Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WAMBA AIFirmPerformance Full Version
WAMBA AIFirmPerformance Full Version
net/publication/344312754
CITATIONS READS
0 2,164
4 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Kala Kamdjoug Jean Robert on 20 November 2020.
1 Introduction
The year 1974 saw the advent of the first expert systems; the most famous being
MYCIN [1, 2] designed to assist in the diagnosis and treatment of bacterial blood
diseases. At the middle of the twentieth Century, McCulloch and Pitts worked on
artificial neurons simulating the laws of logic [3]. Turing carried out research on a
universal machine that is theoretically able to solve all problems by manipulating
symbols [4, 5], and this was the starting point of investigations on an artificial system
that might be as good as a human mind. In line with the fast-paced sophistication of
technologies, Garry Kasparov, a world chess champion, was beaten in 1996 by the
Deep Blue software of IBM [6]. In 1967, the first program of chess with satisfactory
2
2 Literature Review
and organizational performance has lured the interest of other scholars, as they take
into account the effect of the competitive environment. Thus, organizational processes
consist of two categories: business processes and management processes. Each cate-
gory is subdivided into an automation, information and transformational process [31].
may diverge. Then, an organization may be the result of regulated actions: a compa-
ny, a public administration, a trade union, a political party, an association. Productiv-
ity paradox theory considers organizational performance in productivity sense. In this
vein, it aims to measure the degree to which one or more factors of production (mate-
rial factors consumed or intangible factors implemented) contribute to the variation in
the final result of a transformation process [11, 50-53].
Organizational performance represents the ability of the organization to achieve
financial/market/administrative performance that allows it to maintain its position in
competitive environments [29, 31, 54-56].
Performance improvements at the organizational level (PIPL): is the ability of
the organization to achieve financial/marketing/administrational performance to sus-
tain their position in competitive environments (Mooney et al. 1996).
Financial Performance: ability of the firm to attain financial gains. Profitability,
cost cutting, labor savings and budget reductions [15, 29, 31].
Marketing performance: organizational direction to create value for the compa-
ny's customers. Improved customer satisfaction, reduced prices, new products and
services, combination of products and services, buyback rate, retention of new cus-
tomers, number of new products / services launched [15, 29, 31].
Administrative performance: the firm’s renewed control over resources, en-
hanced coordination among and within organizations. It is also viewed as an enhanced
co-ordination among department’s and management’s control over firm’s resources
[15, 29, 31].
H2: AI capability has a significant positive effect on performance improvement at
the organizational level.
H3: Process-oriented dynamic capabilities have a significant positive effect on or-
ganizational performance.
In nowadays literature, the examination of the effects of process-oriented dynamic
capabilities, on how it improves organizational performance, has been limited to spe-
cific processes or technologies. In fact, these studies provided limited information on
the role of process-oriented dynamic capability improvements as a mediator between
the effects of IT capabilities on organizational performance improvements [29, 42-44,
46, 57]. We also argue in this study that process-oriented dynamic capabilities will
mediate the relationship between AI capability and organizational performance (H4).
7
4 Research Methodology
price are often poorly or not sufficiently exploited, which is a kind of waste of re-
sources. Therefore, the evaluator should also think about secondary data [64, 65].
These case studies provide verifiable facts, such as the contact details of the organiza-
tions, the personal contacts of the members involved in the AI integration process in
their organizations, and excerpts from their interviews. The successful adoption of AI
explained in these case studies and in the literature, allows us to support and consoli-
date the research elements at first. Second, allows us to propose and develop an in-
depth analysis of each research proposal. So, we examined 150 archived cases that
had adopted AI, all of which were drawn from the website of a leading vendor of AI
techniques and technologies (Appendix 1).
