From Ivory Towers to Rural Powers: Higher Education Institutions as Knowledge Partners in Digital Transformation

Abstract

Resource constraints, perceived overburdening, and lack of orientation pose significant obstacles for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), a crucial economic factor in the rural region of South Westphalia, in dealing with digitization and digital transformation (DT) [1]. Against this background, the Virtual Institute for Digital Business (VIDB) was established as part of the overarching project Digitalise_SWF. Its purpose is to accompany and support the digitization and transformation process in the region through knowledge transfer. The VIDB is a collaborative effort involving multiple educators and researchers from two regional Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Throughout the five-year project, they will develop and implement transfer offerings in a recursive process. In the first project phase, alongside organizational challenges, the core of collaboration is particularly focused on delineating relevant content and activities and developing suitable transfer formats. This article thus presents the defined: 1 Content areas, 2 Transfer formats, 3 And transfer activities and objectives and outlines how they were derived in a combined qualitative approach of a literature analysis and focus group discussions with educators and multipliers. In doing so the paper answers the question: "How can Higher Education Institutions support Small-and Medium Enterprises in the process of digitization and digital transformation as knowledge partners?"

Full text

FROM IVORY TOWERS TO RURAL POWERS: HIGHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS AS KNOWLEDGE PARTNERS IN DIGITAL
TRANSFORMATION
P. Weber, A. Wyczisk, M. Patalon, I. Borowicz
South Westphalia University of Applied Sciences (GERMANY)
Abstract
Resource constraints, perceived overburdening, and lack of orientation pose significant obstacles for
small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), a crucial economic factor in the rural region of South
Westphalia, in dealing with digitization and digital transformation (DT) [1]. Against this background, the
Virtual Institute for Digital Business (VIDB) was established as part of the overarching project
Digitalise_SWF. Its purpose is to accompany and support the digitization and transformation process in
the region through knowledge transfer. The VIDB is a collaborative effort involving multiple educators
and researchers from two regional Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Throughout the five-year
project, they will develop and implement transfer offerings in a recursive process.
In the first project phase, alongside organizational challenges, the core of collaboration is particularly
focused on delineating relevant content and activities and developing suitable transfer formats. This
article thus presents the defined:
1 Content areas,
2 Transfer formats,
3 And transfer activities and objectives
and outlines how they were derived in a combined qualitative approach of a literature analysis and focus
group discussions with educators and multipliers.
In doing so the paper answers the question: "How can Higher Education Institutions support Small- and
Medium Enterprises in the process of digitization and digital transformation as knowledge partners?"
Keywords: Knowledge Transfer, Digital Transformation.
1 INTRODUCTION
The landscape of DT presents a complex array of challenges for SMEs, particularly in rural regions like
South Westphalia, where these entities are a crucial economic factor. Resource constraints, perceived
overburdening, and lack of orientation significantly impede the DT process in SMEs [1]. In this
challenging environment, HEIs emerge as important partners, offering essential support and expertise
to facilitate successful transformation. In the context of DT, SMEs frequently encounter technological
barriers, primarily due to limited IT infrastructure and a lack of digital literacy. Vial [2] emphasizes this
gap in technical skills as a critical impediment. HEIs can serve as essential knowledge hubs in this
situation, providing SMEs with technical expertise that extends beyond theoretical frameworks to
practical applications [3]. Financial constraints often restrict SMEs' access to advanced technologies. In
this context, HEIs can support them by granting access to up-tp-date research and facilitating workforce
development [4, 5]. HEIs can also help identifying and addressing organizational and cultural barriers in
SMEs, like e.g. resistance to change, by nurturing innovation and entrepreneurship [6, 7]. In their
research and teaching, HEIs address strategic and management challenges faced by SMEs, offering
support in areas of digital adoption and strategic planning [8]. Finally, HEIs also engage actively with
communities and exert a significant influence on DT policies [9].
