351 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 21 | No. 3 | 2019 | 351-370
DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION – THE HYPE AND 
CONCEPTUAL CHANGES
LUKA TOMAT
1
  
PETER TRKMAN
2
 
ABSTRACT: Digital transformation (DT) is attracting increased attention; many papers and 
special issues focus on various aspects of DT. Still, DT often serves solely as a repackaging of 
previously existing ideas. Our paper argues that the term is over-hyped and has been used to 
rebrand various fields to attract management attention. However, this alone cannot explain 
the reasons for such an immense rise in the popularity of the concept. To understand the 
underlying motives for current DT adoration, our paper aims to identify conceptual changes 
that have happened in the last decade. These changes have to be considered if companies want 
to strategically approach DT and use the hype to acquire the needed ‘organizational energy’ 
to implement the changes.
Key words: digital transformation, employee engagement, customer process management, instant gratification, 
attention span, marginal costs
JEL classification: M15
DOI: 10.15458/ebr.90
1 INTORDUCTION
In recent years, digital transformation (DT) has become an extensively hyped topic in 
various industries (Agarwal et al., 2010) and business-oriented areas (Majchrzak et al., 
2016; Kane et al., 2015). New digital technologies affect companies and their customers. 
Customers rely on a wide range of mobile, social, and other interactions, and companies 
use innovative tools to transform their processes, business models, and value propositions 
for customers (Berman, 2012). The experts in this area argue that management concepts 
are changing as companies apply digital strategies to transform products, processes, and 
organizational structures (Matt, Hess, & Benlian, 2015). Moreover, DT should expand 
beyond companies and support value creation in extended supply chains. On the wave of 
DT, partners should be able to shorten processing times, remove unnecessary activities, 
and improve productivity, leading to higher operational excellence than ever before 
(Bowersox, Closs, & Drayer, 2005).
Lately, DT has been widely researched in academia and increasingly implemented in 
companies (Skog, Wimelius, & Sandberg, 2018). However, DT is an ongoing process and 
1 University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia, e-mail: luka.tomat@ef.uni-lj.si
2 University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia, e-mail: peter.trkman@ef.uni-lj.si

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 21 | No. 3 | 2019 352
is nothing new per se. Therefore, a cornerstone is needed for companies to understand 
DT—why it is so popular and what has really changed. Several recent reviews acknowledge 
that modern DT practices are building on existing schools of thought and are partly ‘old 
wine in new bottles’ (e.g., Pihir et al., 2019; Riasanow et al., 2019; Kane et al., 2019). Those 
reviews attempt to identify what is new but fall somewhat short, as they present well-
known factors such as identification of ecosystem, business models, digital innovation 
(Riasanow et al., 2019), the importance of people/workforce (Kane et al., 2019; Eden et 
al., 2019), and the consideration of digital technologies for changing products, services, or 
processes (Pihir et al., 2019).
The contrast between the recent DT hype and the fact that its main tenets have been known 
for decades prompt crucial research questions: (1) What are the reasons for the extreme 
increase in the popularity of DT in research and practice? (2) Which (if any) conceptual 
changes in the last decades have contributed to the importance of DT? We analyse the 
conceptual changes over the last decade, focusing on the nullification of marginal costs, 
decrease in attention, increase in the need for instant gratification, and the ability to 
measure customers’ and employees’ actions.
The rest of the paper is structured in five sections. In Section 2, we summarize the roots 
of DT as a concept, give several historical examples of transformation, and outline reasons 
for the popularity of DT. In Section 3, we identify the conceptual changes, followed by a 
discussion in Section 4. W e discuss limitations and further research possibilities in Section 
5.
2 THE POPULARITY OF DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION
Recently, DT has gained immense popularity. These days, one cannot go to any professional 
event without hearing about the importance of DT. The same applies to the academic 
community, with numerous papers emphasizing the usefulness and relevance of DT for 
organizations in the current business environment (Matt, Hess, & Benlian, 2015; Hess 
et al., 2016; Hoberg, Krcmar, & Welz, 2017). Lately, there has been a surge in published 
papers – while only 7 papers on DT were published in the Web of Science Core Collection 
in 2013, the number increased to 418 in 2018 (Web of Science, 2019) (see Figure 1). 
Respectable journals’ special issues covering DT have already been or will be published 
soon (Demirkan, Spohrer, & Welsher, 2016; Majchrzak, Markus, & Wareham, 2016; 
Economic and Business Review, 2018).

L. TOMAT, P . TRKMAN | DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION – THE HYPE AND REAL CHANGES 353
Figure 1: The number of papers on digital transformation listed in Web of Science
Source: Clarivate Analytics, 2019; own analysis.
The first indices of DT can be found in Bharadwaj (2000). She researched IT capability 
and firm performance, pointing out that the impact of digital technologies on business 
processes is crucial for organizations to survive in an emerging digital economy. This led 
to one of the earliest explicit mentions of DT (proposed by Bauer) linking the revolution in 
information technology (IT) to DT within dentistry, e-commerce (Bauer & Brown, 2001), 
and health services in rural America (Bauer, 2002).
Many papers have been published emphasizing the vital changes that DT can bring to 
businesses (Rouse, 2005; Morgan & Page, 2008; Shah & Siddiqui, 2006; Liu, Chen, & Chou, 
2011). Literature offers many definitions reflecting various aspects of DT. For example, 
Solis, Lieb, and Szymanski (2014) defined it as a realignment, development, or investment 
in new technologies to change business models and engage both customers and employees 
more efficiently. Henriette, Feki, and Boughzala (2015) describe DT as an organization’s 
ability to optimize business performance by building on rapid technological innovations 
based on digital technologies. Moreover, DT is a driver to transform business operations, 
products, processes, organizational structures, management concepts, and supply chains 
(Trkman, Budler, & Groznik, 2015; Matt, Hess, & Benlian, 2015). While the definition of 
DT has not been clear in the past (Chew, Semmelrock-Picej, & Novak, 2013) the general 
consensus now affirms that DT can be understood as the use of modern digital technology 
to change key business elements, including business models, strategies, business processes, 
organizational structures, organizational culture (Erjavec et al., 2018), customer 
experience, and streamlining operations (Reis et al., 2018). Furthermore, Stolterman and 
Fors (2004) describe DT as a digital technology phenomenon bringing changes not only 
to business but to all aspects of our lives; some studies claim that it is affecting the whole 
human identity (Nagy & Koles, 2014).

