Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Digital business capability: its impact on firm and customer performance

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Digital business transformation forces firms to develop foundational capabilities to remain competitive. However, despite considerable academic and managerial interest, the nature of a digital business capability (DBC) that creates value by effectively managing digital business transformation remains unclear. Drawing on a mixed-methods approach, we conceptualize and operationalize the DBC construct. In Study 1, we examine the effects of DBC on firm performance using a cross-industry, multisource dataset. In Study 2, we assess the effects of DBC on customer performance using a unique multisource, multilevel dataset collected at two points in time. The results reveal that DBC contributes to performance, even beyond the effects of established constructs. Importantly, DBC increasingly drives firm performance after reaching a critical level of internal dynamism (i.e., U-shaped moderation). By contrast, DBC particularly pays off at an optimal level of external dynamism (i.e., inverse U-shaped moderation). DBC is more valuable for business-to-consumer than for business-to-business firms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Digital technologies refer to information, computing, communication, and connectivity technologies (Bharadwaj et al. 2013).

  2. We follow Marsh et al. (2013) and take the recommended thresholds of Hu and Bentler (1999) as criteria for good model fit. Accordingly, fit indices should ideally be close to the following thresholds: CFI ≥ .95, TLI ≥ .95, SRMR ≤ .08, and RMSEA ≤ .06.

  3. This CFA included DBC, structural flux, technological dynamism, IT capabilities, digital marketing capabilities, market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, interaction orientation, and technology orientation. We used item parceling to develop aggregated scales for all second-order constructs (Bagozzi and Edwards 1998). Before running this overall CFA, we conducted separate CFAs and validated the second-order constructs market, entrepreneurial, and interaction orientation (e.g., Vorhies et al. 2011).

  4. The regression model is specified as follows: ROS = β0 + β1 DBC + β2 B2B/C + β3 TD + β4 SF + β5 DBC × B2B/C + β6 DBC × TD + β7 TD2 + β8 DBC × SF + β9 SF2 + β10 DBC × TD2 + β11 DBC × SF2 + β12 λ + βcontrols CONTROLS + ε, where ROS is the industry-adjusted return on sales, B2B/C is B2B versus B2C, TD is technological dynamism, SF is structural flux, λ is the inverse Mills ratio, and CONTROLS includes the variables firm size, firm age, product versus service, and relevance of digital business transformation.

  5. We calculated the slopes at the low and high end of technological dynamism using unstandardized regression coefficients (not the standardized regression coefficients reported in Table 6), by deriving the following equation (Jaccard and Turrisi 2003): \( \frac{\partial^2\mathrm{ROS}}{\partial \mathrm{DBC}\partial \mathrm{TD}} \) = β6 + 2 β10 TD. Thus, the turning point is \( -\frac{\upbeta_6}{2\ {\upbeta}_{10}} \) .

  6. Chi-square is a direct function of the sample size, so it cannot be used to meaningfully judge model fit given our large sample of 3212 customers (cf. Homburg et al. 2015).

  7. We captured these variables in our survey in Study 1 as specified in Web Appendix D (cf. Moorman and Rust 1999).

  8. Complementary effects model: DBC ➔ firm performance (b = .35, p < .01); DBC ➔ innovation performance (b = .46, p < .01); DBC ➔ customer relationship performance (b = .25, p < .01).

  9. Direct effects model: digital strategy ➔ firm performance (b = −.01, p > .10), digital strategy ➔ innovation performance (b = .26, p < .05), digital strategy ➔ customer relationship performance (b = −.11, p > .10); digital integration ➔ firm performance (b = .18, p < .10), digital integration ➔ innovation performance (b = .11, p > .10), digital integration ➔ customer relationship performance (b = .20, p < .10); digital control ➔ firm performance (b = .19, p < .05), digital control ➔ innovation performance (b = .08, p > .10), digital control ➔ customer relationship performance (b = .13, p > .10).

References

  • Achrol, R. S., & Kotler, P. (1999). Marketing in the network economy. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 146–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aragón-Correa, A., & Sharma, S. (2003). A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 45–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baiyere, A., Salmela, H., & Tapanainen, T. (2020). Digital transformation and the new logics of business process management. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(3), 238–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barreto, I. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 36(1), 256–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barua, K., Whinston, & Yin. (2004). An empirical investigation of net-enabled business value. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 585–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C.-P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., Humphreys, A., Ludwig, S., Moe, W. W., Netzer, O., & Schweidel, D. A. (2020). Uniting the tribes: Using text for marketing insight. Journal of Marketing, 84(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, M. K., Voorhees, C. M., & Brusco, M. J. (2012). Service sweethearting: Its antecedents and customer consequences. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bughin, J., Catlin, T., Hirt, M., & Willmott, P. (2018). Why digital strategies fail. McKinsey Digital. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/why-digital-strategies-fail.

