| Literature DB >> 36225542 |
Xiaowen Luo1,2, Shun-Chi Yu1.
Abstract
Digital transformation (DT) has been a key way for pharmaceutical companies to enhance innovation and R&D capabilities, improve product quality, reduce costs, and create competitive advantages. The external environment factors and the internal conditions' factors are the main factors affecting the DT of pharmaceutical companies. This research aimed to probe the effects of the external environment factors, the internal conditions' factors, firm size, and control variables on the DT of pharmaceutical companies based on synergetics. Purposive sampling and snowball sampling were used in this research. In addition, this research collected 395 valid data from Chinese pharmaceutical companies through online questionnaires. This research used quantitative analysis, and SPSS and Amos software were applied to data processing analysis. The results of structural equation modelling (SEM) and regression analysis showed that the external environment factors and the internal conditions' factors had a significantly positive correlation with the DT of pharmaceutical companies, and the effects of the internal conditions on the DT of pharmaceutical companies were greater than that of the external environment. In addition, firm size positively moderated the relationship between the external environment, internal conditions, and the DT of pharmaceutical companies. The results of this research not only can provide theoretical reference for scholars but also put forward implementation suggestions of DT for Chinese pharmaceutical company managers.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36225542 PMCID: PMC9550424 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7731174
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1The theoretical framework of the DT of pharmaceutical companies.
Demographic statistics.
| Item | Category ( | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Position | General staff | 183 | 46.33 |
| First-line manager | 77 | 19.49 | |
| Middle manager | 45 | 11.39 | |
| Senior manager | 90 | 22.78 | |
|
| |||
| Region | Northeast | 128 | 32.41 |
| East | 98 | 24.81 | |
| Central | 103 | 26.08 | |
| West | 66 | 16.71 | |
|
| |||
| Age | Within 3 years | 75 | 18.99 |
| Within 3–5 years | 89 | 22.53 | |
| Within 5–10 years | 117 | 29.62 | |
| More than 10 years | 114 | 28.86 | |
|
| |||
| Size | Less than 100 people | 47 | 11.90 |
| 100–300 people | 79 | 20.00 | |
| 300–2000 people | 145 | 36.71 | |
| More than 2000 people | 124 | 31.39 | |
|
| |||
| Ownership type | State-owned enterprise | 149 | 37.72 |
| Private enterprise | 246 | 62.28 | |
|
| |||
| Situation of DT | No and there is no intention and plan for DT | 25 | 6.33 |
| No but there is a willingness and plan for DT | 66 | 16.71 | |
| Yes, the DT project is in the early stage of construction | 121 | 30.63 | |
| Yes, the DT project has achieved certain results | 183 | 46.33 | |
The validity of variables.
| Variable | CR | AVE | Correlation of variables | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN | MC | GP | TT | DS | OC | LS | DT | |||
| CN | 0.837 | 0.563 | (0.750) | |||||||
| MC | 0.893 | 0.680 | 0.428∗∗ | (0.824) | ||||||
| GP | 0.839 | 0.634 | 0.541∗∗ | 0.547∗∗ | (0.796) | |||||
| TT | 0.856 | 0.664 | 0.429∗∗ | 0.524∗∗ | 0.545∗∗ | (0.815) | ||||
| DS | 0.889 | 0.728 | 0.220∗∗ | 0.199∗∗ | 0.233∗∗ | 0.169∗∗ | (0.853) | |||
| OC | 0.861 | 0.608 | 0.376∗∗ | 0.315∗∗ | 0.342∗∗ | 0.259∗∗ | 0.468∗∗ | (0.780) | ||
| LS | 0.877 | 0.705 | 0.274∗∗ | 0.225∗∗ | 0.280∗∗ | 0.180∗∗ | 0.407∗∗ | 0.481∗∗ | (0.839) | |
| DT | 0.854 | 0.594 | 0.418∗∗ | 0.432∗∗ | 0.449∗∗ | 0.396∗∗ | 0.382∗∗ | 0.552∗∗ | 0.428∗∗ | (0.771) |
Notes: ∗∗P < 0.01. The square root of AVE is presented in parentheses.
