Sustainable Growth Variables by Industry Sectors and Their Influence on Changes in Business Models of SMEs in the Era of Digital Transformation
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- The influential variables for SME sustainable growth start from the management side and the technical side. Is it necessary to verify whether the entrepreneur’s management ability and technical ability affect performance?
- Will there be influential variables, such as the ability to mediate corporate performance, in addition to the entrepreneur’s ability?
- Is there a difference between the variables for sustainable growth by a business group and the variables for BM innovation?
2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
2.1. DT and BM
2.2. DT, BM and Sustainable Growth
2.3. Hypothesis
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Measures: Independent Variables (Ability)
3.1.1. Entrepreneurial Management Ability (EMA)
3.1.2. Entrepreneurial Technical Ability (ETA)
3.2. Measures: Mediating Variables (Competency)
3.2.1. Technology Innovation Competency (TIC)
3.2.2. Technology Marketing Competency (TMC)
3.3. Measures: Dependent Variables (Performance)
3.3.1. Financial Performance (FP)
3.3.2. Technical Performance (TP)
3.4. Sample Characteristics
4. Results
- Hypotheses, variables, and paths that were significant for FP:
- H5 (accept): technology innovation competency → financial performance;
- H7 (accept): technology marketing competency → financial performance.
- The significant hypotheses, variables, and pathways for technical performance (TP):
- 3.
- H10 (accept): management ability → technical performance;
- 4.
- H12 (accept): technological ability → technical performance;
- 5.
- H6 (accept): technology innovation competency → technical performance;
- 6.
- H8 (accept): technology marketing competency → technical performance.
- 7.
- H1 (accept): management ability → technology innovation competency;
- 8.
- H2 (accept): management ability → technology marketing competency;
- 9.
- H3 (accept): technological ability → technology innovation competency;
- 10.
- H4 (accept): technological ability → technology marketing competency.
- Special indirect variables and paths that were relevant to financial performance:
- 11.
- Technological ability → technology innovation competency → financial performance;
- 12.
- Management ability → technology marketing competency → financial performance;
- 13.
- Management ability → technology innovation competency → financial performance;
- 14.
- Technological Ability → technology marketing competency → financial performance.
5. Discussion
- The significant variables for the impact of sustainable growth of SMEs were EMA, ETA, TMC, and TIC. This result confirmed that management ability affects sustainable growth [85].
- The most significant variable for the impact of sustainable growth of SMEs according to industry sectors was DIV 3. The effect was in the order DIV 3 > DIV 4 > DIV 1. This shows that DIV 3 (IT/SW) was highly influenced by ETA and that a BM innovation strategy that improves ETA is needed. This result is a finding in the study and an achievement for the purpose of this study.
5.1. Hypothesis Testing
5.2. Differences in Variables Influencing Sustainable Growth of SMEs According to Industry Divisions
- The researcher showed that the variables that influence the sustainable growth of SMEs according to the industry division will be different, which was an essential finding of this research. EMA, ETA, TMC, and TIC were indicators of sustainable growth, FP, and TP. This result confirmed the results of previous studies [90,92,93,103,105]. By comparing the total effect, the differences between each influence variable were identified. The difference in the total effect on FP and TP, which represents the sustainable growth of SMEs according to the industry division, was identified.
6. Conclusions
- Theoretical Implications: Influencing variables for sustainable growth varied by industry. I provided verification results of the specific influencing variables that went beyond the limits of the conceptual framework for the change of a prior BM. Through an empirical verification, I presented areas in which to seek changes and specific directions that should be taken to incorporate BM innovation in business operations.
- Managerial implications: By presenting variables that must be considered when pursuing change and innovation in a BM by industry, I provided practical BM change factors that can overcome the limitations of existing theoretical research.