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 21 | No. 3 | 2019 354
The potential of DT has not gone unnoticed by established organizations. Gartner, a world-
leading technology research and advisory company, has recognized DT as one of the best 
future opportunities for business’ ecosystems (Gartner, 2017). DT is perceived as the most 
important factor in almost every industry and business aspect, as well as among managers 
around the globe (Bughin & Van Zeebroeck, 2017). Companies are spending more money 
than ever before to catch up with the digital environment (Solis, Li, & Szymanski, 2017), 
and many authors have used DT to explain advancements or changes in various industries, 
such as newspaper (Karimi & Walter, 2016), textiles (Chen, Jaw, & Wu, 2016), banking 
(Liu, Chen, & Chou, 2011), and many others (Westerman et al., 2012). Driven by digital 
technologies, companies strive to build personal relationships and provide better customer 
experiences through more efficient interactions and user-friendly services and products 
(Fitzgerald et al., 2014).
According to the literature, DT is an unprecedented and hastily growing disruption 
(Bughin & Van Zeebroeck, 2017) that adapts to rapid changes, changes society and 
business, and helps expand new markets (Gimpel & Röglinger, 2015; Parviainen et al., 
2017). Furthermore, it is important to the customer experience (Trkman et al., 2015), since 
it alters producer-consumer relationships (Piccinini, Gregory, & Kolbe, 2015), places value 
on consumer co-creation in the current digital economy (Potts et al., 2008), and shifts 
the paradigm from a customer-centred to an everyone-to-everyone economy (Berman & 
Marshall, 2014). DT also helps companies build new business models (Collin et al., 2015) 
and innovative business ecosystems (Selander, Henfridsson, & Svahn, 2010), and changes 
the mindsets of organizations, their executives, employees, and customers (Kane et al., 
2015).
However, none of the claims above are particularly new. The fact that companies need to 
continuously innovate and that IT plays a crucial role has been known for decades (Nolan, 
1995), as using IT undoubtedly changes products and services and their deliverance (Furr 
& Shipilov, 2019).
From a cynical viewpoint, DT may be considered a management fad (see Abrahamson, 
1996) or as the reincarnation of past IT-enabled change initiatives with new outfits. As 
business process management (BPM) seems to be losing interest, DT may be seen as a 
new buzzword to capture renewed interest from managers, consultants, and software 
companies (Klun & Trkman, 2018, Reis et al., 2018). Technology is always changing, 
and as emphasized by Schumpeter (1942), creative destruction is at the heart of this 
continuous mutation, which is necessary for the sustainability of businesses. Economic 
action functions in a constant loop fed by new consumers’ novel systems of transportation, 
production methods, markets, and organizations. Hammer (1990) summarized the main 
ideas of rapidly changing technologies as ever-shorter product life cycles, glacially paced 
product development, and the importance of customer experience. Even 200 years ago, 
the labour masses were destroying machines and factory buildings, worrying about being 
replaced by automated production lines (Jones, 2013).

