English (pdf)
Article in xml format
Article references
Automatic translation
Send this article by e-mail
Cited by SciELO 
Cited by Google 
Similars in
SciELO 
Similars in Google 
Permalink
1. Introduction
The growing importance of the service sector in the global economy does not allow us to follow the manufacturing sector's innovative path as a good pattern of digitalization (Drejer, 2004; Miles, 2009). Digitalization was at first closely related to manufacturing, nowadays we do not consider it a closed concept. There is a challenging transition of digitalization towards new paradigms depending on the economic activity of the firm and its sales orientation (Kohtamäki et al., 2021). Therefore, we need to reconceptualize digitalization -or digital trans-formation- to embrace the special circumstances of each economic activity. The literature has already pointed out the difference between digitalization processes in both sectors, and has identified some determinants, features, and patterns that make it different from manufacturing (Evangelista, 2000; Guerrieri & Meliciani, 2005; Miozzo & Soete, 2001); undeniably, the literature on innovation and digitalization in the service industry is moving away from it and is developing as a new field of investigation. Hence, it is necessary to develop a new conceptual approach to the existing framework.
The results of this study contribute to the knowledge and provide valuable insight into digitalization research. First, the bibliometric methodology has gained importance in recent years (Donthu et al., 2021), Systematic Literature Review (SLR) combined with bibliometric analysis (BA) has been used little in this area, and running a cluster analysis using the VOSviewer software (Ponsignon et al., 2019) has also been relevant. Second, the concept of digitization has been reexamined and revisited. To date, most studies on digitalization have approached it from a single perspective. This study contributes to the knowledge of digitalization in a double perspective depending on the business orientation (good sales and service provision). According to Avison & Malaurent (2014, p. 327): “New arguments, facts, patterns or relationships” could be considered sufficient contributions to the field of knowledge without theory-building beyond this. We focus on the consultancy industry as a driver and facilitator of digital transformation, but also as a digitalization carrier in its sector. Consulting companies (CC) usually help others to develop their digital transformation but also try to innovate, create new opportunities, and maintain a competitive advantage in a highly competitive sector. This paper explores the theoretical basis that led these companies to boost digital transformation internally and externally: an internal source, characterized by economic and organizational factors; and an external source, aimed at clients and institutional points of view.
2. Conceptual background
ed by economic and organizational factors; and an external source, aimed at clients and institutional points of view.
2.1 Theoretical Approach
The digitalization of companies has traditionally been approached using the Resource-Based Theory (RBT) to explain how companies try to maintain and improve their competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984). Companies investing in digital equipment have a competitive advantage by increasing their value, improving performance, and boosting productivity (Bharadwaj et al., 2013). However, digital transformation and digitalization are not always related to machine-based investments (Balsmeier & Woerter, 2019). There is an intangible set of resources that affect the way these assets are used and managed; therefore, the same level of digital investment produces different results (Mikalef & Pateli, 2017). Following this idea, we introduced a new theoretical approach based on the Dynamic Capabilities Theory (Teece & Pisano, 1994), as an extension of the RBT, to address the question of different performance for similar technological investments. This approach proposed a substantial variation between businesses in terms of the returns on technological investments (Aral & Weill, 2007). This point supports the idea that investment in digital and technological transformation is necessary -but not a sufficient cause by itself- to generate and maintain a competitive advantage, and that there are many other crucial conditions such as using intangibles to create and maintain a successful strategic opportunity. These points can be used as a basis for the evolution of the traditional theoretical model.
2.2 Problem Statement
As Castellacci (2008, p. 982) says: “Despite recent advances in the study of service innovation, this literature still seems fragmented and not clearly related to the paradigm-regime-trajectory model earlier developed to study innovation in manufacturing industries.” The consulting sector has also been undervalued as a driver of digital transformation, not only for other agents in the economy but for themselves. As pointed out by Lemus-Aguilar et al. (2015, p. 1): “Innovation inside consulting firms has missed specific attention in academic research. Consulting firms are usually considered part of Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS), Professional Service Firms (PSF), or Project-Based Firms (PbF). However, consultancies possess characteristics that might affect generalizations made in studies targeting all categories stated above.” Therefore, the need to conduct more research on this topic seems clear.
2.3 Topic Justification
Digitalization and digital transformation are ex-tensively studied; however, as shown in Figure 1, until 2014-2015 researchers have not had focused their attention on conducting Systematic Literature Reviews (SLR) on digitalization. Initially, we did exploratory research using the Scopus database for the 2001-2020 period and applied a Boolean search string (results shown in Figure 1), which yielded a total of 1522 articles, out of which 1239 were published in the 2015-2020 period (Annual Growth Rate: 24.48%). It illustrates the growing importance of this methodology in the research topic.
As shown in Figure 1, the impact of digitalization has gained importance in recent years according to different indexes. However, there is still a lack of conceptualization when defining digitalization. Most of the current research uses a single definition for all types of businesses. We consider it an unanswered question. To address this gap in the literature, we will present our research questions in the following section.
3. Research Questions
This research presents a new point of digital trans-formation according to business orientation. In doing so, a series of research questions will be analyzed. Their construction is one of the most important phases of an investigation; most research studies suggest that gap-spotting is a reliable way to find the most relevant (Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011). Such points surpass the overarching concepts in the literature; therefore, they challenge existing digitalization theories (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997). This article emphasizes the current connections in the literature on digitalization, where digitalization processes have not been studied based on the activity of the company exclusively but have always been approached in a global way (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011).