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Imran, M.; Aziz, A.; Hamid, S.; Shabbir, M.; Salman, R.; Jian, Z. Retracted: The mediating role of total quality management between entrepreneurial orientation and SMEs export performance. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2018, 8, 519–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vial, G. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 118–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisingerich, A.B.; Bell, S.J. Perceived service quality and customer trust: Does enhance customers’ service knowledge matter? J. Serv. Res. 2008, 10, 256–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristensen, K.; Westlund, A.H. Accountable business performance measurement for sustainable business excellence. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2004, 15, 629–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.J. Do ethical and sustainable practices matter? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bharadwaj, A.; El Sawy, O.A.; Pavlou, P.A.; Venkatraman, N. Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Q. 2013, 37, 471–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chanias, S.; Myers, M.D.; Hess, T. Digital transformation strategy making in pre-digital organizations: The case of a financial services provider. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 17–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henfridsson, O.; Mathiassen, L.; Svahn, F. Managing technological change in the digital age: The role of architectural frames. J. Inf. Technol. 2014, 29, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoo, Y.; Boland, R.J., Jr.; Lyytinen, K.; Majchrzak, A. Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organ. Sci. 2012, 23, 1398–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Debei, M.M.; Avison, D. Developing a unified framework of the business model concept. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2010, 19, 359–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Sawy, O.A.; Pereira, F. Digital business models: Review and synthesis. Bus. Model. Dyn. Digit. Space 2013, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timmers, P. Business models for electronic markets. Electron. Mark. 1998, 8, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morakanyane, R.; Grace, A.A.; O’Reilly, P. Conceptualizing Digital Transformation in Business Organizations: A Systematic Review of Literature. Bled Econf. 2017, 21. Available online: https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=bled2017 (accessed on 9 April 2021).
- Warner, K.S.; Wäger, M. Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Plan. 2019, 52, 326–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svahn, F.; Mathiassen, L.; Lindgren, R. Embracing Digital Innovation in Incumbent Firms: How Volvo Cars Managed Competing Concerns. MIS Q. 2017, 41, 239–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karimi, J.; Walter, Z. The role of dynamic capabilities in responding to digital disruption: A factor-based study of the newspaper industry. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2015, 32, 39–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tumbas, S.; Berente, N.; Seidel, S.; vom Brocke, J. The ‘Digital Façade’of Rapidly Growing Entrepreneurial Organizations. 2015. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan-Vom-Brocke/publication/286458540_The_%27Digital_Facade%27_of_Rapidly_Growing_Entrepreneurial_Organizations/links/566b1d0008ae1a797e39c5bb/The-Digital-Facade-of-Rapidly-Growing-Entrepreneurial-Organizations.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2021).
- Kane, G.C.; Alavi, M.; Labianca, G.; Borgatti, S.P. What’s different about social media networks? A framework and research agenda. MIS Q. 2014, 38, 275–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, X.; Liu, L.; Davison, R. Reputation Management in Social Commerce Communities. 2012. Available online: https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2012/proceedings/AdoptionDiffusionIT/23/ (accessed on 9 April 2021).
- Neumeier, A.; Wolf, T.; Oesterle, S. The Manifold Fruits of Digitalization-Determining the Literal Value Behind. 2017. Available online: https://aisel.aisnet.org/wi2017/track05/paper/5/ (accessed on 9 April 2021).
