Journal Home Page
OPEN ACCESS
Digital Transformation and Workflow Management in Multimedia and Interior Architecture Studios
| Safayed Hossain ORCID: Department of Graphic Design & Multimedia Faculty of Design & Technology Shanto-Mariam University of Creative Technology Dhaka, Bangladesh |
| Prof. Dr Kazi Abdul Mannan Department of Business Administration Faculty of Business Shanto-Mariam University of Creative Technology Dhaka, Bangladesh Email: drkaziabdulmannan@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7123-132X Corresponding author: Safayed Hossain: safayedhossainsaad@gmail.com |
Learn. polic. strategies. 2026, 5(1); https://doi.org/10.64907/xkmf.v5i1.lps.5
Submission received: 2 October 2025 / Revised: 8 November 2025 / Accepted: 16 December 2025 / Published: 4 January 2026
Abstract
The study explores the evolving dynamics of digital transformation and workflow management within multimedia and interior architecture studios, focusing on how technology reshapes creative processes, collaboration, and production efficiency. Through a qualitative research approach, the study draws insights from interviews, document analyses, and observational data to examine the integration of digital tools, cloud-based platforms, and automation systems that streamline project coordination and enhance design quality. The findings reveal that digital transformation fosters flexibility, interdisciplinary collaboration, and innovation, though it also introduces challenges related to software adaptation, data management, and skill realignment. The theoretical framework integrates socio-technical systems theory and innovation diffusion theory to interpret how creative studios negotiate the balance between human expertise and technological mediation. The study concludes that effective workflow management depends on cultivating a digital mindset, continuous training, and adaptive leadership to sustain innovation in digitally driven design ecosystems.
Keywords: digital transformation, workflow management, multimedia studios, interior architecture, BIM, VR/AR, agile, socio-technical systems
1. Introduction
In recent years, the landscape of design production in both multimedia and interior architecture studios has been dramatically reshaped by digital technologies. Whereas traditional workflows in these settings were largely sequential—sketching, modelling, documentation, renderings, and presentation—the advent of cloud-collaboration, immersive media (VR/AR), Building Information Modelling (BIM), and AI-driven generative design has introduced new possibilities for iteration, coordination, and stakeholder engagement. For creative studios working at the intersection of architecture, interior design, and multimedia, the question is not simply “which software” but rather “how do workflows change when tools, processes, and people all evolve together?”
The concept of “digital transformation” captures this broader change: it refers to the strategic and systematic adoption of digital technologies and data-driven processes that fundamentally alter how organisations create and deliver value (Kraus et al., 2022). In the context of architecture and design studios, digital transformation implies more than converting drawings to 3D models or using PDFs for review—it involves rethinking project orchestration, asset management, team collaboration, and client communication. Despite the excitement surrounding these tools, uptake in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) sector has been uneven and often fragmented. As one study observes, the AEC industry “is negotiating a slow and fragmented shift toward digital transformation” (Gardner, 2022, p. 1).
The implications of digital transformation for workflow management are particularly salient in studios that deliver multimedia content (such as VR walkthroughs, animations, interactive renderings) and interior architectural projects, where spatial experience, aesthetics, materiality, and human-scale interaction matter. In these environments, workflows must support creative ideation, rapid prototyping, iteration with clients, coordination among disciplines (architects, interior designers, visualisation specialists, contractors), and delivery under time and budget constraints. Digital tools promise to accelerate iteration, improve coordination, enable immersive client engagement, and reduce re-work—but only if embedded into well-designed workflows and supported by organisational practices. For example, a cloud-based collaboration platform for BIM shares model data in real-time among contributors, but without governance protocols, naming conventions, and clear role definitions, the risk of “digital chaos” increases (Autodesk, n.d.).
This study focuses on understanding how digital transformation is influencing workflow management in multimedia and interior architecture studios. By “workflow management,” we refer to the orchestration of tasks, artefacts, tools, roles, hand-offs, and decision-points over the lifetime of a project—from early briefing through concept design, detailed design, coordination, fabrication/implementation, to client delivery and post-occupancy review. The question is timely: as industry reports note, the architectural services market is projected to grow from US$376 billion in 2023 to $523 billion by 2030, driven in part by digitalisation and collaboration platforms. (French, 2023).