When conducting an SLR, researchers have different methodologies from different authors. Depending on the author, the search protocol, the field of research, etc., there are different circumstances that lead to the use of one or another. Thus, we find that not all SLRs use the same reference author systematically and that most of the time the researcher uses a regular process but with a different reference. Our purpose is to determine which is the most predominant reference author on digitization. So, our first research question is:
What is the most widely used systematic literature review protocol in the field of digitization? (RQ1).
As far as business digitalization is concerned, the digital transformation has been focused on the manufacturing industry, which is oriented toward the production of goods. With the servitization of business, digitalization has gained weight in the service industry. Rarely has it been studied from different conceptual angles. We will deal with a new outlook that suggests that it could be considered differently depending on the business orientation of the company (product/services). Thus, we decided to conduct a new literature review aiming to answer our second research question:
Has digital transformation been studied with the same prominence for companies with different activities? (RQ2)
Finally, a last research question will be addressed. Consultancy Sector Digitalization has been facilitated and boosted by internal and external industry drivers that have changed the digitalization paradigm, so we will analyze the factors that have promoted their own digitalization process and third-party digital transformation.
4. Research Methodology
This research encompasses a systematic literature review (SLR) and a bibliometric analysis (BA) to investigate digitalization orientation. Since knowledge production on digitalization remains fragmented, the SLR results are more relevant than ever (Snyder, 2019). Bibliometrics has also been widely used in recent years (Donthu et al., 2021), sometimes in combination with SLR techniques, but scarcely have both (SLR+BA) been combined for this topic. Using SLR allows us to select the most relevant articles on digitalization, while BA helps us find the most widely used and extended methodology (RQ1). This combined method has been proven suitable and useful for this purpose (Ben-Daya et al., 2019; Linnenluecke et al., 2020; Pulsiri & Vatananan-Thesenvitz, 2018 ).
A large amount of research on digitalization has been published in recent years, much of it is SLRs. However, few articles in the literature provide a comprehensive analysis of cutting-edge research to show a review of digitalization methodologies.
Most systematic reviews in the existing literature begin with an introduction to an individual case of digitalization, and then apply a methodology without analyzing whether the method or process is appropriate. The use of a methodological line of research when performing an SLR on digitalization offers different alternatives in terms of authors. Most articles follow the methodology proposed by an author regardless of the field in which it was used. Thus, we consider it important to review the most used methods in the field of digital transformation (RQ1). To do this, we will perform an analysis of the literature, and later we will apply cluster analysis to find out who are the most important authors.
5. Results and Discussion
5.1 First Research Question
The first research question in this study requires an analysis of the different existing methodologies to discover which have been used the most and have been more widely accepted by researchers, as well as to decide and justify which of them will be used to analyze our hypotheses and research questions.
This approach could be called systematic literature review screening (SLRS) and was done using the Dimensions database. It is new and used for scientific research and has revolutionized the analysis of metadata beyond bibliometrics (Hook et al., 2018). It is considered a democratization of scholarly data and an alternative to WoS and Scopus (Orduña-Malea & Delgado-López-Cózar, 2018; Thelwall, 2018). A Boolean search string was used: ‘systematic literature review" AND Digitalization OR digitalisation OR ‘digital transformation’.
All types of publications were included initially and there was no time limit. The classification was made by the Dimensions database. The results were then stratified by activities or sectors to organize the results into a hierarchy (Butler, 2010; Rousseau & Leuven, 2018). Dimensions database classifies and assigns a code to the field of research, thus allowing for a more precise examination and filtering of the results. In this case, we selected the codes ‘15 Commerce, Management, Tourism and Services’ and ‘08 Information and Computing Sciences and 42 matches were found. All publications were analyzed and nine of them were discarded because they were either not directly related to the research topic, not in English, or were not accessible. We obtained a final sample of 33 references. Subsequently, the VOSviewer Software was used to analyze the data obtained. This tool uses a clustering technique with scientometric research and has also been used to study digitalization (Strozzi et al., 2017; van Eck & Waltman, 2010; Waltman et al., 2010; W. Zhang & Banerji, 2017). The resulting documents from the previous search were then grouped by author and analyzed. A map of all the data extracted from Dimension was then created. The purpose was not only to analyze all the references obtained but also to analyze the bibliography used by those authors. The software examined the link and strength between all documents by a bibliographic analysis between publications. The items were then clustered so as not to overlap and references were not allowed to belong to different groups.
The results were clustered into three main groups, and Tranfield’s (2003) was the most significant. The results in Figure 2 shows that this SLR methodology is used or referenced the most in SLR in digitalization. This is an extraordinary outcome since this is not found as a direct reference from our initial sample of 33 articles, but it is the most used by all referred authors.
Tranfield’s First Cluster (2003) is referenced the most by all researchers when doing SLR in the field of digitalization. This stresses the need to do a preliminary study when starting an SLR. It requires an initial expert panel that includes theory and practitioners to assess the relevance and size of the literature and to delimit the subject area or topic. Almost all SLR methodologies connected in the cluster follow this path. Authors such as Cooper et al. (1988) and Hoffmann et al. (2019) also stand out in this cluster, although not as predominantly as Tranfield. Levi’s second cluster (Bharadwaj et al., 2013) stands out for its importance and impact in the field of digital transformation. It is a methodological view directly related to the field of information systems and has also been widely used in the field of digitalization by analogy. In his presentation, Levy highlights the importance of identifying the target audience to select the best framework. Third cluster connections with first and second clusters give us weak relations with the former and the latter and have not been as relevant as those.
