Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 965

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How entrepreneurial SMEs compete through digital platforms: The roles of digital platform capability, network capability and ambidexterity

Open access
Cenamor, Javier, Parida, Vinit, Wincent, Joakim·2019·Journal of Business Research
DOI 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.035
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Digitalization offers unprecedented opportunities for entrepreneurial small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). However, many entrepreneurial SMEs lack resources and capabilities or suffer from inertia, which hampers these opportunities. This study investigates how entrepreneurial SMEs can enhance performance through digital platforms. Specifically, the study examines the effect of digital platform capability and network capability on entrepreneurial SMEs' financial performance. The study also examines how exploitation and exploration orientations moderate this relationship. Based on analysis of 230 entrepreneurial SMEs, the results indicate that digital platform capability has a positive indirect effect on entrepreneurial SMEs' performance via network capability. The study also shows that exploitation and exploration orientations negatively and positively moderate this effect, respectively. The results suggest that entrepreneurial SMEs can enhance their performance through digital platform capability by aligning this capability with their orientation. These findings thereby enrich the literature on entrepreneurial SMEs and capabilities.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.035

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Research works printed but not linked: 80

  1. Ali, 2018, The role of knowledge spillovers and cultural intelligence in enhancing expatriate employees' individual and team creativity, Journal of Business Research
  2. Baldwin, 2012, Organization design for business ecosystems, Journal of Organization Design, 1, 20, 10.7146/jod.6334 · DOI
  3. Baruch, 1999, Response rate in academic studies — A comparative analysis, Human Relations, 52, 421, 10.1177/001872679905200401 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Baruch, 2008, Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research, Human Relations, 61, 1139, 10.1177/0018726708094863 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Battistella, 2017, Cultivating business model agility through focused capabilities: A multiple case study, Journal of Business Research, 73, 65, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.12.007 · DOI
  6. Bi, 2017, E-business and fast growth SMEs, Small Business Economics, 48, 559, 10.1007/s11187-016-9788-8 · DOI
  7. Cenamor, 2017, Adopting a platform approach in servitization: Leveraging the value of digitalization, International Journal of Production Economics, 192, 54, 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.12.033 · DOI
  8. Cepeda-Carrion, 2019, Tips to use partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in knowledge management, Journal of Knowledge Management, 23, 67, 10.1108/JKM-05-2018-0322 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Chan, 2018, Agility in responding to disruptive digital innovation: Case study of an SME, Information Systems Journal
  10. Dai, 2017, Ambidexterity in new ventures: The impact of new product development alliances and transactive memory systems, Journal of Business Research, 75, 77, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.02.009 · DOI
  11. de Reuver, 2018, The digital platform: A research agenda, Journal of Information Technology, 33, 124, 10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Dominguez Gonzalez, 2018, The effects of organization context on knowledge exploration and exploitation, Journal of Business Research, 90, 215, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.025 · DOI
  13. Frishammar, 2018, Digital strategies for two-sided markets: A case study of shopping malls, Decision Support Systems, 108, 34, 10.1016/j.dss.2018.02.003 · DOI
  14. Giotopoulos, 2017, What drives ICT adoption by SMEs? Evidence from a large-scale survey in Greece, Journal of Business Research, 81, 60, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.08.007 · DOI
  15. Gray, 2006, Absorptive capacity, knowledge management and innovation in entrepreneurial small firms, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 12, 345, 10.1108/13552550610710144 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Gulati, 2000, Strategic networks, Strategic Management Journal, 203, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<203::AID-SMJ102>3.0.CO;2-K · DOI
  17. Gupta, 2018, Strategic learning for digital market pioneering: Examining the transformation of Wishberry's crowdfunding model, Technological Forecasting and Social Change
  18. Gürdür, 2019, Digitalizing Swedish industry: What is next?, Computers in Industry, 105, 153, 10.1016/j.compind.2018.12.011 · DOI
  19. Hair, 2018, When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM, European Business Review
  20. Helfat, 2016, Integrative capabilities, Vertical integration, and innovation over successive technology lifecycles, Organization Science, 27, 249, 10.1287/orsc.2015.1045 · DOI
  21. Helfat, 2018, Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems, Research Policy, 47, 1391, 10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.019 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 2009, vol. 20
  23. Holgersson, 2013, Patent management in entrepreneurial SMEs: A literature review and an empirical study of innovation appropriation, patent propensity, and motives: Patent management in entrepreneurial SMEs, R&D Management, 43, 21, 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2012.00700.x · DOI