For each identified case, the first author ensured the elements to be used to build
the search pattern were available. Such elements included: AI management capabili-
ties, AI personnel expertise, AI infrastructure flexibility, Process-Oriented Dynamic
Capabilities, financial performance, marketing performance, and administrative per-
formance (Figure 1). Then, two investigators took on the data coding process and
used a scale with values ranging from 1 to 4. The value 1 is assigned when the con-
struct is not mentioned in the case. Value 2 corresponded to the lowest value, 4 the
highest value and 3 the average value when a given construct is mentioned in the case
study (Anand 2013). The two (02) readers codified the case studies in a progressive
manner. Before assigning a score to a construct, the reader performs an evaluation
process. Subjective character is therefore not so much in the difficulty of measuring
the quantities that describe an object, but rather in the overall perception of the case
studies [66-68]. We started from the premise that subjectivity could influence the
process of coding constructs [68, 69]. The overall process is done in three steps. First,
the choice of case studies on the websites of AI solution providers was unanimously
made by both readers. Second, each participant performed latent coding (transforming
qualitative data into quantitative data). During this phase, it was to collect all the evi-
dence for each score assigned to a construct in each case study. Third, both research-
ers provided the scores for each case study. All case studies that were incompatible in
terms of scores for both readers were simply eliminated to avoid any subjectivity.
This was to ensure, first, that our codification process is universal and neutral. And
secondly, what does not depend on a reader and is valid for both [70, 71].
Table 1 gives examples of the scores that we assigned to a few individuals in our
sample. And Table 2 presents some of the results obtained after case coding. The link
to each case study included in this study can be found in Appendix 1.
Cases Assigned
Sample Expects Item rated
No. score
“By mid-2018, TINE had saved 50 percent
on its IT costs compared to its previous on- Financial Per-
79 4
premises solution. The company has begun formance
to drive faster development cycles since
9
5 Results
From Figure 2, we can see that all our proposed hypotheses are supported. More pre-
cisely, we can see that AICAP has a significant positive effect on PDCs (β=0.292,
p<0.001) (H1 is supported). Also, AICAP has a direct significant positive effect on
PERF (β=0.370, p<0.001) (H2 is supported), and PDCs have a positive significant
effect on PERF (β=0.221, p<0.01) (H3 is supported). Moreover, the R2 of PERF is
about 23, 30% and the one of PDCs is about 8.5%. Finally, as we can notice from
Table 3, PDCs mediate the relationship between AICAP and PERF (β=0.065, p<0.05)
(H4 is supported).
Case
AIMC AIPE AIIF PDCs FP MP AP AICAP PERF
No.
1 4 3 3 4 4 2 2 10 8
2 4 4 4 2 3 4 4 12 11
3 4 3 4 3 4 4 2.5 11 10.5
4 4 1.5 3 3 3 3 3.5 8.5 9.5
5 3 2 3 4 4 4 3 8 11
6 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 10 11
7 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 9 10
8 4 3 4 3 4 2 2 11 8
9 4 3 3 4 3 4 1 10 8
10 4 2 2 1 3 3 2 8 8
AIMC: AI Management capabilities, AIPE: AI Personnel expertise, AIIF: AI In-
frastructure flexibility, PDCs: Process-Oriented Dynamic Capabilities, FP: Financial
performance, MP: Marketing performance, AP: Administrative performance, AICAP:
Capabilities of AI, PERF: Performance Improvement at Organizational Level.
**P < 0.01,
****P<0.001
machine learning is used, the more efficient the system becomes the more accurate
and efficient the results and the less man intervention are needed to make it work.
6 Discussion
Contrary to previous studies that examined the influence and the impact of IT on
specific business processes only, the conceptual framework proposed in this paper
examines the cumulative effects of AI capabilities on improving process-oriented
dynamic capabilities and the mediation effect of these between AICAP and organiza-
tional performance improvement. Furthermore, most of the previous research on AI
has been limited to either financial measure, marketing measures or administrative
measures as a key indicator of organizational performance, our research also applies
to administrative and marketing performance to highlight the direct and indirect influ-
ence of AI on organizational performance. Therefore, the results of this research are
new in terms of satisfying the need for leaders and managers to capture, control and
understand the direct and indirect benefits of AI capabilities in their organizations.
Our study also reveals that process-oriented dynamic capabilities contribute signifi-
cantly to improving organizational performance (marketing performance, financial
performance and administrative performance). This means that organizations must
use AI to modify their business processes so that they can adapt to the ever-changing
environment.
Our study has several theoretical implications for AICAP research to be considered
in future research. First, it is one of the first studies to assess the direct impact of
AICAP on firm performance and dynamic process-driven capabilities, and to assess
the mediating effect of PDCs on the relationship between AICAP and PERF. Also,
our study contributes to the research stream on business value of IT by confirming the
importance of investing into complementary assets (e.g., dynamic process-driven
capabilities). The result is in line with those obtained by [46, 78] in their studies on
the influence of IT capabilities on business performance.