The objectives of this paper are threefold: first, to synthesise existing literature on digital transformation and workflow management in the creative built environment; second, to articulate a theoretical framework suitable for exploring the interplay of technology, process, and people in studios; and third, to propose a qualitative research methodology to investigate how studios are navigating this transformation. In doing so, we argue that successful workflow adaptation in digital transformation is not a linear process of tool replacement, but rather a socio-technical change that involves redesigning work practices, roles, and artefacts. Underpinned by a multiple-case qualitative research design, this inquiry may yield practical insights for studio managers, designers, and educators seeking to align creativity, collaboration, and digital efficiency.
2. Literature Review
The literature relevant to this study spans three interconnected domains: digital transformation in architecture and design, workflow management and digital workflows in creative/architectural practice, and socio-organisational dimensions of technology adoption in studios. Below, each domain is reviewed in turn.
2.1 Digital transformation in architecture and design
Digital transformation (DT) is widely conceptualised as deeper than mere digitisation; it involves reconfiguring organisational processes, business models, and ecosystems through digital technologies (Kraus et al., 2022). In the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) domain, research underscores the pace of transformation as slower and more fragmented compared to other industries (Gardner, 2022). For instance, Gardner (2022) interviewed 17 professionals in large architectural practices in Sydney. He identified that organisations were mostly operating at “single-loop learning” (adapting existing workflows) rather than “double- or triple-loop learning” (re-thinking goals and processes).
Several empirical studies map critical success factors for digital transformation in the built environment. One recent study proposing a readiness framework for construction found that although many technologies (e.g., BIM, IoT, digital twins) are available, comprehensive frameworks that address processes, people, and technology across the lifecycle remain uncommon (Zhang et al., 2022). The study concludes that the industry lacks a systematic understanding of the conditions under which DT can succeed (Zhang et al., 2022).
For interior-architecture and multimedia design firms, a specific thesis investigating digital transformation in the Nordic interior-design sector highlights business-relationship platforms, digitalisation of service delivery, and organisational adaptation as key enablers (Carlsson, 2023). The transition arises not simply by acquiring new tools but by rethinking how value is delivered to clients, how workflows are governed, and how design and delivery teams collaborate (Carlsson, 2023). Together, these works suggest that DT in design studios is multifaceted, involving technological adoption, organisational learning, workflow re-engineering, and business-model change.
2.2 Workflow management and digital workflows in creative/architectural practice
Workflow management refers to structuring and coordinating sequences of tasks, resources, decision-points, and hand-offs in a production environment. In architecture and design, workflow research has been influenced by digital technologies that have transformed not only what is produced but how production is organised. Marble’s edited volume “Digital Workflows in Architecture: Design-Assembly-Industry” explores how digital processes reshape architecture from design through fabrication and building delivery (Hernández, 2013). Hernández (2013) argues that “the process of architectural design has become a complex workflow… organised around designing design, designing assembly, designing industry” (p. 1). The recognition of workflow shifts acknowledges that digital tools do not simply replace old ones but require reconfiguration of team arrangements, information flows, and artefact handover protocols.
More recently, van Beerendonk and ter Hall (2021) described the notion of “seamless digital workflows” in architecture, which aim to connect data produced by different specialists into one continuous digital flow through the project lifecycle. They emphasise both opportunities (improved coordination, fewer errors) and challenges (atypical use of tools, role shifts, preservation of aesthetic/creative autonomy) in this shift (van Beerendonk & ter Hall, 2021).
In the interior-architecture and multimedia domain, digital workflows integrate multidisciplinary teams (designers, visualisation artists, VR developers) and increasingly involve iterative client engagements, immersive media, and rapid prototyping. For example, digital collaboration platforms for BIM and VR enable more frequent design reviews, early client validation, and reduced re-work. Industry-oriented commentary reports that interior design studios adopting cloud-based collaboration achieved improvements in project coordination, fewer delays, and greater client satisfaction (DotStudio.Design, 2023).
The literature therefore suggests that workflow management in the digital era is characterised by three major shifts: from linear phase-gated processes to more iterative, agile cycles; from isolated tools and discipline-specific silos toward integrated, shared platforms; and from static deliverables to dynamic, immersive client-designer interaction loops. However, the research also highlights that adoption of these workflows remains uneven, partly due to legacy practices, skills gaps, and governance issues.
