Defining the meaning and scope of digital transformation in higher education institutions

Gkrimpizi, Thomais; Peristeras, Vassilios; Magnisalis, Ioannis Article Defining the meaning and scope of digital transformation in higher education institutions Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Gkrimpizi, Thomais; Peristeras, Vassilios; Magnisalis, Ioannis (2024) : Defining the meaning and scope of digital transformation in higher education institutions, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 3, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14030048 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/320871 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Gkrimpizi, Thomais, Vassilios Peristeras, and Ioannis Magnisalis. 2024. Defining the Meaning and Scope of Digital Transformation in Higher Education Institutions. Administrative Sciences 14: 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci14030048 Received: 4 February 2024 Revised: 26 February 2024 Accepted: 28 February 2024 Published: 4 March 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Article Defining the Meaning and Scope of Digital Transformation in Higher Education Institutions Thomais Gkrimpizi 1,* , Vassilios Peristeras 1,2 and Ioannis Magnisalis 1,3 1School of Science and Technology, International Hellenic University, 57001 Thessaloniki, Greece 2Council of the European Union, 1040 Brussels, Belgium 3European Commission, 1000 Brussels, Belgium *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Digital transformation has emerged as a pervasive force in today’s rapidly evolving world, touching almost every sector and industry. In the higher education sector, in which education, research, and knowledge dissemination hold paramount significance for society, the notion of digital transformation per se becomes particularly important. This paper focuses specifically on higher education, acknowledging that it exists in a broader environment. In this work, qualitative methods were applied to explore the meaning and scope of digital transformation in higher education institutions. The systematic literature review formed the basis for in-depth interviews with experts in the discipline to explore the meaning and scope of digital transformation in higher education institutions. Then, for the purpose of preparing the case study, the concepts that emerged from the systematic literature review and interviews with experts were grouped together through a keyword-based pattern. Lastly, a case study was conducted at a Greek university with the aim of better understanding the way in which university members of a particular higher education institution perceive the meaning and scope of digital transformation. Our analysis provides valuable insights into higher education institutions for decision-makers and those involved in digital transformation initiatives, offering a comprehensive definition of digital transformation in higher education institutions. Finally, this paper can also serve as a basis for researchers who are interested in defining the meaning and scope of digital transformation in their own research fields. Keywords: digital transformation; university; higher education 1. Introduction Digital transformation has become an integral part of modern society, profoundly impacting organisations in various sectors. The importance of this issue arises from the extraordinary speed at which digital technologies have diffused all aspects of our lives. A survey conducted by the World Economic Forum (World Economic Forum 2023) highlighted that 87% of companies believe that digital transformation will disrupt their industries, but only half say they are prepared. At a time of massive social, economic, technological, and demographic changes in society (Brown et al. 2020), higher education institutions, like other organisations, are at a crossroads (Alenezi 2021;Branch et al. 2020), operating in an environment subject to unpredictable changes that they need to cope with, as society expects HEIs to fulfil multiple social and political goals. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the shift towards digital education, with many educational institutions being forced to switch to remote and hybrid teaching models. The importance of digital transformation for higher education institutions (HEIs) is being strongly debated. As a result of digital transformation and the use of new technologies, both academics and their institutions are changing the ways in which they operate at a faster pace than expected (Kerroum et al. 2020). While some argue for the paramount Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14030048 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 48 2 of 18 importance of digital transformation, others raise questions about it. On the one hand, to date, in higher education, technology has been mainly seen as a medium for gradual change in order to improve current learning approaches and has been largely ignored as a means for disruptive and evolutionary changes (Alenezi 2021;Branch et al. 2020). On the other hand, the incessant use of digital technologies in education is considered not only unsustainable but also potentially damaging, and there is a need for a more sustainable and ethical approach to educational technology (Selwyn 2022). An important note is that while higher education does not operate in a vacuum, it is only higher education that is considered in this study. HEIs are by nature complex organisations, with a unique nature and purpose (Jensen 2019), with many specific features that differentiate them from other organisations, such as teaching, pedagogy, curriculum, and research (Alenezi 2021;Benavides et al. 2020). The notion of digital transformation per se is of significant importance for HEIs seeking to adapt, innovate, and thrive in this evolving technology-led landscape, and moreover, to make HEIs resilient and adaptable in the face of a range of increasingly difficult challenges (Brown et al. 2020). Digital transformation represents a fundamental shift in the way HEIs operate, deliver education, and engage with students, staff, and stakeholders. It encompasses a wide range of technological developments, strategic initiatives, and cultural changes aimed at harnessing the power of digital technologies to improve the overall effectiveness of institutions and enhance the learning experience. It is worth noting that (Flavin 2017) highlights the deep-rooted resistance of educational institutions to innovation, suggesting a more nuanced understanding of these challenges. Digital transformation is not just about curriculum, learning delivery, student support, and research. It is also about the back office, the operating model, and, fundamentally, a set of key organisational capabilities: flexibility, agility, purposefulness, and evidence-led decision making (Parker 2020). 