L. TOMAT, P . TRKMAN | DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION – THE HYPE AND REAL CHANGES 355
For all that, from the conceptual perspective, such disruption by DT is nothing new. 
Innovations resulting from a combination of existing technologies have always transformed 
industries and economies (Arthur, 2009). Take electricity, for example, or warfare and the 
invention of gunpowder and machine guns. By the same token, the world has seen massive 
disruptions influencing businesses in the last 250 years; for instance, the prevalence of 
rail travel at the beginning of the 18th century encouraged big investments into railway 
infrastructure (Perez, 2002). Similarly, Guttenberg’s printing machine transformed 
the whole scribing industry, enabling a much faster dissemination of knowledge. An 
even older case is an advanced road system that significantly changed the trading and 
communications of the Romans, which led to a bloom of art, culture, military, political, and 
economic development (Carreras & de Soto, 2013). One further example is the ice trade, 
which employed an estimated 90,000 people in the USA in the 19th century, while Norway 
exported one million tons of ice every year; these jobs were lost with the introduction of 
refrigerators. The Pony Express is another such disrupted industry example. It had an 
innovative business model with a novel value proposition (fastest mail service), which was 
also technology-enabled (e.g., with special lightweight saddles) and had a strong network 
of partners. It closed after 19 months due to the emergence of the telegraph.
In summary, new technologies are being developed, and customer preferences are changing 
(Solis et al., 2017); but this has been the constant state of affairs over the last 140 years or 
so, and no industry is immune to it (Downes & Nunes, 2013). On top of that, these changes 
are small compared to what is not changing (Mintzberg, 2017).
If the concept is not new, why do we need a new term? It seems that DT is an overused 
term invented by IT professionals and consultants to reach CxO levels. This rebranding 
is partly a consequence of the fact that BPM has focused mainly on investigating process 
modelling and the use of process models to improve the understandability of the processes 
(Klun & Trkman, 2018), leading to a lack of attention by top management (Reis et al., 
2018).
DT can represent a new opportunity for IS experts to work with top management. 
Executives are turning to IT experts and recruiting them as board members (McAfee & 
Brynjolfsson, 2008). Consequently, the roles of CIOs and IT departments have lately gained 
great importance (Manfreda & Indihar Štemberger, 2018). The need for new, fancier titles 
has emerged, and many companies have named CDOs (chief digital officers) as members 
of top management (Horlacher & Hess, 2016; Singh & Hess, 2017).
DT is also used as an umbrella term to brand works in other fields, such as open innovation 
or change management (Urbinati et al., 2018). This increased popularity means that DT is 
in real danger of becoming an ‘all and nothing’ term. Arguing that DT is all-encompassing 
and holistic (Kutzner, Schoormann, & Knackstedt, 2018) poses a danger of DT becoming a 
meaningless filler. In a way, DT follows the snake oil principle (see Sharma & Meyer, 2019) 
used by software vendors and consultants to boost sales.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 21 | No. 3 | 2019 356
Still, new names for old truths can be used to develop a strong ‘getting everyone on board 
effect’ , regaining enthusiasm and common vision (Zhang et al., 2015). Given the above, DT 
is used to unite executive boards, middle managers, and employees in a common vision 
and terminology. Most importantly, the common term makes them more enthusiastic 
about forthcoming changes. The majority of employees that follow ‘digital leaders’ want to 
be engaged with digital-like organizations and will take advantages of digital opportunities 
offered by the companies (Kane et al., 2015).
Hence, organizations need to carefully consider if and how to tackle DT to avoid harming 
them. Abrahamson (1991) emphasized that innovations, as fads or fashions, are sometimes 
used to pave the way for the popularity of technologies that are not efficient or suitable 
for organizations and thus provide them with little utility, poor economic performance, 
and great competitive disadvantages. Therefore, companies must strategize judiciously to 
avoid deficiencies and maximize the benefits of implementing DT.
Building on Collins (2013), who showed that buzzwords are sometimes intentionally 
generated by people within specific businesses to boost hype, it is possible to conclude that 
DT (as related to current hype) could be considered a buzzword.
3 CONCEPTUAL CHANGES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS
Still, the ‘repackaging of existing concepts’ and ‘increasing enthusiasm’ does not provide a 
full explanation for the popularity of DT. The underlying reasons at the conceptual level 
have to be investigated. We argue that the following changes at company or employee 
levels are the most important; companies need to understand the changes happening to 
and in individual employees, as they are the most important assets for an organization. 
By knowing their employees, managers can understand what employees expect from the 
company and find ways to motivate employees to perform their best, thus enabling a 
healthy work culture (Juneja, 2019). Anyway, the most important conceptual changes are 
provided and explained in the continuation.
First, big data analytics and advanced algorithms improve efficiency and productivity, 
enabling companies to produce and share numerous services and products with almost 
no marginal cost (Rifkin, 2014), and automatization allows some services to be free. The 
Internet has dramatically reduced the marginal costs of additional transactions (DaSilva 
& Trkman, 2014); a typical example is a social network in which an additional user or 
an additional visit from an existing user does not entail any marginal costs. Thus, many 
business and revenue models are possible. Facebook can rely on advertising, Cyworld on 
selling virtual goods, WeChat on mobile banking services, WhatsApp used to charge low 
subscription fees, and LinkedIn has a freemium model. Customers can co-create content, 
which further decreases or even nullifies the costs of content creation. To a certain extent, 
the negligibility of marginal costs applies to many older technologies (such as radio or 

L. TOMAT, P . TRKMAN | DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION – THE HYPE AND REAL CHANGES 357
TV) as well, but the number and importance of those industries exploiting the Internet 
are much higher.
Second, people’s attention spans are becoming increasingly limited in relation to smart 
devices and instant connectivity. Smartphone and tablet use has been proliferating and is 
estimated to reach 3 billion users by the end of 2019 (Statista, 2019). People spend more 
than 5 hours per day on their smartphones (Elgan, 2017) and check their mobile phones 
between 80 and 300 times per day (Asurion, 2019). This indicates that attention will be ‘the 
oil of the 21st century’ – companies will have to invest a lot of money to draw customer 
attention. Moreover, addiction by design will be needed as companies will need to exploit 
the addictive properties of their services or products to be successful (Van Belleghem, 
2017). Considering the omnipresence of smartphones and all-around connectivity 
(especially the Internet of Things), companies are urged to carefully consider how to 
transform their businesses to obtain and retain the attention of their customers; they must 
learn to better engage their customers and increase their user experience, which will allow 
them to perform better than the competition.
Third, the need for instant gratification is stronger than ever, mostly due to a lack of 
attention span (see previous paragraph) and synchronous communication that enables 
prompt interaction with others (Ramirez Jr et al., 2008). This need could also be caused 
by a desire to avoid delay, uncertainty of what the future holds, deriving pleasure from 
short-term rewards, and discomfort from anticipating bad events (Heshmat, 2016). Many 
examples can be found in the digital world, such as likes and comments on Facebook, 
LinkedIn, and Yammer, and retweets on Twitter. ResearchGate motivates their users with 
gratifying ego boosts, such as RG score, achievements (e.g., reaching 50,000 downloads), 
and ratings (e.g., being the most-cited author in a department) (Meishar, 2017). Another 
example is the mobile application Runtastic, which is one of the most popular fitness apps 
and has more than 80 million registered users. Users can track their physical activities 
and share their results via various social media platforms. By doing so, users gain higher 
motivation to be physically active and reach their goals, feel less lonely and perceive 
companionship. Sharing their results on social media, especially Facebook, gains them 
support from friends, who encourage their achievements and provide them with instant 
gratification (Klenk, Reifegerste, & Renatus, 2017).
Fourth, one of the recent conceptual changes is the ability to precisely measure customers’ 
activities, which enables companies to analyse not only customers’ behaviours but their 
overall processes (V an Belleghem, 2017). Understanding interactions with customers is not 
enough; companies should understand their customers’ processes so they can thoroughly 
improve customer orientation (Trkman et al., 2015). Accordingly, this helps companies 
understand evolving customer behaviours and preferences, which has been recognized as 
the top driver for DT (Solis, Li, & Szymanski, 2017). Traditional customer segmentation is 
not enough. Instead, data and information from mobile users enable companies to hyper-
personalize their products and services (Van Belleghem, 2017). For example, in the past, 
confectioners knew customers’ birthdays and what cakes they preferred. Nowadays, with 