In addition to the theoretical implications, our study has several managerial impli-
cations. Firstly, the results suggest in particular that companies with improved PDCs
will generate better performance and achieve a competitive advantage [29]. Secondly,
our results show that the use reconfiguration of PDCs by companies in order to bene-
fit from the advantages of AI allows them to improve their performance, the profita-
bility of their investments in AI and thus have a competitive advantage. Our analyses
are consistent with proposals by [19] suggesting to managers who invest in AI to
develop capabilities to redefine their processes. Managers can therefore confidently
discuss the role played by AI in implementing business strategies and improving
business performance as suggested [79, 80].
7 Conclusion
based on secondary data (case studies). The quantitative approach allowed us to study
the causal links between the different variables of the conceptual research model, to
test the hypotheses/proposals constructed. The case studies collected were analysed
qualitatively to highlight the elements related to each variable. Then, a coding process
was applied to them in order to transform them into quantitative data on the basis of a
four (04) level scale. The concept of AI consists in developing computer programs
capable of reproducing and performing tasks achieved by human beings, and which
require learning, organization, memory and reasoning. AI is the next computer and
Cultural Revolution for businesses. In the continuity of their digital transition, com-
panies are now preparing for the intelligent transition, which integrates both the Inter-
net of Things and artificial intelligence. AI is obviously a business topic, and it is
important for IT to be a support, or even a pilot of this new business model. The re-
search framework adopted in our work integrates a more inclusive and comprehensive
approach to better account for the intangible benefits of AI in organizations. In our
study, we were able to appreciate the indirect effect that process-oriented dynamic
capabilities have on AI capabilities. It is also apparent that firm’s AI capabilities have
a direct and significant influence on the firm’s organizational performance. Our re-
sults show that firm’s AI capabilities have a mediating effect on process-oriented
dynamic capabilities, and that PERF is not the only indicator to examine the effects of
AI capabilities, as we also have process-oriented dynamic capabilities. This indicates
that organizations gain AI performance when using these features to reconfigure their
process-oriented dynamic capabilities.
8 Appendix
9 References
1. Hopfield, J.J.J.P.o.t.n.a.o.s., Neurons with graded response have collective
computational properties like those of two-state neurons. 1984. 81(10): p. 3088-3092.
2. Shortliffe, E.H., MYCIN: a rule-based computer program for advising physicians
regarding antimicrobial therapy selection. 1974, STANFORD UNIV CALIF DEPT
OF COMPUTER SCIENCE.
3. McCulloch, W.S. and W.J.T.b.o.m.b. Pitts, A logical calculus of the ideas immanent
in nervous activity. 1943. 5(4): p. 115-133.
4. Turing, A.M.J.M., Can a machine think. 1950. 59(236): p. 433-460.
5. Turing, A.M.J.P.o.t.L.m.s., On computable numbers, with an application to the
Entscheidungsproblem. 1937. 2(1): p. 230-265.
6. El Louadi, M., Convergences 4. 2006.
7. Greenblatt, R.D., D.E. Eastlake, and S.D. Crocker, The Greenblatt chess program, in
Computer chess compendium. 1988, Springer. p. 56-66.
14
8. Aghion, P., B.F. Jones, and C.I. Jones, Artificial intelligence and economic growth.
2017, National Bureau of Economic Research.
9. Agrawal, A.J.M.q.h.w.m.c.b.-f.m.-a.o.-i.t.-e.-o.-a.-i., The economics of artificial
intelligence. 2018.
10. Constantinides, P. and D.A.J.B.J.C. Fitzmaurice, Artificial intelligence in cardiology:
applications, benefits and challenges. 2018. 25: p. 1-3.
11. Brynjolfsson, E., D. Rock, and C. Syverson, Artificial intelligence and the modern
productivity paradox: A clash of expectations and statistics, in The economics of
artificial intelligence: An agenda. 2018, University of Chicago Press.
12. von Krogh, G.J.A.o.M.D., Artificial Intelligence in Organizations: New
Opportunities for Phenomenon-Based Theorizing. 2018.
