risking a ‘this is how it always has been’ attitude. Furthermore, a
few subjects mentioned that defining the role and structure of projects within the organization
would be a challenge. Two interviewees raised the challenge of how projects are organized
internally, who is responsible for pushing projects forward, and what happens if reinforcement is
required. Additionally, one interviewee believed that the toughest challenge when performing a
digital transformation would be finding continuity for projects, to make sure that projects which
commence are finished. This, as the interviewee explained how many decisions regarding
technological initiatives are made, though how it currently is a tough challenge to ensure that the
projects are followed through.

43
To continue, many participants saw challenges concerning not having local IT- and IS-resources.
This was nuanced by one respondent who stated the challenge in finding a good balance between
having IT and IS focus on solutions that are generalizable across multiple sites, and IT and IS
developing solutions which are locally specialized. One subject exemplified that it can be
challenging for IT and IS to get an understanding of the specific context of each laboratory when
the resources are shared. Further, another participant mentioned it to be a challenge to plan and
secure IT and IS resources when they are centrally shared. Additionally, one interviewee found it
challenging to coordinate information between the staff of the lab and IT and IS when they may
be in different countries as it is hard to get a shared idea over what is needed and when a project
is finished. Thus, many participants saw the need for more local IT- and IS-resources. However,
one respondent did not believe that the structure had to change, but rather the processes to obtain
a closer cooperation. The respondent continued by exemplifying that there currently is a lack of a
clear handover point which constitutes a challenge in establishing when a cooperation or project
is finished. Finally, one interviewee believed that there would be a need for a new service
department once larger portions of the operations had been automated which can help service and
support the machines. According to the interviewee, implementing and efficiently making use of
this unit would be a great challenge as it will require new ways of thinking for the organization.

4.2.5 Leadership
Concerning leadership, something that was mentioned in almost all interviews was that there was
no direct need for the creation of new leadership roles. Instead, the subjects felt that the current
roles needed only slight changes to be able to work in the more digital reality during and after the
transformation. To expand, one interview subject explained that new leadership roles had recently
been created, such as an automation manager, making it unnecessary to create further roles.
Additionally, most subjects felt that while no new roles were needed, there would be a need for
new skills, competencies, and attitudes within the leadership group which could constitute a
challenge. Many of the people interviewed felt that this need was especially large concerning the
more technical areas that will be expanded due to the digital transformation. One of the interview
objects expressed that this might be a challenge as many leaders within the company has a
laboratory background and not a digital one, resulting in them having a low degree of knowledge
regarding the possible opportunities that comes with a digital transformation. Similarly, another
interviewee claimed that one challenge would be that leaders must move from a person dependent
to a more technically dependent leadership to accommodate a digital transformation. As a result,
the interviewee mentioned that this might push the leaders out of their comfort zone, which could
be a challenge. Multiple respondents mentioned that it will become more and more important for
leaders to have project management knowledge. This, as it can otherwise be challenging for leaders
to delegate and to create clarity within project groups. Furthermore, one of the interviewees
claimed that one of the biggest challenges would be for leaders to continually work to get projects
over the finish line even when challenged. As mentioned, many of the participants stated that
leaders may need to change their attitudes, which some thought could be a challenge. According

44
to one respondent, this might be exacerbated by the risk that some leaders might be stuck in a ‘the
customers do not want to change’ mindset. Another respondent claimed that it would be a
necessary challenge for leaders to change from a trial-and-error mindset, as the respondent
expressed it being much harder to revert decisions made during a digital transformation. However,
other respondents claimed that it would be important to dare to try something, fail and learn from
it going forward. Something that many of the participants highlighted was that while there might
be challenges related to changes in leadership there is also, in general, a great willingness to
change.

To continue, most of the interviewees claimed that it might be challenging for leaders to motivate
employees to change and promote why the change is needed. Thus, some respondents claimed that
it is important for leaders to show employees what they gain from the transformation, something
two respondent mention could be a challenge. Many subjects felt that it would be challenging, yet
important, for leaders to create and sustain a feeling of safety for the employees to ensure that they
will not be replaced. Other interview subjects felt that it would be important for leaders to meet
the challenge of motivating employees to keep working on a project or transformation even if it is
very slow due to, for example, the long lead times or bottlenecks previously mentioned. However,
while some respondent claimed that motivating and showing gains to employees could prove to
be a challenge, others felt that there would be clear payoffs to show such as time savings or the
elimination of repetitive tasks, therefore considering the challenge to be small. To continue, one
respondent claimed that a challenge for leaders is to develop a clear target image for what they are
trying to do. This was further emphasized by another respondent claiming that it might be
challenging for leaders to realize what they need in terms of human capital. Finally, as many
respondents expressed the need for new skills, competences, and knowledge, one interviewee
mentioned that it will be a challenge to find the time for the development of those.

4.2.6 People and Skills

When discussing people and skills, a majority of the interviewees believed that most of the lab
staff were motivated to change because of the elimination of boring tasks which would allow them
to focus more on innovation. However, even though most of the employees are motivated to
change, two respondents stated that there is a risk of there being some employees who are not as
technologically mature, which could prove to be a challenge. For example, one respondent claimed
that it might be a challenge that some employees find it cumbersome to work with computers as
they barely read their mail, while others claimed that, as mentioned before, the generation issue
could prove to be a challenge to overcome This, as many respondents mentioned how the
transformation will demand a new mindset and further knowledge within technology. Similarly,
one participant mentioned a potential challenge in long-time employees being unwilling to change
as they prefer to do activities ‘as normal’ while another interviewee mentioned the risk of some
employees fearing getting replaced by machines.

45
During more than one interview, it was brought up that a digital transformation would require
more developed competences regarding technology and that it might be challenging that the
developers and laboratory staff do not speak the same language, enabling the possibility of
misunderstandings. However, another interviewee explained how the employees are mostly highly
educated, and thus did not see this as a large challenge to accommodate. It was further brought up
that another challenge is that laboratory employees can find it hard to identify which processes and
activities that can be digitalized and how. Furthermore, another challenge that emerged from one
interview was that the transformation itself can be seen as extra work from the employees, resulting
in low motivation. Many of the respondents claimed that there would be a need for entirely new
skills within the organization, something that they felt would be challenging. Examples of skills
that interviewees felt would need development were skills within automation, cutting-edge
innovation knowledge, machine service and data management. In relation to this, one interview
object mentioned a challenge in how the new competence requirements may lead to a long and
protracted start-up time for the digital transformation.

To continue, nearly every interviewee claimed that the lack of human resources was a big
challenge. Multiple respondents mentioned that more centralized resources such as IT, IS and IT-
security were all at a shortage, constituting a big challenge when performing a digital
transformation. This challenge is further complicated according to several participants who
mention that there is a general lack of senior developers and IT-personnel on the market.
Furthermore, an additional challenge according to one participant is that there are few people with
a double knowledge profile, with competencies in both chemistry and IT. The challenge with the
small pool of potential employees was further complicated by an interviewee who claimed that it
is challenging to attract people due to the headquarters’ geographical location. Additionally, one
interviewee revealed that a challenge is that other companies are trying to recruit current IT-
employees from the case company. However, the subject also mentioned that this is not a large
challenge due to them being a stable team. Finally, it can according to one of the interview subjects
be challenging to identify exactly which profiles the company needs to recruit to accommodate the
digital transformation.

4.2.7 Relations
A challenge that arose from some of the interviews is the challenge of not allowing the digital
transformation to depersonalize the company’s valuable customer interaction, something that
many interviewees described as being one of the company’s unique selling points. One respondent
described the challenge as finding the balance between making improvements and simplifications
of the contact, by for example using apps, while still maintaining close customer interaction.
Furthermore, most of the participants claimed that a digital transformation would require a change
in customer behavior, such as making them send in their orders electronically instead of using
paper. This was according to two participants the major challenge to overcome when performing
the digital transformation. Additionally, two others agreed, explaining how the customers value

46
the flexibility of simply scribbling extra orders on the same paper instead of having to perform
multiple extra clicks in an app. According to two interviewees, a challenge related to this is making
the customers understand the added value from the transformation as they felt that it might be
challenging to find clear examples to show customers. A further challenge that some respondents
brought up is the challenge of achieving the requisite level of user-friendliness as the customers
settings and surroundings differ from one occasion to another. One participant also expressed that
an additional challenge in changing customer behavior is that some of the customers have low
experience with technology. Further, the same participant mentioned the challenge in some
customers being stuck in a mentality of thinking that everything new is bad. However, according
to two interviewees, changing customer behavior is not necessarily challenging. According to
them, customers tend to be adaptive when you force them by simply not giving any other options.
To continue, a challenge that arose from two interviews was to work close to the customer as they
go through their own digital transformations. Similarly, one respondent described the most
important challenge to be digitally transforming in parallel to the customer, requiring the
organization to identify and act when customers transform. Furthermore, the interviewee felt that
it will be extra challenging since different customers will be at different phases in their own
digitalization journeys, necessitating tailoring of communications. Thus, the respondent described
the need to use customer data to identify where its different customers are in their digital
transformation journey, something which was described to be a big challenge. However, other
interviewees claimed that they currently collect a lot of customer data and one of them mentioned
that they are quite good at it therefore lessening the challenge. Additionally, a challenge that was
highlighted in one interview was the management of customer channels. The interviewee described
a challenge related to finding the correct timing with digital campaigns and choosing the correct
channel for each customer.

The interviewees explained that Pegasuslab currently has a large distance between themselves and
their suppliers, describing it as a simple transactional relationship rather than a collaboration, and
that they are happy with this. Due to the satisfaction of the current supplier-relations, there was a
general agreement from most interviewees that there would be no real challenges related to their
current suppliers during nor after the digital transformation. However, multiple of the interview
subjects mentioned that new suppliers and partners would be needed. Some of the respondents
expressed that finding partners that could aid them with things such as digitalization and
automation might prove to be challenging. Further, two of the participants highlighted that the
industry is generally behind in its technical development. They felt that this was a challenge as it
means that there are no suppliers with premade solutions, instead everything must be tailor made.
Another challenge to overcome is, according to one interviewee, finding partners that is willing to
accept the inertia coming from a complex organization. Further, one respondent mentioned that as
everything needs to be tailor-made there is a need for a close partnership. This makes it important,
according to the respondent, to find the right partner early as it is a large challenge to reverse any
decision made.

47
4.2.8 Value Creation
During the interviews it emerged that one of the main reasons for customers to choose Pegasuslab
instead of a competitor is the high level of knowledge the employees have, as well as their
willingness to share this knowledge. One interviewee expressed that it will be important, yet
challenging, to perform a digital transformation in a way that ensures that the company does not
degrade the value it is currently supplying their customers. According to the interviewee, this is
emphasized more for Pegasuslab than for many other companies as there is a limited number of
customers in the market making the loss of one more painful. During another interview, the subject
asserted that it is a challenge to identify different technologies that can help the company increase
the value it creates for its customers. Two respondents claimed that a challenge the company will
face is not letting future technology replace the company’s unique selling point of knowledge.
They felt that new technology, such as AI, could disrupt the laboratory industry by changing its
meaning, therefore steering this disruption is an important challenge. Thus, one of the interview
subjects expressed that it is vital to meet the previously mentioned challenge of working close to
the customer.

During many interviews, participants highlighted the challenge of utilizing customer data to
increase customer value. Evolving on this, one subject explained that the challenge is not in the
collection of data, something the subject felt they are adept at, but more so in the management and
interpretation of it. The subject further emphasized that an additional challenge, as previously
mentioned, is the lack of competence in this area. Furthermore, one interviewee highlighted that
another challenge is to continually modify the customer segmentation. Most interview subjects
claimed to not have the requisite knowledge needed to comment on potential changes and
challenges concerning the revenue model and general value capture of the customer. However,
one respondent claimed that the company might be able to move more towards a subscription
model which would make continually keeping the attractiveness of their offer up more important
and challenging than it is today.

4.2.9 Culture
During the interviews, the company culture was described as customer focused, with the leaders
having a more industrial mindset while the laboratory employees had a more manual and
traditional mindset. Furthermore, some of the respondents highlighted that one challenge could be
that employees might mistrust the digital transformation if they think that it will hurt the quality
of delivery to the customers and that a decrease in customer satisfaction make might it challenging
to motivate continued change and digital transformation. However, other respondents asserted that
many of the company’s employees are willing, and even wanting, to change.

Another potential challenge expressed was the fact that the laboratory employees prefer a quiet
and peaceful workplace over the more industrial feeling and potentially loud sounds that an
automation and robotization would bring. Furthermore, one participant explained the current

48
culture to emphasize the need for knowledge and a human brain to do many of the analyses. The
subject further explained that this general feeling within the culture could make it challenging to
automize certain processes due to mistrust towards technology. Furthermore, a digital
transformation would, as has already been mentioned, increase the need for additional and larger
support functions and one interviewee claimed that it would be a challenge to find the appropriate
power balance between these and the chemists and microbiologists of the company.

Some of the interviewed objects expressed that they felt that the company culture should become
more helping and testing, allowing for some degree of trial and error and learning from mistakes.
However, other interview subjects felt that the company in fact needed to become less prone to
allowing testing and mistakes as these may be hard to reverse. Something that one participant felt
might be a challenge in a potential cultural change was that becoming more helpful requires
broader knowledge profiles. Further, according to two of the people interviewed, not every
employee is prone to change, and some might be thinking that ‘it was better before’. Therefore,
they felt that a challenge would be to persuade these employees. However, the subjects both felt
that most of the employees are not like that. Furthermore, one interview subject explained that the
company has a habit of making things more complicated than they need to be, something that could
prove to be a challenge when digitalizing, as the point of doing that is to simplify and standardize
activities. The interview subject further described that the company generally tries to accommodate
every wish of their customers which the subject feels will become harder to do if the laboratory
becomes automized or robotized. The loss of this ability is something that the interviewee feels
might be challenging to convince some employees to accept due to the customer focus of the
culture.

49
5 Analysis of challenges
The following chapter aims to analyze the data collected from the case study in conjunction with
the literature gathered during the theoretical review. First, the challenges identified from the
interviews are grouped into aggregated challenges. Thereafter, the aggregated challenges are
compared and discussed with regards to the findings of prominent researchers. When doing so,
similarities and differences as well as challenges with no direct theoretical overlap are
highlighted. The discussed aggregated challenges then serve as an input for the second part of the
analysis, which aims to investigate potential areas of solutions.

