See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332844685

Digital maturity and marketing orientation: theoretical foundation and

measurement models

Article · January 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 164

1 author:

Alexander Rossmann
Hochschule Reutlingen
59 PUBLICATIONS   364 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Startups in cooperation with incumbent firms View project

Social media View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexander Rossmann on 08 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Digital Maturity and Marketing Orientation:
Theoretical Foundation and Measurement Models

Prof. Dr. Alexander Rossmann | Reutlingen University

1. Introduction

The rise of digital technologies has become an important driver for change in multiple
industries. Digital technologies affect all levels of the firm, including business model
frameworks, customer interfaces, customer experience, and internal processes. Therefore,
firms need to develop digital capabilities to manage the transformation process successfully
(Kane et al. 2017). Prior research assumes that the development of a specific set of digital
capabilities leads to higher digital maturity (Westerman, Bonnet, and McAfee 2014).
Moreover, the degree of digital maturity can have an impact on corporate performance.
However, a measurement framework for digital maturity does not exist in scholarly work.
Accordingly, the causal relationship between digital maturity and corporate performance
remains rather vague. In particular, it is not evident what dimensions form the construct of
digital maturity and how they affect different performance measures. In addition, marketing
theory suggests that the degree of the market orientation of a firm strongly influences digital
transformation. As such, the relationship between digital maturity and market orientation is an
additional pathway for further exploration.

To close these research gaps, this paper develops a measurement model for the construct of
digital maturity and provides evidence of the performance impact of a specific set of digital
capabilities. Moreover, the core research proposition of this paper is that the level of market
orientation strongly moderates the main effect of digital maturity on corporate performance.
Therefore, this paper focuses on the following three research questions: (1) How is the
construct of digital maturity conceptually defined? (2) How does digital maturity affect
corporate performance? and (3) What interdependencies exist between digital maturity and
market orientation with respect to their impact on corporate performance?

Six independent studies set out to answer these research questions. The first four studies
follow mainstream psychometric scale development and validation procedures (Gerbing and
Anderson 1988) to develop a well-grounded set of items for the construct of digital maturity.
The fifth study defines a reflective and formative measurement model for digital maturity.
The sixth study measures the causal effects of digital maturity, market orientation, and
corporate performance among a sample of 240 executives responsible for digital
transformation projects in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

The findings indicate a strong main effect of digital maturity and market orientation on
corporate performance. Moreover, the level of market orientation moderates the relationship
between digital maturity and corporate performance. Firms can use the developed
measurement model for digital maturity to target their strategies along digital transformation.
However, a sole concentration on digital technologies is detrimental if firms do not ensure a
high level of market orientation at same time.
2. Theoretical Foundation

2.1. Digital Maturity

The term “digital maturity” receives particular attention in the work of Westerman et al.
(2014), and Capgemini Consulting disseminates corresponding models (Capgemini
Consulting 2012). Westerman et al. (2014) provide evidence that firms with higher digital
maturity earn superior corporate performance. This research stream separates the concept of
digital maturity into digital capabilities (e.g., strategy, technological expertise, business
models, customer experience) and leadership capabilities (e.g., governance, change
management, culture). Firms with mature digital capabilities and weak leadership capabilities
are coined Fashionistas, while firms with mature leadership capabilities and weak digital
capabilities are coined Conservatives. Firms need to develop both capability dimensions to
achieve digital mastery. Firms that do so show superior corporate performance, measured by
indicators such as revenue per employee, earnings before interest and taxes, and product
margins.

Westerman et al.’s (2014) model has generated heavy adoption in management practice;
however, a precise measurement model for digital maturity does not exist in scholarly work.
By contrast, multiple consultancy companies have developed a corresponding framework to
measure digital maturity, including KPMG1, McKinsey2, and Boston Consulting Group3.
Therefore, a tremendous number of corporate transformation projects have been inspired by
frameworks and models for digital maturity.