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 21 | No. 3 | 2019 358
digital engagement and analytics tools, companies know much more – they can know 
where and when a customer is going to have a birthday party, who will come, who is 
invited, how they will be dressed, what they will drink, and when they will leave.
Fifth, companies are focused on measuring employees’ work, especially their task 
performance. Modern technology allows highly precise and instantaneous measurement 
of key performance indicators. However, tasks in predictable and measurable situations 
can be automated relatively easily, as opposed to unmeasurable performances that require 
a personal touch. More intimate, creative, and rare tasks and services are acquiring more 
value as passion and empathy become more important (V an Belleghem, 2017). This means 
that the most important employee activities are unmeasurable. Workers will thus have to 
acquire different skills to succeed in the workplace of the future (Manyika & Sneader, 2018) 
and companies will need a new way to measure employees’ performance. Hence, digital 
and human transformation will take place in which machines will take on operational 
labour and humans will perform emotional tasks. The success of companies interacting 
with customers will rely on the digital perfection of the computers on the rational side 
and human touch on the emotional side (Van Belleghem, 2014). Several such cases can be 
found in practice; one example is hotel service automatization. Recently, hotels have begun 
to apply various technologies to improve their services and increase customer satisfaction 
(Budler et al., 2019). Thus, they offer mobile check-in and check-out, mobile interactions 
with guests (i.e., for ordering items and services), motion-detected and key card guest 
rooms, robotized housekeeping, personalization of accommodations based on recorded 
preferences, etc. This way, hotels save staff time, so personnel can work efficiently on more 
complicated guest requests. That holds especially true when guests are upset and want to 
share their concerns with a person, not an artificial intelligence. They want responses that 
are not just sympathetic and senseless but helpful and emotional (Benbria, 2016).
4 DISCUSSION
Any attempt to change a company should take the possibilities of zero marginal costs, limited 
attention spans, the need for instant gratification, and hard-to-measure performances into 
account. According to Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher, ‘the only constant is change’; our 
environment is ever-evolving. Mobile devices, social media, business intelligence, big 
data analytics, cloud computing, and the Internet of Things are just some of the current 
technologies (also often rebranding of previously existing solutions) that affect the way 
companies do business. While technology can automate processes and change businesses 
on an operational level, organizations need to go beyond to change their mindsets and the 
way they deal with customers.
Many issues arise from changes and DT. Fitzgerald et al. (2014) highlight barriers arising 
from a lack of vision, ineffective leadership, and inadequate experience that represent 
challenges for companies embracing DT. Often, roles and responsibilities in the DT 
process are not clear. Considering institutional challenges, much effort is needed to 

L. TOMAT, P . TRKMAN | DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION – THE HYPE AND REAL CHANGES 359
overcome the historical leverage of companies’ technology, idea, and innovation fatigue 
and shift the whole culture of the company (Burack, 1991). Additionally, the pay-off for 
investments in DT should be clear. Any kind of transformation is a complicated process 
that can succeed if leadership provides a clear vision and all employees are motivated and 
engaged (Fitzgerald et al., 2014).
Along these lines, accruing any benefits from DT requires a combination of business and 
technology skills from different areas. For example, regarding supply chains, reinventing 
business operations on the wings of digital technology should be thoroughly considered 
(Trkman, Budler, & Groznik, 2015) to maximize value proposition. Also, much expertise 
is needed to master the emerging IT infrastructure (Bowersox, Closs, & Drayer, 2005). 
Organizational culture also needs to be addressed, as it defines what an organization does 
and does not do. Management beliefs, employees’ commitment to a common goal, and 
their interactions play a crucial role in a major organizational shift (Lucas Jr & Goh, 2009). 
However, instead of hiding behind generic statements that ‘top management support and 
organizational culture are crucial’ the companies must open this black box and investigate 
what kind of top management support and which specific changes in organizational 
culture are needed (Trkman, Oliveira, & McCormack, 2016).
Operational excellence is essential to manage DT, which is often more about incremental 
bridging than a large overhaul (Furr & Shipilov, 2019). More precisely, companies need 
to digitize customer and delivery processes, such as shifting to online sales, and exploit 
the Internet as an opportunity to reach and engage with customers (Barua et al., 2001) to 
achieve the reduction in transaction costs (Mahadevan, 2000).
To successfully approach and implement DT, companies need proficient staff in project, 
strategic, and information systems management. A company needs to develop a digital 
strategy and effectively communicate it to the employees (Kane et al., 2015). Thus, 
strategic managers need to know how to recognize critical factors for long-term success 
(Trkman, 2010) and form a common vision. Project management needs to guide the 
project team through DT, avoiding traps and solving problems. Furthermore, information 
systems management skills are also vital, especially in terms of change management and 
redesigning business processes, organizational leadership to orchestrate the IT team, 
risk management to cope with daily technical innovations, and core knowledge of IT to 
support decision making from the technical perspective.
As a field, BPM can be of extreme importance. While BPM has been traditionally used 
to boost operational efficiency, it is now recognized as a key DT driver. Contrary to the 
traditional need for efficiency and optimization, BPM delivers automation-fuelled agility 
to organizations, which enables them to immediately adapt to changes (Araujo, 2017). 
Furthermore, through vigorous BPM capability, a company’s processes become more agile 
and efficient, enabling higher values for their products and services; thus, the target market 
can be reached more quickly and with greater returns (Kirchmer, 2011). New technologies 