2.3 Socio-organisational dimensions of technology adoption in studios
A crucial strand of research examines the human, organisational, and cultural barriers to effective digital transformation in design-led studios. Gardner (2022) draws on organisational learning theory to show that many architecture firms are operating at a basic level of learning (“single-loop”) when it comes to digital tools; they adjust workflows around existing practices rather than fundamentally re-thinking roles, models, and assumptions. This suggests that while tools may change, underlying behaviours and work practices often remain constant, undermining deeper transformation.
Other studies emphasise challenges such as interoperability (file formats, varying software versions), standardisation (naming conventions, data schemas), and governance (who owns model data, how is versioning managed). For instance, a case study of digital transformation in Portuguese architecture studios identified that while BIM and digital fabrication were adopted, persistent barriers included high implementation cost, resistance to change, and regulatory frameworks (Silva & Paio, 2021).
In addition, the creative autonomy of design professionals introduces unique friction: as van Beerendonk & ter Hall (2021) note, architects may resist rigorous, standardised digital workflows that appear to constrain creative expression. They argue that digital workflows must be designed in ways that allow creative professionals to maintain agency and explore aesthetic decisions while benefitting from digital coordination.
In sum, the socio-organisational literature draws attention to the fact that digital transformation and workflow management cannot be studied only as technical challenges—they must be reframed as socio-technical processes involving skill development, cultural change, leadership, and continuous learning.
2.4 Knowledge gaps and rationale for this study
Despite growing interest in digital transformation in architecture and design, several gaps remain. First, much of the research focuses on larger architecture/engineering firms or the broader construction industry, with fewer studies specifically addressing small-to-medium interior architecture and multimedia studios. Second, while studies describe technology adoption and coordination benefits, fewer investigate workflow redesign in situ—how tasks, hand-offs, review cycles, and client-designer interactions change when digital transformation is underway. Third, there is limited qualitative research exploring the lived experience of creative studios—the tensions, experiments, failures, and evolutions of workflow practices in a digital transition.
This study seeks to address these gaps by focusing specifically on multimedia and interior architecture studios, adopting a qualitative, practice-oriented lens to explore how digital transformation is impacting workflow management, and by using a theoretical framework that explicitly integrates technology, process, and organisation. The results aim to generate insights for practitioners and scholars alike: how to design hybrid workflows that support creativity and efficiency; how to manage transitions in studio culture; and how to align tool investment with process reengineering.
3. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this study integrates socio-technical systems theory, innovation diffusion theory, and knowledge management theory to explore digital transformation and workflow management in multimedia and interior architecture studios. These theories collectively elucidate how digital tools, human interactions, and organisational cultures shape productivity and creativity within design-oriented environments.
3.1 Socio-Technical Systems Theory
Originating from the work of Trist and Bamforth (1951), socio-technical systems theory (STS) posits that organisational performance depends on the interplay between social and technical subsystems. In multimedia and interior architecture studios, this theory explains how digital tools—such as BIM (Building Information Modelling), virtual reality (VR), and 3D visualisation platforms—integrate with human collaboration and creative practices (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977; Mumford, 2006). Effective workflow management thus requires a balance between technical capabilities and social dynamics (Pasmore, 2015). STS emphasises participatory design and flexible structures, suggesting that successful digital transformation is not merely about technology adoption but also about aligning workflows with human-centred values (Davis, Challenger, Jayewardene, & Clegg, 2014).
3.2 Innovation Diffusion Theory
Rogers’ (2003) Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) provides another essential lens for understanding how digital transformation unfolds. IDT explains how innovations spread within a social system through communication channels over time. In creative industries, adoption rates of digital technologies depend on perceived usefulness, complexity, and compatibility with existing design cultures (Greenhalgh et al., 2005). For instance, interior architects and multimedia designers may adopt advanced rendering or AI-assisted design tools based on peer influence and institutional norms (Hsu & Lin, 2020). This theory underscores the role of opinion leaders, training programs, and professional communities in shaping technology diffusion, emphasising the need for strategic communication to foster adoption (Tornatzky & Klein, 1982).