However, the scientific foundation for the construct of digital maturity is still absent. A
structured query in academic databases provides only a few results. To date, only 56
publications available in the EBSCO Business Source Complete database deal with digital
maturity. A query in the full Web of Science database leads to 469 results. The focus of
current literature is on the question of how to achieve digital maturity (Kane et al. 2015,
2017), digital marketing governance (Chaffey 2010), and the digital maturity of government
and public systems (Andersen et al. 2011; Gottschalk 2009). It is clear that the concept of
digital maturity refers to the formation of specific capabilities to manage digital
transformation. Yet a measurement framework for digital maturity is not available.

2.2. Market Orientation

Market orientation refers to an organization’s capacity to sufficiently understand customers,

learn from the market, and generate superior customer value (Guenzi, De Luca, and Spiro
2016; Hult 2011; Narver and Slater 1990). As a result, market orientation is crucial for
attaining sustainable competitive advantage and has emerged as a critical component of
corporate strategy. Prior research suggests that market orientation can influence
organizational performance in multiple ways. For example, it leads to superior financial
performance (Kirca, Jayachandran, and Bearden 2005; Kohli and Jaworski 1990), increased
innovation and innovativeness (Hult and Ketchen Jr. 2001; Kirca, Jayachandran, and Bearden
2005; Rapp, Schillewaert, and Wei Hao 2008), and new product development success
(Salomo, Steinhoff, and Trommsdorff 2003). Market orientation also facilitates a proactive
approach to meet customer needs, deliver superior customer value (Hunt and Lambe 2000),

1
https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/04/ch-digital-readiness-assessment-en.pdf
2
https://www.mckinsey.com/solutions/digital-quotient
3
https://www.bcg.com/de-de/capabilities/technology-digital/digital-acceleration-index.aspx
enhance customer perceived quality, increase customer loyalty and satisfaction (Jaworski and
Kohli 1993; Panigyrakis and Theodoridis 2009), and improve customer retention (Ehrhart et
al. 2011). Market orientation also entails creating a better work environment for employees to
elicit increased productivity (Shoham, Rose, and Kropp 2005), esprit de corps, and job
satisfaction (Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Rose and Shoham 2002). Thus, it is generally accepted
that it is beneficial for an organization to be more rather than less market oriented.

2.3. Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework in this research is based on related work on digital maturity and
market orientation (Guenzi, De Luca, and Spiro 2016; Hult 2011; Westerman, Bonnet, and
McAfee 2014). However, the conceptual foundation for the construct of digital maturity is
weak. Therefore, this research aims to develop a strong conceptual foundation and
measurement framework for the construct of digital maturity. In this sense, the study’s core
objective is to glean insights into concept definition and empirical representation of the
construct. On this sound footing, the core relationship between digital maturity and corporate
performance is tested. In line with the assumption of Westerman et al. (2014), it is viable to
expect a general and positive causal relationship between digital maturity and corporate
performance. Prior research has tested the same core effect to delineate the impact of market
orientation (Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Kirca, Jayachandran, and Bearden 2005). Thus, the
following two main effects for the conceptual framework are formulated:

H1: The degree of digital maturity has a positive impact on corporate

performance.

H2: The degree of market orientation has a positive impact on corporate

performance.

In addition, this study evaluates the interdependencies between digital maturity and market
orientation with respect to their impact on corporate performance. Therefore, it is assumed
that the application of digital technologies can only affect corporate performance if such a
strategy creates additional customer value. Thus, the presence of market orientation is an
important requirement for the effective implementation of digital transformation projects. By
contrast, a higher level of digital maturity might also positively affect the relationship
between market orientation and corporate performance. In this sense, digital capabilities,
channel expertise, or superior technological know-how might help transfer a high level of
market orientation to corporate performance. Nevertheless, the pre-condition of market
orientation is fundamental, whereas digital maturity facilitates the transformation mechanisms
for corporate performance. Thus:

H3: The degree of market orientation has a positive impact on the

relationship between digital maturity and corporate performance.

