sustainability

Article
The Impact of Dynamic Accounting Information System on
Organizational Resilience: The Mediating Role of Business
Processes Capabilities
Ahmed Saleh Al-Matari 1,2, *, Rozita Amiruddin 1 , Khairul Azman Aziz 1 and Mohammed A. Al-Sharafi 3, *

1 School of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM),
Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia; rozita@ukm.edu.my (R.A.); khairul.aziz@ukm.edu.my (K.A.A.)
2 Faculty of Commerce and Economics, Sana’a University, Sana’a 15542, Yemen
3 Department of Information Systems, Azman Hashim International Business School, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Skudai 81310, Johor, Malaysia
* Correspondence: ahuniv2005@hotmail.com (A.S.A.-M.); alsharafi@ieee.org (M.A.A.-S.)

Abstract: For decades, one of the main concerns of both practitioners and academics has been the
business value of dynamic accounting information systems (DAIS). A number of studies have demon-
strated the positive effects of information systems capability on overall organizational performance,
but our understanding of the business processes capabilities through which such gains are achieved
remains limited due to a lack of focus on the turbulent business environment. As a result, the
research on information systems continues to debate such a connection. The role of business process
capabilities in modulating the link between dynamic AIS capability and organizational resilience
was investigated in this study. Our results show that, while firm-wide dynamic AIS capability has



characteristics of flexible AIS, complement BI system, and AIS-related human resource competency,


the impact on organizational resilience is positively affected by mediation of business process ca-
Citation: Al-Matari, A.S.; Amiruddin,
pabilities based on 144 matched questionnaires selected from large companies from various sectors
R.; Aziz, K.A.; Al-Sharafi, M.A. The
listed on the Bursa Malaysia. Our results also suggest that dynamic AIS capability has an impact
Impact of Dynamic Accounting
Information System on
on organizational resilience. According to the Resource-Based Theory (RBT) and dynamic capabili-
Organizational Resilience: The ties view (DCV) viewpoints, there is a link between dynamic AIS and business process capacity to
Mediating Role of Business Processes improve organizational resilience. The findings strongly support the claim that an organization’s
Capabilities. Sustainability 2022, 14, dynamic AIS capabilities—both flexible AIS, complementary business intelligence (BI) system, and
4967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ AIS-related human resource competency—can help an organization improve its resilience. This
su14094967 research’s practical and theoretical ramifications as well as its limitations are examined.
Academic Editor: Chia-Lin Chang
Keywords: accounting information system; dynamic accounting information system; organizational
Received: 11 March 2022 resilience; business processes capabilities
Accepted: 11 April 2022
Published: 20 April 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in 1. Introduction
published maps and institutional affil- Crises are unavoidable in today’s turbulent business climate, but there are significant
iations. variances in how organizations deal with problems or disruptions, both internal and exter-
nal, that could lead to a crisis [1]. According to the United Nations trade and development
organization, the economic uncertainty generated by the coronavirus outbreak is expected
to cost the world economy USD 1 trillion by 2020. These crises have become one of the most
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
important predictors of volatility impacting an organization’s performance as well as one of
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
the leading causes of insolvency or bankruptcy [2]. During all crises, organizational activi-
distributed under the terms and
ties are disrupted by a multitude of strategic, environmental, financial, or political causes.
conditions of the Creative Commons Thus, while interruptions and other crises are unavoidable, there are significant variances
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// in how organizations deal with them. Information systems (IS) academics have recently
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ advocated that organizations should enhance their IS capability to obtain a competitive
4.0/). advantage and face the dynamic and turbulent character of the organization environment

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094967 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 2 of 22

based on the resource-based view (RBV) and dynamic capabilities theory [3–5]. The concept
of dynamic accounting information system capability, at its core, emphasizes the necessity
of integrating, creating, and reconfiguring IT-based resources alongside and leveraging the
value of other resources and capabilities to reorganize accounting activities and processes
quickly. Dynamic capabilities, according to empirical research, contribute to organizational
performance [6–8].
In today’s fast-paced and chaotic business climate, having a dynamic AIS capability
is critical [9]. This necessitates organizations focusing more on day-to-day operational
demands at the price of long-term resilience and digital business innovation [10]. As a
result, AIS and IT have evolved into metaphors for many tools and approaches that or-
ganizations might use to tackle the challenges of these environments. As a result, many
investments in information systems (ISs) are undertaken in the belief that certain technolo-
gies, such as accounting information systems (AIS), would pay off, proving essential to
an organization’s competitive survival [11]. These crises affect organizations’ continuity
and threaten their survival and competitiveness, increasing their chances of collapsing [12].
They are also a major challenge for management and for information systems. Thus, the
lack of resilience among organizations may be a result of the lack of dynamic AIS capability
among the organizations [13–15]. This subject is somewhat unexplored in the context of
major corporations and the importance of dynamic AIS capability. As a result, the impact
of dynamic AIS capacity on organizational resilience is investigated in this research [16,17].
This study focuses on enhancing the AIS’s dynamic potential through the collaboration of
a flexible AIS, a complementing BI system, and AIS-related human competencies.
Some academics suggested that business processes could be crucial determinants
in linking IT-resources-based capabilities and organizational success, based on RBV the-
ory, [18,19]. An important aspect of internal and external business processes is that of
business process capabilities, i.e., outside-in, inside-out, and spanning [20]. These terms
refer to the organization’s ability to create added value in a unique way to utilize re-
sources [21].
A significant amount of IS research has focused on either IT investment or IT capability,
which is described as Information Technology and associated hardware, software, and ser-
vices [22]. However, AIS is not a component of IT only, as it also deals with procedures and
structures, internal control, and processes and people in order to manage the information
effectively [23]. The actual usage of such systems is important, and it is the missing link
between IT/IS and firm performance [24–26]. Two of the most critical areas indicating
the effective usage of AIS and its impact on firm performance are the decision-making
processes and business processes capabilities [27]. Therefore, to explore the strategic role
of dynamic AIS capability, this study investigates the relationship between dynamic AIS
capability and business-process capabilities. In addition, a number of studies have demon-
strated the positive effects of information systems capability on overall organizational
performance [28–31], but our understanding of the business processes capabilities through
which such gains are achieved remains limited due to a lack of focus on the turbulent
business environment.
Based on the resource-based view (RBV) and dynamic capabilities views, we propose
that dynamic AIS capability can be constructed through flexible AIS, business intelligence
(BI), and complementary and associated competencies (DCV). As a result, BI systems, which
are one of the dynamic AIS components, are seen as excellent potential for businesses to
decrease risks and increase profits [32] and give the analytical capabilities required to
process data in the required manner [9]. Organizations may rely on a flexible AIS to
keep their AIS applications up to date in real-time to adapt to the rapidly changing in
real-world activity [9]. A dynamic capability requires a huge amount of learning [33,34].
As a consequence, IS-related human resource capability can also facilitate this learning
in a dynamic AIS capability [9] and maintain the dynamic nature of it [27]. As a result,
dynamic AIS capacity is seen as “a particular sort of resource, namely an organizationally
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 3 of 22

embedded non-transferable organization-specific resource that necessitates an examination

of its impact on business processes” in this study.
For this study, the dynamic AIS capacity is defined as “a unique sort of resource,
specifically an organizationally embedded non-transferable organization-specific resource
that necessitates an examination of its impact on business process capabilities (BPC)”. This
study also looks at the influence of dynamic AIS capabilities on OR by identifying the
research gap in AIS business value and its impact on OR as mediated by its impact on BPC.
This study also looks into how dynamic AIS capability affects OR by identifying a research
gap in AIS business value and its impact on OR as mediated by BPC.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Dynamic AIS Capability
Dynamic capabilities play a key important role in managing uncertainty [35]. Organi-
zational dynamic capabilities are defined as an organization’s overall ability to integrate,
build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies in order to respond to quickly
changing circumstances [34]. Hence, the current dynamic and turbulent business envi-
ronment demand a dynamic AIS capability to survive [9]. For this study, a dynamic AIS
capability implies the organizational ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure its com-
petencies to swiftly reorganize accounting processes and activities [9]. Hence, a dynamic
AIS capability can be developed from the positive interaction between AIS and related
organization competencies [9].
Despite the fact that various AIS capabilities have been recorded in the literature,
this research will concentrate on dynamic AIS capability in core organizational functions.
Processing transactions, accounting information display for decision making, and control
environment management are examples of such areas, with the flexible AIS, complementary
BI system, and AIS-related human resource competency as engaged skills. The capacity
of dynamic AIS was chosen for two reasons: To begin with, emphasizing the relevance of
dynamic skills would be consistent with earlier IS strategy studies [9]; and second, despite
their strategic importance, dynamic AIS capability has not been regarded in the OR of
organizations’ performance research.
In dynamic or uncertain times, organizations fail due to lack of resilience [36] and lack
of dynamic AIS [9]. Researchers such as [13–15,37] suggested that lack of dynamic AIS
capabilities as a factor to lack of resilience among organizations. Dynamic AIS capability
is a critical resource that is expected to facilitate the identification of threats and opportu-
nities; these capabilities transform existing strategies, structures, and innovations to take
advantage of opportunities or resists threats, thereby achieving organizational resilience.
This role of dynamic AIS capability, however, is relatively unexplored in the context of
large organizations. Hence, this study investigates the impact of dynamic AIS capability on
organizational resilience mediated by business process capabilities.
For the purpose of this study, a dynamic AIS competence is the result of a collaboration
of three skills: (1) a flexible AIS, (2) a supplementary BI system, and (3) AIS-related human
resource competency. A flexible AIS refers to the extent to which the technological elements
of an organization’s AIS are assessed on a routine basis as well as the ease at which the
AIS could well be updated and the financial resources allocated to do so [9]. Although the
BI system is an important dynamic aspect of AIS that allows firms to organize their data,
produce knowledge from it, and implement strategies to preserve or gain a competitive
advantage, it is not the only dynamic element [38]. The ability to leverage the AIS in unique
ways that link to accounting professionals’ technical IT skills is described as an AIS-related
human resource capability [9,39].
In such uncertain and unstable times, organizations need to develop a resilience ca-
pability that enables them to deal effectively with unforeseen events, recover from crises
and even promote future success, and take advantage of events that could threaten the
survival of an organization [40,41]. With organizations facing business continuity, cash flow
problems, supply chain challenges, business operations interruption, etc., it is now more
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 4 of 22

important than ever that they have a solid basis for their business systems. A modern suite
of IT applications with AIS can provide a comprehensive, agile, secure, and integrated solu-
tion in a range of functions, such as finance and accounting, procurement, human resources,
and sales, and by adopting this system, its business can continue regardless of interruption.
Dynamic technology-based AIS could contribute to building resilient organizations.
Considering IS and strategic planning theoretical and operational perspectives, AIS
is a vital factor in reducing uncertainty and increasing confidence in managing crises
and minimizing their implications. It also provides prospects of eliminating the crises
before their occurrence [42]. As such, the affected companies need to adapt rapidly and
cope with the external and internal environments as well as be able to anticipate, prepare
for, respond to, and adapt to the unexpected changes and disruptions to improve their
chances of survival [43]. This, in turn, requires investing in developing and improving their
technological capabilities [44,45]. Organizations should also consider the creative use of IS,
such as dynamic AIS [27]. Because IT capabilities are scarce, valuable, and tough to copy,
they have also shown to provide such a competitive edge [46].
Organizational growth and survival are dependent on their ability to ensure effective
use of such data volume from various sources to achieve their operational and strategic
goals [47–49]. Through investment in technological capabilities, creating synergy between
flexible AIS, BI system, and AIS-related human resource competency and organizational
competencies, they would improve their capacities to improve accounting processes, fi-
nancial and non-financial reporting, as well as to make clear decisions in a timely manner,
respond quickly to external and internal threats, identify opportunities, manage the con-
trol environment, and address ambiguity in different situations that, in turn, improve
organizational resilience.

2.2. Business Process Capabilities and Accounting Information System

Business process capabilities, in this paper, refer to the ability of an organization to
create market value by utilizing resources in a unique way [50]. Scholars have proposed
a three-denomination typology for BPC classification: outside-in capability, inside-out
capability, and spanning capability [20,51].
An organization’s ability to anticipate market demands, filter out competitors, build
a long-term strategic connection with external stakeholders, and respond to quick mar-
ket changes is known as outside-in capability [51]. As per Wade and Hulland [52], the
outside-in capability is the organizational ability to focus and emphasize the threats and
opportunities in the external environment for onward corroboration with the internal
processes. According to Banker et al. [53], an organization’s ability to pursue operational
excellence and efficiency through internal processes is known as inside-out capabilities. The
merging of outside-in and inside-out organizational capability is referred to as spanning ca-
pability. The ability of an organization to handle information flow across functional areas of
the supply chain (buying, order processing, strategy development, and information dissem-
ination) is referred to as spanning capabilities [54]. Spanning capabilities rely on internal
and external analyses to assist organizations in utilizing valuable strengths, exploiting
market opportunities, avoiding potential weaknesses, and neutralizing external threats.
Both RBT and DCV have emphasized the necessity of dynamic capability-building
procedures in attaining organizational competitive advantage [34,55]. Similarly, organiza-
tional performance can be affected by IS capability in all situations, including during times
of crisis, via the mediating role of capabilities such as BPC [56]. In addition, organizational
performance can be enhanced by an IT-based system, such as AIS capability, with the
organization’s ability to optimize BP and improve BP management [57]. Despite being a
valuable resource in improving organizational performance, AIS on its own might not be
able to help in sustaining that performance [58]. This is consistent with the RBT essence,
which indicates that the effects of AIS as a valuable resource might still be dependent on
intangible factors such as BPC [59]. However, better performance can be generated through
the synergism of the corresponding tangible and intangible resources [60].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 5 of 22

According to Liang et al. [59], organizational capabilities, such as BPs capabilities,

are the most well-regarded mediators. To develop a causal relationship between BPC and
OR, dynamic AIS systems enhance important interdependency between inputs, processes,
and outcomes. Powell and Dent-Micallef [61] provided evidence that IT-based systems
such as AIS can enhance organizational performance when complemented with other BPs.
Based on this, BP improvements capabilities are expected to function as a mediator in the
relationship between AIS capabilities and OR. Furthermore, the BI system’s AIS capabilities
must be used to improve an organization’s overall performance in order to obtain accurate,
relevant, and valuable information for managing daily activities and strategic objectives in
a rapidly changing business environment [62].

3. Model Development and Hypotheses

3.1. Dynamic AIS Capability (DAISC) and Organizational Resilience (OR)
Based on the RBT perspective, AIS resources that are valuable and inimitable can be
rent-yielding [63]. There are several IT-based IS in the modern era, such as accounting
software programs, transaction process systems, control systems, BI, and crisis management
software. However, access to these resources by itself cannot guarantee the resilience and
sustainability of a company [64]. Therefore, the synergy between various organizational
resources is a key aspect of OR [65]. In general, firms’ IT systems serve as a vital antecedent
for generating more competitive actions through channel integration [66]. In the current
study, complementarities between a flexible AIS, complementary BI system, and AIS-related
human competency have led to sustainable performance benefits.
Previous studies do support the impact of dynamic AIS, an IT-based system technical
innovation, on OR. Oh and Teo [66] discovered that IT capacity has a greater impact
on the organization’s resilience. Furthermore, several authors [9,27,67] pointed out the
significance of IT/AIS capabilities in enhancing organizational performance or resilience.
As a result, we propose that dynamic AIS capacity distinguishes organization performance
for survival, allowing the company to develop valuable capabilities and advantages in the
ever-changing big data environment. As a consequence, we propose the following as our
major hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Dynamic accounting information system capability has a positive impact on
organizational resilience.

AIS-IT infrastructure flexibility can influence competitive advantage via OR. A flexible
AIS application also positively supports dynamic AIS capability by providing a ready
platform for accessing the appropriate data and establishing a network communication
system for easy communication with other systems. An AIS, for instance, should have the
capability to receive and process information from service delivery channels or new sales.
Managers’ expectations for a wider range of standard and ad hoc accounting information
with changing levels of detail should be addressed by a dynamic AIS capability. All the
organization sections should adapt to business needs changes and approaches by adapting
and integrating the IT infrastructure. Thus, the infrastructure is an integral aspect of
the IS capabilities for reaching every point and covering the range of the organizational
boundaries [68].
Furthermore, online business models (such as business-to-business, business-to-
consumer, and, more recently, consumer-to-consumer) necessitate a continuous flow and
sharing of client data across all channels in order to assure consistency across databases. [66].
As such, a flexible AIS could be facilitated for the adaptability and reconfiguration of organi-
zational processes [69]. This boosts an organization’s ability to innovate and quickly adapt
to a changing environment. As a consequence, organizations with more IT infrastructure
flexibility are predicted to have better levels of organizational resilience. As a result, we
propose the following sub-hypothesis:
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 6 of 22

Hypothesis 1.1 (H1.1). A flexible accounting information system has a positive impact on organi-
zational resilience.

In order to adapt to today’s fast-changing and dynamic environment, businesses must

be agile [70]; thus, accounting information should be provided to decision makers on an
ad hoc basis at various levels of detail [23]. A generic accounting system that lacks the
ability to “slice and dice” accounting data also lacks the capability to meet these needs [71].
To overcome the limitations of generic AIS, enterprises should implement a BI system
to supplement the AIS’s data analytic capabilities. As a result, BI at a DAIS capacity
plays a critical role in strengthening OR and its associated capabilities [72]. Furthermore,
these capabilities are considered assets that facilitate effective organization adoption of
BI [73]. Currently, BI systems are increasingly adopted to provide better analytical capa-
bilities from the earlier-installed AIS systems used to manage huge organization-related
information [74].
Organizations should be able to respond fast to unforeseen developments in terms
of adaptability capabilities, according to the concept of OR. As just a result, organizations
must use the information generated by BI as a valuable element to successfully deal with
these challenges [75]. Because BI consists of internal and external information, business
market information, and analysis [76], it will help managers make decisions quickly and
improve their resilience. It also provides strategic managers with the necessary information
about the current direction and possible changes in the future [77]. Strategic decisions, such
as strategic resilience, are frequently unique, needing creative decision-making approaches
and the use of data sources, decision support systems, and techniques [70]. Assistance for
managing risk via a business intelligence system is essential, particularly for organizations
operating in high-risk contexts [70]. Based on the foregoing considerations, we examined
the relationship between BI systems and organizational resilience by considering the
information supplied and the BI system’s potential to innovate in order to solve problems
and respond to challenges. As a result, we offer the sub-hypothesis below:

Hypothesis 1.2 (H1.2). A complementary BI system has a positive impact on organizational

resilience.

Professional capabilities are critical to the development of dynamic capacities and the
basic redevelopment of the useable resource base [78]. Organizational staff can only mean-
ingfully connect purpose with the circumstance when they are aware of the organization’s
goal (i.e., OR) [79]. Therefore, human resource competency contributes significantly to
dynamic AIS capability development [27]. Professional staff can also coordinate real-time
responses to unexpected events or indirectly coordinate such responses via a common
reference point (such as dynamic AIS capability) for new actions. This allows strategic
coherence even with unplanned innovative actions [80].
Professionals can also assist organizations in developing greater capacities to examine
the environment on the boundaries [81]. The goal of doing this is to enhance sensing of
ongoing changes. This will act as the mechanism for acquiring increased organizational
effectiveness [82]. As stated earlier in previous literature [63,83], skills and specificity are
the two basic characteristics of AIS-related human resources. As these AIS-related human
resource characteristics enable quick and easy communication between AIS staff and other
business staff, we propose the following sub-hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1.3 (H1.3). AIS-related human resources competency has a positive impact on organi-
zational resilience.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 7 of 22

3.2. Business Process Capabilities Mediating the Impact of Dynamic AIS Capability on
Organizational Resilience (OR)
We recognize that several characteristics of the RBV provide IS researchers with unique
and beneficial benefits. To begin with, the RBT simplifies the defining of AIS resources
by providing a standardized set of resource properties [52]. The RBT theory assumes
that valuable, rare, non-imitable, non-substitutable, and organized internal resources and
capabilities play a significant role in helping firms enhance their performance and create
value and competitive advantage [84]. These resources include AIS resources consisting of
(1) tangible assets, such as the AIS infrastructure and human resources (i.e., AIS-related
human and AIS infrastructure), and (2) intangible assets, such as AIS-related human skills,
competencies, and business processes [27].
According to RBV, an organization’s resources are described as all assets, capabilities,
organizational processes, organizational traits, information, and knowledge under its
control that allow it to increase its efficiency and effectiveness [84]. RBV assumed that
ownership and control of strategic assets (such as the dynamic capacity of AIS) determine
which organizations will gain higher profits and enjoy a position of competitive advantage
over the others. The RBV sets a new link between AIS resources and long-term competitive
advantage, with a well-defined dependent variable to back it up, making it an effective tool
for determining the strategic value of AIS resources [52]. Therefore, organizations may not
easily replicate their rival organizations’ strategies due to this assumption, as they cannot
replicate their resources easily [84]. However, these differences in resources may persist,
allowing the benefits from heterogeneous resources to persist over time [85]. As a result,
an organization can be thought of as a collection of resources, talents, or processes that
produce value that is difficult to duplicate due to unique characteristics [86].
Organizational competencies or capabilities are resources in themselves or in combi-
nation with other resources across organizational divisions [87]. Therefore, suggesting the
dynamic capability of the AIS depends on the synergies between three competencies: the
flexible AIS, the complementary BI system, and AIS-related human resource competency.
As mentioned above, the resources are the set of available factors that are controlled by
the organization. While the term capabilities refers to the ability to combine resources and
implement processes to achieve the intended result of having knowledge, tangible or intan-
gible aspects, and extraordinary business processes as well as complicated relationships
between existing resources [88].
Consistent with previous studies, IS capabilities indirectly encourage better business-
process performance by leveraging the other organizational capabilities and resources [89–91].
The essential indicators of business process capabilities are the rates of order fulfilment,
operational efficiency, customer intimacy, and satisfying consumer expectations [27]. In
addition, IT-based AIS creates business value at the operational level via its three separate
but complementary impacts on business activities: (1) automation effects, referring to IT-
based capability to extract value from the efficiency perspective via substitution of capital
asset with labor and via cost reduction; (2) information effects, referring to IT capability
in information storage, processing, and communication; and (3) transformational effects,
referring to IT capability in encouraging process transformation and innovation [92].
Various studies have focused on the impact of dynamic AIS capabilities on business
processes. Accordingly, various IS-related studies have shown that successful invest-
ment in IT infrastructure can positively revolutionize business processes and improve
performance [27]. These positive changes can be experienced as direct and indirect effects
between a dynamic AIS capability (i.e., flexible AIS, BI, and AIS human skills) and busi-
ness process capabilities. As per Elbashir et al. [74], AIS assists organizations in creating
business value, as they directly affect business processes. Such impact could be observed
as improved BP efficiency and effectiveness [57,91]. Gu and Jung [11] highlighted the
six areas of value chain that IS capabilities improve and that support core organizational
business activities: (1) sales and marketing support, (2) supplier relations, (3) production
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 8 of 22

and operations, (4) product and service enhancement, (5) process planning and support,
and (6) customer relations.
According to Liang et al. [59], organizational capabilities such as BPs capabilities are
the most well-regarded mediators. Dynamic AIS systems promote critical interdependency
between inputs, processes and outcomes to create a causal link between BPC and OR.
Powell and Dent-Micallef [61] provided evidence that IT-based systems such as AIS can
enhance organizational performance when complemented with other BPs. Based on this,
BP improvements capabilities are expected to function as a mediator in the relationship
between AIS capabilities and OR. In addition, the AIS capabilities enabled by the BI system
must be leveraged to enhance an organization’s performance in order to receive accurate,
relevant, and insightful information to manage daily processes and strategic objectives in a
dynamically changing business environment [62].
Several studies [91,93,94] revealed that the impact of IS capabilities could manifest as
improved efficiency and effectiveness of business processes, as they directly affect business
processes capabilities. Furthermore, Gu and Jung [11] identified six value chain areas where
IS capabilities could improve and support core organizational business activities: (1) sales
and marketing support, (2) production and operations, (3) process planning and support,
(4) supplier relations, (5) product and service enhancement, and (6) customer relations.
Hence, it is reasonable to assume that BPs play a mediating role in the positive direct effect
of dynamic AIS capability on an organization’s OR.
Business process capabilities, according to the RBT, are the most significant resources
that enable organizations to attain a competitive edge. [20]. Through the role of mediation of
those other assets or capabilities, AIS’s dynamic capability can influence an organization’s
resilience. As a strategic capability, business process capabilities are contingent on an
organization’s ability to implement and exploit AIS resources [39]. The combination
of these arguments suggests that the capabilities of the business process mediate the
relationship between the dynamic capability of AIS and the organizational resilience of an
organization. As a consequence, as demonstrated in the research model, we propose the
following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Business process capabilities mediate the relationship between the dynamic
accounting information system capability and organizational resilience.

4. Methodology
4.1. Research Context and Data Collection
This study was undertaken deductively to analyze the relationship between facts and
observable occurrences, and it is based on a positivist philosophy. The impact of dynamic
AIS capacity on organizational resilience was investigated using a quantitative method.
This study selected large companies in Malaysia as a study sample due to the argument
that medium-to-large organizations are more able to provide AIS and more likely to have
resources to ensure the organization’s resilience [95]. Indeed, large organizations are a suit-
able sample for this study because they have required AIS capability and financial resources
to conduct the synergies that constitute dynamic AIS capability. For companies listed on
the stock market, the fact that those organizations are approved to be publicly traded shows
their financial standing and their ability to compete with international organizations. Thus,
it should be necessary for these organizations to build dynamic AIS and subsequently have
considerable dynamic AIS experience and possibly have reached stability in their process,
which could improve the organization’s resilience. Hence, large organizations in Malaysia
were chosen because (1) there are more available data on these organizations, and (2) in
general, larger organizations have more intensive information and practice dynamic AIS
more actively [96] and provide the broadest possible use of information-technology-based
AIS in an enterprise resource planning environment since it covers all key business func-
tions [97]. The initial sampling framework was drawn from companies listed on Bursa
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 9 of 22

Malaysia (https://www.bursamalaysia.com/ (accessed on 15 August 2020). This sample

frame represents large Malaysian organizations in different industries.
The targeted respondents are chief executive officer, chief finance officer, director of
information, director of IMIS, senior system analysts, director of database administration,
IT managers, and senior accountants. The selection was based on the assumption that these
individuals are generally involved in resource repurposing and innovation in the organi-
zation and thus are likely to have a better understanding of the organization’s resource
endowments, processes, and capabilities as well as their impact on the organization’s
innovation performance, suggesting a high level of accuracy in responses [98].
Survey questionnaires were distributed to 984 listed companies in Malaysia during
the 10-month data collection period from December 2019 to September 2020. The duration
of data collection was longer, as difficulties arose due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A total
of 162 completed questionnaires were returned, giving a response rate of 16.5 percent. Out
of 162 questionnaires received, 13 questionnaires were excluded because the respondent
did not fulfill the requirement. The final sample consisted of 144 matched surveys after
excluding unmatched and/or missing cases.
The respondents are mainly CFO (45.8%) and others (29.2% includes staff accountant,
senior accountant, senior auditor), as shown in Table 1. The remaining respondents were
the CIO, director of MIS, senior system analyst, and database administration director. This
was not unexpected, as the study included those who are likely to use AIS systems to
perform their tasks. Accordingly, the highest number of respondents comprised CFOs and
staff of accountants who were more often using the dynamic AIS systems.

Table 1. Respondents’ job position.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

CFO 66 45.8 45.8 45.8
CIO 13 9.0 9.0 54.9
Director of MIS 13 9.0 9.0 63.9
Senior System Analyst 7 4.9 4.9 68.8
Database Administration Director 3 2.1 2.1 70.8
Other 42 29.2 29.2 100.0
Total 144 100.0 100.0

4.2. Measurement Items

The questionnaire instrument was developed based on literature reviews. To measure
each construct, the questionnaire items were adopted from previous empirical research.
Using previously validated and published items increased and guaranteed the content
validity and reliability of the items used for this study’s constructs. The steps involved
in developing the questionnaire are as follows: (1) reviewing literature in research to
identify previously validated and published measures, (2) developing the initial draft of
the questionnaire, (3) reviewing the questionnaire draft by practitioners and academics
at pre-test stage, (4) conducting the pilot test, and (5) improving the questionnaire before
sending for actual collection. On a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree”
to “strongly agree,” all measures were evaluated.
The developed model consists of two reflective constructs, namely BPC and OR. The dy-
namic AIS capability as a second-order formative construct entails three dimensions: (1) flex-
ible AIS, (2) complementary BI system, and (3) AIS-related human resource competency.
According to previous research by Uwizeyemungu and Raymond [99] and Prasad
and Green [9], we used six measures to measure the flexibility of AIS. These measures
requested respondents to assess the extent to which an AIS temporarily affected the orga-
nization’s time to react to change, the extent variety to which an AIS affected the variety
of responses available to the organization to cope with both anticipated and unforeseen
changes, and the extent to which hardware, software, and data can be separated and
combined to support the development of new AIS infrastructure systems. BI measurement
was derived from the study by Prasad and Green [9] and Torres et al. [100]. AIS-related
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 10 of 22

human resource competency was based on the existing measurement using a five-item
scale adapted from [9,101].
This research looks at a specific set of organizational capabilities known as business
process capabilities. These capabilities characterize an organization’s ability to create
market value in distinctive ways by utilizing resources [50] and by analyzing internal and
external resources. This spanning capability enables businesses to capitalize on important
assets, prevent potential flaws, seize market opportunities, and counteract external threats.
BPC is a first-order concept that underpins an organization’s activities and signals the
beginning of purposeful learning. BPC was assessed on BP outside-in capability, BP
inside-out capability, and BP spanning capability with twelve question items.
There are two promising techniques to improving our understanding of OR: (1) process
methods, which highlight the dynamic nature of resilience by defining multiple phases of
resilience, and (2) resilience capacity studies, which provide an overview of resilience’s
internal functioning [40]. We believe that combining these two approaches will result in
a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena of resilience as well as a solid
foundation for empirical study on the creation of resilient organizations. As a result, OR is
founded on the concept of “resilience as a process” and the idea of resilience as the only
combination of organizational capacity and routine. Based on this, we refer to the three
phases of resilience, namely anticipation, adaptation, and recovery, as the measurement
for OR.

5. Results
5.1. Common Method Bias
To ensure that the collected data do not contain common method bias (CMB), as
recommended by Podsakoff et al. [102], In this study, Harman’s single factor was used.
Exploratory factor analysis was used to examine 42 scale items provided in the final
measurement model, which were then measured using an unrotated factor solution. The
single factor is not present, as evidenced by the fact that the first factor accounted for
41.647 percent of the variance, which is less than the 50% threshold number [102]. Thus,
there is no existence for the CMB in the collected data.

5.2. Assessment of the Reflective Measurement Model

We used PLS-SEM to evaluate the structural and measurement model. The assessment
of the measurement model was undertaken by evaluating the reliability and validity
(including convergent and discriminant validity) of the collected data. The reliability
was assessed through Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) [103]. As per the
readings in Table 2, no issues were raised in terms of Cronbach’s alpha and CR, as all the
values were above the threshold value of 0.7 [104]. For the convergent validity, it is evident
from Table 2 and Figure 1 that the values of factor loading were all above the threshold
value of 0.6 [104]. However, during measurement model evaluation, BPC9 factor loading
was low and affected the BPC’s AVE. According to Hair et al. [103] instructions, any factor
loading that is below 0.60 and affects the construct’s AVE should be eliminated from the
construct. Thus, removing BPC9 increased the BPC’s AVE. In addition, the values of the
average variance extracted (AVE) were all above the threshold value of 0.5 [103]. Similar
threshold values were adopted in previous studies on information systems [25,105–112].
Therefore, the convergent validity was confirmed.
Concerning the discriminant validity, this research computes the Heterotrait–Monotrait
Ratio (HTMT) as an alternative technique, as recommended by [113]. The results in Table 3
show that all the values were less than the threshold value of 0.85 [113], and thus, there
were no issues regarding the discriminant validity.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 11 of 22

Table 2. Reflective Measurement Model Assessment.

Constructs Items Loadings CA CR AVE

AISF1 0.871
AISF2 0.795
AISF3 0.842
Fixable AIS 0.899 0.923 0.667
AISF4 0.836
AISF5 0.845
AISF6 0.697
AISRH1 0.838
AISRH2 0.837
AIS-related Human Competency AISRH3 0.767 0.877 0.910 0.670
AISRH4 0.833
AISRH5 0.816
BPC1 0.667
BPC10 0.815
BPC11 0.843
BPC12 0.820
BPC2 0.704
BP Capabilities BPC3 0.825 0.926 0.937 0.579
BPC4 0.648
BPC5 0.797
BPC6 0.639
BPC7 0.754
BPC8 0.819
CBI1 0.855
Complementary BI System CBI2 0.899 0.865 0.918 0.788
CBI3 0.908
OR1 0.739
OR10 0.750
OR11 0.747
OR12 0.703
OR13 0.719
OR14 0.645
OR15 0.739
OR16 0.722
Organizational Resilience 0.941 0.948 0.532
OR2 0.761
OR3 0.769
OR4 0.667
OR5 0.730
OR6 0.736
OR7 0.770
OR8 0.725
OR9 0.737

Table 3. Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) Results.

AIS-Related BP Complementary Fixable Organizational

Human Competency Capabilities BI System AIS Resilience
AIS-related Human
Competency
BP Capabilities 0.523
Complementary BI
0.715 0.518
System
Fixable AIS 0.796 0.599 0.697
Organizational
0.772 0.729 0.767 0.798
Resilience
 Competency
BP Capabilities 0.523
Complementary BI
0.715 0.518
System
Fixable AIS 0.796 0.599 0.697
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 Organizational 12 of 22
0.772 0.729 0.767 0.798
Resilience

Figure 1. Measurement
Figure 1. Measurement Model.
Model.

5.3. Assessment
5.3. Assessment ofof Dynamic
Dynamic AISAIS Capability
Capability asas aa Formative
Formative Second-Order
Second-Order Construct
Construct
In the current study, dynamic AIS capability was measured as a
In the current study, dynamic AIS capability was measured as a second-ordersecond-order formative
form-
construct with three first-order reflective constructs. The three first-order constructs
ative construct with three first-order reflective constructs. The three first-order constructs are
AIS-related human competency, complementary BI system, and flexible
are AIS-related human competency, complementary BI system, and flexible AIS measured AIS measured
by reflective
by reflective indicators.
indicators.The Thepurpose
purposeofof this
this study
study is investigate
is to to investigatethe the reliability
reliability andand
va-
validity
lidity of of
thethe measurement
measurement model
model in the
in the second
second order,
order, as suggested
as suggested by Chin
by Chin [114].[114]. As
As rec-
recommended by Ringle et al. [115], to create the second-order construct,
ommended by Ringle et al. [115], to create the second-order construct, a two-stage strategy a two-stage
strategy combining
combining the repeated
the repeated indicatorindicator
approach approach
and theanduse the use of variable
of latent latent variable
scores scores
(LVS)
(LVS) should be used to examine the measurement model of the model that includes
should be used to examine the measurement model of the model that includes formative
formative components. Endogenous formative structures that are part of the structural
components. Endogenous formative structures that are part of the structural model as
model as well as higher-order constructs require a two-stage method (HOC) [116].
well as higher-order constructs require a two-stage method (HOC) [116].
The variance inflation factor (VIF) was evaluated to guarantee that there were no
The variance inflation factor (VIF) was evaluated to guarantee that there were no
collinearity difficulties in the f dynamic AIS capabilities formative construct. The variance
collinearity difficulties in the f dynamic AIS capabilities formative construct. The variance
inflation factor value should be below 5 [117], and the tolerance value should be higher
inflation factor value should be below 5 [117], and the tolerance value should be higher
than 0.20 (Hair et al., 2016 [104]).
than 0.20 (Hair et al., 2016 [104]).
The collinearity assessment of the formative second-order construct is shown in Table 4.
The collinearity assessment of the formative second-order construct is shown in Ta-
Collinearity must be assessed to ensure that the constructs are not measuring the same
ble 4. Collinearity must be assessed to ensure that the constructs are not measuring the
belief variables. The variance inflation factor (VIF) values for each formative construct are
lower than the threshold value of 3.3, as indicated in Table 4 [116].

Table 4. Collinearity Assessment for Second-order Construct.

Path VIF
AIS-related Human Competency 2.289
Complementary BI system 1.814
Flexible AIS 2.258

Following that, the importance of each formative construct’s weight in explaining the
first-order constructs was evaluated. Table 5 shows the bootstrapping findings for each
of the formative second-order structures using sub samples of 5000 cases, with weights
and path coefficients for each [103,116]. Table 5 shows the estimation of the AIS capability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 13 of 22

as a second-order construct. The weights from the second-order construct (dynamic AIS
capability) to the three first-order factors (AIS-related human competency, complementary
BI system, and flexible AIS) are significant (0.286, 0.344, and 0.506), with a very high T
ratio of 2.713, 4.046, and 4.849 for AIS-related human competency, complementary BI
system, and flexible AIS, respectively. The results suggest that the second-order construct
adequately captures the link between first-order components [114].

Table 5. The Weights and Path Coefficients for Each of The Formative Second-order Constructs.

Relationship Path Coefficients T Statistics p-Value

AIS-related Human Competency ->
0.286 2.713 0.003
Dynamic AIS Capability
Complementary BI System ->
0.344 4.046 0.000
Dynamic AIS Capability
Flexible AIS -> Dynamic AIS Capability 0.506 4.849 0.000

5.4. Assessment of the Structural Model Hypotheses Testing

The structural model was evaluated using coefficients of determination (R2 ), t-values,
f2 effect sizes, predictive relevance (Q2 ), and path coefficient significance [103,116].
The R2 number indicates how well the independent components are able to predict
or explain the dependent constructs. The higher the R2 , the greater the model’s predictive
power. Table 6 shows that the R2 of organizational resilience is 0.736. This indicates that
dynamic AIS capability, AIS-related human competency, complementary BI system, and
fixable AIS accounted for 73.6% of the variance of the organizational resilience. Further-
more, the effect size or f-square can be used to determine the strength of an independent
construct’s effect on the dependent construct in a model (f2 ): f2 = 0.02, which is regarded as
a little influence; f2 = 0.15, which is categorized as a medium effect; and f2 = 0.35, which
is classified as a significant effect, according to Hair Jr. et al. [116]. The results indicate
that dynamic AIS capability has a large influence on organizational resilience, with a size
effect of 1.037. Meanwhile, AIS-related human competency, complementary BI system,
and fixable AIS have a small effect on the organizational resilience, with values of 0.081,
0.138, and 0.098, respectively. In addition, the Q2 value should be considered as an extra
metric for determining the magnitude of R2 values. For some reflecting endogenous latent
variables, Q2 values greater than zero suggest the route model’s predictive importance
for this construct [103,116]. For each endogenous construct, a blindfolding process was
employed to produce cross-validated redundancy measures. The Q2 predictive value of
organizational resilience is 0.376, exceeding zero and thus indicating that the model has
predictive relevance for the organizational resilience construct.

Table 6. Structural model: Path coefficients and t-statistics analysis.

Path
H Path t-Value p-Value f2 R2 Q2
Coefficient
Dynamic AIS Capability ->
H1 0.632 8.094 0.000 1.037
Organizational Resilience
AIS-related Human Competency -> 0.736 0.376
H1.1 0.219 3.470 0.000 0.081
Organizational Resilience
Complementary BI System ->
H1.2 0.257 3.825 0.000 0.138
Organizational Resilience
Fixable AIS ->
H1.2 0.249 3.714 0.000 0.098
Organizational Resilience

The hypotheses were further confirmed by performing significance tests on path

coefficients. The precision of the PLS estimates was estimated using a bootstrapping
analysis. The results of path coefficients in Table 6 show that dynamic AIS capability, AIS-
related human competency, complementary BI system, and fixable AIS have a significant
influence on the organizational resilience.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 14 of 22

5.5. Mediation Analysis

In order to evaluate the mediation effect in the proposed model, based on the rec-
ommendation of Preacher and Hayes [118], bootstrap analysis method was employed
as a more recent and statistically robust approach [116]. For the indirect effect on the
relationship between dynamic AIS capability and organizational resilience for the me-
diator effect of BPC and CMC, a bootstrapping procedure with 5000 sub-samples was
performed. The mediation test results demonstrated that hypothesis H4 was supported:
(1) the indirect effect is significant (β = 0.186, t = 3.008, p < 0.001), and (2) neither of the
95% bootstrapped confidence intervals includes zero. Therefore, the findings concluded
that there is a mediation effect of BP capabilities between dynamic AIS capability and
organizational resilience.

6. Discussions and Conclusions

As regards our empirical results on the impact of dynamic AIS capability on orga-
nizational resilience, the business process is consistent with previous studies, but they
also offer new findings on the association between dynamic AIS and business process
capabilities to improve organizational resilience (such as the relationship between AIS-
human resources competency and BPC). Consistent with the RBT and DCV perspective, the
findings highlighted the critical role of dynamic AIS capability in improving organizational
resilience. The results strongly support the claim that an organization’s dynamic AIS
capabilities—both flexible AIS, complementary BI system, and AIS-related human resource
competency—can help the organization improve its resilience. This finding is in line with
previous research that has suggested that IT capabilities might help a business increase its
resilience or agility (see [94,119,120].
We identified capabilities that serve as a mediator between an organization’s dynamic
AIS capability and its business process capabilities. These capabilities include outside-in,
inside-out, and spanning capabilities. We discussed the impact of dynamic AIS capability
of each of these capabilities (i.e., business process capabilities) for enhancing organiza-
tional resilience. The findings of the study show how dynamic AIS capabilities can help
develop business process capabilities. This finding is consistent with the literature in the
realms of resources-based theory and dynamic capabilities as well as previous studies
(see [94,120–122]).
The findings of the mediating effect test indicate partial mediation of BPC on the
relationship between dynamic AIS capability and organizational resilience. This finding
strengthened the idea of a ranking of capabilities, which suggests that lower-level ca-
pabilities can help an organization in developing higher-order ones [123]. This finding
strengthened the idea of a ranking of capabilities, which suggests that lower-level capabili-
ties can help an organization in developing higher-order ones. This view is consistent with
previous studies, which have stated that the impacts of IT capabilities (i.e., dynamic AIS
capability), such as lower-order capabilities, on organizational resilience are mediated by
business processes capabilities, such as higher-order capabilities (see [124,125]).
This study is based on the notion that organizations can rely on dynamic capabilities
to remain competitive when facing complex and uncertain business environments to
remain competitive by being adaptive. The study also employs RBT, which proposes
that dynamic AIS capability is a “resource capability” with tremendous implications for
BPC and CMC as well as organizational resilience [45]. Our results support the notion
that IT resources alone will not have an influence on information or result in a positive
improvement in performance unless IT is integrated into the business processes’ roles [126].
Organizations with improved BPC can easily anticipate market demands, identify external
competitors, establish long-term relationships with external stakeholders, and respond
quickly to market changes. It also helps organizations sustain competitiveness and use
their valuable strengths to identify threats and exploit market opportunities.
Following Mikalef and Pateli [127], our study suggests that AIS is not only a resource
capacity but also a dynamic capability and a precursor to the business processes of an
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 15 of 22

organization and organizational resilience. As part of business processes, the challenge for
organizations is to determine not only how to acquire AIS infrastructure but also how to
consider external and internal environments when building dynamic AIS capability. In
addition, there is a need for a swift update of the resources that establish the dynamic
capability, and the organization of the resources must be in a way that responds rapidly to
threats and opportunities. The mediating role of BPC on the indirect relationship between
dynamic AIS capability and organizational resilience was also evident. Another indication
of the research findings is that the understanding of the mediating role of CMC is crucial
towards understanding the impact of dynamic AIS on organizations. AIS exercises its
influence on the organization through complementary relations with other assets and
capabilities of the organization [52]. Despite the impact an AIS system can have on an orga-
nization, the focus of many scholars has been on organizational financial performance, but
this study observed the positive role of dynamic AIS systems on organizational capabilities
and organizational resilience.
The outcome of this study suggests the need for a best-fit model of reality that can suit
the dynamic accounting environment. Contrary to previous studies that mainly base their
conceptuality of IT capabilities on RBT, the creation of dynamic IT-enabled capabilities is
more appropriate to describe how integrated IT in organizational business processes can
contribute to achieving and maintaining a competitive advantage.

6.1. Theoretical Implications

In general, the development of a model to understand the impact of dynamic AIS ca-
pability on organizational resilience is a significant theoretical contribution. This should be
a beneficial initial step in furthering our understanding of the resilience capability building
process and its performance consequences through the development of dynamic AIS capa-
bility based on the RBT and DCV theories. This work makes significant contributions to the
field of AIS in particular. More specifically, this work incorporates the RBT and DC theories
to give a theoretical foundation for assessing the impact of dynamic AIS capabilities on
organizations. Both theories have been discussed comprehensively in ISs management and
operations literature; however, they are yet to be detailed on dynamic AIS systems. This
study relied on both theories to develop a theoretical framework to evaluate the impact of
dynamic AIS capability on BPC and OR.
Second, this research directs attention toward building dynamic AIS capability by
the synergy between AIS and related competencies. Previous researchers have focused on
studying generic AIS alone without considering that IS remains a part of an organization’s
dynamic resources rather than standalone resources. Third, another implication of this
work is on the dynamic capability aspect of the RBV. This study articulates the role of IT
capabilities in organizational resilience and processes capabilities development (Fawcett
et al. 2011). This study contributes in two ways to the DCV literature; first, in line with
van de Wetering et al. (2017) [3] and Liu et al. (2013) [87], this study found AIS as both
a resource capability and a dynamic capability; it is also a prerequisite to organizational
resilience and business processes capabilities of an organization. Secondly, this study relied
on the DCV to posit that agility or resilience is a dynamic capability that is enabled by
numerous other capabilities [128].
Finally, the study bridges different studies on dynamic AIS capability, BPC, and
organizational resilience. First, it empirically tests their relationships in the resource-based
theory and dynamic capabilities context. Second, existing research has looked at the direct
and indirect consequences of dynamic capability on organization performance [129,130].
However, limited studies have simultaneously examined dynamic AIS capability and these
two types of effects. Hence, this study lends empirical support to the notion of OR being
directly or indirectly influenced by dynamic capability.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 16 of 22

6.2. Managerial Implications

The empirical results of this study appear to have important implications on individ-
uals (such as managers, accountants) and organizations. First, the findings in this study
suggest that organizations can benefit from building a dynamic AIS environment in the
following ways. Accounting is indeed considered a support function; however, it may be
influenced by a changing business environment. Organizations need to exploit modern IT
tools, such as e-Service and web service, mobile devices, cloud computing, environmental
scanning, BI, enterprise application integration, BP management, big data, and other tools,
to update their business processes and AIS, as these accounting processes require ongoing
evaluation. There is a need for a more committed and persistent approach to the control
and management of AIS. Again, the concept of complementary assets investment (such as
business processes models, decision-making process, and training) is more pertinent in an
AIS environment, and AIS staff resources are of special significance in this regard. Hence, or-
ganizations must be more liberal during the recruitment and training of AIS staff to ensure
they can contribute to the maintenance of the AIS’s fit to the organization’s demands.
Second, although dynamic AIS capability (flexible AIS, complementary BI, and AIS-
related human resource competency) is a fundamental element of final organization perfor-
mance, it is expected that organizations should improve their BPs for a prolonged period;
otherwise, there may be no improvement in organizational performance regardless of the
level of capital investments [131].
Third, managers also need to devise how to exploit various types of dynamic AIS
capabilities in an efficient and effective manner to foster OR. Our results showed significant
positive effects of complementary BI system and human IT capability on OR, whereas
flexible AIS is low in the presence of high organizational capability to integrate IT, busi-
ness processes, and strategy [132]. These findings can help managers integrate dynamic
AISs into their business routines to improve operational capabilities and organizational re-
silience as well as decipher how to manage a hierarchy of capabilities to achieve excellence
in operations.
Fourth, the confirmation that dynamic AIS and business process skills are complimen-
tary in establishing organizational resilience should serve as a reminder to managers that
they need to improve their AIS infrastructure’s integrative capabilities. Fifth, the results of
the study provide managers and policymakers with a practical awareness of the fact that
the most crucial resources within an organization for building dynamic AIS are flexible,
and the combination of AIS and AIS-related competencies of personnel as well as the use
of AIS and BI systems allows a business to become more robust.
Finally, managers in emerging economies such as Malaysia are urged to deploy IT-
enabled resources by investigating the context of IT use. In order to survive in today’s
dynamic business environment, companies must spend in improving their IT capabili-
ties. Most large companies put a great deal of money into capability development ini-
tiatives and make good use of IT resources in their business processes. As a result, this
research has practical implications for managers in underdeveloped nations who want to
improve their operational capabilities and attain OR by incorporating IT resources into
their daily operations.

6.3. Limitations and Avenues for Future Research

First, the results of this study are in some ways based on cross-sectional data. Since
IT-enabled OR development is a gradual process, there is no historical information on
the impact of the independent variables on the dependent variable over time. With this
cross-sectional design approach, the results can be easily analyzed with care, as there
are no chances of causality being inferred from cross-sectional data [133]. This cross-
sectional study can be used as a foundation for future longitudinal studies to replicate and
compare the methods used in this work in different situations (e.g., developed countries).
A longitudinal study can be employed to address the study’s cross-sectional nature by
determining changes before and after the adoption of dynamic AIS systems.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 17 of 22

Second, although each component of dynamic AIS capability effectively enhances

OR, we measured the dynamic AIS capability using an indirect approach; this aimed to
identify the presence of dynamic AIS capability and its relationship with BPC and CMC
in order to highlight the significance of this construct. Meanwhile, only three critical
dynamic AIS capabilities, namely BI system, flexible AIS, and AIS-related human resource
competence, were discussed, as the other dimensions in the broad spectrum of dynamic AIS
capability were not discussed. A direct measure of dynamic AIS capabilities will provide
opportunities for future research. Meanwhile, future research can also investigate other IT
or organizational capabilities that can influence OR.
Finally, while we know much about how organizations cope with unexpected events,
we know less about the resilience stages and how dynamic AIS as a source of knowledge
may impact them. Therefore, management scholars should focus more on other research
fields and incorporate the existing ideas and findings in their studies. Studies on the
resilience capabilities in organization and management studies are still lacking [40]. The
essential role of organizational knowledge (such as dynamic AISs), structure, and culture in
organizational capability development towards dealing with unexpected and threatening
situations is yet to be acknowledged. To close the OR research gap, future studies can focus
on the less-explored aspects of the resilience process, such as clarifying the essential role of
organizational knowledge, culture, and structure in organizational capability development.
Future studies may also investigate the level of preparation of organizations for unexpected
events, how they accept problems, and how they learn from such problems using DAIS.

Author Contributions: Formal analysis, M.A.A.-S.; Supervision, R.A. and K.A.A.; Writing—original
draft, A.S.A.-M.; Writing—review & editing, M.A.A.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, grant number EP-2018-001.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: Authors are grateful for financial support from the Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia (UKM) for supporting this research and providing research facilities.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Parker, H.; Ameen, K. The role of resilience capabilities in shaping how firms respond to disruptions. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 88, 535–541.
[CrossRef]
2. Ballesteros, L.; Wry, T.; Useem, M. Halos or Horns. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Halos-or-Horns-
Reputation-and-the-Contingent-to-Ballesteros/26afbf11b0414abc460841bce11f4552e3ee17d2 (accessed on 23 July 2020).
3. Mikalef, P.; Pateli, A.; van de Wetering, R. IT architecture flexibility and IT governance decentralisation as drivers of IT-enabled
dynamic capabilities and competitive performance: The moderating effect of the external environment. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2021, 30,
512–540. [CrossRef]
4. Quansah, E.; Hartz, D.E.; Salipante, P. Adaptive practices in SMEs: Leveraging dynamic capabilities for strategic adaptation. J.
Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2022; ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
5. Dias, Á.L.; Manuel, E.C.; Dutschke, G.; Pereira, R.; Pereira, L. Economic crisis effects on SME dynamic capabilities. Int. J. Learn.
Change 2021, 13, 63–80. [CrossRef]
6. Bieńkowska, A.; Tworek, K. The moderating role of IT in process of shaping organizational performance by dynamic capabilities
of controlling. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 889. [CrossRef]
7. Hernández-Linares, R.; Kellermanns, F.W.; López-Fernández, M.C. Dynamic capabilities and SME performance: The moderating
effect of market orientation. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2021, 59, 162–195. [CrossRef]
8. Chen, Y.; Lin, Z. Business intelligence capabilities and firm performance: A study in China. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 57, 102232.
[CrossRef]
9. Prasad, A.; Green, P. Organizational competencies and dynamic accounting information system capability: Impact on AIS
processes and firm performance. J. Inf. Syst. 2015, 29, 123–149. [CrossRef]
10. de Gooyert, V. Long term investments in critical infrastructure under environmental turbulence; Dilemmas of infrastructure
responsiveness. Sustain. Futures 2020, 2, 100028. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 18 of 22

11. Gu, J.-W.; Jung, H.-W. The effects of IS resources, capabilities, and qualities on organizational performance: An integrated
approach. Inf. Manag. 2013, 50, 87–97. [CrossRef]
12. Zwyalif, I.M. Success of Accounting Information Systems and Their Impact on the Stages of Crises Management. Dirasat Adm.
Sci. 2015, 42, 248–266.
13. Akpan, E.E.; Johnny, E.; Sylva, W. Dynamic capabilities and organizational resilience of manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Vis. J.
Bus. Perspect. 2021, 26, 48–64. [CrossRef]
14. Khalil, S.; Belitski, M. Dynamic capabilities for firm performance under the information technology governance framework. Eur.
Bus. Rev. 2020, 32, 129–157. [CrossRef]
15. Barbera, C.; Guarini, E.; Steccolini, I. How do governments cope with austerity? The roles of accounting in shaping governmental
financial resilience. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2020, 33, 529–558. [CrossRef]
16. Al-Matari, A.S.; Aziz, K.A.; Amiruddin, R. Conceptualizing a Framework for Understanding the Impact of Dynamic Accounting
Information Systems on the Business Processes Capabilities. In Recent Advances in Technology Acceptance Models and Theories;
Al-Emran, M., Shaalan, K., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 107–118.
17. Al-Delawi, A.S.; Ramo, W.M. The impact of accounting information system on performance management. Pol. J. Manag. Stud.
2020, 21, 36–48. [CrossRef]
18. Aydiner, A.S.; Tatoglu, E.; Bayraktar, E.; Zaim, S. Information system capabilities and firm performance: Opening the black box
through decision-making performance and business-process performance. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 47, 168–182. [CrossRef]
19. Ahmadi, J.; Letter, T. The Impact Of IT Capability On Company Performance: The Mediating Role Of Business Process
Management Capability And Supply Chain Integration Capability. J. Soc. Manag. Tour. Lett. 2021, 2021, 1–16.
20. Day, G.S. The capabilities of market-driven organizations. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 37–52. [CrossRef]
21. Wu, L.; Chen, J.-L. Knowledge management driven firm performance: The roles of business process capabilities and organizational
learning. J. Knowl. Manag. 2014, 18, 1141–1164. [CrossRef]
22. Dospinescu, O.; Dospinescu, N. Workaholism in IT: An Analysis of the Influence Factors. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 96. [CrossRef]
23. Romney, M.B.; Steinbart, P.J. Accounting Information Systems; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2015.
24. Devaraj, S.; Kohli, R. Performance impacts of information technology: Is actual usage the missing link? Manag. Sci. 2003, 49,
273–289. [CrossRef]
25. Al-Emran, M.; Al-Maroof, R.; Al-Sharafi, M.A.; Arpaci, I. What impacts learning with wearables? An integrated theoretical model.
Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 1–21. [CrossRef]
26. Herzallah, F.A.; Al-Sharafi, M.A.; Alajmi, Q.; Mukhtar, M.; Arshah, R.A.; Eleyan, D. Conceptualizing a Model for the Effect of
Information Culture on Electronic Commerce Adoption. In Recent Trends in Data Science and Soft Computing; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2019; pp. 861–870.
27. Yoshikuni, A.C.; Galvão, F.R.; Albertin, A.L. Knowledge strategy planning and information system strategies enable dynamic
capabilities innovation capabilities impacting firm performance. VINE J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. Syst. 2021; ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
28. Kareem, H.M.; Dauwed, M.; Meri, A.; Jarrar, M.t.; Al-Bsheish, M.; Aldujaili, A.A. The Role of Accounting Information System and
Knowledge Management to Enhancing Organizational Performance in Iraqi SMEs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12706. [CrossRef]
29. Al-Sharafi, M.A.; Arshah, R.A.; Abu-Shanab, E.A.; Alajmi, Q. The Effect of Sustained Use of Cloud-Based Business Services
on Organizations’ Performance: Evidence from SMEs in Malaysia. In Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on
Information Management (ICIM), Cambridge, UK, 24–27 March 2019; pp. 285–291.
30. Qasem, Y.A.M.; Abdullah, R.; Yah, Y.; Atan, R.; Al-Sharafi, M.A.; Al-Emran, M. Towards the Development of a Comprehensive
Theoretical Model for Examining the Cloud Computing Adoption at the Organizational Level. In Recent Advances in Intelligent
Systems and Smart Applications; Al-Emran, M., Shaalan, K., Hassanien, A.E., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham,
Switzerland, 2021; Chapter 4; pp. 63–74.
31. Qiu, J. Analysis of Human Interactive Accounting Management Information Systems Based on Artificial Intelligence. J. Glob. Inf.
Manag. (JGIM) 2022, 30, 1–13. [CrossRef]
32. Yiu, L.D.; Yeung, A.C.; Cheng, T.E. The impact of business intelligence systems on profitability and risks of firms. Int. J. Prod. Res.
2021, 59, 3951–3974. [CrossRef]
33. Wilden, R.; Gudergan, S.; Akaka, M.; Averdung, A.; Teichert, T. The role of cocreation and dynamic capabilities in service
provision and performance: A configurational study. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2019, 78, 43–57. [CrossRef]
34. Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 509–533. [CrossRef]
35. Teece, D.; Leih, S. Uncertainty, innovation, and dynamic capabilities: An introduction. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2016, 58, 5–12. [CrossRef]
36. Jiang, Y.; Ritchie, B.W.; Verreynne, M.L. Building tourism organizational resilience to crises and disasters: A dynamic capabilities
view. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2019, 21, 882–900. [CrossRef]
37. Nava, L. Rise from ashes: A dynamic framework of organizational learning and resilience in disaster response. Bus. Soc.Rev. 2022,
127, 299–318. [CrossRef]
38. Elbashir, M.Z.; Collier, P.A.; Sutton, S.G. Business intelligence systems use to leverage enterprise-wide accounting information in
shared data environments. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Accounting Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland,
9–11 June 2011; pp. 1–53.
39. Bharadwaj, A.S. A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical
investigation. MIS Q. 2000, 24, 169–196. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 19 of 22

40. Duchek, S. Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Bus. Res. 2020, 13, 215–246. [CrossRef]
41. Connor, M.O.; Conboy, K.; Dennehy, D. COVID-19 affected remote workers: A temporal analysis of information system
development during the pandemic. J. Decis. Syst. 2021, 31, 1–27. [CrossRef]
42. Kpurugbara, N.; Akpos, Y.E.; Nwiduuduu, V.G.; Tams-Wariboko, I. Impact of accounting information system on organizational
effectiveness: A study of selected small and medium scale enterprises in Woji, Portharcourt. Int. J. Res. Bus. Manag. Account. 2016,
2, 62–72.
43. Abu Amuna, Y.M.; Al Shobaki, M.J.; Abu-Naser, S.S. The role of knowledge-based computerized management information
systems in the administrative decision-making process. J. Inf. Technol. Electr. Eng. 2017, 6, 1–9.
44. Chae, B.K.; Yang, C.; Olson, D.; Sheu, C. The impact of advanced analytics and data accuracy on operational performance: A
contingent resource based theory (RBT) perspective. Decis. Support Syst. 2014, 59, 119–126. [CrossRef]
45. Yu, W.; Chavez, R.; Jacobs, M.A.; Feng, M. Data-driven supply chain capabilities and performance: A resource-based view. Transp.
Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 2018, 114, 371–385. [CrossRef]
46. Danesh, M.H.; Yu, E. Modeling enterprise capabilities with i*: Reasoning on alternatives. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece, 16–20 June 2014; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany; pp. 112–123.
47. Peng, M.W.; Heath, P.S. The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organizations, and strategic
choice. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996, 21, 492–528. [CrossRef]
48. Popovič, A.; Hackney, R.; Tassabehji, R.; Castelli, M. The impact of big data analytics on firms’ high value business performance.
Inf. Syst. Front. 2018, 20, 209–222. [CrossRef]
49. Qadir, J.; Ali, A.; ur Rasool, R.; Zwitter, A.; Sathiaseelan, A.; Crowcroft, J. Crisis analytics: Big data-driven crisis response. J. Int.
Humanit. Action 2016, 1, 1–21. [CrossRef]
50. Obeidat, B.Y.; Al-Suradi, M.M.; Masa’deh, R.; Tarhini, A. The impact of knowledge management on innovation: An empirical
study on Jordanian consultancy firms. Manag. Res.Rev. 2016, 39, 1214–1238. [CrossRef]
51. Fahy, J.; Hooley, G. Sustainable competitive advantage in electronic business: Towards a contingency perspective on the
resource-based view. J. Strateg. Mark. 2002, 10, 241–253. [CrossRef]
52. Wade, M.; Hulland, J. The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future
research. MIS Q. 2004, 28, 107–142. [CrossRef]
53. Banker, R.D.; Bardhan, I.R.; Chang, H.; Lin, S. Plant information systems, manufacturing capabilities, and plant performance.
MIS Q. 2006, 30, 315–337. [CrossRef]
54. Dickinson, J.B. The Role of Business Process Capabilities and Market-Based Assets in Creating Customer Value and Superior
Performance. Ph.D. Thesis, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2009.
55. Eisenhardt, K.M.; Martin, J.A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 1105–1121. [CrossRef]
56. Weill, P.; Subramani, M.; Broadbent, M. Building IT infrastructure for strategic agility. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2002, 44, 57.
57. Peng, J.; Quan, J.; Zhang, G.; Dubinsky, A.J. Mediation effect of business process and supply chain management capabilities on
the impact of IT on firm performance: Evidence from Chinese firms. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 89–96. [CrossRef]
58. Rai, A.; Patnayakuni, R.; Seth, N. Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities. MIS Q.
2006, 30, 225–246. [CrossRef]
59. Liang, T.-P.; You, J.-J.; Liu, C.-C. A resource-based perspective on information technology and firm performance: A meta analysis.
Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2010, 110, 1138–1158. [CrossRef]
60. Karimi, J.; Somers, T.M.; Bhattacherjee, A. The role of information systems resources in ERP capability building and business
process outcomes. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2007, 24, 221–260. [CrossRef]
61. Powell, T.C.; Dent-Micallef, A. Information technology as competitive advantage: The role of human, business, and technology
resources. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 375–405. [CrossRef]
62. Sun, Z.; Strang, K.; Firmin, S. Business analytics-based enterprise information systems. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2017, 57, 169–178.
[CrossRef]
63. Ravichandran, T.; Lertwongsatien, C.; Lertwongsatien, C. Effect of information systems resources and capabilities on firm
performance: A resource-based perspective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2005, 21, 237–276. [CrossRef]
64. Holbeche, L.S. The Agile Organization: How to Build an Innovative, Sustainable and Resilient Business, 1st ed.; Kogan Page Publishers:
London, UK, 2015.
65. Tengblad, S.; Oudhuis, M. The Resilience Framework; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018.
66. Oh, L.-B.; Teo, H.-H. The impacts of information technology and managerial proactiveness in building net-enabled organizational
resilience. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Working Conference on the Transfer and Diffusion of Information Technology
for Organizational Resilience, Galway, Ireland, 7–10 June 2006; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; pp. 33–50.
67. Velu, S.R.; Al Mamun, A.; Kanesan, T.; Hayat, N.; Gopinathan, S. Effect of Information System Artifacts on Organizational
Resilience: A Study among Malaysian SMEs. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3177. [CrossRef]
68. Mithas, S.; Ramasubbu, N.; Sambamurthy, V. How information management capability influences firm performance. MIS Q.
2011, 35, 237–256. [CrossRef]
69. Rai, A.; Tang, X. Leveraging IT capabilities and competitive process capabilities for the management of interorganizational
relationship portfolios. Inf. Syst. Res. 2010, 21, 516–542. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 20 of 22

70. IşıK, Ö.; Jones, M.C.; Sidorova, A. Business intelligence success: The roles of BI capabilities and decision environments. Inf.
Manag. 2013, 50, 13–23. [CrossRef]
71. Kanellou, A.; Spathis, C. Accounting benefits and satisfaction in an ERP environment. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 2013, 14, 209–234.
[CrossRef]
72. Chen, X.; Siau, K. Impact of business intelligence and IT infrastructure flexibility on competitive performance: An organizational
agility perspective. In Proceedings of the Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai, China, 4–7
December 2011; pp. 1–11.
73. Ross, J.W.; Beath, C.M.; Goodhue, D.L. Develop long-term competitiveness through IT assets. Sloan Manag. Rev. 1996, 38, 31–42.
74. Elbashir, M.Z.; Collier, P.A.; Davern, M.J. Measuring the effects of business intelligence systems: The relationship between
business process and organizational performance. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 2008, 9, 135–153. [CrossRef]
75. Ashrafi, A.; Ravasan, A.Z.; Trkman, P.; Afshari, S. The role of business analytics capabilities in bolstering firms’ agility and
performance. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 47, 1–15. [CrossRef]
76. Lönnqvist, A.; Pirttimäki, V. The measurement of business intelligence. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2006, 23, 32–40. [CrossRef]
77. Maharjan, A. Business Intelligence in Strategic Management: Study of Automation Modifying the Strategy of Business. Available
online: https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/267979 (accessed on 23 April 2020).
78. Mishra, D.; Luo, Z.; Hazen, B.T. The Role of Informational and Human Resource Capabilities for Enabling Diffusion of Big Data
and Predictive Analytics and Ensuing Performance. In Innovation and Supply Chain Management. Contributions to Management
Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 283–302.
79. Ulrich, D.; Dulebohn, J.H. Are we there yet? What’s next for HR? Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2015, 25, 188–204. [CrossRef]
80. e Cunha, M.P.; Gomes, E.; Mellahi, K.; Miner, A.S.; Rego, A. Strategic agility through improvisational capabilities: Implications
for a paradox-sensitive HRM. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2020, 30, 100695. [CrossRef]
81. Chatrakul Na Ayudhya, U.; Prouska, R.; Beauregard, T.A. The impact of global economic crisis and austerity on quality of
working life and work-life balance: A capabilities perspective. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2019, 16, 847–862. [CrossRef]
82. Roepke, R.; Agarwal, R.; Ferratt, T.W. Aligning the IT human resource with business vision: The leadership initiative at 3M. MIS
Q. 2000, 24, 327–353. [CrossRef]
83. Ravichandran, T. Exploring the relationships between IT competence, innovation capacity and organizational agility. J. Strateg.
Inf. Syst. 2018, 27, 22–42. [CrossRef]
84. Barney, J. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [CrossRef]
85. Hesterly, B. Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2012.
86. Miller, D.; Shamsie, J. The Resource-Based View of the Firm in Two Environments: The Hollywood Film Studios From 1936 to
1965. Acad. Manag.J. 1996, 39, 519–543.
87. Liu, H.; Ke, W.; Wei, K.K.; Hua, Z. The impact of IT capabilities on firm performance: The mediating roles of absorptive capacity
and supply chain agility. Decis. Support Syst. 2013, 54, 1452–1462. [CrossRef]
88. Amit, R.; Shoemaker, P. Specialized assets and organizational rent. Strateg. Manag. J. 1993, 14, 33–47. [CrossRef]
89. Aringhieri, R.; Carello, G.; Morale, D. Supporting decision making to improve the performance of an Italian Emergency Medical
Service. Ann. Oper. Res. 2016, 236, 131–148. [CrossRef]
90. Luo, J.; Fan, M.; Zhang, H. Information technology and organizational capabilities: A longitudinal study of the apparel industry.
Decis. Support Syst. 2012, 53, 186–194. [CrossRef]
91. Rahimi, F.; Møller, C.; Hvam, L. Business process management and IT management: The missing integration. Int. J. Inf. Manag.
2016, 36, 142–154. [CrossRef]
92. Mooney, J.G.; Gurbaxani, V.; Kraemer, K.L. A process oriented framework for assessing the business value of information
technology. ACM SIGMIS Database Database Adv. Inf. Syst. 1996, 27, 68–81. [CrossRef]
93. Jaakkola, M.; Frösén, J.; Tikkanen, H.; Aspara, J.; Vassinen, A.; Parvinen, P. Is more capability always beneficial for firm
performance? Market orientation, core business process capabilities and business environment. J. Mark. Manag. 2016, 32,
1359–1385. [CrossRef]
94. Irfan, M.; Wang, M.; Akhtar, N. Impact of IT capabilities on supply chain capabilities and organizational agility: A dynamic
capability view. Oper. Manag. Res. 2019, 12, 113–128. [CrossRef]
95. Segars, A.; Grover, V. Strategic group analysis: A methodological approach for exploring the industry level impact of information
technology. Omega 1994, 22, 13–34. [CrossRef]
96. Marchalina, L.; Ahmad, H. The Effect of Internal Communication on Employees’ Commitment to Change in Malaysian Large
Companies. Bus. Manag. Strategy 2017, 8, 1–17. [CrossRef]
97. Raymond, L.; Magnenat-Thalmann, N. Information Systems in Small Business: Are They Used in Managerial Decisions? Am. J.
Small Bus. 1982, 6, 20–26. [CrossRef]
98. Sedera, D.; Lokuge, S. The role of enterprise systems in innovation in the contemporary organization. In The Routledge Companion
to Management Information Systems, 1st ed.; Routledge Companions in Business, Management and Accounting; Galliers, R.D.,
Stein, M.-K., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 374–391. [CrossRef]
99. Uwizeyemungu, S.; Raymond, L. Impact of an ERP system’s capabilities upon the realisation of its business value: A resource-
based perspective. Inf. Technol. Manag. Account. Rev. 2012, 13, 69–90. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 21 of 22

100. Torres, R.; Sidorova, A.; Jones, M.C. Enabling firm performance through business intelligence and analytics: A dynamic
capabilities perspective. Inf. Manag. 2018, 55, 822–839. [CrossRef]
101. Terry, A.B.; Douglas, E.T. Measuring the flexibility of information technology infrastructure: Exploratory analysis of a construct. J.
Manag. Inf. Syst. 2000, 17, 167–208.
102. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of
the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [CrossRef]
103. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use.
Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107–123. [CrossRef]
104. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Matthews, L.M.; Ringle, C.M.J. Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS:
Part I–method. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2016, 28, 63–76. [CrossRef]
105. Arpaci, I.; Al-Emran, M.; Al-Sharafi, M.A.; Shaalan, K. A Novel Approach for Predicting the Adoption of Smartwatches Using
Machine Learning Algorithms. In Recent Advances in Intelligent Systems and Smart Applications; Al-Emran, M., Shaalan, K.,
Hassanien, A.E., Eds.; Studies in Systems, Decision and Control; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021;
Chapter 10; pp. 185–195.
106. Al-Sharafi, M.A.; Al-Qaysi, N.; Iahad, N.A.; Al-Emran, M. Evaluating the sustainable use of mobile payment contactless
technologies within and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic using a hybrid SEM-ANN approach. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2021. [CrossRef]
107. Alshaafee, A.A.; Iahad, N.A.; Al-Sharafi, M.A. Benefits or Risks: What Influences Novice Drivers Regarding Adopting Smart
Cars? Sustainability 2021, 13, 11916. [CrossRef]
108. Al Sharafi, M.A.; Herzallah, F.A.; Alajmi, Q.; Mukhtar, M.; Arshah, R.A.; Eleyan, D. Information culture effect on e-commerce
adoption in small and medium enterprises: A structural equation modelling approach. Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst. 2020, 35, 415–438.
[CrossRef]
109. Qasem, Y.A.M.; Asadi, S.; Abdullah, R.; Yah, Y.; Atan, R.; Al-Sharafi, M.A.; Yassin, A.A. A Multi-Analytical Approach to Predict
the Determinants of Cloud Computing Adoption in Higher Education Institutions. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4905. [CrossRef]
110. Al-Sharafi, M.A.; Mufadhal, M.E.; Arshah, R.A.; Sahabudin, N.A. Acceptance of online social networks as technology-based
education tools among higher institution students: Structural equation modeling approach. Sci. Iran. 2019, 26, 136–144.
111. Al-Emran, M.; Granić, A.; Al-Sharafi Mohammed, A.; Ameen, N.; Sarrab, M. Examining the roles of students’ beliefs and security
concerns for using smartwatches in higher education. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020, 34, 1229–1251. [CrossRef]
112. Ayyash, M.M.; Herzallah, F.A.T.; Al-Sharafi, M.A. Arab cultural dimensions model for e-government services adoption in public
sector organisations: An empirical examination. Electron. Gov. Int. J. 2022, 18, 9–44. [CrossRef]
113. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation
modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [CrossRef]
114. Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 1998, 295, 295–336.
115. Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Straub, D. A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. MIS Q. 2012, 36, iii-xiv. [CrossRef]
116. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd
ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016.
117. Kock, N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. e-Collab. (IJeC) 2015, 11, 1–10.
[CrossRef]
118. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator
models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [CrossRef]
119. Gao, P.; Zhang, J.; Gong, Y.; Li, H. Effects of technical IT capabilities on organizational agility. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2020, 120,
941–961. [CrossRef]
120. Bustinza, O.F.; Vendrell-Herrero, F.; Perez-Arostegui, M.N.; Parry, G. Technological capabilities, resilience capabilities and
organizational effectiveness. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 30, 1370–1392. [CrossRef]
121. Aydiner, A.S.; Tatoglu, E.; Bayraktar, E.; Zaim, S.; Delen, D. Business analytics and firm performance: The mediating role of
business process performance. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 96, 228–237. [CrossRef]
122. Ray, G.; Barney, J.B.; Muhanna, W.A. Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent
variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strateg. Manag. J. 2004, 25, 23–37. [CrossRef]
123. Grant, R.M. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organ.
Sci. 1996, 7, 375–387. [CrossRef]
124. Pavlou, P.A.; El Sawy, O.A. From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new
product development. Inf. Syst. Res. 2006, 17, 198–227. [CrossRef]
125. Wu, F.; Yeniyurt, S.; Kim, D.; Cavusgil, S.T. The impact of information technology on supply chain capabilities and firm
performance: A resource-based view. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2006, 35, 493–504. [CrossRef]
126. Chang, K.; Kettinger, W.J.; Zhang, C. Assimilation of enterprise systems: The mediating role of information integration of
information impact. ICIS Proc. 2009, 1–12.
127. Mikalef, P.; Pateli, A. Information technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their indirect effect on competitive performance:
Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 70, 1–16. [CrossRef]
128. Barreto, I. Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 256–280. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 4967 22 of 22

129. Sabahi, S.; Parast, M.M. Firm innovation and supply chain resilience: A dynamic capability perspective. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl.
2020, 23, 254–269. [CrossRef]
130. Ochie, C.; Nyuur, R.B.; Ludwig, G.; Cunningham, J.A. Dynamic capabilities and organizational ambidexterity: New strategies
from emerging market multinational enterprises in Nigeria. Int. Bus. Rev. 2022, 1–17. [CrossRef]
131. Hu, Y.-P.; Chang, I.-C.; Hsu, W.-Y. Mediating effects of business process for international trade industry on the relationship
between information capital and company performance. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2017, 37, 473–483. [CrossRef]
132. Lu, Y.; Ramamurthy, K. Understanding the link between information technology capability and organizational agility: An
empirical examination. MIS Q. 2011, 35, 931–954. [CrossRef]
133. Chen, X.; Siau, K. Business analytics/business intelligence and IT infrastructure: Impact on organizational agility. J. Organ. End
User Comput. 2020, 32, 138–161. [CrossRef]
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.