50
 5.1 Extracted challenges for protocol-driven laboratories
From the case study, multiple challenges for protocol-driven laboratories performing a digital
transformation were identified. These challenges have been extracted to form themes of
challenges, which can be seen in Table 6. The challenges seen in the table below have been
grouped according to the process described in section 3.3.2. Below, each challenge will be
discussed and analyzed in relation to the literature constituting the frame of reference.

Table 6: Summary of identified challenges from the case study

Culture Strategy Value Creation

• Cultural contradiction • Defining appropriate business • Maintaining or improving value
• Accommodate employee desires strategy creation
• Inertia • Align with overall strategies • Use customer data for value
• Establishing creative autonomy • Unified strategy for all • Revising revenue model
departments • Risk of disruptive technology
• Defining scope
• Communicating the strategy
• Seeing the big picture
• Lack of knowledge
People & Skills Relations Security & Regulations
• Low technical maturity • Customer channel management • Balancing security vs accessibility
• Establishing required skills • Finding new partners and • Unawareness of IT-security from
• Risk for lack of motivation suppliers lab staff
• Shortage of IT-personnel on the • Alter customer behavior
labor market • Transform in parallel with
customer
Technology Governance & Structure Leadership
• Integrating hardware • Transforming with existing • Developing new leadership skills
• Integrating software with resources • Achieving continuity
existing systems • Transforming simultaneously as • Change in mindset
• Making use of data core business • Motivating employees
• Updating technology after • Reaching an agile workflow • Allocating time for leadership-
implementation • Evaluating utility and success development
• Finding appropriate technology • Corporate politics
• Assuring user-friendliness for • Balancing bottom-up vs top-
systems down
• Lack of technological • Recognizing the optimal
competence structure
• Appropriate cooperation
between IT and business

51
5.2 Technology
From the interviews, the challenge of integrating hardware was raised by many, one example was
the difficulties due to a lack of compatibility for some machines. This goes in line with how
Dhasarathy et al. (2020) mention the difficulties of integrating digital technologies with core
architecture and how Zupancic (2021) describes how integrating equipment can be challenging
due to the lack of standardization, where each piece of laboratory equipment is unique.
Consequently, Zupancic (2021) mentions how internal software-development might be needed,
which constitutes a challenge for laboratory companies. However, as the case company is part of
a group who builds their internal systems in-house, this challenge does not apply for the specific
case company. However, as many protocol-driven laboratories is of smaller size, and thus do not
have internal developers (Zupancic, 2021), the finding is not deemed generalizable for protocol-
driven laboratories in general. To continue, integrating software with software, and thus making
internal systems communicate, was also mentioned as a challenge from the case study. This finding
affirms the opinion of Zupancic (2021) and Tavares (2021) who both describe integration cross-
systems as being a challenge for laboratories, both hypothesis- and protocol-driven.

A third theme from the interviews that constituted a technological challenge was the challenge of
making use of the data, including both knowledge of how to handle and extract knowledge from
big data, and the processes of doing so. This challenge was also raised by Heavin and Power (2018)
who mention the difficulties in selecting which data to store, how to understand it, assessing its
quality, and combining it to gather insights. A fourth challenge that arose from the interviews was
the challenge of updating the technology when needed, where interviewees both pointed at how
the production for a protocol-driven laboratory cannot be stopped to update technology, and how
data must be stored for ten years which further makes it challenging to update or replace
technology. Here, some similarities can be drawn to Svahn et al. (2017) who mention the challenge
of not thinking the transformation is complete after the first implementation, and thus not updating
technology. However, as Svahn et al. (2017) mainly focus on the challenge of developing a mindset
that the transformation is done, the case study rather highlights that the challenge for protocol
driven laboratories lies in physically being able to update the systems while simultaneously
keeping the production running. Furthermore, as the laboratory must be able to show results from
ten years back, and thus potentially from old systems meaning that they must be kept active, the
challenge of updating technology also relates to how Fitzgerald et al. (2014) describe the challenge
of legacy technology leading to double work.

Further themes of challenges identified, but without direct overlap with previously identified
literature, include ensuring user-friendliness for systems and balancing generalizability versus
adaptability. Though, concerning user-friendliness, interviewees highlighted a potential
generational issue which adheres to Fitzgerald et al. (2014) describing how old employees can be
“technophobic”, and thus not wanting to learn anything new. During the interviews, the challenge
of balancing generalizability and adaptability was explained to be related to the development of

52
 internal systems. Though, as previously mentioned most protocol-driven laboratories do not have
internal software development, resulting in the challenge not being generalizable for the context
of protocol-driven laboratories. Additionally, the lack of technology competence for the lab staff
was raised as a tough challenge concerning technology. This included both competence regarding
developer-lingo, how technology can add value, and general knowledge about technology and
automatization. This aligns with how Rachinger et al. (2018) writes how a change in employee
competence is required, and how competences in cyber physical systems or analytical data
processing are necessary. Finally, another challenge for the laboratory is finding appropriate
technology, including the lack of potential suppliers; the specific requirements; finding technology
that can be integrated and that adhere to internal rules and policies; as well as the complex process
of doing so. As most protocol-driven laboratories perform similar activities on a higher level
(Shute & Lynch, 2021), the lack of suppliers is not a case-specific challenge, but rather applicable
for all protocol-driven laboratories. Cotteleer et al. (2019) describe how the large variety of tools
which can help the organization may create a ‘choice overload’ when it comes to determining,
prioritizing, and investing. However, for the laboratory industry, the challenge rather lies in the
lack of potential choices, creating a choice shortage, as was exemplified by one interviewee who
described the technological development for laboratories as 30 years behind other industries. For
a summary over the analysis and the connections between literature and performed case study, see
Table 7.

Table 7: Visualization of relation between case study and literature for Technology

From case study From literature research

• Integrate with current IT architecture
• Integrating hardware
• Integrate non-standardized equipment
• Integrating software with existing systems • Integrate cross-systems
• Data governance
• Making use of data
• Data selection
• Not updating technology when needed
• Updating technology after implementation
• Legacy technology

Not identified in literature research: Not identified in the case study:

• Finding appropriate technology • Short technology cycles
• Assuring user-friendliness for systems • Lacking requisite technological infrastructure
• Lack of technological competence • Need for customized software development
• Lack of demo-versions for systems
• Ensure scalability
Not generalizable:
• Balancing generalizability vs adaptability

53
5.3 Security and regulations
As was described during the interviews, the case company had recently been a victim of a cyber-
attack and has since greatly increased the IT-security throughout the organization. As a result, the
interviewees did not see any challenges concerning countermeasures to ensure security or being
victim of another attack as was described as potential challenges when performing a digital
transformation (e.g. (Legner et al., 2017; Lomas, 2021; Schreckling & Steiger, 2017)). Contrarily,
the case study revealed how the extensive countermeasures taken to secure IT-security instead
could act as a challenge itself through the cause of major inertia, showcasing the argument by Vial
(2019) of how existing capabilities and resources can act as barriers to the disruption needed. The
inertia was explained to be caused through, for instance, limitations of technology and lengthened
lead times. As a result, the challenge described by Heavin and Power (2018) concerning the
balance between security and accessibility was also found prevalent for the case company, where
several interviewees mentioned the challenge of finding a correct balance between flexibility, by
being able to access data from multiple locations, and security. A final challenge concerning
security, which had not been identified within literature, relates to unawareness of IT security from
the lab staff. As described by one interviewee, the challenge of IT-security becomes much tougher
if the operators are not aware of it during their daily actions.

Concerning inertia from high IT-security demands, a discussion concerning generalizability can
be raised. The lab industry has just recently begun its digitalization journey (Leveau, 2022), most
likely resulting in laboratories ten years from now looking extremely different (Shute & Lynch,
2021). In addition, as the interviews described the lab industry to lag behind in technical
development, the case study’s extreme IT-security initiatives, where one employee described the
company having five layers of anti-virus systems, is most likely a result of the individual event of
them being a victim of a cyber-attack rather than an industry norm. Thus, for protocol-driven
laboratories in general, this challenge might potentially not be generalizable. Instead, the challenge
of assuring a correct level of IT-security will most likely be prevalent within the context of
protocol-driven laboratories. This, because most laboratories have just recently begun their digital
transformation journey (Leveau, 2022).

Regarding regulations, a consensus was formed by the interviewees that this would not be that big
of a challenge. Thus, the challenge of dealing with regulatory issues described by Westerman et
al. (2011) was not identified for protocol-driven laboratories. This, as the interviews highlighted
that the existing regulations did not affect how the work is done, but rather the result. The case
study further exemplified how there were resources accessible to help concerning regulations and
guidelines such as GDPR, making the challenge to adhere to this described by Hren (2021)
minimal. For a summary over the analysis and the connections between literature and performed
case study, see Table 8.

54
 Table 8: Visualization of relation between case study and literature for Security & Regulations

From case study From literature research

• Balancing security vs accessibility • Balancing security vs accessibility

Not identified in literature research: Not identified in the case study:

• Unawareness of IT-security from lab staff • Threat of becoming victim to cyber-attacks
• Dealing with regulatory issues
• Countermeasures to ensure security
Not generalizable:
• Inertia from high IT-security demands

5.4 Strategy
From the interviews, it emerged that the case company did not have any specified digitalization
strategy. Yet, this was something many interviewees would have preferred to see, though found
challenging to define. This adheres to how Tabrizi et al. (2019) explain the challenge of figuring
out a clear business strategy before investing, and to not just have single initiatives for each
technology, as well as Schreckling and Steiger (2017) who mentions the challenge in integrating
the digitalization into strategy. From the case study, Tabrizi et al.’s (2019) argument was extended
by one interviewee who mentioned the challenge in finding the appropriate strategy, as it is
difficult to reverse a digital transformation. As laboratories in general was expressed to be behind
in the technical development, and as most protocol-driven laboratories mainly consists of staff
with competence within the nature sciences (Leveau, 2022), the challenge is not seen as case-
specific, but rather general for the context of protocol-driven laboratories.

Further, the challenge of fusing a digital transformation strategy with overall strategies expressed
by Vial (2019) and Matt et al. (2015), describing the need to obtain a close fit between all
strategies, was also highlighted during the interviews, where respondents especially saw
challenges in integrating it with the IT-security strategy. To continue, several interviewees
described challenges in defining the scope, including what should be covered and the time, which
adheres to Tavares (2021) discussing the challenge in identifying what to solve; Westerman et al.
(2011) mentioning the challenge of not having too small-scale plans; Gimpel and Röglinger’s
(2015) explanation of the challenge of finding the digital sweet spot; and the challenge described
by Kane (2019) of not having too short of a time frame. In addition, the specific case study raised
the challenge of defining a unified strategy for all departments due to for instance the
organizational structure, varied technical maturity between departments, and the desired
entrepreneurial mindset for each manager. This aligns well with how Westerman et al. (2011)
describes it as challenging to find a strategy for all departments, having them share one vision.
Even though the organizational structure and the desired entrepreneurial mindset for each manager

55
 can be seen as case-specific, the finding is deemed generalizable for protocol-driven laboratories.
This, as the technical maturity often differs between staff (Vaska et al., 2021) and since most
laboratories generally adapt a more entrepreneurial culture (Erjavec et al., 2021).

Another challenge connected to defining a strategy, but with no direct overlap from the identified
literature, that arose from the case study was the challenge of seeing the big picture. This, as
multiple respondents mentioned challenges in identifying key initiatives, identifying
interdependencies between initiatives and how they affect each other, as well as dreaming big.
Though, this can be related to Fitzgerald et al. (2014) who express how a digital transformation is
not solely about automating processes, but rather opening routes to new ways of doing business,
and Gimpel and Röglinger (2015) mentioning the need to start the design by looking at the desired
end point. To continue, another challenge identified from the interviews is the challenge of
communicating the strategy, where respondents mentioned challenges in making sure it was
interpreted and implemented similarly cross-sites. A final challenge concerning strategy that
emerged from the interviews related to the lack of knowledge, including competence regarding
strategy, goal management, project management, and making sure that the right competences pull
the strings. Even though the identified literature focuses on the need for new competences, skills,
and knowledge (e.g. (Rachinger et al., 2018; Vial, 2019; Westerman et al., 2011)), it mainly
focuses on the need for further competences within data, IT, and analytics, rather than strategy.
Yet, the interviews highlighted how the lack of knowledge creates an important challenge to work
more with strategies and can thus further aggravate the challenge described by Tabrizi et al. (2019)
of defining the business strategy. For a summary over the analysis and the connections between
literature and performed case study, see Table 9.

Table 9: Visualization of relation between case study and literature for Strategy

From case study From literature research

• Defining business strategy for transformation
• Defining appropriate business strategy
• Understanding prerequisites before investing
• Align with overall strategies • Fusing with overall strategy
• Unified strategy for all departments • Unified strategy for all departments
• Too small-scale plans
• Deciding appropriate speed
• Defining scope
• Finding digital sweet spot
• Too short timeframe

Not identified in literature research: Not identified in the case study:

• Communicating the strategy • Not challenging current constraints
• Seeing the big picture
• Lack of knowledge

56
5.5 Governance and Structure
From the case study, multiple challenges concerning governance and structure arose. One of the
key challenges highlighted was the challenge of transforming simultaneously as the core business,
including production having highest priority and difficulties in forecasting demand for a protocol-
driven laboratory. Here, similarities can be drawn to the challenge expressed by Kane (2019)
describing the challenge of handling core business simultaneously. Though, as Kane (2019)
highlights the challenge of having time for the core business while transforming, the interviews
rather implied that the challenge for the laboratory is to find time from the core business to
transform. Similarly, another theme which emerged from the case study was the challenge of
transforming with existing resources, including knowledge, competence, and the shortage of IT-
resources. Even though no direct overlap from previous literature was identified, similarities can
be seen with Westerman et al. (2011) describing challenges in coordinating resources, Schreckling
and Steiger (2017) describing the lack appropriate methods for transformation as a challenge, and
Lomas (2021) describing the challenge of often limited funding. Furthermore, the case study raised
the need, and the challenge, of reaching a more agile workflow, including the challenge of finding
a balance between agile thinking and global coherence as well as finding the competence needed.
This aligns well with how Fuchs and Hess (2018) claim that an agile transformation is often
required when transforming digitally, though very challenging.