  • Cenamor, J., Parida, V., & Wincent, J. (2019). How entrepreneurial SMEs compete through digital platforms: The roles of digital platform capability, network capability and ambidexterity. Journal of Business Research, 100, 196–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarty, A., Grewal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2013). Information technology competencies, organizational agility, and firm performance: Enabling and facilitating roles. Information Systems Research, 24(4), 976–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chanias, S., Myers, M. D., & Hess, T. (2019). Digital transformation strategy making in pre-digital organizations: The case of a financial services provider. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(1), 17–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T. H., & Westerman, G. (2018). Why so many high-profile digital transformations fail. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/03/why-so-many-high-profile-digital-transformations-fail.

  • Davis, D. F., Golicic, S. L., & Boerstler, C. N. (2011). Benefits and challenges of conducting multiple methods research in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(3), 467–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis-Sramek, B., Germain, R., & Iyer, K. (2010). Supply chain technology: The role of environment in predicting performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(1), 42–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deakin, J., LaBerge, L., & O’Beirne, B. (2019). Five moves to make during a digital transformation. McKinsey digital. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/five-moves-to-make-during-a-digital-transformation.

  • Deshpandé, R. (1983). “Paradigms lost”: On theory and method in research in marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deshpandé, R., & Farley, J. U. (1998). Measuring market orientation: Generalization and synthesis. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 2(3), 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edeling, A., & Himme, A. (2018). When does market share matter? New empirical generalizations from a meta-analysis of the market share–performance relationship. Journal of Marketing, 82(3), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, E., Palmatier, R., & Grewal, R. (2011). Effects of customer and innovation asset configuration strategies on firm performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 587–602.

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galunic, D. C., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2001). Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1229–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, R., Comer, J. M., & Mehta, R. (2001). An investigation into the antecedents of organizational participation in business-to-business electronic markets. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 17–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2018). Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research Policy, 47(8), 1391–1399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Winter, S. G. (2011). Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: Strategy for the (n)ever-changing world. Strategic Management Journal, 32(11), 1243–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Jensen, O., & Krohmer, H. (2008). Configurations of marketing and sales: A taxonomy. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 133–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Müller, M., & Klarmann, M. (2011). When should the customer really be king? On the optimum level of salesperson customer orientation in sales encounters. Journal of Marketing, 75(2), 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., Reimann, M., & Schilke, O. (2012). What drives key informant accuracy? Journal of Marketing Research, 49(4), 594–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Schwemmle, M., & Kuehnl, C. (2015). New product design: Concept, measurement, and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 79(3), 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2018). Marketing survey research best practices: Evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(1), 92–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). Does market orientation matter?: A test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 899–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 90–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Data Corporation. (2019). Direct digital transformation investment spending to approach $7.4 trillion between 2020 and 2023; IDC reveals 2020 worldwide digital transformation predictions. Retrieved from https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS45617519.

  • Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (2003). Interaction effects in multiple regression (2nd ed., Sage university papers series. Quantitative applications in the social sciences, Vol. 72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J. (2011). On managerial relevance. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J. (2018). Introducing the theory + practice section. AMS Review, 8(1–2), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B, J., Malcolm, R., & Morgan, N, A. (2016). 7 big problems in the marketing industry. American marketing association. Retrieved from https://www.ama.org/marketing-news/7-big-problems-in-the-marketing-industry/.

  • Johnson, D. S., & Bharadwaj, S. (2005). Digitization of selling activity and sales force performance: An empirical investigation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. S., Friend, S. B., & Lee, H. S. (2017). Big data facilitation, utilization, and monetization: Exploring the 3Vs in a new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(5), 640–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamboj, S., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Marketing capabilities and firm performance: Literature review and future research agenda. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 64(8), 1041–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, G, C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A, N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy, not technology, drives digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte University Press, July 2015.

  • Kane, G, C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A, N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2017). Achieving digital maturity. MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte University Press, July 2017.

  • Kane, G, C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A, N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2018). Coming of age digitally. MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte Insights, June 2018.

  • Kannan, P. K., & Li, H. “. A.”. (2017). Digital marketing: A framework, review and research agenda. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 22–45.

