Financial services are highly developed industry in terms of contemporary cloud computing, machine learning application and lots of other emerging digital technologies. Therefore, huge companies, like Sberbank or Tinkoff Bank, even build their business strategies across digital solutions.

Oil and Gas is highly digitalized industry. However, major role in digitalization play field operations, but from management perspective it is not easy to negotiate disruptive solutions due to industry specifics and State ownership. The nature of business, industry distinguishing features certainly influence digitalization opportunities within organizations.

Retail is highly open to explore and pilot new digital solutions, because the major business pain of the industry is timing and costs. Many modern business software programs allow to take advantage from functionality of those. Business strategy includes digital dimensions, especially concerning future development

Agile horizontal corporate culture development and its relevance to digital transformation in Russia

CRM and ERP systems require company-wide commitment, otherwise such complex technological solutions are almost impossible to land within organization. Moreover, teamwork and cross collaboration as well as agility and adaptivity towards market conditions positively stimulate organization`s digitalization initiatives

From practical experience, it is hard to find positive effects of horizontal corporate culture on digital transformation in FSI. The first reason is quality of personnel skills and knowledge developed internally. Depending on the quality extent, the higher and more advanced skills and knowledge are, the more powerful the synergetic effect is. On the other hand, decent quality may even negatively influence business performance, because than shared responsibility is left alone with no action.

Corporate culture and its flat communication flows are merely observed among O&G enterprises. First of all, there is no evidence that such structure positively effect business performance in the industry. Therefore, there are not many companies trying to implement such approach in their organizations. What is getting more and more feasible - the fact that agility and adaptivity towards markets` circumstances and global conditions play important role and are taken into consideration during decision-making

In Retail, especially within companies related to communication industry and e-commerce, horizontal corporate culture is definitely important and its potential outcomes as well as advantages in modern digital time are recognized to a high extent. Agility and abilities to lean and act fast are very important in the industry since level of competition is very high. Therefore, there are no significant barriers on the market entry, especially within Internet environment.

IT technical skills and knowledge readiness within enterprises

From personal experience perspective, companies do not have another technical IT skills and necessary knowledge to customize CRM and ERP solutions by themselves. In many cases 'learning from practice' approach takes place

Since in FSI the role and potential of digital solutions are recognized and included in the strategy, the requirements for recruitment fully reflect that fact - deep understanding of critical for enterprises digital technologies and programming languages. Therefore, the set of roles also demonstrate those technical IT competence and focus

With respect to technical skills and knowledge in O&G, it is important to notice important feature of the enterprises in the segment - many operational units are scattered across the country and headquarters are located in major federal cities. In the regions it is easy to implement a certain set of digital technologies since decision making chain is short. On the other hand, more critical and substantial software solutions are not easy to negotiate and implement

The major issue for Retail enterprises is to configure their IT department into business solution entities in the first place. The goal of IT department is to help business to grow and develop competitive advantage with fast time-to-market reaction. Therefore, retailers try to develop IT expertise internally, but with narrower digital scale and solution scope.

6.3 Infrastructural block

Findings regarding infrastructural block could be found in Table 6.3.1. Infrastructural circumstances consist if several components, and one of the most interesting and important issues is import substitution in the field of local software development.

What is the probability of developing highly comprehensive capabilities to produce and deliver software and related technologies locally within the following time-perspective?

In experts` opinion, there are scares opportunities for Russian software vendors to develop substantial competitive advantages among business software solution in the nearest future. Therefore, competitive advantages to be developed soon are going to be overlapped by more powerful and more effective foreign solution later on, pushing local software suppliers to start again. However, some specific and narrow solutions, especially in Retail, have decent opportunities to compete with foreign suppliers within 5-10 years perspective. The same is seen for CRM and ERP solutions, it seems that market is going to gain some unique advantages, allowing local vendors and system developers to provide end-to-end solutions locally. However, many things also depend on consumer`s readiness to try and use new digitally-based services and technologies.

Expert were specifically asked to share their vision on how far population is ready to acquire new technologies via all available tools and resources in Russia. Two paths were distinguished - development in federal centers and in the regions. As it was expected, federal center citizens usually massively use emerging digital services and products within next 3-6 months after launch.

In the regions the same takes over 8 months, sometimes even more than year. Some reasoning includes lack of infrastructure in vast areas far from centers and poor Internet connection may not adequately serve potential needs. Some areas do not even have stable mobile connection.

Some considerations on e-government development were also shared and discussed. Overall, expert agree that there are a lot of digitalization process growing around government services, and major issue again is that those diversified services are available primarily in federal centers only. Clearly, there should be actions and investments in infrastructure development across the country, otherwise digital gaps on the country`s territory may get only wider and wider.

Other ideas concerning infrastructure development include import substitution programs. Basically, such programs do not allow local developers to enter foreign markets, especially when there is no motivation to provide high quality competitive digital solutions locally. And from politics and investment attractiveness perspective, import substitution is not something positive for developers. Also, STI policy in its current iteration might miss some important simulative actions regarding IT development in the regions. Partnership ecosystem probably too need to be adapted to digital transformation progress.

