# Paving the way for incumbents' digital transformation.
## A review and research agenda

Anna Bastone, Luigi Mosca, Christopher Tucci, Sai Lan

► To cite this version:

Anna Bastone, Luigi Mosca, Christopher Tucci, Sai Lan. Paving the way for incumbents' digital transformation. A review and research agenda. European Management Review, In press, pp.17. 10.1111/emre.70038. hal-05489666

HAL Id: hal-05489666

https://hal.science/hal-05489666v1

Submitted on 2 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Paving the way for incumbents' digital transformation. A review and research agenda

Anna Bastone<fnref n="1" /> ID | Luigi Mosca<fnref n="2" /> ID | Christopher L. Tucci<fnref n="2" /> ID | Sai Lan<fnref n="3" />

**Correspondence**

Anna Bastone, University of Naples
Parthenope, Naples, Italy.

Email: anna.bastone001@studenti.uniparthenope.it

**Funding information**

European Commission, Grant/Award Number:
101093016

**Abstract**

Digital transformation is reshaping the competitive landscape by forcing incumbent firms to rethink their strategies, organizational structures, and business models. While a substantial body of literature has explored digital transformation in specific sectors, focusing on various factors and organizational mechanisms, there remains a lack of a comprehensive and cohesive understanding of how incumbent firms actively lead or respond to these transformations. As a result, the concept remains somewhat fragmented and underdeveloped. This review addresses this gap by conducting a systematic review of 68 peer-reviewed articles across five major academic domains: entrepreneurship, general management, innovation, organization studies, and strategy. Our review identifies pathways of leading versus responding to digital transformation as well as the internal and external consequences and antecedents that enable or constrain digital transformation. We also offer a research agenda aimed at deepening our theoretical and managerial understanding of how incumbent firms navigate digital transformation, providing novel directions for future studies.

1. Unveiling the influence of Digital Transformation on incumbent dynamics.

2. Identifying antecedents, enablers, barriers, and consequences of Digital Transformation.

3. New strategies, structures, and business models to respond to or lead to disruptive changes.

4. Illustrating the heterogeneous effect of Digital Transformation within firms.

5. A research agenda to stimulate a holistic understanding of incumbents' Digital Transformation.

**KEYWORDS**

Business models, digital transformation, incumbent, leading, literature review, organizational structure, responding, strategy

## INTRODUCTION

Technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, digital platforms, and robotics are fundamentally altering how firms organize, compete, and strategize (Bailey et al., 2022; Clarysse, Fang He, & Tucci, 2022; Lanzolla, Pesce, & Tucci, 2021; Rauch & Ansari, 2022). These technologies are accelerating the push toward Digital Transformation (DT), defined as a process aiming to improve firms' activities (e.g. business models, organizational structure,

and strategy) “through combinations of information, computing, communication, and connectivity technologies” (Denicolai, Magnani, & Vidal, 2022; Elia et al., 2024; Kraus et al., 2022; Vial, 2019).

While digital transformation is not a new concept, it remains persistently difficult to implement, especially for incumbent firms, which often struggle to adapt legacy systems, business models, and organizational structures to a fast-changing digital environment (Li, 2020a, 2020b; Simsek et al., 2024; Tushman & Anderson, 1986). The

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2025 The Author(s). *European Management Review* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Management (EURAM).

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹University of Naples Parthenope, Naples, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Imperial Business School, London, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Emlyon Business School, F-69007, Lyon, France</footnote>
unique affordances of digital technologies (e.g., scalability, real-time data flows, modular architecture, etc.) may render incumbents' competencies obsolete (Eggers & Park, 2018; Tripsas & Gavetti, 2000), requiring not only technological upgrades but also deep organizational and strategic renewal (Ansari & Krop, 2012; Aversa et al., 2021; Kraus et al., 2021a; Kraus et al., 2021b).

This complexity has led to divergent organizational responses: while some incumbents lead digital transformation through proactive innovation and strategic renewal, others respond reactively—or even reject it—due to socio-cognitive, structural, or political barriers (cf. Anthony & Tripsas, 2016; Eggers & Park, 2018; Fernandes & Burcharth, 2024; Kammerlander, König, & Richards, 2018; Kane et al., 2015). For instance, research shows that incumbent firms may fail to allocate attention to digital opportunities, even when they are visible, leading to errors of omission and eventual decline (cf. Ocasio, Laamanen, & Vaara, 2018; Raffaelli, Glynn, & Tushman, 2019). Conversely, other firms demonstrate strong dynamic capabilities by sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring to capture digital opportunities (cf. Teece, 2007; Warner & Wäger, 2019).

A growing body of literature also highlights the role of strategic leadership, particularly top management teams (TMTs), in shaping DT outcomes (Firk et al., 2022; Simsek et al., 2024). Leaders influence whether digital initiatives are interpreted as threats or opportunities, and their characteristics (e.g., digital knowledge, cognitive flexibility, behavioral integration) can determine the success or failure of digital innovation efforts (Chanias, Myers, & Hess, 2019; Volberda et al., 2021).

Despite important advances, much of the review articles on digital transformation have been sector-specific, oriented toward healthcare (Kraus et al., 2021a; Kraus et al., 2021b), B2B marketing (Hofacker et al., 2020), digital business models (Plekhanov, Franke, & Netland, 2022; Schallmo, Williams, & Boardman, 2017), or large established organizations with a focus on dynamic capabilities (Kulichyova et al., 2025). Recent work (Elia et al., 2024; Hanelt et al., 2021; Verhoef et al., 2021) has emphasized the need for a holistic perspective that captures the strategic and organizational dimensions of digital transformation across industries. In particular, more work is needed to distinguish between how incumbents lead digital transformation and how they respond to external digital pressures in order to create, deliver, and capture value (Campagnolo, Gianecchini, & Mosca, 2023; King & Tucci, 2002; Lanzolla, Pesce, & Tucci, 2021; Massa, Tucci, & Afuah, 2017).

This article addresses that gap by answering the following research question: *How do incumbent firms lead or respond to digital transformation?* We conduct a comprehensive literature review of 68 articles published in top-tier journals across five academic domains: (1) entrepreneurship and small business management, (2) general management, ethics, gender & sustainability,

(3) innovation, (4) organization studies, and (5) strategy. Our review aims to synthesize current knowledge on the drivers, barriers, and strategic mechanisms underpinning incumbents' engagement with digital transformation.

In the following sections, we present our review methodology and analyze key themes that emerge from the literature, focusing on how incumbent firms change business models, structures, and strategies in response to or in leadership of digital transformation. We conclude with a proposed agenda to guide future research on digital transformation in incumbent firms.

## METHOD

This paper adopts a systematic literature review approach (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). To illustrate our approach and process, we report a PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1) to ensure review quality and objectivity (O'Leary, Bayliss, & Haddaway, 2015). Figure 1 describes the steps followed in identifying and examining relevant literature on DT from the incumbent's perspective. Our goal was to capture the organizational structure changes and responses, and strategic processes that shape how incumbent firms engage with digital transformation. The following subsections describe the review procedures, and the thematic analysis carried out.

## Identifying and selecting articles

To tackle our research question, we conducted a manual search (see also Hanelt et al., 2021) in academic journals classified in the ABS list with 4*, 4, and 3 stars across five fields including: (1) Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, (2) General Management, Ethics, Gender and Sustainability, (3) Innovation, (4) Organization Studies and (5) Strategy. Table S1 in the Appendix shows the academic journals related to each field and the related records. We used the following keywords: (1) "Digital Transformation AND incumbent", (2) "Digital AND incumbent", (3) "Transformation AND incumbent". These keywords guided the manual search conducted in selected journals, resulting in a sample of 9,786 articles published from 1980 to 31 December 2024. To ensure that our methodological approach is both comprehensive and reliable, we followed several essential steps: (1) article extraction; (2) verification of consistency with research questions; and (3) development of the results database (Paul & Menzies, 2023; Pietronudo, Croidieu, & Schiavone, 2022). Two main stages followed. The first aimed at identifying, reading, and analyzing articles consistent with the research objectives. Particularly, to identify the most relevant articles, each article was assessed by reading the title and abstract to determine its alignment with our research question. Two authors actively participated in this phase, working systematically and independently to analyze each
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 1** PRISMA Protocol. Source: adapted from Moher D, Liberati a, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, the PRISMA group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097. Doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.</figcaption></figure>

article and highlight key points relating to the research objectives.

We applied a set of inclusion criteria to ensure the relevance, quality, and theoretical contribution of the literature selected for this review. First, we included only articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals, as these sources meet rigorous methodological and

theoretical standards, enhancing the credibility of the review. Second, we selected studies that explicitly examine incumbent firms, defined as established, legacy, or pre-digital organizations with existing business models and industry positioning in the context of digital transformation. This focus excludes start-ups or digital-native firms, whose transformation processes are inherently
different due to the absence of legacy structures or path dependencies. Third, articles were included if they addressed the strategic, business model, and organizational structure dimensions of digital transformation. This includes studies on business model innovation, strategic change, and organizational structure changes (e.g., CEOs, top management teams) as they relate to DT. Our aim was to capture not just the technological aspect of transformation, but the broader systemic and strategic shifts that incumbents navigate. Finally, we considered a broad range of contributions, including theoretical, empirical, and review-based studies. This allowed us to integrate diverse perspectives and methodologies (including qualitative case studies, quantitative analyses, and conceptual frameworks), providing a comprehensive view of how incumbent firms lead or respond to digital transformation.