To find the consistency of the results with this tool, all the references were analyzed individually. Each document extracted from the Dimensions database was evaluated and classified considering the subject, year of publication, type of publication, period, time horizon studied, databases used, articles analyzed, references and author, and methodology used to perform the systematic literature review. To find the consistency of the results with this tool, all the references were analyzed individually. Each document extracted from the Dimensions database was evaluated and classified considering the subject, year of publication, type of publication, period, time horizon studied, databases used, articles analyzed, references and author, and methodology used to perform the systematic literature review.
In Table 1, we show a list of SLRs on digitization. The first column shows the different researchers classified chronologically based on the date of publication of the article (“pub. year”). The fifth column shows the subject of the article used to carry out the SLR. Within these thematic areas, health stands out in terms of mentions. Health and finance (blockchain, bitcoin, investments) have gained importance because of the actual increase in this kind of service. The sixth column shows the time horizon used to analyze and review publications on digitalization, the analyzed period predominantly exceeds 10 years, on average. As can be seen in the ‘database’ column, Scopus and Web of Sciences are the most used, although publication databases such as IEEE and AISEL -with great transcendence in terms of technology- are notably gaining ground. The introduction of interviews and reports as complementary tools for conducting SLRs is also very interesting. In all the references analyzed, we note the scarce use of mixed-analysis tools that complement the SLR with the BA (as has been done in this article). The literature analyzed (see Table 1) is based on an initial sample of articles that on average exceeds 500 references, reducing this amount to a considerably final sample of two or three tens. This is because the increase in publications in the field of digitization began in 2018, as observed in Figure 1. If we take into account that only part of this increase corresponds to SLR, we can understand that there are still few references compared to other subjects. The last column presents the source used as a methodological reference to carry out the SLR.
Table 1 List of Systematic Literature Reviews (SLR) on Digitalization.
| Authors | Pub Year | Pub Type | Field of Research | Research domain | Period | Databases | Screened papers/ Final Sample | SLR Applied Methodology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knudsen et al. | (2020) | Article | 08 | Accounting | 2007-2017 | 27 journals | 103/33 | Rom and Rohde (2007) |
| Osterrieder et al. | (2020) | Article | 08 | Smart Factory, Industry 4.0 | EB., E., PQ and SD | -/124 | Vom Brocke et al. Cooper (1988) | |
| Cavallone & Palumbo | (2020) | Article | 15 | Health/Technology | 1999-2019 | S., WoS and P. | 1194/40 | Littell et al. (2009) |
| Gheidar et Mehdi (2020) | (2020) | Article | 15 | Employment | - | Informal Reviews | 16 | Okoli and Schabram (2012) |
| Clarke, D, | (2020) | Preprint | 15 | Investments | 2015-2020 | GS., ASU, EB | 23 | Tranfield el Al. (2003) PRISMA |
| Schinagl & Shahim | (2020) | Article | 08 | Information Security | 1996-2018 | Web of Science | 146/76 | Horne et Al., (2017) |
| Nosratabadi et al. | (2020) | Preprint | 15 | Food Industry | 1999-2019 | WoS, S, SD, E, J-store, and Sage | 849/72 | PRISMA |
| Chang & Chen | (2020) | Article | 08 | Blockchain-Bitcoin | 2016-2019 | IEEE,ACM DL, GS | -/186 | Tranfield el Al. (2003) Kitchenham et al. (2008) |
| Marques & Ferreira | (2020) | Article | 08 | Health/Technology | 1973-2018 | Scopus | 749/53 | Edwards, W. (1977) (SMARTER) |
| Wulff et al. | (2019) | Article | 08 | Health/Technology | 2014-2019 | Pub, IEEE, Embase, S, SD | 2373/55 | PRISMA |
| Mahmood et al. | (2019) | Article | 15 | Corporate Gob. | 2008-2018 | SD, SL, IEEE, E, JSTOR, GS, PQ | 103/55 | Levy and Ellis (2006) |
| Hausberg et al. | (2019) | Article | 15 | Digital transform. | 2000-2015 | Web of Science | -/1815 | Levy and Ellis (2006) |
| Haas, Y. | (2019) | Article | 15 | Retail business | 2014-2019 | WoS and E | 248/28 | Quantitative-Qualitative |
| Babar & Yu | (2019) | Proceed. | 08 | Digital transform. | 2010-2019 | PQ | 818/36 | Okoli and Schabram (2012) |
| Ancillai et al. | (2019) | Article | 15 | Social Selling | 2012-2018 | S, E, and WoS | 109/29 | Thorpe et al. (2005) Tranfield et al. (2003) Webster & Watson (2002) |
| Hoang et al. | (2019) | Article | 08 | Smart City Projects | 2008-2018 | Scopus | 606/76 | Van Eck & Waltman (2010) |
| Junge, A. | Article | 08 | Logistics | 2015-2018 | EB | 388/62 | Durach et al., (2017) | |
| Sahlin & Angelis | (2019) | Article | 15 | Performance Management | 1987-2017 | Scopus | 2560/241 | Tranfield et al. (2003) |