Table 6.3.1. Research findings within infrastructural block

Infrastructural block	Product differentiation	Industialy distribution
	CRM/ERP	FSI	O&G	Retail
Local business software vendors and suppliers competitiveness	Regarding CRM/ERP products, local developers are increasing and accelerating development of competitive advantages, especially within import substitution initiatives on policy level.	There are local digital solutions delivered specifically to a certain business field (accounting, security, industry-specific software and etc.). In those narrow nisches Russian developers are highly competitive	It is important to remember, that O&G industry in Russia historically has been developing with the help of foreign equipment suppliers. Therefore, many vertical digital solutions are developed for certain sets of equipment. Therefore, Russian developers cannot provide similar productivity and functionality for operations. Concerning business software as a whole, foreign domination on IT market is absolutely feasible.	Retail industry worldwide distinguished universally, and software here plays similar role for each and every player. Therefore, foreign software developers provide more advanced and more powerful tools for tackling business pain. Russian developers are successful only in narrow software application fields and rather play significant role in solution customization and implementation
Population readiness to acquire digitally-based products and services	It is hard to estimate population readiness for digitally-based products and services, since those products and services significantly vary in complexity and application fields.	In terms of private financial operations, Russian citizens are highly open and ready to explore new digital services. Especially regarding younger generations	The issue is tricky. On the one hand, we observe how amazingly fast new apps and services become widely popular. However, in many cases this digitalization covers only relevantly huge cities. Regions are developing less fast	Nonetheless population take advantage of new digital technologies, there is still room for growth. And many digital solutions in retail require developed modern infrastructure, while In Russia physical infrastructure still to be constructed
E-government development and cybersecurity	Digitalization in government services and e-government concept are developing in Russia faster and faster. However, today the widest ranges of e-services available only in some cities	Government and business communications, reporting is getting digitalized, this is fact. But the quality, functionality and interfaces are not much user-friendly. And certainly, even those services are available primarily in Moscow and St. Petersburg	E-government in Russia developing faster than average worldwide. With respect to Russia, the main issue is scattered cities and towns across country`s huge territory. To be able to provide high-tech e-gov services, first we need to have developed and functional physical infrastructure, fast Internet access and equipment available for region`s governors	E-government development takes place, but actually for many business fields government relationships are still poorly organized. In retail many decisions may concern government policy and it takes time and resources to negotiate certain disruptive moves. Maybe both sides are too secured?
Technical IT expertise and relevant consultancy services availability to Russian enterprise segment	Major system integrators, software partners and solution agencies have substantial expertise in CRM/ERP customization and implementation	Russian IT consultancy services and expertise are highly advanced. They provide services even foreign organizations too and have subsidiaries in other countries.	Local IT outsourcing and partnership ecosystem is developed and continuously serve Russian enterprise segment needs for over decade	The core competence of Russian software integrators and consultancy is software implementation within huge and small IT projects countrywide

6.4 Externalities

Externalities, as major hypothesis driver, were deeper discussed with the experts. Usually, over half of the interview time were devoted to externalities issues and effects. Overall opinion and comments could be found in Table 6.4.1. To begin with this section, it is important to analyze the most prominent and real-time problem of US sanctions and other foreign restrictions applied to Russian economy.

It is very interesting to understand, if there is direct correlation links between those restrictions and software trade. As far as we analyzed, almost 90% of all software solutions on the Russian market have American origin. And instantly, international software vendors stood at risk in a situation, where products and services do not have physical nature and could be easily turned off, in a matter of hours. If consider some commodities international trade - there are time lacks in such decision making, because many stakeholders involved in trade and a lot of alternative risks lie in transportation and logistics (especially insured ones). Therefore, the experts agreed that sectoral sanctions restricted software and other digital technologies access in the first place for enterprises stated in the SSI list. Some special events for transparency and confirmation became very important procedures, no foreign supplier does not want risk American international legislation. Relatively good news for Russian economy is that identified enterprises and organizations only included in that SSI list, leaving just innocent business out of damage. However, continuing mutual aggressive politic actions do not break the ice between the countries. Especially, in poor infrastructural conditions when there are so wide gaps in digital development across Russian territory, the country needs to take advantage of digitalization but currently the most advanced and highly effective software solutions are developed in USA.

What is the probability of software and IT projects` involvement intensity depending on exchange rate among Russian enterprises?