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 21 | No. 3 | 2019 360
(i.e., machine learning) affect organizations’ processes, and the need for high performance 
triggers innovation-centred strategies. With effective management approaches supported 
by BPM, organizations improve their process innovations (Kirchmer, 2017). Also, BPM 
enables interactions among departments and drives relations with customers and partners 
by enabling effective communication, information sharing, and collaboration via digital 
technology (Garcia, 2018). However, according to Sandle (2018), BPM is involved with 
DT on various levels. First, BPM offers modelling tools that enable businesses to run 
smoothly; business analytics can then be applied, and there are content management and 
collaboration tools to foster communication. All of these tools form an agile organization, 
and BPM can help change businesses by improving operations, reducing the complexity of 
team collaboration, and improving the customer experience.
5 CONCLUSION
The presented overview of unjustified hype and conceptual changes can serve researchers 
and practitioners as a starting point to ‘separate the wheat from the chaff’. While 
organizations build (dynamic) capabilities to transform continually, it is not essential 
to follow the most recent hype and adopt whatever is currently most praised in the 
professional press (Trkman et al., 2011). To take advantage of the opportunities offered 
by DT, organizations should carefully investigate changes in their industry, among their 
stakeholders, and in the environment and then see which new technologies are most 
suitable to experiment with.
Our paper suffers from several limitations that are also excellent pointers for further 
research. The listed changes thus should not be taken as a definitive list of trends in the 
last decade. The research could be upgraded by conducting a Delphi study and focus 
groups of practitioners and researchers to provide a consolidated agreement on the hype 
and changes brought by DT (see Mergel et al., 2019 for a similar study on defining DT 
in public administration). Another illustration of DT can be found in work by Cech and 
Tellioğlu (2019), who studied current and future trends with an online real-time Delphi 
study of international academic experts. Another good example from the BPM field is a 
Delphi study with academic and practical experts examining cultural values that matter in 
BPM (Schmiedel, Vom Brocke, & Recker, 2013). Such an approach would allow research 
questions similar to ours to be answered in a more rigorous manner. However, this study 
presents a foundation for further research. On one hand, companies will always have to 
innovate and adapt to new technologies, and on the other, they will need to thoroughly 
consider how to process constantly appearing fads such as DT, as well as conceptual 
changes, such as instant gratification, constant connectivity through smartphones, or 
increased measurability of customer processes.
Furthermore, detailed case studies could be used to investigate and compare the 
perceptions of employees, managers, consultants, and researchers about what DT is and 