Another challenge that arose from the interviews, with clear overlap with identified literature, is
the challenge of evaluating utility and success, strengthening Bughin’s et al. (2018) argument in
the challenge of understanding the economies of digital and Fitzgerald’s et al. (2014) argument of
struggling to compute the return on investment. From the interviews a disagreement regarding the
need for KPIs was identified, complicating the understanding of a potential challenge for protocol-
driven laboratories. However, both Fitzgerald et al. (2014) and Svahn et al. (2017) highlights the
importance of new KPIs, and the challenge of deriving those, something which Erjavec (2017)
describes necessary and challenging to implement for laboratories. To continue, multiple opinions
were raised regarding elements of both bottom-up and top-down governance to drive the
transformation. This dual opinion also exists within research, where Chanias (2017) describes the
need of both bottom-up to initiate and top-down to continue the transformation. This, as the lab
staff has high knowledge regarding operations which is beneficial when going digital (Scott-
Weathers, 2021), while top management involvement is needed for success (Fuchs and Hess,
2018). In contrast, Westerman et al. (2011) and Mathiassen et al. (2017) describe a top-down
approach to be essential for successful transformation while Gimpel and Röglinger (2015) mention
the need of a project- and team culture as well as a workforce with digital competences to foster a
bottom-up approach. Thus, it will be a challenge for protocol-driven laboratories to balance the
need for both approaches when transforming digitally. Additionally, a further challenge that
emerged from the case study was corporate politics, including adhering to it and having it limit the
possibility of technical solutions. Here, similarities can be drawn to how Fitzgerald et al. (2014)
describe how internal politics may hinder and challenge the progress of the transformation.

57
Concerning organizational structure, one challenge which emerged without any direct overlap to
previous literature is the challenge of identifying and recognizing the optimal structure after a
digital transformation, including how departments should be configured, how resources and
responsibility should be divided, and the need of a potential service-unit. However, similarities
can be drawn to Heavin and Power (2018) finding a challenge in resource allocation, namely
deciding which functional areas should be prioritized. Another challenge that can be connected to
Heavin and Power’s (2018) argument regarding the challenge of prioritization was the challenge
of inertia from a complex organization, where respondents mentioned it resulting in very long lead
times, making it challenging with allocation of resources and responsibility, and finding an
appropriate governance throughout the organization. This finding aligns with how Vial (2019)
describes that inertia can act as a barrier to the disruption needed through for instance the deeply
embedded structural components of an organization. This is further in line with how Rachinger et
al. (2018) describe how organizational capacities can act as a challenge as the structure might need
to be redefined when transforming digitally. Concerning the challenge of inertia from a complex
organization, the question of generalizability must be raised. Since the case company is part of
Eurofins which constitutes of over 900 laboratories located in 54 different countries (Eurofins,
2022b), the challenge is most likely case-specific. This, as for instance local laboratories most
likely will have a substantially less complex organization, and therefore not experiencing the
challenge.

One of the most common themes of challenges from the case study related to the challenge of
finding an appropriate cooperation between IT and main operations, including not having local IT-
resources; planning for shared resources; difficulties with coordination; and the lack of a clear
handover point. This issue is also raised by Westerman et al. (2011) who describes the need for a
strong business-IT integration, otherwise risking getting lost in the digital arena. As IT was
described to work more agile, this cooperation can be extra challenging as Fuchs and Hess (2018)
describes difficulties between coordinating between agile and non-agile teams. In addition, Vial
(2019) mentions how new types of collaborations are possible after performing a digital
transformation. However, these might, if interests are not fully aligned, make the operations' ability
to sustain the competitive advantage more fragile as they control fewer elements of their
environment. For the laboratory company, this can be connected to the cooperation between IT
and operations as IT’s actions will have a higher influence over the laboratory’s ability to create
value. For a summary over the analysis and the connections between literature and performed case
study, see Table 10.

58
 Table 10: Visualization of relation between case study and literature for Governance & Structure

From case study From literature research

• Limited funding
• Transforming with existing resources • Lack of appropriate methods
• Resource allocation problems*
• Transforming simultaneously as core business • Handle core business simultaneously
• Inappropriate structure for agile
transformation
• Reaching an agile workflow
• Coordinating between agile and non-agile
teams
• Misunderstanding the economies of digital
• Evaluating utility and success
• Calculating ROI fairly
• Appropriate cooperation between IT and
• Business and IT integration
business
• Corporate politics • Internal politics**

Not identified in literature research: Not identified in the case study:

• Balancing bottom-up vs top-down • Prioritize tools – choice overload
• Recognizing the optimal structure • Establishing cross-functional collaborations
• Defining appropriate KPIs
Not generalizable:
• Inertia from complex organization
* Originally located under Governance & Structure ** Originally located under People & Skills

5.6 Leadership
A challenge that arose from many of the interviews was the need for development of new
leadership skills, something the interviewees felt could push leaders outside their comfort zone.
This is in line with how Kane (2019) and Legner et al. (2017) describe the need for new types of
leaders and leadership capabilities. Interestingly, Kane (2019) further describes that it is in general
easier for leaders to learn technological skills than it is for technologists to acquire leadership
skills, something which was echoed from the interviews. Additionally, the need for leadership to
develop skills that allow them to better understand digitalization is mirrored by Linde et al. (2020)
who claim that a challenge is how companies, and therefore leaders, need to better understand the
reasons and traps of a digitalization. According to Cotteleer et al. (2019) this is also of importance
to guarantee the desired return on investment from the digital transformation. Another challenge
that was highlighted in the interviews was the challenge of achieving more of a continuity in
projects, including ensuring that initiated projects are finished, being tenacious in continuing to
work on it, correctly delegating responsibility and following up on deadlines. This challenge is in
adherence with how Linde et al. (2020) uphold the importance of not rushing the implementation
of a project, as well as the work of Parry et al. (2014) who assert that confidence in project
leadership, which can be built by continuity, is a success factor when transforming. In addition,

59
Parry et al. (2014) also mention how challenges can stem from setting strict deadlines thereby
risking damaging the continuity. Furthermore, a third challenge that emerged from the interviews
was the challenge of requiring leaders to change their mindsets. The need for a change in mindset
is somewhat echoed in the research of Fuchs and Hess (2018) who claim that lacking an agile
mindset is a challenge when transforming, thereby requiring a change. However, while Fuchs and
Hess (2018) focus solely on the development of an agile mindset, the interviewees expressed a
more general need for an updated mindset. Still, both agree that a change might be needed, and
that such a change would constitute a challenge. Due to the industry generally lagging 30 years
behind when it comes to technical development, the need change in leader’s mindset is not just
case-specific, but applies to the wider context of protocol-driven laboratories.

In most of the interviews it was expressed that there was no real need for the creation of new
leadership roles. This is in direct opposition to the claims of Vial (2019) and Legner et al. (2017)
that new roles should be established in conjunction with a digital transformation. However, it was
explained by one interviewee that the reason that new roles were not needed was because they had
recently been established. Furthermore, all respondents felt that there was a clear need for the
company to transform and most believed that leaders were both willing and wanting to change.
The interviewees further claimed that the main reason behind the willingness to change was the
company being behind society’s development, thus needing to adapt. As this is true for the industry
in general, and since competitors tend to digitalize in response to other actors performing digital
transformations (Kane, 2019), the willingness is deemed to exist not just for the specific case. This
means that the challenges presented by Fitzgerald et al. (2014), of there being a lack of urgency to
transform, and Fuchs and Hess (2018), of there being a lack of top management engagement, was
contradicted in the context of protocol-driven laboratories by the case study.

Finally, there were some challenges identified from the interviews that had not been found in
theory beforehand. One of these was the challenge for leaders to motivate employees, with
interviewees giving examples such as motivating why a transformation is needed and showcasing
its benefits. However, even though no direct overlap exists, Tabrizi et al. (2019) and Westerman
et al. (2011) assert that it is important to assuage employees fears of getting replaced while
Fitzgerald et al. (2014) claim that motivating losses of power is a challenge, thereby giving the
findings a degree of connection to theory. Furthermore, another challenge not found in the
identified literature that was brought up was allocating time for leadership-development as the
production of the protocol-driven laboratory must be prioritized and cannot stop. However, Kane
(2019) states that finding the time for the development of employees, a category in which leaders
are included, is a challenge. Therefore, whilst the challenge itself was not found outright in the
literature similarities to it can be found. For a summary over the analysis and the connections
between literature and performed case study, see Table 11.

60
 Table 11: Visualization of relation between case study and literature for Leadership

From case study From literature research

• Developing new leadership skills • Developing new leadership skills
• Not rushing implementation
• Achieving continuity
• Allocating responsibility
• Change in mindset • Missing agile mindset

Not identified in literature research: Not identified in the case study:

• Motivate employees • Lack of urgency
• Allocate time for leadership development • Lack of top management engagement
• Redistribution of power
• Not considering leadership
• Resource allocation problems*
* Identified under Governance & Structure

5.7 People and Skills

As can be read in section 4.2.6, some interviewees felt that there would be challenges related to
the low technical maturity of some employees. This agrees with Fitzgerald et al. (2017) who claim
that there can be challenges related to digital and technical immaturity. Furthermore, as one
interviewee said that some employees prefer to do things as ‘normal’, the findings from the case
company is in accordance with how laboratory employees often prefer performing tasks in the way
which they were trained (Scott-Weathers, 2021), meaning that it is a challenge which most
protocol-driven laboratories are likely to face. As some interviewees also speculated that improved
skills regarding technology would be required due to the low technological maturity, the findings
from the case study share similarities to how Westerman et al. (2011) describe that organizations
can lack necessary skills. Svahn et al. (2017) claim that existing conditions such as a low technical
maturity can lead to inertia in starting a digital transformation, something that adhered to the case
study as one interviewee felt that the low maturity could lead to long start up times. The emergence
of the fact that establishing required skills would be a challenge provided an additional overlap
between the findings of the interviews and the previously found literature as Vial (2019),
Westerman et al. (2011), and Rachinger et al. (2018) all find this to be a challenge. During the
interviews, the need for new skills was expressed to be two-fold as these skills are needed to
perform the more digital tasks as well as to understand what areas could be digitalized. The
challenge of understanding what areas to digitalize, and therefore the challenge of needing to
develop new skills, is further complicated by what Cotteleer et al. (2019) and Linde et al. (2020)
call the ‘Digitalization Paradox’. According to Linde et al. (2020), the core of this paradox is that
companies do not get the full potential return of investment as they do not fully understand the
implications of digitalization. Thus, the challenge of not having the correct competences becomes
even more crucial (Cotteleer et al., 2019). According to theories from Scott-Weathers (2021) and
Vial (2019), employees generally do not want to change. However, while some interviewees saw

61
 that this could potentially be a problem, most respondent agreed that there is a sizeable and general
will to digitalize thereby opposing those findings. This, as protocol-driven laboratories are behind
the general development of society in terms of digitalizing resulting in there still being many
monotone tasks to digitalize. Some interviewees also further elaborated on this by highlighting
that the main difference would be employees’ jobs being simpler and not different. This means
that for the context, the issue described by Scott-Weathers (2021) of laboratory employees being
resistant to change is slightly sidestepped and that the findings from the case study agrees with the
authors claims that a transformation can be smooth given the correct personnel approach. This
indicates that the resistance to change is a smaller challenge than theory suggests for protocol-
driven laboratories.

From the interviews, some challenges that had not previously been found in theory arose. One of
those were the risk for a lack of motivation. Another included the shortage of IT-personnel on the
labor market. However, while these were not found explicitly in theory, similarities can be found
between the risk of employees lacking motivation and the findings of Svahn et al. (2017) that
existing resources such as a company’s work force can act as a barrier. One interviewee expanded
on the challenge by stating that a reason for the lack of motivation might be that the transformation
is seen as extra work that the employees do not have time for. Therefore, similarities can also be
found to Kane (2019) claiming that it can be a challenge to both transform and to handle the core
business at the same time, something that is necessary to do for protocol-driven laboratories as the
production cannot be stopped. Regarding the challenge of there being a shortage of IT-personnel
on the market, Rachinger et al. (2018) explain that recruitment can be a challenge in a digital
transformation in general. However, the case study showcased that for protocol-driven
laboratories, the challenge does not lie in the recruitment process in general as Rachinger et al.
(2018) claim, but rather in the lack of available IT-personnel on the labor market. For a summary
over the analysis and the connections between literature and performed case study, see Table 12.

Table 12: Visualization of relation between case study and literature for People & Skills

From case study From literature research

• Resistance to change
• Low technical maturity
• Inertia*
• Establishing new digital skills
• Establishing required skills
• Missing required competencies

Not identified in literature research: Not identified in the case study:

• Risk for lack of motivation • Internal politics**
• Shortage of IT-personnel on the labor market • Substandard recruitment
* Originally located under Culture ** Identified under Governance & Structure

62
5.8 Relations
From the interviews, it became apparent that one challenge that a digitally transforming protocol-
driven laboratory would need to address was the challenge of customer channel management,
including the choice of which channels to use to reach which customers and how to use digital
channels without depersonalizing customer contact. This adheres to what Heavin and Power
(2018) call the issue of finding the balance between depersonalization and personalization in
channel management. Furthermore, it is also in agreement with Vial (2019) as they find that it is
challenging to manage multiple customer channels at the same time as well as Westerman et al.
(2014) who mentions challenges in managing the digitalization of channels. Additionally, it also
aligns with what Gimpel and Röglinger (2015) call the challenge of finding the digital sweet spot.
They describe this as the spot where a company maximizes the utility of a digital transformation
without losing their competitive edge. This is very similar to how multiple interviewees claimed
that it is important for the company to not over-digitalize and lose their unique selling point of
close customer contact. Another challenge that arose during the interviews was the challenge of
finding new partners and suppliers. This affirms the findings of Linde et al. (2020) as they claim
that challenges emerge when partners with new types of competencies are required, something that
protocol-driven laboratories will need when transforming as interviewees expressed that they will
need new types of e.g. technology, machines and digital solutions. Furthermore, during the case
study it emerged that it is important to find the correct new partner or supplier quickly, as it can
be difficult to reverse the any decision made as they will need to be well integrated to accommodate
the level of tailoring that a protocol-driven laboratory will need of their technical solutions. As this
was said to be an effect of the higher dependency and integration required of the new partners, it
is in line with both how Gimpel and Röglinger (2015) describes that it is important to integrate
partners into the new digitized supply chains and how Vial (2019) claims that a digitalization leads
to higher dependencies between a company and their suppliers as they all find that challenges can
arise from this.

