mata788 PERMATA123 PERJAKA188 slot88resmi slot88resmi hati108 login Situs toto warga123 RAJAINDO permata123 Akunbos PERMATA123 jokijp slot88resmi slot88jp https://kl108gambar.com https://kl108gambar.com BMW777 Slot gacor seni108 hoki88 seni108

Vol. 4 No. 1 (2026): Article In Press
Articles

Institutional Constraints In Digital Transformation Project Delivery: A Cross-Sector Qualitative Study In Indonesia

PDF
  • Setyagus Sucipto,
  • Noorhan Firdaus Pambudi
Setyagus Sucipto
School of Business and Management, Institut Teknologi Bandung
Noorhan Firdaus Pambudi
School of Business and Management, Institut Teknologi Bandung
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58229/jims.v4i1.498

Published 2026-07-16

Keywords

  • digital transformation,
  • institutional constraints,
  • project delivery,
  • agile governance,
  • institutional rhythm

How to Cite

Sucipto, S., & Pambudi, N. F. (2026). Institutional Constraints In Digital Transformation Project Delivery: A Cross-Sector Qualitative Study In Indonesia. Journal Integration of Management Studies, 4(1), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.58229/jims.v4i1.498

Abstract

Purpose: This study examines how institutional constraints shape digital transformation project delivery across private-sector, state-owned enterprise (SOE), and government contexts in Indonesia, with particular attention to how institutional governance structures influence project delivery rhythms across different organizational settings.

Design/methodology/approach: The study uses a qualitative multiple-case design based on seven Indonesian digital transformation consulting projects. The analysis draws on 487 coded interview segments, 82 coding nodes, and 69 themes. Cross-case comparison was used to identify how delivery constraints vary across project phases and institutional settings. The findings are intended to provide an analytical rather than statistical generalization of institutional patterns in digital transformation delivery.

Findings: Three sectoral patterns are identified. SOE projects were dominated by upstream planning-contract constraints, including contractual ambiguity, scope vagueness, and difficulty translating strategic transformation intent into project terms. Government projects were dominated by downstream UAT and deployment constraints, where procedural validation and acceptance routines shaped project closure. Private-sector projects showed dual pressure between delivery speed and scope clarity. Across sectors, agile delivery was often constrained by institutional approval rhythms, creating a mismatch between adaptive project execution and organizational governance requirements.

Originality/value: The study reframes digital transformation project delivery as an institutional problem rather than only a technical or managerial problem. It introduces the concept of delivery rhythm–institutional rhythm alignment as a mechanism for understanding how governance structures shape project execution across sectors. The study contributes cross-sector qualitative evidence from Indonesia and shows why IT consultants need sector-sensitive delivery governance rather than one-size-fits-all project controls.

PDF

References

  1. Bode, M., Daneva, M. and van Sinderen, M.J. (2022), “Characterising the digital transformation of IT consulting services: results from a systematic mapping study”, IET Software, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 455-477. https://doi.org/10.1049/sfw2.12068
  2. Conforto, E.C., Amaral, D.C., da Silva, S.L., Di Felippo, A. and Kamikawachi, D.S.L. (2016), “The agility construct on project management theory”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 660-674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.01.007
  3. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 147-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
  4. Kane, G.C., Phillips, A.N., Copulsky, J.R. and Andrus, G.R. (2019), The Technology Fallacy: How People Are the Real Key to Digital Transformation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  5. Lyytinen, K. and Newman, M. (2008), “Explaining information systems change: a punctuated socio-technical change model”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 589-613. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.50
  6. Markus, M.L. and Benjamin, R.I. (1997), “The magic bullet theory in IT-enabled transformation”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 55-68.
  7. Mergel, I., Edelmann, N. and Haug, N. (2019), “Defining digital transformation: results from expert interviews”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 4, Article 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
  8. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. and Saldaña, J. (2014), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 3rd ed., SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  9. O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2013), “Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 324-338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
  10. Orlikowski, W.J. (1992), “The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations”, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 398-427. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.398
  11. Rachinger, M., Rauter, R., Müller, C., Vorraber, W. and Schirgi, E. (2019), “Digitalization and its influence on business model innovation”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 1143-1160. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-01-2018-0020
  12. Ramdani, B., Binsaif, A. and Boukrami, E. (2019), “Business model innovation: a review and research agenda”, New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 89-108. https://doi.org/10.1108/NEJE-06-2019-0030
  13. Scott, W.R. (2014), Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities, 4th ed., SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  14. Serrador, P. and Pinto, J.K. (2015), “Does Agile work? A quantitative analysis of agile project success”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1040-1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.006
  15. Tavoletti, E., Kazemargi, N., Cerruti, C., Grieco, C. and Appolloni, A. (2022), “Business model innovation and digital transformation in global management consulting firms”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 612-636. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2020-0443
  16. Teece, D.J. (2018), “Business models and dynamic capabilities”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007
  17. Verhoef, P.C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J.Q., Fabian, N., and Haenlein, M. (2021), “Digital transformation: a multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 122, pp. 889-901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022
  18. Westerman, G., Bonnet, D. and McAfee, A. (2014), Leading Digital: Turning Technology into Business Transformation, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.
  19. Yin, R.K. (2018), Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th ed., SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.