| Mukhopadhyay & Bouwman | (2019) | Article | 08 | Platform Ecosystems | 2010-2017 | PQ, EB, SD, JSTOR, Informs, GS and E | 76/48 | Rowley and Slack, (2004) Webster and Watson, (2002) Zhang et al., (2014) |
| Monteiro et al. | (2019) | Article | 08 | Hybrid Project management | 2014-2019 | WoS | 279/7 | PRISMA |
| Helbin & Van Looy | (2019) | Proceed. | 08 | Organizational ambidexterity | 2014-2018 | SD, E, SL, IEEE, ACM, S, WoS | 892/47 | Kitchenham et al. (2008) Webster & Watson (2002) |
| Milian et al. | (2019) | Article | 08 | FinTech | 1980-2018 | WoS and S | 211/179 | Kitchenham et al. (2008) Levy and Ellis (2006) |
| Sanchez-Gonzalez et al. | (2019) | Article | 08 | Maritime transport | 2002-2017 | INGENIO (Polytechnic University of Madrid) | 99 | Tranfield el Al. (2003) |
| Wichmann & Wißotzki | (2019) | Chapter | 08 | Health/Technology | 2005-2017 | AISeL, IEEE, S, and SL | -/405 | Kitchenham et al. (2008) |
| Wiedenmann & Größler | (2019) | Article | 15 | Supply chains | 2006-2018 | EB, E, SD, TF and Ec | 77/35 | Tranfield el Al. (2003) |
| Kollwitz & Dinter | (2019) | Chapter | 15 | Hackathons | Mid 2000 | AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), IEEE Xplore Digital Library (IEEE) and WoS | 234/189 | Vom Brocke (2009) Webster & Watson (2002) Cooper (1988) |
| Nazir et al. | (2019) | Article | 08 | Big Data | 2008-2018 | IEEE, Pub, SD, S, TF, W | 568/190 | Kitchenham et al. (2008) |
| Gebayew et al. | (2018) | Proceed. | 15 | Research Methodology | 2014-2018 | SD, SL, IEEE, ACM, ISIS | 1564/30 | Okoli and Schabram (Okoli & Schabram, 2012) Kitchenham et al. (Kitchenham et al., 2008) |
| Lammers et al. | (2018) | Proceed. | 15 | Australia Business digital transformation | 2010-2017 | Government and CSIRO reports | -/58 | Levy and Ellis (2006) Webster & Watson (2002) |
| Liu, F. | (2018) | Article | 15 | Creative Industries | 2010-2016 | WoS | 1239/50 | Tranfield et al. (2003) Petticrew and Roberts (2006) |
| Wilson & Wnuk | (2018) | Chapter | 08 | Digital business strategy | - | GS | 2948/477 | Wohlin (2014)) Snowballing |
| Marquardt, K. | (2017) | Article | 08 | Smart services | 2013-2018 | GS, S, E, El and SL | 180/65 | Not referred |
| Schäffer & Leyh | (2017) | Chapter | 08 | Master data management | 2015-2016 | GS, IEEE, SL and AIS and Interviews | 155/44 | Vom Brocke (2009) |
Notes: 08= Information and Computing Sciences, 15= Business and Management Initial Sample=42; Final Sample=33; Excluded references: 9 (6 Not related,1 Not English, 2 Not accessible). GS=Google Scholar, WoS=Web of Science, S=Scopus, SL=Springer Link, SD=Science Direct, E=Emeral, EB=EBSCO, PQ=ProQuest, P=Pubmed, ASU=Academic Search Ultimate, TF=Taylor & Francis, W=Wyley. E=Elsevier, Ec=EconBiz.
After analyzing all the information explaining the methodology employed in the articles, there seems to be a difference between practical and theoretical me-thodologies. Many articles cite the use of the PRISMA, SMARTER, or SNOWBALLING algorithms to extract the articles to be analyzed. We consider the methodologies proposed by Denyer & Tranfield (2009) , Keele (2007), Levy & Ellis, (2006), and Tranfield et al. (2003) to be much more accurate since a theoretical methodology for conducting SLR should include the whole process of investigation and not just a search algorithm.
The use of one methodology or another is a hands-on procedure; the author decides which one to use based on his/her experience. We frequently see that the methodology focuses on how the theoretical approach is developed when conducting the SLR but does not often concentrate on why. It requires establishing a prior data collection in the field of research taking into account the circumstances in which the different authors have used it. In our opinion, determining which author has been more cited to establish which methodology is used the most in this field is a preliminary step to understanding and doing research on SLR. Most of the existing SLRs are practical, meaning methodologically rigorous in terms of following a path to approach the final result (i.e. PRISMA); however, a theoretical methodology should previously be followed before applying the SLR search scheme, and this is not being done. Following the argument of Tranfield et al. (2003) and applying it in an analogous way to this research, a theoretical methodology implies carrying out a previous process where the terms by which the SLR will be carried out are relevant. The use of expert panels before the compilation of the literature through search equations should be a mandatory start. An integrative theoretical statement like this would give higher criteria for methodological validity since the initial searching process is contrasted by a theorist-practitioners panel review.
Thus, regarding the first research question, according to the review and the bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer Software, the most used theoretical methodology approach is that of Tranfield et al., (2003).