Based on these criteria, we excluded articles in which digitalization was not identified as the main cause of transformations in business models, strategy, and organizational structure. For example, while the work by Ademi, Schuhmacher, & Zacharakis (2023) explores sources of digital affordances, such as the recombinability and the reprogrammability of digital technologies, we excluded their work as they focus on CVC managers' willingness to invest in investment opportunities rather than on company strategy, business model, or organizational structure elements. We also excluded the study by Benner (2010) because it focuses on how securities analysts react to the different strategies undertaken by incumbent firms faced with radical technological change. While this study explores incumbent firms and radical technological change, it looks at the possible influences of public equity markets and securities analysts, overlooking the impact on a firm's strategy, business model, or organizational structure elements. Similarly, we have not included the work by Wu, Wan, & Levinthal (2014) because it focuses on how the incumbent's complementary assets impact choices of technological trajectory and investments along the chosen trajectory.

A total of 200 academic articles were identified. After the final screening, 68 articles were included in the final sample (see Table S2 in the Appendix for the list of the articles included in the sample).

## The thematic analysis

The search, screening, and analysis processes were accompanied by a thematic analysis of the final publication sample to identify, organize, and describe systematically models in our sample (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis is a qualitative approach aiming to recognize and analyze “patterns of meaning” in a qualitative dataset, highlighting the most salient constellations of meaning in the description of the phenomenon studied

(Braun & Clarke, 2006; Joffe, 2011). We followed three main steps. In the first step, a descriptive classification of the articles was developed using an Excel spreadsheet. To this end, a coding structure was adopted to standardize the information on: (1) theoretical framework, (2) methodology, (3) findings, and (4) future research, thus facilitating the descriptive analysis of the whole sample.

The second step involved the adoption of a configurative approach (Gough, Thomas, & Oliver, 2012), oriented towards heterogeneous research in terms of topics, samples, methods, and theory. Specifically, this is an inductive approach geared towards identifying the main topics without relying on a pre-existing theoretical framework. This allowed us to identify a sufficient number of studies useful for exploring patterns and concepts and assessing the quality of the sample based on the relevance and contribution made by the selected studies (Gough, Thomas, & Oliver, 2012). We, therefore, identified potential themes based on the core concepts reflecting the phenomenon under study (Joffe, 2011), subsequently comparing them with the initial descriptive classifications.

Finally, in the analytical phase (Jones et al., 2011): 1) the academic publications were traced back to one or more first-order themes (i.e., leading or responding to DT, and their focus on strategy, business models, and organizational structure); 2) iteratively, the first-order themes were grouped according to the purpose, meaning, and coding of the themes; and 3) finally, thematic areas or aggregate dimensions were identified. During the analysis, the emphasis was on recognizing keywords and concepts to group articles into distinct categories, thereby attending to the emergence of themes. Particularly, we aimed to investigate how incumbent firms lead or respond to digital transformation by examining changes in their business models, organizational structures, and strategies, associated with digital transformation processes, including changes in combinations of information, computing, communication, and connectivity technologies (Denicolai, Magnani, & Vidal, 2022; Eggers & Park, 2018; Elia et al., 2024; Vial, 2019). The thematic analysis was conducted separately by two authors, who subsequently engaged in a discussion to identify the main themes. To ensure convergence between the authors, the steps outlined by Badura et al. (2010) were followed, according to which disagreements could be resolved through the following process: 1) Negotiate: the authors discussed possible interpretations, accepting the most plausible one as valid; 2) Synthesize: in the absence of a clear interpretation, the authors worked together to create a better interpretation; 3) Arbitrate: in cases of two plausible interpretations, a third external party was consulted; 4) Disallow: if it was not possible to determine a valid interpretation, the code was excluded as too ambiguous. Table S3 in the Appendix shows how each paper was categorized. The following paragraphs illustrate our findings.
# FINDINGS

## Responding to digital transformation

Incumbent firms respond to digital transformation by adapting their business models, strategies, and organizational structures. This section examines each of these three dimensions in turn, illustrating how incumbent firms redefine their business models, strategy choices, and organizational structure configurations to navigate digital shifts. In addition, the section summarizes key internal and external factors that further influence the trajectory of digital adaptation.

## Business models

Digital transformation fundamentally challenges traditional business models by altering how value is created, delivered, and captured (Lanzolla et al., 2020). Teece (2018) argues that firms must redeploy and reconfigure assets using dynamic capabilities to respond effectively to shifting digital landscapes. For instance, in the case of the book publishing industry, digitization eliminated the competitive advantage of physical features, prompting publishers to shift toward content-centric models (Miller & Wang, 2024). Furthermore, Ma (2023) introduces a typology in which digital innovations are categorized as substitutive, complementary, or parallel, depending on how they relate to incumbents' core offerings. Accordingly, business model changes may range from incremental adjustments to radical reinvention. The success of adaptation thus hinges on the firm's ability to accurately assess the relationship between new technologies and existing value logic (Hsu & Cohen, 2022), and to reconfigure their models accordingly. Additionally, Agyei-Boapeah, Evans, & Nisar (2022) argued that incumbent firms adapt their business models not only to respond to digital market pressures and challenges (Cozzolino, Verona, & Rothaermel, 2018; Markoff-Legrand, Bocquet, & Gandia, 2024) but also to react to rapidly changing consumer behavior due to the digitalization processes.

## Strategy

At the strategic level, digital transformation might demand ambidextrous thinking—a balance between exploiting existing capabilities and exploring new opportunities (Taylor & Helfat, 2009; Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996). Strategic responses to DT are shaped not only by environmental scanning but by the cognitive schemas of senior leaders. Vuori & Tushman (2024) highlight how emotional reactions and identity threats among executives led Nokia to pursue suboptimal strategic alliances during a platform shift. In contrast, firms with greater strategic clarity and internal capability alignment—such as certain content-

driven publishers—were able to pivot effectively (Khanagha et al., 2018, 2022; Miller & Wang, 2024). Strategic ambidexterity also involves timing and selective commitment. Incumbent firms may delay full transition while experimenting with hybrid strategies, especially when the market for digital products is uncertain or previous experiences influence decision-making processes and outcomes (Tryggvason & Giones, 2025). In this sense, strategy becomes a cognitive and temporal exercise: how firms interpret digital signals, decide when to act, and align resources to navigate the shift. Similarly, Reuter & Floyd (2024) focus on the cognitive perspective on strategic leaders' ecosystem vision formation in digital transformation to theorize the role of strategic leaders' cognitive motivation for making changes in the envisioned value creation models with the firm's ecosystem in the digital transformation. In some cases, firms respond to digital disruption through technology counteroffensive strategies, as identified by Furr and Snow (2024). Rather than immediately abandoning legacy systems in favor of new digital regimes, some incumbents extend the performance limits of existing technologies or pursue bridging strategies that hybridize legacy and digital components (Cozzolino, Verona, & Rothaermel, 2018; Furr & Snow, 2024). These strategies allow firms to delay full substitution, maintain relevance, and incrementally prepare for digital transition. While extension strategies often lead to niche market retreats, bridging strategies—such as hybrid products or platform alliances—facilitate smoother transitions and can improve survival rates during substitution periods. This insight broadens the conceptualization of strategic response to DT, revealing that firms may choose deliberate deferral over hasty transformation, especially in markets where digital standards are still evolving or where legacy systems continue to yield value.

## Organizational structure

Digital transformation also demands structural flexibility. Organizational design determines how effectively firms integrate new technologies, coordinate across units, and support ongoing innovation. Taylor & Helfat (2009) argue that the presence of strong organizational linkages between technological and complementary asset units is critical for navigating technological transitions. Middle managers often serve as linchpins in this process, translating strategic intent into operational execution and bridging siloed units. However, structural and identity-based tensions frequently emerge, particularly during platform shifts, where established hierarchies and expertise may be disrupted (Vuori & Tushman, 2024). Organizations that adopt ambidextrous structures—with distinct but connected units for exploration and exploitation—are better positioned to manage these tensions. Moreover, successful structural adaptation requires emotional resilience and cultural alignment, not just formal reorganization.
As digital transformation blurs boundaries between firms and ecosystems, coordination must extend beyond the firm to include external partners, platforms, and user communities.

Firm size and age also moderate digital response. According to BarNir, Gallagher, & Auger (2003), newer and smaller firms are generally more agile and more likely to adopt digital strategies than larger incumbents, who may be more rigidly tied to legacy systems. Benner (2009) adds that institutionalized management practices, such as ISO 9000, can reduce incumbents' responsiveness by reinforcing exploitative routines, further hindering adaptation to digital disruption. Together, these findings underscore the multifaceted nature of digital response, shaped by values, identities, cognition, and institutional context as much as by competitive pressure or technical feasibility.

The approach firms take to respond to digital transformation is often shaped not only by market and technology factors but also by internal cognitive and cultural dynamics. Strategic choices are frequently influenced by how decision-makers interpret technological change, shaped by firm-specific values, identities, and managerial motivations. For example, Kammerlander & Ganter (2015) show that in family firms, the response to digital threats is mediated by non-economic goals such as preserving control or reputation. These values can constrain strategic openness and limit the scope of digital adaptation. Similarly, Reuter & Floyd (2024) emphasize the role of strategic leaders' cognitive motivations in shaping ecosystem visions during digital transformation, suggesting that leaders' mental models—not just external conditions—determine how firms reimagine their roles within changing digital value networks.

