62f9797f-e2ff-4c5f-9574-09a8b377ae4620230428042847250wseas:wseasmdt@crossref.orgMDT DepositEngineering World2692-507910.37394/232025https://wseas.com/journals/ew/41020234102023510.37394/232025.2023.5https://wseas.com/journals/ew/2023.phpNataliaMamedovaBasic Department of digital economy Plekhanov Russian University of Economics 117997 Moscow, Stremyannyi lane, 36 RUSSIAElenaBelyakovaBasic Department of digital economy Plekhanov Russian University of Economics 117997 Moscow, Stremyannyi lane, 36 RUSSIAArkadiyUrintsovBasic Department of digital economy Plekhanov Russian University of Economics 117997 Moscow, Stremyannyi lane, 36 RUSSIAThe article is devoted to the problem of selecting the organizational structure of the company during its implementation of digital transformation of business processes. The hypothesis of the study was that consideration of the needs of decision-makers can and should influence the choice of organisational structure changes during the transition to digital transformation of business processes. The decision makers for managing the integration of digital technologies into key aspects of a company's business activities have been shown to be CIOs. Motivational filters that characterize the needs of CIOs according to the SCARF model were presented in a hierarchical combination along with the types of company strategies that can be implemented during the digital transformation of business processes. The SCARF model, the Saaty hierarchy analysis method and the mixed-methods strategy provided the methodological basis for the study. The results demonstrate a justified choice of optimal organizational structure based on the factors of organizational behavior of IT directors and strategic priorities of the company. The presented results can be used to justify the decision to change the organizational structure of the company and to assess the social needs of decision makers.4272023427202329374https://wseas.com/journals/ew/2023/a08engw-004(2023).pdf10.37394/232025.2023.5.4https://wseas.com/journals/ew/2023/a08engw-004(2023).pdf10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.07.008Abraham, R., Schneider, J., and vom Brocke, J., Data governance: A conceptual framework, structured review, and research agenda, International Journal of Information Management, 49, 2019, pp. 424–438. 10.1016/0024-6301(92)90356-7Corporate lifecycles: How and why corporations grow and die and what to do about it: Ichak Adizes, Prentice Hall (1988), 361 pp., Long Range Planning, 25 (1), 128, 1992. 10.1111/joms.12718Firk, S., Hanelt, A., Oehmichen, J., and Wolff, M., n.d. Chief Digital Officers: An Analysis of the Presence of a Centralized Digital Transformation Role, Journal of management studies, Vol. 58, 2021, pp. 1800-1831. 10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102217Gong, C. and Ribiere, V., Developing a unified definition of digital transformation, Technovation, 102, 102217, 2021. Halevy, N., Strategic Thinking, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 2016, pp. 1–66. 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143Ishizaka, A. and Labib, A., Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process, Expert Systems with Applications, 38 (11), 2011, pp. 14336–14345. 10.1016/j.lrp.2020.101999Kunisch, S., Menz, M., and Langan, R., Chief digital officers: An exploratory analysis of their emergence, nature, and determinants, Long Range Planning, 2020. 10.1016/s0963-8687(96)80005-9Lederer, A.L. and Salmela, H., Toward a theory of strategic information systems planning, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 5 (3), 1996, pp. 237–253. 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2022.104282De Moragas, A.I., Disclosing decision makers’ private interests, European Economic Review, 150, 104282, 2022. Morgan, D.L., Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: A Pragmatic Approach, 2014. Rock, D., sCARF : a brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others, 2009. Savinskaya, O. B., Istomina, A. G., Larkina, T. Yu., Kruglova, K.D., Conceptual ideas about the strategies of ’mixing methods’ (mixed methods research): stages of development and modern discussions, Sociological Research, 388 (8), 2016, pp. 21–29. 10.1016/j.system.2018.03.010Taguchi, N., Description and explanation of pragmatic development: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research, System, 75, 2018, pp. 23–32. 10.1016/j.jet.2023.105636Tang, R. and Zhang, M., Motivated naivete. Journal of Economic Theory, 209, 105636, 2023. 10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003Vial, G., Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28 (2), 2019, pp. 118–144.