Authors : Irllas Evelline de Carvalho Santos; Ana de Medeiros Fernandes dos Santos; Beatriz Bahia Gomes da Silva; Fábio André De Farias Vilhena; Felipe Gramonski dos Santos; José Wellgton do Nascimento; Paulo Roberto de Araujo; Priscila Freitas Araujo; Rafael Soares Cardoso; Tiago Luz De Oliveira

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 2 - February

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/2s5yua5k

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/57uxjuyt

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26feb831

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Digital transformation has assumed a structuring role in the reorganization of the public sector, redefining administrative processes, governance models, and modes of service delivery. The incorporation of digital technologies has moved beyond mere instrumental modernization and now directly influences decision-making structures, operational flows, and patterns of institutional coordination. In this context, digitalization cannot be understood solely as technical adoption but rather as an organizational phenomenon shaped by institutional pressures, normative expectations, and regulatory arrangements inherent to public administration. Although the literature acknowledges the relevance of digital transformation in public management, the articulation between dynamic capabilities and the understanding of technology as a critical institutional resource remains underexplored, particularly when considering the structural specificities of the State. The existing gap lies in the absence of analytical integration between institutional tradition and strategic perspectives, as much of the literature treats digitalization either as a technical variable or as an isolated normative response, without examining the internal mechanisms that enable its organizational stabilization. Understanding technology as a critical institutional resource requires recognizing that its effectiveness depends on the organization’s capacity to mobilize, integrate, and reconfigure assets in response to complex environmental pressures. Against this backdrop, this article aims to analyze dynamic capabilities and technological reconfiguration in the public sector, considering technology as a critical institutional resource. To achieve this objective, a qualitative approach based on an integrative literature review was adopted, allowing for the systematization and interpretation of theoretical and empirical contributions that connect institutional arrangements, organizational resources, and digital transformation within public administration. The analysis led to the identification of four analytical categories—internal technological capability, administrative automation and operational reconfiguration, dynamic capabilities and institutional learning, and institutionalization of digital transformation and organizational legitimacy—which structure the phenomenon into interrelated dimensions. The findings indicate that technological transformation in the public sector emerges from the interaction between institutional pressures and internal strategic mechanisms, mediated by dynamic capabilities that enable structural reorganization and the consolidation of organizational legitimacy. It is concluded that technology acquires a structuring character when integrated into administrative routines and specific institutional arrangements, thereby constituting a critical institutional resource whose effectiveness depends on the articulation between governance, organizational structure, and regulatory context.

Keywords : Digital Transformation; Dynamic Capabilities; Institutional Pressures; Public Administration; Organizational Reconfiguration.

References :

1. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
2. Bitektine, A., & Song, F. (2021). Organizational legitimacy judgments: A review and integrative framework. Academy of Management Annals, 15(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2019.0058
3. Chen, Y., Hu, L., & Tseng, M. (2021). IT capability and public service performance: The mediating role of process integration. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), 101620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101620
4. Criado, J. I., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2022). Digital government transformation and public value creation. Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), 101692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101692
5. Desouza, K. C., & Jacob, B. (2020). Innovation capacity in the public sector: A systematic review and research agenda. Public Management Review, 22(9), 1313–1340. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1638442
6. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
7. Fernandez, S., & Aman, A. (2023). Digitalization and organizational redesign in public agencies. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13521
8. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2018). Digital government and public value: Theory and practice. Public Administration Review, 78(4), 612–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12894
9. Kattel, R., & Mazzucato, M. (2022). Dynamic capabilities of the public sector: Towards a new synthesis. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 25(4), 397–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2022.2085874
10. Mergel, I., Ganapati, S., & Whitford, A. B. (2021). Agile digital transformation in government. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3), 101557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101557
11. Neto, M. S., Teixeira, A. R., Silva, E. F., et al. (2024). Use of information and communication technologies for productivity: A case study in the payments and charges sector of the Federal University of Amazonas. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 26(10), 15–19. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-2610011519
12. Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2020). Governance, politics and the state. Macmillan International Higher Education.
13. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
14. Selviaridis, K., & Norrman, A. (2022). Digital transformation and public sector coordination. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 42(5), 631–654. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-06-2021-0408
15. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
16. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
17. Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007
18. Wilden, R., & Teece, D. J. (2020). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility. Industrial and Corporate Change, 29(2), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtz044
19. Wirtz, B. W., & Müller, W. M. (2022). Digital maturity and public sector transformation. Public Management Review, 24(8), 1123–1145. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1885987