5.2 Second Research Question
Digitalization is a process of change and development of new mechanisms, procedures, and technological infrastructure in an organization to increase the efficiency of organizational processes. A lot of the existing literature about the digitalization of a company has studied the concept from one single point of view, without paying attention to and regardless of the economic environment in which the company operates. Digitalization in the service industries is usually undertaken from a Servitization perspective, which is a process of vertical integration (Kox & Rubalcaba, 2007). Digitalization makes a complete change in the organizational structure of the company, resulting in a rationalization of the entire business. Therefore, we could consider it a multilevel concept (Smith, 2003, 2012), i.e., that digitalization transcends the mere “digitation” of organizational processes. It must be reconsidered as a multitiered process with an ecological vision of digital transformation that leads to a comprehensive change at all company levels: social, relational, productive, distributive, ecological, and more.
There used to be an overlap of product and service digitalization without differentiation. However, the emer-gence of a new kind of company, exclusively service-oriented, with comprehensive use of digitalization, and completely dedicated to the service sector, is changing the way digitalization is seen.
These circumstances create a new comprehensive paradigm for the kind of companies that don’t make any changes and don’t transform their processes because they start as digital natives. To answer the hypothesis (RQ2), a systematic literature review must be performed to see if there is a paradigm shift in digitalization. This would mean a different digitalization process from the past for both product-manufacturing and service businesses. To perform an exhaustive in-depth analysis of the keywords used for the research subject, different databases were chosen -Proquest, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Scopus (Cooper, 1988; Levy & Ellis, 2006)- and the search string was applied. These databases are well-oriented and are the most used in the field of digitalization, according to RQ1. A common search equa-tion was constructed with some exclusion criteria for every search round without time restrictions, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Selected papers by database and exclusion criteria.
| First search round | Second search round | Third search round | Fourth search round | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TITLE: (("Digitalization" OR "Digitalisation" OR "Digital transformation")) Refined by: DOCUMENT TYPES: (ARTICLE) AND LANGUAGES: (ENGLISH) | TITLE: (("Digitalization" OR "Digitalisation" OR "Digital transformation")) Refined by: DOCUMENT TYPES: (ARTICLE) AND LANGUAGES: (ENGLISH) AND FULL TEXT AND PEER REVIEWED | Industry /Service & Commerce (Including all obtained references) | Industry /Service & Commerce After erasing duplicates and discarding non-relevant articles) | |
| SCOPUS | 328 | 280 | 37 / 23 | 15/14 |
| WoS | 246 | 117 | 18 / 14 | 9/6 |
| ProQuest (Abi-Inform) | 373 | 157 | 15 / 9 | 5/5 |
| EBSCO | 369 | 219 | 19 / 14 | 4/5 |
| 1.316 | 773 | 89 / 60 | 33/30 |
Search string: Digitalization OR digitalisation OR “digital transformation”) AND (Industry) (Digitalizaction OR digitalisation OR “digital transformation”) AND (Service* OR Commer*)
Source: own elaboration.
As a result of the first search, an initial sample of 1316 articles were obtained, which were structured by databases as seen in Table 2. A set of restrictions was applied to the main sample of articles. These were the most used in the literature on the subject (Littell et al., 2009; Waltman et al., 2010; Webster & Watson, 2002; Wohlin, 2014).
First, only articles written in English that had been peer-reviewed were selected. Second, the sample was filtered by articles about “manufacturing industries” and then those about service and commerce companies. A final sample of 89 articles was obtained for manufacturing industries and 60 articles for service and commerce companies. In the final stage, all abstracts were read to discard articles not related to the research topic. A total of 33 articles related to the topic of industrial digitalization and 30 articles focused on the subject of service digitalization were found. As summarized in Table 3 -which shows all references by year and source- this topic has become increasingly important over the past few years.
Table 3 Number of selected papers by database and exclusion criteria.
| INDUSTRY ORIENTED | SERVICES ORIENTED | ∑ INDUSTRY | ∑ SERVICES | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EBSCO | PROQUEST | SCOPUS | WoS | EBSCO | PROQUEST | SCOPUS | WoS | |||
| 2020 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 12 | 3 | |||
| 2019 | 6 | 8 | 18 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 16 | 6 | 40 | 31 |
| 2018 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 19 | 6 | ||
| 2017 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 13 | |
| 2016 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | |||
| 2015 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||
| 2014 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| 2013 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |||||
| 2012 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||||||
| 2011 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||||||
| TOTAL | 89 | 60 |
Source: own elaboration.
Research on digitalization can be separated into two different areas: the industry sector and the services sector (see Figure 3). Digitalization is generally applied indistinctly. Although there has been a clear vertical integration of services in the manufacturing industry, usually called servitization (Gebauer et al., 2020), the process of digitalization or technological transforma-tion of a company is not the same for every sector and should be identified when researching digitalization. This means that servitization does not always result in digital transformation.
The orientation of a company towards products or services should be considered when studying any aspect related to digitalization.
From Goods to Service Orientation: The progressive reduction in profit margins in certain mature sectors led to the use of servitization as vertical integration of some services within the manufacturing industry. The rapid expansion in the use of this servitization by competitors, as well as the continuous search and maintenance of competitive advantage, have forced sectors to initiate new digitally intensive activities oriented solely to services. Also, they are seen as new opportunities to differentiate themselves. Thus, the transition from the digitalization of products linked to servitization towards the digitalization of the industry oriented only to services (financial, marketing, audiovisual, online storage, etc.) has been boosted as an incentive to search for new competitive advantages (Vandermerwe & Rada, 1988).
