Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T12:55:14.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Barriers to dynamic capabilities in non-leading HEIs in the digital era

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2025

Wellington Aleixo da Silva
Affiliation:
FATEC-SP, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Vanessa Ratten
Affiliation:
La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Guilherme Luiz Cassel
Affiliation:
UNISINOS, Sao Leopoldo, Brazil
Giancarlo Medeiros Pereira*
Affiliation:
Paulista University, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Paulo Fossatti
Affiliation:
Unilasalle, Canoas, Brazil
Oduvaldo Vendrametto
Affiliation:
Paulista University, Sao Paulo, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: Giancarlo Medeiros Pereira; Email: giancarlo.pereira@docente.unip.br
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the barriers that hinder the non-leading Brazilian higher education institutions (HEIs) in repositioning within the digital landscape based on dynamic capabilities. In-depth semi-structured interviews with top managers at six non-leading HEIs show that the main barriers include uncertainty about the traditional HEI future in the digital scenario, lack of strategic tools to reposition the HEIs, lack of knowledge about the cost-benefit of an institution’s digitization, lack of knowledge on how to implement changes, and lack of information on if an HEI should (or not) meet all the new stakeholder needs. These barriers prevent HEIs from successfully adapting to the digital era. Methodologies and tools are required to guide strategic decisions, perform digitization’s cost-benefit analysis, and implement changes that meet stakeholders’ evolving demands. By overcoming these barriers, HEIs can effectively implement dynamic capabilities, transforming the challenges of the digital age into opportunities for growth and innovation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management.

Introduction

Non-leading Brazilian higher education institutions (HEIs) face significant challenges adapting to the growing digital landscape, particularly with the rise of distance learning (DL). The substantial increase in DL enrollments in Brazil (474% in the past decade) and the shift in total enrollments from 15% in 2013 to 49% in 2023 underscore this trend (INEP, 2022, 2024). This growth is accompanied by a 12% decrease in the number of professors in the private sector, indicating a shift toward digital learning options (INEP, 2022, 2024). While the financial significance of DL is evident, with the five largest private educational groups generating approximately USD 3.1 billion in annual net revenue in 2023 (Ânima – RI, 2023; Cogna RI, Reference Cogna2023; Cruzeiro do Sul – RI, 2023; Ser Educacional RI, 2023; Yduqs – RI, 2023), the economic difficulties faced by some significant DL providers highlight the challenges and opportunities of this evolving landscape (B3, 2023). The analysis of such information suggests that the digital era presents a considerable challenge and potential opportunities for growth and adaptation for traditional, non-leading Brazilian HEIs, mainly through the strategic adoption of DL.

The need for organizational change in response to digitalization is widely acknowledged, with warnings that failure to adapt could lead to significant negative consequences (BBC, 2015; Omniraza, 2023; WEF, 2020). However, not all change initiatives are successful, and the potential for negative impacts raises concerns about the future of some HEIs in the digital era, especially when considering the misalignment between the offerings of traditional institutions and the evolving demands of stakeholders. A study found that HEIs are challenged to improve their course design (Gupta & Yadav, Reference Gupta and Yadav2023). So, both in-person and remote education institutions face mounting pressure to improve their digital strategies and course design to meet these evolving demands. Even institutions specializing in distance education are not immune to the pressures of an increasingly competitive market, as new entrants, unconstrained by geographical limitations, intensify the rivalry.

To navigate these challenges, organizations increasingly focus on developing dynamic capabilities (DCs) that can enhance efficiency, drive innovation, and improve financial performance (Tian, Lo, & Zhai, Reference Tian, Lo and Zhai2021). Digital alignment, both strategically and operationally, has been shown to foster business model efficiency (Ciacci, Balzano, & Marzi, Reference Ciacci, Balzano and Marzi2024). DCs, part of a broader system encompassing resources and strategy, play a crucial role in determining a firm’s competitive advantage and facilitating innovation (Teece, Reference Teece2018; Zhou, Zhou, Feng, & Jiang, Reference Zhou, Zhou, Feng and Jiang2019). These capabilities can help firms create competitive advantages, and leveraging business information sources can further enhance them (George, Karna, & Sud, Reference George, Karna and Sud2022; Markovich, Raban, & Efrat, Reference Markovich, Raban and Efrat2022). However, a significant gap remains in understanding the obstacles hindering HEIs’ ability to adapt and leverage these capabilities for successful digital transformation.

This study aims to address a critical gap in the existing literature by investigating the barriers to strategic repositioning faced by non-leading Brazilian HEIs in the rapidly evolving digital landscape. While these institutions represent the vast majority of HEIs in Brazil, accounting for 87.7% of the 2,595 institutions, they generally lag behind their leading counterparts in both scientific and financial performance (INEP, 2022). The current situation for these non-leading HEIs is complex: they are confronted with intense competition from established DL providers, yet this evolving landscape may also present opportunities for strategic repositioning. To effectively navigate this complex terrain and capitalize on emerging opportunities, a deeper understanding of several key factors is needed. This includes exploring how to leverage the benefits of DCs when pursuing new opportunities (George et al., Reference George, Karna and Sud2022; Markovich et al., Reference Markovich, Raban and Efrat2022; Teece, Reference Teece2018), how to effectively meet the evolving demands of diverse stakeholders (Muñoz Miguel, Simón de Blas, Anguita Rodríguez, & García Sipols, Reference Muñoz Miguel, Simón de Blas, Anguita Rodríguez and García Sipols2023; Park & Kim, Reference Park and Kim2023; Ratten, Reference Ratten2017), and what obstacles hinder the implementation of necessary changes in content, pedagogical methods (Johnson, Reference Johnson2021; Ratten, Reference Ratten2023a), delivery formats, and assessment strategies (Tiberius, Hoffmeister, & Weyland, Reference Tiberius, Hoffmeister and Weyland2021). Therefore, this study seeks to answer the following research question: How should we use dynamic capabilities to reposition non-leading HEIs in the digital landscape?

By examining the literature and analyzing the experiences of HEIs, this research seeks to provide insights into how institutions can successfully navigate the digital era and ensure their long-term sustainability, providing a framework for overcoming the identified hurdles. The findings revealed barriers that may hinder the use of DCs in repositioning non-leading HEIs: (1) Uncertainty about the future; (2) Lack of strategic tools; (3) Lack of knowledge about costs; (4) Lack of knowledge about ‘how’ to implement changes; and (5) Lack of definition for meeting stakeholders.

The following section presents a literature review of the challenges experienced by top managers at HEIs. This review revealed the problems and trends in the area. The analysis of information extracted from the literature supported the definition of the research method (see specific section). The remaining sections present the study’s findings, discussion, and conclusion.

Literature review

This section begins with a review of DCs, laying the groundwork for a deeper exploration of their role in higher education. The analysis then delves into the complex interplay between institutional adaptation, evolving student needs, market demands, and the changing landscape of educational delivery, highlighting the importance of DCs for navigating this dynamic environment.

Dynamic capabilities

Researchers have operationalized DCs in various ways, leading to different approaches for understanding and measuring these organizational processes. While some studies have focused on broader conceptualizations, examining general features like reconfiguration, learning, and integration, others have adopted a more granular approach, investigating specific DCs such as those related to marketing, management, supply chains, and IT. This diversity in operationalization reflects the complexity of the DCs construct and its multifaceted nature. This evolution is presented below.

The DC offers a framework for understanding strategic change in volatile markets (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, Reference Teece, Pisano and Shuen1997). It seeks to explain how firms achieve and sustain a competitive advantage by identifying the drivers of long-term success (Wilden, Devinney, & Dowling, Reference Wilden, Devinney and Dowling2016). DCs have been defined both as abilities (Teece et al., Reference Teece, Pisano and Shuen1997) and as processes, best practices, or routines (Eisenhardt & Martin, Reference Eisenhardt and Martin2000). Teece et al. (Reference Teece, Pisano and Shuen1997) initially defined DCs as the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments. Following their work, some authors have considered DCs to be a capability, skill, or capacity (Winter, Reference Winter2003; Zahra, Sapienza, & Davidsson, Reference Zahra, Sapienza and Davidsson2006). Conversely, Eisenhardt & Martin (Reference Eisenhardt and Martin2000) link DCs to the firm’s processes that utilize resources; specifically, the processes to integrate, reconfigure, gain, and release resources to match and even create market change. In this view, DCs are seen as identifiable strategic routines, such as product development and strategic decision-making, through which firms achieve new resource configurations as markets emerge, collide, split, evolve, and disappear (Eisenhardt & Martin, Reference Eisenhardt and Martin2000).