The fitting indexes of the models.
| Fitting index |
| RMR | RMSEA | GFI | AGFI | NFI | IFI | CFI | TLI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference value | <5 | <0.1 | <0.08 | >0.8 | >0.8 | >0.8 | >0.8 | >0.8 | >0.8 |
| The overall CFA model | 1.675 | 0.058 | 0.041 | 0.911 | 0.888 | 0.932 | 0.972 | 0.971 | 0.966 |
| The second-order factor model of EE | 4.16 | 0.088 | 0.09 | 0.899 | 0.857 | 0.927 | 0.944 | 0.943 | 0.929 |
| The second-order factor model of IC | 1.151 | 0.029 | 0.02 | 0.982 | 0.969 | 0.985 | 0.998 | 0.998 | 0.997 |
| The SEM model of DT | 1.858 | 0.163 | 0.047 | 0.896 | 0.876 | 0.92 | 0.962 | 0.961 | 0.957 |
The correlation analysis of variables.
| Position | Region | Size | Age | Type | Action | CN | MC | GP | TT | DS | OC | LS | EE | IC | DT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Position | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| Region | −0.097 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Size | 0.045 | −0.099 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| Age | 0.104∗ | −0.091 | −0.006 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Type | 0.021 | 0.035 | −0.024 | −0.531∗∗ | 1 | |||||||||||
| Action | 0.079 | −0.169∗∗ | 0.009 | 0.668∗∗ | −0.496∗∗ | 1 | ||||||||||
| CN | 0.131∗∗ | −0.053 | 0.057 | 0.051 | −0.074 | 0.039 | 1 | |||||||||
| MC | 0.086 | −0.075 | 0.151∗∗ | 0.172∗∗ | −0.146∗∗ | 0.151∗∗ | 0.428∗∗ | 1 | ||||||||
| GP | 0.121∗ | −0.125∗ | 0.075 | 0.098 | −0.128∗ | 0.067 | 0.541∗∗ | 0.547∗∗ | 1 | |||||||
| TT | 0.035 | −0.075 | 0.111∗ | 0.06 | −0.042 | 0.053 | 0.429∗∗ | 0.524∗∗ | 0.545∗∗ | 1 | ||||||
| DS | 0.211∗∗ | −0.093 | 0.052 | 0.119∗ | −0.08 | 0.089 | 0.220∗∗ | 0.199∗∗ | 0.233∗∗ | 0.169∗∗ | 1 | |||||
| OC | 0.200∗∗ | −0.064 | 0.041 | 0.109∗ | −0.145∗∗ | 0.066 | 0.376∗∗ | 0.315∗∗ | 0.342∗∗ | 0.259∗∗ | 0.468∗∗ | 1 | ||||
| LS | 0.151∗∗ | −0.091 | 0.097 | 0.169∗∗ | −0.148∗∗ | 0.088 | 0.274∗∗ | 0.225∗∗ | 0.280∗∗ | 0.180∗∗ | 0.407∗∗ | 0.481∗∗ | 1 | |||
| EE | 0.117∗ | −0.105∗ | 0.125∗ | 0.121∗ | −0.125∗ | 0.099 | 0.745∗∗ | 0.792∗∗ | 0.840∗∗ | 0.789∗∗ | 0.259∗∗ | 0.407∗∗ | 0.303∗∗ | 1 | ||
| IC | 0.235∗∗ | −0.103∗ | 0.079 | 0.165∗∗ | −0.157∗∗ | 0.101∗ | 0.367∗∗ | 0.311∗∗ | 0.360∗∗ | 0.256∗∗ | 0.776∗∗ | 0.828∗∗ | 0.786∗∗ | 0.408∗∗ | 1 | |
| DT | 0.169∗∗ | −0.157∗∗ | 0.216∗∗ | 0.199∗∗ | −0.132∗∗ | 0.138∗∗ | 0.418∗∗ | 0.432∗∗ | 0.449∗∗ | 0.396∗∗ | 0.382∗∗ | 0.552∗∗ | 0.428∗∗ | 0.535∗∗ | 0.573∗∗ | 1 |
Notes: ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, ∗∗∗P < 0.001.
Parameter estimates for the model variables.
| Hypothesis | Hypothesis path | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | P | Standardized estimate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | DT | <--- | EE | 0.63 | 0.088 | 7.094 | ∗∗∗ | 0.43 |
| H2 | DT | <--- | IC | 0.95 | 0.117 | 8.081 | ∗∗∗ | 0.59 |
Notes: ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, ∗∗∗P < 0.001.
Figure 2The SEM model of influencing factors of pharmaceutical companies' DT.