H4: The degree of digital maturity has a positive impact on the relationship
between market orientation and corporate performance.

H5: The moderating impact of market orientation is greater than the

moderating impact of digital maturity.
3. Methods and Results

This research follows well-accepted, mainstream psychometric scale development and

validation procedures (Gerbing and Anderson 1988). The research process is based on a
construct working definition; in this case, digital maturity represents the degree of adoption
and application of digital technologies in corporate business models. Table 1 summarizes the
research process.
Table 1: Research Overview

Study Objective Sample/Method Findings

1 Identification of items Content analyses of annual reports and 42 items
corporate websites of 30 firms listed in the
German DAX

2 Identification of items Eight semi-structured qualitative interviews 63+ items

with executives responsible for digital
transformation in firms

3 Identification of items 143 participants of an international program in 88+ items

professional education taking part in an online (in total: 193 items)
survey. Qualitative analysis of responses to
open-ended survey questions.

4 Reduction of items Item-reduction based on rating from multiple Reduced:

stakeholders and groups. 78 items

5 Defining reflective EFA/CFA among 253 participants of a 8 dimensions;

measurement model professional education program in Germany. 32 items

6a Defining formative Online survey with 240 executives responsible Preference

measurement model for digital transformation from firms in for formative
Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, measurement
confirmatory tetrad analysis. models

6b Test measurement Same sample as study 6a, Main (H1/H2) and

and path model PLS structural equation modelling. moderation
(H3/H4/H5) effects
supported

The first stage of research consists of four qualitative studies to develop a comprehensive item
pool for digital maturity. These studies include self-descriptions from firms about their digital
maturity and qualitative surveys with internal executives and external experts. Studies 1 and 2
focus on detailed descriptions of firms, and study 3 includes a larger sample to integrate
executive perspectives in the process of item exploration. Study 4 aims to validate the
proposed item pool conducted by experts.

The second stage involves quantitative research methods to explore the dimensional space and
refine scales for digital maturity. In particular, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) provides
insights into the dimensional structure of the item pool based on a reflective measurement
model (study 5). In addition, study 6a carries out a Confirmatory Tetrad Analysis (CTA) to
test the appropriateness of using formative measurement models versus reflective models.
The third stage involves an application of the proposed measurement models on the
conceptual framework developed in section 2.3 (study 6b). Therefore, we tested the causal
structure of the conceptual model among a sample of 240 executives responsible for digital
transformation projects in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

3.1. Study 1: Self-description of Digital Maturity

Study 1 identifies items firms use to describe their current or intended digital maturity.
Annual reports, websites, and external publications from firms commonly contain self-
descriptions that encompass current or intended digital maturity. The inspection process
included annual reports and corporate websites of 30 firms listed in the German DAX stock
index. During the process of analysis of these 30 firms, data collection reached theoretical
saturation (Guest, Bunce, and Johnson 2006). Therefore, the marginal return on examining
more firms diminished. In total, the process yielded 56 firm-related descriptions of digital
maturity. The research process was supported by an analysis of three publications in German
newspapers about the competition on digital maturity. However, the articles discuss this
competition among firms on a subjective level without clear academic rigor. Despite this, the
description of firms with a relatively high digital maturity provides additional impetus to the
discussion of potential facets of digital maturity. Finally, self-descriptions and external
publications yielded 42 firm-related descriptions for digital maturity.

3.2. Study 2: Identification of Items Used by Executives to Describe Digital Maturity

Study 1 focuses on the current or intended perception of firms about their digital maturity, but
the findings do not indicate how such descriptions correspond to executive perceptions.
Therefore, we undertook semi-structured, in-depth interviews with eight executives
responsible for digital transformation programs in German, Austrian, and Swiss firms. We
selected the executives on the basis of the industry of their firms and their role in managing
digital transformation projects. Finally, we arrived at a sample of eight different industries
(i.e., automotive, manufacturing, banking, insurance, retail, pharmaceutical, consulting, and
utilities). The main purpose of the interviews was to describe the digital maturity of the firms
and determine the different elements of digital maturity. After interpreting the results, we
added 63 additional firm-related descriptions for digital maturity to the pool, bringing the total
to 105 items.