One of the assumptions during discussions was that those restrictions also negatively influence exchange rate volatility, international business relations and Russian economy performance to some extent. Trying to understand the vision concerning future scenarios, experts were asked to provide their opinion on how flexible enterprises are with respect to software procurement and digital system piloting versus exchange rate changes from 60 rubles per dollar to 100 rubles per dollar. First of all, O&G industry export-oriented nature allows enterprises in the sector independently from exchange rate choose pilot technology or not, acquire it or not. Such flexibility based on revenue streams O&G companies generate, and in case of Russia almost all companies in the sector earn major revenue share in US$. On the other hand, it is quite clear that non-export-oriented industries, like FSI and Retail in Russia, would suffer increasingly bad those currency changes. Economic stagnation and permanent inflation resulted in devaluated currency recently started in 2014. This fact is also confirmed by previous analysis of Russian software market conditions and features as well as decreasing volumes of software import. Therefore, such volatility and sanctions may negatively influence business performance quite sharp, and the latest example of En+ corporation under O. Deripaska ownership instantly losing business relations with American aircraft companies and driving following ruble exchange rate fall by almost 9 rubles. All of those externalities are tightly interconnected and like networking disseminate negative impacts in specific economy spheres.

Even though the nature of externalities do not allow easily predict following scenarios development, it is seem that even such targeted restrictions badly outbound in some Russian economy sector, cluster, enterprise or individual entrepreneur. And one of its outcomes is growing chaos about future and strategic business planning. Uncertainties recently became one of the most regular research objects, in both business and academia initiatives.

And all experts agreed, that uncertainty risks are highly influential in the field of IT long-term projects. And as we saw earlier, national export-oriented companies are highly limited to O&G industry, while local import substitution initiatives basically bound Russian software developers and do not facilitate foreign markets penetration. This situation might go even worse in case some powerful externality shock Russian economy in unexpected matter or random field.

Moreover, it was also agreed that even current uncertainty risks are very feasible among Russian enterprise segment. Thus, there is a reason to believe that externalities in fact should be included into business analysis and digital transformation research as a part of organizational and infrastructural dimensions. What is particular about externalities, is that they are highly unstable and highly scalable in different ranges. Some revealed examples include indirect sanctions influence on Retail industry through exchange rate and earlier commodities restrictions. Therefore, such actions limit available budgeting and investment opportunities. However, there is also a believe that uncertainty risks evenly distributed between industrial sectors, more or less. And IT industry is not single exception among those external effects. Nonetheless, the negative influence could be found in research conducted.

Table 6.4.1. Research findings within externalities

Externalities	Product differentiation	Industialy distribution
	CRM/ERP	FSI	O&G	Retail
US sectoral sanctions and other foreign restrictions	The restrictions developed by US government and applied towards multinational corporations headquartered in USA certainly influence business performance and partnership opportunities with some Russian companies. Especially this is feasible when discussing import substitution issues with the clients	Within FSI there is no somewhat significant evidence of negative impact from sectoral sanctions. First of all, many organizations are not included in SSI list and secondly, the restrictions may be feasible only in case Russian FSI institutions start actively exploring opportunities in Crimea	Some organizations indeed recognized the risks and currently may not cooperate with US software vendors. Therefore, those sanctions also restrict non-US companies to provide products and services to SSI Russian companies. Otherwise, non-US vendors may be also included in SSI list, However, only some companies are at the focus of the sanctions	US sectoral sanctions are not related to Retail sector directly. However, some indirect effects a feasible even in this sector
Currency exchange rate volatility	Stable local currency always important for long-term projects and initiatives. Especially in the country, where main products and services are imported	Exchange rate of Russian ruble indeed very important for digitalization and further development opportunities. On the other hand, it is also a market opportunity to develop new FSI instruments and services concerning exchange rate volatility and related risks	Exchange rate is not a concern of O&G industry since the companies in the segment are prior export-oriented and cash flow usually consist of US$.	Exchange rate is one of the most important factors for retailers. Many operations of companies in Retail include international trade and exchange volatility. Ultimately those conditions reflected in products prices, growing year by year.
Administrative regulations on IT and data protection	There certainly some gaps between legal framework for data and software management and real-life circumstances. Many question sways upon meaning and application. Some future cases should clarify those gaps.	Regulations currently discussing do not cover all the fields and certainly there will be new iterations in the future. This is ordinary development path.	By now the problem with IT policy regulations is that we do not have enough legislation cases on general data protection rights. And yes, because of that we can only imagine what are the potential outcomes and real concerns.	It is believed that more clarification should be provided on data protection initiatives and how those initiatives correlate with the rest of the world. We live in digital world without boundaries and restrictions in digital sphere should be highly compelling
Relative uncertianty risks vulnerability	Uncertainty risks at large are very feasible among Russian enterprises. New political moves and decision only accelerate that uncertainty feasibility. In software and digital sphere this is highly negative decision-making factor	Uncertainty is a very feasible risk in Russia and this is concern in every sphere, not only business software.	Uncertainty risks especially with respect to global economic activities feasible among Russian O&G segment. Partially this uncertainty also influence decision making concerning software solutions and digitalization investments	Risks related to uncertainty definitely influence Retail`s business performance and decision making regarding new digital solutions. Change management becoming driving management skills in this times

Final remarks

While the paper consists of compelling literature review and analysis based on the latest MIT Sloan research articles on digital transformation and data available through OECD, World Bank, UN sources, there are still some fundamental research issues concerning digital transformation framework further development. First of all, the term itself has variations of interpretation not mentioning larger theoretical frameworks such as Industry 4.0, for instance, with number of huge dimensions and transformation areas. Therefore, the good news is that researchers may actively get involve in further investigations since digital transformation as research area just emerging.