  24. Hsieh, 2015, Dialogic co-creation and service innovation performance in high-tech companies, Journal of Business Research, 68, 2266, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.009 · DOI
  25. Jin, 2018, Exploring the impact of digital platforms on SME internationalization: New Zealand SMEs use of the Alibaba platform for Chinese market entry, Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 19, 72, 10.1080/10599231.2018.1453743 · DOI
  26. Junni, 2013, Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis, Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 299, 10.5465/amp.2012.0015 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Karimi, 2015, The role of dynamic capabilities in responding to digital disruption: A factor-based study of the newspaper industry, Journal of Management Information Systems, 32, 39, 10.1080/07421222.2015.1029380 · DOI
  28. Karimi, 2016, Corporate entrepreneurship, disruptive business model innovation adoption, and its performance: The case of the newspaper industry, Long Range Planning, 49, 342, 10.1016/j.lrp.2015.09.004 · DOI
  29. Kazan, 2018, Disentangling digital platform competition: The case of UK mobile payment platforms, Journal of Management Information Systems, 35, 180, 10.1080/07421222.2018.1440772 · DOI
  30. Kristal, 2010, The effect of an ambidextrous supply chain strategy on combinative competitive capabilities and business performance, Journal of Operations Management, 28, 415, 10.1016/j.jom.2009.12.002 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Kroh, 2018, Use and efficacy of information technology in innovation processes: The specific role of servitization, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10.1111/jpim.12445 · DOI
  32. Leal-Rodríguez, 2014, Absorptive capacity, innovation and cultural barriers: A conditional mediation model, Journal of Business Research, 67, 763, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.041 · DOI
  33. Li, 2017, Digital transformation by SME entrepreneurs: A capability perspective, Information Systems Journal
  34. Li, 2017, Information technology-enabled interactions, mutual monitoring, and supplier-buyer cooperation: A network perspective, Journal of Business Research, 78, 268, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.12.022 · DOI
  35. Li, 2016, e-Leadership through strategic alignment: An empirical study of small- and medium-sized enterprises in the digital age, Journal of Information Technology, 31, 185, 10.1057/jit.2016.10 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Lin, 2016, The effect of network relationship on the performance of SMEs, Journal of Business Research, 69, 1780, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.055 · DOI
  37. Lu, 2001, The internationalization and performance of SMEs, Strategic Management Journal, 22, 565, 10.1002/smj.184 · DOI
  38. Lundström, 2014, Measuring the costs and coverage of SME and entrepreneurship policy: A pioneering study, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38, 941, 10.1111/etap.12037 · DOI
  39. Madrid-Guijarro, 2009, Barriers to innovation among Spanish manufacturing SMEs, Journal of Small Business Management, 47, 465, 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2009.00279.x · DOI · Paper page
  40. Marion, 2015, The influence of digital design and IT on modular product architecture, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32, 98, 10.1111/jpim.12240 · DOI
  41. Markus, 2006, Industry-wide information systems standardization as collective action: The case of the U.S. residential mortgage industry, MIS Quarterly, 30, 439, 10.2307/25148768 · DOI · Paper page
  42. McAfee, 2012, Big Data: The management revolution, Harvard Business Review, 90, 60
  43. Melville, 2004, Review: Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value, MIS Quarterly, 28, 283, 10.2307/25148636 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Mohd Salleh, 2017, Information systems enacted capabilities and their effects on SMEs' information systems adoption behavior, Journal of Small Business Management, 55, 332, 10.1111/jsbm.12226 · DOI
  45. Nambisan, 2018, On open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12, 354, 10.1002/sej.1300 · DOI
  46. Nasco, 2008, Predicting electronic commerce adoption in Chilean SMEs, Journal of Business Research, 61, 697, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.047 · DOI
  47. Parida, 2016, A study of how ICT capabilities can influence dynamic capabilities, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 29, 179, 10.1108/JEIM-07-2012-0039 · DOI
  48. Parida, 2015, Interactive effects of network capability, ICT capability, and financial slack on technology-based small firm innovation performance, Journal of Small Business Management, 53, 278, 10.1111/jsbm.12191 · DOI
  49. Parida, 2016, Network partner diversity, network capability, and sales growth in small firms, Journal of Business Research, 69, 2113, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.017 · DOI
  50. Parida, 2017, Network capability, innovativeness, and performance: A multidimensional extension for entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29, 94, 10.1080/08985626.2016.1255434 · DOI
  51. Parida, 2012, Inbound open innovation activities in high-tech SMEs: The impact on innovation performance, Journal of Small Business Management, 50, 283, 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2012.00354.x · DOI
  52. Parker, 2017, Platform ecosystems: How developers invert the firm, MIS Quarterly, 41, 255, 10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.1.13 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Pati, 2018, Business model design–performance relationship under external and internal contingencies: Evidence from SMEs in an emerging economy, Long Range Planning, 10.1016/j.lrp.2018.01.001 · DOI
