Doi.org/10.52340/eab.2026.18.02.07

Digital transformation has become an important component of university governance. Universities increasingly employ enterprise resource planning systems, learning management platforms, business intelligence tools, electronic governance solutions, and other digital applications to support both academic and administrative processes. Yet, the mere presence of digital tools does not automatically mean that an institution has achieved effective transformation. The value of technology depends on its integration into everyday governance, the quality of infrastructure, staff competencies, managerial support and organizational culture. Artificial intelligence introduces a new stage of this process by offering opportunities for automation, data analysis and decision support, while also raising questions about privacy, accountability and algorithmic transparency.
This study aimed to examine the relationship between digital technology integration, perceived managerial efficiency, and organizational transparency in university governance. It also explored the role of enabling organizational factors and considered AI as a prospective avenue for further development. Three hypotheses were tested: (1) digital integration is positively associated with managerial efficiency; (2) digital integration is positively associated with perceived organizational transparency; and (3) digital integration, combined with enabling organizational factors, is positively associated with managerial efficiency.
The empirical analysis was based on a structured questionnaire. Initially, 245 responses were collected; three incomplete questionnaires were excluded during data cleaning. The final sample consisted of 242 valid responses. The respondents represented management, administrative staff and academic staff. They were also grouped by university type and work experience. Most attitudinal statements were measured using a five-point Likert scale. Three composite indices were constructed: digital integration, managerial efficiency and enabling organizational factors. Transparency, overall positive impact and satisfaction with existing systems were measured as separate indicators. The analysis was conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics using descriptive statistics, Cronbach\\\\'s Alpha, Pearson correlation, multiple linear regression, an independent-samples t-test and one-way ANOVA. Open-ended responses were analyzed thematically.
The reliability of the composite scales was satisfactory. Cronbach\\\\'s Alpha was 0.908 for digital integration, 0.887 for managerial efficiency and 0.753 for enabling organizational factors. The descriptive results indicate a highly positive perception of the overall contribution of digital technologies to university governance: the mean score for overall impact was 4.53 on a five-point scale. The mean score for managerial efficiency was 4.05, while perceived transparency reached 3.95. The enabling organizational factors index was also high at 4.06. By contrast, digital integration received a more moderate score of 3.43 and satisfaction with existing systems was 3.29. This gap suggests that respondents recognize the strategic value of digital transformation while still experiencing practical limitations related to integration, usability or service quality.
The correlation analysis supported the first two hypotheses. Digital integration was positively associated with managerial efficiency (r = 0.394; p < 0.001) and perceived transparency (r = 0.351; p < 0.001). The strongest correlation was observed between efficiency and transparency (r = 0.773; p < 0.001), indicating that respondents perceive these outcomes as closely connected. Digital integration was also strongly associated with satisfaction with existing systems (r = 0.636; p < 0.001).
Multiple linear regression was used to assess the third hypothesis. The model was statistically significant (F(5,236) = 39.034; p < 0.001) and explained 45.3% of the variance in perceived managerial efficiency (R² = 0.453). Organizational culture was the strongest independent factor (β = 0.401; p < 0.001), followed by managerial support (β = 0.246; p = 0.001) and digital integration (β = 0.192; p = 0.001). The results show that technology must be accompanied by organizational readiness and supportive management practices.
Group comparisons revealed that respondents from private universities reported higher digital integration and greater satisfaction with existing systems than respondents from public universities. Management representatives also evaluated integration and satisfaction more positively than administrative and academic staff. Respondents with more than ten years of work experience tended to report higher levels of integration, efficiency, enabling factors and transparency.
The thematic analysis of open-ended responses complemented the quantitative findings. Respondents emphasized the need to update infrastructure, improve internet access, develop integrated platforms, simplify interfaces, strengthen staff training and enhance cybersecurity. AI was explicitly mentioned as a prospective tool for automating routine tasks, improving data management and supporting administrative and academic processes. The study concludes that successful digital transformation in universities requires a coordinated approach combining technology, organizational culture, leadership, staff development and responsible AI governance.

Keywords: Digital transformation; university governance; efficiency; transparency; artificial intelligence; organizational culture.
JEL Codes: I23, O33, M15, D73, C88