Another important thing to come back is structure, scope and scale of research. Initially, fundamental hypothesis driving the paper was that externalities should be adequately included in overall estimation of digital transformation progress in Russia with organizational capabilities, digital business strategy and infrastructural circumstances. The fact that externalities actually influence digitalization processes among different industries and software solutions sales supports hypothesis to be true. Especially with closer look at internal digital development within organizations and much room for development in infrastructure terms. Expected results also compel with actual outcomes developed. Major obstacles and concerns are presented in the previous section with closer focus on externalities.

Simplified research approach provides opportunity to demonstrate potential future research landscape with respect to digital transformation development, evaluations and monitoring. Larger and deeper expert interviews might reveal even more comprehensive and significant results with further call-to-action with respect to relevant STI policy, General Protection Data Requirements and other legislation. What is presented by now, is that externalities as well as other digital transformation dimensions develop non-synchronically, leaving a lot of problems and obstacles unsolved on digitalization path. At the same time, business recognize contemporary digital technologies advantages and try to include it into developing digital business strategy, no matter what the industry is. However, in many cases decision is just left as verbal commitment. Such chaotic environment is got to be resolved with intelligent and smart decisions addressing infrastructural pains and new international collaboration approaches.

Most importantly, externalities do matter and do influence accessibility, affordability and implementation of contemporary digital business solutions. Therefore, government policy should include that fact into account and try to avoid potentially negative actions. Externalities systemically influence economy`s performance and may also influence certain development fields indirectly, as it was demonstrated on the example of Retail industry. Moreover, there is evidence to believe that externalities may influence industries as well as specific software solution in absolutely different ways, directly and indirectly. This makes importance of the issue even greater. Ultimately, externalities accelerate overall potential and current uncertainty risks even to more and feasible extent.

To conclude the paper, it important to highlight potential future research in the field of Digital transformation inside and outside Russia. It is especially important if considering other externalities effects, that Russian example do not cover. Therefore, further analysis might be based on research approach presented, however in different scale, scope and expected results. Our dependence on digital technologies will never fade and more scientific evidence needed in order to correctly and adequately assess such complex global phenomenon.

References

1. ABB Contact (2014). Connecting the world--Industry 4.0. Customer news magazine by ABB.

2. Acatech (2015). Final report of the Industry 4.0 Working Group. Technical Report.

3. Bagheri, B., Yang, S., Kao, H. A., & Lee, J. (2015). Cyber-physical systems architecture for self-aware machines in industry 4.0 environment. IFAC-Papers Online, 48(3), 1622-1627.

4. Baller, S., Dutta, S., & Lanvin, B. (2016). Global Information Technology Report 2016. Ouranos.

5. Banker, R., Hu, N., Pavlou, P. A., & Luftman, J. (2011). Strategic positioning, CIO reporting structure, and firm performance. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 487-504.

6. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1), 99-120.

7. Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O., Pavlou, P., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights.

8. Bitkom, VDMA, ZVEI (2016). Implementation strategy Industrie 4.0: report on the results of the Industrie 4.0 Platform

9. Bounfour, A. (2016). Digital Futures, Digital Transformation. Springer, Cham.

10. Borgia, E. (2014). The Internet of Things vision: Key features, applications and open issues. Computer Communications, 54, 1-31.

11. Burgelman, R. A., & Grove, A. S. (2007). Cross?boundary disruptors: powerful interindustry entrepreneurial change agents. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3?4), 315-327.

12. Brahima, S. (2017). Global Cybersecurity Index 2017. International Telecommunication Union (ITU), 1-77.

13. Chan, Y. E., & Reich, B. H. (2007). IT alignment: what have we learned?. Journal of Information technology, 22(4), 297-315.

14. Chandler, A. D. (1992). Organizational Capabilities and the theory of the firm. Journal of Economic Perspectives,6(3), 3-28.

15. Chandler, A. D., & Cortada, J. W. (Eds.). (2000). A nation transformed by information: How information has shaped the united states from colonial times to the present. New York: Oxford University Press.

16. Chakravorti, B., & Chaturvedi, R. S. (2017). Digital Planet 2017. How Competitiveness and Trust in Digital Economies Vary Across the World. The Fletcher School. Tufts University.

17. Copeland, D. G., & McKenney, J. L. (1988). Airline reservations systems: lessons from history. MIS quarterly, 353-370.

18. Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. economica, 4(16), 386-405.

19. Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization science, 7(5), 477-501

20. Cortada, J. W. (2004). The digital hand, Vol. 1: How computers changed the work of American manufacturing, transportation and retail industries. New York: Oxford University Press.