13. Russell, S.J. and P. Norvig, Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. 2016:
Malaysia; Pearson Education Limited.
14. Pwc. Sizing the prize : Exploiting the AI Revolution, What’s the real value of AI for
your business and how can you capitalise? PwC’s Global Artificial Intelligence
Study 2019 [cited 2019 31/03/2019]; Available from:
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/data-and-analytics/publications/artificial-
intelligence-study.html.
15. Anand, A., S. Fosso Wamba, and R. Sharma, The effects of firm IT capabilities on
firm performance: the mediating effects of process improvement. 2013.
16. Aral, S. and P.J.O.S. Weill, IT assets, organizational capabilities, and firm
performance: How resource allocations and organizational differences explain
performance variation. 2007. 18(5): p. 763-780.
17. Scanner, V. Artificial Intelligence Market Report and Data. 2019 [cited 2019
02/08/2019]; Venture Scanner is your analyst and technology powered research firm.
Gain deep insights with our carefully crafted executive summaries. Analyze our
extensive data on startups, investors, and exits to complete your research.]. Available
from: https://www.venturescanner.com/artificial-intelligence.
18. Microsoft. Les 5 chiffres à absolument connaître sur l’IA. 2019 [cited 2019
02/08/2019]; Available from: https://experiences.microsoft.fr/business/intelligence-
artificielle-ia-business/ia-chiffres-cles/.
19. Françoise Mercadal-Delasalles, K.V., Les enjeux de mise en œuvre opérationnelle de
l’intelligence artificielle dans les grandes entreprises CIGREF, réussir le numérique
ed. CIGREF, ed. l.i.a.d.l.g. entreprises. 2017, CIGREF, réussir le numérique. 36.
20. Bobillier Chaumon, M.-E., et al., Can ICT improve the quality of life of elderly adults
living in residential home care units? From actual impacts to hidden artefacts. 2014.
33(6): p. 574-590.
21. Triplett, J.E.J.T.C.J.o.E.R.c.d.E., The Solow productivity paradox: what do
computers do to productivity? 1999. 32(2): p. 309-334.
22. Bensaid, A., N. Greenan, and J. Mairesse. Informatisation, recherche et productivité:
de l'impact de certaines formes de savoir sur l'efficacité des firmes>>. in XLVe
congres annuel de l'AFSE, Paris. 1996.
23. Bensaid, A., N. Greenan, and J.J.R.é. Mairesse, Informatisation, recherche et
productivité. 1997: p. 591-603.
15
43. Dosi, G., R. Nelson, and S. Winter, The nature and dynamics of organizational
capabilities. 2001: OUP Oxford.
44. Benner, M.J.J.J.o.p.i.m., Dynamic or static capabilities? Process management
practices and response to technological change. 2009. 26(5): p. 473-486.
45. Kohlbacher, M.J.K. and P. Management, The impact of dynamic capabilities through
continuous improvement on innovation: The role of business process orientation.
2013. 20(2): p. 71-76.
46. Wamba, S.F., et al., Big data analytics and firm performance: Effects of dynamic
capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 2017. 70: p. 356-365.
47. Hamet, P. and J.J.M. Tremblay, Artificial intelligence in medicine. 2017. 69: p. S36-
S40.
48. Jorfi, S., K.M. Nor, and L.J.I.J.o.M.I.T. Najjar, The relationships between IT
flexibility, IT-Business strategic alignment, and IT capability. 2011. 3(1): p. 16-31.
49. Terry Anthony Byrd, D.E.T.J.J.o.M.I.S., Measuring the flexibility of information
technology infrastructure: Exploratory analysis of a construct. 2000. 17(1): p. 167-
208.
50. Brynjolfsson, E.J.C.o.t.A., The productivity paradox of information technology:
review and assessment. 1993. 36(12).
51. David, P.A.J.T.A.E.R., The dynamo and the computer: an historical perspective on
the modern productivity paradox. 1989. 80.
52. Pilat, D., Le paradoxe de la productivité : l'apport des micro-données. 2004. 38(1): p.
41-73.
53. Wachter, R.M. and M.D. Howell, Resolving the Productivity Paradox of Health
Information Technology: A Time for OptimismResolving the Productivity Paradox of
Health Information TechnologyResolving the Productivity Paradox of Health
Information Technology. JAMA, 2018. 320(1): p. 25-26.