From Cost Reduction to Value and Revenue Expansion: Digitization and digitalization in manufacturing com-panies have their origins in cost savings to increase revenues and productivity. Servitization introduced a novelty in terms of the creation of complementary services to manufactured products; simply intending to create economies of scale and services. However, the continuous expansion of the industry towards the capture of value has made it so that more and more manufacturing companies have become exclusively service companies (J. Björkdahl, 2020; Joakim Björkdahl & Holmén, 2019). This leads us to think about and explain one of the paradigms introduced in this article: digitalization is a concept defined and characterized by every activity depending on its orientation.
From Owned Property to Shared Property: The digital transformation in the service industry has made it possible that much of the operations support, ini-tially held by the company, to be shared with third parties. With the digitalization of back-end operations through shared digital services instead of through owned or internal property, companies can expand efficiently, achieve significant time savings, and avoid restructuring costs (Bergeron, 2002; Forst, 2001; Lichtenthaler, 2017; Sako, 2010).
From Low Risk and Long Investment Return to High risk, High yield, and Short Investment Return: Manufacturing companies transformed into service companies because of falling profit margins in their mature sectors have seen their margins grow and return on investment improved. However, this also implies an increase in investment risk.
From Standardization to Customization: Standardization in the manufacturing industry has usually been linked to scalability and cost reduction, and digitalization has played a fundamental role in this process (Nooteboom, 1992). The Internet of Things, Internet of Service, and data mining have enabled new forms of customization and personalization. Digitalization has made it possible to go from mass customization to personalization, which means that a better coverage of customer needs is achieved through certain services. Customization and personalization of services have made it possible to increase the scale, scope, and value of businesses, increasing quality, cost-saving, variety, and efficacy through on-demand production services (Hu, 2013).
The reviewed literature revealed that until now, many researchers have investigated different types of servitization as an extension to manufacturing (Martinez et al., 2017). However, it is currently considered a change in the company's competitive strategy (Cusumano et al., 2015; Kox & Rubalcaba, 2007; Rubalcaba, 1999). Although digitalization processes for service companies were initially complementary to the offered product (Frank et al., 2019), nowadays digital transformation processes must be considered different in product-oriented and service-oriented industries since they deal with different industrial environments in a Schumpeterian way (Visnjic et al., 2016). Table 4 shows how digitalization strategies have different objectives in business models.
Table 4 Changes in digitalization orientation.
| From product view | Toservice view |
|---|---|
| Goods Orientation | Service Orientation |
| Cost Reduction | Value and Revenue Expansion |
| Owned Property | Shared Property |
| Low Risk and long investment return | High risk, high yield, short investment return |
| Standardization | Customization |
Source: own elaboration.
5.3 Third Research Question
The business consulting sector has undoubtedly undergone a great digital transformation in the entire economy (Krüger & Teuteberg, 2018). Many of those who are currently partners of large consulting firms can recall how, not even two decades ago, there were large offices with staff intensively recording company accounts. Many forms had to be filled out by hand and then sent to the Tax Office by mail, and entire floors of a building were used to store documents. The business model of the sector in those times was exclusively face-to-face interaction (Nissen et al., 2018) with very high labour costs, and equally high fees charges for the services provided. The digital transformation of the consulting sector has three main causes: a rationalization of costs, legal imposition, and a search for new scale economies. So, to answer RQ3, a systematic literature review was carried out for digitalization in the consulting sector. The search used a Boolean equation and the results were filtered with the criteria shown in Table 5.
Table 5 Selected papers on digitalization in consulting services.
| Initial search | Excluding duplicates | Excluding not related to digitalization in consulting services after revising the abstract | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCOPUS (S) | 55 | 54 | 10 |
| WoS (W) | 27 | 20 | 6 |
| ProQuest (P) (Abi-Inform) | 43 | 42 | 7 |
| EBSCO (E) | 8 | 8 | 1 |
| 133 | 124 |
Search string: ((("Digitalization" OR "Digitalisation" OR "Digitation" OR "Digital transformation") NEAR ("Advising" OR "consulting" OR "Accounting")))
Source: own elaboration.
Although the digitalization and digital transformation of companies in all sectors have been extensively researched -as shown in Table 5- there is a lack of articles on accounting, tax, and labour advice in the digitalization of the consulting sector. The final sample of selected articles, once thoroughly studied, consisted of 13 articles from the 24 results after the previous filter stages. This is surprising, as the literature states that Industry 4.0 applies to the consulting sector. The digital transformation of the consultancy sector can provide more accurate, high-quality, real-time accounting, and more effective reporting for decision-making (Burritt & Christ, 2016). The administrative procedures within the organization have undergone a transformation that has resulted in the optimization of all back-office processes, leading to a reduction in management expenses. These improvements have been very important for companies that provide accounting, tax, and labour advice services. The great competition in the sector has led consulting companies to implement computer systems that allow them to control all areas of the client’s company in an integrated manner with a significant reduction in personnel costs. The role of digital transformation has not only been accompanied by this reduction but has also been used to increase revenue (Werth & Greff, 2018). Consultancy companies have not only been the drivers and facilitators of digital transformation in many companies but have also adapted their business models to their clients (Jeronimo et al., 2019). Digital transformation and increased investment in the consultancy sector have been motivated by both internal and external factors (see Table 6).