Beyond cognition, organizational identity plays a key role. Kammerlander, König, & Richards (2018) argue that incumbent firms often react based on perceived threats to their organizational identity, rather than engaging in proactive, future-oriented adjustments. This identity-based framing can either facilitate or hinder transformation depending on whether digitalization is seen as aligned or misaligned with the firm's traditional self-concept. Eggers & Kaul (2018) further highlight that firms tend to mobilize digital transformation when they recognize a performance deficit—that is, when actual performance lags behind aspirations (Romanelli & Tushman, 1994). This perspective implies that recognition of underperformance, rather than foresight, often triggers strategic change.

A growing body of research illustrates that responses to digital transformation are neither uniform nor passive; rather, they are shaped by multilevel dynamics—cognitive, organizational, and ecosystemic. For example, Cozzolino & Verona (2022) provide a multilevel adaptation framework that explains how incumbents respond to complementary-asset discontinuities, a scenario where digital technologies render legacy assets obsolete while

leaving core knowledge relatively intact. Their longitudinal case study of Italian newspapers reveals that successful adaptation requires transformation across three levels: (1) resources, by recombining existing knowledge with new digital assets; (2) demand, through experimentation with customer preferences and value perceptions; and (3) ecosystems, by collaborating with new digital entrants and redefining value capture mechanisms. These findings challenge earlier notions that incumbents must transform from within alone and instead highlight the critical role of external alignment and interdependence in adapting to DT.

Further deepening our understanding of these responses, Eggers & Kaplan (2009) and Eklund & Kapoor (2019) explored forms of organizational response to technical change. In dynamic and uncertain digital environments, where transformation efforts involve significant risk and ambiguity, CEO attention—particularly to emerging technologies and shifting industry conditions—has a strong effect on strategic reorientation. Their studies demonstrate that top management teams are not just interpreters of environmental change but active shapers of firm trajectories, capable of accelerating or delaying market entry based on where their cognitive resources are directed. The interaction between managerial attention and organizational capabilities is especially significant. Incumbent firms with high absorptive capacity and prior industry experience are better positioned to interpret, internalize, and respond to digital threats. This dynamic interplay underscores that organizational inertia is not simply structural but also cognitive—rooted in leadership's ability or failure to reframe threats as opportunities.

Together, these studies shift the focus from a binary model of success or failure to a contingent, staged view of adaptation, showing that incumbent responses to digital transformation are mediated by several factors. Rather than simply resisting change, incumbents engage in active experimentation, selective recombination, and boundary-spanning collaboration to navigate the tensions between continuity and transformation. These findings underscore that successful digital responses require a synthesis of cognitive agility, organizational flexibility, and strategic ecosystem engagement—elements that collectively shape how incumbents survive and evolve in the face of disruptive digital change.

## Leading to digital transformation

Successfully leading digital transformation requires a holistic reshaping of incumbent firms' business models, strategic decisions, and organizational structure choices (Brock et al., 2019; Eklund & Kapoor, 2019). The following sections explore these interconnected elements, drawing on recent research to illustrate how firms across different contexts manage the challenges and opportunities of digital transformation.
## Business models

Leading digital transformation often requires reimagining the business model, not simply in terms of product or service offerings but in how value is created and co-created across the broader ecosystem. Ansari, Garud, & Kumaraswamy (2016) demonstrate through the case of TiVo that disruptors must evolve from an egocentric approach—focused solely on the novelty and disruption of their technology—toward an allocentric model that emphasizes ecosystem integration and collaborative value creation. Initially, TiVo positioned itself as a hardware-based disruptor, threatening existing industry arrangements. However, its transformation into a software platform supporting legacy systems exemplifies a shift in business model logic from fragmentation to orchestration. This involved modifying the technological architecture to accommodate stakeholders and converting coopetitive tensions into shared gains, thereby fostering mutual adaptation. Such evolution aligns with the idea that leading digital transformation involves iterative business model redesign, where incumbent firms do not merely introduce new value propositions but strategically reposition themselves as central nodes in digital ecosystems (Brock et al., 2019).

Extending this perspective, Xie, Zhang, & Blanco (2023) highlight the particular challenges and dynamics family businesses face in digitally transforming their business models. Their work underscores that organizational readiness for digital innovation—defined as the preparedness to adopt, assimilate, and exploit digital technologies—is critical in shaping the successful implementation of digital business model innovation in family firms. While family businesses often benefit from strategic agility and long-term orientation that facilitate digital transformation, constraints such as risk aversion, resource limitations, and the protection of socioemotional wealth can hinder the adoption of radical digital innovation. The authors emphasize that overcoming these barriers requires a proactive assessment and cultivation of readiness at the organizational level.

Further complementing these views, Upadhyay et al. (2023) explore how family businesses' entrepreneurial orientation and digital entrepreneurship capabilities influence their intention to adopt artificial intelligence, which is critical in driving innovative business models (Pinkse, Demirel, & Marino, 2024; Upadhyay et al. (2023)). reveal that business innovativeness, culture, and flexible organizational design are key antecedents for technology adoption in family firms.

## Strategy

Digital transformation leadership is as much a cognitive and relational act as it is a technical or market-driven one. Butt et al. (2024) emphasize that in

industrial firms, the strategic enactment of transformation is heavily influenced by the design and integration of organizational culture as a form of sociocultural governance. In both cases, the leaders did not follow static, pre-defined roadmaps. Instead, strategy was an adaptive process where feedback loops between culture, technology, and stakeholder relationships continuously reshaped the transformation pathway (Butt et al., 2024; Troilo, De Luca, & Guenzi, 2017). This implies that firms effectively lead digital transformation by fostering a mindset of strategic responsiveness—balancing long-term vision with near-term negotiation and alignment with internal and external stakeholders.

Building on these insights, Simsek et al. (2024) provide a nuanced framing of the roles strategic leaders play in driving digital transformation within incumbent firms, framing these through a strategic entrepreneurship lens. They argue that leaders influence digital transformation by shaping cognitive interpretations of digital technologies, balancing strategic tensions such as exploration versus exploitation, and orchestrating the leveraging and linking of digital and non-digital capabilities. Their work identifies three core leadership capabilities: sensing and shaping digital opportunities, navigating strategic tensions, and leveraging organizational capabilities through orchestration. This triad reflects the necessity for leaders to combine entrepreneurial agility with strategic rigor, particularly as digital transformation often challenges incumbents to experiment with emerging business models while maintaining alignment with core operations and ecosystems. Similarly, Ansari, Garud, & Kumaraswamy (2016) describe how TiVo's success in navigating ecosystem hostility hinged on dynamic strategic recalibration, including both soft power (e.g., social skills and relational framing) and hard power (IP enforcement and contractual leverage). Their ability to switch between cooperation and competition underscores the importance of strategic ambidexterity in leading transformation. Similarly, other studies show that the diffusion of new technologies enables incumbent firms to develop novel strategies rather than passively react to the ones adopted by their competitors (Agyei-Boapeah, Evans, & Nisar, 2022; Khanagha et al., 2018; Shibata, 2012; Troilo, De Luca, & Guenzi, 2017).

Complementing these views, Schiuma et al. (2022) introduce the concept of the “transformative leadership compass,” outlining six key competencies necessary for leaders to effectively drive digital transformation entrepreneurship. Their framework underscores the importance of combining digital knowledge generation, continuous learning, and sustainable value creation to foster organizational cultures conducive to transformation. This leadership profile bridges the gap between strategic vision and operational execution by promoting attitudes and mindsets aligned with agility, innovation, and ecosystem collaboration.
## Organizational structure

Digital transformation not only reshapes business models and strategy but also requires reconfigurations in organizational structure to support agility, innovation, and ecosystem engagement (Brock et al., 2019; Smith & Beretta, 2021). For instance, Simsek et al. (2024) emphasize that strategic leaders must build what they term “entrepreneurial judgment governance” to effectively distribute and orchestrate decision rights across the organization. This governance adaptation enables firms to manage new forms of uncertainty brought by digital transformation, which often exceeds firms’ prior experience with uncertainty management. Their research suggests that leadership is key to establishing learning processes and experimentation structures that permeate all organizational levels, thus fostering collective sensing, shaping, and seizing of digital opportunities. This implies that organizational structures for digital transformation must be designed not only for efficient control but also for distributed entrepreneurship and adaptive learning. Furthermore, Pinkse, Demirel, & Marino (2024) show that the reconfiguration of incumbent firms’ capabilities plays a key role in digital innovation transition in complex industrial sectors. Their study suggests four main capabilities, i.e. recombinative, collaborative, integrative, and socio-cognitive capabilities, as key enablers for organizational changes. Xie, Zhang, & Blanco (2023) add that family businesses, due to their unique ownership and resource constraints, may face additional challenges in reorganizing structures for digital innovation. Their study notes that limited digital skills and risk-averse attitudes among owner-managers can slow the adoption of digital business model innovation, which requires not only technological investments but also changes in organizational routines and governance. Organizational readiness in this context includes building digital capabilities and fostering a mindset open to change, both of which often demand structural supports such as dedicated innovation units or cross-functional teams to bridge the gap between traditional and digital business logic.