Against this backdrop, the VIDB was established as part of the overarching project Digitalise_SWF. It
aims to support the digitization and transformation process in South Westphalia through a collaborative
effort involving educators and researchers from two regional HEIs. The VIDB focuses on developing
and implementing knowledge transfer offerings in a recursive process, addressing the specific needs
and challenges faced by SMEs in the region. This paper refers to the initial phase of this project, focusing
on overcoming organizational challenges and laying the groundwork for effective collaboration between
HEIs and SMEs. This involves identifying relevant content areas, transfer activities, and objectives, as
Proceedings of INTED2024 Conference
4th-6th March 2024, Valencia, Spain
ISBN: 978-84-09-59215-9
1521

well as developing suitable transfer formats. We use the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE)
Framework of Tornatzky and Fleischer [10] as guidance for this. The process of defining the components
is informed by a combined qualitative approach, involving literature analysis and group discussions with
educators.
This paper contributes to the literature by providing insights into the collaborative dynamics between
HEIs and SMEs, and by offering a framework for effective knowledge transfer in the context of DT. Our
findings aim to inform both academic discourse and practical implementations, facilitating a more
integrated approach to addressing the digital challenges faced by SMEs.
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Knowledge transfer between HEIs and SMEs forms a crucial area of research, particularly in the context
of DT. Our research focuses on the role of HEIs as knowledge partners in SMEs' DT journey. In this
area, various theoretical models offer insights into the dynamics of knowledge transfer.
Grant [11] provides a foundational perspective with the knowledge-based theory of the firm, emphasizing
the significance of managing knowledge as a key organizational resource. This theory underscores the
necessity of structured approaches in handling knowledge, especially in environments where
hierarchical organization is prominent. Complementing this view, Narteh [12] introduce a conceptual
framework focusing on knowledge transfer between firms operating in both developed and developing
countries. This framework emphasizes the significance of utilizing current research to develop models
that are attuned to the distinct characteristics of specific economic environments. Advancing the
discourse, Manville et al. [13] explore the application of the balanced scorecard approach. This method
is instrumental in fostering open innovation and enhancing the effectiveness of knowledge transfer to
SMEs. Their work accentuates the contributory role of HEIs in enhancing the performance of SMEs,
positing that HEIs can act as catalysts for organizational growth and development through strategic
knowledge dissemination.
The literature further delves into the factors that influence the success of knowledge transfer. Among
these, the absorptive capacity of organizations, as discussed by Mehreen et al. [14], stands out as a
crucial determinant. It encompasses the organization's ability to recognize, assimilate, and apply new
knowledge, underscoring the need for recipient firms to have established learning mechanisms and an
openness to external ideas. Similarly, Li and Zhu [15] bring attention to the concept of knowledge
distance and its impact on the effectiveness of knowledge transfer. They argue that disparities between
partners in a knowledge exchange scenario can significantly affect the outcomes of the transfer process.
Additionally, Gertner et al. [16] offer a perspective by analyzing university-industry collaborations
through a community of practice lens. Their findings highlight the importance of mutual engagement and
shared knowledge repertoires in fostering successful knowledge exchanges. This approach points out
the necessity of cultivating a collaborative atmosphere where shared understanding and collective
learning are prioritized.
While the importance of managing knowledge as an organizational resource is well-established and the
need for structured approaches in hierarchical organizations is recognized, the literature does not
sufficiently address how these theories translate into actionable strategies for HEIs supporting SMEs in
diverse economic contexts. Moreover, the existing frameworks largely focus on knowledge transfer
between firms, leaving a gap in how HEIs, as unique entities, can participate in the knowledge transfer.
The role of HEIs in enhancing SME performance through knowledge dissemination needs further
exploration. Additionally, while the absorptive capacity of organizations and the concept of knowledge
distance are acknowledged as critical to the success of knowledge transfer, there is a lack of
understanding how these factors play out in the dynamic relationship between HEIs and SMEs.
Furthermore, the existing research does not fully explore the complexities of university-industry
collaborations through a community of practice lens, particularly in terms of mutual engagement and
shared knowledge repertoires. This gap highlights the need for more focused research on developing
collaborative frameworks that prioritize shared understanding and collective learning, specifically
tailored to the partnership between HEIs and SMEs.
Considering the vital role of knowledge transfer between HEIs and SMEs, the following research
question emerges [17]: "How can Higher Education Institutions support Small- and Medium Enterprises
in the process of digitization and digital transformation as knowledge partners?"