1.1. Structure of the Paper The paper is organised as follows. In this Section, after the introduction, we present the research gap and set out our contribution and the research question. In Section 2, the research methodology is described. In Section 3, we present our results from the systematic literature review, experts’ interviews, and case study. A synthesis and discussion of the results appear in Section 4. Finally, in Section 5, we present the conclusion, limitations, and future work. 1.2. Research Gap Although digital transformation in higher education is an emerging research area, the exact scope and meaning of digital transformation in higher education institutions are still not adequately defined. “Digital transformation” in universities has become the subject of much hype and excitement, and the term is often over- and mis-used. With our work, we try to provide rigour and clarity to the on-going discussion. 1.3. Contribution and Research Question We tried to fill this gap initially by understanding the meaning and scope of digital transformation in higher education institutions, and, subsequently, to better illustrate this, by providing a comprehensive definition of digital transformation in HEIs through the use of qualitative research methods. Therefore, we formulated the following research question: What are the meaning and scope of digital transformation in higher education institutions? 2. Materials and Methods To achieve the goal of this study and answer our research question, we first studied the relevant literature, then we organised and conducted in-depth, semi-structured, and exploratory interviews with field experts, and, finally, we verified the results from the previous phases through a case study. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 48 3 of 18 The purpose of the systematic literature review was to identify the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs. Subsequently, we carried out interviews with experts to enrich, extend, and improve our understanding of this subject (Lopez-Fernandez and Molina-Azorin 2011). Finally, by conducting a case study at a Greek public university, we gained better practical knowledge and verified our findings from the literature and the interviews. The complementarity and credibility of the interview-based qualitative research was enhanced through the application of site triangulation, as suggested by (Shenton 2004). In our study, site triangulation was accomplished by involving informants from multiple organisations from different continents. This approach helped mitigate the impact of specific local factors unique to a single institution. When consistent findings emerge across different sites, our qualitative findings gain greater credibility. To ensure diversity, we sampled a variety of experts from various organisations, as stated in Section 2.2. This practice aligns with Dervin’s concept of “circling reality”, which emphasises the need for multiple perspectives to form a more comprehensive and stable understanding of “reality” based on a wide range of observations across different points in time and space (Dervin 1983). By applying site triangulation, we gained a richer and more detailed understanding of the domain, allowing us to provide a more inclusive, structured, and elaborated definition of digital transformation in HEIs. In Figure 1, the process of the following research methods is illustrated. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19 2. Materials and Methods To achieve the goal of this study and answer our research question, we first studied the relevant literature, then we organised and conducted in-depth, semi-structured, and exploratory interviews with field experts, and, finally, we verified the results from the previous phases through a case study. The purpose of the systematic literature review was to identify the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs. Subsequently, we carried out interviews with experts to enrich, extend, and improve our understanding of this subject (Lopez-Fernandez and Molina-Azorin 2011). Finally, by conducting a case study at a Greek public university, we gained better practical knowledge and verified our findings from the literature and the interviews. The complementarity and credibility of the interview-based qualitative research was enhanced through the application of site triangulation, as suggested by (Shenton 2004). In our study, site triangulation was accomplished by involving informants from multiple organisations from different continents. This approach helped mitigate the impact of specific local factors unique to a single institution. When consistent findings emerge across different sites, our qualitative findings gain greater credibility. To ensure diversity, we sampled a variety of experts from various organisations, as stated in Section 2.2. This practice aligns with Dervin’s concept of “circling reality”, which emphasises the need for multiple perspectives to form a more comprehensive and stable understanding of “reality” based on a wide range of observations across different points in time and space (Dervin 1983). By applying site triangulation, we gained a richer and more detailed understanding of the domain, allowing us to provide a more inclusive, structured, and elaborated definition of digital transformation in HEIs. In Figure 1, the process of the following research methods is illustrated. Figure 1. Research method process. 2.1. Systematic Literature Review The method applied was a systematic literature review (Webster and Watson 2002; Kitchenham 2007). A systematic literature review (SLR) is a research approach for finding, evaluating, explaining, and synthesising the extant literature created by scholars, researchers, and practitioners (Fink 2019). An SLR is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically evaluate the relevant research and collect and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review (Moher et al. 2009). Our work used an SLR as a major component and step, as depicted in Figure 1 and elaborated in Figure 2. As mentioned in (Lacey et al. 2011), the key activities that differentiate an SLR from a narrative literature review are as follows: defining a research question, designing the plan, searching for literature, applying exclusion and inclusion criteria, applying quality assessment, and synthesising the findings relevant to the research question. We used the protocol described in (Kitchenham 2007), which consists of five phases: (1) formulating the research questions, (2) the research process, (3) synthesis, (4) analysis, and (5) evaluation. Initially, the research question was established: What is the meaning and scope of digital transformation in higher education institutions? Once the research question was set, we started by applying the PRISMA flow diagram (Moher et al. 2009) for the study selection phase. In Figure 2, we present the number of studies identified per phase. Figure 1. Research method process. 