One area in which challenges were highlighted during the interviews, that was not discovered in
the literature research, was the alteration of customer behavior. However, whilst there was no
direct connection between theory and the case study, Schreckling and Steiger (2017) identify that
a challenge when transforming is to hold discussions with customers to find what changes matter
to them. This is similar to how some interviewees claimed that one of the important challenges in
changing customer behavior was to find benefits from a digitalization for customers to point at to
influence change. Additionally, Erjavec (2021) finds that customers do not generally want to
change, something that was echoed by the interviews. From the previous literature search, one of
the challenges that emerged was the challenge of involving suppliers and partners in a digital
transformation, with Gimpel and Röglinger (2015) finding that the integration of them into supply
chains can be a challenge and Linde et al. (2020) expressing that involving them in value creation
can be a challenge. However, as most of the partners a protocol-driven laboratory has supplies
them with simple, commodified goods this was not seen as necessary nor desirable, and therefore

63
 not a challenge in the context. Instead, a challenge that was not found in literature but did arise in
the case study was the need for protocol-driven laboratories to transform in parallel with
customers, to try keeping a similar pace to the customer and be involved in their digital
transformation. This creates an interesting juxtaposition where Gimpel and Röglinger (2015) as
well as Linde et al. (2020) claim that involvement of one’s suppliers is important while the case
study instead turns this around and suggests that the involvement of the company with its
customers is more important in the context.

As was revealed in the case study, the company utilizes suppliers but has a large distance between
them and the companies. Thus, relations are more of a transactional and simple buyer-seller type
than that of an ecosystem, a relation the company would like to maintain. Therefore, the challenges
related to creating ecosystems from current suppliers mentioned by Vaska et al. (2021), Iivari et
al. (2016), and Bughin et al. (2018) did not apply in the studied context. For a summary over the
analysis and the connections between literature and performed case study, see Table 13.

Table 13: Visualization of relation between case study and literature for Relations

From case study From literature research

• Degree of personalization
• Customer channel management • Integration multiple channels
• Digital sweet spot*
• Finding new partners & suppliers • Finding new digital partners

Not identified in literature research: Not identified in the case study:

• Alter customer behavior • Overlooking eco-systems
• Transform in parallel with customer • Lacking integrative capabilities
• Integrating partners
• Balancing flexibility and control
• Gathering and using customer data**
* Originally located under Strategy ** Identified under Value Creation

5.9 Value Creation

In the overall theme of Value Creation, maintaining or improving value creation was one of the
challenges that emerged from the case study. This challenge was exemplified during the interviews
as the challenge of not allowing the digital transformation to have an adverse effect on the value
the company delivers, and the challenge of finding technologies that can help the value produced.
This is in line with identified literature which raises challenges with improving value creation
(Schreckling & Steiger, 2017); broadening it using technology and digitalization (Gimpel &
Röglinger, 2015); and understanding changes to it (Vaska et al., 2021). Another challenge that was
highlighted by the interviewees was the challenge of using customer data for value. This challenge
adheres to the findings of Gimpel and Röglinger (2015) and Westerman et al. (2014) regarding the

64
importance of using data from a digitalization to better understand customers. As one interviewee
expanded on the challenge by stating the need to adapt the segmentation based on data from the
digital transformation, the findings from the case study further affirms the claims of Westerman et
al. (2014) as they find that it is important to utilize the data which a company gains from going
digital to not only understand customers, but to also segment them better.

Furthermore, Tabrizi et al. (2019) raise the challenge of utilizing an outside-in perspective, thereby
using customer data, the need for which was also found in the interviews. Additionally, the
interviewees stated that the challenge was using customer data to find value and not gathering the
data, with one interviewee expressing that it was in fact a strong point for the company, which is
aligned with Westerman et al. (2014) who also focus on the challenges related to using and
understanding data. However, as the reason that gathering data was not seen as a challenge was
that it was a strength of the company it is likely a challenge for the context in general, just not for
Pegasuslabs. Similarities with the challenge are also found in the work of Heavin and Power (2018)
who finds that a very challenging part of data management is the understanding and usage of it.
Further, Shute and Lynch (2021) find that as a company digitally transforms, it inevitably moves
closer to the concept of LaaS. As data is incredibly valuable to use when performing a move to
servitization understanding it will be a challenge for protocol-driven laboratories. A final, slightly
overlapping, challenge was the potential need to revise the revenue model. As mentioned, most
interview subjects claimed to lack the knowledge needed to comment on this challenge, which
according to Linde et al. (2020) may constitute a challenge regarding how a digital transformation
affects value capture and how to best utilize it. However, much like how Vaska et al. (2021) shows
that digitalization affects value capture, one of the interviews thought that a digital transformation
would lead to a possibility in change of how value is captured.

Finally, one challenge related to value creation identified from the case study was the risk of
disruptive technologies displacing the unique selling point of a protocol-driven laboratory. This
aligns with how Kane (2019) describes the need to navigate digital disruption emerging when new
technologies upend entire industries. However, this is not something new to current technologies,
as technologies and innovations cause industry discontinuities in a cyclic way, periodically
reshaping the playing field (Peltoniemi, 2011). Further, whilst there is no direct overlap, the
challenge identified from the case study highlights the importance of meeting the challenge
outlined by Gimpel and Röglinger (2015) of continually broadening the value proposition and
moving beyond today’s value. For a summary over the analysis and the connections between
literature and performed case study, see Table 14.

65
 Table 14: Visualization of relation between case study and literature for Value Creation

From case study From literature research

• Having digitalization translate to customer
• Maintaining or improving value creation value
• Understanding customer value
• Gathering and using customer data*
• Understanding customer value
• Use customer data for value
• Utilizing customer input
• Balancing outside in and inside out
• Revising revenue streams
• Revising revenue model
• Understanding value capture

Not identified in literature research: Not identified in the case study:

• Risk of disruptive technology • Considering the whole value chain
• Involving partners
• Satisfying all customer segments
* Originally located under Relations

5.10 Culture
During the interviews, several challenges related to culture were highlighted. One of those was the
challenge of there being a cultural contradiction in the company when trying to digitalize. As was
highlighted by the interviewees, the culture is currently incredibly customer focused where there
is a distinct need to accommodate the customer and further favors the need for a human brain to
interpret results and there are sometimes some over-complications of things. However, as part of
the effect of a digital transformation is the simplification, standardization and removal of things,
there are some contradictions between the current culture and effects of a digital transformation.
Similar challenges to this can be found in the work of Töytäri et al. (2017) who finds that
organizational culture can act as a barrier if it is not aligned with the wanted change and Westerman
et al. (2011) claiming that employees can fear being replaced when this happens. Additionally,
both Erjavec (2021) and Vial (2019) claim that having a culture that is aligned with the wanted
change is a success factor in a transformation, therefore agreeing that a contradiction between the
current culture and the transformation is a challenge. However, while Vial (2019) finds that there
is a distinct need for the development of a digital culture, the interviewees felt that a large-scale
culture change was not desired, in part, because the case company had recently performed a
cultural transformation. This means that while there is overlap between the previously found
literature and the case study in that contradictions with the current culture and a digital
transformation are a challenge, the case study suggests that it would not be challenging to
accommodate a change in the culture. However, as the reason for this was a company specific
event and as Erjavec et al. (2021) find it to be a large challenge for the digitalization of any
laboratory it is likely not true for most companies in the context. Further, an additional challenge

66
 that arose from the case study was how the inertia, that for instance the internal mistrust for
machines and fear that a transformation might affect the quality that is delivered to customers. The
presence of cultural inertia in a transformation is something that is a prevalent theme in the writings
on digital transformation of both Vial (2019) and Westerman et al. (2011), thus aligning to the
findings of the case study.

Another challenge which emerged from the interviews, where an overlap between identified theory
and case study can be found, is the challenge of accommodating employee desires. In the
interviews, this was highlighted through the challenge of performing a digital transformation while
adhering to all employee requirements connected to, for instance, the sound level. Further, this can
be extra challenging due to the cultural distinction that exists between management and staff which
is echoed by the thoughts of Scott-Weathers (2021) who describes the challenge of laboratory
employees preferring to do things in their normal, non-industrial way. This change can lead to
some employees fearing the future, and how their future working environment will be, which is
aligned with how Westerman et al. (2011) and Tabrizi et al. (2019) find that recognizing the fears
and worries of employees is both important and a challenge. Finally, the challenge of establishing
creative autonomy was also highlighted in the interviews. Interviewees claimed that it would be
important to achieve a more testing culture that allows for some trial-and-error and the attempts of
some crazy project that could lead to large changes. This is in line with the theories of Westerman
et al. (2011), that it is important for companies to try to dream big enough instead of merely looking
for incremental, small-scale changes. For a summary over the analysis and the connections
between literature and performed case study, see Table 15.

Table 15: Visualization of relation between case study and literature for Culture

From case study From literature research

• Developing a digital culture
• Cultural contradiction
• Inertia
• Accommodate employee desires • Recognizing employees’ fears
• Inertia • Inertia
• Establishing creative autonomy
• Establishing creative autonomy
• Too small-scale plans*

Not identified in the case study:

• Balancing new and established innovation
capabilities
• Innovation fatigue
• Lack of enterprise agility
• Establishing digital driven ability
* Originally located under Strategy

67
6 Areas of solutions
The following section aims to present the analysis of areas of solutions which can help mitigate
the previously identified challenges, further explained in section 3.3.3. The chapter highlights four
areas of solutions which can help mitigate the challenges analyzed in the previous chapter. The
areas include defining a digital business strategy; filling the competence gap; increasing agility
through a digital culture; and using customer data for value. The areas of solutions are both
analyzed and related to the identified challenges, and how they can help mitigate them.

68
 6.1 Mitigation of challenges
When analyzing possible areas of solutions, each area was mapped towards the previously
identified challenges to ensure high coverage. During the analysis, four areas of solutions were
chosen, namely: defining a digital business strategy; filling the competence gap; increasing agility
through a digital culture; and using customer data for value. For further information on how the
mapping was performed, see section 3.3.3. For information over which area of solution helps
mitigate which challenge, see Table 16.

Table 16: Mapping over identified challenges with areas of solutions

Culture Strategy Value Creation

• Cultural contradiction • Defining appropriate business • Maintaining or improving value
• Accommodate employee desires strategy creation
• Inertia • Align with overall strategies • Use customer data for value
• Establishing creative autonomy • Unified strategy for all • Revising revenue model
departments • Risk of disruptive technology
• Defining scope
• Communicating the strategy
• Seeing the big picture
• Lack of knowledge
People & Skills Relations Security & Regulations
• Low technical maturity • Customer channel management • Balancing security vs accessibility
• Establishing required skills • Finding new partners and • Unawareness of IT-security from
• Risk for lack of motivation suppliers lab staff
• Shortage of IT-personnel on the • Alter customer behavior
labor market • Transform in parallel with
customer
Technology Governance & Structure Leadership
• Integrating hardware • Transforming with existing • Developing new leadership skills
• Integrating software with resources • Achieving continuity
existing systems • Transforming simultaneously as • Change in mindset
• Making use of data core business • Motivating employees
• Updating technology after • Reaching an agile workflow • Allocating time for leadership-
implementation • Evaluating utility and success development
• Finding appropriate technology • Corporate politics
• Assuring user-friendliness for • Balancing bottom-up vs top-
systems down
• Lack of technological • Recognizing the optimal
competence structure
• Appropriate cooperation
between IT and business

Defining a digital business strategy Filling the competence gap

Increasing agility through a digital culture Using customer data for value

69
6.2 Defining a digital business strategy
The first area of solution relates to the definition of a digital business strategy. Having a long-term
strategy when implementing digital initiatives is of high importance as the most successful
organizations transforming are those with a clearly defined vision and plan (Westerman et al.,
2014) and those who incorporates digital as a core to strategy (Kane, 2019). When defining a
digital strategy, focus should not only be on technology, but also include elements such as changes
in value creation, organizational structure, and financial aspects (Matt et al., 2015). For
laboratories, Erjavec et al. (2021) also mention people and processes as two areas of importance.
Further, Bharadwaj et al. (2013) emphasize the scope, scale, speed, and source of value creation
as four important themes for a digital business strategy. Furthermore, Westerman et al. (2014)
affirms the importance of top-down commitment by connecting the strategy to a vision; breaking
it down to ambitions and objectives; clearly communicating it; and then governing it through
coordination, KPIs and incentives.

Even though the identified challenge of defining one, the definition of a clear strategy can help
mitigate many other challenges. For instance, a digital business strategy is formulated and executed
by leveraging digital resources to create differential value (Bharadwaj et al., 2013) and can
therefore act as a central concept to integrate the entire coordination, prioritization, and
implementation of the transformation (Matt et al., 2015), and can thus help see the big picture
(Hyper Island, 2022). One challenge identified regarding defining a strategy was to align the digital
strategy with the overall strategies. Though, due to technology’s increasing influence on key
business elements (Kiron et al., 2016), Bharadwaj et al. (2013) argue that the IT strategy’s role
should change from a functional-level strategy – aligned but subordinated to business strategy –
to a fusion between IT strategy and business strategy, constituting a digital business strategy to
drive strategic differentiation. When doing so, it is important to have a strong IT-business
partnership where IT is involved in overall strategy development (Dhasarathy et al., 2020),
something which will help meet the challenge of finding appropriate cooperation between IT and
business. The fuse between IT strategy and business strategy will further be of importance as many
respondents believed that technology could disrupt the lab industry. These thoughts were echoed
by Erjavec et al. (2021), as they mention that four out of the top ten companies in all industries
will be displaced by digital transformations within the next five years, resulting in the need for a
well-planned transformation.