This question explores how HEIs can act as knowledge partners to enhance digital readiness and
support the DT of SMEs, delving into the mechanisms and strategies that enable effective participation
1522

in managing digitization complexities. Within the context of the VIDB, this discussion prompts a set of
further inquiries: What specific knowledge needs to be disseminated?; How should this knowledge be
efficiently communicated?; What actions are necessary to ensure the effective transmission of
knowledge?
We initiated our research by developing a conceptual framework to organize the content areas of the
VIDB. We aimed for a versatile model offering a comprehensive perspective on an organization's
environment. We focused on models relevant to technology and innovation introduction in organizations,
considering context-specific interactions. Ramdani and Kawalek [18] have identified the most used
models in the context of adoption of technologies and innovation: The TOE Framework, the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM), the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), a Combined TAM and TPB, TAM2,
the Diffusion of Innovation Theory, the Resource-Based View, Stage Theory, and the Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT).
The TOE-Framework developed by Tornatzky and Fleischer [10] stands out due to its unique ability to
encompass a broad spectrum of factors affecting technology adoption and innovation. The TOE
Framework's comprehensive nature, which examines technological, organizational, and environmental
contexts, makes it particularly apt for our study. It uniquely addresses the following key areas:
• The Technological Context considers the impact of current and available technologies.
Innovations, whether incremental, synthetic, or radical, dictate change and impact organizational
and industry dynamics [19].
• The Organizational Context encompasses structure, resources, and communication, and is key
to adopting and implementing innovation. For example, Elements like cross-functional teams and
supportive leadership enhance innovation, while the impact of slack resources and firm size
remain uncertain [19].
• The Environmental Context reflects industry structure, service providers, and regulations that
significantly shape innovation. Competition, life cycles, and infrastructure like skilled labor
availability drive innovation, while government regulations can either facilitate or impede it [19].
The adaptability and extensive validation of the TOE Framework make it particularly suitable for
exploring the intricacies of knowledge transfer between HEIs and SMEs [18, 20]. Unlike models that
focus predominantly on technology, the TOE Framework provides a more balanced view, considering
the interplay of multiple factors that influence technological innovation and adoption [21].
Our study aims to leverage the TOE-Framework to develop a model for knowledge transfer between
HEIs and SMEs. By integrating this framework with the specific content areas of the VIDB, we endeavor
to offer enriched insights into the complex dynamics of digital business. This approach not only aligns
with our objective of understanding and enhancing knowledge transfer but also contributes to the
broader discourse on DT in SMEs. Ultimately, this research will advance the field by providing a
comprehensive TOE-based framework tailored to the unique needs and challenges of SMEs.
3 METHODOLOGY
As predetermined in the overall Digitalise_SWF project, we aim at a recursive process for developing
the knowledge transfer offerings, establishing a common understanding between HEIs and SMEs
regarding their needs and preferences on the one hand and realistic and actionable opportunities on the
other hand. In this regard, a methodological approach based on Action Design Research (ADR) was
developed [22]. Compared to initial design science research approaches, the advantage in ADR lies in
the interaction among researchers, practitioners, and end-users with the objective of building an artifact
[22, 23]. ADR tackles specific problems in business environments through the implementation of various
intervention cycles that enable diverse feedback loops [22]. Fig. 1 illustrates the resulting ADR process,
highlighting the including roles and the alpha/beta versions.
Our practice-inspired research centers on the challenges encountered by SMEs within the realm of DT
and digitalization in rural areas. To address the needs of the target group effectively, it is important to
establish a user-centric approach and to ensure a reciprocal definition of content and transfer formats
in an iterative process involving researchers, practitioners, and end-users. Collaboration among different
actors is a common procedure in action-oriented research projects [22]. The primary objective of ADR
is to resolve a specific problem leading to various forms of change for individuals, organizations, or
society [24].