The results of common method biases test.
| Component | Initial eigenvalue | Extraction sums of squared loadings | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Variance (%) | Cumulative (%) | Total | Variance (%) | Cumulative (%) | |
| 1 | 10.011 | 35.753 | 35.753 | 10.011 | 35.753 | 35.753 |
| 2 | 3.462 | 12.363 | 48.116 | 3.462 | 12.363 | 48.116 |
| 3 | 1.703 | 6.083 | 54.199 | 1.703 | 6.083 | 54.199 |
| 4 | 1.531 | 5.469 | 59.668 | 1.531 | 5.469 | 59.668 |
| 5 | 1.453 | 5.19 | 64.858 | 1.453 | 5.19 | 64.858 |
| 6 | 1.36 | 4.856 | 69.714 | 1.36 | 4.856 | 69.714 |
| 7 | 1.205 | 4.305 | 74.019 | 1.205 | 4.305 | 74.019 |
| 8 | 1.059 | 3.781 | 77.8 | 1.059 | 3.781 | 77.8 |
| … | ||||||
Results from the multiple regression analysis of EE on DT.
| Independent variables | Dependent variable: DT | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 | ||
| Position | P2 | 0.161 | 0.081 | 0.098 | 0.071 | 0.105 | 0.043 | 0.053 |
| P3 | 0.303∗ | 0.103 | 0.301∗ | 0.17 | 0.228 | 0.132 | 0.155 | |
| P4 | 0.383∗∗∗ | 0.254∗ | 0.282∗∗ | 0.247∗ | 0.33∗∗ | 0.227∗ | 0.213∗ | |
|
| ||||||||
| Region | R2 | 0.251∗ | 0.115 | 0.163 | 0.18 | 0.173 | 0.1 | 0.114 |
| R3 | 0.067 | −0.144 | −0.02 | −0.009 | −0.053 | −0.118 | −0.127 | |
| R4 | −0.463∗∗∗ | −0.24 | −0.313∗ | −0.208 | −0.256∗ | −0.164 | −0.202 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Age | A2 | 0.293 | 0.317∗ | 0.214 | 0.14 | 0.166 | 0.15 | 0.131 |
| A3 | 0.503∗∗ | 0.536∗∗∗ | 0.469∗∗ | 0.442∗∗ | 0.408∗ | 0.4∗∗ | 0.381∗ | |
| A4 | 0.46∗ | 0.47∗∗ | 0.345∗ | 0.382∗ | 0.382∗ | 0.341∗ | 0.335∗ | |
|
| ||||||||
| Type | T2 | −0.056 | −0.017 | −0.01 | 0.037 | −0.048 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
|
| ||||||||
| Action | Action2 | −0.628∗∗ | −0.497∗∗ | −0.567∗∗ | −0.411∗ | −0.54∗∗ | −0.451∗ | −0.433∗ |
| Action3 | −0.449∗ | −0.401∗ | −0.409∗ | −0.244 | −0.355 | −0.291 | −0.29 | |
| Action4 | −0.532∗ | −0.425∗ | −0.506∗ | −0.311 | −0.424∗ | −0.351 | −0.338 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Size | 0.163∗∗∗ | 0.125∗∗ | 0.155∗∗∗ | 0.141∗∗∗ | 0.135∗∗∗ | 0.153∗∗∗ | ||
|
| ||||||||
| CN | 0.389∗∗∗ | |||||||
|
| ||||||||
| MC | 0.352∗∗∗ | |||||||
|
| ||||||||
| GP | 0.348∗∗∗ | |||||||
|
| ||||||||
| TT | 0.331∗∗∗ | |||||||
|
| ||||||||
| EE | 0.589∗∗∗ | 0.568∗∗∗ | ||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Zscore(Size) ∗ Zscore(EE) | 0.104∗∗ | |||||||
|
| ||||||||
| F | 5.325∗∗∗ | 10.420∗∗∗ | 10.523∗∗∗ | 10.968∗∗∗ | 9.662∗∗∗ | 14.438∗∗∗ | 14.374∗∗∗ | |
|
| ||||||||
|
| 0.154 | 0.292 | 0.294 | 0.303 | 0.277 | 0.364 | 0.378 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Adjusted | 0.125 | 0.264 | 0.266 | 0.275 | 0.248 | 0.338 | 0.352 | |
|
| ||||||||
| D-W | 0.277 | 0.559 | 0.552 | 0.545 | 0.514 | 0.688 | 0.694 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Maximum VIF | 6.878 | 6.903 | 6.882 | 6.982 | 6.907 | 6.924 | 6.928 | |
Notes: ∗∗∗P < 0.001, ∗∗P < 0.01, ∗P < 0.05. EE = external environment.