- Cohen, B.; Kietzmann, J. Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organ. Environ. 2014, 27, 279–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fjeldstad, Ø.D.; Snow, C.C. Business models and organization design. Long Range Plan. 2018, 51, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H. Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foss, N.J.; Saebi, T. Business models and business model innovation: Between wicked and paradigmatic problems. Long Range Plan. 2018, 51, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zott, C.; Amit, R. Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organ. Sci. 2007, 18, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lombardi, R. Knowledge transfer and organizational performance and business process: Past, present and future researches. Business Process. Manag. J. 2019, 25, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Spieth, P.; Schneckenberg, D.; Matzler, K. Exploring the linkage between business model (&) innovation and the firm’s strategy. RD Manag. 2016, 46, 403–413. [Google Scholar]
- Caputo, A.; Marzi, G.; Pellegrini, M.M.; Al-Mashari, M.; Del Giudice, M. The internet of things in manufacturing innovation processes: Development and application of a conceptual framework. Business Process. Manag. J. 2016, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saebi, T.; Lien, L.; Foss, N.J. What drives business model adaptation. Long Range Plan. 2016, 50, 567–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garzella, S.; Fiorentino, R.; Caputo, A.; Lardo, A. Business model innovation in SMEs: The role of boundaries in the digital era. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2021, 33, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Child, J.; Hsieh, L.; Elbanna, S.; Karmowska, J.; Marinova, S.; Puthusserry, P.; Zhang, Y. SME international business models: The role of context and experience. J. World Bus. 2017, 52, 664–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bellman, R. A Markovian decision process. J. Math. Mech. 1957, 6, 679–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamoun, F. Rethinking the business model with RFID. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2008, 22, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, Y.; Zhang, J.J. Towards an appropriate business model for m-commerce. Int. J. Mob. Commun. 2003, 1, 35–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, T.Y.A. Study on the Structural Causal Relationship among Dynamic Capabilities, Digital Transformation, Business Model Innovation, and Performance. Ph.D. Thesis, Kumoh National Institute of Technology, Gumi-si, Korea, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Oderanti, F.O.; Li, F. Commercialization of eHealth innovations in the market of the UK healthcare sector: A framework for a sustainable business model. Psychol. Mark. 2018, 35, 120–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darroch, J.; Miles, M.P.; Paul, C.W. Corporate venturing and the rent cycle. Technovation 2005, 25, 1437–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahra, S.A. Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. J. Bus. Ventur. 1991, 6, 259–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrett, R.P., Jr.; Neubaum, D.O. Top management support and Initial strategic assets: A dependency model for internal corporate venture performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2013, 30, 896–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.S.; Kim, Y.K.; Kim, S.H. A study on the support policy for digital transformation of small businesses. J. Distrib. Sci. 2018, 16, 89–99. [Google Scholar]
- Dooley, L.; Kenny, B.; Cronin, M. Interorganizational innovation across geographic and cognitive boundaries: Does firm size matter? RD Manag. 2016, 46, 227–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindgren, P.; Abdullah, M.A. Conceptualizing strategic business model innovation leadership for business survival and business model innovation excellence. J. Multi Bus. Model. Innov. Technol. 2013, 1, 113–131. [Google Scholar]
- Amit, R.; Zott, C. Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review 36–44. 2012. Available online: http://marketing.mitsmr.com/PDF/STR0715-Top-10-Strategy.pdf#page=38 (accessed on 16 April 2021).
- Teece, D.J. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 172–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amit, R.; Zott, C. Value creation in e-business. Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 493–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavalcante, S.A. Designing business model change. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2014, 18, 1450018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahra, S.A.; Wright, M.; Abdelgawad, S.G. Contextualization and the advancement of entrepreneurship research. Int. Small Bus. J. 2014, 32, 479–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foss, N.J.; Saebi, T. Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far have we come, and where should we go? J. Manag. 2017, 43, 200–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Asemokha, A.; Musona, J.; Torkkeli, L.; Saarenketo, S. Business model innovation and entrepreneurial orientation relationships in SMEs: Implications for international performance. J. Int. Entrep. 2019, 17, 425–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Porter’s, V.C.M. What Is Value Chain. 1985. Available online: http://www.dspmuranchi.ac.in/pdf/Blog/What%20is%20the%20First%20Mover%20Advantage.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2021).
- Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doz, Y.L.; Hamel, G. Alliance Advantage: The Art of Creating Value through Partnering; Harvard Business Press: Brighton, MA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Gulati, R.; Nohria, N.; Zaheer, A. Strategic networks. Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 203–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katz, M.L.; Shapiro, C. Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. Am. Econ. Rev. 1985, 75, 424–440. [Google Scholar]
- Schumpeter, J.A.; Nichol, A.J. Robinson’s economics of imperfect competition. J. Political Econ. 1934, 42, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schumpeter, J. Creative destruction. Capital. Social. Democr. 1942, 825, 82–85. [Google Scholar]
- Miles, R.E.; Snow, C.C.; Meyer, A.D.; Coleman, H.J., Jr. Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1978, 3, 546–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miles, R.E.; Snow, C.C. Organizations: New concepts for new forms. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1986, 28, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donaldson, L. Strategy and structural adjustment to regain fit and performance: In defence of contingency theory. J. Manag. Stud. 1987, 24, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, D. The generic strategy trap. J. Bus. Strategy 1992, 13, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawawini, G.; Subramanian, V.; Verdin, P. Is performance driven by industry-or firm-specific factors? A new look at the evidence. Strateg. Manag. J. 2003, 24, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McGahan, A.M.; Porter, M.E. What do we know about variance in accounting profitability? Manag. Sci. 2002, 48, 834–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rumelt, R.P. How much does industry matter? Strateg. Manag. J. 1991, 12, 167–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bahri, Y.; Kadmon, J.; Pennington, J.; Schoenholz, S.S.; Sohl-Dickstein, J.; Ganguli, S. Statistical mechanics of deep learning. Ann. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 2020, 11, 501–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zott, C.; Amit, R. The fit between product market strategy and business model: Implications for firm performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2008, 29, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kulins, C.; Leonardy, H.; Weber, C. A configurational approach in business model design. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1437–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casadesus-Masanell, R.; Zhu, F. Business model innovation and competitive imitation: The case of sponsor-based business models. Strateg. Manag. J. 2013, 34, 464–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hacklin, F.; Björkdahl, J.; Wallin, M.W. Strategies for business model innovation: How firms reel in migrating value. Long Range Plan. 2018, 51, 82–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campanella, P.; Lovato, E.; Marone, C.; Fallacara, L.; Mancuso, A.; Ricciardi, W.; Specchia, M.L. The impact of electronic health records on healthcare quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Public Health 2016, 26, 60–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Velu, C. Business model innovation and third-party alliance on the survival of new firms. Technovation 2015, 35, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nascimento, A.M.; Bellini, C.G.P. Artificial intelligence and industry 4.0: The next frontier in organizations. Bar-Braz. Adm. Rev. 2018, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rajput, S.; Singh, S.P. Connecting circular economy and industry 4.0. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 49, 98–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bucherer, E.; Eisert, U.; Gassmann, O. Towards systematic business model innovation: Lessons from product innovation management. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2012, 21, 183–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, M.; Schindehutte, M.; Allen, J. The entrepreneur’s business model: Toward a unified perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 726–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demil, B.; Lecocq, X. Business model evolution: In search of dynamic consistency. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 227–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doz, Y.L.; Kosonen, M. Embedding strategic agility: A leadership agenda for accelerating business model renewal. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 370–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khanagha, S.; Volberda, H.; Oshri, I. Business model renewal and ambidexterity: Structural alteration and strategy formation process during transition to a Cloud business model. RD Manag. 2014, 44, 322–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, J.; Spector, B.; Van der Heyden, L. Toward a Theory of Business Model Innovation within Incumbent Firms; INSEAD: Fontainebleau, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y.; Tucci, C.L. Clarifying business models: Origins, present, and future of the concept. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2005, 16, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Johnson, M.W.; Christensen, C.M.; Kagermann, H. Reinventing your business model. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2008, 86, 57–68. [Google Scholar]