From a sectoral perspective, Cannas (2023) explores how agrifood SMEs confront digital transformation by developing dynamic capabilities—such as sensing, seizing, and transforming—that enable them to adapt processes, resources, and organizational routines in response to turbulent environments. The study highlights that organizational structure must facilitate these dynamic capabilities through cultural openness and the development of personal and collective skills like creativity and empathy. This approach helps SMEs overcome cultural resistance and resource constraints common in traditional sectors.

## Leading and responding

We found that it is not always straightforward to distinguish whether an incumbent leads or reacts to digital

transformation processes and challenges. In some studies, the two approaches can be mixed (Burström et al., 2021; Sund et al., 2021; Van Dyck et al., 2024). For instance, Smith & Beretta (2021) highlight that, in parallel, incumbent firms can reactively respond to the challenges related to digital transformation processes (e.g., selection of platforms, technical difficulties, and conflicts between autonomy and control) by proactively adopting a hybrid model of separation and integration to organize and manage their digital transformation efforts, thereby balancing autonomy and integration. Similarly, Paiola et al. (2022) and Leiting, De Cuyper, & Kauffmann (2022) show that, while incumbents are forced to innovate their business models due to the diffusion of competitors’ innovations, at the same time, this diffusion stimulates incumbents to adopt proactive approaches that exploit the opportunities offered by technologically advanced solutions. Bosch, for example, has changed its way of working in response to the spread of Internet of Things (IoT) technologies. On the one hand, the firm has passively suffered from the emergence of these technologies; on the other hand, it has exploited them as levers to improve the company’s (1) value proposition, (2) creation of value, and (3) capture of value, thereby remaining competitive in the market (Leiting, De Cuyper, & Kauffmann, 2022).

## DISCUSSION

This review synthesizes a growing but fragmented body of literature on how incumbent firms engage with digital transformation, either by proactively leading it or reactively responding to external digital challenges and pressures. Recognizing that the challenges of digital transformation are not solely technological but also fundamentally strategic and organizational in nature (Elia et al., 2024; Plantec et al., 2023; Vial, 2019), we focus on how incumbent firms reshape their business models, strategic decisions, and organizational structures.

We found that the changes or adaptation of business models are central to how incumbents respond to and lead digital transformation. Incumbent firms are often forced to rethink how value is created, delivered, and captured. Some firms radically reconfigure their models, while others pursue incremental changes depending on how digital innovations relate to their core offerings (Ma, 2023). Leading firms increasingly position themselves as orchestrators within broader ecosystems, shifting from egocentric to allocentric logics (Ansari, Garud, & Kumaraswamy, 2016). Recent work highlights both the unique strengths (e.g., agility and long-term orientation) and constraints (e.g., risk aversion, socioemotional wealth preservation) that influence business model innovation (Upadhyay et al., 2023; Xie, Zhang, & Blanco, 2023). Hence, the extent of business model transformation depends on an incumbent firm’s readiness for digital change.
At the strategic level, we found that digital transformation might require ambidextrous thinking—a balance between exploiting existing capabilities and exploring new opportunities. Cognitive framing by top management teams (TMTs) plays a crucial role in determining how digital challenges are perceived and acted upon (Vuori & Tushman, 2024). Some incumbent firms might pursue strategies aiming to extend the relevance of legacy systems while experimenting with digital alternatives (Furr & Snow, 2024). Strategic leadership also involves shaping organizational culture and stakeholder relationships as part of an adaptive, relational process rather than following linear, top-down plans (Butt et al., 2024). Leaders who successfully drive transformation tend to possess capabilities such as opportunity sensing, strategic tension navigation, and ecosystem orchestration (Simsek et al., 2024). These leaders engage in dynamic recalibration, switching between cooperation and competition depending on context (Ansari, Garud, & Kumaraswamy, 2016), and develop mindsets of continuous learning and sustainable value creation (Schiuma et al., 2022).

We also found that organizational structure plays a
foundational role in determining whether digital transfor-
mation processes take root and scale. Incumbent firms that
adopt ambidextrous or flexible structures—balancing cen-
tralized control with distributed autonomy—are better
able to support innovation, cross-functional integration,
and ecosystem engagement (Simsek et al., 2024; Taylor &
Helfat, 2009). Middle managers often act as key transla-
tors between strategy and execution, particularly during
digital transformation changes. However, legacy hierar-
chies and siloed routines can inhibit structural reconfigura-
tion. Incumbent firms (e.g., family firms and SMEs) often
face greater structural and cultural resistance to change
(Cannas, 2023; Xie, Zhang, & Blanco, 2023). Effective
organizational structures for digital transformation pro-
cesses not only enable technological integration but might
also foster psychological safety, emotional resilience, and
distributed decision-making under uncertainty.

Furthermore, our systematic review shows that
responses to digital transformation are shaped by multilev-
vel dynamics, including managerial cognition, organiza-
tional identity, and industry ecosystems. Strategic
responses are not simply rational calculations but are fil-
tered through identity frames, values, and perceptions of
performance gaps (Eggers & Kaul, 2018; Kammerlander,
König, & Richards, 2018). For example, digital threats
may be rejected or downplayed if they conflict with a
firm's traditional self-concept, while recognition of per-
formance shortfalls can act as a trigger for change.
Cozzolino & Verona (2022), for example, demonstrate
that successful adaptation often requires firms to recom-
bine knowledge assets, re-engage with evolving customer
preferences, and realign with emerging ecosystems—not
simply transform from within. This highlights that digital
transformation success hinges on both internal change

and external coordination. Similarly, we find that top
management attention and absorptive capacity are piv-
otal in determining how incumbent firms interpret digital
transformation processes and act upon them (Eggers &
Kaplan, 2009; Eklund & Kapoor, 2019).

We also show that, in some studies, it is not always
obvious to determine whether an incumbent responds to
digital transformation reactively or proactively. In
certain circumstances, the two responses may be com-
bined (Leiting, De Cuyper, & Kauffmann, 2022; Paiola
et al., 2022; Smith & Beretta, 2021).

Our review contributes to the digital transformation literature by unpacking how incumbent firms change business models, restructure organizational structures, and reshape strategic choices. In the next section, we provide a foundation for future research on how incumbent firms can lead or respond to digital transformation by highlighting both the antecedents and the consequences of their strategic and organizational responses.

FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA

Incumbent firms responds to digital transformation: antecedents

Incumbent responses to digital transformation are shaped by a range of managerial, organizational, and contextual factors, yet important questions remain about how these antecedents interact under different conditions. Organizational design choices, including the use of structural linkages between existing and emerging business units, also matter. Incumbent firms face trade-offs between integrating old and new operations or maintaining structural separation. These linking mechanisms may be temporary or permanent, depending on the length of the transition and the degree of interdependence between core technologies and complementary assets (Taylor & Helfat, 2009).

Incumbent firms' resource endowments further influ-
ence their transformation paths. Incumbents with in-
house capabilities in component technologies and access
to internal users appear more likely to adapt effectively
to disruptive changes. However, firms may also need to
acquire external technologies and develop absorptive
capacity to integrate them into their innovation processes
(Roy, Lampert, & Stoyneva, 2018). Managerial cogni-
tion, particularly CEO attention, plays a central role in
determining how and when organizations engage in stra-
tegic renewal. Misalignment between managerial focus
and organizational orientation may hinder transformation
efforts and could stem from dysfunctional governance,
path-dependent routines, or adaptive tensions between leg-
acy and emerging logics (Eggers & Kaplan, 2009). Factors
such as managerial discretion, organizational culture, and
institutional context can enhance or constrain the firm's
ability to pursue proactive innovation (Bornhausen &
Wulf, 2024). The broader ecosystem and institutional
environment also condition transformation outcomes. In sectors such as agriculture, digital strategies may be shaped by geographic and policy factors, cooperative structures, and localized customer behaviors, raising questions about the generalizability of transformation patterns across different contexts (Appleton & Holt, 2024).

Technology type and its position within the value chain further determine how incumbents respond. Responses to classical substitution—where the new technology enters as a higher-cost, component-level innovation—may involve more gradual adaptation strategies such as bridging or extension tactics. By contrast, disruptive technologies often trigger more immediate strategic reorientation. Incumbent firms also vary in whether they adopt technologies proactively or reactively, and how they sequence investments in hybrids or intermediating technologies before full adoption (Furr & Snow, 2024). Across all these antecedents, there is a need for more longitudinal, cross-industry, and multilevel research designs that explore how capabilities, cognition, structure, context, competition, and other external factors (see also Benner & Ranganathan, 2012) combine to shape the pathways of digital transformation.

## Incumbent firms responds to digital transformation: consequences

The outcomes of digital transformation are complex and often unfold over different time horizons, affecting firms at strategic, organizational, and market levels. While early studies often focus on short-term market responses, such as changes in firm value or stock price, these may not fully reflect long-term performance or strategic repositioning. Adjustment costs may lead to temporary valuation dips, but firms can still emerge stronger if they realign effectively with new business models or technologies (Bachmann & Jodlbauer, 2023; Eklund & Kapoor, 2019). Future work can complement financial measures with more nuanced indicators such as innovation conversion rates, customer engagement, and ecosystem influence, to capture the real impact of transformation strategies (Bornhausen & Wulf, 2024; Klos et al., 2021). Additionally, the effectiveness of resource reallocation and capability development efforts (see also Subramanian, Chai, & Mu, 2011) can differ based on whether the firm is targeting technological renewal or business model reinvention.