Results from the multiple regression analysis of IC on DT.
| Independent variables | Dependent variable: DT | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 8 | Model 9 | Model 10 | Model 11 | Model 12 | Model 13 | ||
| Position | P2 | 0.161 | 0.109 | 0.03 | 0.048 | −0.001 | 0.012 |
| P3 | 0.303∗ | 0.177 | 0.058 | 0.21 | 0.042 | 0.047 | |
| P4 | 0.383∗∗∗ | 0.224∗ | 0.125 | 0.234∗ | 0.083 | 0.09 | |
|
| |||||||
| Region | R2 | 0.251∗ | 0.166 | 0.025 | 0.128 | 0.017 | −0.001 |
| R3 | 0.067 | 0.026 | −0.058 | −0.021 | −0.052 | −0.06 | |
| R4 | −0.463∗∗∗ | −0.326∗ | −0.283∗ | −0.289∗ | −0.235∗ | −0.263∗ | |
|
| |||||||
| Age | A2 | 0.293 | 0.236 | 0.245 | 0.259 | 0.213 | 0.201 |
| A3 | 0.503∗∗ | 0.44∗∗ | 0.458∗∗ | 0.401∗ | 0.338∗ | 0.323∗ | |
| A4 | 0.46∗ | 0.408∗ | 0.395∗ | 0.333∗ | 0.308∗ | 0.286 | |
|
| |||||||
| Type | T2 | −0.056 | −0.024 | 0.084 | −0.009 | 0.049 | 0.056 |
|
| |||||||
| Action | Action_2 | −0.628∗∗ | −0.479∗ | −0.482∗∗ | −0.486∗ | −0.404∗ | −0.397∗ |
| Action_3 | −0.449∗ | −0.376 | −0.314 | −0.293 | −0.248 | −0.239 | |
| Action_4 | −0.532∗ | −0.418 | −0.333 | −0.347 | −0.263 | −0.243 | |
|
| |||||||
| Size | 0.156∗∗∗ | 0.161∗∗∗ | 0.142∗∗ | 0.145∗∗∗ | 0.149∗∗∗ | ||
|
| |||||||
| DS | 0.297∗∗∗ | ||||||
|
| |||||||
| OC | 0.461∗∗∗ | ||||||
|
| |||||||
| LS | 0.337∗∗∗ | ||||||
|
| |||||||
| IC | 0.622∗∗∗ | 0.639∗∗∗ | |||||
|
| |||||||
| Zscore(Size) ∗ Zscore(IC) | 0.092∗∗ | ||||||
|
| |||||||
|
| 5.325∗∗∗ | 8.773∗∗∗ | 16.834∗∗∗ | 9.842∗∗∗ | 16.381∗∗∗ | 16.113∗∗∗ | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 0.154 | 0.258 | 0.4 | 0.28 | 0.393 | 0.405 | |
|
| |||||||
| Adjusted | 0.125 | 0.228 | 0.376 | 0.252 | 0.369 | 0.38 | |
|
| |||||||
| D-W | 0.277 | 0.435 | 0.771 | 0.492 | 0.686 | 0.67 | |
|
| |||||||
| Maximum VIF | 6.878 | 6.917 | 6.926 | 6.965 | 6.969 | 6.979 | |
Notes: ∗∗∗P < 0.001, ∗∗P < 0.01, ∗P < 0.05. IC = internal conditions.
Summary of research hypotheses.
| Hypothesis | Validation results |
|---|---|
| H1: The external environment can have a significant influence on the DT of pharmaceutical companies | Supported |
| H1a: Customer needs can have a significant influence on the DT of pharmaceutical companies | Supported |
| H1b: Market competition can have a significant influence on the DT of pharmaceutical companies | Supported |
| H1c: Government policy can have a significant influence on the DT of pharmaceutical companies | Supported |
| H1d: Digital technology can have a significant influence on the DT of pharmaceutical companies | Supported |
| H2: The internal conditions can have a significant influence on the DT of pharmaceutical companies | Supported |
| H2a: Digital strategy can have a significant influence on the DT of pharmaceutical companies | Supported |
| H2b: Organization capability can have a significant influence on the DT of pharmaceutical companies | Supported |
| H2c: Leadership can have a significant influence on the DT of pharmaceutical companies | Supported |
| H3: Firm size can have a significantly regulatory influence on the relationship between the external environment and the DT of pharmaceutical companies | Supported |
| H4: Firm size can have a significantly regulatory influence on the relationship between the internal conditions and the DT of pharmaceutical companies | Supported |