2.1. Systematic Literature Review The method applied was a systematic literature review (Webster and Watson 2002; Kitchenham 2007). A systematic literature review (SLR) is a research approach for finding, evaluating, explaining, and synthesising the extant literature created by scholars, researchers, and practitioners (Fink 2019). An SLR is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically evaluate the relevant research and collect and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review (Moher et al. 2009). Our work used an SLR as a major component and step, as depicted in Figure 1and elaborated in Figure 2. As mentioned in (Lacey et al. 2011), the key activities that differentiate an SLR from a narrative literature review are as follows: defining a research question, designing the plan, searching for literature, applying exclusion and inclusion criteria, applying quality assessment, and synthesising the findings relevant to the research question. We used the protocol described in (Kitchenham 2007), which consists of five phases: (1) formulating the research questions, (2) the research process, (3) synthesis, (4) analysis, and (5) evaluation. Initially, the research question was established: What is the meaning and scope of digital transformation in higher education institutions? Once the research question was set, we started by applying the PRISMA flow diagram (Moher et al. 2009) for the study selection phase. In Figure 2, we present the number of studies identified per phase. The relevant studies were retrieved from the scientific databases Web of Science and Scopus. We chose these databases because they cover a wide range of academic disciplines and publications from many countries and languages and provide a comprehensive and reliable source of literature for research purposes. These databases use strict selection criteria to ensure that the publications they include are of high quality and have undergone Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 48 4 of 18 a rigorous peer review process. Furthermore, both databases allow for the tracking of articles or author citations, which helps to identify other relevant studies. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19 Figure 2. PRISMA process applied for study selection, adapted by (Moher et al. 2009). The relevant studies were retrieved from the scientific databases Web of Science and Scopus. We chose these databases because they cover a wide range of academic disciplines and publications from many countries and languages and provide a comprehensive and reliable source of literature for research purposes. These databases use strict selection criteria to ensure that the publications they include are of high quality and have undergone a rigorous peer review process. Furthermore, both databases allow for the tracking of articles or author citations, which helps to identify other relevant studies. For the search, we used string construction, Boolean operators, as well as AND and OR to integrate the selected variables (Kitchenham 2007). For both databases, the query followed was (“digital transformation”) AND (“university” OR “higher education”). Searches were performed in February 2023, maintaining the above-mentioned structure. The search was conducted among English sources and covered the period up to the end of 2022. In both databases, we searched the titles. The search yielded 241 studies: 190 articles in the Scopus database and 51 in the Web of Science database. We included articles, conference proceedings, and books. We then proceeded to check the studies retrieved from the previous step after we removed 46 duplicates, using MS Excel 365 and Mendeley Desktop (version 1.19.8). All titles, abstracts, and keywords were read afterwards. We removed 7 studies that were not fully available, and 188 studies remained from this phase. Subsequently, we filtered the 188 studies retrieved from the screening process by reviewing the full texts. The papers clearly relate to and discuss the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs. At this stage, we applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 188 studies were submitted to check the relevance to the research question. The criteria chosen to ensure the relevance and quality of the articles were as follows: 1. Papers should relate to the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs; 2. Papers should have the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs at the centres of their analyses. The exclusion criterion set aimed to exclude studies that did not focus specifically on the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs but referred to them only in their introductions or backgrounds and not in their results, or studies that measured something other than the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs. We ended up with 22 articles that addressed the above criteria. By applying a Forward and Backward Citation Search, we identified and included another 2 articles. Furthermore, we included 6 papers from the grey literature, as we found them particularly interesting and relevant to our work. Finally, 30 studies were included in-scope for our research. We present the articles chronologically (Figure 3) and according to the types of documents (Figure 4). Figure 2. PRISMA process applied for study selection, adapted by (Moher et al. 2009). For the search, we used string construction, Boolean operators, as well as AND and OR to integrate the selected variables (Kitchenham 2007). For both databases, the query followed was (“digital transformation”) AND (“university” OR “higher education”). Searches were performed in February 2023, maintaining the above-mentioned structure. The search was conducted among English sources and covered the period up to the end of 2022. In both databases, we searched the titles. The search yielded 241 studies: 190 articles in the Scopus database and 51 in the Web of Science database. We included articles, conference proceedings, and books. We then proceeded to check the studies retrieved from the previous step after we removed 46 duplicates, using MS Excel 365 and Mendeley Desktop (version 1.19.8). All titles, abstracts, and keywords were read afterwards. We removed 7 studies that were not fully available, and 188 studies remained from this phase. Subsequently, we filtered the 188 studies retrieved from the screening process by reviewing the full texts. The papers clearly relate to and discuss the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs. At this stage, we applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 188 studies were submitted to check the relevance to the research question. The criteria chosen to ensure the relevance and quality of the articles were as follows: 1. Papers should relate to the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs; 2. Papers should have the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs at the centres of their analyses. The exclusion criterion set aimed to exclude studies that did not focus specifically on the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs but referred to them only in their introductions or backgrounds and not in their results, or studies that measured something other than the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs. We ended up with 22 articles that addressed the above criteria. By applying a Forward and Backward Citation Search, we identified and included another 2 articles. Furthermore, we included 6 papers from the grey literature, as we found them particularly interesting and relevant to our work. Finally, 30 studies were included in-scope for our research. We present the articles chronologically (Figure 3) and according to the types of documents (Figure 4). Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 48 5 of 18 Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19 Figure 3. Timeline of research articles on digital transformation in HEIs. Figure 4. Distribution of research articles by types of documents. 2.2. Interviews After concluding the systematic literature review, the research continued by conducting in-depth, semi-structured, and exploratory interviews with purposive samples (Ritchie et al. 2013). The use of interviews with domain experts was chosen to achieve complementarity (Lopez-Fernandez and Molina-Azorin 2011). The interview methodology was designed in accordance with the protocol described by (St. John et al. 2014; Young et al. 2018). It was structured into three steps, as follows: 1. The initial design, which included the identification of the research question, the design of the research methods, and the formulation of the interviews questions; 2. The data gathering, which included the piloting/refinement of the interviews, an ethical review, sampling, and undertaking interviews; 3. The analysis and synthesis, which included the results obtained from the expert interviews. In the initial design, the research question, “What are the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs?”, formed the basis for the expert interviews. The interviews with experts were conducted to help us define the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs. We applied a qualitative approach, using semi-structured and in-depth exploratory interviews with experts from academia not only in order to validate our findings, but also, more importantly, to shape and deepen our comprehension of HEI digital transformation in collaboration with the experts. The interview questions were phrased in an open-ended manner. The following questions were posed to the experts for discussion: 1. What are the special characteristics of digital transformation in HEIs compared to other private or public organisations? 2. How would you imagine a “digitally transformed university” 10 years from now? Figure 3. Timeline of research articles on digital transformation in HEIs. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19 Figure 3. Timeline of research articles on digital transformation in HEIs. Figure 4. Distribution of research articles by types of documents. 2.2. Interviews After concluding the systematic literature review, the research continued by conducting in-depth, semi-structured, and exploratory interviews with purposive samples (Ritchie et al. 2013). The use of interviews with domain experts was chosen to achieve complementarity (Lopez-Fernandez and Molina-Azorin 2011). The interview methodology was designed in accordance with the protocol described by (St. John et al. 2014; Young et al. 2018). It was structured into three steps, as follows: 1. The initial design, which included the identification of the research question, the design of the research methods, and the formulation of the interviews questions; 2. The data gathering, which included the piloting/refinement of the interviews, an ethical review, sampling, and undertaking interviews; 3. The analysis and synthesis, which included the results obtained from the expert interviews. In the initial design, the research question, “What are the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs?”, formed the basis for the expert interviews. The interviews with experts were conducted to help us define the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs. We applied a qualitative approach, using semi-structured and in-depth exploratory interviews with experts from academia not only in order to validate our findings, but also, more importantly, to shape and deepen our comprehension of HEI digital transformation in collaboration with the experts. The interview questions were phrased in an open-ended manner. The following questions were posed to the experts for discussion: 1. What are the special characteristics of digital transformation in HEIs compared to other private or public organisations? 2. How would you imagine a “digitally transformed university” 10 years from now? Figure 4. Distribution of research articles by types of documents. 2.2. Interviews After concluding the systematic literature review, the research continued by conducting in-depth, semi-structured, and exploratory interviews with purposive samples (Ritchie et al. 2013). The use of interviews with domain experts was chosen to achieve complementarity (Lopez-Fernandez and Molina-Azorin 2011). The interview methodology was designed in accordance with the protocol described by (St. John et al. 2014;Young et al. 2018). It was structured into three steps, as follows: 1. The initial design, which included the identification of the research question, the design of the research methods, and the formulation of the interviews questions; 2. The data gathering, which included the piloting/refinement of the interviews, an ethical review, sampling, and undertaking interviews; 3. The analysis and synthesis, which included the results obtained from the expert interviews. In the initial design, the research question, “What are the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs?”, formed the basis for the expert interviews. The interviews with experts were conducted to help us define the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs. We applied a qualitative approach, using semi-structured and in-depth exploratory interviews with experts from academia not only in order to validate our findings, but also, more importantly, to shape and deepen our comprehension of HEI digital transformation in collaboration with the experts. The interview questions were phrased in an open-ended manner. The following questions were posed to the experts for discussion: 1. What are the special characteristics of digital transformation in HEIs compared to other private or public organisations? 2. How would you imagine a “digitally transformed university” 10 years from now? Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 48 6 of 18 In step two (data gathering), the entire process was piloted with one expert to test the length, appropriateness of the language, and potential sources of bias (e.g., leading questions). We used the same video conference platform for the pilot and the interviews. At the beginning of each interview, the interviewee’s consent was sought. To ensure complete coverage of the population of interest, we chose purposive and goal-oriented sampling. To ensure accuracy and rigour, the sample selected was determined by its ability to represent prominent characteristics and traits relevant to the research (Rashidi et al. 2014). For the purposes of this research, we decided to interview profiles demonstrating a dual characteristic: profound professional connection with their universities; deep expertise in digital transformation. We chose university professors who are distinguished scholars in the field of digital government and digital transformation in the public sector. The idea for this profiling was to involve interviewees with a thorough understanding and deep domain (HEI) experience and, at the same time, who are world-class experts in digital transformation. To identify the interviewees, we used the Digital Government Reference Library (DGRL) (DGRL v16.6) (Scholl 2022). The University of Washington, since 2005, has maintained this reference library with academic literature on digital government. The interviewee sample was selected from the top 25 digital government scholars based on this library (Scholl 2022). Out of the ten professors contacted, eight agreed to be interviewed. Their names and affiliations appear in Appendix A. Their universities are located in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Greece, Poland, the Netherlands, and the USA. The interviews were conducted in June 2023, with an average duration of one hour. They were recorded with the consent of the experts to ensure the maximum quality of the data analysis. Interview transcripts were stored on a secure university file server. 