1523

Figure 1: Generic Schema of the Organization-Dominant BIE of the ADR Process (Sein et al. 2011)
The methodological approach is shown in table 1. We followed the four steps of Sein et al. [22] to create
an initial version of the artifact. Our research is organization-dominant as it aims „[...] to generate design
knowledge where the primary source of innovation is organizational intervention“ [22, p. 6]. Furthermore,
“[…] the ADR team challenges organizational participants’ existing ideas and assumptions about the
artifact’s specific use context in order to create and improve the design“ [22, p. 6]. The focus is on
mutually shaping the way HEIs can support SMEs in the process of DT as knowledge partners, which
is why practitioners and end-users are intensively involved in the process.
Table 1: Overview of the ADR process with its stages, tasks and specific outcomes
(based on Karrenbauer et al. [25] and Sein et al. [22])
Task
Outcome
Stage 1: Problem Formulation
Identify and conceptualize
the research opportunity
Demographic change and rapidly changing technologies are causing pressure on SMEs
in rural areas. HEIs anchored in these areas can support them with knowledge on DT to
increase competitiveness.
Formulate initial research
questions
How can HEIs support SMEs in the process of digitization and digital transformation as
knowledge partners?
Cast the problem as an
instance of a class of
problems
Knowledge gaps of DT are a major problem for SMEs in rural areas, as they lack the
opportunity of a broad increase in well-trained young talents due to demographic change
and rural exodus. By addressing this specific problem in a specific area, the result can
address several opportunities for knowledge transfer in different fields and geographical
areas.
Identify contributing
theoretical bases and prior
technology advances
The literature was reviewed to identify suitable theoretical foundations, which were found
in the TOE framework. The TOE framework forms the basis for structuring the content
areas, knowledge transfer, activities and objectives, as well as the transfer formats.
Secure long-term
organizational commitment
Recursive processes between researchers, practitioners, and end-users ensure commitment
and acceptance.
Set up roles and
responsibilities
The ADR team consists of
a) Researchers from the VIDB who form the project team: responsible for the project and
process structure, as well as research activities
b) Practitioners consisting of participants from various fields like regional business
development units, chamber of industry and commerce, city labs as representatives of
civil society, as well as professors from HEIs with different areas of experience and
practice-oriented research responsible for representing current research on DT and
digitization, and intermediaries with various local SMEs
End-Users as participants from various industries, like local e.g. retail: responsible for
representing the end-users and their needs
1524

Stage 2: Building, Intervention and Evaluation
Discover initial knowledge-
creation target
The aim is to design a process for knowledge transfer between HEIs and SMEs. This
involves defining content areas, designing transfer activities and objectives, and
developing suitable transfer formats.
Select or customize BIE
form
As BIE cycle, the organization-dominant is chosen. The organizational intervention in
terms of education is the primary source of building an artifact.
Execute BIE cycle(s)
Alpha Version:
Conducting a group discussion with practitioners; 14 researchers participate in a 60-
minute group discussion with the aim of summarizing possible content areas as well as
transfer activities and objectives.
The developed content areas and transfer activities and objectives are discussed in a 30-
minute group discussion with end-users, represented by 15 local retailers across
Germany.
A second 30-minute group discussion is conducted with practitioners of the ADR team to
discuss the preliminary results.
Beta Version (Further Research):
The results from step 3 of the alpha version will be discussed with practitioners and
validated with end-users in a three-hour workshop.
The transfer of knowledge between HEIs (ADR-Team) and SMEs (end-users) takes place
and is continuously evaluated with the users to ensure utility.
Access need for additional
cycles, repeat
Based on the results out of the beta version from the previous step, the content areas,
transfer activities and objectives, and transfer formats will be designed by evaluating their
success and the feedback from the end-users. At least one additional cycle is planned.
Stage 3: Reflection and Learning
Reflect on the design and
redesign during the project
The findings will be discussed in a twofold form:
Internally with the entire project team
Externally by publishing and presenting the results at conferences
Evaluate adherence to
principles
Continuous reflection by the researchers.
Analyze intervention results
according to stated goals
Further development will be compared to the research goals by evaluating the transfer
offers and interventions with selected practitioners and end-users.
Stage 4: Formalization of Learning
Abstract the learning into
concepts for a class of field
problems
The findings will be generalized in the end of the cycle developing requirements that are
abstracted from the specific use-case.