Organizational responses to transformation can also generate identity tensions and internal conflict, especially when legacy and new units must coexist. Scholars can explore how emotional resistance, political maneuvering, and cultural misalignment can undermine transformation success, particularly when internal linkages are not effectively managed. Competition or collaboration between managers of old and new assets may affect how knowledge is shared, incentives are structured, and innovation

is prioritized (Taylor & Helfat, 2009). These dynamics are especially salient in family firms, where relational norms and legacy commitments may create barriers to change, unless offset by the presence of empowered non-family executives or flexible governance structures (Bornhausen & Wulf, 2024).

Transformation may also produce changes at the industry level. In some cases, incumbent firms that adapt successfully can redefine competition and reshape industry architecture, establishing themselves as standard-setters or ecosystem orchestrators. Responses such as bridging and extension strategies can prolong the life of legacy technologies, delay substitution, or reposition firms advantageously within new ecosystems (Furr & Snow, 2024). Yet many transformations fail to achieve their intended outcomes due to incomplete alignment between strategic intent and operational execution. Measuring these consequences requires capturing not only what firms do but how they do it over time—whether they are building, reconfiguring, or discarding capabilities and relationships. Ultimately, more longitudinal, process-based research is needed to understand how incumbents balance continuity and change, and how they convert digital initiatives into sustained competitive advantage.

## Leading the digital transformation

Although increasing attention has been given to the processes and outcomes of digital transformation, a comprehensive understanding of how it is led—across various organizational contexts, industries, and ecosystem structures—remains incomplete. To deepen theoretical development and empirical insight, we summarize future research opportunities to understand both the antecedents that enable digital transformation and the consequences it generates within and beyond firm boundaries.

## Incumbent firms leads digital transformation: antecedents

The capacity of incumbent firms to lead digital transformation is conditioned by a complex array of organizational, strategic, technological, and environmental factors. One critical antecedent lies in the flexibility of the underlying technological architecture. While current research explores the role of platforms or novel business models to create and develop novel ecosystems, future studies may explore how leadership within incumbent firms unfolds in contexts characterized by rigid platform-enabled technologies, particularly in contexts with high regulatory complexity (cf. Ansari, Garud, & Kumaraswamy, 2016).

At the leadership level, both motivation and ability influence the effectiveness of digital transformation initiatives. There is a need for greater attention to how
leadership characteristics—such as digital fluency, strategic cognition, and learning orientation—shape firms' engagement with emerging technologies such as AI or IoT. Existing work suggests that factors such as board composition, prior experience, and internal knowledge networks may impact leaders' capacity to drive digital change, but more research is needed into how microfoundations operate in different governance contexts (Ceipek et al., 2021; Foss & Lindenberg, 2013; Kammerlander, König & Richards, 2018).

Organizational culture plays a foundational role in shaping whether digital initiatives take root or stall. Research has highlighted the importance of aligning cultural assumptions, values, and artifacts with the goals of digital transformation, especially in industrial settings. Yet cultural configurations vary widely across firms, sectors, and national contexts. This opens avenues for exploring how cultural enablers of incumbent firms emerge in small, young, or geographically limited firms, and how competing strategic priorities—such as digitalization, sustainability, and diversity—are negotiated through different configurations of cultural design (Butt et al., 2024; Janićijević, 2011).

Furthermore, considering that digital transformation has a significant impact on incumbent firms' capabilities (Brewis, Dibb, & Meadows, 2023; Browder, Dwyer, & Koch, 2024; Gomes et al., 2024; Langley & Rieple, 2021; Paiola et al., 2022; Vuori & Tushman, 2024; Warner & Wäger, 2019) a deeper understanding of how established skills and routines might drive the digital transformation could be an interesting opportunity for future research.

The organizational setting also matters. In family businesses, for example, transformation is often moderated by concerns over socioemotional wealth, risk aversion, and leadership continuity. Research in this context can benefit from examining how intergenerational leadership transitions, informal authority structures, or trust-based governance influence strategic readiness for digital innovation (Upadhyay et al., 2023; Xie, Zhang, & Blanco, 2023).

Additionally, the broader ecosystem in which an incumbent firm operates imposes boundary conditions on decision-making processes. In open, dynamic ecosystems characterized by high interdependencies, the ability to lead often requires orchestrating multilateral relationships and managing tensions between competition and cooperation. This raises new questions about the capabilities required to lead transformation in industries undergoing convergence, such as mobility or energy, where disruption in one domain may trigger ripple effects across others (Moore, 2006; Wareham, Fox, & Cano Giner, 2014).

## Incumbent firms leads digital transformation: consequences

While the enabling conditions for digital transformation are critical, so too are the consequences that follow from

it. A key area for future research concerns how incumbent firms reshape internal governance structures. Distributed decision-making, learning, and experimentation enabling digital transformation could generate coordination challenges or institutional frictions that affect digital transformation outcomes (Simsek et al., 2024).

Digital transformation also redefines incumbent firms' positioning within broader ecosystems. The emergence of hybrid business models and platform logics (e.g., Bohnsack et al., 2021; Campagnolo, Gianecchini, & Mosca, 2023; Cozzolino, Corbo, & Aversa, 2021) suggests that incumbent firms need to manage external legitimacy, multiparty coordination, and evolving regulatory expectations. Future research could explore how these factors change before and after digital transformation processes (König et al., 2012; Ansari, Garud, & Kumaraswamy, 2016).

Strategically, incumbent firms can explore the changes in performance related to how they balance exploration and exploitation over time, or how post-transformation trajectories are managed. Longitudinal designs could help trace the strategic outcomes of digital transformation processes.

Beyond firm boundaries, digital transformation has broader ethical and societal consequences. For instance, as incumbent firms increasingly adopt AI and data-driven models, questions of governance, fairness, and accountability come to the fore. Future research should investigate how incumbent firms leading digital transformation align their own social and profit interests with public interest, ethical innovation, and responsible governance—especially in cross-sectoral settings involving regulators, citizens, and civil society actors (Duan et al., 2019; Weerakkody et al., 2007; Weerakkody, Dwivedi, & Irani, 2009).

Moving beyond the classification of incumbent firms as either leading or responding to digital transformation, scholars could explore degrees and dimensions of internal or external engagement. For instance, incumbents may lead collaborations aiming to develop customer-facing technologies while remaining slow to digitize internal processes. Longitudinal studies could examine these hybrid trajectories and identify whether partial transformation leads to a sustainable competitive advantage or long-term vulnerability.

Future research could investigate how digital expertise and diversity affect digital transformation outcomes. Board governance, succession planning, and executive education for digital readiness also warrant closer examination, especially in traditional industries where digital experience at the top is often lacking. More attention should be given to political dynamics that shape digital transformation. Future research could integrate perspectives from organizational politics, institutional theory, and change management. Other studies can explore the role of digital transformation for incumbent firms aiming to achieve sustainable outcomes (e.g., net-zero
emissions, reducing waste, circular economy initiatives, etc.) and the required novel business model configurations and organizational structure changes over time (Comi, Mosca, & Whyte, 2025; Falcke et al., 2024; George & Schillebeeckx, 2022; Mosca, Gianecchini, & Campagnolo, 2021). Furthermore, scholars can explore digital transformation at the ecosystem level across industries, countries, and cities (Kolagar, Parida, & Sjödin, 2022; Lobo & Whyte, 2017; Whyte, 2019).

The digitalization phenomenon is a double-edged sword. It could undermine the company's internal balances, prompting it to reorient processes, strategies, and actions (Abebe, Tangpong, & Ndofor, 2021; Agyei-Boapeah, Evans, & Nisar, 2022; Autio, Mudambi, & Yoo, 2021; Hsu & Cohen, 2022; Kammerlander, König, & Richards, 2018; Moschko, Blazevic, & Piller, 2023; Roy, Lampert, & Stoyneva, 2018). Future studies could explore how firms can allay the disruptive effects of the digitalization phenomenon.

Finally, there is a need to clarify how success in digital transformation is defined and measured. Many studies use proxies such as innovation output or financial performance, but these may not fully capture the scope of incumbents' changes.

## CONCLUSION

To address our research question on how incumbent firms lead or respond to digital transformation, we conduct a comprehensive literature review of 68 articles published in top-tier journals. Our review article explores how incumbent firms strategically engage with digital transformation, whether by leading initiatives that drive innovation or responding to external pressures that demand adaptation. Through a comprehensive literature review, we contribute to the broader management and strategy literature by bridging fragmented insights and offering a more holistic understanding of digital transformation within incumbent firms.