3.3 Knowledge Management Theory
Knowledge Management (KM) theory, rooted in Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) concept of the “knowledge-creating company,” highlights how organisations convert tacit and explicit knowledge through socialisation, externalisation, combination, and internalisation (the SECI model). Within multimedia and interior architecture studios, digital transformation enhances knowledge sharing through collaborative platforms, cloud storage, and real-time visualisation tools (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Effective workflow management depends on capturing creative insights and reusing design intelligence across projects (Grant, 1996). This process aligns with the broader principles of organisational learning, where digital ecosystems facilitate the continuous refinement of both technical and aesthetic knowledge (Davenport, 2018).
3.4 Integrative Perspective
The integration of STS, IDT, and KM theories provides a multidimensional understanding of digital transformation. STS focuses on socio-technical balance, IDT emphasises innovation diffusion dynamics, and KM explores knowledge creation and retention. Together, they conceptualise digital transformation as a systemic process involving human agency, technological adaptation, and organisational learning (Orlikowski, 2007). This integrated framework supports the qualitative exploration of how multimedia and interior design studios negotiate technological changes, optimise workflows, and cultivate a culture of innovation.
4. Research Methodology
4.1 Research Design
This study adopts a qualitative research design, as the aim is to explore the lived experiences, perceptions, and practices of professionals within multimedia and interior architecture studios undergoing digital transformation. Qualitative methods are suitable for understanding complex socio-technical phenomena where meanings, interpretations, and contexts are central (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The research is guided by an interpretivist epistemology, assuming that reality is socially constructed and that multiple perspectives exist regarding technology integration in creative workflows (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018).
4.2 Data Collection
4.2.1 Sampling Strategy
A purposive sampling method was employed to select participants with relevant experience in digital design, workflow management, or studio leadership. The sample included interior architects, multimedia designers, project managers, and digital coordinators from studios operating in Dhaka, Singapore, and London. Approximately 20–25 participants were recruited through professional networks and online forums, ensuring diversity in expertise and organisational size (Palinkas et al., 2015).
4.2.2 Interview Method
Primary data were collected through semi-structured interviews, allowing flexibility to explore emerging themes while maintaining consistency across participants. Each interview lasted between 45 and 75 minutes and focused on themes such as:
- Perceptions of digital tools and workflow integration
- Challenges in adopting new technologies
- Strategies for balancing creativity with digital efficiency
- Impacts on collaboration and communication
Interviews were recorded with consent and transcribed verbatim for analysis.
4.2.3 Supplementary Data
To triangulate findings, document analysis of workflow charts, project reports, and digital implementation policies was also conducted (Bowen, 2009). These materials provided organisational context and helped verify interview insights.
4.3 Data Analysis
The transcribed data were analysed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step framework: familiarisation, coding, theme development, reviewing, defining, and reporting. NVivo software was used to manage and categorise qualitative data. Emerging themes included “adaptive workflow design,” “digital collaboration cultures,” “resistance to technological change,” and “creative knowledge sharing.” This analytical approach facilitated the identification of patterns that link digital transformation practices to organisational effectiveness.
4.4 Trustworthiness and Validity
To ensure research rigour, Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) criteria for trustworthiness were applied:
- Credibility through member checking and triangulation
- Transferability by providing thick descriptions of contexts
- Dependability through an audit trail of coding decisions
- Confirmability by maintaining reflexive memos and researcher neutrality
These strategies enhanced the reliability and validity of the qualitative findings.
4.5 Ethical Considerations
Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional review board. Participants were informed about the study’s purpose, confidentiality measures, and their right to withdraw at any time. Data were anonymised, and pseudonyms were used to protect identities (Orb, Eisenhauer, & Wynaden, 2001).
4.6 Limitations
As a qualitative study, findings are context-specific and may not be generalizable across all creative industries. However, the insights offer valuable conceptual and practical implications for digital strategy and workflow management in similar contexts.
5. Findings
This section presents the empirical findings of the qualitative investigation into how multimedia and interior architecture studios experience digital transformation and manage evolving workflows. Based on thematic analysis of interviews and documents, four major themes emerged: Integration of Digital Ecosystems, Workflow Adaptation and Process Reengineering, Creative Collaboration and Communication, and Resistance, Learning, and Capability Development. Each theme reveals distinct dynamics that characterise the transition toward digitally enabled creative practice.
5.1 Integration of Digital Ecosystems
Most studios reported a shift toward integrated digital ecosystems combining design software, project management tools, and collaborative platforms. Participants described transitions from traditional paper-based systems to interconnected platforms such as Autodesk Revit, Adobe Creative Cloud, Asana, and Slack, which allowed for real-time updates and resource synchronisation. As one studio manager explained, “Our design, scheduling, and client feedback are now all in one system. The workflow is smoother, but it took months to align everyone” (Participant 4).
This integration reflects a broader trend toward socio-technical alignment, where technical systems are designed to support social collaboration (Mumford, 2006). However, the findings indicate uneven adaptation levels—larger studios implemented full digital ecosystems, while smaller firms adopted partial integrations due to budget and skill constraints. Participants highlighted interoperability as a persistent issue, especially between visualisation tools and BIM platforms. Despite such challenges, digital convergence improved workflow traceability, reduced redundancies, and enhanced cross-disciplinary coordination—findings consistent with prior studies emphasising digital integration as a driver of organisational agility (Kane et al., 2019; Sousa & Rocha, 2019).
5.2 Workflow Adaptation and Process Reengineering
The second theme concerns how studios restructured workflows to align with digital operations. Interviewees described a process of workflow reengineering, involving task automation, cloud-based file management, and version control. In several studios, digital project pipelines replaced linear sequences with iterative, feedback-driven cycles, reflecting agile methodologies common in software development (Rigby, Sutherland, & Noble, 2018).
One interior architect noted, “We now work in sprints — sketch, render, review, revise — within a shared folder. The hierarchy is less rigid; feedback flows faster.” Such iterative models increased creative responsiveness and reduced project turnaround times. Studios employing visual dashboards for tracking progress also reported higher transparency and accountability.
However, these gains required redefining traditional roles. Designers had to learn digital management skills, while project coordinators assumed hybrid positions linking creative and technical domains. These findings resonate with the knowledge-based theory of the firm, emphasising the strategic value of learning and adaptability in digitally transformed contexts (Grant, 1996; Davenport, 2018). Yet, workflow transformation also generated initial confusion, requiring new norms for file naming, feedback cycles, and decision authority.
5.3 Creative Collaboration and Communication
A third dominant theme was the transformation of communication and collaboration patterns. Digital tools enabled hybrid collaboration, blending physical meetings with virtual co-design sessions. Several participants emphasised that digital visualisation technologies such as VR walkthroughs, 3D renders, and augmented reality mock-ups enhanced client engagement and internal brainstorming.
As Participant 11 explained, “When clients can experience the space virtually, they give more informed feedback — it changes how we design.” Such immersive collaboration tools promoted shared understanding and reduced the gap between conceptual and technical perspectives. Similarly, internal collaboration became more inclusive, as digital whiteboards (e.g., Miro, Conceptboard) facilitated idea exchange across geographical boundaries.
Nonetheless, digital communication sometimes diluted the spontaneity of creative dialogue, especially when asynchronous tools replaced spontaneous studio interactions. Several designers missed “the tactile experience” and “physical co-presence,” consistent with earlier research highlighting tensions between digital convenience and creative intimacy (Bilandzic & Venable, 2011; Orlikowski, 2007). Therefore, most studios adopted hybrid strategies—using digital channels for documentation but maintaining periodic in-person reviews to sustain creative chemistry.
5.4 Resistance, Learning, and Capability Development
The final theme concerns the human dimension of digital transformation. Resistance to new systems was a recurring challenge, particularly among senior practitioners accustomed to analogue processes. Participants cited issues such as “software fatigue,” “steep learning curves,” and “over-standardisation of creativity.”
To mitigate resistance, many studios implemented peer-learning workshops, mentorship programs, and micro-learning modules. As Participant 7 remarked, “Once we reframed technology as a creative partner, not a threat, adoption improved.” This process reflects Rogers’ (2003) Innovation Diffusion Theory, where relative advantage and compatibility influence adoption rates. Studios with strong leadership advocacy and supportive learning cultures experienced smoother transitions.