L. TOMAT, P . TRKMAN | DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION – THE HYPE AND REAL CHANGES 361
how to approach it. Also, a bibliometric study (Zupic & Čater, 2014) should be applied to 
identify the state of the art in the field of DT.
In summary, our central message is that companies need to build an ambidextrous 
approach. To avoid overhyping the changes that DT will bring, they should tackle DT 
more strategically by focusing on a common goal and vision with sufficient business, 
management, and technological knowledge (Business Informatics, 2019). However, they 
can also profit by using the DT hype as an opportunity to build consensus and give a clear 
purpose to employees and management; this can serve as a strategy to build and maintain 
enthusiasm for changes and obtain short-term wins. To say it simply – DT needs a heart 
(Westerman, 2018).
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial Fads and Fashions: The Diffusion and Rejection of 
Innovations. The Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 586-612.
Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of management review, 21(1), 254-
285.
Agarwal, R., Gao, G., DesRoches, C., & Jha, A. (2010). The Digital Transformation of 
Healthcare: Current Status and the Road Ahead. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 796-
809.
Arthur, W . B. (2009). The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. New York: 
Free press.
Asurion (2018). Americans Don’t Want to Unplug from Phones While on Vacation, Despite 
Latest Digital Detox Trend. https://www.asurion.com/about/press-releases/americans-
dont-want-to-unplug-from-phones-while-on-vacation-despite-latest-digital-detox-
trend/ (accessed June 10, 2019).
Araujo, C. (2017). Why BPM is now taking a central role in digital transformation. https://
www.cio.com/article/3176077/software/why-bpm-is-now-taking-a-central-role-in-
digital-transformation.html (accessed December 18, 2018).
Barua, A., Konana, P ., Whinston, A., & Yin, F . (2001). Managing e-business transformation: 
Opportunities and value assessment. Sloan Management Review, 43(1), 36-44.
Bauer, J. (2002). Rural America and the Digital Transformation of Health Care: New 
Perspectives on the Future. Journal of Legal Medicine, 23(1), 73-83.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 21 | No. 3 | 2019 362
Bauer, J., & Brown, W . (2001). The digital transformation of oral health care: Teledentistry 
and electronic commerce. The Journal of the American Dental Association, 132(2), 204-
209.
Benbria (2016). How Hotel Automation Benefits Guests. https://www.benbria.com/
automation-benefits-guests-hotels/ (accessed May 27, 2019).
Berman, S. (2012). Digital transformation: opportunities to create new business models. 
Strategy & Leadership, 40(2), 16-24.
Berman, S. (2012). Leadership Digital transformation: opportunities to create new business 
models Article information: For Authors. Internet Research, 26(2), 186-212.
Berman, S., & Marshall, A. (2014). The next digital transformation: from an individual-
centered to an everyone-to-everyone economy. Strategy & Leadership, 42(5), 9-17.
Bharadwaj, A. (2000). A resource-based perspective on information technology capability 
and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS quarterly, 169-196.
Bowersox, D., Closs, D., & Drayer, R. (2005). The digital transformation: technology and 
beyond. Supply Chain Management Review, 9(1), 22-29.
Budler, M., Bratec, M., Minor, K.B., & Tomat, L. A business model approach towards 
understanding the daily deals in internet distribution systems. T ourism Economics, in press.
Bughin, J., & V an Zeebroeck, N. (2017). The best response to digital disruption. MIT Sloan 
Management Review, 58(4), 80-86.
Burack, E. (1991). Changing the company culture—the role of human resource 
development. Long Range Planning, 24(1), 88-95.
Business Informatics (2019). Business Informatics. http://www.ef.uni-lj.si/graduate/businf 
(accessed June 20, 2019).
Carreras, C., & de Soto, P. (2013). The Roman transport network: a precedent for the 
integration of the European mobility. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and 
Interdisciplinary History, 46(3), 117-133.

L. TOMAT, P . TRKMAN | DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION – THE HYPE AND REAL CHANGES 363
Cech, F., & Tellioglu, H. (2019). Impact of the Digital Transformation: An Online 
Real-Time Delphi Study. ArXiv preprint arXiv:1904.11411. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/
papers/1904/1904.11411.pdf (accessed June 20, 2019).
Chew , E., Semmelrock-Picej, M., & Novak, A. (2013). V alue co-creation in the organizations 
of the future. Proceedings of the European Conference on Management, Leadership & 
Governance, 16-23.
Collin, J., Hiekkanen, K., Korhonen, J., Halén, M., Itälä, T., & Helenius, M. (2015). IT 
leadership in transition-The impact of digitalization on Finnish organizations. Aalto 
University publication series Science + Technology, 7, 1-121.
Collins, D. (2013). Management fads and buzzwords: Critical-practical perspectives. New 
Y ork: Routledge.
DaSilva, C., & Trkman, P . (2014). Business model: What it is and what it is not. Long range 
planning, 47(6), 379-389.
Demirkan, H., Spohrer, J., & Welser, J. (2016). Digital innovation and strategic 
transformation. IT Professional, 18(6), 14-18.
Downes, L., & Nunes, P . (2013). Big bang disruption. Harvard Business Review, 91(3), 44-
56.
Economic and Business Review (2018). EBR Special Issue Digital Transformation Call 
for Papers. https://www.ebrjournal.net/announcements/10/ebr_special_issue_digital_
transformation_call_for_papers/ (accessed October 25, 2018).
Eden, R., Jones, A.B., Casey, V ., & Draheim, M. (2019). Digital Transformation Requires 
Workforce Transformation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 18(1), 1-4.
Elgan, M. (2017). Smartphones make people distracted and unproductive. https://
www.computerworld.com/article/3215276/smartphones/smartphones-make-people-
distracted-and-unproductive.html (accessed Januar 18, 2019).
Erjavec, J., Manfreda, A., Jaklič, J., & Indihar Štemberger, M. (2018). Stanje in trendi 
digitalne preobrazbe v Sloveniji. Economic and Business Review, 20, 109-128.
Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D., & Welch, M. (2014). Embracing Digital 
Technology A New Strategic Imperative. MIT sloan management review, 55(2), 1-16.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 21 | No. 3 | 2019 364
Furr, N., & Shipilov, A. (2019). Digital Doesn’t Have to Be Disruptive. Harvard Business 
Review. https://hbr.org/2019/07/digital-doesnt-have-to-be-disruptive#comment-section 
(accessed June 27, 2019).
Garcia, J. (2018). Using BPM to accelerate digital transformation. https://www.
processexcellencenetwork.com/business-transformation/articles/using-bpm-to-
accelerate-digital-transformation (accessed May 26, 2019).
Gartner (2017). Digital Transformation. https://www.gartner.com/en/conferences/na/
cio-us-east/agenda/featured-topics/topic-digital-transformation#digital-ecosystems 
(accessed December 6, 2018).
Gerster, D. (2017). Digital Transformation and IT: Current State of Research. PACIS 2017 
Proceedings.
Gimpel, H., & Röglinger, M. (2015). Digital transformation: changes and chances–insights 
based on an empirical study.
Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering work: don't automate, obliterate. Harvard business 
review, 68(4).
Henriette, E., Feki, M., & Boughzala, I. (2015). The shape of digital transformation: a 
systematic literature review. MCIS 2015 Proceedings, 431-443.
Heshmat, S. (2016). 10 Reasons We Rush for Immediate Gratification. https://www.
psychologytoday.com/us/blog/science-choice/201606/10-reasons-we-rush-immediate-
gratification (accessed Januar 7, 2019).
Hess, T., Matt, C., Benlian, A., & Wiesböck, F. (2016). Options for Formulating a Digital 
Transformation Strategy. MIS Quarterly Executive, 15(2).
Hoberg, P., Krcmar, H., & Welz, B. (2017). Skills for digital transformation. IDT survey. 
http://idt.in.tum.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/IDT_Skill_Report_2015.pdf (accessed 
December 22, 2018).
Horlacher, A., & Hess, T. (2016). What does a Chief Digital Officer do? Managerial tasks 
and roles of a new C-level position in the context of digital transformation. 2016 49th 
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (5126-5135). IEEE.

