Digital transformation and corporate entrepreneurship: a strategy to face disruption

Ildephonse Ngayabaseka; Purbasari Ratih; Margo Purnomo

doi:10.20525/ijrbs.v14i4.4191

Authors

Ildephonse Ngayabaseka Business Administration department. Universitas Padjadjaran Indonesia https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0336-0338
Purbasari Ratih Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Universitas Padjadjaran, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0947-7617
Margo Purnomo Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Universitas Padjadjaran https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6358-4950

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v14i4.4191

Keywords:

Digital Transformation, Corporate Entrepreneurship, Innovation, Disruption, Competitive Advantage

Abstract

This research examines digital transformation and corporate entrepreneurship as strategies to face disruption in the global era. The study is motivated by technological advances such as AI, Big Data, and IoT that drive a shift in business paradigms. The research objectives include analyzing corporate entrepreneurship strategies to spur innovation, conducting case studies of companies successfully implementing corporate entrepreneurship, identifying barriers and challenges, and evaluating implications for companies in the digital era. The research employs a qualitative approach using case studies and literature analysis to integrate primary and secondary data through triangulation and thematic analysis. Findings indicate that the application of innovative strategies through corporate entrepreneurship enhances competitive advantage, accelerates digital adaptation, and optimizes both internal and external collaboration. Key barriers—such as conservative organizational culture and limited resources—can be overcome through structural changes and investments in technology and human resources. The conclusions emphasize the importance of synergy between digital innovation and corporate entrepreneurship in creating sustainable company growth. This study contributes strategically to the development of adaptive business models amid digital disruption. The findings are expected to serve as a reference for practitioners and academics in designing innovative strategies that respond effectively to global market dynamics, thereby enhancing operational efficiency and achieving a sustainable competitive edge.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. V. (2013). Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 471–482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:2.3

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1994). The management of innovation. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198288787.001.0001

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.

Christensen, C. M. (2015). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879101600102

Deloitte. (2022). [Title of the report]. Deloitte.

Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Practice and principles. Harper & Row.

Hess, T., Matt, C., & Benlian, A. (2016). How German media companies defined their digital transformation strategies. December.

Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2007). A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.004

Jarillo, J. C., & Martíanez, J. I. (1990). Different roles for subsidiaries: The case of multinational corporations in Spain. Strategic Management Journal, 11(7), 501–512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250110702

Jw, C. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications.

Kuratko, D. F. (2007). Corporate entrepreneurship. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 151–203. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000015

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258632

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429–451. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00048-3

Nadkarni, S., & Prügl, R. (2021). Opportunities for future research. Management Review Quarterly, 71(2). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00185-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00185-7

Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business.

Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press.

Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. R. (2014). Strategic innovation management. John Wiley & Sons.

Westerman, G., Bonnet, D., & McAfee, A. (2014). Leading digital: Turning technology into business transformation. Harvard Business Press.

Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage Publications.

Zahra, S. A. (1993). Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: A taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 319–340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(93)90003-N

Zahra, S. A. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship as knowledge creation and conversion: The role of entrepreneurial hubs. Small Business Economics, 44(4), 727–735. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9650-4

Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)00004-E DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)00004-E