3.3. Study 3: Supplementation of the Items

Study 3 involves a larger sample than study 2. Here, 143 participants of an international
program in professional education completed an online survey. The participants of the
education program (ageAVE: 33.4; male: 54%; female: 46%) described the digital maturity of
their firms in a well-designed survey that included an open-ended questionnaire (Smyth et al.
2009). Study 3 compiled another 88 new items.

3.4. Study 4: Item Reduction

Studies 1–3 yielded 193 items in total. Thus, we took the following steps to reduce the initial
items. The goal of the process is first to eliminate items not used in everyday language
(Rossiter 2002). Therefore, two scholars rated the frequency of each word in everyday
language (1 = very rarely, 7 = very frequently), and two scholars rated the appropriateness of
items in describing a firm (1 = not qualified at all, 7 = very qualified). Finally, expert judges
rated face and content validity (Diamantopoulos 2005; Rossiter 2002). Two executives from
digital departments of firms rated item appropriateness based on the digital maturity concept.
Mean scores for each step (i.e., for appropriateness of use, to describe a firm, and to measure
a firm's digital maturity) provided a screening mechanism. The resulting pool retained only
items with an average appropriateness of at least 5 across each respondent group. For further
validation of these preliminary items, an academic scholar familiar with digital transformation
programs compared the complete and reduced list of items. This led to the inclusion of seven
previously deleted items, providing a final pool of 78 items.

3.5. Study 5: Identification of Digital Maturity Dimensions

in a Reflective Measurement Model

Study 5 identifies the potential factor structure of digital maturity in a reflective measurement
model by applying calibration procedures. In total, 253 participants of professional education
programs (ageAVE: 35.6; male: 58%; female: 42%) participated in a survey titled “digital
maturity of firms.” Participants answered the following question: “We are interested in the
characteristics that come to mind when thinking about your firm. To what extent do the
following items describe the digital maturity of your firm?” Items were evaluated with 7-point
Likert scales (1 = does not apply, 7 = totally applies).

Results. Principal component analysis (PCA) followed by oblimin rotation allows

examination of dimensionality and suggests items for deletion. An eight-factor solution was
the most appropriate according to a variety of commonly applied criteria: inspection of scree
plot, interpretability, and eigenvalues greater than unity. To improve and validate the factor
structure, we deleted items with low factor loadings (<0.50) and/or high cross-loadings
(>0.30) (Hair et al. 2006; Peterson 2000). The final eight-factor solution explains 72.1% of
the total item variance, which is above the recommended threshold of .50.

Scale inspection. Reliability analyses show alpha coefficients above the established threshold
of 0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein 1978) for each dimension. Through a meta-description for
each dimension, the following eight facets of digital maturity evolved: (1) strategy (explicit,
cross-functional, transformative, evaluated), (2) leadership (commitment, style, role,
leadership adoption), (3) business model (customer value, innovation, digitalization, co-
creation), (4) operating model (agility, integration, resources, cooperation), (5) people
(expertise, learning, employee adoption, specialization), (6) culture (transparency, dynamic,
empowerment, attitude toward chance), (7) governance (coordination, alignment,
measurability, target orientation), and (8) technology (data, interaction, automation,
workplace). Overall, this leads to an eight-factor structure in the conceptualization of digital
maturity with 32 items.