  • Karimi, J., & Walter, Z. (2015). The role of dynamic capabilities in responding to digital disruption: A factor-based study of the newspaper industry. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(1), 39–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katsikeas, C. S., Leonidou, C. N., & Zeriti, A. (2016a). Eco-friendly product development strategy: Antecedents, outcomes, and contingent effects. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(6), 660–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katsikeas, C. S., Morgan, N. A., Leonidou, L. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (2016b). Assessing performance outcomes in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 80(2), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirca, A. A., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 24–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., & Pansari, A. (2016). Competitive advantage through engagement. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(4), 497–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunz, W., Schmitt, B., & Meyer, A. (2011). How does perceived firm innovativeness affect the consumer? Journal of Business Research, 64(8), 816–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J.-Y., & Day, G. S. (2019). Designing customer-centric organization structures: Toward the fluid marketing organization. In R. W. Palmatier, C. Moorman, & J.-Y. Lee (Eds.), Handbook on customer centricity: Strategies for building a customer-centric organization (pp. 108–132, research handbooks in business and management series). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J.-Y., Kozlenkova, I. V., & Palmatier, R. W. (2015). Structural marketing: Using organizational structure to achieve marketing objectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 73–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., Su, F., Zhang, W., & Mao, J.-Y. (2018). Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: A capability perspective. Information Systems Journal, 28(6), 1129–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilien, G. L. (2016). The B2B knowledge gap. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(3), 543–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. K. (1996). Market intelligence dissemination across functional boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(1), 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Vallerand, R. J., Lafrenière, M.-A. K., Parker, P., Morin, A. J. S., Carbonneau, N., Jowett, S., Bureau, J. S., Fernet, C., Guay, F., Salah Abduljabbar, A., & Paquet, Y. (2013). Passion: Does one scale fit all? Construct validity of two-factor passion scale and psychometric invariance over different activities and languages. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 796–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melville, N., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. (2004). Review: Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 283.

  • Mishra, A. A., & Shah, R. (2009). In union lies strength: Collaborative competence in new product development and its performance effects. Journal of Operations Management, 27(4), 324–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading off between value creation and value appropriation: The financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C. (2019). How to overcome e-commerce growing pains. CMO survey. Retrieved from https://cmosurvey.org/how-to-overcome-ecommerce-growing-pains/.

  • Moorman, C., & Day, G. S. (2016). Organizing for marketing excellence. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 6–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., & Rust, R. T. (1999). The role of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 63, 180–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, N. A., & Rego, L. L. (2006). The value of different customer satisfaction and loyalty metrics in predicting business performance. Marketing Science, 25(5), 426–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, B., Yu, X., Melewar, T. C., & Chen, J. (2015). Brand innovation and social media: Knowledge acquisition from social media, market orientation, and the moderating role of social media strategic capability. Industrial Marketing Management, 51, 11–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, C. H., & Mokwa, M. P. (1999). Implementing marketing strategies: Developing and testing a managerial theory. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ordanini, A., & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Service innovation viewed through a service-dominant logic lens: A conceptual framework and empirical analysis. Journal of Service Research, 14(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagani, M. (2013). Digital business strategy and value creation: Framing the dynamic cycle of control points. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 617–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagani, M., & Pardo, C. (2017). The impact of digital technology on relationships in a business network. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 185–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R. W. (2016). Improving publishing success at JAMS: Contribution and positioning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(6), 655–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R., & Seth, N. (2006). Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 225–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramani, G., & Kumar, V. (2008). Interaction orientation and firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2018). Offerings as digitalized interactive platforms: A conceptual framework and implications. Journal of Marketing, 82(4), 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rangaswamy, A., Moch, N., Felten, C., van Bruggen, G., Wieringa, J. E., & Wirtz, J. (2020). The role of Marketing in Digital Business Platforms. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 51, 72–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A. J., Ganesan, S., & Moorman, C. (2008). Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: Concepts, findings, and guidelines. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(3), 261–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, T. S. (2017). Business model innovation: A marketing ecosystem view. AMS Review, 7(3), 90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, B. (2016). Why 84% of companies fail at digital transformation. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2016/01/07/why-84-of-companies-fail-at-digital-transformation/#4d819d35397b.

  • Sarkar, M. B., Aulakh, P. S., & Madhok, A. (2009). Process capabilities and value generation in alliance portfolios. Organization Science, 20(3), 583–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scantlebury, S., & Ross, J. (2016). Designing digital organizations. Boston consulting group. Retrieved from https://www.bcg.com/de-de/publications/2016/technology-people-organization-designing-digital-organizations.aspx.