DCs have often been operationalized as a set of distinct activity clusters to explain their workings. Barrales-Molina, Martínez-López, and Gázquez-Abad (Reference Barrales-Molina, Martínez-López and Gázquez-Abad2014) suggest these can be broadly categorized into generally accepted features of DC processes, such as reconfiguration, leveraging, learning, integration, coordination (Eisenhardt & Martin, Reference Eisenhardt and Martin2000; Teece et al., Reference Teece, Pisano and Shuen1997), environmental sensing and opportunity seizing (Teece et al., Reference Teece, Pisano and Shuen1997), and learning processes like experience accumulation, knowledge articulation, and knowledge codification (Zollo & Winter, Reference Zollo and Winter2002). A review of the literature reveals these components as some of the most common conceptualizations of DCs, leading to a quantitative trend of measuring DCs through their underlying processes (Barrales-Molina et al., Reference Barrales-Molina, Martínez-López and Gázquez-Abad2014; Eriksson, Reference Eriksson2014).

Some organizational processes and capabilities have been considered more specific, identifiable DCs, such as dynamic marketing capabilities (Peng & Lin, Reference Peng and Lin2017), dynamic managerial capabilities (Li & Liu, Reference Li and Liu2014), specific supply-chain capabilities (Lee & Rha, Reference Lee and Rha2016), and dynamic IT-enabled capabilities (Drnevich & Kriauciunas, Reference Drnevich and Kriauciunas2011). Eriksson (Reference Eriksson2014) argues that the former approach suggests DCs may be unique and therefore difficult to imitate (Teece et al., Reference Teece, Pisano and Shuen1997), while the latter implies commonalities among organizations, meaning only the resource and capability configurations DCs create can be unique (Eisenhardt & Martin, Reference Eisenhardt and Martin2000).

Some researchers have conducted studies combining universities and DCs. One study found that DCs enable public universities to adapt and thrive in rapidly changing business environments (Heaton, Teece, & Agronin, Reference Heaton, Teece and Agronin2023). Another study indicates that DCs in universities must precede value co-creation capabilities (Beier, Schmidt, & Froehlich, Reference Beier, Schmidt and Froehlich2023). In German higher education, DCs play a key role in advancing the third mission of institutions (Stolze & Sailer, Reference Stolze and Sailer2022).

The dropout issue

In the United Kingdom, some universities began to behave similarly to corporate businesses (Banwait & Hancock, Reference Banwait and Hancock2021). This stance aims to optimize the HEI financial results or mitigate the dropout. Several HEIs face problems related to student dropout (Wardley, Nadeau, & Bélanger, Reference Wardley, Nadeau and Bélanger2024). In Brazil, abandonment occurs in public and private institutions. Official data indicate that this dropout rate is 61% in private higher education and 50% in state higher education (INEP, 2021a, 2021b). In Australian electronic learning (EL), dropout rates may be related to students’ lack of engagement. This lack of engagement can be caused by technological hurdles, administrative negligence, piecemeal professional development initiatives, and policy ambiguities (Parida et al., Reference Parida, Dhakal, Dayaram, Mohammadi, Ayentimi, Amankwaa and D’Cruz2023).

Dropout may also be related to the deliveries of HEIs. These institutions suffer from gig workers’ rejection of traditional content. One study identified that advanced educational credentials are only of limited use to them. To meet their needs, gig workers gain the necessary qualifications, most notably through self-study, learning-by-doing, and trial-and-error processes (Herrmann, Zaal, Chappin, Schemmann, & Lühmann, Reference Herrmann, Zaal, Chappin, Schemmann and Lühmann2023). This misalignment seems a severe problem for HEIs since digital competence is positively associated with students’ professional adaptability (Zhou, Wang, Liu, Yang, & Jin, Reference Zhou, Wang, Liu, Yang and Jin2023). Industry-oriented capstone courses can improve students’ employability, especially general ability, behavior, and attitude (Chang, Shih, & Liao, Reference Chang, Shih and Liao2022). Well-designed courses could mitigate the dropout. However, some barriers make it challenging to adapt higher education curricula to employability, including weak connections between HEIs and workers, curricula with high theoretical content, and little attention to the soft skills used by the job market (Olo, Correia, & Rego, Reference Olo, Correia and Rego2022).

The repositioning alternative

Repositioning an HEI vis-à-vis its competitors can create a new future for the institution. The new position must consider the possible roles that an institution may have. One study classified the HEIs as Leaders and Challengers, Followers and Niches, and Cost Leaders (Kethüda, Reference Kethüda2023). Despite their differences, some institutions may compete for the same students. This competition may also involve other education service providers. In South Korea, the offer of remote courses faces problems related to the great competition between private educational services – for example, massive open online courses (MOOCs) or YouTube (Kang & Park, Reference Kang and Park2022).

In terms of building the thematic differences of an HEI in the digital world, not all HEIs that offer EL need to be seen as competitors. This assumption considers the gains in terms of creativity and complexity that Mexican and Spanish students experienced when participating in a remote program developed by institutions in both countries (Romero-Rodríguez, Ramirez-Montoya, Glasserman-Morales, & Ramos Navas-Parejo, Reference Romero-Rodríguez, Ramirez-Montoya, Glasserman-Morales and Ramos Navas-Parejo2023). To compete with traditional and new educational providers, institution managers should assess MOOC investments (e.g., develop their MOOC infrastructures or participate in existing MOOC platforms) and coordinate and integrate existing resources with developing new intrapreneurial capabilities (Guerrero, Heaton, & Urbano, Reference Guerrero, Heaton and Urbano2021).

Partnerships can reduce costs but also affect HEI’s image. Damage to the institutional image can be a problem since a good institutional image can mitigate problems between HEIs and companies or students (Collins, Şimşek, & Takır, Reference Collins, Şimşek and Takır2022; Manzoor, Ho, & Al Mahmud, Reference Manzoor, Ho and Al Mahmud2021; McNicholas & Marcella, Reference McNicholas and Marcella2022). On the other hand, good partnerships and a good institutional image can attract students from different regions. HEIs could use a good image to attract students. University website has been used to promote corporate image in different countries (Foroudi et al., Reference Foroudi, Nazarian, Ziyadin, Kitchen, Hafeez, Priporas and Pantano2020; Jain, Mogaji, Sharma, & Babbili, Reference Jain, Mogaji, Sharma and Babbili2022). The dissemination of an image needs to consider the demands of stakeholders: high school students, companies, and donors (Story, Reference Story2023). This understanding is essential, as some stakeholders may value an institution presenting ‘useful’ research results (Tucker, Waye, & Freeman, Reference Tucker, Waye and Freeman2019). Success in all these attempts can mitigate the problem of a lack of resources for EL verified in Pakistan (Qazi, Sharif, & Akhlaq, Reference Qazi, Sharif and Akhlaq2024).

The students’ demands

Entrepreneurial universities should consider societal perspectives on learning, education, and teaching about new business practices (Ratten, Reference Ratten2017). Innovative curricula must dialogue with the productive market and use active methodologies that encourage action, regardless of the student’s age. Institutions that do not reinvent themselves in this dialogue with society and the market may distance themselves from their students’ dreams (Fossatti et al., Reference Fossatti, Chiappetta Jabbour, Ratten, Pereira, Borchardt, Milan and Eberle2023). However, students at an institution differ from each other. So, a one-size-fits-all approach may benefit some students and inconvenience others (Salehudin & Alpert, Reference Salehudin and Alpert2022). Computer-supported collaborative learning seems to be a better fit for students who present a higher average age of the group, a higher level of university experience, and a high level of qualification to access the degree required by the university (Muñoz Miguel et al., Reference Muñoz Miguel, Simón de Blas, Anguita Rodríguez and García Sipols2023). The younger the farmers are, the more likely they are to use computer-based technology than older farmers, and the more acres a farmer owns, the more likely they are to use such resources (Ali, Murray, Momin, & Al-Anzi, Reference Ali, Murray, Momin and Al-Anzi2023). Three personality traits affect either perceived learning outcomes or students’ attitudes toward discussing their classmates’ work and being discussed by their peers: ‘proactive emphatic leader’, ‘speculative leader’, and ‘passive follower’ (Fandos-Herrera, Jiménez-Martínez, Orús, Pérez-Rueda, & Pina, Reference Fandos-Herrera, Jiménez-Martínez, Orús, Pérez-Rueda and Pina2023).

Different student profiles present different demands to the HEI. So, institutions should promote and create diverse learning modes that meet the needs of all students (Imran, Fatima, Elbayoumi Salem, & Allil, Reference Imran, Fatima, Elbayoumi Salem and Allil2023). Several studies investigated the students demands. Findings indicate that they demand reasonable educational service cost-effectiveness (Alcaide-Pulido, Gutiérrez-Villar, Carbonero-Ruz, & Alves, Reference Alcaide-Pulido, Gutiérrez-Villar, Carbonero-Ruz and Alves2022; Haverila, Haverila, McLaughlin, & Arora, Reference Haverila, Haverila, McLaughlin and Arora2021), employment opportunities or qualification for the work (Ashiru, Whitfield, & Warwick, Reference Ashiru, Whitfield and Warwick2022; Ishengoma & Vaaland, Reference Ishengoma and Vaaland2016; Sin, Tavares, & Amaral, Reference Sin, Tavares and Amaral2016), quality of education (Park & Kim, Reference Park and Kim2023), competent professors (Burga, Leblanc, & Rezania, Reference Burga, Leblanc and Rezania2017; Hernández-López, García-Almeida, Ballesteros-Rodríguez, & De Saá-Pérez, Reference Hernández-López, García-Almeida, Ballesteros-Rodríguez and De Saá-Pérez2016), and partnerships with companies (Le, Bui, Duong, & Chang, Reference Le, Bui, Duong and Chang2021). These demands may also vary among students of different courses (Nikitina, Licznerska, Ozoliņa-Ozola, & Lapina, Reference Nikitina, Licznerska, Ozoliņa-Ozola and Lapina2023) or among students with differing plans for life, for instance, entrepreneurship (Ibidunni, Mozie, & Ayeni, Reference Ibidunni, Mozie and Ayeni2020; Maheshwari, Reference Maheshwari2021), or employability (Jackson, Riebe, & Macau, Reference Jackson, Riebe and Macau2022; Ng, Chan, Wut, Lo, & Szeto, Reference Ng, Chan, Wut, Lo and Szeto2021). One study also identified a broad range of resources crucial for graduates, encompassing human, social, cultural, identity, and psychosocial dimensions and acquired through formal and informal experiences (Tomlinson, Reference Tomlinson2017).

The companies demands

Misalignments between business demand and HEI delivery can affect the institutional success. These misalignments may be related to location, the size of the employer (Edeigba, Reference Edeigba2022), or the skills provided by a HEI. The skills of a candidate demanded by the companies were classified into three levels: beginner, competent, and specialist (Doherty & Stephens, Reference Doherty and Stephens2021). In Hungary, HRM professionals demand the following competencies: communication, complex problem-solving, and digital skills (Bogdány, Cserháti, & Raffay-Danyi, Reference Bogdány, Cserháti and Raffay-Danyi2023). A survey of 211 Australian employers identified three key graduate profiles – Manager, People Person, and Business Analyst – reflecting current business needs and a balance of cognitive and affective competencies (Jackson & Chapman, Reference Jackson and Chapman2012). Employers seek new professionals with a blend of technical and general skills, hands-on experience, or business and programming knowledge to effectively solve problems within their specific company context (Hollister et al., Reference Hollister, Spears, Mardis, Lee, McClure and Liebman2017; McMurray, Dutton, McQuaid, & Richard, Reference McMurray, Dutton, McQuaid and Richard2016). Misalignments could be reduced if HEIs co-operate with companies to develop materials. In such cooperation, companies may have different roles: visitors, planners, and cooperators (Borglund, Prenkert, Frostenson, Helin, & Du Rietz, Reference Borglund, Prenkert, Frostenson, Helin and Du Rietz2019). However, companies may present different views of an educational entity’s proposal. Some HR professionals seem to value a candidate’s micro-credentials, while other recruiters question their practical transferability (Alasmari, Reference Alasmari2024).

Better alignment between companies and HEIs seems to require changes in contents and methods (Johnson, Reference Johnson2021; Ratten, Reference Ratten2023b), delivery formats, and evaluations (Tiberius et al., Reference Tiberius, Hoffmeister and Weyland2021). The transition to Industry 4.0 also appears to require valuing learning, understanding and leading innovation, experimentation at work, and company connections with education providers (Hearn, Williams, Rodrigues, & Laundon, Reference Hearn, Williams, Rodrigues and Laundon2023). However, the literature does not indicate how to break down the invisible walls that separate HEIs from companies or obtain approval from companies for curriculums (Fossatti et al., Reference Fossatti, Chiappetta Jabbour, Ratten, Pereira, Borchardt, Milan and Eberle2023).

The course redesign

HEI managers are challenged to enhance their course designs (Gupta & Yadav, Reference Gupta and Yadav2023). A good curriculum should allow students to apply their knowledge to real-world contexts (Johnson, Reference Johnson2021), prepare graduates to deal with unexpected scenarios (Ratten & Jones, Reference Ratten and Jones2021), favor the local application of knowledge (Petersen & Kruss, Reference Petersen and Kruss2021), or to improve business skills (Fitriani & Ajayi, Reference Fitriani and Ajayi2022). The development of the requalification courses demands attention to the specific demands of a given activity. For instance, the new knowledge required in the human resources area (van Beurden, Borghouts, van den Groenendaal, & Freese, Reference van Beurden, Borghouts, van den Groenendaal and Freese2024). A better understanding of the formats to meet demands can indicate how to use Education 4.0 in lifelong education for individuals (Mukul & Büyüközkan, Reference Mukul and Büyüközkan2023). This demand has yet to be explored by HEIs, so much so that important international organizations have warned educational institutions about the need to requalify people throughout their professional careers (Commission et al., 2019; UNESCO, 2022).

The digital scenario reveals new demands and opportunities. Performance expectation, satisfaction, social influence, facilitating conditions, and instructor competencies positively influence students’ continued intentions to use mobile learning (Alzaidi & Shehawy, Reference Alzaidi and Shehawy2022). So, students may be interested in virtual exchange to improve their understanding of the complexity of development policy in the real world (Sierra, Yassim, & Suárez-Collado, Reference Sierra, Yassim and Suárez-Collado2022), in online entrepreneurial education to improve their entrepreneurial mindset (Munawar, Yousaf, Ahmed, & Rehman, Reference Munawar, Yousaf, Ahmed and Rehman2023), or in online CV writing courses for LinkedIn (DeArmond, Rau, Buelow-Fischer, Desai, & Miller, Reference DeArmond, Rau, Buelow-Fischer, Desai and Miller2023).

However, the current HEIs offers seem to not meet such demands. A study analyzed the ranking of the best MBAs for entrepreneurship in the 2018 Financial Times. The results revealed a slight focus on the topic ‘entrepreneurship’ in the programs of these courses (Tiberius, Weyland, & Mahto, Reference Tiberius, Weyland and Mahto2023). Another gap appears to be student assessment (Ng, Ching, & Law, Reference Ng, Ching and Law2023). For example: how could we consider advances in artificial intelligence (Ali et al., Reference Ali, Murray, Momin and Al-Anzi2023) and generative AI (Dwivedi et al., Reference Dwivedi, Kshetri, Hughes, Slade, Jeyaraj, Kar and Wright2023; Lim, Gunasekara, Pallant, Pallant, & Pechenkina, Reference Lim, Gunasekara, Pallant, Pallant and Pechenkina2023)? Filling this gap could be based on dispersed assessment. This type of assessment encompasses different credit-generating tasks. These tasks are distributed throughout the teaching period to limit the additional burden on students and markers (Thompson, Yoon, & Booth, Reference Thompson, Yoon and Booth2023). So, the HEI offers also need to consider students’ perceptions of the workload that courses generate. In the Netherlands, students notice an increased workload in online classes (Banihashem, Noroozi, den Brok, Biemans, & Kerman, Reference Banihashem, Noroozi, den Brok, Biemans and Kerman2023).

The digital resources

Digital tools positively influence the learning process in engineering education (Ruiz de la Torre Acha, Rio Belver, Fernandez Aguirrebeña, & Merlo, Reference Ruiz de la Torre Acha, Rio Belver, Fernandez Aguirrebeña and Merlo2024). Therefore, universities must provide teachers with adequate resources (Ng et al., Reference Ng, Ching and Law2023) consider the personal skills necessary to use these resources (Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (European Commission), 2019). For instance, the online courses must feature discussion forums, monitor student well-being and progress, and provide opportunities for face-to-face interactions (Efthymiou & Zarifis, Reference Efthymiou and Zarifis2021). These requirements demand specific resources and capabilities. Critical resources/capabilities for digital learning include technological tools and collaboration with other universities/companies. However, some resources may be expensive. So, course managers should assess MOOC investments – for example, develop their MOOC infrastructures or buy licenses in existing MOOC platforms (Guerrero et al., Reference Guerrero, Heaton and Urbano2021).

Beyond that, HEI managers must consider that many students attend classes using cell phones (Ironsi & Bensen Bostancı, Reference Ironsi and Bensen Bostancı2023; Sánchez-Rivas, Ramos Núñez, Ramos Navas-Parejo, & De La Cruz-Campos, Reference Sánchez-Rivas, Ramos Núñez, Ramos Navas-Parejo and De La Cruz-Campos2023; Yesildag & Bostan, Reference Yesildag and Bostan2023). Understanding how to satisfy these students can help to reduce the dropout. One study identified that task-technology fit, perceived ease of use, and perceived enjoyment positively affect mobile usage attitudes and intentions to adopt mobile learning in Malaysia and Saudi Arabia (Abdelwahed & Soomro, Reference Abdelwahed and Soomro2023). Due to the high diversity among the countries, some authors argue that future research could focus on analyzing the effects of blended learning in diverse nations and addressing issues such as access to technology and digital literacy (Imran et al., Reference Imran, Fatima, Elbayoumi Salem and Allil2023).

Game is a type of digital tool. Its use improves engagement (Lyons, Fox, & Stephens, Reference Lyons, Fox and Stephens2023; Pitic & Irimiaș, Reference Pitic and Irimiaș2023; Thomas & Baral, Reference Thomas and Baral2023) and facilitates knowledge transfer (Chen, Yen, Zhang, & Liu, Reference Chen, Yen, Zhang and Liu2023). It fosters higher-order learning in the context of entrepreneurial education (Lyons et al., Reference Lyons, Fox and Stephens2023) or the cultural heritage education (Camuñas-García, Cáceres-Reche, & Cambil-Hernández, Reference Camuñas-García, Cáceres-Reche and Cambil-Hernández2023). Games can also improve learning on sustainability in economics, business, and management (Sierra & Rodríguez-Conde, Reference Sierra and Rodríguez-Conde2023). An analysis of the gamified competition showed that four C2C e-commerce competencies are required: e-marketing strategy, live streaming, operational management, and strategic planning (Ho & Chen, Reference Ho and Chen2023). However, we still need to know which requirements allow us to structure the assembly of a game that improves engagement (Schöbel, Janson, & Leimeister, Reference Schöbel, Janson and Leimeister2023).

Table 1 summarizes the elements that may concern HEI managers.

Table 1. What may concern HEI managers in the digital age?

Method

Research design

This study follows an interpretative and exploratory approach. The interpretive approach allows researchers to understand complex phenomena involving humans in rapidly changing environments (Creswell & Poth, Reference Creswell and Poth2016; Yin, Reference Yin2009). The changes promoted by digital resources in the education scenario constitute an example of rapid changes. Exploratory research allows researchers to understand complex phenomena that cannot be understood through quantitative methods (Malhotra, Reference Malhotra, Grover and Vriens2006). It is about understanding something to enable future quantitative investigations. Therefore, this study employs a qualitative research design with a case study approach. This design allows for an in-depth investigation of a program, event, activity, process, and individual (Creswell & Creswell, Reference Creswell and Creswell2017). Qualitative research also enables researchers to obtain detailed descriptions and insights into the challenges experienced by managers (Goodman, Reference Dent Goodman2011).

Data collection

Data were collected in a non-probabilistic and purposeful sample (based on predetermined criteria). The Brazilian scenario was selected due to the rapid growth of EL in the country (ABED, 2023; INEP, 2022). The option for HEIs aimed to investigate a group of institutions usually under-researched (despite the vast number of HEIs with such a profile worldwide). To select the HEIs, we initially excluded from the study the 10 best-performing universities in the Times Higher Education rankings (THE Ranking, 2022). The study chose not to include the 10 most sought-after HEIs in the country, 9 of which are public and 1 private. This decision was made because these institutions attract a large number of students due to factors such as their recognized quality of education, high investment of public resources, and prominence in the international scientific scene. This reality differs from that faced by most Brazilian institutions, especially those of intermediate size, which require greater attention and require more urgent analysis. Among the remaining institutions, we invited 20 HEIs (from the eleventh to the thirtieth positions on the Times Higher Education ranking). Six institutions agreed to participate in the study (three public and three private). Public and private HEIs were investigated to increase the information gathered and allow future compassions between findings on each group of institutions. The analysis of the profile of the selected HEIs revealed diversity in size, geographic location, teaching areas, and administrative organization, contributing to the richness and representativeness of the information sources investigated.

The study sought to understand the perspective of top managers on the challenges and opportunities of the digital age. The selection of these leaders, privileged by their strategic position in leading the digital transformation process, was based on the nature of the research question (Yin, Reference Yin2009) and the need to deepen the analysis of their institutions’ past, present, and future. Aiming to identify the factors that impact strategic decisions in this context, we investigated their knowledge, doubts, and constraints. The scarcity of research on the topic justified the choice of in-depth semi-structured interviews as the primary data collection instrument. To ensure the participation of managers, we used different interview formats, such as face-to-face, by telephone connection, and meeting applications (Google Meet, Microsoft Teams). This approach made it possible to collect valuable opinions and insights on digital transformation in Brazilian higher education.

The flexible structure of the semi-structured in-depth interviews allowed interviewees to feel at ease. This feeling contributed to these interviewees convincingly providing relevant information (Ritchie & O’Connor, Reference Ritchie, Spencer, O’Connor, Ritchie and Lewis2003). The socially constructed nature of the qualitative interview (Kvale, Reference Kvale1994) also allowed the development of social ties between the research team and the interviewees, facilitating the deepening of questions. The interaction between interviewees and interviewers can also be attributed to the interviewees’ familiarity with the topic. A copy of the literature review was sent 5 days before the interview to familiarize the interviewees with the study. Participants were also informed about the nature and purpose of the study. This information improved the interviewees’ understanding of the study.

The interviews were conducted between May and December 2023 and lasted between 70 and 120 min. At the interviewees’ request, none of the interviews were recorded. During the interviews, the researchers wrote down keywords and recorded notes (Yin, Reference Yin2009). To protect the privacy of informants, we use a code to identify them. Initially, the interviewees were asked generic questions about dropout, institutional repositioning, demands (of students and companies), course redesign, and digital resources. During the conversations, the interviewees were asked about the problems and solutions related to the EL expansion in educational scenarios. Once compiled, the interview results were sent to the informants (for analysis and to reduce interview bias). The managers requested minor changes to the findings, which were implemented by the researchers in the final document.

Table 2 presents the institution’s and managers’ profiles and interview details. Two managers were interviewed in four of the six institutions investigated, while only one manager was interviewed in the other two HEIs. In the second group of institutions, the HEI top manager defined the managers to be interviewed at each institution. Information that could facilitate their identification was removed from the final manuscript at the interviewees’ request.

Table 2. Institutions and managers’ profiles and interviews details

Data analysis

This research uses a descriptive and exploratory nature as its analysis technique. The analysis and interpretation of the information collected adopted an inductive strategy. This approach constitutes a systematic method for revealing new concepts, identifying the concepts in the first data series, classifying them into themes in the second, and determining the aggregated dimensions in the third (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, Reference Gioia, Corley and Hamilton2013). Such an approach improves the rigor of analyzing the qualitative information collected (Rashid & Ratten, Reference Rashid and Ratten2020). The application of the process began with defining keywords extracted from the information collected. Secondly, theoretical concepts were represented, which led to aggregated codes. Repetitions of these analyses allowed the refinement of data analysis. The finding that new codes were no longer being revealed indicated the saturation of these data and determined the end of the analysis process.

Findings

The analysis of senior management perspectives revealed a complex set of challenges hindering HEIs’ ability to adapt to the digital era. These challenges fall into three main categories: course delivery, student engagement, and resource allocation. This section delves into each of these areas, highlighting the key concerns expressed by HEI leaders.

Course delivery

Future of HEIs

Managers attribute the growth of EL to the lower total cost incurred by the students (course, travel, food, etc.) and to the time spent going to an institution. Managers of public and private institutions declare a personal preference for face-to-face teaching. For these executives, the future requires attention to experience and coexistence. However, these managers also recognize that EL appears to be a path of no return. Institutional repositioning could guarantee a new future for HEIs. Such change seems mandatory since the traditional competitive advantage of geographic distance cannot guarantee a promising future for the institutions. As determined, this repositioning must consider the strengths and weaknesses of all HEIs worldwide (since these institutions can reach local students remotely). The managers also want to know: How can the strengths and weaknesses of HEIs be evaluated in the digital era? Some comments are reproduced below.

We are a private university that only offers in-person courses. To attend classes, a student who lives 30 kilometers away from the institution can spend the equivalent of the monthly tuition for a distance learning course on travel and food. On top of this amount, the student still has to pay the monthly tuition for the in-person course. (PR2A)

If your family didn’t have a lot of money, would you attend a public higher education institution whose total cost is higher than that of distance learning? (PU2B)

Coopetition

According to the interviewed managers, not all HEIs that offer EL need to be seen as competitors. This assumption considers the gains that Mexican and Spanish students experienced when participating in a remote program developed by institutions from both countries (Romero-Rodríguez et al., Reference Romero-Rodríguez, Ramirez-Montoya, Glasserman-Morales and Ramos Navas-Parejo2023). However, this is a single sample of cooperation. Participants were then asked about a possible cost-benefit in cooperation among HEIs. Answers revealed that these associations could improve EL and reduce costs incurred in acquiring solutions or developing materials or programs. It was also found that the association between institutions can be an exciting option for HEIs with less financial power. However, interviewees understand that the coopetition (cooperation + competition) resulting from this association may not work between institutions that compete for the same digital market. This possibility is more worrying when considering EL has no geographic limits. Conversations about this problem indicated that board members would like to know when coopetition is viable or how this partnership could be made possible.

Partnerships with other HEIs can reduce our costs in developing new materials. (PR1A)

We must know how sharing digital materials can impact an institution’s competitive advantage. (PR3A)

Students engagement

Dropout

Board members highlighted the lack of information about how HEIs have successfully addressed the school dropout problem. As not all HEIs are equal, these future studies need to cover HEIs classified as Leaders and Challengers, Followers and Niches, and Cost Leaders (Kethüda, Reference Kethüda2023). The existence of a list of good practices could guide decision-making. The EL demands self-discipline from students (a discipline that not all students have). The managers interviewed would like to understand better why students have not finished their remote courses before developing actions to meet the new demands.

We will never have good remote teaching without understanding why students drop out. (PR1A)

Gig workers

HEI managers highlighted that this group of workers appears to be expanding. Meeting the needs of gig workers could reduce dropouts and even attract new students to HEIs. When asked why HEIs still do not meet these demands, managers revealed some issues that prevent the definition of the most appropriate actions. For example: Considering how gig workers are currently training, should an HEI invest in developing courses for these workers?

We have doubts as to whether HEIs should explore courses for Gig Workers. (PU2A)

We could have a better future by meeting the demands of Gig Workers. (PR3A)

Companies

The managers interviewed understand that not all knowledge required by the market needs to be prioritized by HEIs in the digital scenario. Due to the global competition provided by digitization, HEIs could provide knowledge that serves the interests of some organizations. In their opinion, other knowledge can be provided by other HEIs. Success in selecting the knowledge to be provided can reveal a new future for HEIs: being excellent globally or in the country at something, but not everything! Further conversations about institutional positioning revealed two questions: How can HEIs be (re)positioned in the digital era?

In the digital world, should our institution be very good at everything or excellent in some areas? (P3B)

How can we position our institution in the global and digital scenario? (PR1A)

Resource allocation

Costs

Updating digital resources without increasing costs significantly is challenging. The interviewed managers do not know if the massive use of EL reduces costs or if its payback can occur quickly. Beyond that, investment errors can consume financial resources in solutions that will not meet students’ expectations or serve as a competitive advantage against competitors. To avoid such problems, interviewees would like to understand better how to structure a cost-effective EL-based course that allows an HEI to face the competition of different sizes and images in the market (including new entrants and more significant or renowned institutions). Another factor that must be considered is the number of students needed to cover the costs incurred. In paid HEI that serve students with low purchasing power, offering nonexpensive courses to many students is essential (to meet the institution’s financial targets).

Errors in decisions related to distance learning can cause severe financial issues! (PU1A)

We don’t know how to structure a distance learning course that is financially viable. (PR1B)

Investments

Searching for more significant cost reductions may lead to a HEI to contract ready-made materials. The interviewees declared they would like to know the problems and benefits verified in institutions that have acquired ready materials. They also suggested possible pros and contras related to such an option. On the one hand, the digital materials purchased may have higher quality than those developed by a single teacher. On the other hand, these materials may not suit local demands. The managers also fear a commoditization and homogenization of HEIs (due to the use of similar materials by many institutions). As ascertained, it is a difficult choice: incurring costs with developing your materials or using market materials to reduce costs.

Is it worth buying ready-made materials for distance learning? (PR2A)

How can students evaluate an institution’s course that uses the same digital materials as another institution? (PU3A)

Table 3 summarizes the doubts indicated by the top managers.

Table 3. Doubts that HEI managers expect research managers to answer

Discussion of the findings with the interviewees revealed a sequence of steps to be considered when promoting changes in HEIs. This sequence is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Steps to be considered when promoting changes in HEIs.

Discussion

This study provides an understanding of the multifaceted challenges that negatively affect HEIs’ ability to adapt to the digital era through DCs. By examining these challenges through the lens of previous studies, this research offers insights into the knowledge gaps that can drive successful digital transformation in higher education.

Findings highlight the importance of a methodology to assess HEIs’ strengths and weaknesses in the digital landscape and to guide their strategic decisions. Such a methodology could reduce the impact of managers’ uncertainty about HEIs’ future in the digital scenario, allowing them to fully leverage the benefits of DCs, such as exploring new opportunities (George et al., Reference George, Karna and Sud2022; Teece, Reference Teece2018; Zhou et al., Reference Zhou, Zhou, Feng and Jiang2019), maintaining competitiveness, and improving financial performance (Tian et al., Reference Tian, Lo and Zhai2021).

Uncertainty about the costs and implications of digitalization in the HEIs business is another factor that impedes investment in the transition to digital education. This study reveals that this uncertainty directly affects investments in technologies such as digital games, limiting the exploitation of their benefits, such as increased student engagement (Lyons et al., Reference Lyons, Fox and Stephens2023; Pitic & Irimiaș, Reference Pitic and Irimiaș2023; Thomas & Baral, Reference Thomas and Baral2023) and improved educational service quality (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Yen, Zhang and Liu2023; Lyons et al., Reference Lyons, Fox and Stephens2023; Sierra & Rodríguez-Conde, Reference Sierra and Rodríguez-Conde2023).

This study also revealed uncertainties about ‘how’ to meet stakeholder demands. The literature presents the student’s needs in terms of teaching and market relations (e.g., Muñoz Miguel et al., Reference Muñoz Miguel, Simón de Blas, Anguita Rodríguez and García Sipols2023; Park & Kim, Reference Park and Kim2023; Ratten, Reference Ratten2017) and other demands (e.g., Ashiru et al., Reference Ashiru, Whitfield and Warwick2022; Jackson et al., Reference Jackson, Riebe and Macau2022; Ng et al., Reference Ng, Chan, Wut, Lo and Szeto2021). Regarding companies, there are studies on their evaluations of the quality of service provided by HEIs (Bogdány et al., Reference Bogdány, Cserháti and Raffay-Danyi2023; Doherty & Stephens, Reference Doherty and Stephens2021; Hollister et al., Reference Hollister, Spears, Mardis, Lee, McClure and Liebman2017). Although there is a good understanding of ‘what’ needs to be done to meet these demands, the question remains about ‘how’ to do it. This study highlights this gap, which prevents implementing changes in content, methods (Johnson, Reference Johnson2021; Ratten, Reference Ratten2023b), delivery formats, and assessments (Tiberius et al., Reference Tiberius, Hoffmeister and Weyland2021).

This study also indicates that the repositioning of HEIs through DCs seems to be hampered by doubts about the convenience of meeting the demands of students, ‘gig workers’, or companies. The combination of these doubts seems to impede better decision-making by institutions senior management, preventing HEIs from improving their relationships with companies (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Şimşek and Takır2022; Manzoor et al., Reference Manzoor, Ho and Al Mahmud2021; McNicholas & Marcella, Reference McNicholas and Marcella2022) or fully meeting the demands of stakeholders: students, companies, and donors (Story, Reference Story2023).

Conclusion

Contributions

This study deepens our understanding of the challenges that prevent HEIs from using DCs to reposition themselves in the digital market. The main barriers identified are:

  1. 1. Uncertainty about the future: The lack of clarity about the future of HEIs in the digital scenario generates hesitation in decision-making through DCs.

  2. 2. Lack of strategic tools: The absence of methodologies to assess strengths and weaknesses and guide strategic decisions makes it difficult to take advantage of DCs’ potential to innovate, compete, and achieve excellence.

  3. 3. Lack of knowledge about costs: Uncertainty about the impact on costs that digitalization can generate inhibits investments in technologies such as digital games, limiting the exploitation of benefits such as increased student engagement and improved teaching quality.

  4. 4. Lack of knowledge about ‘how’ to implement changes: Although the literature guides the needs of students and companies, there is still a gap in ‘how’ to develop concrete actions that impact content, methods, and delivery formats.

  5. 5. Lack of definition about meeting stakeholders: The hesitation in defining strategies to meet the needs of students and companies compromises decision-making, relationships with companies, and the ability to meet stakeholders.

Overcoming these barriers is crucial for HEIs to effectively implement DCs, transforming the challenges of the digital age into opportunities for growth, innovation, and relevance in the educational market. Thus, the main contributions of this study are:

  • Identification of barriers: It mapped the main challenges that impede the strategic use of DCs.

  • Proposition of knowledge gaps: It highlighted the need to develop tools and knowledge to guide decision-making and the implementation of changes.

  • Indication of practical implications: It provides insights for HEIs to overcome barriers and use DCs to reposition themselves in the digital market.

This study contributes to advancing the debate on digital transformation in higher education by addressing the main barriers and knowledge gaps. It supports HEIs in becoming more agile, innovative, and competitive in the digital age.

Limitations

Although this study deepens our understanding of the challenges that prevent HEIs from using DCs to reposition themselves in the digital market, it presents some limitations that should be considered in future research.

  • Qualitative approach: Although the research is rich in details and nuances, its qualitative nature may limit generalization. Future quantitative studies can complement the analysis and expand the sample to different contexts and realities.

  • Focus on senior management of HEIs: The research focused on the perspective of key managers, failing to explore the views of other stakeholders such as professors, students, and companies. Future studies can broaden the scope of the investigation, including different actors and their perceptions of DCs and digital transformation.

  • Specific context: The study was based on a particular context, which may limit the generalization of the results to other realities. Future research can explore the influence of factors such as the size of the HEI, the geographic location, and the management model on the use of DCs.

  • Lack of analytical tools: The research identified the need for tools to assess strengths and weaknesses and guide strategic decisions but did not develop them. Future studies can focus on creating and validating such tools, helping HEIs to implement DCs.

Future studies

The analysis of these limitations indicates the need for future studies with the aim of:

  • Developing quantitative studies: Investigating the relationship between DCs and HEI performance using statistical models and comparative analyses.

  • Broadening the research perspective: Including other stakeholders, such as professors, students, and companies, to understand their perceptions about DCs and digital transformation.

  • Analyzing different contexts: Exploring how contextual factors, such as HEI size, geographic location, and management model, influence the use of DCs.

  • Creating and validating analytical tools: Developing tools to assess strengths and weaknesses, guide strategic decisions, and measure the impact of DCs on HEI performance.

  • Investigate the role of leadership: Analyze how leadership in HEIs influences the implementation of DCs and digital transformation.

  • Explore coopetition strategies: Investigate models of coopetition between HEIs for developing digital courses and programs.

  • Analyze the impact of the student experience: Evaluate how DCs can personalize learning, increase engagement, and improve the student experience.

By addressing these suggestions, future research can deepen the understanding of the role of DCs in the digital transformation of HEIs, helping them to overcome the challenges and seize the opportunities of the digital era.

References

Abdelwahed, N. A. A., & Soomro, B. A. (2023). Attitudes and intentions towards the adoption of mobile learning during COVID-19: Building an exciting career through vocational education. Education + Training, 65(2), 210231. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2022-0048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ABED. (2023). Especialistas comentam expansão da educação a distância e o futuro da modalidade no país. Retrieved December 12, 2024, from https://www.abed.org.br/site/pt/midiateca/textos_ead/2176/2023/01/https//brasilbettshowcom/ahead-by-bett-brasGoogle Scholar
Alasmari, T. (2024). Reshaping vocational training: A study on the recognition of micro-credentials in job markets. Education and Training. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-07-2023-0282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alcaide-Pulido, P., Gutiérrez-Villar, B., Carbonero-Ruz, M., & Alves, H. (2022). Four key variables for determining the image of higher education institutions: A cross-national analysis based on undergraduate students. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 119. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2022.2056671Google Scholar
Ali, O., Murray, P., Momin, M., & Al-Anzi, F. S. (2023). The knowledge and innovation challenges of ChatGPT: A scoping review. Technology in Society, . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alzaidi, M. S., & Shehawy, Y. M. (2022). Cross-national differences in mobile learning adoption during COVID-19. Education and Training, 64(3), 305328. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2021-0179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ânima - RI. (2023). Ânima - Relações com Investidores. Retrieved December 12, 2024, from https://ri.animaeducacao.com.br/#Google Scholar
Ashiru, F., Whitfield, I., & Warwick, P. (2022). Business school capital and study choices in undergraduate education: A student-centred approach. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(2), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
B3. (2023). Retrieved December 12, 2024, from A Bolsa do Brasil | B3. https://b3.com.br/pt_br/para-voceGoogle Scholar
Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., den Brok, P., Biemans, H. J. A., & Kerman, N. T. (2023). Modeling teachers’ and students’ attitudes, emotions, and perceptions in blended education: Towards post-pandemic education. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banwait, K. S., & Hancock, C. (2021). Post Browne Review: A reflective analysis of marketisation dilemmas of senior managers in English universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 118. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2021.2006853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrales-Molina, V., Martínez-López, F. J., & Gázquez-Abad, J. C. (2014). Dynamic marketing capabilities: Toward an integrative framework. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 397416. https://doi.org/10.1111/IJMR.12026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BBC. (2015, July 9 ). All you need to know about Uber. Retrieved December 12, 2024, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33281422Google Scholar
Beier, C. G., Schmidt, S., & Froehlich, C. (2023). Dynamic capabilities and value co-creation in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2023.2233940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogdány, E., Cserháti, G., & Raffay-Danyi, Á. (2023). A proposed methodology for mapping and ranking competencies that HRM graduates need. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borglund, T., Prenkert, F., Frostenson, M., Helin, S., & Du Rietz, S. (2019). External facilitators as ‘Legitimizers’ in designing a master’s program in sustainable business at a Swedish business school – A typology of industry collaborator roles in RME. The International Journal of Management Education, 17(3), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burga, R., Leblanc, J., & Rezania, D. (2017). Analysing the effects of teaching approach on engagement, satisfaction and future time perspective among students in a course on CSR. The International Journal of Management Education, 15(2), 306317. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJME.2017.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camuñas-García, D., Cáceres-Reche, M. P., & Cambil-Hernández, M. D. L. E. (2023). Mobile game-based learning in cultural heritage education: A bibliometric analysis. Education + Training, 65(2), 324339. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2022-0247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, J.-C., Shih, H.-F., & Liao, F.-R. (2022). The impact of industry-oriented capstone courses on the employability of EECS students in technological universities. Education and Training, 64(2), 290303. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2021-0129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y., Yen, P.-Y., Zhang, Y., & Liu, H. (2023). Conducting business disciplinary research by playing educational games: A case of the forecast sharing game in supply chain management. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciacci, A., Balzano, M., & Marzi, G. (2024). Optimising business models through digital alignment and strategic flexibility: Evidence from the manufacturing industry. Journal of Management & Organization, 121. https://doi.org/10.1017/JMO.2024.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cogna, R. I. (2023). Cogna. Retrieved December 12, 2024, from https://ri.cogna.com.br/Google Scholar
Collins, A., Şimşek, H., & Takır, A. (2022). Choosing a Higher Education destination: Marketing of where, why and how? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 122. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2022.2048431Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Cruzeiro do Sul - RI. (2023). Cruzeiro do Sul Educacional. Retrieved December 12, 2024, from https://ri.cruzeirodosuleducacional.com.br/Google Scholar
DeArmond, S., Rau, B. L., Buelow-Fischer, J., Desai, A., & Miller, A. J. (2023). Teaching professional skills during the pandemic: Does delivery mode matter? The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dent Goodman, V. (2011). A brief overview of qualitative research. Qualitative Research and the Modern Library, 731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (European Commission). (2019). Key competences for lifelong learning. Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2766/569540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doherty, O., & Stephens, S. (2021). The skill needs of the manufacturing industry: Can higher education keep up? Education + Training, 63(4), 632646. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2020-0134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drnevich, P. L., & Kriauciunas, A. P. (2011). Clarifying the conditions and limits of the contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 32(3), 254279. https://doi.org/10.1002/SMJ.882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., … Wright, R. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edeigba, J. (2022). Employers’ expectations of accounting skills from vocational education providers: The expectation gap between employers and ITPs. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efthymiou, L., & Zarifis, A. (2021). Modeling students’ voice for enhanced quality in online management education. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(2), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 11051121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/113.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, T. (2014). Processes, antecedents and outcomes of dynamic capabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(1), 6582. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCAMAN.2013.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fandos-Herrera, C., Jiménez-Martínez, J., Orús, C., Pérez-Rueda, A., & Pina, J. M. (2023). The influence of personality on learning outcomes and attitudes: The case of discussants in the classroom. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(1), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitriani, H., & Ajayi, S. (2022). Preparing Indonesian civil engineering graduates for the world of work. Industry and Higher Education, 36(4), 471487. https://doi.org/10.1177/09504222211046187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foroudi, P., Nazarian, A., Ziyadin, S., Kitchen, P., Hafeez, K., Priporas, C., & Pantano, E. (2020). Co-creating brand image and reputation through stakeholder’s social network. Journal of Business Research, 114, 4259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fossatti, P., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Ratten, V., Pereira, G. M., Borchardt, M., Milan, G. S., & Eberle, L. (2023). What do (should) we know to leverage students’ employability and entrepreneurship? A systematic guide to researchers and managers. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, N., Karna, A., & Sud, M. (2022). Entrepreneurship through the lens of dynamic managerial capabilities: A review of the literature. Journal of Management and Organization. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 1531. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, V. D. (2011). 1 - A brief overview of qualitative research. In Chandos Information Professional Series, Qualitative Research and the Modern Library, (p. 731). Chandos Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-644-9.50001-9Google Scholar
Guerrero, M., Heaton, S., & Urbano, D. (2021). Building universities’ intrapreneurial capabilities in the digital era: The role and impacts of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Technovation, 99, . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, O. J., & Yadav, S. (2023). Determinants in advancement of teaching and learning in higher education: In special reference to management education. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haverila, M., Haverila, K., McLaughlin, C., & Arora, M. (2021). Towards a comprehensive student satisfaction model. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(3), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hearn, G., Williams, P., Rodrigues, J. H. P., & Laundon, M. (2023). Education and training for Industry 4.0: A case study of a manufacturing ecosystem. Education and Training, 65(8–9), 10701084. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2022-0407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heaton, S., Teece, D., & Agronin, E. (2023). Dynamic capabilities and governance: An empirical investigation of financial performance of the higher education sector. Strategic Management Journal, 44(2), 520548. https://doi.org/10.1002/SMJ.3444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández-López, L., García-Almeida, D. J., Ballesteros-Rodríguez, J. L., & De Saá-Pérez, P. (2016). Students’ perceptions of the lecturer’s role in management education: Knowledge acquisition and competence development. The International Journal of Management Education, 14(3), 411421. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJME.2016.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, A. M., Zaal, P. M., Chappin, M. M. H., Schemmann, B., & Lühmann, A. (2023). “We don’t need no (higher) education” - How the gig economy challenges the education-income paradigm. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 186, . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, S. C., & Chen, J. L. (2023). Developing the e-commerce competency for entrepreneurship education from a gamified competition. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(1), . https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJME.2022.100737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollister, J. M., Spears, L. I., Mardis, M. A., Lee, J., McClure, C. R., & Liebman, E. (2017). Employers’ perspectives on new information technology technicians’ employability in North Florida. Education and Training, 59(9), 929945. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2017-0019/FULL/XMLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibidunni, A. S., Mozie, D., & Ayeni, A. W. A. A. (2020). Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students: Insights for understanding entrepreneurial intentions amongst youths in a developing economy. Education + Training, 63(1), 7184. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-09-2019-0204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imran, R., Fatima, A., Elbayoumi Salem, I., & Allil, K. (2023). Teaching and learning delivery modes in higher education: Looking back to move forward post-COVID-19 era. International Journal of Management Education, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100805Google Scholar
INEP. (2021a). Censo Escolar da Educação Superior Brasileira 2021. INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTUDOS E PESQUISAS EDUCACIONAIS ANÍSIO TEIXEIRA. Retrieved April 19, 2024, from https://download.inep.gov.br/educacao_superior/censo_superior/documentos/2021/apresentacao_censo_da_educacao_superior_2021.pdfGoogle Scholar
INEP. (2021b). Resumo Técnico do Censo da Educação Superior 2021. INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTUDOS E PESQUISAS EDUCACIONAIS ANÍSIO TEIXEIRA (INEP). Retrieved April 12, 2024, from https://download.inep.gov.br/publicacoes/institucionais/estatisticas_e_indicadores/resumo_tecnico_censo_da_educacao_superior_2021.pdfGoogle Scholar
INEP. (2022, November 4 ). Ensino a distância cresce 474% em uma década. Retrieved April 21, 2024, from https://www.gov.br/inep/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/censo-da-educacao-superior/ensino-a-distancia-cresce-474-em-uma-decadaGoogle Scholar
INEP. (2024). CENSO DA EDUCAÇÃO SUPERIOR 2023.Google Scholar
Ironsi, C. S., & Bensen Bostancı, H. (2023). Utilizing mobile-learning and CAP(E) lesson framework in improving the productive skills of learners in a hybrid environment. Education + Training, 65(2), 232252. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-12-2021-0471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishengoma, E., & Vaaland, T. I. (2016). Can university-industry linkages stimulate student employability? Education and Training, 58(1), 1844. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-11-2014-0137/FULL/XMLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, D., & Chapman, E. (2012). Empirically derived competency profiles for Australian business graduates and their implications for industry and business schools. The International Journal of Management Education, 10(2), 112128. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJME.2012.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, D., Riebe, L., & Macau, F. (2022). Determining factors in graduate recruitment and preparing students for success. Education + Training, 64(5), 681699. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-11-2020-0348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jain, V., Mogaji, E., Sharma, H., & Babbili, A. S. (2022). A multi-stakeholder perspective of relationship marketing in higher education institutions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 119. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2022.2034201Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (2021). Teaching excellence in the context of business and management education: Perspectives from Australian, British and Canadian universities. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(3), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, D., & Park, M. J. (2022). Interaction and online courses for satisfactory university learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kethüda, Ö. (2023). Positioning strategies and rankings in the HE: Congruence and contradictions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 33(1), 97123. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2021.1892899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvale, S. (1994). Interviews: An introduction to qualitive research interviewing. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Le, L. H., Bui, S. C., Duong, G. H., & Chang, Y.-C. (2021). Understanding the relationships between B2C and C2C value co-creation in the universities: The mediating role of brand awareness. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 121. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2021.2006852Google Scholar
Lee, S. M., & Rha, J. S. (2016). Ambidextrous supply chain as a dynamic capability: Building a resilient supply chain. Management Decision, 54(1), 223. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-12-2014-0674/FULL/XMLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, D. Y., & Liu, J. (2014). Dynamic capabilities, environmental dynamism, and competitive advantage: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 27932799. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2012.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, R. M., Fox, G., & Stephens, S. (2023). Gamification to enhance engagement and higher order learning in entrepreneurial education. Education + Training, 65(3), 416432. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2022-0204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maheshwari, G. (2021). Factors influencing entrepreneurial intentions the most for university students in Vietnam: Educational support, personality traits or TPB components? Education + Training, 63(7/8), 11381153. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2021-0074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malhotra, N. K. (2006). Questionnaire design and scale development. In Grover, R., and Vriens, M. (Eds.), The handbook of marketing research: Uses, misuses, and future advances (pp. 8394). London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzoor, S. R., Ho, J. S. Y., & Al Mahmud, A. (2021). Revisiting the ‘university image model’ for higher education institutions’ sustainability. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 31(2), 220239. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2020.1781736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markovich, A., Raban, D. R., & Efrat, K. (2022). Tailoring competitive information sources to the sequence of dynamic capabilities. Journal of Management & Organization, 28(3), 480501. https://doi.org/10.1017/JMO.2022.35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMurray, S., Dutton, M., McQuaid, R., & Richard, A. (2016). Employer demands from business graduates. Education and Training, 58(1), 112132. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2014-0017/FULL/XMLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNicholas, C., & Marcella, R. (2022). An interactive decision-making model of international postgraduate student course choice. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 126. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2022.2076276Google Scholar
Mukul, E., & Büyüközkan, G. (2023). Digital transformation in education: A systematic review of education 4.0. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194, . https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2023.122664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munawar, S., Yousaf, H. Q., Ahmed, M., & Rehman, S. (2023). The influence of online entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial success: An empirical study in Pakistan. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(1), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Miguel, J. P., Simón de Blas, C., Anguita Rodríguez, F., & García Sipols, A. E. (2023). Collaborative learning in management subjects to university students: A multi-level research to identify group profile, engagement and academic performance. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(1), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ng, D. T. K., Ching, A. C. H., & Law, S. W. (2023). Online learning in management education amid the pandemic: A bibliometric and content analysis. International Journal of Management Education, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100796Google Scholar
Ng, P. M. L., Chan, J. K. Y., Wut, T. M., Lo, M. F., & Szeto, I. (2021). What makes better career opportunities for young graduates? Examining acquired employability skills in higher education institutions. Education + Training, 63(6), 852871. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-08-2020-0231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikitina, T., Licznerska, M., Ozoliņa-Ozola, I., & Lapina, I. (2023). Individual entrepreneurial orientation: Comparison of business and STEM students. Education + Training, 65(4), 565586. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-07-2021-0256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olo, D., Correia, L., & Rego, C. (2022). How to develop higher education curricula towards employability? A multi-stakeholder approach. Education and Training, 64(1), 89106. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2020-0329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omniraza. (2023). Digitalization’s Transformative Influence on Traditional Business Models: A Positive Perspective. Virtual Realities. Retrieved June 15, 2024, from https://www.omniraza.com/how-digitalization-affect-traditional-businessGoogle Scholar
Parida, S., Dhakal, S. P., Dayaram, K., Mohammadi, H., Ayentimi, D. T., Amankwaa, A., & D’Cruz, D. (2023). Rhetoric and realities in Australian universities of student engagement in online learning: Implications for a post-pandemic era. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, S., & Kim, K. (2023). Factors that enhance the perceived quality and student satisfaction of specialized postgraduate programs: The role of identity. The TQM Journal, 35(4), 10071029. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-06-2021-0189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, Y. P., & Lin, K. H. (2017). The effect of global dynamic capabilities on internationalizing SMEs performance: Organizational culture factors as antecedents. Baltic Journal of Management, 12(3), 307328. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-09-2016-0199/FULL/XMLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, I., & Kruss, G. (2021). Universities as change agents in resource-poor local settings: An empirically grounded typology of engagement models. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 167, . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitic, D., & Irimiaș, T. (2023). Enhancing students’ engagement through a business simulation game: A qualitative study within a higher education management course. International Journal of Management Education, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100839Google Scholar
Qazi, M. A., Sharif, M. A., & Akhlaq, A. (2024). Barriers and facilitators to adoption of e-learning in higher education institutions of Pakistan during COVID-19: Perspectives from an emerging economy. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 15(1), 3152. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-01-2022-0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
THE Ranking (2022). World University Rankings. Times Higher Education. Retrieved December 10, 2024, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2023/world-rankingGoogle Scholar
Rashid, S., & Ratten, V. (2020). A dynamic capabilities approach for the survival of Pakistani family-owned business in the digital world. Journal of Family Business Management, 10(4), 373387. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-12-2019-0082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratten, V. (2017). Entrepreneurial universities: The role of communities, people and places. Journal of Enterprising Communities, 11(3), 310315. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-03-2017-0021/FULL/XMLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratten, V. (2023a). Digital platforms and transformational entrepreneurship during the COVID-19 crisis. International Journal of Information Management, 72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratten, V. (2023b). The post COVID-19 pandemic era: Changes in teaching and learning methods for management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratten, V., & Jones, P. (2021). Covid-19 and entrepreneurship education: Implications for advancing research and practice. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(1), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, J., Spencer, L., & O’Connor, W.. (2003). Carrying out Qualitative Analysis. In Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers (pp. 219262). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Romero-Rodríguez, J.-M., Ramirez-Montoya, M. S., Glasserman-Morales, L. D., & Ramos Navas-Parejo, M. (2023). Collaborative online international learning between Spain and Mexico: A microlearning experience to enhance creativity in complexity. Education + Training, 65(2), 340354. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-07-2022-0259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de la Torre Acha, A., Rio Belver, R. M., Fernandez Aguirrebeña, J., & Merlo, C. (2024). Application of simulation and virtual reality to production learning. Education + Training. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2023-0051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salehudin, I., & Alpert, F. (2022). A deeper understanding of student preferences for in-class video use: A segmentation analyses of needs, group differences and preference clusters. Education + Training, 64(4), 476490. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2021-0045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Rivas, E., Ramos Núñez, M. F., Ramos Navas-Parejo, M., & De La Cruz-Campos, J. C. (2023). Narrative-based learning using mobile devices. Education + Training, 65(2), 284297. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2022-0244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schöbel, S. M., Janson, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2023). Gamifying online training in management education to support emotional engagement and problem-solving skills. Journal of Management Education, 47(2), 166203. https://doi.org/10.1177/10525629221123287Google Scholar
Ser Educacional RI. (2023). Ser Educacional. Retrieved December 10, 2024, from https://ri.sereducacional.com/Google Scholar
Sierra, J., & Rodríguez-Conde, M. J. (2023). Learning by ruling: Use of videogames to simulate public economics management. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sierra, J., Yassim, M., & Suárez-Collado, Á. (2022). Together we can: Enhancing key 21st-century skills with international virtual exchange. Education and Training, 64(6), 826843. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2021-0171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sin, C., Tavares, O., & Amaral, A. (2016). Student perceptions of the employability of the first degree in Portugal. Education and Training, 58(9), 966983. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-09-2015-0088/FULL/XMLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolze, A., & Sailer, K. (2022). Advancing HEIs’ third-mission through dynamic capabilities: The role of leadership and agreement on vision and goals. Journal of Technology Transfer, 47(2), 580604. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10961-021-09850-9/TABLES/5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Story, J. (2023). Unique challenges of segmentation and differentiation for higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 33(1), 2039. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2021.1874589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J. (2018). Dynamic capabilities as (workable) management systems theory. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(3), 359368. https://doi.org/10.1017/JMO.2017.75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:73.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, N. J., & Baral, R. (2023). Mechanism of gamification: Role of flow in the behavioral and emotional pathways of engagement in management education. International Journal of Management Education, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100718Google Scholar
Thompson, Z., Yoon, H., & Booth, P. (2023). Dispersed assessment: A novel approach to enhancing student engagement during and beyond Covid-19. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tian, X., Lo, V. I., & Zhai, X. (2021). Combining efficiency and innovation to enhance performance: Evidence from firms in emerging economies. Journal of Management and Organization, 27(2), 295311. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiberius, V., Hoffmeister, L., & Weyland, M. (2021). Prospective shifts in executive education: An international Delphi study. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(3), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiberius, V., Weyland, M., & Mahto, R. V. (2023). Best of entrepreneurship education? A curriculum analysis of the highest-ranking entrepreneurship MBA programs. International Journal of Management Education, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100753Google Scholar
Tomlinson, M. (2017). Forms of graduate capital and their relationship to graduate employability. Education and Training, 59(4), 338352. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2016-0090/FULL/XMLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, B. P., Waye, V., & Freeman, S. (2019). The use and usefulness of academic research: An EMBA perspective. The International Journal of Management Education, 17(3), . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNESCO. (2022). Policy brief: The contribution of higher education institutions to lifelong learning. World Conference on Higher Education.Google Scholar
van Beurden, J., Borghouts, I., van den Groenendaal, S. M., & Freese, C. (2024). How Dutch higher HRM education prepares future HR professionals for the impact of technological developments. The International Journal of Management Education, 22(1), . https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJME.2023.100916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardley, L. J., Nadeau, J., & Bélanger, C. H. (2024). A comparative analysis of institutional commitment: Are business students different? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 34(1), 262282. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2021.1977449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WEF. (2020, October 19 ). Companies now face an urgent choice: Go digital, or go bust. World Economic Forum. Retrieved December 10, 2024, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/digital-transformation-or-bust/Google Scholar
Wilden, R., Devinney, T. M., & Dowling, G. R. (2016). The architecture of dynamic capability research identifying the building blocks of a configurational approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 9971076. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1161966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991995. https://doi.org/10.1002/SMJ.318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yduqs - RI. (2023). YDUQS | Relações com Investidores. Retrieved December 11, 2024.Google Scholar
Yesildag, A. Y., & Bostan, S. (2023). Movie analysis as an active learning method: A study with health management student. International Journal of Management Education, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100759Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (vol 5). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda*. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917955. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-6486.2006.00616.XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, N., Wang, J., Liu, X., Yang, L., & Jin, X. (2023). The digital competence of Chinese higher education students and the linkage with their career adaptability. Education and Training, 65(6–7), 939954. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-08-2022-0315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, S. S., Zhou, A. J., Feng, J., & Jiang, S. (2019). Dynamic capabilities and organizational performance: The mediating role of innovation. Journal of Management and Organization, 25(5), 731747. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339351. https://doi.org/10.1287/ORSC.13.3.339.2780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. What may concern HEI managers in the digital age?

Figure 1

Table 2. Institutions and managers’ profiles and interviews details

Figure 2

Table 3. Doubts that HEI managers expect research managers to answer

Figure 3

Figure 1. Steps to be considered when promoting changes in HEIs.