We also contribute to the existing literature on digital transformation by highlighting how incumbent firms change and adapt strategies, organizational structures, and business models. Digital transformation is a double-edged weapon with heterogeneous effects within and across incumbent firms. Therefore, shedding light on its multifaceted effects provides management scholars with novel insights and opens new avenues of research.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

**Anna Bastone:** data collection, data analysis, writing, and conceptualization. **Luigi Mosca:** data collection, data analysis, writing, and conceptualization. **Christopher L. Tucci:** supervision, study validation, project administration, writing. **Sai Lan:** study validation, writing. **All authors:** reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the reviewers for their constructive comments and the guest editors for their coordination and dedication, especially Francesco Schiavone. Luigi Mosca and Christopher L. Tucci acknowledge that this work forms part of the scientific contribution within the framework of the PISTIS project (Grant No: 101093016), which is funded by the European Commission under the Horizon Europe program.

## CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

## DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

## ORCID

Anna Bastone https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6332-2099

Luigi Mosca https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4239-2239

Christopher L. Tucci https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8733-9530

## REFERENCES

Abebe, M.A., Tangpong, C. & Ndofor, H. (2021) Hitting the 'reset button': the role of digital reorientation in successful turnarounds. *Long Range Planning*, 57(1), 102102.

Ademi, P., Schuhmacher, M.C. & Zacharakis, A.L. (2023) Evaluating affordance-based opportunities: a conjoint experiment of corporate venture capital managers' decision-making. *Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice*, 47(6), 2293-2322. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587221134788

Agyei-Boapeah, H., Evans, R. & Nisar, T.M. (2022) Disruptive innovation: designing business platforms for new financial services. *Journal of Business Research*, 150, 134-146. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.066

Ansari, S., Garud, R. & Kumaraswamy, A. (2016) The disruptor's dilemma: TiVo and the US television ecosystem. *Strategic Management Journal*, 37(9), 1829-1853. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2442

Ansari, S. & Krop, P. (2012) Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics. *Research Policy*, 41(8), 1357-1374. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.024

Anthony, C. & Tripsas, M. (2016) Organizational identity. *The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity*, 417-436.

Appleton, S.W. & Holt, D. (2024) Aligning strategy and digitalisation activity as an incremental or radical innovation in family farms. *International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research*, 30(2/3), 498-519. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-10-2022-0938

Autio, E., Mudambi, R. & Yoo, Y. (2021) Digitalization and globalization in a turbulent world: centrifugal and centripetal forces. *Global Strategy Journal*, 11(1), 3-16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1396

Aversa, P., Formentini, M., Iubatti, D. & Lorenzoni, G. (2021) Digital machines, space, and time: towards a behavioral perspective of flexible manufacturing. *Journal of Product Innovation Management*, 38(1), 114-141. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12542
Bachmann, N. & Jodlbauer, H. (2023) Iterative business model innovation: a conceptual process model and tools for incumbents. *Journal of Business Research*, 168, 114177. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114177

Badura, V., Read, A., Briggs, R.O. & De Vreede, G.J. (2010) Coding for unique ideas and ambiguity: Measuring the effects of a convergence intervention on the artifact of an ideation activity. In: *Proceedings of the 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Honolulu, HI, USA*. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 1–10.

Bailey, D.E., Faraj, S., Hinds, P.J., Leonardi, P.M. & von Krogh, G. (2022) We are all theorists of technology now: a relational perspective on emerging technology and organizing. *Organization Science*, 33(1), 1–18. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1562

BarNir, A., Gallaugher, J.M. & Auger, P. (2003) Business process digitization, strategy, and the impact of firm age and size: the case of the magazine publishing industry. *Journal of Business Venturing*, 18(6), 789–814. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00030-2

Benner, M.J. (2009) Dynamic or static capabilities? Process management practices and response to technological change. *Journal of Product Innovation Management*, 26(5), 473–486. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00675.x

Benner, M.J. (2010) Securities analysts and incumbent response to radical technological change: evidence from digital photography and internet telephony. *Organization Science*, 21(1), 42–62. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0395

Benner, M.J. & Ranganathan, R. (2012) Offsetting illegitimacy? How pressures from securities analysts influence incumbents in the face of new technologies. *Academy of Management Journal*, 55(1), 213–233. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0530

Bohnsack, R., Kurtz, H. & Hanelt, A. (2021) Re-examining path dependence in the digital age: the evolution of connected car business models. *Research Policy*, 50(9), 104328. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104328

Bornhausen, A.M. & Wulf, T. (2024) Digital innovation in family firms: the roles of non-family managers and transgenerational control intentions. *Small Business Economics*, 62(4), 1429–1448.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. *Qualitative Research in Psychology*, 3(2), 77–101. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp0630a

Brewis, C., Dibb, S. & Meadows, M. (2023) Leveraging big data for strategic marketing: a dynamic capabilities model for incumbent firms. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 190, 122402. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122402

Brock, K., den Ouden, E., van der Klauw, K., Podoynitsyna, K. & Langerak, F. (2019) Light the way for smart cities: Lessons from Philips lighting. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 142, 194–209. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.021

Browder, R.E., Dwyer, S.M. & Koch, H. (2024) Upgrading adaptation: how digital transformation promotes organizational resilience. *Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal*, 18(1), 128–164. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1483

Burström, T., Parida, V., Lahti, T. & Wincent, J. (2021) AI-enabled business-model innovation and transformation in industrial ecosystems: a framework, model and outline for further research. *Journal of Business Research*, 127, 85–95. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.016

Butt, A., Imran, F., Helo, P. & Kantola, J. (2024) Strategic design of culture for digital transformation. *Long Range Planning*, 4, 102415. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2024.102415

Campagnolo, D., Gianecchini, M. & Mosca, L. (2023) Configurations of business model themes and strategies in small firms: a qualitative comparative analysis. *Journal of Management and Governance*, 28(3), 1–29.

Cannas, R. (2023) Exploring digital transformation and dynamic capabilities in agrifood SMEs. *Journal of Small Business Management*,

61(4), 1611–1637. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1844494

Ceipek, R., Hautz, J., Petruzzelli, A.M., De Massis, A. & Matzler, K. (2021) A motivation and ability perspective on engagement in emerging digital technologies: the case of internet of things solutions. *Long Range Planning*, 54(5), 101991. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2020.101991

Chanias, S., Myers, M.D. & Hess, T. (2019) Digital transformation strategy making in pre-digital organizations: the case of a financial services provider. *The Journal of Strategic Information Systems*, 28(1), 17–33. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2018.11.003

Clarysse, B., Fang He, V. & Tucci, C.L. (2022) How the internet of things reshapes the organization of innovation and entrepreneurship. *Technovation*, 118, 102644. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102644

Comi, A., Mosca, L. & Whyte, J. (2025) Future making as emancipatory inquiry: a value-based exploration of desirable futures. *Journal of Management Studies*, 62(6), 2467–2481. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13227

Cozzolino, A., Corbo, L. & Aversa, P. (2021) Digital platform-based ecosystems: the evolution of collaboration and competition between incumbent producers and entrant platforms. *Journal of Business Research*, 126, 385–400. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.058

Cozzolino, A. & Verona, G. (2022) Responding to complementary-asset discontinuities: a multilevel adaptation framework of resources, demand, and ecosystems. *Organization Science*, 33(5), 1990–2017. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1522

Cozzolino, A., Verona, G. & Rothaermel, F.T. (2018) Unpacking the disruption process: new technology, business models, and incumbent adaptation. *Journal of Management Studies*, 55(7), 1166–1202. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12352

Denicolai, S., Magnani, G. & Vidal, J.A. (2022) Competitive renaissance through digital transformation. *European Management Journal*, 40(5), 653–655. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.08.006

Duan, K., Bai, S., Xie, L., Qi, H., Huang, Q. & Tian, Q. (2019) Centernet: Keypoint triplets for object detection. In: *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision*. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 6569–6578.

Eggers, J.P. & Kaplan, S. (2009) Cognition and renewal: comparing CEO and organizational effects on incumbent adaptation to technical change. *Organization Science*, 20(2), 461–477. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0401

Eggers, J.P. & Kaul, A. (2018) Motivation and ability? A behavioral perspective on the pursuit of radical invention in multi-technology incumbents. *Academy of Management Journal*, 61(1), 67–93. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1123

Eggers, J.P. & Park, K.F. (2018) Incumbent adaptation to technological change: the past, present, and future of research on heterogeneous incumbent response. *Academy of Management Annals*, 12(1), 357–389. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0051

Eklund, J. & Kapoor, R. (2019) Pursuing the new while sustaining the current: incumbent strategies and firm value during the nascent period of industry change. *Organization Science*, 30(2), 383–404. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1229

Elia, G., Solazzo, G., Lerro, A., Pigni, F. & Tucci, C.L. (2024) The digital transformation canvas: a conceptual framework for leading the digital transformation process. *Business Horizons*, 67(4), 381–398. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2024.03.007

Falcke, L., Zobel, A.K., Yoo, Y. & Tucci, C. (2024) Digital sustainability strategies: digitally enabled and digital-first innovation for net zero. *Academy of Management Perspectives*, in press. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2023.0169

Fernandes, E. & Burcharth, A. (2024) Why traditional firms from the same industry reject digital transformation: structural constraints of perception and attention. *Long Range Planning*, 57(2), 102426. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2024.102426
Firk, S., Gehrke, Y., Hanelt, A. & Wolff, M. (2022) Top management team characteristics and digital innovation: exploring digital knowledge and TMT interfaces. *Long Range Planning*, 55(3), 102166. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102166