  • Schilke, O. (2014). On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2), 179–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilke, O., Reimann, M., & Thomas, J. S. (2009). When does international marketing standardization matter to firm performance? Journal of International Marketing, 17(4), 24–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 390–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreyögg, G., & Sydow, J. (2010). Crossroads - organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 21(6), 1251–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiders, K., Voss, G. B., Grewal, D., & Godfrey, A. L. (2005). Do satisfied customers buy more? Examining moderating influences in a retailing context. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 26–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. (1990). The role of management control systems in creating competitive advantage: New perspectives. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15(1–2), 127–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J., Flaherty, K., Sohi, R. S., Deeter-Schmelz, D., Habel, J., Le Meunier-FitzHugh, K., et al. (2019). Sales profession and professionals in the age of digitization and artificial intelligence technologies: Concepts, priorities, and questions. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 39(1), 2–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solis, B. (2016). Who owns digital transformation? According to a new survey, it’s not the CIO. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolis/2016/10/17/who-owns-digital-transformation-according-to-a-new-survey-its-the-cmo/#642ea0e767b5.

  • Sorescu, A. (2017). Data-Driven Business Model Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(5), 691–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spadea, K. (2015). The CMO - not the CIO – Should lead digital transformation. CIO. Retrieved from https://www.cio.com/article/2873598/the-cmo-not-the-cio-should-lead-digital-transformation.html.

  • Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G. L., & Rangaswamy, A. (2002). Technological opportunism and radical technology adoption: An application to e-business. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-based assets and shareholder value: A framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 2–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1999). Marketing, business processes, and shareholder value: An organizationally embedded view of marketing activities and the discipline of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 168–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stabell, C. B., & Fjeldstad, Ø. D. (1998). Configuring value for competitive advantage: On chains, shops, and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 413–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Geyskens, I. (2006). How country characteristics affect the perceived value of web sites. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 136–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanriverdi, H. (2006). Performance effects of information technology synergies in multibusiness firms. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanriverdi, H., & Venkatraman, N. (2005). Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multibusiness firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 97–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tekic, Z., & Koroteev, D. (2019). From disruptively digital to proudly analog: A holistic typology of digital transformation strategies. Business Horizons, 62(6), 683–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trainor, K. J., Andzulis, J., Rapp, A., & Agnihotri, R. (2014). Social media technology usage and customer relationship performance: A capabilities-based examination of social CRM. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1201–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ukko, J., Nasiri, M., Saunila, M., & Rantala, T. (2019). Sustainability strategy as a moderator in the relationship between digital business strategy and financial performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulaga, W., & Reinartz, W. J. (2011). Hybrid offerings: How manufacturing firms combine goods and services successfully. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoef, P. C., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2019). Marketing perspectives on digital business models: A framework and overview of the special issue. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 36(3), 341–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vieira, V. A., de Almeida, M. I. S., Agnihotri, R., da Silva, N. S. D. A. C., & Arunachalam, S. (2019). In pursuit of an effective B2B digital marketing strategy in an emerging market. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(6), 1085–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorhies, D. W., Orr, L. M., & Bush, V. D. (2011). Improving customer-focused marketing capabilities and firm financial performance via marketing exploration and exploitation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(5), 736–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 107–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Z., & Kim, H. G. (2017). Can social media marketing improve customer relationship capabilities and firm performance? Dynamic capability perspective. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 39, 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, K. S. R., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, F. E. (1992). The changing role of marketing in the corporation. Journal of Marketing, 56(4), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessel, L., Baiyere, A., Ologeanu-Taddei, R., Cha, J., & Blegind-Jensen, T. (2021). Unpacking the difference between digital transformation and IT-enabled organizational transformation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(1), 102–129.

  • Wiles, J. (2018). Mobilize every function in the organization for digitalization digital business. Gartner. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/mobilize-every-function-in-the-organization-for-digitalization/.

  • Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlgemuth, V., & Wenzel, M. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and routinization. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1944–1948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, M. S. (2018). Making emerging phenomena a research priority. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(3), 361–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeow, A., Soh, C., & Hansen, R. (2018). Aligning with new digital strategy: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(1), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. (1993). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: A taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeithaml, V. A., Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A. K., Tuli, K. R., Ulaga, W., & Zaltman, G. (2020). A theories-in-use approach to building marketing theory. Journal of Marketing, 84(1), 32–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. (2012). How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9), 1090–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., Yim, C. K. (. B.)., & Tse, D. K. (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on technology-and market-based breakthrough innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 42–60.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Marketing Department, University of Mannheim, 68131, Mannheim, Germany

    Dominik M. Wielgos & Christian Homburg

  2. Alliance Manchester Business School, Manchester, M13 9SS, UK

    Christian Homburg

  3. University of Stuttgart, 70174, Stuttgart, Germany

    Christina Kuehnl

Authors
  1. Dominik M. Wielgos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Homburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christina Kuehnl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Homburg.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Alina Sorescu served as Guest Editor for this article.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 357 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wielgos, D.M., Homburg, C. & Kuehnl, C. Digital business capability: its impact on firm and customer performance. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 49, 762–789 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00771-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00771-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation