# 66 418-423 View full article

УДК 330.341.1:004(477)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36887/2415-8453-2023-3-66

Podyachev Stanislav,
Higher Education Student,
International University of Business and Law,
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8280-9545
Bohdanov Oleksandr,
PhD, Senior Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Department of Business Management,
Odesa National University of Technology,
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8505-3675

JEL classification: O33, O38, L86 E61, H83

The article examines the methodological aspects of strategizing the digital transformation of the Ukrainian economy, emphasizing the need to transition from traditional approaches to more modern, systemic management models. It has been proven that effective digitalization requires building a management model based on a systemic approach and an orientation towards the result rather than focusing on solving individual tasks. A critical analysis of key state strategic documents is conducted the “Strategy for the Development of the Sphere of Innovation Activity until 2030” (2019), the “National Economic Strategy 2030” (2021), and the “Strategy for the Digital Development of Innovation Activity of Ukraine until 2030” cite_start. It is revealed that, despite ambitious goals, these documents have significant shortcomings, including a declarative nature, unrealistic indicators, uncertainty regarding funding sources, and weak mechanisms for involving businesses and the public.

In contrast, it is proposed that the methodological principles of strategy formation be reviewed. Instead of the outdated sectoral approach, which considers the external environment as an objective constraint, the authors propose an ecosystem approach. This approach focuses on business models and network formations, such as digital ecosystems, where entities actively shape their environment to create value. Analysis of the effectiveness of business models should become the starting point for strategizing rather than analyzing the environment. It is concluded that the success of Ukraine’s digital transformation is impossible without abandoning the administrative sectoral approach. It is necessary to create a unified management system that ensures the synergy of efforts among the state, business, and society, aiming to form an integrative digital environment rather than managing individual sectors.

Keywords: digital transformation, strategizing, digital ecosystem, business model, institutional management, economy of Ukraine.

Rеferences

  1. Pro innovatsijnu diial’nist’: Zakon Ukrainy. (2002). [On innovation activity: Law of Ukraine]. № 40-IV dated July 04, 2002. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/40-15#Text.
  2. Pro skhvalennia Stratehii rozvytku sfery innovatsijnoi diial’nosti na period do 2030 roku: rozporiadzhennia KMU. (2019). [On approval of the Strategy for the development of the sphere of innovation activity for the period until 2030: Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers]. № 526-r dated July 10, 2019. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/526-2019-r#Text.
  3. Pro zatverdzhennia Natsional’noi ekonomichnoi stratehii na period do 2030 roku: postanova KMU. (2021). [On approval of the National Economic Strategy for the period until 2030: Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers]. № 179 dated March 03, 2021. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/179-2021-p#Text.
  4. Natsional’na ekonomichna stratehiia 2030. Available at: https://nes2030.org.ua.
  5. Ashcheulova, O. M., Harkyava, V. F., Ivanenko, R. O., & Tsyhantenko, O. V. (2023). Analiz kontseptsii napriamiv tsyfrovoi transformatsii ekonomiky [Analysis of concepts of directions of digital transformation of the economy]. Akademichni vizii, (16). Retrieved from https://academy-vision.org/index.php/av/article/view/191.
  6. Kavadias, S., Ladas, K., Loch, S. (2016). The transformative business model. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1827622937?accountid=15518.
  7. Nwaiwu, F. (2018). Review and Comparison of Conceptual Frameworks on Digital Business Transformation. Journal of Competitiveness. Vol. 10. No. 3. рр. 86-100.
  8. Agarwal, R., Helfat, S.E. (2009). Strategic renewal of organizations. Organization science. Vol. 20. No. 2. рр. 281-293.
  9. Cardona, M., Kretschmer, T., Strobel, T. (2013). ICT and productivity: conclusions from the empirical literature. Information Economics and Policy. Vol. 25. No. 3. рр. 109-125.
  10. Demil, B., Lecocq, Kh. (2010). Business Model Evolution: In Search of Dynamic Consistency. Long Range Planning. Vol. 43. No. 2. рр. 227-246.
  11. Porter, M.E. (1979). How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review.
  12. Porter, M.E., Heppelmann, J.E. (2015). How smart, connected products are transforming companies. Harvard Business Review. No. 4.
  13. Porter, M.E. (2001). Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 79. рр. 62-78.
  14. Carroll, G.R., Huo, Y.P. (1986). Organizational Task and Institutional Environments in Ecological Perspective. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 91. No. 4. рр. 838-873.
  15. Zucker, L.G. (1987). Institutional Theories of Organization. Annual Review of Sociology. No. 13. рр. 443-464.
  16. Barney, J.B., Hesterly, W.S. (2014). Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases. Pearson.
  17. Demil, B., Lecocq, Kh., Warnier, V. (2018). Business model thinking, business ecosystems and platforms: The new perspective on the environment of the organization. Management. Vol. 21. No. 4. рр. 12-13.
  18. Hill, T. (2000). Manufacturing Strategy: The Strategic Management of the Manufacturing Function. Palgrave.
  19. Robinson P. (2011). Strategic Management: Formulation, Implementation & Control. Mcgraw Hill Higher Education.
  20. Daft, R.L., Weick, K.E. (1984). Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems. The Academy of Management Review. Vol. 9. No. 2. рр. 284-295.
  21. Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance Still Matters: The Hard Reality of Global Expansion. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 79. No. 8. рр. 137-147.
  22. Gadiesh, O., Gilbert, J.L. (1998). Profit pools: a fresh look at strategy. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 76. No. 3. рр. 139-147.
  23. Demil, B., Lecocq, X., Warnier, V. (2018). Business model thinking”, business ecosystems and platforms: The new perspective on the environment of the organization. Management. Vol. 21. No. 4. рр. 12-13.
  24. Lecocq, V. Demil, J. (2010). Ventura. Business Models as a Research Program in Strategic Management: An Appraisal Based on Lakatos. Management. Vol. 13. No. 4. рр. 214-225.
  25. Lagodiienko, V., Zavhorodnii, A., Lagodiyenko, O., Demchenko, O., Bakay, R., Ostrikov, V. (2023). Institutional Foundations of the Regions’ Digitalization. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Developmente. Vol. 45. No. 1. рр. 17-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15544/mts.2023.03.
  26. Zott, R. (2010). Amit Business Model Design: An Activity Perspective. Long Range Planning. Vol. 43. No. 2–3. рр. 216-226.

The article was received 15.07.2023

Quote article, APA style

Podyachev Stanislav, Bohdanov Oleksandr. 15.07.2023 . Methodological aspects of strategizing the digital transformation of the ukrainian economy. The journal "Ukrainian Journal of Applied Economics and Technology". 2023 / #3. 418-423pp. https://doi.org/10.36887/2415-8453-2023-3-66

Quote article, MLA style

Podyachev Stanislav, Bohdanov Oleksandr. "Methodological aspects of strategizing the digital transformation of the ukrainian economy". The journal "Ukrainian Journal of Applied Economics and Technology". 15.07.2023 . https://doi.org/10.36887/2415-8453-2023-3-66

Quote article, translit