Another key finding was the emergence of digital champions—individuals who acted as internal change agents by bridging creative and technical domains. These champions played critical roles in knowledge transfer and culture building. The collective evidence thus demonstrates that digital transformation succeeds not merely through software acquisition but through fostering adaptive capabilities, reflexivity, and cultural resilience (Schein, 2017; Kane et al., 2019).
5.5 Summary of Findings
In summary, the findings illustrate that digital transformation in multimedia and interior architecture studios is a multidimensional process encompassing technological integration, workflow reconfiguration, and cultural adaptation. The transition produces both efficiency gains and socio-cultural tensions, demanding continuous learning and leadership commitment. These insights lay the foundation for the ensuing discussion on theoretical implications, managerial insights, and strategic recommendations.
6. Discussion
The discussion interprets the findings within the framework of socio-technical systems theory, innovation diffusion, and knowledge management. It explores how digital transformation reshapes organisational dynamics, creative practices, and leadership paradigms in multimedia and interior architecture studios.
6.1 Socio-Technical Alignment and Systemic Transformation
The findings underscore that digital transformation is not merely technological substitution but a systemic realignment between human and technical subsystems. According to Trist and Bamforth (1951) and Pasmore (2015), optimal performance arises when technology and social systems evolve in harmony. Studios achieving this balance experienced seamless communication, transparency, and morale enhancement. Conversely, when technical upgrades outpaced social adaptation, disruptions occurred.
This aligns with Orlikowski’s (2007) concept of sociomaterial entanglement, where digital tools and human behaviours mutually constitute one another. For instance, while collaborative platforms enhanced coordination, they also required new etiquette for communication and decision-making. Effective workflow management, therefore, depends on reflexive alignment—periodic recalibration between process automation and human creativity.
6.2 Innovation Diffusion and Organisational Learning
Rogers’ (2003) Innovation Diffusion Theory explains the uneven adoption rates observed in this study. Studios that perceived digital systems as compatible with their creative ethos adopted them faster. The role of “digital champions” mirrors the function of opinion leaders who mediate between innovation sources and potential adopters (Greenhalgh et al., 2005).
Furthermore, early adopters facilitated organisational learning by creating micro-networks of practice, where informal mentoring accelerated diffusion. This confirms Tornatzky and Klein’s (1982) argument that successful adoption depends on contextual reinforcement and visible benefits. The finding that resistance diminished after experiential learning sessions reflects the principle of reinvention, where users modify innovations to suit local needs (Rogers, 2003).
Hence, digital transformation should be conceptualised as an iterative learning process, not a one-time implementation. Studios that institutionalised reflection sessions and feedback loops sustained higher innovation maturity—supporting Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) SECI model, which emphasises the cyclical conversion of tacit and explicit knowledge.
6.3 Knowledge Management and Creative Capital
Knowledge management emerged as a critical determinant of workflow efficiency and creative excellence. The integration of cloud repositories, visual documentation, and shared libraries allowed studios to retain experiential knowledge across projects, consistent with Alavi and Leidner’s (2001) claim that knowledge systems enhance decision quality.
However, the study also revealed that digital abundance can cause information overload if not structured effectively. Some participants expressed frustration with excessive documentation or fragmented storage. This tension supports Davenport’s (2018) argument that knowledge systems require clear governance and taxonomy to remain useful.
From a creative standpoint, digital knowledge sharing democratized expertise and reduced hierarchical dependency, thereby increasing collective creative capital (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997). Teams that viewed digital archives as living systems—continuously updated and refined—demonstrated superior design agility.
6.4 Workflow Innovation and Adaptive Leadership
The transition toward agile, iterative workflows reflects a paradigmatic shift from hierarchical management to adaptive leadership (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). Leaders now act as facilitators who create enabling environments for experimentation rather than enforcing rigid control.
The findings reveal that adaptive leaders foster psychological safety, encouraging experimentation with new tools. This resonates with Edmondson’s (2012) concept of team learning climate, where openness accelerates innovation. Leadership communication also proved essential in mediating between digital efficiency and creative autonomy. Studios where leaders articulated a shared digital vision reported higher morale and engagement.
Moreover, workflow innovation blurs traditional boundaries between design, management, and technology roles—consistent with the transdisciplinary collaboration trend in creative industries (Schön, 1983; Boland & Collopy, 2004). Such boundary fluidity enhances innovation but requires constant role negotiation and coordination.