References:
• Benashvili M. (2025). khelovnuri intelektis roli saganmanatleblo politikis chamokalibebasa da umaghlesi ganatlebis modernizatsiashi. [The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Shaping Educational Policy and Modernizing Higher Education. Journal Vectors of Social Sciences, No. 10, pp. 15–25.] in Georgian. https://admin.vectors.ge/custom-files/1766145775_02-MAKA%20BENASHVILI.pdf
• Bendianishvili N., Shengelia R., Veshapidze Sh. (2025). khelovnuri intelektis (AI) teknologiebis potentsiali umaghles ganatlebashi da misi gavlena mdgrad ekonomikur ganvitarebaze. [The Potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Technologies in Higher Education and their Impact on the Sustainable Development of the Economy. Works of Georgian Technical University, No. 3(537), pp. 224–230.] In Georgian. https://doi.org/10.36073/1512-0996-2025-3-224-230. (Last seen: 31 May 2026).
• Gabisonia Z. (2023). tsipruli mmartveloba da samartlebrivi teknologiebi martlmsajulebis sistemashi. [Digital Governance and Legal Technologies in the Justice System. Justice, No. 1(4), pp. 28–44.] In Georgian. https://doi.org/10.59172/2667-9876/2023-1/28-44. (Last seen 31 May 2026).
• Tavberidze N. (2025). khelovnuri intelekti, rogorts tsipruli mmartvelobis ganvitarebis instrumenti. [Artificial Intelligence as a Tool for Advancing Digital Governance. Vectors of Social Sciences, No. 9, pp. 6–16.] in Georgian https://doi.org/10.51895/VSS9/Tavberidze. (Last seen 31 May 2026). In Georgian.
• Pantskhava E., Jishkariani M., Gvilava T. (2026). khelovnuri intelektis sargebeli umaghles ganatlebashi. [The Benefits of Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education. Georgian Scientists, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 268–277.] in Georgian. https://doi.org/10.52340/gs.2026.08.01.25. (Accessed: 31 May 2026).
• Akour M., Alenezi M. (2022). Higher Education Future in the Era of Digital Transformation. Education Sciences, 12(11), 784. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110784 (accessed May 31, 2026).
• Alenezi M., Akour M. (2023). Digital Transformation Blueprint in Higher Education: A Case Study of PSU. Sustainability, 15(10), 8204. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108204 (accessed May 31, 2026).
• Antonopoulou K., Begkos C., Zhu Z. (2023). Staying Afloat amidst Extreme Uncertainty: A Case Study of Digital Transformation in Higher Education. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 192, 122603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122603 (accessed May 31, 2026).
• Correa-Peralta M., Vinueza-Martinez J., Castillo-Heredia L. (2025). Evolution, Topics and Relevant Research Methodologies in Business Intelligence and Data Analysis in the Academic Management of Higher Education Institutions: A Literature Review. Results in Engineering, 25, 103782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.103782 (accessed May 31, 2026).
• Katsamakas E., Pavlov O. V., Saklad R. (2024). Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation of Higher Education Institutions: A Systems Approach. Sustainability, 16(14), 6118. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146118 (accessed May 31, 2026).
• Khairullah S. A., Harris S., Hadi H. J., Sandhu R. A., Ahmad N., Alshara M. A. (2025). Implementing Artificial Intelligence in Academic and Administrative Processes through Responsible Strategic Leadership in the Higher Education Institutions. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1548104. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1548104 (accessed May 31, 2026).
• Mabotha P. A. P., Ngcamu B. S. (2026). Digital Transformation in the Higher Education Sector: A Systematic Literature Review. Administrative Sciences, 16(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci16010001 (accessed May 31, 2026).
• Miao F., Holmes W. (2023). Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research. Paris: UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research (accessed May 31, 2026).
• Ngulube P., Ncube M. M. (2025). Leveraging Learning Analytics to Improve the User Experience of Learning Management Systems in Higher Education Institutions. Information, 16(5), 419. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16050419 (accessed May 31, 2026).
• Qian Y., Yunus M. M., Rafiq K. R. M. (2024). Digital Innovations in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(2), pp. 1330-1344. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i2/20630 (accessed May 31, 2026).
• Sanchez L., Penarreta J., Soria Poma X. (2024). Learning Management Systems for Higher Education: A Brief Comparison. Discover Education, 3, 58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00143-5 (accessed May 31, 2026).
• Silva Carmo J. E., Pacheco Lacerda D., Orsolin Klingenberg C., Sartori Piran F. A. (2025). Digital Transformation in the Management of Higher Education Institutions. Sustainable Futures, 9, 100692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100692 (accessed May 31, 2026).
• Smith M. D. (2023). The Abundant University: Remaking Higher Education for a Digital World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14247.001.0001 (accessed May 31, 2026).
• Souli S. P., Pierrakeas C. (2025). Contemporary Trends in University Administration with the Integration of Digital/New Technologies. Administrative Sciences, 15(11), 437. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15110437 (accessed May 31, 2026).
• Tang J., Huang P., Yan S. (2025). Digital Transformation in Higher Education: Logical Framework, Practical Dilemmas, and Implementation Approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1565591. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1565591 (accessed May 31, 2026).
• 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, pp. 889-901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022 (accessed May 31, 2026).
• Vial G. (2019). Understanding Digital Transformation: A Review and a Research Agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), pp. 118-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003 (accessed May 31, 2026).

This article was prepared within the framework of the research project of TSU