21. Cortada, J. W. (2006). The digital hand, Vol. 2: How computers changed the world of American financial, telecommunications, media, and entertainment industries. New York: Oxford University Press

22. Cortada, J. W. (2008). The digital hand, Vol. 3: How computers changed the work of American public sector industries. New York: Oxford University Press

23. Cortada, J. W. (2010). How IT makes industries so important. Entreprises et Histoire, n°6°, 29-49.

24. Desq, S., Fallery, B., Reix, R., & Rodhain, F. (2002). 25 ans de recherche en systems d'information. Systиmes d'Information et Management,7(3), 5-31.

25. El Sawy, O. A. (2003). The IS Core IX: The 3 Faces of IS identity: connection, immersion, and fusion. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(1), 39.

26. Ettlie, J. E., & Pavlou, P. A. (2006). Technology?based new product development partnerships. Decision Sciences, 37(2), 117-147.

27. Ford, S. L. (2014). Additive manufacturing technology: potential implications for US manufacturing competitiveness. J. Int'l Com. & Econ., 6, 40.

28. Gudergan G. and Mugge P., The gap between practice and theory of digital transformation, in Proceeding Hawaii International Conference of System Science, Hawaii, 2017, pp. 1-15.

29. Gaub, H. (2016). Customization of mass-produced parts by combining injection molding and additive manufacturing with Industry 4.0 technologies. Reinforced Plastics, 60(6), 401-404.

30. Greenan, N. D., Guillemot, D., & Kocoglu, Y. (2010). Informatisation et changements organisationnels dans les entreprises. Rйseaux, June-July 2010

31. Greenan, N., & Mairesse, J. (2006). Les changements organisationnels, l'informatisation des entreprises et le travail des salariйs. Un exercice de mesure а partir des donnйes couplйes. Revue Йconomique, 57(6, 2), 1137-1175.

32. Heeks RB (1999). Software strategies in developing countries. Communications of the ACM. 42(6):15-20.

33. Henderson, J. C., and Venkatraman, N. (1993). “Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Technology for Transforming Organizations,” IBM Systems Journal (32:1), pp. 4-16

34. Hess T., Matt C., Wiesbock F., and Benlian A. (2016). Options for formulating a digital transformation strategy, MIS Quarterly Executive, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 103-119, 2016.

35. Helfat, C. E., & Winter, S. G. (2011). Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: Strategy for the (N) ever?changing world. Strategic management journal, 32(11), 1243-1250.

36. Hussin, H., King, M., & Cragg, P. (2002). IT alignment in small firms. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(2), 108-127.

37. Jazdi, N. (2014). Cyber physical systems in the context of Industry 4.0. In Automation, Quality and Testing, Robotics, 2014 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1-4). IEEE.

38. Kane G. C., Palmer D., Phillips A. N., Kiron D. and Buckley N. (2015). “Strategy, Not Technology, Drives Digital Transformation” MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte University Press, July

39. Kane G. C., Palmer D., Phillips A. N., Kiron D. and Buckley N. (2016), Aligning the organization for its digital future, MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 57, no. 4,

40. Kuhn, W. (2006). Digital factory-simulation enhancing the product and production engineering process. In Simulation Conference, 2006. WSC 06. Proceedings of the Winter (pp. 1899-1906). IEEE.

41. Lasi, H., Fettke, P., Kemper, H. G., Feld, T., & Hoffmann, M. (2014). Industry 4.0. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6(4), 239-242.

42. Lee, J., Bagheri, B., & Kao, H. A. (2015). A cyber-physical systems architecture for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manufacturing Letters, 3, 18-23.

43. Li, L., Su, F., Zhang, W., & Mao, J. Y. (2017). Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: A capability perspective. Information Systems Journal.

44. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

45. Mason, R., McKenney, J. L., & Copeland, D. G. (1997a). An historical method for MIS research: Steps and assumptions. MIS Quarterly, 21(3), 307-320.

46. Mason, R., McKenney, J. L., & Copeland, D. G. (1997b). Developing a historical tradition in MIS research. MIS Quarterly, 21(3), 257-278.

47. McKenney, J. L., Mason, R., & Copeland, D. G. (1997). The Bank of America: Crest and trough of technological leadership. MIS Quarterly,21(3), 321-353

48. Nadeem, A., Abedin, B., Cerpa, N., & Chew, E. (2018). digital transformation & digital business strategy in electronic commerce-the role of organizational capabilities. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 13(2), i-viii.

49. Obitko, M, Jirkovskэ V (2015). Big data semantics in Industry 4.0. In: Maшнk V et al (eds) HoloMAS 2015, LNAI 9266, pp 217-229

50. Ojo A, Janowski T, Basanya R and Reed M (2008). Developing and Harnessing Software Technology in the South - The Roles of China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. No. 2008/89. Center for Electronic Governance, United Nations University, IIST

51. Paelke, V. (2014). Augmented reality in the smart factory: Supporting workers in an industry 4.0. environment. In Emerging Technology and Factory Automation (ETFA), 2014 IEEE (pp. 1-4).

52. Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2006). From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new product development. Information Systems Research, 17(3), 198-227.

53. Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2010). The “third hand”: IT-enabled competitive advantage in turbulence through improvisational capabilities. Information systems research, 21(3), 443-471.

54. Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence. International journal of management reviews, 5(3?4), 137-168.

55. Qin, J., Liu, Y., & Grosvenor, R. (2016). A categorical framework of manufacturing for industry 4.0 and beyond. Procedia CIRP, 52, 173-178.

56. Ravidat, N., & Akoka, J. (2006). Evolution du positionnement de la fonction systems d'information en France, continuitй ou rupture? Systиmes d'Information et Management,11(3), 67.

57. Ravidat, N., Schmitt, J.-P., & Akoka, J. (2005). Recherche exploratoire, analyse longitudinale de l'йvolution du positionnement de la fonction systиmes d'information de 1992 а 2004. Cigref

58. Rubmann, M., Lorenz, M., Gerbert, P., Waldner, M., Justus, J., Engel, P., & Harnisch, M. (2015). Industry 4.0: The future of productivity and growth in manufacturing industries. Boston Consulting Group, 9.

59. Salkin, C., Oner, M., Ustundag, A., & Cevikcan, E. (2018). A Conceptual Framework for Industry 4.0. In Industry 4.0: Managing The Digital Transformation (pp. 3-23). Springer, Cham.

60. Syberfeldt A, Holm M, Danielsson O, Wang L, Brewster RL (2016) Support systems on the industrial shop-floors of the future--operators' perspective on augmented reality. 6th CIRP Conference on Assembly Technologies and Systems (CATS). Procedia CIRP 44, pp 108-113

61. Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. (1997). The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organization science, 8(5), 458-474.

62. Tadviser, 2016. "Облака" в госсекторе: исследование TAdviser и "Новые облачные технологии"

63. TAdviser, 2017. Ключевые игроки рынка облачных сервисов в России

64. TAdviser, 2017. Облачные сервисы (рынок России)

65. Thames, L., & Schaefer, D. (2017). Cybersecurity for Industry 4.0 and advanced manufacturing environments with ensemble intelligence. In Cybersecurity for Industry 4.0 (pp. 243-265). Springer, Cham.

66. Thames, L., & Schaefer, D. (2017). Industry 4.0: an overview of key benefits, technologies, and challenges. In Cybersecurity for Industry 4.0 (pp. 1-33). Springer, Cham.

67. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. Transaction publishers.

68. Tideman, M., van der Voort, M. C., & van Houten, F. J. (2008). A new product design method based on virtual reality, gaming and scenarios. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 2(4), 195-205.

69. Uckelmann, D. (2008). A definition approach to smart logistics. In International Conference on Next Generation Wired/Wireless Networking (pp. 273-284). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

70. UNCTAD (2009). Information Economy Report 2009: Trends and Outlook in Turbulent Times. United Nations. New York and Geneva.

71. UNCTAD (2012). Information Economy Report 2012: The Software Industry and Developing Countries. United Nations.

72. UNCTAD (2013). Information Economy Report 2013: The Cloud Economy and Developing Countries. United Nations. New York and Geneva.

73. UNCTAD (2015a). Information Economy Report 2015: Unlocking the Potential of E-Commerce for Developing Countries. United Nations. New York and Geneva.

74. UNCTAD (2015b) INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ICT SERVICES ANDICT-ENABLED SERVICES. Proposed Indicators fromthe Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. UNCTAD Technical Notes on ICT for Development N?3

75. Venkatraman, N. (1994). “IT-Enabled Business Transformation: From Automation to Business Scope Redefinition,” Sloan Management Review (35:2), pp. 73-87

76. Wang, L., & Wang, G. (2016). Big data in cyber-physical systems, digital manufacturing and Industry 4.0. International Journal of Engineering and Manufacturing (IJEM), 6(4), 1-8.

77. Wang, S., Wan, J., Zhang, D., Li, D., & Zhang, C. (2016). Towards smart factory for industry 4.0: a self-organized multi-agent system with big data based feedback and coordination. Computer Networks, 101, 158-168.

78. Weill, P., & Woerner, S. L. (2015). Thriving in an increasingly digital ecosystem. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(4), 27.

79. Westerman, G., & Bonnet, D. (2015). Revamping your business through digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(3), 10.

80. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies, analysis and ainttrust implications, a study in the economics of internal organization. New York: Free Press.

81. Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organizations: The transaction cost approach. New York: Free Press.

82. Wittenberg, C. (2015). Cause the Trend Industry 4.0 in the Automated Industry to New Requirements on User Interfaces. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 238-245). Springer, Cham.

83. Yates, J. (2005). Structuring the information age: Life insurance and technology in the twentieth century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press

84. Zhang, Y., Ren, S., Liu, Y., & Si, S. (2017). A big data analytics architecture for cleaner manufacturing and maintenance processes of complex products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 626-641.