2.3. Analysis and Synthesis of Results from Systematic Literature Review and Experts’ Interviews During this stage, by applying the grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 2017), we first proceeded to codify and analyse the results found in the systematic literature review and expert interviews by adopting the concept-centric-matrix approach (Morakanyane et al. 2017). Once the analysis was completed, we proceeded to jointly synthesise the results obtained from both methods. This synthesis formed the basis for organising and conducting our case study. 2.4. Case Study The final phase of our research was focused on a specific HEI to confirm or disconfirm the findings. The case study methodology allows for a deeper understanding of a particular social phenomenon (Merriam 1998;Rodríguez-Sánchez et al. 2020) and aims to understand, solve, or improve a real-world problem (Rodríguez-Sánchez et al. 2020). The use of a case study was deemed appropriate for our research, as it involves intensive analysis to identify issues and generate insights (Chapleo and Simms 2010), the collection of data, and the achievement of the research objectives (Yin 2000;Díaz-Garcia et al. 2023). A properly selected qualitative single case study on digital transformation should support the relationship between the unique and the general, which is “the most discussed issue of all” in case studies (Tight 2017). We selected International Hellenic University (IHU) in Greece as our single case study. The main reason for this was because all the research team members are staff of the institution and have access to key individuals and information. Our familiarity with the social environment of the university allows us to have insights into what is original and unique at IHU. Moreover, IHU is the result of a merger of four previous institutions with a very large geographical spread with eight campuses. After the merger in 2019, IHU became one of the largest universities in Greece. IHU has put under one roof different regulatory frameworks, different structures, different academic and administrative functions, and different cultures. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 48 7 of 18 We believe that this diversity and complexity gives IHU qualitative characteristics that makes it an interesting case for studying digital transformation. To collect the needed information, we decided to conduct a workshop with university staff members. Representatives of the main internal stakeholders (i.e., the governance body, academic staff, and administrative and IT staff) were selected. The criteria for the selection of the individuals of each stakeholder group were their availability and their willingness to participate in our research. The overall case study methodology is presented in Figure 5. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19 frameworks, different structures, different academic and administrative functions, and different cultures. We believe that this diversity and complexity gives IHU qualitative characteristics that makes it an interesting case for studying digital transformation. To collect the needed information, we decided to conduct a workshop with university staff members. Representatives of the main internal stakeholders (i.e., the governance body, academic staff, and administrative and IT staff) were selected. The criteria for the selection of the individuals of each stakeholder group were their availability and their willingness to participate in our research. The overall case study methodology is presented in Figure 5. Figure 5. Stages of case study. 3. Results In this Section, in order to address the research question, we present the results obtained from the systematic literature review. Furthermore, we present the results of the expert interviews. Subsequently, for the purpose of conducting the case study, we attempt to identify and consolidate the concepts that emerged from the systematic literature review and expert interviews. Finally, the results derived from the case study are presented. 3.1. Meaning and Scope of Digital Transformation: Systematic Literature Review We present below the definitions of digital transformation in HEIs that were found from the systematic literature review (Table 1). Table 1. Definitions of digital transformation in the context of higher education. Reference Definition of Digital Transformation in Higher Education Institutions (von der Heyde 2022) Digital transformation is a series of profound and coordinated changes in culture, workforce and technology that enable new educational and operational models, transforming the business model, strategic directions and value proposition of universities. (Serna Gómez et al. 2021) Digital transformation for HEIs is defined as the phenomenon in which old management patterns are broken and reinvented through a creative disruption, supported by the use of Figure 5. Stages of case study. 3. Results In this Section, in order to address the research question, we present the results obtained from the systematic literature review. Furthermore, we present the results of the expert interviews. Subsequently, for the purpose of conducting the case study, we attempt to identify and consolidate the concepts that emerged from the systematic literature review and expert interviews. Finally, the results derived from the case study are presented. 3.1. Meaning and Scope of Digital Transformation: Systematic Literature Review We present below the definitions of digital transformation in HEIs that were found from the systematic literature review (Table 1). Table 1. Definitions of digital transformation in the context of higher education. Reference Definition of Digital Transformation in Higher Education Institutions (von der Heyde 2022) Digital transformation is a series of profound and coordinated changes in culture, workforce and technology that enable new educational and operational models, transforming the business model, strategic directions and value proposition of universities. (Serna Gómez et al. 2021) Digital transformation for HEIs is defined as the phenomenon in which old management patterns are broken and reinvented through a creative disruption, supported by the use of digital technology, in order to achieve more effective management and build new relationships. Digital transformation is mainly about changing the existing organisational culture. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 48 8 of 18 Table 1. Cont. Reference Definition of Digital Transformation in Higher Education Institutions (Iosad 2020) Digital transformation is a series of deep and coordinated actions on culture, workforce and technology that enable new educational and operational models and transform an institution’s operations, strategic directions and value proposition. (Simonette et al. 2021) Digital transformation of HEIs is a holistic academic, organisational and structural innovation that transcends new technologies in learning and teaching. It changes the institution itself, the academic culture, impact individuals and society. (Castillo et al. 2021) Digital transformation refers to the process of optimizing, and transforming the institution’s strategies, activities, operations, decisions, and value proposition through the adoption of digital tools. (Branch et al. 2020) Digital transformation is the result of an organisational change in which people, processes and business models can understand technologies as tools that create value between customers and partners. (Gafurov et al. 2020) Digital transformation is a series of technological, managerial and organisational changes. It not only involves the use of the latest technologies, but also gives opportunities to deliver new services by creating new connections between people and places. (Rodríguez-Abitia and Bribiesca-Correa 2021) Digital transformation is seen as an evolutionary process through which IT becomes a fundamental element of everyday life, affecting all dimensions concerning both people and the organisation itself. (Wilms et al. 2017;Aditya et al. 2022) Digital transformation must be understood as a profound and radical process that directs businesses and organisations in new directions and brings them to completely different level of effectiveness. (Al-Ali and Marks 2022) Digital transformation is not only the transformation of tools, technologies and processes but it is transformation of entire business model, changing the way, a business operates and interacts internally and with external world. (Valdés et al. 2021) Digital transformation can be understood as simple evolutionary processes that allow business models, operational processes, and experiences to be rapidly and efficiently by institutions and agents. (Maltese 2018) Digital transformation goes beyond the mere adoption of new technologies and makes it possible to provide services, supply goods, and live experiences, as well as the processing and distribution large amounts of content creating new connections between people, places, and things. (Rof et al. 2020) Digital transformation is an evolutionary process, affecting and transforming all the main areas of activity (teaching, research and transfer of research, administration). Digital transformation is not only about the adoption of new digital tools and equipment, but it is also about the transformation and automation of all the processes, thus increasing their effectiveness and eliminating any physical processes and barriers through the increased connectivity and digitalisation of everything. (Alenezi 2021) Digital transformation refers to disruptive and holistic changes in the organisation by integrating digital technologies. (Safiullin et al. 2019)Digital Transformation for Universities is a process to create a unique university information system that will provide unified data on students, staff, faculty and researchers. (Faria and Nóvoa 2017) Digital transformation goes far beyond the implementation of processes, involving an innovative use of new technologies as a way of promoting new services, redefining business models and innovative interactions with its users. (Goulart et al. 2022) Digital transformation is leading to changes in higher education, not only in terms of teaching techniques but also in the new skills to be taught, incorporating technical, managerial and non-cognitive skills not previously considered necessary. (Benavides et al. 2020)Digital transformation of HEIs is a comprehensive and holistic process aimed at their organisational transformation and the integration of their established pathways. (Parker 2020) Digital transformation is about the curriculum, learning delivery, student support and research, the back office, the operating model, the technology and, fundamentally, the sum of capabilities that reside in the organisation: to be flexible, agile, purposeful and evidence-led. (Grosseck et al. 2020) Digital transformation is an organisational change at the intersection of technology, business and people through the development of a digital way of thinking by adopting a new mindset. 3.2. Meaning and Scope from Experts’ Perspectives To trigger our discussion with the experts, the following definition of digital transformation in HEIs was used (von der Heyde 2022): “Digital transformation is a series Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 48 15 of 18 Impact of digital transformation: Universities are typical examples of “professional bureaucracies” (Mintzberg 1980). The digital transformation impact can be seen in both the administrative and core (professional) functions of HEIs. Impacts on “educational activities” refer to the main academic functions (i.e., teaching, research, technology transfer, curriculum, and administration). Impact on “operational efficacy” refers to the ability of an HEI to effectively and efficiently manage its internal processes and resources to achieve its strategic goals and objectives. It involves optimising various aspects of functions to improve the overall performance and delivery of educational services. The other terms identified (i.e., capabilities, improved relationships, operational model, and educational model) could be considered as dimensions of higher education transformation but are either partially covered by the selected terms (e.g., capabilities, operational model) or not considered central to our proposed definition. Key transformed areas of digital transformation: The “educational model” refers to the framework or structure in which the core activities (i.e., curriculum, teaching and learning methods, research, learning, continuous education, technology integration) are organised and delivered. When talking about transformation, it is vital to emphasise how all changes affect the core way in which education is provided and received. This includes changes in the curriculum design, teaching methods, and overall learning experience. Aligning strategic goals with the changing educational landscape: The term “strategic directions” refers to aligning the strategic objectives of HEIs with the changing educational landscape, focusing more on the offering of new educational services. “Value proposition” is about the outcomes and benefits at the organisation level because of digital transformation. Finally, it relates to what the institution offers to the students, faculty, and other stakeholders and the perceived benefits. The other defined concepts, namely, business model, operating model, organisational culture, value creation, and connectivity, are considered part of our selected terms. 5. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Work This study tried to shed light on the meaning and scope of digital transformation in HEIs using qualitative research methods, with the ultimate aim of providing a well-rounded definition of digital transformation in HEIs. Additionally, through the methodology used, this study also seeks to provide a basis and an example for researchers in other disciplines to define the meaning and scope of digital transformation in their fields. The limitations of this study include the relatively small sample size of the experts interviewed. It is normal that the participants interviewed in this study had their own biases or perspectives, and this influenced the results. Future research could target a more extensive and diverse sample of experts. Whilst the selection of a specific case study is in itself a limitation, the selection of a qualitatively meaningful single case study for digital transformation allows the readership to assess to what extent the results can be generalised to other areas. Future research could compare the digital transformation efforts of HEIs across countries, continents, and types of institutions. Such comparisons could help identify the best practices that influence success. Also, in-depth case studies of specific HEIs that have successfully navigated digital transformation could provide actionable insights and serve as models for other institutions. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, ongoing research efforts will be vital in guiding HEIs towards successful transformation in an ever-changing environment. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.G.; methodology, T.G., V.P. and I.M.; writing—original draft preparation, T.G.; writing—review and editing, V.P. and I.M.; supervision, V.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.” Funding: This research was funded by International Hellenic University (project number 81271) under the project: “Dissemination and use of research results in the thematic area of Digital Organisations”. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 48 16 of 18 Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: Data is unavailable due to privacy. Acknowledgments: ChatGPT 3.5 (https://chat.openai.com, accessed on 30 January 2024) was used to optimise the English language of the article. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Appendix A. List of Experts Who Participated in Interviews A/A Name University Country 1 Joep Crompvoets KU Leuven Public Governance Institute Belgium 2 Euripides Loukis Aegean University Greece 3 Tomasz Janowski Gda´nsk University of Technology Poland 4 Elsa Estevez Universidad Nacional del Sur Argentina 5 Theresa Pardo University at Albany, State University of New York USA 6 Adegboyega Ojo Carleton University Canada 7 Marijn Janssen Delft University of Technology Netherlands 8 Efthimios Tambouris University of Macedonia Greece Appendix B. List of Participants in IHU Case Study A/A Position 1 Professor, Member of the IHU Executive Council 2 Professor, Vice Rector for Internationalisation, Public Relations and Digital Governance of the IHU 3Professor, Dean of School of Social Sciences, Member of the Senate, and Member of the Research Committee of IHU 4Secretariat of Vice Rector of the IHU, Academic Fellow as a Teaching Assistant at the IHU, PhD Candidate. 5 Secretariat of School of Social Sciences of IHU 6Head of Administrative Support Unit, Special Account Management Department 7 Library staff of UCIPS/IHU 8 Public Relations & Communications Office of IHU 9 IT staff 10 IT staff References Aditya, Bayu Rima, Ridi Ferdiana, and Sri Suning Kusumawardani. 2022. A barrier diagnostic framework in process of digital transformation in higher education institutions. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education 14: 749–61. [CrossRef] Al-Ali, Maytha, and Adam Marks. 2022. A digital maturity model for the education enterprise. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education 26: 47–58. [CrossRef] Alenezi, Mamdouh. 2021. Deep dive into digital transformation in higher education institutions. Education Sciences 11: 770. [CrossRef] Benavides, Lina María Castro, Johnny Alexander Tamayo Arias, Martin Dario Arango Serna, John William Branch Bedoya, and Daniel Burgos. 2020. Digital transformation in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. Sensors 20: 3291. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 48 17 of 18 Branch, John W., Daniel Burgos, Martin Dario Arango Serna, and Giovanni Pérez Ortega. 2020. Digital Transformation in Higher Education Institutions: Between Myth and Reality. In Radical Solutions and eLearning: Practical Innovations and Online Educational Technology. Singapore: Springer, pp. 41–50. Brown, Malcolm, Betsy Reinitz, and Karen Wetzel. 2020. Digital transformation signals: Is your institution on the journey. EDUCAUSE Review. Available online: https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2019/10/digital-transformation-signals-is-your-institution-on-the- journey (accessed on 12 September 2023). Castillo, Aris, Dafni Mora, Vladimir Villarreal, and Lineth Alaín. 2021. State of Digital Transformation in the Universities of Central America. In Radical Solutions for Digital Transformation in Latin American Universities: Artificial Intelligence and Technology 4.0 in Higher Education. Singapore: Springer, pp. 109–28. Chapleo, Chris, and Christopher Simms. 2010. Stakeholder analysis in higher education: A case study of the University of Portsmouth. Perspectives 14: 12–20. [CrossRef] Dervin, Brenda. 1983. An Overview of Sense-Making Research: Concepts, Methods, and Results to Date. Available online: https: //conversational-leadership.net/paper/an-overview-of-sense-making-research/ (accessed on 30 January 2024). Díaz-Garcia, Vicente, José-Luis Rodríguez-Sánchez, Antonio Montero-Navarro, and Rocío Gallego-Losada. 2023. Managing Digital Transformation: A Case Study in a Higher Education Institution. Electronics 12: 2522. [CrossRef] Faria, JoséAntónio, and Henriqueta Nóvoa. 2017. Digital transformation at the University of Porto. In Exploring Services Science: 8th International Conference, IESS 2017, Rome, Italy, May 24–26, 2017, Proceedings 8. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 295–308. [CrossRef] Fink, Arlene. 2019. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Flavin, Michael. 2017. Disruptive Technology Enhanced Learning: The Use and Misuse of Digital Technologies in Higher Education. London: Springer. [CrossRef] Gafurov, Ilshat Rafkatovich, Marat Rashitovich Safiullin, Elvir Munirovich Akhmetshin, Almaz Rafisovich Gapsalamov, and Vladimir Lvovich Vasilev. 2020. Change of the Higher Education Paradigm in the Context of Digital Transformation: From Resource Management to Access Control. International Journal of Higher Education 9: 71–85. [CrossRef] Glaser, Barney, and Anselm Strauss. 2017. Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. London: Routledge. Goulart, Vera G., Lara Bartocci Liboni, and Luciana Oranges Cezarino. 