54. Dehning, B., V.J. Richardson, and R.W.J.J.o.O.M. Zmud, The financial performance
effects of IT-based supply chain management systems in manufacturing firms. 2007.
25(4): p. 806-824.
55. Delen, D., C. Kuzey, and A.J.E.S.w.A. Uyar, Measuring firm performance using
financial ratios: A decision tree approach. 2013. 40(10): p. 3970-3983.
56. Ittner, C.D., et al., Performance implications of strategic performance measurement
in financial services firms. 2003. 28(7-8): p. 715-741.
57. Teece, D.J.J.S.m.j., Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and
microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. 2007. 28(13): p. 1319-
1350.
58. Breslow, N.E. and N.E. Day, Statistical methods in cancer research. Vol. 1. The
analysis of case-control studies. Vol. 1. 1980: Distributed for IARC by WHO,
Geneva, Switzerland.
59. Merriam, S.B., Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education.
Revised and Expanded from" Case Study Research in Education.". 1998: ERIC.
60. Rowley, J.J.M.r.n., Using case studies in research. 2002. 25(1): p. 16-27.
17
61. Siggelkow, N.J.A.o.m.j., Persuasion with case studies. 2007. 50(1): p. 20-24.
62. George, A.L., et al., Case studies and theory development in the social sciences.
2005: mit Press.
63. Walsham, G.J.E.J.o.i.s., Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method.
1995. 4(2): p. 74-81.
64. Noël, J.G., Isabelle Gaboury, Ph. D. Josée Guignard Noël, M. Sc. Éric Forgues, Ph.
D. Louise Bouchard, Ph. D. 2009.
65. Center, A.H., et al., Public relations practices: Managerial case studies and
problems. 2008: Pearson Prentice Hall.
66. Madill, A., A. Jordan, and C.J.B.j.o.p. Shirley, Objectivity and reliability in
qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies.
2000. 91(1): p. 1-20.
67. Kracauer, S.J.P.o.q., The challenge of qualitative content analysis. 1952: p. 631-642.
68. Grbich, C., Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. 2012: Sage.
69. Mauthner, N.S. and A.J.S. Doucet, Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in
qualitative data analysis. 2003. 37(3): p. 413-431.
70. Ratner, C. Subjectivity and objectivity in qualitative methodology. in Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2002.
71. Nonaka, I., R.J.I. Toyama, and c. change, The theory of the knowledge-creating firm:
subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis. 2005. 14(3): p. 419-436.
72. Lockwood, C.M. and D.P. MacKinnon. Bootstrapping the standard error of the
mediated effect. in Proceedings of the 23rd annual meeting of SAS Users Group
International. 1998. Citeseer.
73. Bollen, K.A., R.A.J.S.M. Stine, and Research, Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit
measures in structural equation models. 1992. 21(2): p. 205-229.
74. Balambo, M.A. and J. Baz. De l’intérêt de l’analyse des modèles des équations
structurelles par la méthode PLS dans les recherches sur les relations inter
organisationnelles: le cas des recherches en Logistique. in 7ème Edition du colloque
international LOGISTIQUA. 2014.
75. Chin, W.W.J.M.m.f.b.r., The partial least squares approach to structural equation
modeling. 1998. 295(2): p. 295-336.
76. Seddon, P.B., C. Calvert, and S.J.M.q. Yang, A multi-project model of key factors
affecting organizational benefits from enterprise systems. 2010. 34(2): p. 305-328.
77. Bhattacharya, P.J., P.B. Seddon, and R. Scheepers. Enabling Strategic
Transformations with Enterprise Systems: Beyond Operational Efficiency. in ICIS.
2010.
78. Kala Kamdjoug, J.R., H.J. Nguegang Tewamba, and S. Fosso Wamba, IT
capabilities, firm performance and the mediating role of ISRM: A case study from a
developing country. Business Process Management Journal, 2018.
79. Balint, B., C. Forman, and S. Slaughter, Process standardization, task variability,
and internal performance in IT business services outsourcing. 2010, Working Paper,
http://www. devsmith. umd. edu/doit/events/pdfs ….
18