Share outcomes and
assessment with
practitioners
Outcomes will be shared with at least the defined practitioners and the end-users
involved.
Articulate outcomes as
design principles
The results will be published, presented and discussed at conferences and in journals.
Articulate learning in light of
theories selected
Formalize results for
dissemination
The development of the artifact within the ADR process is characterized by group discussions, involving
practitioners and end-users. Therefore, each step of the process adheres to the same procedure:
initially, researchers establish a foundation based on their experiences from prior projects and applicable
literature. This foundation serves as a crucial preparatory step for the group discussion, providing the
thematic context [26, 27]. Evolving questions are then formulated for the group discussion, involving
both practitioners and end-users.
A first group discussion was conducted within the ADR Team, encompassing all members of the VIDB.
This step was guided by the methodology outlined by Kuhn and Koschel [26], from which a guideline was
created to elucidate the purpose of the group discussion and provide direction for the moderators. This
phase of the process yielded three tasks with descending priority, as depicted in table 2. The priorities
varied across the diverse group discussions, reflecting the different target groups that were addressed.
1525

Table 2: Main tasks and goals compared to its priority in the group discussions
Group Discussion 1
Group Discussion 2
Group Discussion 3
Moderators
Researchers
Researchers
Researchers
Group of Interest
Practitioners
End-Users
Practitioners
Main Priority
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Medium Priority
Task 2
Task 3
Task 1
Lowest Priority
Task 3
Task 1
Task 2
Legend:
Task 1 – What actions are necessary to ensure the effective transmission of knowledge?
Task 2 – What specific knowledge needs to be disseminated?
Task 3 – How should this knowledge be efficiently communicated?
The researcher team moderated the group discussion, lasting approx. 60 minutes. Notes were diligently
recorded, and the preliminary results were promptly pre-structured during the discussion. Subsequently,
the results were analyzed and structured for further discussion with the end-users.
In the second group discussion, 15 representatives from local retailers across Germany were invited to
validate our understanding of potential content areas and transfer activities, aiming to establish a
feedback loop to enhance our findings [28]. Since the artifact is intended for end-users, the primary
focus of this group discussion was to assess the end-users’ demand and preferences regarding content
areas, transfer formats, and activities. Therefore, task 1 is assigned the lowest priority, as it is the central
focus of the ADR-Team. To maintain consistency across all three group discussions, the same two
researchers moderated also this 30-minute session. The results were immediately incorporated into
refining the ongoing development process.
Finally, a third group discussion took place within the ADR-Team, involving practitioners. The primary focus
of this discussion was to reflect on and coordinate the results from the two preceding group discussions.
Task 3 assumed the highest priority, intending to define possible transfer formats. The moderation process
followed the same approach as in the two previous group discussions and lasted approx. 30 minutes.
As a result, 1. content areas, 2. transfer activities and objectives, and 3. transfer formats were derived. These
are expounded in greater detail in the following chapter, serving as the principal outcomes of our research.
4 RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of our research. First, it explains the content areas within the TOE
framework. Secondly, it explores appropriate transfer formats and their categorization. Finally, the
transfer activities and objectives are presented in a cyclic structure, demonstrating a flexible and iterative
process adaptable to SMEs needs for improved digital competencies.
4.1 Content Areas
In our study, we adapted the TOE Framework to identify content areas for transfer offers of the VIDB.
As illustrated in Fig. 2, the VIDB-TOE Framework is categorized into four primary content areas. The
areas are interconnected and influence each other to assess the end users' demands and preferences
regarding content, as well as transfer formats and activities, reflecting the dynamics of DT:
CA1 – Strategy & Business Models: This area is fundamental to the innovation of strategy and business
models within SMEs. It includes the examination and integration of Business Model Innovation, Strategic
Management, E-Commerce, Digital Marketing, and Organizational Social Responsibility. These
elements are crucial for SMEs to maintain competitiveness and uphold social responsibility in the fast -
evolving digital economy.
CA2 – Organization & Management: The focus of this area is the internal structuring and operational
management of SMEs. Key subthemes identified include Agile Management, Process Management,
Mission Statement Development, Employer Branding, and Controlling. These subthemes are pivotal in
contributing to efficient and agile organizational operations, aligning with the dynamic requirements of DT.