Another challenge identified was the challenge of defining an appropriate scope, where
respondents mentioned how they currently did not perform much visionary thinking. According to
Kane (2019), forward vision is a critical part of leading digital transformation, arguing that
organizations should have a 10- to 20- year timeframe. He further explains that the important part
is not to get it exactly right, but rather to think big enough to make sure that every initiative takes
you to where you need to be. Similarly, Erjavec et al. (2021) describe how laboratories should
consider, amongst other, current challenges, potential challenges in the future, and the long-term

70
business strategy when defining the scope. However, with such a long timeframe it can be difficult
to set direct targets, which is why the strategy must allow for agility and changing targets (Gimpel
& Röglinger, 2015). A further challenge identified was how inertia, where initiatives currently
have extremely long lead times, may result in lack of motivation as employees do not see the value
added but only extra work. To tackle this, and to reach a higher degree of continuity, the strategy
should encourage agility with iterative moves (Erjavec, 2021) by digitizing projects one by one or
in parallel to legacy systems if needed (Markovitch & Willmott, 2014). To do so, Kane (2019)
argues for the need of a digital culture, which will be further described in section 6.4. However,
one challenge in working iteratively with the transformation, and one of the largest challenges
identified from the case study, was transforming simultaneously as core business. Though, by
defining a digital business strategy, and thus making the transformation part of core business, the
transformation should be prioritized further where objectives regarding, for instance, time spent
can be defined. Additionally, Kane (2019) mentions that it is challenging, but necessary, to
transform while simultaneously maintaining core business. He further states how organizations
must carve out time and resources for the transformation to succeed, and how allocating ten percent
of executives time to the digital transformation is a large differentiator of those organizations
succeeding, and those falling behind. Similarly, Erjavec (2021) mentions the need to make time
for executives and staff involved within the digital transformation of a laboratory. This, to be able
to act quickly since organizations who only see digitalization as an opportunity and not a threat,
which was the case during the case study, tend to not act fast enough and thus become marginalized
(Kiron et al., 2016).

Finally, one identified challenge connected to strategy was defining a unified strategy for all sites
and departments, a challenge which can be connected to corporate politics and inertia from a
complex organization, where different sites have different digital maturity. Further, defining a
unified strategy can become extra challenging as Kanza (2021) mentions how every laboratory
must have its own journey. To counter this, good cooperation between the central and the local
units is required, where the central organization must take a more proactive and leading role to
accommodate both exploitation and exploration while supporting the local units (Sklyar et al.,
2019). However, Sklyar et al. (2019) further mentions how too much centralization can impede
service innovation and local adaptation. Therefore, the central unit should be responsible for
establishing a clear vision with future positioning, which is seen as a critical success factor
(Holotiuk & Beimborn, 2017), as well as a general strategy with key objectives. Then, on a more
local and regional level, managers should establish a steering committee in charge of carrying it
out and defining local objectives adjusted to the local digital maturity (Erjavec, 2021). Thereafter,
KPIs (Westerman et al., 2011) or KEIs (Key experience indicators) (Erjavec, 2021), should be
implemented to monitor the transformation as the most successful companies are further ahead on
measuring digital enablement, IT-business partnership, and more (Dhasarathy et al., 2020).

71
6.3 Filling the competence gap
From the interviews, establishing required skills was highlighted as being a vital challenge.
However, despite it being a challenge, meeting it by bridging the competence gap can also alleviate
or even solve other challenges. For example, an identified challenge was managing the company’s
customer channels, an area where one of the tactics for mitigation is to fill the ‘talent gap’ of
analytical marketers (Leeflang et al., 2014). Furthermore, as Kane (2019) finds it easier to teach
executives the requisite technological skills than it is to find technologists who can become suitable
leaders, educating current leaders and attracting competent ones is an integral part of mitigating
the identified challenge of developing new skills within the leadership. Kane (2019) also claims
that leaders need a fundamental technology understanding and digital literacy to see the ‘big
picture’ and make good strategic decisions, which might be extra relevant as a lack of experience
within strategy was identified as a challenge. Therefore, one of the ways of alleviating the
challenges related to digital strategies is to instill a larger degree of understanding of both
technology and strategy in the company’s leaders (Kane, 2019). To continue, an additional
challenge identified was the lack of technological competences, something that Rachinger et al.
(2018) explains can be mitigated by establishing skills and competences. Further, Fuchs and Hess
(2018) assert that an appropriate way of solving the identified challenge of changing the mindset
in the organization is to use boot camps, something that is akin to filling a competence gap. The
challenge of having a low technical maturity is another challenge that can be solved by filling the
competence gap (Westerman et al., 2011). By acquiring skills, either eternally or internally, other
challenges, such as challenges related to the use of customer data (Leeflang et al., 2014;
Westerman et al., 2011), value capture (Lähteenmäki et al., 2022) and value creation (Lenka et al.,
2017), can also be mitigated. Additionally, as the core of the identified challenge of unawareness
of IT-security from laboratory staff is that they are not aware enough due to a lack of knowledge,
adding additional competences and knowledge is a possible way of solving it. Finally, the
challenge of there being a lack of qualified personnel on the labor market complicates the attraction
of new talent. However, the additional complications a tight labor market brings, merely means
that it is even more important for companies to actively work to fill these competence, or talent,
gaps (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). According to Dhasarathy et al. (2020), the appropriate starting
point in filling the competence gap is to take inventory of the current competences and skills that
employees have. Doing this allows management to get a clear picture of the current competency
landscape, something that is important as it enables them to focus resources on the areas where
they are needed the most (Dhasarathy et al., 2020). Thereafter, the identified gaps should be filled.
Below, three possible ways to fill the competence gap identified will be presented.

6.3.1 Leveraging insiders

The first identified way is what Tabrizi et al. (2019) call leveraging insiders. This is done by
educating the current staff which the company already employs and is favored by Tabrizi et al.
(2019) as they already have practical working knowledge of the company and therefore understand
it better than any potential newcomers. In concurrence with this, Markovitch and Willmott (2014)

72
assert that the emphasis on filling the competence gap during a digital transformation should be
on building capabilities in-house, utilizing the current staff. The utility in leveraging insiders in a
digital transformation is also something that is highlighted by Westerman et al. (2011) who claim
that it can be prudent to place senior employees in coordinating roles and then move junior
employees who are rising fast and have lots of energy into roles where this can be utilized.
Additionally, doing this can allow a company to transform with existing resources, something that
the case study identified as a challenge. To aid employees in building skills and capabilities,
Hughey and Mussnug (1997) favors the use of a training program. They assert that this training
program should have a small number of employees per group and built-in reinforcement of the
developed skills. Furthermore, Kane (2019) advises companies who wish to develop their
employees to somehow incentivize employees to grow their knowledge profile, and to give them
opportunities to develop in training as well as outside of it. Further, Kane (2019) finds that allowing
employees the time to work on projects can be a great help. In line with this Dragoni et al. (2009)
claims that one of the best ways to achieve managerial development is to ensure that leaders are a
part of projects with high developmental qualities according to the ten dimensions developed by
McCauley et al. (1994), and to give them responsibilities within them, even though it might lead
to errors.

6.3.2 Recruiting new talent

The second of the potential routes to fill the competence gap is to recruit external talent. According
to Rachinger et al. (2018), many companies find that the best way to fill competence gaps that
arise from a digitalization is to hire new employees, thereby gaining digital competences. This is
echoed by Kane (2019) who claims that a viable way of building talent and competences within a
company is the recruitment of new employees. Westerman et al. (2011) has found that
organizations can successfully acquire competences that help them fill their gaps through the
recruitment of personnel with experience in desired areas. However, as previously mentioned there
is currently a tight labor market regarding some of the competences needed to fill the gap,
complicating the process of recruiting new employees. Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) find that one
thing that can make recruitment of new competences in a tight labor market easier is the use of
employer branding. To build a brand that is attractive for potential employees to work for.
Interestingly, Kane (2019) finds that one of the ways that a company can make themselves seem
more attractive to potential applicants is to commence the journey to become more digital as a
large majority of people want to work for a digital leader. Utilizing effective employer branding is
something that Lievens and Slaughter (2016) explains to be a factor in attracting not only more
applicants, but also attract applicants of higher quality. According to Lievens and Slaughter (2016),
the best way to create a strong employer brand differs depending on a company’s weakness or
strength of advertising and reputation. A company who is strong in both advertising and have a
good reputation should utilize activities with a high involvement such as employee testimonials,
whereas companies who are not should instead focus on other activities, such as sponsoring
university events or doing other practices with little direct company involvement (Lievens &

73
Slaughter, 2016). Lievens and Slaughter (2016) also emphasize the need for companies to work
with employer branding as a whole and not just as many small initiatives such as recruitement.
This, as every single piece of information available on the company affects a potential job seekers
mindset, not only the recruitment initiatives that a company performs (Cable & Turban, 2001).

6.3.3 Involving external partners

The third and final way of filling the competence gap discovered is to involve external parties.
Westerman et al. (2011) mentions how companies often can feel that it is easier to find a supplier
to work closely with than to hire new people. Furthermore, Parmar et al. (2014) assert that utilizing
external inputs from suppliers and partners is a success factor and finds that by doing so,
competences can be acquired faster than trying to hire or develop them in-house. In agreement
with this, Rachinger et al. (2018) claims that firms who currently do not possess the required
competences need to develop a network of partners that can supply the company with them.
However, to involve an external party, a company must first find potential partners and suppliers
to involve and assess if these are appropriate. Nijssen et al. (2001) found that the main way of
identifying more potential partners is to have a very extensive search while the best way of
ensuring that an appropriate partner is chosen is to have an extensive search in combination with
an extensive evaluation of all potential partners. Additionally, Nijssen et al. (2001) also explains
that heavy involvement from top level management had a negative impact on both the number of
partners found and the decision of which partner to pick. Nijssen et al. (2001) theorize that this is
because top management may narrow down the selection too fast, resulting in a smaller pool of
potential partners and some appropriate partners being eliminated too early. Further, Rachinger et
al. (2018) argues that one of the things that helps companies find partners, as well as involving
them and thereby making use of their competences to fill the competence gap, is dynamic
capabilities regarding sensing and seizing. Sensing as the company needs to be able to identify
gaps as well as investigate options and seizing as such capabilities enable the company to change
their partner structure and thereby integrate the hired capabilities and make use of them (Rachunger
et al., 2018).

6.4 Increasing agility through a digital culture

Even though some respondents believed that a change in culture was needed, many did not. Still,
the third area of solutions relates to the development of a digital culture. This, as the culture must
act as a starting point when becoming a digital organization (Kane, 2019) and since organizations
can only gain the full value from digitization initiatives if they incorporate a digital organizational
culture (Martínez-Caro et al., 2020). Even though digital strategies differ cross-industries,
successful digital mature organizations tend to share similar cultural aspects (Kiron et al., 2016).
According to Kiron et al. (2016), these common traits include an expanded appetite for risk; rapid
experimentation; heavy investment in talent; and recruiting and developing leaders with ‘soft
skills’ rather than technological. Further common characteristics includes organizational agility
and the need for continual learning (Kane, 2019; Verhoef et al., 2021). Thus, by developing a

74
digital culture with these characteristics, with agility and experimentation in focus, challenges
related to reaching an agile workflow and inertia can be mitigated (Fuchs & Hess, 2018). In
addition, as a big part of the development of a digital culture is cultivating digital talent and leaders,
a digital culture can through skills development further help filling the competence gap described
above while also resulting in a higher probability for senior managers to stay within the company
(Kiron et al., 2016). Thus, a digital culture can also mitigate challenges such as transforming with
existing resources, the need for a change in mindset, and development of new leadership skills.
Moreover, an increased experimental culture can lead to the design of improved revenue models
(Linde et al., 2021) which can help mitigate the identified challenges related to value creation.

One challenge identified related to culture was the challenge of establishing creative autonomy,
where both IT and operations mentioned lack of time for visionary thinking. Here, it is important
to highlight that creating an effective digital culture is an intentional effort, where digital maturing
companies are constantly cultivating their cultures (Kiron et al., 2016). For instance, Kiron et al.
(2016) showcases how digital mature companies places higher emphasis on innovation and
experimentation. To do so with existing resources, Kane (2019) describes how the organization
can create an innovative team, separated and protected from bureaucracy, to mitigate the challenge
of corporate politics and inertia from a complex organization. This can be done by defining new,
more flat, organizational structures that is kept separate from the rest of the organization (Tabrizi
et al., 2019). An example of this is Volvo who created a ‘Connectivity hub’, a separated cross-
functional team with high focus on exploration and digital innovation (Mathiassen et al., 2017).
Through this, Mathiassen et al. (2017) explain how the organization was able to balance new and
established innovation capabilities and thus develop digital innovation capabilities while still
maintaining core business, something which further can mitigate the challenge of establishing
creative autonomy and transforming and handling the core business simultaneously. Similarly,
Gimpel and Röglinger (2015) describe how a bimodal organization is required to ensure both
stability and agility to foster creativity and ‘test and learn’ approaches. Furthermore, IT is
specifically highlighted regarding the need of an agile culture and a bimodal approach (Gimpel &
Röglinger 2015), something which will be described further below.