Foss, N.J. & Lindenberg, S. (2013) Microfoundations for strategy: a goal-framing perspective on the drivers of value creation. *Academy of Management Perspectives*, 27(2), 85–102. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0103

Furr & Snow. (2024) Technology counteroffensive strategies: toward an ex ante view of technology substitution. *Organization Science*, 35(2), 719–740. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.12239

George, G. & Schillebeeckx, S.J. (2022) Digital transformation, sustainability, and purpose in the multinational enterprise. *Journal of World Business*, 57(3), 101326. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2022.101326

Gomes, L.A.D.V., Flechas, A., Facin, A.L.F., Borini, F.M., Stefani, B. & Leal, L.F. (2024) Entrepreneurial judgment governance adaptation for digital transformation in established firms. *Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal*, 18(1), 200–225. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1490

Gough, D., Thomas, J. & Oliver, S. (2012) Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. *Systematic Reviews*, 1(1), 28. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-28

Hanelt, A.,Bohnsack, R.,Marz, D. & Antunes Marante, C. (2021) A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: insights and implications for strategy and organizational change. *Journal of Management Studies*, 58(5), 1159–1197. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12639

Hofacker, C., Golgeci, I., Pillai, K.G. & Gligor, D.M. (2020) Digital marketing and business-to-business relationships: a close look at the interface and a roadmap for the future. *European Journal of Marketing*, 54(6), 1161–1179. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-04-2020-0247

Hsu, S.T. & Cohen, S.K. (2022) Overcoming the incumbent dilemma: the dual roles of multimarket contact during disruption. *Journal of Management Studies*, 59(2), 319–348. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12719

Janićjević, N. (2011) Methodological approaches in the research of organizational culture. *Economic Annals*, 56(189), 69–99. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2298/EKA1189069J

Joffe, H. (2011) Thematic analysis. *Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: a guide for students and practitioners*. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 209–223. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119973249.ch15

Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International entrepreneurship research (1989–2009): a domain ontology and thematic analysis. *Journal of Business Venturing*, 26(6), 632–659. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.04.001

Kammerlander, N. & Ganter, M. (2015) An attention-based view of family firm adaptation to discontinuous technological change: exploring the role of family CEOs' noneconomic goals. *Journal of Product Innovation Management*, 32(3), 361–383. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12205

Kammerlander, N., König, A. & Richards, M. (2018) Why do incumbents respond heterogeneously to disruptive innovations? The interplay of domain identity and role identity. *Journal of Management Studies*, 55(7), 1122–1165. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12345

Kane, G.C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A.N., Kiron, D. & Buckley, N. (2015) Strategy, not technology, drives digital transformation. *MIT Sloan Management Review*, 14, 1–25.

Khanagha, S., Ansari, S., Paroutis, S. & Oviedo, L. (2022) Mutualism and the dynamics of new platform creation: a study of Cisco and fog computing. *Strategic Management Journal*, 43(3), 476–506. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3147

Khanagha, S., Ramezan Zadeh, M.T., Mihalache, O.R. & Volberda, H.W. (2018) Embracing bewilderment: responding to

technological disruption in heterogeneous market environments. *Journal of Management Studies*, 55(7), 1079–1121. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12348

King, A.A. & Tucci, C.L. (2002) Incumbent entry into new market niches: the role of experience and managerial choice in the creation of dynamic capabilities. *Management Science*, 48(2), 171–186. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.2.171.253

Klos, C., Spieth, P., Clauss, T., & Klusmann C. (2021). Digital transformation of incumbent firms: A business model innovation perspective. *IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management*, 70(6), 2017–2033. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3075502

Kolagar, M., Parida, V. & Sjödin, D. (2022) Ecosystem transformation for digital servitization: a systematic review, integrative framework, and future research agenda. *Journal of Business Research*, 146, 176–200. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.067

König, A., Schulte, M., & Enders, A. (2012). Inertia in response to non-paradigmatic change: The case of meta-organizations. *Research Policy*, 41(8), 1325–1343. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.006

Kraus, S., Durst, S., Ferreira, J.J., Veiga, P., Kailer, N. & Weinmann, A. (2022) Digital transformation in business and management research: an overview of the current status quo. *International Journal of Information Management*, 63, 102466. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102466

Kraus, S., Jones, P., Kailer, N., Weinmann, A., Chaparro-Banegas, N. & Roig-Tierno, N. (2021a) Digital transformation: an overview of the current state of the art of research. *SAGE Open*, 11(3), 21582440211047576. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211047576

Kraus, S., Schiavone, F., Pluzhnikova, A. & Invernizzi, A.C. (2021b) Digital transformation in healthcare: analyzing the current state-of-research. *Journal of Business Research*, 123, 557–567. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.030

Kulichyova, A., Kazantsev, N., White, L. & Islam, N. (2025) Digital transformation in large established organisations: four restructuring dilemmas based on dynamic capabilities. *International Journal of Management Reviews.*, 27(3), 420–450. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12395

Langley, P. & Rieple, A. (2021) Incumbents' capabilities to win in a digitised world: the case of the fashion industry. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 167, 120718. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120718

Lanzolla, G., Lorenz, A., Miron-Spektor, E., Schilling, M., Solinas, G. & Tucci, C.L. (2020) Digital transformation: what is new if anything? Emerging patterns and management research. *Academy of Management Discoveries*, 6(3), 341–350.

Lanzolla, G., Pesce, D. & Tucci, C.L. (2021) The digital transformation of search and recombination in the innovation function: tensions and an integrative framework. *Journal of Product Innovation Management*, 38(1), 90–113. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12546

Leiting, A.K., De Cuyper, L. & Kauffmann, C. (2022) The internet of things and the case of Bosch: changing business models while staying true to yourself. *Technovation*, 118, 102497. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102497

Li, F. (2020a) Leading digital transformation: three emerging approaches for managing the transition. *International Journal of Operations & Production Management*, 40(6), 809–817. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2020-0202

Li, F. (2020b) The digital transformation of business models in the creative industries: a holistic framework and emerging trends. *Technovation*, 92, 102012. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.12.004

Lobo, S. & Whyte, J. (2017) Aligning and reconciling: building project capabilities for digital delivery. *Research Policy*, 46(1), 93–107. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.10.005

Ma, H. (2023) Revolutionary innovation and the incumbent business: patterns of relationship and coping strategies. *Organizational*
*Dynamics*, 52(1), 100925. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2022.100925

Markoff-Legrand, A., Bocquet, R. & Gandia, R. (2024) Multi-level neo-institutional analysis of pressures and tensions for adopting a digitally driven business model innovation: responses from a French energy incumbent. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 205, 123458. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123458

Massa, L., Tucci, C.L. & Afuah, A. (2017) A critical assessment of business model research. *Academy of Management Annals*, 11(1), 73–104. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0072

Miller, C.D. & Wang, R.D. (2024) Product digitization and differentiation strategy change: evidence from the book publishing industry. *Strategic Management Journal*, 45(7), 1241–1272. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3586

Moore, N. (2006) *How to do research: a practical guide to designing and managing research projects*. London: Facet publishing.

Mosca, L., Gianecchini, M. & Campagnolo, D. (2021) Organizational life cycle models: a design perspective. *Journal of Organization Design*, 10(1), 3–18. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-021-00090-7

Moschko, L., Blazevic, V. & Piller, F.T. (2023) Paradoxes of implementing digital manufacturing systems: a longitudinal study of digital innovation projects for disruptive change. *Journal of Product Innovation Management*, 40(4), 506–529. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12667

Ocasio, W., Laamanen, T. & Vaara, E. (2018) Communication and attention dynamics: an attention-based view of strategic change. *Strategic Management Journal*, 39(1), 155–167. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2702

O'Leary, B.C., Bayliss, H.R. & Haddaway, N.R. (2015) Beyond PRISMA: systematic reviews to inform marine science and policy. *Marine Policy*, 62, 261–263. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.09.026

Paiola, M., Khvatova, T., Schiavone, F. & Jabeen, F. (2022) Paths toward advanced service-oriented business models: a configurational analysis of small-and medium-sized incumbent manufacturers. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 182, 121774. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121774

Paul, J. & Menzies, J. (2023) Developing classic systematic literature reviews to advance knowledge: dos and don'ts. *European Management Journal*, 41(6), 815–820. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.11.006

Pietronudo, M.C., Croidieu, G. & Schiavone, F. (2022) A solution looking for problems? A systematic literature review of the rationalizing influence of artificial intelligence on decision-making in innovation management. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 182, 121828. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121828

Pinkse, J., Demirel, P. & Marino, A. (2024) Unlocking innovation for net zero: constraints, enablers, and firm-level transition strategies. *Industry and Innovation*, 31(1), 16–41. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2023.2269112

Plantec, Q., Deval, M.A., Hooge, S. & Weil, B. (2023) Big data as an exploration trigger or problem-solving patch: design and integration of AI-embedded systems in the automotive industry. *Technovation*, 124, 102763. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102763

Plekhanov, D., Franke, H. & Netland, T.H. (2022) Digital transformation: a review and research agenda. *European Management Journal*, 41(6), 821–844.