L. TOMAT, P . TRKMAN | DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION – THE HYPE AND REAL CHANGES 365
Jones, S. (2013). Against technology: From the Luddites to neo-Luddism. New York: 
Routledge.
Juneja, P . (2019). Importance of Knowing Employees. https://www .managementstudyguide.
com/importance-of-knowing-employees.htm (accessed June 6, 2019).
Kane, G., Palmer, D., Phillips, A., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2015). Strategy, not technology, 
drives digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte University 
Press, 14, 1-25.
Kane, G. C., Michelman, P., Copulsky, J. R., Phillips, A. N., & Andrus, G. R. (2019). The 
Technology Fallacy: How People Are the Real Key to Digital Transformation. Cambridge: 
The MIT Press.
Karimi, J., & Walter, Z. (2016). Corporate entrepreneurship, disruptive business model 
innovation adoption, and its performance: the case of the newspaper industry. Long Range 
Planning, 49(3), 342-360.
Kirchmer, M. (2011). Innovation through Business Process Management. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/259755101_Innovation_through_Business_Process_
Management (accessed June 12, 2019)
Kirchmer, M. (2017). High performance through business process management. Cham: 
Springer.
Klenk, S., Reifegerste, D., & Renatus, R. (2017). Gender differences in gratifications from 
fitness app use and implications for health interventions. Mobile Media & Communication, 
5(2), 178-193.
Klun, M., & Trkman, P . (2018). Business process management–at the crossroads. Business 
Process Management Journal, 24(3), 786-813.
Kutzner, K., Schoormann, T., & Knackstedt, R. (2018). Digital transformation in 
information systems research: a taxonomy-based approach to structure the field. ECIS 
2018 Proceedings.
Liu, D.Y ., Chen, S.W ., & Chou, T.C. (2011). Resource fit in digital transformation: Lessons 
learned from the CBC Bank global e-banking project. Management Decision, 49(10), 
1728-1742.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 21 | No. 3 | 2019 366
Lucas Jr, H., & Goh, J. (2009). Disruptive technology: How Kodak missed the digital 
photography revolution. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18(1), 46-55.
Mahadevan, B. (2000). Business models for Internet-based e-commerce: An anatomy. 
California management review, 42(4), 55-69.
Majchrzak, A., Markus, M., & Wareham, J. (2016). Designing for digital transformation: 
lessons for information systems research from the study of ICT and societal challenges. 
MIS Quarterly, 40 (2), 267-277.
Manfreda, A., & Indihar Štemberger, M. (2018). Establishing a partnership between top 
and IT managers: A necessity in an era of digital transformation. Information Technology 
& People.
Manyika, J., & Sneader, K. (2018). AI, automation, and the future of work: Ten things to 
solve for. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/ai-automation-
and-the-future-of-work-ten-things-to-solve-for (accessed Januar 16, 2019).
Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital Transformation Strategies. Business & 
Information Systems Engineering, 57(5).
McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2008). Investing in the IT that makes a competitive 
difference. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 98.
Meishar-Tal, H., & Pieterse, E. (2017). Why do academics use academic social networking 
sites? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(1).
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results 
from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385.
Mintzberg, H. (2017). Some Half-truths of Management. http://www.mintzberg.org/blog/
half-truths-management (accessed November 23, 2018).
Morgan, R., & Page, K. (2008). Managing business transformation to deliver strategic 
agility. Strategic Change, 17(5‐6), 155-168.
Nagy, P., & Koles, B. (2014). The digital transformation of human identity: Towards a 
conceptual model of virtual identity in virtual worlds. Convergence, 20(3), 276-292.