2022. Balancing skills in the digital transformation era: The future of jobs and the role of higher education. Industry and Higher Education 36: 118–27. [CrossRef] Grosseck, Gabriela, Laura Mali¸ta, and Mădălin Bunoiu. 2020. Higher Education Institutions Towards Digital Transformation—The WUT Case. In European Higher Education Area: Challenges for A New Decade. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 565–81. [CrossRef] Iosad, Alexander. 2020. Digital at the Core: A 2030 Strategy Framework for University Leaders. Jisc. Available online: https: //www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/digital-at-the-core-a-2030-strategy-framework-for-university-leaders (accessed on 21 January 2021). Jensen, Trine. 2019. Higher education in the digital era. The current state of transformation around the world. International Association of Universities 2019: 28–42. Kerroum, Kamal, Ayoub Bahnasse, Azeddine Khiat, and Es-Saadia Aoula. 2020. The proposal of an agile model for the digital transformation of the University Hassan II of Casablanca 4.0. Procedia Computer Science 175: 403–10. [CrossRef] Kitchenham, Barbara. 2007. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01. Ringwood: Kitchenham, p. 65. Lacey, Fiona M., Lydia Matheson, and Jill Jesson. 2011. Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. In Doing Your Literature Review. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd., pp. 1–192. Lopez-Fernandez, Olatz, and Jose F. Molina-Azorin. 2011. The use of mixed methods research in the field of behavioural sciences. Quality & Quantity 45: 1459–72. [CrossRef] Maltese, Vincenzo. 2018. Digital transformation challenges for universities: Ensuring information consistency across digital services. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 56: 592–606. [CrossRef] Merriam, Sharan B. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from “Case Study Research in Education”. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Mintzberg, Henry. 1980. Structure in 5’s: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design. Management Science 26: 322–41. [CrossRef] Moher, David, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Alessandro Liberati, Douglas G. Altman, and PRISMA Group. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 151: 264–69. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Morakanyane, Resego, Audrey A. Grace, and Philip O’reilly. 2017. Conceptualizing Digital Transformation in Business Organizations: A Systematic Review of Literature. Paper presented at the 30th Bled eConference: Digital Transformation–From Connecting Things to Transforming Our Lives, Bled, Slovenia, June 18–21. Parker, Stephen. 2020. The Future of Higher Education in A Disruptive World. KPMG International Report. pp. 1–30. Available online: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/10/future-of-higher-education.pdf (accessed on 8 July 2023). Rashidi, M. Nor, M. Mokhtar, R. Ara Begum, and J. J. Pereira. 2014. The conduct of structured interviews as research implementation method. Journal of Advanced Research Design 1: 28–34. Ritchie, Jane, Jane Lewis, Carol McNaughton Nicholls, and Rachel Ormston, eds. 2013. Qualitative Research practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 48 18 of 18 Rodríguez-Abitia, Guillermo, and Graciela Bribiesca-Correa. 2021. Assessing digital transformation in universities. Future Internet 13: 52. [CrossRef] Rodríguez-Sánchez, José-Luis, Antonio Montero-Navarro, Thais González-Torres, and Rocío Gallego-Losada. 2020. Investing time and resources for work–life balance: The effect on talent retention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17: 1920. [CrossRef] Rof, Albert, Andrea Bikfalvi, and Pilar Marquès. 2020. Digital transformation for business model innovation in higher education: Overcoming the tensions. Sustainability 12: 4980. [CrossRef] Safiullin, Marat R., Elvir Munirovich Akhmetshin, and Vladimir Lvovich Vasilev. 2019. Production of indicators for evaluation of digital transformation of modern university. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology 9: 7399–402. [CrossRef] Scholl, Hans J. 2022. Digital Government Research: A Diverse Domain. In Scientific Foundations of Digital Governance and Transformation: Concepts, Approaches and Challenges. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 51–71. [CrossRef] Selwyn, Neil. 2022. Digital degrowth: Toward radically sustainable education technology. Learning, Media and Technology. [CrossRef] Serna Gómez, JoséHumberto, Flor Nancy Díaz-Piraquive, Yasser de Jesús Muriel-Perea, and Alejandro Díaz Peláez. 2021. Advances, Opportunities, and Challenges in the Digital Transformation of HEIS in Latin America. In Radical Solutions for Digital Transformation in Latin American Universities: Artificial Intelligence and Technology 4.0 in Higher Education. Singapore: Springer, pp. 55–75. Shenton, Andrew K. 2004. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information 22: 63–75. [CrossRef] Simonette, Marcel, Mario Magalhães, and Edison Spina. 2021. Digital Transformation of Academic Management: All the Tigers Come at Night. In Radical Solutions for Digital Transformation in Latin American Universities: Artificial Intelligence and Technology 4.0 in Higher Education. Singapore: Springer, pp. 77–92. St. John, Freya A. V., Julia P. G. Jones, Aidan M. Keane, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2014. Robust study design is as important on the social as it is on the ecological side of applied ecological research. Journal of Applied Ecology 51: 1479–85. [CrossRef] Tight, Malcolm. 2017. Understanding Case Study Research: Small-Scale Research with Meaning. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage. Valdés, Karen Núñez, Susana Quirós y Alpera, and Luis Manuel CerdáSuárez. 2021. An institutional perspective for evaluating digital transformation in higher education: Insights from the Chilean case. Sustainability 13: 9850. [CrossRef] von der Heyde, Markus. 2022. What’s Digital? Factors of perceived Digital Transformation of Higher Education in Germany. INFORMATIK 2022: 1379–92. [CrossRef] Webster, Jane, and Richard T. Watson. 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly 26: xiii–xxiii. Wilms, Konstantin L., Stefan Stieglitz, Christian Meske, Lena Fröhlich, Hannah Decker, Sarah Schaulies, Nadine Jendrosch, Raimund Vogl, and Dominik Rudolph. 2017. Digital Transformation in Higher Education–New Cohorts, New Requirements? Paper prensented at the 23rd Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA, USA, August 10–12. World Economic Forum. 2023. Accelerating Digital Transformation for Long Term Growth. Available online: https://initiatives. weforum.org/digital-transformation/home (accessed on 8 July 2023). Yin, Robert K. 2000. Case Study Evaluations: A Decade of Progress? In Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 185–93. [CrossRef] Young, Juliette C., David C. Rose, Hannah S. Mumby, Francisco Benitez-Capistros, Christina J. Derrick, Tom Finch, Carolina Garcia, Chandrima Home, Esha Marwaha, Courtney Morgans, and et al. 2018. A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9: 10–19. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.