6.4.1 IT agility through IT ambidexterity

From the case study, it was apparent that the IT function mainly acted as a functional division
developing systems, challenged by inertia, high IT-security demands and with lack of resources
for creative thinking and innovation. However, when performing a digital transformation, the IT
function needs to transform into a more proactive and orchestrating role which supports the digital
value creation via fast and explorative responses (Verhoef et al., 2021). Thus, it is important for
the IT function to become more agile and faster to have a more active role within the organization
(Schreckling & Steiger, 2017). However, while IT receives increased reliance from different
departments to create value through exploration, the function must still continue its traditional IT
services, resulting in conflicting needs between agility and stability (Leonhardt et al., 2017). To

75
tackle this, Leonhardt et al. (2017) describe the need for two new core capabilities, IT agility,
which refers to the IT function’s ability to be adaptive to emerging business needs and identify
changes in customer needs and emerging market opportunities and acting on them; and IT
ambidexterity, referring to the IT function’s ability to simultaneously explore new resources and
practices as well as exploiting current ones. This, in order to increase the IT function’s ability to
support the digitization (Leonhardt et al., 2017), thus mitigating challenges in finding the right
technology, finding new partners and suppliers, and transforming in parallel with the customer.
This goes in line with how Gimpel and Röglinger (2015) and Schreckling and Steiger (2017)
describe the need for a two-speed IT function and iterative ‘test and learn’ approaches to ensure
that the function operates efficiently while also being able to innovate. Finally, there are many
ways for organizations to achieve IT agility. For instance, IT managers can exempt employees
from their ordinary work to spend part of their time on more visionary, and experimental work to
keep up with technological development (Leonhardt et al., 2017). Leonhardt et al., (2017) mention
how Google has shown that providing employees a certain degree of autonomy can foster
innovation, further mitigating challenges regarding creative autonomy. This can also allow for IT
employees to experiment without being affected by inertia, corporate politics, and the high IT-
security demands. This is of high importance as Leonhardt et al. (2017) describe lack of IT agility
as leading to too rigid architectures, where the organizations own processes slow them down, not
enabling forward-looking digital thinking.

6.5 Using customer data for value

The fourth and final area of solution are related to the use of customer data and using it to find
value. Much like some of the other areas of solutions that have been presented, this was also
brought up as a challenge by itself during the interviews. However, despite it being a challenge it
is also a success-factor in mitigating the issues presented by other challenges (e.g. (Fan & Suh,
2014; Gebauer et al., 2020; van der Veen & van Ossenbruggen, 2015)). Additionally, by
understanding the customer using customer data (Davenport et al., 2001) can allow a company to
mitigate the identified challenges of altering customer behavior (Schreckling & Steiger, 2017) and
transforming in parallel with the customer. The challenges from the case study that were identified
in the secondary literature search as being able to ease by using customer data are presented below.

6.5.1 Optimizing value creation

One type of challenges that it can help mitigate is challenges related to creating value (e.g.
(Lähteenmäki et al., 2022; Wilson & Daniel, 2007)). According to Wilson and Daniel (2007), one
of the important ways of meeting the challenge of continually creating value for customers, a
challenge that was found in the case study, is that companies should develop their customer value
proposition iteratively, efficiently utilizing data to improve from one iteration to the next. This is
also echoed by Lähteenmäki et al. (2022) who explains that one of the most important elements in
maintaining or improving the value created is understanding the customer, which is something that
can be done through the use of customer data (Davenport et al., 2001). Another challenge that was

76
highlighted during the interviews was the risk for disruptive technologies, something which Fan
and Suh (2014) argues that a company can mitigate the risk of by ensuring that appropriate
customer value is delivered to customers, which is something that data can enable. Furthermore,
an additional challenge that was identified that can be resolved by using customer data is
transforming in parallel with customers, as this requires the company to understand customers by
using customer data (Davenport et al., 2001).

6.5.2 Increased value through modifying the value capture

The second type of challenge is related to how a company captures value through its revenue
model. The challenge of revising the revenue model highlighted during the interviews is also
something that can be alleviated by using customer data (Gebauer et al., 2020). Gebauer et al.
(2020) mentions how there are three potential ways of growing after a digital transformation, all
with their own changes to the profit formula. The author further explains that an organization must
utilize data and information from their customers to know which of these to choose. This is in
concurrence with the findings of Linde et al. (2021) as the two ways they suggest for changing a
revenue model and building a new one heavily relies on the use of customer data. The first
approach suggested is utilizing agile development by doing short, iterative sprints as experiments,
including trial-and-error to find the optimal revenue model (Linde et al., 2021). The second way
that Linde et al. (2021) suggest is to use micro progression, doing many small steps and not trying
to find a perfect and full-scale solution right away. Additionally, Vaska et al. (2021) assert that
one thing that lets companies capture more value after a digital transformation is increased
customer intimacy, something that necessitates the understanding of customers which as
mentioned can be achieved by using customer data.

6.5.3 Finding value from channel management

A final way of using customer data for value identified from the subsequent literature search is to
use it for channel management and to access more channels. One strategy that can be used to access
new channels is to understand the customer’s journey (van der Veen & van Ossenbruggen, 2015).
According to van der Veen and van Ossenbruggen (2015), any attempt to expand the number of
channels used should involve the understanding of one’s customers and what drives their channel
usage. This knowledge should then be used to segment the customers into groups, which in turn
should guide the choice of channels (van der Veen & van Ossenbruggen, 2015). Additionally,
Rosenbloom (2007) mentions that the mix and balance of channels is more important than the
number of them, thereby increasing the relevance of making the correct channel choices from
customer data. Furthermore, Leeflang et al. (2014) similarly argues that one of the primary
problems in utilizing multiple channels is to use customer data effectively as it is important, yet
complicated without, having the correct competences. Wilson and Daniel (2007) assert that
companies can find value in reviewing the route to market and the opinions of their customers on
it to enable innovation regarding the channel mix. Thereby, offering companies a way to use
customer data to find value by assessing the way that they manage their channels. Lastly, Vaska

77
et al. (2021) explain that one way of meeting the challenge of managing customer relations, a
challenge related to channel management which was brought up during the interviews, is to change
a company’s value delivery as it is an integral part of customer relations. Vaska et al. (2021) find
that an important part of changing this is understanding the customers and how their relationships
and attitudes contribute to the delivery of value.

78
7 Conclusions
The following chapter aims to draw conclusions from the above analysis and thus answer the
thesis’s purpose and research questions. Further, the chapter provides both contributions and
ideas for future research based on the study’s limitations. First, the fulfillment of the purpose is
described, both by answering each research question, but also by providing an aggregated
conclusion. Then, both practical and theoretical contributions are discussed followed by a section
describing themes for future research.

79
7.1 Fulfillment of purpose
Digitalization is often identified as one of the major trends to alter business and society in the near
future (Tihinen et al., 2016), as is the case for laboratories (Erjavec et al., 2021). While there are
clear benefits in understanding the challenges prevalent and how these can be mitigated (Senge et
al., 1999; Greenwood & Hinings, 1988), there is still a lack of research on the subject (Heavin &
Power, 2018), especially related to laboratories (Kanza, 2021). Thus, the following thesis aimed
to explore potential challenges that protocol-driven laboratories are exposed to when performing
a digital transformation, and how these can be avoided. To simplify the analysis, the purpose was
broken down into two research questions where the first aimed to study the challenges, and the
second to identify potential solutions to the identified challenges.

To satisfy the first research question, an initial literature research was performed, resulting in nine
overarching themes, namely: Culture; Strategy; Value Creation; People & Skills; Relations;
Security & Regulations; Technology; Governance & Structure; and Leadership, see Table 1. From
the case study, aggregated challenges for protocol-driven laboratories were identified, see Table
2. The case study showcased minimal challenges related to Regulations, while multiple was
identified related to Governance & Structure and Technology. The study finds support through
both literature and data that some of the main challenges relates to lack of required skills (Vial,
2019) and resources (Westerman et al., 2011), inertia (Vial, 2019), lack of available technology
(Zupancic, 2021), and transforming simultaneously as core business (Kane, 2019).

To answer the second research question, a subsequent gathering and interpretation of literature
was performed, resulting in four areas of solutions, namely: defining a digital business strategy;
filling the competence gap; increased agility through a digital culture; and using customer data
for value. Correlative with all areas is the need of top-down commitment through internal and
intentional initiatives, which aligns with the findings of Westerman et al., (2014). This, as a digital
transformation requires changes on both a strategic and operational level.

The answers to the two research questions aggregates to the conclusion that digital transformation
affects core business elements (Kiron et al., 2016), and thus the whole organization. Challenges
for protocol-driven laboratories goes beyond technology and may therefore be encountered on
multiple dimensions. Therefore, to mitigate potential challenges, top management commitment
and resources are required in order to get a holistic and unified view of the transformation.

7.2 Practical contribution

As was identified in the introduction, there is currently a lack of knowledge regarding how to
perform a digital transformation, especially within laboratories (Kanza, 2021). Thus, one of the
main practical contributions from the thesis is the help it can provide managers in learning how to
approach one. First, the thesis can serve as a help for managers as it identifies nine distinct areas
of importance, see Table 1. These are all areas where challenges are likely to arise, and they are

80
therefore of importance to consider in the context of performing a digital transformation. Second,
the thesis presents several concrete challenges which may be encountered when transforming
digitally. This included both challenges based on previous literature of relevance for a wider
context, Table 1, and challenges directly connected to the context of protocol driven laboratories,
see Table 6. Both collections of challenges can serve as powerful managerial aids as they give
executives a concrete list of issues to address, consider, and mitigate to ease the process of digitally
transforming. Further, it can also serve as possible starting points for any digital transformation as
the challenges will need to be addressed.

Thirdly, the thesis presents four distinct areas of solutions based on concurrent research that help
mitigate, or sometimes solve, many of the challenges found in the case study. These aim to give
an understanding of areas where recourses can be prioritized to ease the transformation, while
simultaneously include concrete tips of actions. Lastly, the four areas of solutions presented, while
different, all have one thing in common. They all require some degree of engagement from top-
level management, requiring both top management commitment and initiatives. This is of high
relevance for executives planning to perform a digital transformation in order to understand that
these transformations do not just happen themselves.

7.3 Theoretical Contribution

The study’s main theoretical contribution is the bridging of the research gap in the context of
protocol driven laboratories that was found outlined in the introduction (Kanza, 2021; Rachinger
et al., 2018). The thesis identifies several challenges through the performed case of a protocol-
driven laboratory, thus filling, at least partly, the previously existing gap. By analyzing challenges
that are both unique for the context, and those not unique for the context, it shows that while
previous research is somewhat applicable to the context, it is not fully representable. Furthermore,
there is a general lack of research in the context of the service industry, and especially so for
protocol-driven laboratories, that bridges the knowledge gap between theory of digital
transformation and the implications of it (Heavin & Power, 2018; Laudien & Pesch, 2019). This
thesis serves as part of bridging this gap by reviewing previous literature on digital transformation
in all potential contexts, adding a new context, and by investigating potential solutions to the
challenges presented by a digital transformation. By going beyond merely investigating challenges
and searching for solutions as well, this thesis serves as a way of connecting literature on
challenges with literature on actions that can serve as solutions to such challenges.

Additionally, the thesis has the novel concept of utilizing a business model perspective in
investigating the theory on digital transformation and finding challenges. This approach to research
the concept of digital transformation is unorthodox and something that is not widely found in
previous research. By utilizing this point of view, the thesis further bridges the knowledge gap that
exists by offering findings in the form of challenges and solutions from a new angle. Therefore,
the study in this thesis serves as an important document in understanding digital transformation in

81
general, and especially in the context of protocol driven laboratories. Finally, while previous
research has identified and focused on challenges to ensure a desired level of IT-security during
and after transforming (e.g. (Heavin & Power, 2018; Legner et al., 2017; Schreckling & Steiger,
2017)), the findings of this study show that IT-security can also act as a barrier itself. This opens
the possibility of a new stream of research within digital transformation and IT-security, focusing
on how IT-security can complicate the digital transformation, instead of the digital transformation
complicating IT-security.

7.3.1 Suggestions for future research

The study performed has provided many contributions, both practical and theoretical. Though,
limitations and further opportunities exist which allow for multiple areas of further research. For
instance, even though nine overarching themes of challenges were identified, the research was
designed to gather a broad understanding of every theme to capture a holistic view, thus leaving
potential for future research with a more precise scope, with the limitation of one theme, for a more
thorough analysis. Similarly, when identifying areas of solutions, the aim was to capture a few
mutually exclusive areas to cover as many of the identified challenges as possible. However, this
provided a limitation in not all challenges being covered, as well as potential for additional ways
for how the challenges can be mitigated. Thus, future research is required to understand how each
challenge can best be relieved separately.

As mentioned in section 2.7 – the synthetization of the frame of reference – interdependencies

between the synthesized overarching themes exists. However, these interdependencies were not
explicitly researched in the study, constituting an opportunity for future research. Similarly, further
interdependencies between the areas of solutions can be studied. Top management commitment
and initiatives were identified as a common characteristic for the identified areas of solutions;
however, additional common characteristics and interdependencies may exist. This provides an
opportunity for future research, studying both interdependencies for the challenges and solutions,
by for instance adapting a more quantitative hypothesis-driven research methodology.

Finally, the use of a single-case study may have limitations regarding generalizability, as discussed
in section 3.4.2, where the case companies’ unique position may influence what is deemed as a
challenge. For instance, the organization’s structure, where the company has globally shared IT
resources, may influence why the cooperation between business and IT was seen as extra
challenging. Similarly, the availability of legal recourses, the recent creation of new leadership
roles, and the fact that the company develops all internal software in-house can explain why the
challenges of adhering to regulations (Hren, 2021), define new leadership roles (Vial, 2019), and
developing customized software (Zupancic, 2021) was not raised. Thus, future research with
additional case companies would be preferred to validate the findings and ensure a higher degree
of generalizability for protocol-driven laboratories.