L. TOMAT, P . TRKMAN | DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION – THE HYPE AND REAL CHANGES 367
Nolan, R., & Croson, D. (1995). Creative destruction: A six-stage process for transforming 
the organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Parviainen, P ., Tihinen, M., Kääriäinen, J., & Teppola, S. (2017). Tackling the digitalization 
challenge: how to benefit from digitalization in practice. International journal of 
information systems and project management, 5(1), 63-77.
Perez, C. (2002). Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles 
and Golden Ages. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Piccinini, E., Gregory, R., & Kolbe, L. (2015). Changes in the Producer-Consumer 
Relationship-Towards Digital Transformation. Wirtschaftsinformatik, (1634-1648).
Pihir, I., Tomičić-Pupek, K., & Tomičić Furjan, M. (2019). Digital Transformation 
Playground-Literature Review and Framework of Concepts. Journal of Information and 
Organizational Sciences, 43(1), 33-48.
Potts, J., Hartley, J., Banks, J., Burgess, J., Cobcroft, R., Cunningham, S., & Montgomery, 
L. (2008). Consumer co‐creation and situated creativity. Industry and Innovation, 15(5), 
459-474.
Ramirez Jr, A., Dimmick, J., Feaster, J., & Lin, S.-F. (2008). Revisiting interpersonal media 
competition: The gratification niches of instant messaging, e-mail, and the telephone. 
Communication Research, 35(4), 529-547.
Reis, J., Amorim, M., Melão, N., & Matos, P . (2018). Digital Transformation: A Literature 
Review and Guidelines for Future Research. World Conference on Information Systems and 
Technologies (411-421). Springer.
Riasanow, T., Setzke, D. S., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2019). Clarifying the Notion of 
Digital Transformation: A Transdisciplinary Review of Literature. Journal of Competences, 
Strategy & Management, 10, 5-31.
Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative 
commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. New Y ork: St. Martin's Press.
Rouse, W . (2005). A theory of enterprise transformation. Systems Engineering, 8(4), 279-
295.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 21 | No. 3 | 2019 368
Sandle, T. (2018). Business Process Management is central to digital transformation. http://
www.digitaljournal.com/business/business-process-management-is-central-to-digital-
transformation/article/512404 (accessed Januar 10, 2019).
Schumpeter, J., A. (2010). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New Y ork: Routledge.
Schmiedel, T ., vom Brocke, J., & Recker, J. (2013). Which cultural values matter to business 
process management? Results from a global Delphi study. Business Process Management 
Journal, 19(2), 292-317.
Selander, L., Henfridsson, O., & Svahn, F. (2010). Transforming Ecosystem Relationships 
in Digital Innovation. ICIS 2010 Proceedings.
Shah, M., & Siddiqui, F. (2006). Organisational critical success factors in adoption of 
e-banking at the Woolwich bank. International Journal of information management, 26(6), 
442-456.
Sharma, S. K., & Meyer, K. E. (2019). New Frontiers–Digital Transformation of ‘Life-Work-
Innovate’. In Industrializing Innovation-the Next Revolution (pp. 141-145). Springer, 
Cham.
Singh, A., & Hess, T . (2017). How Chief Digital Officers Promote the Digital T ransformation 
of their Companies. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(1).
Skog, D. A., Wimelius, H., & Sandberg, J. (2018). Digital Disruption. Business & Information 
Systems Engineering, 60(5), 431-437.
Solis, B., Li, C., & Szymanski, J. (2014). The 2014 state of digital transformation. Altimeter 
Group. https://www.briansolis.com/2014/07/2014-state-digital-transformation/ (accessed 
December 3, 2018).
Solis, B., Li, C., & Szymanski, J. (2017). The 2017 state of digital transformation. Altimeter 
Group. https://www.prophet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Altimeter-_-2017-State-
of-DT.pdf (accessed December 13, 2018).
Statista (2019). Number of smartphone users worldwide from 2014 to 2020 (in billions). 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/ 
(accessed January 26, 2019). 

L. TOMAT, P . TRKMAN | DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION – THE HYPE AND REAL CHANGES 369
Stolterman, E., & Fors, A. (2004). Information technology and the good life. V E. 
Stolterman, & A. Fors, Information systems research (687-692). Springer.
Trkman, P. (2017). Digital Transformation does not matter. https://www.linkedin.com/
pulse/digital-transformation-does-matter-peter-trkman/ (accessed November 4, 2018).
Trkman, P ., Budler, M., & Groznik, A. (2015). A business model approach to supply chain 
management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 20(6), 587-602.
Trkman, P., Mertens, W., Viaene, S., & Gemmel, P. (2015). From business process 
management to customer process management. Business process management journal, 
21(2), 250-266.
Trkman, P., Oliveira, M., & McCormack, K. (2016). Value-oriented supply chain risk 
management: you get what you expect. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(5), 
1061-1083.
Urbinati, A., Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V ., & Frattini, F . (2018). The role of digital technologies 
in open innovation processes: an exploratory multiple case study analysis. R&D 
Management, 1-25. 
Van Belleghem, S. (2014). The essence of ‘When digital becomes human’. http://
stevenvanbelleghem.com/blog/the-essence-of-when-digital-becomes-human (accessed 
Januar 9, 2019).
V an Belleghem, S. (2017). Customers the Day After T omorrow: How to Attract Customers in 
a World of AIs, Bots, and Automation. Tielt: Lannoo Publishers.
Web of Science (2019). Search term: Topic=«digital transformation« OR Title=«digital 
transformation«. http://webofknowledge.com (accessed January 28, 2019).
W esterman, G. (2018). Why Digital T ransformation Needs a Heart. MIT Sloan Management 
Review, 58(4).
Westerman, G., Tannou, M., Bonnet, D., Ferraris, P., & McAfee, A. (2012). The Digital 
Advantage: How digital leaders outperform their peers in every industry. MIT Sloan 
Management and Capgemini Consulting, MA, 2, 2-23.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 21 | No. 3 | 2019 370
Zhang, X., Li, N., Ullrich, J., & van Dick, R. (2015). Getting everyone on board: The 
effect of differentiated transformational leadership by CEOs on top management team 
effectiveness and leader-rated firm performance. Journal of Management, 41(7), 1898-
1933.
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. 
Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472.