1526

CA3 – Environment: Recognizing the impact of external factors, this content area addresses the broader
context in which SMEs operate. It incorporates aspects such as Societal Norms, Politics and Legislation,
Globalization, and Customer and User Behavior to ensure that the strategies and models developed are
responsive to external environmental pressures.
CA4 – Digital Competencies: A vital component of DT is the cultivation and application of digital
competencies. This category includes IT Security, Artificial Intelligence, Data Analytics, Robotic Process
Automation, Web Technologies, and Blockchain. Such competencies are fundamental in empowering
SMEs to harness new technologies for enhanced operational efficiency and innovative capabilities.
Figure 2: Content areas implemented in the TOE Framework.
The content areas are interdependent in the way that their elements impact elements from the other areas,
e.g. serving as prerequisites, drivers or enablers. Strategy cannot be executed without proper
organizational structure and management practices; management practices cannot evolve without
considering environmental changes and digital advancements; digital competencies enable strategic and
environmental considerations; environmental factors can require business strategies and necessitate
digital transformation.
4.2 Transfer Formats
Various transfer formats were developed and categorized into synchronous and asynchronous formats.
Synchronous learning formats involve real-time communication, facilitating face-to-face interaction,
which can positively impact learning outcomes [29, 30]. In contrast, asynchronous formats enable
learning on demand, thereby facilitating flexibility [29]. Usually, these distinctions are made when it
comes to computer-mediated communication.
Table 3: Transfer formats divided in synchronous and asynchronous communication.
Transfer Format
Degree of Interaction
Workshop
Synchronous Communication
One-to-One Coaching
Regional Conference
Mixed Media
Podcast
Asynchronous Communication
Video Sequences
1527

Synchronous communication encompasses all types of direct communication, whether remote or on-
site. This includes workshops with participants from various SMEs, or also individual coachings with a
small number of participants and focusing on a specific content area in the corporate environment.
Asynchronous formats can be accessed and continued on demand, like e.g. Podcasts or short video
sequences as small learning units. In addition, a third transfer format was defined, allowing participants
to either engage synchronously or access materials afterward. Summarized as mixed media, regional
conferences for participants from academia and the local economy are conducted on-site in a
conference setting, with the presentations being recorded and provided online for later access.
4.3 Transfer Activities and Objectives
Concerning the structure of how the VIDB can support SMEs in the realm of DT and serve as a
knowledge partner, a cyclic process has emerged, as depicted in fig. 3. The pivotal activities for
enhancing digital competences of SMEs include training, mentoring, analysis, and sharing. From the
practitioners' and the end-users’ point of view, it has become evident that this is more of a cycle than a
linear process. To provide digital competencies, it is not necessary to execute each of the four segments,
as they can be viewed as independent activities that do not necessarily build on to each other. However,
it is viable to enter the cycle at any of the four activities, follow through, and repeat the cycle if needed.
Figure 3: Cycle of transfer activities and objectives.
The objective of the analysis is to comprehend the needs of SMEs and to develop an understanding of
the knowledge gaps that HEIs can address. This activity is closely intertwined with sharing, where
formats are provided to connect different SMEs and end-users with researchers, fostering discussions.
This can help SMEs in understanding the challenges faced by other SMEs or even competitors, while
researchers gain a deeper understanding of the circumstances. Consequently, training activities are
developed by the researchers based on experiences and findings from the analysis and sharing
activities. Transfer formats with appropriate content are developed for this. In contrast to training,
mentoring involves accompanying the internal processes of SMEs to understand their specific needs
and support them in finding individual solutions. This activity is closely linked to sharing and analysis,
providing researchers with valuable insights into the internal processes of SMEs and identifying use
cases for DT. Both activities ultimately contribute to the direct improvement of digital competencies.
