MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412585109 · doi:10.1111/isj.70010

The Missing Link in Digital Transformation Leadership: Unpacking the Role of Knowledge

2025· article· en· W4412585109 on OpenAlexafffund
Malmi Amadoru, Wietske Van Osch

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Systems Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsSociété de Transport de MontréalHEC Montréal
FundersCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Sydney
KeywordsUnpackingTransformation (genetics)Link (geometry)Digital transformationKnowledge managementSociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Leading digital transformation (DT) is challenging due to the unforeseen hurdles that arise through the novelty of digital technologies and the broad scope of organisational change. Even those with a wealth of experience and skills may struggle to respond adequately to inherently novel situations. While skills and experience are necessary for leading DT, continuously acquiring technology and business knowledge is equally important for navigating unfamiliar situations that DT often presents. As such, knowledge represents the missing link that warrants equal attention in driving successful DT. We examined the different knowledge types that digital leaders require to effectively navigate DT. Drawing on the IT innovation and DT literatures, we developed the DT knowledge framework with six knowledge types. We analysed these knowledge types in 138 interview excerpts of chief technology officers (CTOs), chief information officers (CIOs) and chief digital officers (CDOs) leading DT taken from 128 industry articles. We find that technology know‐what —that is, knowing what technologies are available and their capabilities —and business know‐how —that is, knowing how to execute organisational change needed for DT, are the two most important knowledge types. We further unpacked the dimensions of each of these knowledge types and offered recommendations for practitioners through our novel knowledge perspective on DT leadership. We also discuss the implications of our knowledge perspective for advancing DT scholarship.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.027
Scholarly communication0.0110.018
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformation Systems JournalSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207