6.5 Tensions, Limitations, and Hybrid Futures
Despite the positive outcomes, digital transformation generated tensions between efficiency and artistry. Over-standardisation risked constraining creative exploration, while excessive digitalisation threatened the embodied, material aspects of design (Bilandzic & Venable, 2011). These tensions suggest that hybrid models—balancing digital workflows with physical prototyping—are the most sustainable future direction.
The findings also highlight the uneven resource distribution across studios: smaller firms face financial and training barriers, echoing the digital divide problem (Van Dijk, 2020). Policymakers and industry associations could support capacity-building initiatives to ensure inclusive transformation.
Ultimately, digital transformation in design studios must be viewed as an evolutionary journey, demanding continuous adaptation, critical reflection, and value alignment between technology, people, and creativity.
In sum, the discussion emphasises that effective digital transformation in multimedia and interior architecture studios hinges on socio-technical alignment, iterative learning, and adaptive leadership. The process enhances productivity, collaboration, and creative resilience, yet introduces new complexities that must be managed through strategic design thinking and inclusive digital cultures.
7. Conclusion and Recommendations
The research underscores that digital transformation has become an indispensable catalyst for innovation, operational efficiency, and competitiveness in multimedia and interior architecture studios. The findings reveal that digitalisation is not merely a technological upgrade but a cultural and organisational shift that redefines creative workflows, client interactions, and design outputs. By adopting digital tools such as Building Information Modelling (BIM), AI-driven rendering, and cloud-based project management systems, studios can enhance productivity, maintain cross-disciplinary collaboration, and improve client satisfaction. However, the success of such transformations depends largely on how effectively these tools are integrated into the creative process rather than being used as isolated technical aids.
From a theoretical standpoint, the study demonstrates that socio-technical alignment—the balance between technological infrastructure and human adaptation—is crucial for sustainable innovation. Resistance to change, digital fatigue, and skill disparities often undermine the benefits of digital transformation. Therefore, leadership within creative studios must focus on change management, continuous learning, and digital literacy enhancement to empower designers to leverage technology meaningfully.
In light of these insights, several recommendations emerge. First, studios should establish structured digital workflows supported by training programs to reduce technological barriers. Second, institutions and firms should invest in collaborative digital ecosystems, integrating visualisation, modelling, and project-tracking tools for seamless communication. Third, future research should examine the long-term cultural and cognitive effects of digital immersion in design practices, particularly how it shapes creativity and aesthetic judgment. Ultimately, a strategic, human-centred approach to digital transformation ensures that technology amplifies, rather than constrains, the artistry and vision that define multimedia and interior architecture studios.
References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.
Bilandzic, M., & Venable, J. (2011). Towards participatory action design research. Proceedings of the 22nd Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney.
Boland, R. J., & Collopy, F. (2004). Managing as designing. Stanford University Press.
Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), 17–32.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Davenport, T. H. (2018). Process management for knowledge work. Harvard Business Review Press.
Davis, M. C., Challenger, R., Jayewardene, D. N. W., & Clegg, C. W. (2014). Advancing socio-technical systems thinking. Applied Ergonomics, 45(2), 171–180.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage.
Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How organisations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. Jossey-Bass.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2005). Diffusion of innovations in service organisations. Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716–749.
Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership. Harvard Business Press.
Hsu, C. L., & Lin, J. C. C. (2020). Factors affecting acceptance of digital design tools. Computers in Human Behaviour, 108, 106310.
Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A. N., & Kiron, D. (2019). Accelerating digital innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 60(4), 45–52.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Mumford, E. (2006). The story of socio-technical design. Information Systems Journal, 16(4), 317–342.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), 93–96.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices. Organisation Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.
Palinkas, L. A., et al. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(5), 533–544.
Pasmore, W. A. (2015). Research in organisational change and development. Emerald Group Publishing.
Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Noble, A. (2018). Agile at scale. Harvard Business Review, 96(3), 88–96.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organisational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Wiley.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Sousa, M. J., & Rocha, Á. (2019). Digital learning: A bibliometric analysis. Computers in Human Behaviour, 100, 70–83.
Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and adoption-implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29(1), 28–45.
Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method. Human Relations, 4(1), 3–38.
Van Dijk, J. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press.