Digital competency adoption and maritime workforce transformation: a mixed-methods PLS-SEM validation of an integrated technology-organization-environment model in indonesian shipping

Jurnal Riset Tindakan Indonesia October 17, 2026 Volume 11, Number 2 4 authors

Abstract

The maritime sector’s digital transformation requires not only technology adoption but also workforce capability development. While the Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) framework explains organizational technology adoption and TAM/UTAUT explain individual technology use, neither adequately explains how contextual conditions translate into workforce capabilities. Addressing this gap, this study develops and tests a Maritime Human-Capital Transformation Model for Society 5.0, emphasizing human capability and resilience. An exploratory sequential mixed-methods design was employed, comprising in-depth interviews with 15 maritime stakeholders from four stakeholder groups, followed by a survey of 250 maritime professionals analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The results demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity across all constructs. Qualitative findings identified three competency dimensions: hard digital skills, socio-technical skills, and psychological readiness. Quantitative results showed that Technological Readiness, Organizational Support, and Environmental Pressure significantly influenced Digital Competency Adoption and Human Capital Transformation Effectiveness. Technological Readiness had the strongest effect on Digital Competency Adoption (β = 0.586, p < 0.001), while Digital Competency Adoption positively influenced transformation effectiveness (β = 0.364, p < 0.001) and partially mediated all three TOE relationships. The model explained 51.5% of the variance in Digital Competency Adoption and 50.9% in Human Capital Transformation Effectiveness. These findings extend the TOE framework by positioning digital competency adoption as a key mechanism linking contextual conditions to human-capital transformation in the maritime sector, advancing a human-centered approach to digitalization aligned with Society 5.0.

Authors

  1. Jose Beno

    Politeknik Ilmu Pelayaran Semarang

  2. Awel Suryadi

    Politeknik Ilmu Pelayaran Semarang

  3. Yuliani Yuliani

    Politeknik Ilmu Pelayaran Semarang

  4. Widya Putri Idayatma

    Politeknik Ilmu Pelayaran Semarang

Keywords

Maritime human capitalSociety 5.0Digital competencyTechnology-organization-environmentMixed methods

References

  1. Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385-405. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410100100307
  2. Baker, J. (2012). The technology-organization-environment framework. In Y. K. Dwivedi, M. R. Wade, & S. L. Schneberger (Eds.), Information systems theory: Explaining and predicting our digital society (Vol. 1, pp. 231-245). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_12
  3. Baxter, G., & Sommerville, I. (2011). Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering. Interacting with Computers, 23(1), 4-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.003
  4. Belabyad, M., Kontovas, C., Pyne, R., Shi, W., Li, N., Szwed, P., & Chang, C.-H. (2025). The human element in autonomous shipping: A study on skills and competency requirements. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 24, 575-605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-025-00366-9
  5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  6. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
  7. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  8. Erstad, E., Hopcraft, R., Vineetha Harish, A., & Tam, K. (2023). A human-centred design approach for the development and conducting of maritime cyber resilience training. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 22, 241-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-023-00304-7
  9. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
  10. Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 Pt 2), 2134-2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
  11. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  12. Fruth, M., & Teuteberg, F. (2017). Digitization in maritime logistics What is there and what is missing? Cogent Business & Management, 4(1), 1411066. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1411066
  13. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
  14. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
  15. Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523
  16. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  17. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260
  18. Jović, M., Tijan, E., Vidmar, D., & Pucihar, A. (2022). Factors of digital transformation in the maritime transport sector. Sustainability, 14(15), 9776. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159776
  19. Kock, N., & Hadaya, P. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: The inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. Information Systems Journal, 28(1), 227-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12131
  20. Mallam, S. C., Nazir, S., & Sharma, A. (2020). The human element in future maritime operations Perceived impact of autonomous shipping. Ergonomics, 63(3), 334-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2019.1659995
  21. Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753-1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
  22. Moen, I., Oruc, A., Amro, A., Gkioulos, V., & Kavallieratos, G. (2024). Survey-based analysis of cybersecurity awareness of Turkish seafarers. International Journal of Information Security, 23, 3153-3178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-024-00884-2
  23. Mourtzis, D., Angelopoulos, J., & Panopoulos, N. (2022). A literature review of the challenges and opportunities of the transition from Industry 4.0 to Society 5.0. Energies, 15(17), 6276. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176276
  24. Munim, Z. H., Dushenko, M., Jaramillo Jimenez, V., Shakil, M. H., & Imset, M. (2020). Big data and artificial intelligence in the maritime industry: A bibliometric review and future research directions. Maritime Policy & Management, 47(5), 577-597. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2020.1788731
  25. Nahavandi, S. (2019). Industry 5.0 A human-centric solution. Sustainability, 11(16), 4371. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164371
  26. Narayanan, S. C., Emad, G. R., & Fei, J. (2023). Theorizing seafarers’ participation and learning in an evolving maritime workplace: An activity theory perspective. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 22, 165-180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-023-00311-8
  27. Nitzl, C., Roldan, J. L., & Cepeda, G. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1849-1864. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2015-0302
  28. O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
  29. Oliveira, T., & Martins, M. F. (2010). Understanding e-business adoption across industries in European countries. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(9), 1337-1354. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571011087428
  30. Oruc, A., Chowdhury, N., & Gkioulos, V. (2024). A modular cyber security training programme for the maritime domain. International Journal of Information Security, 23, 1477-1512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-023-00799-4
  31. Ployhart, R. E., & Moliterno, T. P. (2011). Emergence of the human capital resource: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 127-150. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0318
  32. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  33. Raza, Z., Woxenius, J., Vural, C. A., & Lind, M. (2023). Digital transformation of maritime logistics: Exploring trends in the liner shipping segment. Computers in Industry, 145, 103811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2022.103811
  34. Sanchez-Gonzalez, P.-L., Díaz-Gutiérrez, D., Leo, T. J., & Núñez-Rivas, L. R. (2019). Toward digitalization of maritime transport? Sensors, 19(4), 926. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19040926
  35. Shahbakhsh, M., Emad, G. R., & Cahoon, S. (2022). Industrial revolutions and transition of the maritime industry: The case of seafarer’s role in autonomous shipping. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 38(1), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2021.11.004
  36. Sharma, A., & Kim, T. (2022). Exploring technical and non-technical competencies of navigators for autonomous shipping. Maritime Policy & Management, 49(6), 831-849. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2021.1914874
  37. Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11), 2322-2347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189
  38. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
  39. Theotokas, I. N., Lagoudis, I. N., & Raftopoulou, K. (2024). Challenges of maritime human resource management for the transition to shipping digitalization. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 9, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-024-00165-0
  40. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  41. Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889-901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022
  42. Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
  43. Warner, K. S. R., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326-349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001
  44. Xu, X., Lu, Y., Vogel-Heuser, B., & Wang, L. (2021). Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0 Inception, conception and perception. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 61, 530-535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.10.006
  45. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
  46. Zhu, K., & Kraemer, K. L. (2005). Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e-business by organizations: Cross-country evidence from the retail industry. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 61-84. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1050.0045