85. Абдрахманова, Г. И., Гохберг, Л. М., Кевеш, М. А., Ковалева, Г. Г., Кузнецова, И. А., Лола, И. С., & Шувалова, О. Р. (2016). Индикаторы информационного общества: 2016 Статистический сборник. Высшая школа экономики, (1-С), 27.

86. Абдрахманова, Г. И., Гохберг, Л. М., Кевеш, М. А., Ковалева, Г. Г., Коцемир, М. Н., Кузнецова, И. А., ... & Фридлянова, С. Ю. (2017). Индикаторы цифровой экономики: 2017: статистический сборник. Высшая школа экономики, (1-С), 320.

87. Правительство Российской Федерации, 2013. Cтратегия развития отрасли информационных технологий в Российской Федерации на 2014 - 2020 годы и на перспективу до 2025 года

88. Министерство Связи и Массовых коммуникаций, 2014. План импортозамещения программного обеспечения



Appendix 1. International trade services classification (EBOPS 2002 and 2010)

Figure A1. EBOPS 2002 classification groups

Source: UNTCAD, 2012



Figure A2. EBOPS 2010 classification groups comparison

Source: UNTCAD, 2015



Appendix 1a. International trade services classification (EBOPS 2010)

Figure A3. EBOPS 2010 classification groups comparison

Source: UNTCAD, 2015



Appendix 2.DT. Digital transformation research dimensions

Table 2dt. Digital transformation research dimensions

Digital Transformation
DT1	Use of technology	Reflects a firm's capability to explore and exploit new technoloies
DT2	Value creation	Reflects the influence of digital transformation on a firm's value creation
DT3	Structural changes	Changes refer to the modifications in organizational structures, processes & skill sets
DT4	Financial aspects	Relates to a firm's need for action and ability to finance in response to digital transformation endeavour
DT5	Digital leadership	New leadership roles and governance that facilitate rapid digital transformation
DT6	Agile & scalable digital operations	Strategic initiatives to build operations that are scalable, flexible and value capturing
DT7	Digitally enabled CEX	Strategic initiatives for leveraging digital information for better data optimization
DT8	Digital artefacts	Strategic initiatives for continuously navigating the digital landscape and technology scanning and implementation
DT9	Executing business strategy digitally	Building business strategy digitally around the enterprise core distinctive competencies
DT10	External collaboration of ecosystem of digital platform	Leveraging ecosystem of partners for complementary competencies involving value proposition and revenue sharing
DT11	Enterprise platform integration	Intensive interactive digital connectivity to the outside and inside enterprise
DT12	Flexible & humanized workplace	Providing a flexible and attractive workplace for born digital employees

Source: Nadeem, A. et al., 2018



Appendix 2.DBS. Digital business strategy research dimensions

Table 2dbs. Digital business strategy research dimensions

Digital business strategy
DBS 1	External collaboration of ecosystem of digital platform	Leveraging ecosystem of partners for complementary competencies involving value proposition and revenue sharing
DBS 2	IT infrastructure	A fusion of IT with business using IT application systems
DBS 3	Cross-functional integration	Reconfiguration of IT and business resources across multiple organizational processes
DBS 4	Organizational structural changes	Rethinking the role of corporate IT and CIO
DBS 5	Use of technology	Extend to which a firm engages in any category of IT investment
DBS 6	New dynamic capabilities	Building advance capabilities in response to environmental turbulence

Source: Nadeem, A. et al., 2018



Appendix 2.OC. Organizational capabilities research dimensions

Table 2oc. Organizational capabilities research dimensions

Organizational capabilities
OC 1	Digital leadership	Developing and acquiring new competencies and ambidextrous skill
OC 2	Agile & scalable operations	Building robust and flexible operations to overcome the constraints of legacy systems
OC 3	Digitally enabled CEX	Deeper analysis of value proposition and seamless integration of functional silos across the enterprise
OC 4	Digital artefacts	Developing continuously new digital processes, infrastructures, services and products handling large amount of data
OC 5	Flexible & scalable digital platforms	Platforms that are tailored to their particular need
OC 6	Internal & managerial capabilities	Defining roles and structures having diverse skill set
OC 7	External collaboration of ecosystem of digital platforms	Developing collaboration with external partners to co-create value
OC 8	Dynamic capabilities	Powerful capabilities to cope up with turbulence
OC 9	Plug & play capabilities	Assessing unique drivers in digital settings for modularizing the business processes
OC 10	Operational capabilities	Developing capabilities for sudden changes in market demands

Source: Nadeem, A. et al., 2018



Appendix 3a. Digital transformation indexes description (DEI and GCI)

Table 3.1a. Digital Evolution index, 2017

Stall Out	Rank	Score
Australia	11	3,55
Canada	12	3,55
Japan	15	3,52
Korea	7	3,68
Break Out	Rank	Score
Italy	34	2,58
Poland	35	2,53
Turkey	37	2,49
Russia	39	2,44