5 CONCLUSION
This research, accompanying the establishment of the VIDB, contributes to the field of DT in SMEs,
particularly within the context of South Westphalia. The integration of the TOE-Framework with the specific
needs of SMEs has led to the identification of key content areas for knowledge support. These areas –
Strategy & Business Models, Organization & Management, Environment, and Digital Competencies –
collectively provide a comprehensive approach to navigating the complex digital landscape faced by
SMEs. The development of various transfer formats, including synchronous and asynchronous formats,
caters to diverse learning needs and preferences, enhancing the accessibility and effectiveness of the
knowledge transfer. The cyclical approach to enhancing digital competences, encompassing training,
mentoring, analysis, and sharing, reflects a dynamic and adaptive model of engagement between HEIs
and SMEs. Our findings emphasize the importance of collaborative frameworks that prioritize mutual
engagement and shared learning, tailored specifically to the partnership between HEIs and SMEs. This
study not only contributes to academic discourse, but also offers practical insights and frameworks that
can be applied in real-world settings. By focusing on a user-centric approach and employing the ADR
methodology, we have ensured that the solutions developed are both relevant and impactful for the target
1528

audience. The recursive process of engagement with practitioners and end-users has enabled us to refine
and adapt our strategies to best meet the needs of SMEs in the region.
While this study contributes to a deeper understanding of HEIs' role in the DT of SMEs, it is not without
limitations. The recursive process inherent in the ADR methodology, while beneficial for continuous
improvement, may also introduce complexities that could affect the scalability of the findings. Moreover,
the study's focus on a specific geographic region may limit the generalizability of the results. Future
research should aim to expand the geographical scope of studies to understand the role of HEIs in
different regional contexts. Additionally, further exploration of the efficacy of various knowledge transfer
formats in diverse industrial sectors could provide more nuanced insights. It is also recommended to
involve longitudinal studies to assess the long-term impact of the transfer offerings developed through
the VIDB-TOE Framework
In conclusion, the work of the VIDB stands as a testament to the potential of HEIs as key knowledge
partners in the DT of SMEs. The TOE Framework adoption, as derived in the research, offers guidance
and a basis for holistic knowledge partnerships between HEIs and SMEs in the context of DT.
REFERENCES
[1] L. Bollweg, R. Lackes, M. Siepermann, and P. Weber, “Drivers and barriers of the digitalization of
local owner operated retail outlets,” Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, vol. 32, no. 2,
pp. 173–201, 2020, doi: 10.1080/08276331.2019.1616256.
[2] G. Vial, “Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda,” The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 118–144, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003.
[3] H. Etzkowitz and L. Leydesdorff, “The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode
2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations,” Research Policy, vol. 29, no. 2, pp.
109–123, 2000, doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4.
[4] M. Wright, B. Clarysse, A. Lockett, and M. Knockaert, “Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry:
Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries,” Research Policy, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 1205–1223,
2008, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.021.
[5] Kane, G.C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A.N., Kiron, D. and Buckley, N., Strategy, not Technology, Drives
Digital Transformation: Becoming a Digitally Mature Enterprise. [Online]. Available: http://
sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/strategy-drives-digital-transformation/ (accessed: Nov. 20 2023).
[6] Z. J. Acs, D. B. Audretsch, P. Braunerhjelm, and B. Carlsson, “Growth and entrepreneurship,” Small
Bus Econ, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 289–300, 2012, doi: 10.1007/s11187-010-9307-2.
[7] A. Bharadwaj, O. A. El Sawy, P. A. Pavlou, and N. Venkatraman, “Digital Business Strategy:
Toward a Next Generation of Insights,” MISQ, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 471–482, 2013, doi:
10.25300/MISQ/2013/37:2.3.
[8] C. Matt, T. Hess, and A. Benlian, “Digital Transformation Strategies,” Bus Inf Syst Eng, vol. 57, no.
5, pp. 339–343, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s12599-015-0401-5.
[9] P. Chatterton and J. Goddard, “The Response of Higher Education Institutions to Regional Needs,”
Euro J of Education, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 475–496, 2000, doi: 10.1111/1467-3435.00041.
[10] L. G. Tornatzky and M. Fleischer, The processes of technological innovation. Lexington, Mass.:
Lexington Books, 1990.
[11] R. M. Grant, “Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm,” Strategic Management Journal, vol.
17, S2, pp. 109–122, 1996, doi: 10.1002/smj.4250171110.