82
Bibliography
Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. Handbook of Practical Program
Evaluation, 4, 492–505.
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2008). Tolkning och reflektion: vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativ
metod. Studentlitteratur.
Andriole, S. J. (2017). Five myths about digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review,
58(3).
Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (2008). Methodology for creating business knowledge. Sage.
Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career
Development International.
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2018). Business research methods. Oxford university press.
Berman, S. J. (2012). Digital transformation: opportunities to create new business models. Strategy
\& Leadership.
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. v. (2013). Digital business
strategy: toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 471–482.
Björklund, M., & Paulsson, U. (2012). Seminarieboken: att skriva, presentera och opponera.
Studentlitteratur.
Bloomberg, J. (2018). Digitization, digitalization, and digital transformation: confuse them at your
peril. Forbes. Retrieved on August, 28, 2019.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis.
Bryman, A. (2018). Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder.(tredje upplagan). Stockholm: Liber, s 677,
14.
Buera, F. J., & Kaboski, J. P. (2012). The rise of the service economy. American Economic Review,
102(6), 2540–2569.
Bughin, J., Catlin, T., Hirt, M., & Willmott, P. (2018). Why digital strategies fail. McKinsey
Quarterly, 1, 61–75.
Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. (2001). Establishing the dimensions, sources and value of job
seekers’ employer knowledge during recruitment. In Research in personnel and human
resources management. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Cotteleer, M., Mahto, M., & Murphy, T. (2019). The Strategy Paradox: A Defensive Position on
Digital Transformation.
Davenport, T. H., Harris, J. G., & Kohli, A. K. (2001). How do they know their customers so well?
MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(2), 63.
Dhasarathy, A., Frazier, R., Khan, N., & Rahul, A. (2020). Managing the Fallout from Technology
Transformations. McKinsey Digital, 1–9.
Dragoni, L., Tesluk, P. E., Russell, J. E. A., & Oh, I.-S. (2009). Understanding managerial
development: Integrating developmental assignments, learning orientation, and access to

83
 developmental opportunities in predicting managerial competencies. Academy of
Management Journal, 52(4), 731–743.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. http://www.jstor.org/stable/258557
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
Erjavec, J. (2021). Addressing the User Adoption Challenge. Digital Transformation of the
Laboratory: A Practical Guide to the Connected Lab, 149–160.
Erjavec, J., Hren, M., & Kranjc, T. (2021). How to Approach the Digital Transformation. Digital
Transformation of the Laboratory: A Practical Guide to the Connected Lab, 117–133.
Esser, M. R. (2014). Digitale Transformation: Chancen und Herausforderungen.
https://www.strategy-transformation.com/digitale-transformation-verstehen/
Eurofins. (2022a). Inomhusmiljö. https://www.eurofins.se/tjaenster/inomhusmiljoe-eurofins-
pegasuslab/
Eurofins. (2022b). Om Eurofins. https://www.eurofins.se/om-oss/
Fan, L., & Suh, Y.-H. (2014). Why do users switch to a disruptive technology? An empirical study
based on expectation-disconfirmation theory. Information \& Management, 51(2), 240–248.
Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D., & Welch, M. (2014). Embracing digital technology:
A new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(2), 1.
Fountaine, T., McCarthy, B., & Saleh, T. (2019). Building the AI-powered organization. Harvard
Business Review, 97(4), 62–73.
Frankenberger, K., Weiblen, T., Csik, M., & Gassmann, O. (2013). The 4I-framework of business
model innovation: A structured view on process phases and challenges. International Journal
of Product Development, 18(3–4), 249–273.
Fuchs, C., & Hess, T. (2018). Becoming agile in the digital transformation: The process of a large-
scale agile transformation.
Gebauer, H., Fleisch, E., Lamprecht, C., & Wortmann, F. (2020). Growth paths for overcoming
the digitalization paradox. Business Horizons, 63(3), 313–323.
Gimpel, H., & Röglinger, M. (2015). Digital transformation: changes and chances--insights based
on an empirical study.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1988). Organizational design types, tracks and the dynamics of
strategic change. Organization Studies, 9(3), 293–316.
Hardgrave, B. C., & Walstrom, K. A. (1997). Forums for MIS scholars. Communications of the
ACM, 40(11), 119–124.
Heavin, C., & Power, D. J. (2018). Challenges for digital transformation – towards a conceptual
decision support guide for managers. Journal of Decision Systems, 27(sup1), 38–45.
https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2018.1468697
Hellbach, A. (2020). How to develop your pharma laboratory into an AI-driven research factory.
CapGemini. https://www.capgemini.com/2020/07/how-to-develop-your-pharma-laboratory-

84
 into-an-ai-driven-research-
factory/?fbclid=IwAR0sfPW9efI8Df66zZuP62KJqFRA_AcydadfsJZozICNP6wZYg1t7mX
7Vis
Henriette, E., Feki, M., & Boughzala, I. (2015). The shape of digital transformation: a systematic
literature review. MCIS 2015 Proceedings, 10, 431–443.
Henriette, E., Feki, M., Boughzala, I., & others. (2016). Digital Transformation Challenges. MCIS,
33.
Holotiuk, F., & Beimborn, D. (2017). Critical success factors of digital business strategy.
Hren, M. (2021). Understanding Standards, Regulations, and Guidelines. Digital Transformation
of the Laboratory: A Practical Guide to the Connected Lab, 135–142.
Hughey, A. W., & Mussnug, K. J. (1997). Designing effective employee training programmes.
Training for Quality.
Huyler, D., & McGill, C. M. (2019). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches, by John Creswell and J. David Creswell. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publication, Inc. 275 pages, $67.00 (Paperback). New Horizons in Adult Education & Human
Resource Development, 31(3), 75–77.
https://login.e.bibl.liu.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&Au
thType=ip,uid&db=edsbl&AN=vdc.100090979367.0x000001&lang=sv&site=eds-
live&scope=site
Hyper Island. (2022). Digital strategy - What it is & why it is important.
https://www.hyperisland.com/digital-strategy
IBM Cloud Education. (2021). IaaS vs. PaaS vs. SaaS. IBM.
ICC/ESOMAR. (2016). ICC/ESOMAR International Code on market, opinion and social research
and data analytics. International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and (European Society for
Opinion~….
Iivari, M. M., Ahokangas, P., Komi, M., Tihinen, M., & Valtanen, K. (2016). Toward ecosystemic
business models in the context of industrial internet. Journal of Business Models, 4(2).
Ivančić, L., Vuksic, V., & Suša Vugec, D. (2018). A Preliminary Literature Review of Digital
Transformation Case Studies. 12, 737–742. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1474581
Johnson, R., & Waterfield, J. (2004). Making words count: the value of qualitative research.
Physiotherapy Research International, 9(3), 121–131.
Kagermann, H., Riemensperger, F., Hoke, D., Helbig, J., Stocksmeier, D., Wahlster, W., &
Schweer, D. (2014). Smart service welt: Recommendations for the strategic initiative web-
based services for businesses. Berlin: Acatech-National Academy of Science and
Engineering.
Kane, G. (2019). The technology fallacy: people are the real key to digital transformation.
Research-Technology Management, 62(6), 44–49.
Kanza, S. (2021). Understanding and Defining the Academic Chemical Laboratory’s
Requirements: Approach and Scope of Digitalization Needed (pp. 179–189).
https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527825042.ch12

85
Kiron, D., Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A. N., & Buckley, N. (2016). Aligning the
organization for its digital future. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(1).
Kowalkiewicz, M., Safrudin, N., & Schulze, B. (2017). The business consequences of a digitally
transformed economy. In Shaping the digital enterprise (pp. 29–67). Springer.
Kraus, S., Jones, P., Kailer, N., Weinmann, A., Chaparro-Banegas, N., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2021).
Digital Transformation: An Overview of the Current State of the Art of Research. SAGE
Open, 11(3), 21582440211047576.
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214–222.
Kvale, S., Brinkmann, S., & Torhell, S.-E. (2014). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun.
Studentlitteratur.
Lähteenmäki, I., Nätti, S., & Saraniemi, S. (2022). Digitalization-enabled evolution of customer
value creation: An executive view in financial services. Journal of Business Research, 146,
504–517.
Laudien, S., & Pesch, R. (2019). Understanding the influence of digitalization on service firm
business model design: a qualitative-empirical analysis. Review of Managerial Science, 13.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0320-1
Lay, G. (2014). Servitization in Industry. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06935-7
Le Merle, M., Peterson, M., & Koster, A. (2011). The Next Wave of Digitization Setting Your
Direction, Building Your Capabilities.
Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems
research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243.
Leeflang, P. S. H., Verhoef, P. C., Dahlström, P., & Freundt, T. (2014). Challenges and solutions
for marketing in a digital era. European Management Journal, 32(1), 1–12.
Legner, C., Eymann, T., Hess, T., Matt, C., Böhmann, T., Drews, P., Mädche, A., Urbach, N., &
Ahlemann, F. (2017). Digitalization: opportunity and challenge for the business and
information systems engineering community. Business \& Information Systems Engineering,
59(4), 301–308.
Lenka, S., Parida, V., & Wincent, J. (2017). Digitalization capabilities as enablers of value co-
creation in servitizing firms. Psychology \& Marketing, 34(1), 92–100.
Leonhardt, D., Haffke, I., Kranz, J., Benlian, A., & others. (2017). Reinventing the IT function:
the Role of IT Agility and IT Ambidexterity in Supporting Digital Business Transformation.
ECIS, 63.
Leveau, J. (2022). Interview with Johan Leveau.
Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. J. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in
support of information systems research. Informing Science, 9.
Lievens, F., & Slaughter, J. E. (2016). Employer image and employer branding: What we know
and what we need to know. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 3, 407–440.

86
Linde, L., Frishammar, J., & Parida, V. (2021). Revenue models for digital servitization: a value
capture framework for designing, developing, and scaling digital services. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management.
Linde, L., Sjödin, D., Parida, V., & Gebauer, H. (2020). Evaluation of digital business model
opportunities: a framework for avoiding digitalization traps. Research-Technology
Management, 64(1), 43–53.
Loebbecke, C., & Picot, A. (2015). Reflections on societal and business model transformation
arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda. The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 24(3), 149–157.
Lomas, A. (2021). 5 Biggest Challenges to a Successful Digital Transformation.
https://www.netsolutions.com/insights/challenges-to-a-successful-digital-transformation-
and-how-to-overcome-them/
Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Key Methods in Geography,
3(2), 143–156.
Mahmood, F., Khan, A., & Khan, M. (2019). Digital organizational transformation issues,
challenges and impact: A systematic literature review of a decade. Abasyn Journal of Social
Sciences, 12. https://doi.org/10.34091/AJSS.12.2.03
Markovitch, S., & Willmott, P. (2014). Accelerating the digitization of business processes.
McKinsey-Corporate Finance Business Practise, 1–4.
Martínez-Caro, E., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & Alfonso-Ruiz, F. J. (2020). Digital technologies and
firm performance: The role of digital organisational culture. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 154, 119962.
Massa, L., & Tucci, C. L. (2013). Business model innovation. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation
Management, 20(18), 420–441.
Mathiassen, L., Lindgren, R., & Svahn, F. (2017). Mastering the digital innovation challenge. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 58(3), 14.
Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital Transformation Strategies. Business &
Information Systems Engineering, 57, 339–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0401-5
McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow, J. E. (1994). Assessing the
developmental components of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 544.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley \& Sons.
Mladenic, D. (2021). Artificial Intelligence (AI) Transforming Laboratories. Digital
Transformation of the Laboratory: A Practical Guide to the Connected Lab, 289–295.
Morakanyane, R., Grace, A. A., & O’Reilly, P. (2017). Conceptualizing Digital Transformation in
Business Organizations: A Systematic Review of Literature. Bled EConference, 21.
Morse, J. M. (1999). Qualitative generalizability. In Qualitative health research (Vol. 9, Issue 1,
pp. 5–6). Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Nadkarni, S., & Prügl, R. (2021). Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for
future research. Management Review Quarterly, 71(2), 233–341.

87
Nijssen, E. J., Van Reekum, R., & Hulshoff, H. E. (2001). Gathering and using information for the
selection of technology partners. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 67(2–3),
221–237.
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries,
game changers, and challengers (Vol. 1). John Wiley \& Sons.
Parmar, R., Mackenzie, I., Cohn, D., & Gann, D. (2014). The new patterns of innovation. Harvard
Business Review, 92(1), 2.
Parry, W., Kirsch, C., Carey, P., & Shaw, D. (2014). Empirical development of a model of
performance drivers in organizational change projects. Journal of Change Management,
14(1), 99–125.
Parviainen, P., Tihinen, M., Kääriäinen, J., & Teppola, S. (2017). Tackling the digitalization
challenge: how to benefit from digitalization in practice. International Journal of Information
Systems and Project Management, 5(1), 63–77.
Peltoniemi, M. (2011). Reviewing industry life-cycle theory: Avenues for future research.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(4), 349–375.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00295.x
Poulis, K., Poulis, E., & Plakoyiannaki, E. (2013). The role of context in case study selection: An
international business perspective. International Business Review, 22(1), 304–314.
Pratt, M. G. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and
reviewing) qualitative research. In Academy of management journal (Vol. 52, Issue 5, pp.
856–862). American Society of Nephrology Briarcliff Manor, NY.
Rachinger, M., Rauter, R., Müller, C., Vorraber, W., & Schirgi, E. (2018). Digitalization and its
influence on business model innovation. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management.
Rai, A., & Sambamurthy, V. (2006). Editorial notes—the growth of interest in services
management: opportunities for information systems scholars. In Information Systems
Research (Vol. 17, Issue 4, pp. 327–331). INFORMS.
Rautalinko, E. (2019). Samtalsfärdigheter : stöd, vägledning och ledarskap. Liber.
https://login.e.bibl.liu.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&Au
thType=ip,uid&db=cat00115a&AN=lkp.976991&lang=sv&site=eds-live&scope=site
Rosen, M., & Lambert, D. (2018). Digital Transformation: New Realities Require New
Architecture. https://community.biz-architect.com/about-ba/digital-transformation-new-
realities-require-new-architecture/#prettyPhoto
Rosenbloom, B. (2007). Multi-channel strategy in business-to-business markets: Prospects and
problems. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(1), 4–9.
Schallmo, A., & Daniel, R. (2018). Digital Transformation Now! Guiding the Successful
Digitalization of YourBusiness Model. Springer.
Schreckling, E., & Steiger, C. (2017). Digitalize or drown. In Shaping the digital enterprise (pp.
3–27). Springer.
Schwertner, K. (2017). Digital transformation of business. Trakia Journal of Sciences, 15(1), 388–
393.