  54. Rai, 2010, Leveraging IT capabilities and competitive process capabilities for the management of interorganizational relationship portfolios, Information Systems Research, 21, 516, 10.1287/isre.1100.0299 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Ravichandran, 2018, Exploring the relationships between IT competence, innovation capacity and organizational agility, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27, 22, 10.1016/j.jsis.2017.07.002 · DOI
  56. Richter, 2016, European management research using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), European Management Journal, 34, 589, 10.1016/j.emj.2016.08.001 · DOI
  57. Rigdon, 2012, Rethinking partial least squares path modeling: In praise of simple methods, Long Range Planning, 45, 341, 10.1016/j.lrp.2012.09.010 · DOI
  58. Rigdon, 2016, Choosing PLS path modeling as analytical method in European management research: A realist perspective, European Management Journal, 34, 598, 10.1016/j.emj.2016.05.006 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Ritala, 2015, Knowledge sharing, knowledge leaking and relative innovation performance: An empirical study, Technovation, 35, 22, 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.07.011 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Sarstedt, 2016, Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies!, Journal of Business Research, 69, 3998, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.007 · DOI
  61. Sarstedt, 2019, Structural model robustness checks in PLS-SEM, Tourism Economics
  62. Shu, 2018, Building networks into discovery: The link between entrepreneur network capability and entrepreneurial opportunity discovery, Journal of Business Research, 85, 197, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.048 · DOI
  63. Solano Acosta, 2018, Effect of market orientation, network capability and entrepreneurial orientation on international performance of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), International Business Review, 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.04.004 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Solís-Molina, 2018, Performance implications of organizational ambidexterity versus specialization in exploitation or exploration: The role of absorptive capacity, Journal of Business Research, 91, 181, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.06.001 · DOI
  65. Subramaniam, 2018, Competing in digital ecosystems, Business Horizons
  66. Teece, 2018, Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world, Research Policy, 47, 1367, 10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.015 · DOI · Paper page
  67. Teece, 1997, Dynamic capabilities and strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z · DOI · Paper page
  68. Van Alstyne, 2016, Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of strategy, Harvard Business Review, 94, 54
  69. Varis, 2010, Types of innovation, sources of information and performance in entrepreneurial SMEs, European Journal of Innovation Management, 13, 128, 10.1108/14601061011040221 · DOI · Paper page
  70. Viglia, 2018, The determinants of stakeholder engagement in digital platforms, Journal of Business Research, 89, 404, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.029 · DOI
  71. Voss, 2013, Strategic ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprises: Implementing exploration and exploitation in product and market domains, Organization Science, 24, 1459, 10.1287/orsc.1120.0790 · DOI
  72. Wan, 2017, Unraveling platform strategies: A review from an organizational ambidexterity perspective, Sustainability, 9, 734, 10.3390/su9050734 · DOI
  73. Wang, 2017, Knowledge sharing in supply chain networks: Effects of collaborative innovation activities and capability on innovation performance, Technovation.
  74. Wareham, 2014, Technology ecosystem governance, Organization Science, 25, 1195, 10.1287/orsc.2014.0895 · DOI · Paper page
  75. Williams, 2009, Contemporary trends and issues in IT adoption and diffusion research, Journal of Information Technology, 24, 1, 10.1057/jit.2008.30 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Xu, 2017, How socialization tactics affect supplier-buyer co-development performance in exploratory and exploitative projects: The mediating effects of cooperation and collaboration, Journal of Business Research, 78, 242, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.12.019 · DOI
  77. Yeow, 2018, Aligning with new digital strategy: A dynamic capabilities approach, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27, 43, 10.1016/j.jsis.2017.09.001 · DOI · Paper page
  78. Yoo, 2010, Research commentary—The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for Information Systems Research, Information Systems Research, 21, 724, 10.1287/isre.1100.0322 · DOI · Paper page
  79. Yunis, 2018, The role of ICT and innovation in enhancing organizational performance: The catalysing effect of corporate entrepreneurship, Journal of Business Research, 88, 344, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.030 · DOI
  80. Zacca, 2015, Impact of network capability on small business performance, Management Decision, 53, 2, 10.1108/MD-11-2013-0587 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Cenamor, J., Parida, V., & Wincent, J.
Venue
Journal of Business Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-07
Volume
100
Pages
196-206
ISSN
0148-2963 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.035
OpenAlex
W2930089420
Cited by
965
References
17
FWCI
97.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.