[12] B. Narteh, “Knowledge transfer in developed‐developing country interfirm collaborations: a
conceptual framework,” Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 78–91, 2008, doi:
10.1108/13673270810852403.
[13] G. Manville, F. Karakas, M. Polkinghorne, and N. Petford, “Supporting open innovation with the
use of a balanced scorecard approach: a study on deep smarts and effective knowledge transfer
to SMEs,” Production Planning & Control, vol. 30, 10-12, pp. 842–853, 2019, doi:
10.1080/09537287.2019.1582093.
1529

[14] H. Mehreen, H. G. Rammal, V. Pereira, and M. Del Giudice, “Investigating the influence of
absorptive capacity of recipients within cross-border transfer of knowledge: evidence from emerging
markets,” IMR, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 734–754, 2022, doi: 10.1108/imr-11-2020-0264.
[15] Z. Li and G. Zhu, “Knowledge Transfer Performance of Industry-University-Research Institute
Collaboration in China: The Moderating Effect of Partner Difference,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 23,
p. 13202, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su132313202.
[16] D. Gertner, J. Roberts, and D. Charles, “University‐industry collaboration: a CoPs approach to
KTPs,” Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 625–647, 2011, doi:
10.1108/13673271111151992.
[17] E. C. Cheng, “Knowledge transfer strategies and practices for higher education institutions,”
VJIKMS, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 288–301, 2021, doi: 10.1108/vjikms-11-2019-0184.
[18] B. Ramdani and P. Kawalek, “SME Adoption of Enterprise Systems in the Northwest of England,”
in IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, Organizational Dynamics of
Technology-Based Innovation: Diversifying the Research Agenda, T. McMaster, D. Wastell, E.
Ferneley, and J. I. DeGross, Eds., Boston, MA: Springer US, 2007, pp. 409–429.
[19] J. Baker, “The Technology–Organization–Environment Framework,” in Integrated Series in
Information Systems, Information Systems Theory, Y. K. Dwivedi, M. R. Wade, and S. L.
Schneberger, Eds., New York, NY: Springer New York, 2012, pp. 231–245.
[20] Y. Zhong and H. C. Moon, “Investigating the Impact of Industry 4.0 Technology through a TOE-
Based Innovation Model,” Systems, vol. 11, no. 6, p. 277, 2023, doi: 10.3390/systems11060277.
[21] E. MacLennan and J.-P. van Belle, “Factors affecting the organizational adoption of service-oriented
architecture (SOA),” Inf Syst E-Bus Manage, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 71–100, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s10257-
012-0212-x.
[22] Sein, Henfridsson, Purao, Rossi, and Lindgren, “Action Design Research,” MISQ, vol. 35, no. 1, p.
37, 2011, doi: 10.2307/23043488.
[23] K. Peffers et al., Design Science Research Process: A Model for Producing and Presenting
Information Systems Research, 2006.
[24] M. Moloney and L. Church, “Engaged Scholarship: Action Design Research for New Software
Product Development,” SSRN Journal, 2012, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2227590.
[25] C. Karrenbauer, T. Brauner, C. M. König, and M. H. Breitner, “Design, development, and evaluation
of an individual digital study assistant for higher education students,” (in En;en), Education Tech
Research Dev, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 2047–2071, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s11423-023-10255-8.
[26] T. Kuhn and K.-V. Koschel, Gruppendiskussionen: Ein praxis-Handbuch, 2nd ed. Wiesbaden
[Germany]: Springer VS, 2018.
[27] E. Bell, A. Bryman, and B. Harley, Business research methods. Oxford, United Kingdom, New York,
NY: Oxford University Press, 2022.
[28] D. W. Seal, L. M. Bogart, and A. A. Ehrhardt, “Small group dynamics: The utility of focus group
discussions as a research method,” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 2, no.
4, pp. 253–266, 1998, doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.2.4.253.
[29] S. Hrastinski, “The potential of synchronous communication to enhance participation in online
discussions: A case study of two e-learning courses,” Information & Management, vol. 45, no. 7, pp.
499–506, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2008.07.005.
[30] C. C. Chou, “A comparative content analysis of student interaction in synchronous and
asynchronous learning networks,” in Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, null.
1530