Robustness tests. Replications using different estimation (e.g., PCA or maximum likelihood )
and rotation (e.g., varimax) methods led to similar solutions. A series of replications based on
different sub-samples, such as gender, firm size, and age, confirmed the avoidance of biases
caused by sample distribution. In addition, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the eight-
factor structure provided evidence of good psychometric characteristics. In summary,
supplementary analyses support the robustness of the model. The Fornell and Larcker (1981)
procedure examines discriminant validity. The average variance extracted (AVE) within each
pair of dimensions is compared with the square of bivariate correlations between these two
dimensions. Evidence of discriminant validity exists in this study, as AVE values are all
above each squared construct correlation (Fornell and Larcker 1981; Hair et al. 2006).
3.6. Study 6a: Evaluation of the Digital Maturity Scale
in a Formative Measurement Model

Study 6a aims to develop and test a formative measurement model for digital maturity. Such
models are appropriate when an explanatory combination of indicator variables underlies the
latent construct (Diamantopoulos 2006). To test the appropriateness of using formative
models versus reflective measurement models, Bollen and Ting’s Confirmatory Tetrad
Analysis (CTA) can be applied (Bollen and Ting 1993). Within the context of CTA, it is
common to analyze the homogeneity of correlations among manifest variables in the
measurement models to decide between reflective and formative modeling (Gudergan et al.
2008).

Therefore, an additional study was conducted in order to apply CTA to a sample of

participants of a professional education program in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
Overall, 240 executives responsible for digital transformation projects in their corresponding
firms agreed to attend an online survey (ageAVE: 39.4; male: 62%; female: 38%). The scale for
digital maturity was executed based on the 32 items derived in study 5. The corresponding
items for digital maturity were measured with a 7-point Likert scale. Based on a CTA-PLS
computation with 5’000 bootstrap subsamples results show that for at least one model-implied
non-redundant vanishing tetrad the parameter value of H0: τ=0 is not in the bias-corrected
90% (two-tailed) Bonferroni-adjusted confidence interval. Thus, CTA-PLS rejects H0 and
gives evidence for a formative measurement model specification (Gudergan et al. 2008).

3.7. Study 6b: Structural Equation Modeling

Finally, study 6b incorporated the formative measurement model for digital maturity and used
an expanded data set from study 6a to test the formulated effects in the conceptual model
defined in section 2.3. In addition to the formative measurement model for digital maturity,
we used other items for market orientation and corporate performance to supplement the
model. Accordingly, the sample for the online survey incorporates 240 executives responsible
for digital transformation from firms in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

Constructs and items. We measured the construct of market orientation with an established
reflective measurement model developed by Jaworski and Kohli (1993) and Kirca et al.
(2005). We measured corporate performance formatively with the works of Gerow et al.
(2014), Rai et al. (2006), and Kaplan and Norton (1996). Therefore, we assessed corporate
performance from a financial, operational, and customer perspective. Age, gender, and
industry of the firm served as control variables in the online questionnaire.

Results. We tested the hypotheses in the conceptual model along the data set of the sample
with partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling using Smart PLS. All indicators
in the reflective measurement models loaded significantly on their corresponding constructs.
With respect to the hypotheses, the main effect of digital maturity on corporate performance
(H1) received sufficient support (β = .28; t = 5.569; p = .000). The main effect of market
orientation on corporate performance (H2) also received support (β = .46; t = 12.754; p =
.000). According to a simple path model with the two main effects, the two independent
constructs explained a sufficient amount of the variance in corporate performance (R2 = .36).
Finally, applying expanded models with several moderation mechanisms led to sufficient
support for the moderating impact of market orientation on the relationship between digital
maturity and corporate performance, supporting H3 (β = .22; t = 6.328; p = .000). By contrast,
the moderating impact of digital maturity on the relationship between market orientation and
corporate performance (H4) was significant but weak (β = .07; t = 4.376; p = .005).

4. Discussion and Conclusion

The aim of this research was to provide a conceptual framework for the relationship among
digital maturity, customer orientation, and corporate performance. To do so, we carried out
different studies to develop a well-grounded conceptual definition and measurement model
for digital maturity. As the results indicate, the construct of digital maturity contains eight
dimensions and 32 items along strategy (explicitness of strategy formulation, cross-functional
implementation, transformative impact, degree of evaluation), leadership (commitment, style,
role, adoption of digital strategy by executives), business model (generated customer value,
relative innovativeness, degree of digitalization, implemented value co-creation), operating
model (degree of agility, level of process integration, quality of resources, quality of
cooperation), people (degree of expertise, implementation of learning routines, employee
adoption of digital strategy, specialization on digital assets), culture (level of transparency,
agility, empowerment, attitude toward change), governance (coordination mechanisms, level
of alignment, measurability, target orientation), and technology (adoption and usage of
technologies for data management, customer interaction, process automation, digital
workplace).