Table 6 Triggering factors for the digitalization boost of the consultancy sector in Spain.
| ECONOMIC | ORGANIZATIONAL | |
|---|---|---|
| INTERNAL FACTORS | Efficiency (+) | Spatial flexibility (+) |
| Scale economies (+) | Data security (+) | |
| Operational cost (-) | Job overlap (+) reduction (+) | |
| Structural cost (-) | Compliance(+) | |
| CLIENT | INSTITUTIONAL | |
| EXTERNAL FACTORS | New software requirements (-) (-) | Compulsory tax filing (-) (-) |
| Just-in-time consulting (-) (-) | Electronic notifications (-) (-) | |
| Data mining decision-making (-) | Paperless public office (+) | |
| E-Government (+) |
Source: own elaboration, adapted from Nissen & Seifert (Volker Nissen et al., 2018).
The increase in the digitalization of the consultancy sector has happened for different reasons. On the one hand, a series of external factors have caused companies in the sector to implement modern technology as a solution to the challenges and opportunities that have arisen. On the other hand, it has been due to external factors not related to the sector, or the consulting companies themselves.
5.3.1 Internal factors: economic and organizational
The research results revealed eight internal factors identified as efficiency, scale economies, operational cost, structural cost (related to economic aspects), spatial flexibility, data security, reduction of job overlap, and compliance (related to organizational matters).
Efficiency (+): Digital transformation has had a positive effect on the economic efficiency of the consultancy sector. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of digitalization results in consulting has a positive relation in terms of profits through technology, streamlined workflow, and alternative staffing models (Christensen et al., 2013).
Scale Economies (+): Digitalization plays a positive role as an enabler of economies of scale, scope, and speed. Extending the point of view of Bharadwaj et al. (2013) , the consulting industry has increased its size by offering new services through digitalization without increasing infrastructure.
Operational Cost (-): Digital transformation reduces operational costs in consulting activities since these employ a large number of human resources and it helps to reduce them.
Structural Cost (-): Digitalization reduces structural cost by transforming the operating business model, and introducing flexibility and scalability through digital solutions. Since Covid-19 affected all industries, consulting has gained a structural cost advantage due to a reduction in the physical footprint caused by the change in client behaviour.
Spatial Flexibility (+): Digital transformation in the consulting industry has resulted in spatial flexibilization, i.e., an open office environment where, even in a crisis scenario, it has been possible not only to keep the consultancy operation running but to increase employee productivity. Knowledge-intensive work has transformed the workplace into a multi-platform ecosystem where employees are no longer attached to an office but to a digital platform. These circumstances have made it possible for the office space to be used more efficiently, cutting down on overlapping staff hours or lagging work performance, drastically reducing costs in terms of time and money.
Data Security (+): Digital transformation has also made it possible to boost data security since consulting firms have experienced several years' worth of digitalization in a month due to Covid-19, not only for their infrastructures but also for clients.
Reduction of Job Overlap (+): Digital transformation has positively affected a reduction in job overlapping because workers in organizations simplified their duties. In terms of consulting, information and communication technology (ICTs) development helps workers save time, also making this information more available to clients (Løberg, 2020).
Compliance (+): Consultancy compliance has developed a kind of cyber-government of consulting companies. Compliance has grown with the pandemic. Digitalization has improved it through the standardization of tasks to be achieved (Parviainen et al., 2017).
5.3.2 External factors: clients and institutions
The results also revealed seven external factors that we identified as those related to clients (new software requirements, just-in-time consulting, data mining-based decision-making) and related to institutions (compulsory tax filing, electronic notifications, paperless public office, and e-Government). It is often said that there is no greater motivation than the need and the obligation to do something by force. Agility is frequently cited as one of the requirements for successful digitalization (Kohlen & Holotiuk, 2017).
It is suggested that one of the most important triggers for company digitalization is the need to ensure readiness for digital transformation (Berghaus & Back, 2017). It enables companies to adapt to changes in their environment, helping them to remain competitive and maintain competitive advantages. Changing those practices has frequently increased through the con-sultancy sector. Developing a new digital strategy comes frequently from external partners that are needed due to the ever-changing and fast movement of digital trends. So, external triggers are key channels to increase the capabilities of the digital firm.
The consulting sector in Spain has experienced an expedited digital transformation as a result of various external factors.
External factors from the client’s perspective -
New software requirements (-): Covid-19 has changed the way the consulting industry operates. The consultancy has adapted its offer to meet clients' preferences and demands, providing reliable and high-quality standards at a low cost with the same human resources.
Just-in-time consulting (-): Due to the pandemic, knowledge-intensive services have gained flexibility since it is no longer necessary to go to the client facilities to get advice. Customers need advice more rapidly, and online consulting technologies provide a way for doing this. Company-wide management programs, which offered complete integration with the consultants, were created so that visiting the company would no longer be necessary and it entailed an enormous reduction in costs.
Data mining decision making (-): Data mining and business intelligence (BI) have become key to providing unique professional services to clients (Ibrahim et al., 2014). BI has provided consulting companies with a new strategic field that impacts and enhances their business sustainability.
Compulsory tax filing (-): In the late 1980s and early nineties, the Spanish public administration began to force companies to send certain documents to the administration electronically (Guillén Caramés, 2010).
Electronic Notifications (-): The process has advanced rapidly, so nowadays almost all transactions with the public administration have to be submitted online. The latest case started in 2020, with a new technological revolution in business and administration due to the Covid-19 crisis. The government imposed the obligation to send documents online, forcing many companies in the consultancy sector to adapt their organizational models to the new system.
