Identifying Digital Transformation Paradoxes

Adler PS, Goldoftas B, Levine DI (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organ Sci 10(1):43–68 Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ Sci 20(4):696–717 Arcadis (2017) Press release: Arcadis presents strategy update capitalizing on global trends. https://www.arcadis.com/media/6/6/1/%7B661BAF59-EB82-43C9-84A9-D5DA08060E82%7DArcadis%20strategy%20update%20-%20CMD%20press%20release.pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2021 Arcadis (2019) Arcadis integrated annual report 2019. https://www.arcadis.com/en/global/investors. Accessed 11 Jan 2021 Benitez J, Llorens J, Braojos J (2018) How information technology influences opportunity exploration and exploitation firm’s capabilities. Inf Manag 55(4):508–523 Bharadwaj A, El Sawy OA, Pavlou PA, Venkatraman N (2013) Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights. MIS Q 37(2):471–482 Carlo JL, Lyytinen K, Boland RJ Jr (2012) Dialectics of collective minding: contradictory appropriations of information technology in a high-risk project. MIS Q 36(4):1081–1108 Danneels L, Viaene S (2015) Simple rules strategy to transform government: an ADR approach. Gov Inf Q 32(4):516–525 Danneels L, Viaene S (2021) Cultivating digital transformation at Arcadis: a global expedition into the digital universe. In: Urbach N et al (eds) Digitalization cases vol. 2: mastering digital transformation for global business. Springer, Berlin, pp 363–379 Donaldson T, Preston LE (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manag Rev 20(1):65–91 Farjoun M (2010) Beyond dualism: stability and change as a duality. Acad Manag Rev 35(2):202–225 Gittell JH (2000) Paradox of coordination and control. Calif Manag Rev 42(3):101–117 Goldkuhl G (2012) Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. Eur J Inf Syst 21(2):135–146 Goldkuhl G (2004) Meanings of pragmatism: ways to conduct information systems research. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on action in language, organisations and information systems. Linköping Gregor S, Hevner AR (2013) Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Q 37(2):337–355 Gregor S, Kruse LC, Seidel S (2020) The anatomy of a design principle. J Asssoc Inf Syst 21(6):1622–1652 Gregory RW, Keil M, Muntermann J, Mähring M (2015) Paradoxes and the nature of ambidexterity in IT transformation programs. Inf Syst Res 26(1):57–80 Haffke I, Kalgovas B, Benlian A (2017) Options for transforming the IT function using bimodal IT. MIS Q Exec 16(2):101–120 Henfridsson O (2011) Action design research. http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF9930/v11/undervisningsmateriale/AR%20Workshop_1_Action_Design-Research__OH_Feb-2011.pptx. Accessed 11 Jan 2021 Hevner A, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science research in information systems. MIS Q 28(1):75–105 Huy QN (2002) Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: the contribution of middle managers. Admin Sci Q 47(1):31–69 Iivari J (2015) Distinguishing and contrasting two strategies for design science research. Eur J Inf Syst 24(1):107–115 Jarzabkowski P, Lê JK, Van de Ven AH (2013) Responding to competing strategic demands: how organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strateg Organ 11(3):245–280 Klein HK, Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Q 23(1):67–94 Kreiner GE, Hollensbe EC, Sheep ML (2006) Where is the “me” among the “we”? Identity work and the search for optimal balance. Acad Manag J 49(5):1031–1057 Lewis MW (2000) Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide. Acad Manag Rev 25(4):760–776 Lüscher LS, Lewis MW (2008) Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: working through paradox. Acad Manag J 51(2):221–240 Marshall P, Kelder J-A, Perry A (2005) Social constructionism with a twist of pragmatism: a suitable cocktail for information systems research. In: 16th Australasian conference on information systems, Sydney Matt C, Hess T, Benlian A (2015) Digital transformation strategies. Bus Inf Syst Eng 57(5):339–343 Mullarkey MT, Hevner AR (2019) An elaborated action design research process model. Eur J Inf Syst 28(1):6–20 O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2008) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Res Organ Behav 28:185–206 Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Niehaves B (2018) Design science research genres: introduction to the special issue on exemplars and criteria for applicable design science research. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon Poole MS, Van de Ven AH (1989) Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):562–578 Quinn RE, Cameron KS (1988) Paradox and transformation: toward a theory of change in organization and management. Ballinger, Cambridge Schad J, Lewis MW, Raisch S, Smith WK (2016) Paradox research in management science: looking back to move forward. Acad Manag Ann 10(1):5–64 Sein MK, Henfridsson O, Purao S, Rossi M, Lindgren R (2011) Action design research. MIS Q 35(1):37–56 Selander L, Jarvenpaa SL (2016) Digital action repertoires and transforming a social movement organization. MIS Q 40(2):331–352 Smith WK (2014) Dynamic decision making: a model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Acad Manag J 57(6):1592–1623 Smith WK, Lewis MW (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad Manag Rev 36(2):381–403 Smith WK, Lewis MW, Tushman ML (2016) Both/and” leadership. Harv Bus Rev 94(5):62–70 Soh C, Yeow A, Goh Q, Hansen R (2019) Digital transformation: of paradoxical tensions and managerial responses. In: 14th international conference on information systems, Munich Svahn F, Mathiassen L, Lindgren R (2017) Embracing digital innovation in incumbent firms: how Volvo Cars managed competing concerns. MIS Q 41(1):239–253 Tumbas S, Berente N, Brocke JV (2018) Digital innovation and institutional entrepreneurship: Chief Digital Officer perspectives of their emerging role. J Inf Technol 33(3):188–202 Viaene S (2020) Digital transformation know how: connecting digital transformation, agility and leadership. Acco, Leuven Viaene S, Danneels L (2015) Driving digital: Welcome to the ExConomy. J Financ Perspect 3(3):2–10 Vial G (2019) Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. J Strateg Inf Syst 28:118–144 Vom Brocke J, Winter R, Hevner A, Maedche A (2020) Special issue editorial – accumulation and evolution of design knowledge in design science research: a journey through time and space. J Asssoc Inf Syst 21(3):9 Walsham G (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. Eur J Inf Syst 4(2):74–81 Walsham G (2006) Doing interpretive research. Eur J Inf Syst 15(3):320–330 Wareham J, Fox PB, Cano Giner JL (2014) Technology ecosystem governance. Organ Sci 25(4):1195–1215 Wimelius H, Mathiassen L, Holmström J, Keil M (2021) A paradoxical perspective on technology renewal in digital transformation. Inf Syst J 31(1):198–225