The results contribute to the theoretical understanding of the different factors driving the
success of digital transformation programs in firms. Moreover, they provide executives with
practical recommendations on what to focus on and how to proceed in the digital
transformation of their firms. The developed scale for digital maturity can also serve as a
framework in the analysis of the current state of digital transformation and for continuous
controlling.

Moreover, the formative measurement model for digital maturity aligns with further
theoretical evaluations of the relationship of digital maturity with other constructs. The
current research provides first support that digital maturity has a positive impact on corporate
performance, confirming the general hypotheses of Westerman et al. (2014). However, a
general market orientation of the firm strongly influences the main effect of digital maturity
on corporate performance. Market orientation directly affects corporate performance, and
even more important, the degree of market orientation moderates the main performance effect
of digital maturity. Thus, the moderation effect of market orientation is by far larger than the
corresponding moderation effect of digital maturity. This finding indicates that firms must
continuously improve their market orientation if they want their digital initiatives to have an
impact on performance.

In conclusion, the current research views digital maturity as a subordinated construct of

market orientation. Thus, digital maturity is not adequate to drive the adoption of digital
technologies without a core focus on customers and markets. In general, marketing and sales
functions should receive additional attention as they play an important role in the supervision
of digital transformation programs to create superior customer value.
References

Andersen, Kim Normann, Rony Medaglia, Ravi Vatrapu, Helle Zinner Henriksen, and Robin
Gauld (2011), “The forgotten promise of e-government maturity: Assessing
responsiveness in the digital public sector.,” Government Information Quarterly, 28 (4),
439–45.
Bollen, Kenneth A and Kwok-fai Ting (1993), “Confirmatory tetrad analysis,” Sociological
methodology, 147–75.
Capgemini Consulting (2012), The Digital Advantage: How digital leaders outperform their
peers in every industry.
Chaffey, Dave (2010), “Applying organisational capability models to assess the maturity of
digital-marketing governance.,” Journal of Marketing Management, 26 (3–4), 187–96.
Diamantopoulos, Adamantios (2005), “The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in
marketing: a comment,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22 (1), 1–9.
——— (2006), “The error term in formative measurement models: interpretation and
modeling implications,” Journal of Modelling in Management, 1 (1), 7–17.
Ehrhart, Karen Holcombe, L Alan Witt, Benjamin Schneider, and Sara Jansen Perry (2011),
“Service employees give as they get: Internal service as a moderator of the service
climate–service outcomes link.,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (2), 423.
Fornell, Claes and David F Larcker (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error,” Journal of marketing research, 39–50.
Gerbing, David W and James C Anderson (1988), “An updated paradigm for scale
development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment,” Journal of marketing
research, 186–92.
Gerow, Jennifer E, Varun Grover, Jason Bennett Thatcher, and Philip L Roth (2014),
“Looking toward the future of IT-business strategic alignment through the past: A meta-
analysis.,” Mis Quarterly, 38 (4), 1059–85.
Gottschalk, Petter (2009), “Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government,”
Government Information Quarterly, 26 (1), 75–81.
Gudergan, Siegfried P., Christian M. Ringle, Sven Wende, and Alexander Will (2008),
“Confirmatory tetrad analysis in PLS path modeling,” Journal of Business Research, 61
(12), 1238–49.
Guenzi, Paolo, Luigi M De Luca, and Rosann Spiro (2016), “The combined effect of
customer perceptions about a salesperson’s adaptive selling and selling orientation on
customer trust in the salesperson: a contingency perspective.,” Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 31 (4), 553–64.