Paperless Public Office (+): The extensive use of new mechanisms of electronic filing of documents in public administration is allowing massive digitization of documentation, which is leading many companies to undertake a complete digitization process.
E-Government (+). The e-Government has allowed the materialization and articulation of the digital transformation of many companies and organizations. For its implementation (Gilbert & Balestrini, 2004), consulting companies have played a fundamental role as a causal link between e-Government and the companies.
The evolution of the consulting sector in the last 10 years has tended towards a paperless office business model, primarily motivated by endogenous factors such as optimizing the price of services, reducing structural costs, and reducing labour costs as it is an eminently labour-intensive activity. The change in the business model towards virtualization (Overby, 2012; Seifert &Nissen, 2018) has been seen in the literature as a necessity rather than as a self-guided change. It is an adaptation of business models where resilience has had an important role in adapting to changing market needs (Jeronimo et al., 2019). The digitalization of processes in the sector has caused a change as radical as that from the typewriter to the computer. Now, online accounting is done without the need for an accountant, the tax documents presented to the Treasury are self-generated, dashboards, and treasury predictions are simultaneously created while accounting. All these jobs, which were previously labour-intensive, now take advantage of the synergies created in the internal processes of the company with the implementation of integrated ERP programs. Internal factors can be looked at from two different points of view, an economic one motivated by the reduction in costs and the increase in efficiency with scale economies, and also as an organizational advantage enabling communication within and outside the organization.
One of the most important factors for digital trans-formation is centred on cost savings. Bilgeri highlights and points out potential partnerships (consulting sector) as facilitators of digital transformation, since they avoid the birth of internal pricing and cost conflicts.
The explanation for the new activity in the sector is the accelerating pace of technological changes driven by the disruption of new businesses. They are achieved by using the new strategic business models that have begun to emerge. Business models, such as that of Legalitas Online Lawyers (in Spain), have revolutionized law consulting by mixing the digitalization of online counselling procedures with the introduction of a very affordable online fee for a consultancy service that has achieved high returns.
5.4 Internal and external validity
The present research work uses a systematic literature review (SLR) methodology combined with a bibliometric cluster analysis (BA) conducted using the VOSviewer software (van Eck & Waltman, 2010). The combination of SLR + BA techniques has its origin in medicine; this work has taken into account the reviews made by Ramey (Ramey & Rao, 2011) and Pulsiri and Vatananan (by Pulsiri & Vatananan-Thesenvitz, 2018). All references found in the bibliography were investigated to be analyzed with a BA analysis. This analysis was completed to provide internal and external validity of the data through an exhaustive review of the final sample of articles. This review confirmed the data from the cluster analysis performed with VOSviewer.
6. Conclusions
There is no doubt that we live in a time of changes in the digitalization of business models. Digital transformation has been seen mostly from a product-oriented perspective. When referring to services, it has been studied mainly as part of the production process with the concept of servitization, which is the vertical integration that creates new scale economies in industries with the creation of new services instead of products. However, with the SLR analysis carried out in this article, we have seen that there’s a new revolution in the service industry, with no physical products, and services are the only thing provided to customers. The results for RQ1 showed that there is a preference for Tranfield´s methodology (Tranfield et al., 2003) when studying digitalization with SLR. This methodology was used to analyze literature about product and service industries (RQ2), finding that there is a trend to show a difference between business orientations. In recent years, there has been a shift in the approach taken toward digitalization, and a difference between the product and service sectors is being considered. As a special case in the service industry, consulting services (RQ3) have been studied. The consultancy has increased in the last decade and is growing. There have been both internal and external causes for this advance. The first one is economic; consulting companies needed to adapt to their high labour and structural costs. Digitalization also allowed them to use new scale economies, introducing new lines of income by offering customers electronic consultancy services. An example of this is Legalitas, a Spanish law firm created to provide only digital services using service virtualization. The second cause is external and is due to changes in governmental institutions. Public administration has forced the sector to change and adapt to technological change. Paperless public offices were quickly implemented and have rapidly become the norm.
The following list of research problems summarizes the major concerns derived from our SLR, pointing out a guide for further research in Consultancy Digitalization:
Since there is a difference between digitization in the manufacturing industry and the service industry, what are the factors that determine these differences?
Professional service firms (PSF) play a noticeable role in furthering that commitment. From this prominent position, PSF could be highlighted as a core tenet for digital transformation , supporting the belief that they have been promoting and increasing the digitalization of their clients, acting as drivers and facilitators of digitalization. Hence, it would be necessary to investigate what are the internal and external factors that affect the digitization process of the company and try to articulate constructs to measure them.
Finally, if the presence of consulting companies in small businesses constitutes a catalyst for digital transformation, it would be relevant to know what are the repercussions on the company's performance.
7. Limitations and future lines of research
This study highlights the need for new lines of research in the field of service digitalization, specifically in two areas: first, the consequences that the current health crisis has had on consultancy; second, investigate the variables that best represent and measure the importance of these changes. Another line of research could be to determine the best variables to measure the internal and external factors cited as triggers for this digital expansion. An appropriate tool could be structural equation modelling (SEM) since it is perfectly adapted to measuring variables with indicators that are difficult to quantify.
This research was limited by the scarcity of documents on this research topic. Digitalization in consulting services has just begun to be investigated and currently, there is not much literature that addresses it. Therefore, many of the proposed ideas are novel, while others have been adopted by analogy from other academic areas.