88
Scott-Weathers, C. (2021). Electronic Lab Notebook Implementation in a Diagnostics Company.
Digital Transformation of the Laboratory: A Practical Guide to the Connected Lab, 199–
204.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., Smith, B., & Guman, E. C. (1999). The
dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. Wiley
Online Library.
Shute, R., & Lynch, N. (2021). The Next Big Developments--The Lab of the Future. Digital
Transformation of the Laboratory: A Practical Guide to the Connected Lab, 3–31.
Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion With Case Studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 20–
24. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160882
SJR. (2022). Journal Rankings on Information Systems and Management.
https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1802
Sklyar, A., Kowalkowski, C., Tronvoll, B., & Sörhammar, D. (2019). Organizing for digital
servitization: A service ecosystem perspective. Journal of Business Research, 104, 450–460.
Strategyzer. (2015). The Business Model Canvas: Why and how organizations around the world
adopt it.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques.
Svahn, F., Mathiassen, L., Lindgren, R., & Kane, G. C. (2017). Embracing Digital Innovation in
Incumbent Firms: How Volvo Cars Managed Competing Concerns. MIS Q., 41(1), 239–253.
Tabrizi, B., Lam, E., Girard, K., & Irvin, V. (2019). Digital transformation is not about technology.
Harvard Business Review, 13(March), 1–6.
Tahamtan, I., Safipour Afshar, A., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of
citations: a comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1195–1225.
Tang, M., & Kakar, P. (2020). Realizing the digital promise.
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Financial-Services/gx-
fsi-iif-deloitte-digital-transformation-study-2020-overview.pdf
Tavares, C. (2021). Digital Lab Strategy: Enterprise Approach. Digital Transformation of the
Laboratory: A Practical Guide to the Connected Lab, 265–273.
Tihinen, M., Kääriäinen, J., Ailisto, H., Komi, M., Parviainen, P., Tanner, H., Tuikka, T., Valtanen,
K., & others. (2016). The Industrial Internet in Finland: on route to success?
Töytäri, P., Turunen, T., Klein, M., Eloranta, V., Biehl, S., Rajala, R., & Hakanen, E. (2017).
Overcoming institutional and capability barriers to smart services.
Trost, J. (2010). Kvalitativa intervjuer. Studentlitteratur.
Tuli, K. R., Kohli, A. K., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking customer solutions: From product
bundles to relational processes. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 1–17.
Tushman, M. L., Newman, W. H., & Romanelli, E. (1986). Convergence and upheaval: Managing
the unsteady pace of organizational evolution. California Management Review, 29(1), 29–44.
van der Veen, G., & van Ossenbruggen, R. (2015). Mapping out the customer’s journey: Customer
search strategy as a basis for channel management. Journal of Marketing Channels, 22(3),

89
 202–213.
Vaska, S., Massaro, M., Bagarotto, E. M., & Dal Mas, F. (2021). The digital transformation of
business model innovation: A structured literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 3557.
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N., & Haenlein,
M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda.
Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901.
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
von Leipzig, T., Gamp, M., Manz, D., Schöttle, K., Ohlhausen, P., Oosthuizen, G., Palm, D., &
von Leipzig, K. (2017). Initialising customer-orientated digital transformation in enterprises.
Procedia Manufacturing, 8, 517–524.
Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). The nine elements of digital transformation.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(3), 1–6.
Westerman, G., Calmejane, C., Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P., & McAfee, A. (2011). Digital
transformation: A roadmap for billion dollar companies. Capgemini Consulting, 27.
Wilson, H., & Daniel, E. (2007). The multi-channel challenge: A dynamic capability approach.
Industrial Marketing Management, 36(1), 10–20.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.
Zupancic, K. (2021). Next Steps--Continuity After Going Digital. Digital Transformation of the
Laboratory: A Practical Guide to the Connected Lab, 277–286.

90
Appendix A – Key words inaugural literature research
Below are all the search terms used for the inaugural literature research:

BMI digital transformation Digital transformation offering

Business model innovation Digital transformation phases
Business model innovation challenges Digital transformation potential
Business model innovation digital transformation Digital transformation problem
Challenges digital business model Digital transformation reality
Challenges digital transformation Digital transformation service companies
Challenges digitalization Digitalization
Digital business model Digitalization AI transformation
Digital lab Digitalization barriers
Digital maturity Digitalization BMI
Digital maturity model Digitalization bmi impact
Digital readiness Digitalization bmi traps
Digital transformation Digitalization business model
Digital transformation ambition Digitalization business model innovation
Digital transformation barriers digitalization business model innovation
Digital transformation BMI Digitalization challenges
digital transformation business model Digitalization Digital Transformation
Digital transformation business model innovation Digitalization issues
Digital transformation challenges Digitalization lab
Digital transformation customers Digitalization paradox
Digital transformation finances Digitalization service
Digital transformation fit Digitisation
Digital transformation implementation Digitization
Digital transformation infrastructure Digitization BMI
Digital transformation issues Digitize
Digital transformation lab Digitize Business
Digital transformation managerial implications Digitizing processes
Digital transformation of operations Managerial implications BMI
Digital transformation of processes Service economy

91
Appendix B – Interview guide
Below is the interview guide containing the introduction text given to the interviewees as well as
the main question. Worth noticing is that additional follow-up questions were asked to get a deeper
understanding of the respondent’s answers.

Introduktion
Följande guide används till samtliga intervjuer i syfte att samla in empiri till Isaks och Victors
examensarbete. Studien syftar till att undersöka vilka utmaningar som finns när laboratorier ska
genomföra en digital transformation via exempelvis digitalisering, automatisering, AI, machine
learning, eller skapandet av digitala kanaler mot kund. Vi vill poängtera att deltagande i följande
intervju är helt frivilligt och resultatet kommer att presenteras anonymiserat. Vi hade verkligen
uppskattat ert engagemang, desto utförligare svar vi kan få, desto bättre resultat kan vi
åstadkomma.

Intervjun kommer att inledas med några inledande frågor. Därefter kommer 9 block på olika teman
gås igenom. Dessa block syftar till att undersöka potentiella utmaningar för respektive tema, och
inleds med en kort beskrivning av vad blocket innefattar. Målbilden för varje intervju är ca 60min.

• Intervjuobjektets position:
• Intervjuobjektets ålder:
• Tid på Pegasuslab:

Inledande frågor
• Hur ser du på behovet att genomföra en digital transformation? Varför?
• Hur redo anser du att ni är för att genomföra en digital transformation? Är det en förändring
som skulle kunna vara närliggande eller är det längre bort? Varför?

Teknologi - Technology
Teknologi innefattar utmaningar kopplat till införandet av den nya teknologin. Detta inkluderar
både innan, under, och efter teknologin implementeras. Det vill säga, utmaningar kan relatera till
både sökandet, implementationen och användandet av den nya tekniken.

• Hur skulle du säga att företagets tekniska mognad är?

• Vad ser du att det kan finnas för utmaningar vid implementation av ny teknologi hos er?
• Vad ser du för teknologiska utmaningar relaterat till innan teknologin implementerats?
• Vad ser du för teknologiska utmaningar efter att tekniken implementerats?
• Finns det några övriga utmaningar du ser kopplat till teknologi vid genomförandet av en
digital transformation?

92
Säkerhet & Regleringar - Security & Regulations
Säkerhet och regleringar syftar till utmaningar som relaterar till datasäkerhet samt lagar,
certifieringar och krav inom industrin.

• Hur jobbar ni med data-säkerhet idag?

• Vad ser du för utmaningar relaterat till säkerheten vid en digital transformation?
• Vad finns det för regleringar (lagar, krav och certifieringar) inom branschen som skulle
kunna göra det utmanande att genomföra en digital transformation? Ser du några
utmaningar kring denna punkt?
• Finns det några övriga utmaningar du ser kopplat till säkerhet eller regleringar vid
genomförandet av en digital transformation?

Strategi - Strategy
Strategi innefattar de utmaningar som relaterar till den långsiktiga styrningen av digitaliseringen.
Utmaningar kan på så vis relatera till digitalisering kopplat till nuvarande strategin, samt skapandet
av en ny. Utmaningar här kan därför relatera till skapandet av en strategi som till exempel att sätta
rätt tidshorisont på utförandet av den.

• Vad har ni för övergripande strategi idag? Har ni någon plan för en digitaliseringsstrategi?
• Ser du några utmaningar kopplat till företagets nuvarande strategi vid implementation av
en digital transformation?
• Vad ser du för utmaningar vid framtagning av en digitaliseringsstrategi?
o Ser du några utmaningar med att integrera digitaliseringsstrategin med övriga?
• Finns det några övriga utmaningar du ser kopplat till strategi vid genomförandet av en
digital transformation?

Styrning & Struktur - Governance & Structure

Syrning och struktursyftar till utmaningar både kopplat till organisationens dagliga styrning, samt
dess organisationsstruktur. Styrningsvis har detta tema på så vis en kortare tidsperiod än strategi
och relaterar på så vis mer till koordinering. Struktur innefattar utmaningar kopplat till
organisationens struktur, och eventuellt behov att ändra denna.

• Vad ser du att det kan uppkomma för utmaningar kopplat till koordinering av det dagliga
arbetet under/efter att en digital transformation genomförts?
• Hur tror du att er organisationsstruktur hade behövts förändras vid genomförande av en
digital transformation? Vad finns det för utmaningar med detta?

93
 • Finns det några övriga utmaningar du ser kopplat till styrning eller struktur vid
genomförandet av en digital transformation?

Ledarskap - Leadership
Ledarskap syftar till utmaningar som relaterar direkt till ledarens roll, ansvar, och attityd. De kan
på så vis relatera till krav på nya roller, nya ansvarsområden och krav på nya attityder med mera.
Utmaningarna kan relatera till ledarskap på flera nivåer, det vill säga både mellanchef och högsta
ledningen.

• Tror du det kommer behövas nya ledarroller efter en digital transformation? Vad kan det
finnas för utmaningar med detta?
• Vad tror du är det viktigaste för ledare vid genomförandet av en digital transformation?
Behövs nya färdigheter och attityder? Vad finns det för utmaningar med detta?
• Finns det några övriga utmaningar du ser kopplat till ledarskap vid genomförandet av en
digital transformation?

Anställda & färdigheter - People & Skills

Anställda och färdigheter syftar till utmaningar relaterade till vad anställda gör, vilka färdigheter
som krävs, och vad anställda tycker och tänker. Båda dessa är främst relaterade till omställningar
och hur de kan komma att förändras eller behöva ändras som en följd av en.

• Tror du det kommer krävas nya färdigheter hos de anställda efter en digital transformation?
Vilka? Vad finns för utmaningar med detta?
• Finns det några övriga utmaningar du ser kopplat till anställda och färdigheter vid
genomförandet av en digital transformation?

Relationer - Relations
Relationer syftar till utmaningar kopplat till både kundrelationer samt relationer med partners och
leverantörer. Detta kan på så vis relatera till utmaningar kring förändrade krav och attityder från
externa parter, men även behov av nya relationer samt nya förmågor att hantera dessa.

• Hur ser era relationer med kunder och leverantörer/partners ut idag?

• Hur tror det att en digital transformation hade påverkat era kunder? Vad finns det för
utmaningar med dessa?
• Hur tror du att en digital transformation hade påverkat relationer med partners och
leverantörer? Kommer det behövas nya relationer? Finns det några utmaningar här?
• Finns det några övriga utmaningar du ser kopplat till relationer vid genomförandet av en
digital transformation?

94
Värdeskapande - Value Creation
Värdeskapande handlar om hur företaget skapar värde för sina kunder och sig själva. Det vill säga,
vad är det företaget gör som leder till att kunder köper just deras produkter samt hur företaget
”fångar värde”, alltså tjänar pengar på dem. Utmaningar kan här relatera till hur detta kommer
förändras efter en digitalisering och kan på så vis ha att göra med att förstå, skapa eller att fånga
värde.

• Hur arbetar ni med värdeskapande idag? Vad är främsta anledningen att välja er i stället
för en konkurrent eller substitut?
• Hur tror ni att en digital transformation hade påverkat ert värdeskapande? Finns det några
utmaningar med det?
• Hur tror ni att sättet som ni fångar värde, alltså tjänar pengar, kommer förändras vid en
transformation? Vad kan ni se för utmaningar med det?
• Finns det några övriga utmaningar du ser kopplat till värdeskapande vid genomförandet av
en digital transformation?

Kultur - Culture
Kultur syftar till utmaningar relaterat till den företagskultur som finns, där vi ser företagskultur
som de gemensamma beteenden och oskrivna regler som finns. Utmaningar kan på så vis relatera
till hur en digitalisering skulle kunna krocka med den nuvarande kulturen, samt utmaningar
kopplat till ifall den skulle behöva ändras.

• Hur skulle ni beskriva er kultur idag?

• Vad ser du för utmaningar kopplat till att genomföra en digital transformation utifrån den
kultur ni har idag?
• Hur tror du att kulturen kommer behövas förändras för att kunna genomföra en digital
transformation? Vad ser du för utmaningar i genomförandet av att nå dessa förändringar?
• Finns det några övriga utmaningar du ser kopplat till kultur vid genomförandet av en digital
transformation?

Avslut
• För att sammanfatta, vad skulle du säga att de största utmaningarna för er skulle vara vid
genomförandet av en digital transformation?

Den data som vi samlat in från intervjerna med dig och dina kollegor kommer sammanställas för
att svara på syftet om vilka utmaningar som existerar när ett laboratorium genomför en digital
transformation. Som ett steg i att säkerställa en hög validitet skickar vi gärna över våra
anteckningar till er så att ni kan kolla igenom att de stämmer med vad ni ville säga. Slutligen vill

95
vi avsluta med att säga tack så mycket för er tid och engagemang och att återigen nämna att all
data från denna intervju självklart kommer presenteras helt anonymt av oss i vår rapport.

96
Appendix C – Key words subsequent literature research
Below are all search terms used for the subsequent gathering and interpretation of literature:
– Interview guide
Adapting digital culture Digital transformation Strategy
Culture change context of digital transformation Digital transformation Technology
Culture change management Digital transformation Value Creation
Customer channel management challenges and solutions Digitalization mitigate challenges
Digital business strategy Digitalization mitigate issues
Digital channel management solutions and challenges Digitalization revenue
Digital culture Digitalization solutions challenges
Digital culture organization Digitalization solutions issues
Digital strategies Digitalization strategy
Digital transformation Culture Employee training
Digital transformation Governance and Structure Employee training program
Digital transformation Leadership Employer brand strategy
Digital transformation mitigate challenges Employer branding
Digital transformation mitigate issues Employer branding managerial implications
Digital transformation People and Skills Finding partners companies
Digital transformation Relations Managerial development
Digital transformation Security and Regulations Organisational digital culture
Digital transformation solutions challenges Value creation digitalization
Digital transformation solutions issues

97