Source: Chakravorti & Chaturvedi, 2017. Digital Evolution Index 2017

Table 3.2.a. Global Cybersecurity Index, 2017

Country	Rank	Score
Australia	7	0.824
Canada	9	0.818
Japan	11	0.786
Korea	13	0.782
Country	Rank	Score
Italy	31	0.626
Poland	33	0.622
Turkey	43	0.581
Russia	10	0.788

Source: Brahima., 2017. Global Cybersecurity Index 2017



Appendix 3b. Digital transformation indexes description (NRI and WDCR)

Table 3.1b. Networked Readiness Index, 2016

Country	Rank	Score
Australia	18	5,5
Canada	14	5,6
Japan	13	5,6
Korea	10	5,6
Country	Rank	Score
Italy	45	4,4
Poland	42	4,5
Turkey	48	4,4
Russia	45	4,5

Source: Baller et al, 2016. Networked Readiness Index, 2016

Table 3.2b. World Digital Competitiveness Index, 2017

Country	Rank	Score
Australia	15	85,006
Canada	9	91,671
Japan	27	78,094
Korea	19	82,961
Country	Rank	Score
Italy	39	65,467
Poland	37	65,872
Turkey	52	53,867
Russia	42	62,854

Source: IMD Competitiveness Center, 2017. World Digital Competitiveness Index, 2017



Appendix 3c. Digital transformation indexes description (EGDI)

Table 3.1c. E-Government Development Index, 2016

Country	EGDI (2016)	Rank
Australia	0,9143	2
Canada	0,8285	14
Japan	0,844	11
Korea	0,8915	3
Country	EGDI (2016)	Rank
Italy	0,7764	22
Poland	0,7211	36
Turkey	0,59	68
Russia	0,7215	35

Source: United Nations e-government survey, 2016. E-government Development Index, 2016



Appendix 4a. Major software vendors business performance indicators

Figure 4.1a. Software developers revenue indicators. 2011

Source: Software Top 100, 2011



Appendix 4b. Major software vendors business performance indicators

Figure 4.1b. Software developers market capitalization, 2016

Source: Van Alstyne, 2016

Note: Public refers to publicly listed companies. Private refers to privately owned companies



Appendix 5. Research seminar `Digital transformation challenges for Russian business'



Appendix 6a. Expert interview guideline (in Russian and English languages)

Информация о об эксперте

Имя:________________________________________________________

Возраст:______

Опыт в сфере ИТ (лет):______

Текущая организация-работодатель:_____________________________

Текущая должность:__________________________________________

Отрасль Если вы готовы ответить на поставленные вопросы исключительно в рамках определенной отрасли, укажите, пожалуйста, ее:_________________________________________________

Контактная информация:______ ______________________________

Блоки вопросов

1. Организационный блок

· Согласны ли вы с утверждением: менеджмент российских компаний имеет недостаток в представлении возможностей и потенциальной пользы современного ПО и сопутствующих технологий

· Согласны ли вы с утверждением: менеджмент российских компаний НЕ имеет комплексной стратегии в отношении внедрения и использования современного ПО и сопутствующих технологий

· Каков, на ваш взгляд, уровень готовности менеджмента российских компаний с позиции внедрения и использования современного ПО и сопутствующих технологий?

· Какова, на ваш взгляд, вероятность извлечения максимальной пользы из современного ПО и сопутствующих технологий российскими компаниями в рамках следующей временной шкалы (подчеркните подходящее для каждого периода):

· Влияют ли развитые горизонтальные организационные структуры и поощряющая командное взаимодействие корпоративная культура на успешность внедрения сложных ИТ проектов (среди российских компаний)?

· На каком этапе развития находятся горизонтальные организационные структуры и командная корпоративная культура среди российских компаний?

· Согласны ли вы с утверждение: гибкость организационных структур и способность оперативно адаптироваться в конкурентной среде способствуют извлечению максимальной пользы из современного ПО и сопутствующих технологий

· В какой степени гибкость организационных структур и способность оперативно адаптироваться в конкурентной среде развиты среди российских компаний?

· Согласны ли вы с утверждением: среди российских компаний, технические знания и навыки сформированы и готовы для успешного внедрения и использования современного ПО и сопутствующих технологий

2. Инфраструктурный блок

· Согласны ли вы с утверждение: возможность российских производителей и поставщиков ПО вывести на локальный рынок конкурентоспособные программные решения и сопутствующие технологии крайне ограничена

· Каков уровень конкурентоспособности российских производителей ПО в сравнении с зарубежными поставщиками?

· Какова вероятность создания крайне высоких конкурентных преимуществ среди российских производителей ПО в рамках следующей временной шкалы (подчеркните подходящее для каждого периода)?

· Согласны ли вы с утверждением: уровень готовности населения России к использованию новых цифровых (digitally-based) продуктов и услуг высок



· Насколько быстро населения России переходит к массовому использованию новых цифровых (digitally-based) продуктов и услуг (как, например, Uber или Airbnb)?

В крупных городах

В регионах

· Каковы государственные возможности по предоставлению услуг для бизнеса в электронном виде (e-government development)?

· Согл...