Guest, Greg, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson (2006), “How many interviews are enough?
An experiment with data saturation and variability,” Field methods, 18 (1), 59–82.
Hair, Joseph F, William C Black, Barry J Babin, Rolph E Anderson, and Ronald L Tatham
(2006), “Multivariate data analysis 6th ed,” Uppersaddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hult, G (2011), “Market-focused sustainability: market orientation plus!,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (1), 1–6.
Hult, G Tomas M and David J Ketchen Jr. (2001), “Does Market Orientation Matter? A Test
of the Relationship Between Positional Advantage and Performance,” Strategic
Management Journal, 22 (9), 899.
Hunt, Shelby D and C Jay Lambe (2000), “Marketing’s contribution to business strategy:
market orientation, relationship marketing and...,” International Journal of Management
Reviews, 2 (1), 17.
Jaworski, Bernard J and Ajay K Kohli (1993), “Market orientation: Antecedents and
consequences.,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (3), 53.
 Kane, Gerald C, Doug Palmer, Anh Nguyen Phillips, David Kiron, and Natasha Buckley
(2017), “Achieving Digital Maturity.,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 59 (1), 1–29.
Kane, Gerald, Dough Palmer, Nguyen Phillips, and David Kiron (2015), “Is Your Business
Ready for a Digital Future?,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 56 (4), 37–44.
Kaplan, Robert S and David P Norton (1996), The balanced scorecard: translating strategy
into action, Harvard Business Press.
Kirca, Ahmet H, Satish Jayachandran, and William O Bearden (2005), “Market Orientation:
A Meta-Analytic Review and Assessment of Its Antecedents and Impact on
Performance.,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (2), 24–41.
Kohli, Ajay K and Bernard J Jaworski (1990), “Market Orientation: The Construct, Research
Propositions, and Managerial Implications.,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (2), 1–18.
Narver, John C and Stanley F Slater (1990), “The effect of a market orientation on business
profitability.,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (4), 20–35.
Nunnally, Jum C and Ira H Bernstein (1978), “Psychometric theory.”
Panigyrakis, George G and Prokopis K Theodoridis (2009), “Internal marketing impact on
business performance in a retail context.,” International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 37 (7), 600–628.
Peterson, Robert A (2000), “A meta-analysis of variance accounted for and factor loadings in
exploratory factor analysis,” Marketing Letters, 11 (3), 261–75.
Rai, Arun, Ravi Patnayakuni, and Nainika Seth (2006), “Firm performance impacts of
digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities,” MIS quarterly, 225–46.
Rapp, Adam, Niels Schillewaert, and Andrew Wei Hao (2008), “The Influence of Market
Orientation on E-Business Innovation and Performance: The Role of the Top-
Management Team,” Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 16 (1), 7–25.
Rose, Gregory M and Aviv Shoham (2002), “Export performance and market orientation:
Establishing an empirical link,” Journal of Business Research, 55 (3), 217–25.
Rossiter, John R (2002), “The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing,”
International journal of research in marketing, 19 (4), 305–35.
Salomo, Sören, Fee Steinhoff, and Volker Trommsdorff (2003), “Customer orientation in
innovation projects and new product development success — the moderating effect of
product innovativeness.,” International Journal of Technology Management, 26 (5/6),
442–63.
Shoham, Aviv, Gregory M Rose, and Fredric Kropp (2005), “Market orientation and
performance: a meta-analysis,” Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23 (5), 435–54.
Smyth, Jolene D, Don A Dillman, Leah Melani Christian, and Mallory McBride (2009),
“Open-ended questions in web surveys: Can increasing the size of answer boxes and
providing extra verbal instructions improve response quality?,” Public Opinion
Quarterly, 73 (2), 325–37.
Westerman, George, Didler Bonnet, and Andrew McAfee (2014), Leading Digital: Turning
Technology Into Business Transformation, Harvard Business Review Press.

View publication stats