Raffaelli, R., Glynn, M.A. & Tushman, M. (2019) Frame flexibility: the role of cognitive and emotional framing in innovation adoption by incumbent firms. *Strategic Management Journal*, 40(7), 1013–1039. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3011

Rauch, M. & Ansari, S. (2022) Waging war from remote cubicles: how workers cope with technologies that disrupt the meaning and

morality of their work. *Organization Science*, 33(1), 83–104. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1555

Reuter, E. & Floyd, S. (2024) Strategic leaders’ ecosystem vision formation and digital transformation: a motivated interactional lens. *Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal*, 18(1), 103–127. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1493

Romanelli, E. & Tushman, M.L. (1994) Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: an empirical test. *Academy of Management Journal*, 37(5), 1141–1166. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/256669

Roy, R., Lampert, C.M. & Stoyneva, I. (2018) When dinosaurs fly: the role of firm capabilities in the 'avianization' of incumbents during disruptive technological change. *Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal*, 12(2), 261–284. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1278

Schallmo, D., Williams, C.A. & Boardman, L. (2017) Digital transformation of business models—best practice, enablers, and roadmap. *International Journal of Innovation Management*, 21(08), 1740014. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1142/S136391961740014X

Schiuma, G., Schettini, E., Santarsiero, F. & Carlucci, D. (2022) The transformative leadership compass: six competencies for digital transformation entrepreneurship. *International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research*, 28(5), 1273–1291. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-01-2021-0087

Shibata, T. (2012) Unveiling the successful process of technological transition: a case study of Matsushita electric. *R&D Management*, 42(4), 358–376. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2012.00689.x

Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., König, A. & Stam, W. (2024) Leading digital transformation in incumbent firms: a strategic entrepreneurship framing. *Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal*, 18(1), 91–102. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1499

Smith, P. & Beretta, M. (2021) The gordian knot of practicing digital transformation: coping with emergent paradoxes in ambidextrous organizing structures. *Journal of Product Innovation Management*, 38(1), 166–191. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12548

Subramanian, A.M., Chai, K.H. & Mu, S. (2011) Capability reconfiguration of incumbent firms: Nintendo in the video game industry. *Technovation*, 31(5–6), 228–239. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.01.003

Sund, K.J., Bogers, M.L. & Sahramaa, M. (2021) Managing business model exploration in incumbent firms: a case study of innovation labs in European banks. *Journal of Business Research*, 128, 11–19. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.059

Taylor, A. & Helfat, C.E. (2009) Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. *Organization Science*, 20(4), 718–739. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0429

Teece, D.J. (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. *Strategic Management Journal*, 28(13), 1319–1350. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640

Teece, D.J. (2018) Business models and dynamic capabilities. *Long Range Planning*, 51(1), 40–49. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. & Smart, P. (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. *British Journal of Management*, 14(3), 207–222. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Tripsas, M. & Cavetti, G. (2000) Cognition, capabilities and inertia: evidence from digital imaging. *Strategic Management Journal*, 21(10/11), 1147–1161. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11<1147::AID-SMJ128>3.0.CO;2-R

Troilo, G., De Luca, L.M. & Guenzi, P. (2017) Linking data-rich environments with service innovation in incumbent firms: a conceptual framework and research propositions. *Journal of Product Innovation Management*, 34(5), 617–639. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12395
Tryggvason, F.J. & Giones, F. (2025) Too close for comfort: the pitfall of incumbents' knowledge search during industry evolution. *R&D Management*, 55(1), 165-184. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12689

Tushman, M.L. & Anderson, P. (1986) Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, 31(3), 439-465. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392832

Tushman, M.L. & O'Reilly, C.A., III. (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. *California Management Review*, 38(4), 8-29. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852

Upadhyay, N., Upadhyay, S., Al-Debei, M.M., Baabdullah, A.M. & Dwivedi, Y.K. (2023) The influence of digital entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial orientation on intention of family businesses to adopt artificial intelligence: examining the mediating role of business innovativeness. *International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research*, 29(1), 80-115. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2022-0154

Van Dyck, M., Lüttgens, D., Diener, K., Piller, F. & Pollok, P. (2024) From product to platform: how incumbents' assumptions and choices shape their platform strategy. *Research Policy*, 53(1), 104904. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104904

Verhoef, P.C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J.Q., Fabian, N., et al. (2021) Digital transformation: a multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. *Journal of Business Research*, 122, 889-901. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022

Vial, G. (2019) Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. *The Journal of Strategic Information Systems*, 28(2), 118-144. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003

Volberda, H.W., Khanagha, S., Baden-Fuller, C., Mihalache, O.R. & Birkinshaw, J. (2021) Strategizing in a digital world: overcoming cognitive barriers, reconfiguring routines and introducing new organizational forms. *Long Range Planning*, 54(5), 102110. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102110

Vuori, T.O. & Tushman, M.L. (2024) Strategic decision-making at platform transitions: the case of Nokia (2010-2011). *Strategic Management Journal*, 45(10), 2018-2062. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3608

Wareham, J., Fox, P.B. & Cano Giner, J.L. (2014) Technology ecosystem governance. *Organization Science*, 25(4), 1195-1215. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0895

Warner, K.S. & Wäger, M. (2019) Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: an ongoing process of strategic renewal. *Long Range Planning*, 52(3), 326-349. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001

Weerakkody, V., Dwivedi, Y.K., Brooks, L., Williams, M.D. & Mwange, A. (2007) E-government implementation in Zambia: contributing factors. *Electronic government, an international journal*, 4(4), 484-508. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1504/EG.2007.015040

Weerakkody, V., Dwivedi, Y.K. & Irani, Z. (2009) The diffusion and use of institutional theory: a cross-disciplinary longitudinal literature survey. *Journal of Information Technology*, 24(4), 354-368. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2009.16

Whyte, J. (2019) How digital information transforms project delivery models. *Project Management Journal*, 50(2), 177-194. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818823304

Wu, B., Wan, Z. & Levinthal, D.A. (2014) Complementary assets as pipes and prisms: innovation incentives and trajectory choices. *Strategic Management Journal*, 35(9), 1257-1278. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2159

Xie, X., Zhang, H. & Blanco, C. (2023) How organizational readiness for digital innovation shapes digital business model innovation in family businesses. *International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research*, 29(1), 49-79. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-03-2022-0243

## AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

**Anna Bastone** has a PhD in Entrepreneurship and Innovation and is a Research Fellow in Management from the Department of Management Studies and Quantitative Methods, University of Naples Parthenope, Italy. Her research focuses on big data, Artificial Intelligence, digital transformation, performance measurement, and healthcare management. In this field, she collaborates with VIMASS, the innovation and healthcare management research laboratory at the University of Naples Parthenope.

**Luigi Mosca** is a Research Associate at Imperial Business School, London (UK), and an Honorary Research Fellow at the John Grill Institute for Project Leadership, University of Sydney (Australia). His research interests lie at the intersection of organization theory and strategic management. His work has been published in leading academic journals, including the Journal of Management Studies, Organization Theory, Journal of Organization Design, and Construction Management and Economics. He currently serves on the editorial review boards of the Academy of Management Journal and the Project Management Journal.

**Christopher L. Tucci** is a Professor of Digital Strategy & Innovation at Imperial Business School, Interim Vice Dean of Education for the Business School, and Co-Director (Education) for I-X, Imperial's university-wide initiative on artificial intelligence. He was the Founding Dean of NEOM University's College of Business & Innovation. Professor Tucci held the Chair in Corporate Strategy and Innovation from 2003 to 2020 at EPFL and was Dean of the College of Management there from 2013 to 2018. In 2018, he was Visiting Thought Leader at CEIBS in Shanghai, China. He received the degrees of Ph.D. in Management from the Sloan School of Management, MIT; SM (Technology & Policy/EECS) from MIT; and BS (Mathematical Sciences), AB (Music), and MS (Computer Science) from Stanford University. He was an industrial computer scientist involved in developing Internet protocols and applying artificial intelligence tools in the 1980s. Professor Tucci teaches courses in Co-creation in AI & Robotics, Deep Tech Acceleration, Design Thinking, Digital Strategy, AI Ventures, and Innovation Management. His primary area of interest is in how firms make transitions to new business models, technologies, and organizational forms. He also studies crowdsourcing, Internetworking, and digital innovations. He has published articles in, among others, Academy of Management Review (AMR), SMJ, Management Science, Research Policy, Communications of the ACM, SEJ, Academy of Management Annals, and JPIM. His
article with Allan Afuah, “Crowdsourcing as solution to distant search,” won the Best Paper of 2012, Best Practice Implications Award of 2019, and the Decade Award of 2022 for AMR. He has served in leadership positions in the Academy of Management and the Strategic Management Society and was recently elected to the Leadership Track of the Academy of Management (largest professional society in business academia), culminating in AOM President in 2027.

**Sai Lan** is an Associate Professor of Innovation & Entrepreneurship, and Academic Director of the EDP program at Emlyon Business School. He earned his PhD in Strategy and Entrepreneurship from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2011. His research interests focus on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, with special emphasis on digital platforms and open-source software ecosystems. He provided media commentaries for Shenzhen TV, Phoenix TV,

TV Korea, China Daily, Southern Daily, Global Talents, etc. He also had extensive industry experience. He worked as a software architect for tech giant Motorola and startup companies in the US.

## SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.

**How to cite this article:** Bastone, A., Mosca, L., Tucci, C.L. & Lan, S. (2025) Paving the way for incumbents’ digital transformation. A review and research agenda. *European Management Review*, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.70038