- Bock, A.J.; Opsahl, T.; George, G.; Gann, D.M. The effects of culture and structure on strategic flexibility during business model innovation. J. Manag. Stud. 2012, 49, 279–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Achtenhagen, L.; Melin, L.; Naldi, L. Dynamics of business models–strategizing, critical capabilities and activities for sustained value creation. Long Range Plan. 2013, 46, 427–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Niosi, J.; McKelvey, M. Relating business model innovations and innovation cascades: The case of biotechnology. J. Evol. Econ. 2018, 28, 1081–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kranz, J.J.; Hanelt, A.; Kolbe, L.M. Understanding the influence of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity on the process of business model change–the case of on-premise and cloud-computing software. Inf. Syst. J. 2016, 26, 477–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Climent, R.C.; Haftor, D.M. Value creation through the evolution of business model themes. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeon, S.Y. Study on the Effects of SME Managers’ Entrepreneurship and CEO Capabilities on Corporate Sustainability via Improved Management Performance. Ph.D. Thesis, Koyonggi University, Seoul, Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, K.C. The Effects of Social Enterprise Characteristics and CEO’s Management Capability on Business Performance. Ph.D. Thesis, Gachon University, Seongnam-si, Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, X.J. A Study on the Influence of Technological Innovation Capability and Technology Commercialization Capability on Technological Innovation Performance and Management Performance. Ph.D. Thesis, Gachon University, Gyeonggi-do, Korea, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Yoon, J.H. A Study on the Influence of Business Performance on Customer Orientation and Technology Capability of SMEs and Venture Business in Electric Power. Ph.D. Thesis, Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Hwang, W.S.; Choi, H.; Shin, J. A mediating role of innovation capability between entrepreneurial competencies and competitive advantage. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2020, 32, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Cho, J.; Lee, S. The Influence of Entrepreneurial Competences on Corporate Performance of Technology-based Start-ups. J. Ind. Manag. Syst. 2020, 43, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prohorovs, A.; Bistrova, J.; Ten, D. Startup Success Factors in the Capital Attraction Stage: Founders’ Perspective. J. East West Bus. 2019, 25, 26–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pauceanu, A.M.; Alpenidze, O.; Edu, T.; Zaharia, R.M. What determinants influence students to start their own business? Empirical evidence from United Arab Emirates Universities. Sustainability 2019, 11, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Seo, Y.W.; Lee, Y.H. Effects of internal and external factors on business performance of startups in South Korea: The engine of new market dynamics. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2019, 11, 1847979018824231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Park, H.G.; Yang, D.W. An Empirical Study on the Effect of the Technological Commercialization Ability of the Initial Entrepreneurship on Management Performance: Focusing on the Moderating Effect of Technology Entrepreneurs in Manufacturing Industries. J. Korean Entrep. Soc. 2018, 1, 14. [Google Scholar]
- Bae, H.B.; Song, M.K.; Kim, S.G. A study on the effect of competency of technology startup companies using ETRI technology on management performance. Ventur. Entrep. Res. 2018, 13, 61–72. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, Y.K.; Park, S.T. Effects of Absorptive Capacity on Technology Innovation and Commercialization Capacities and Management Performance. J. Korea Converg. Soc. 2018, 9, 217–225. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, I.K. An Empirical Study on the Effect of SME CEO Technology Competency on Management Performance. Ph.D. Thesis, Hoseo University, Seoul, Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, P.; Power, M. Calculating corporate failure. In Professional Competition and Professional Power; Routledge: London, UK, 2005; pp. 65–90. [Google Scholar]
- Clugston, C.O. High-Tech demands own new-product plan. Electron. News 1995, 41, 33–36. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P. Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1996, 39, 53–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Englis, P.D.; Wakkee, I.; Van Der Sijde, P. Knowledge and networks in the global startup process. Int. J. Knowl. Manag. Stud. 2007, 1, 497–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, I.H. An Empirical Study on the Impact of Network and Marketing Competencies on Business Performance. Master’s Thesis, Hoseo University, Seoul, Korea, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, J.Y.; Bang, H.Y. The Effects of Environmental Uncertainty on the Impact Strategy and Performance of Korean, US, and Japanese Firms: Focusing on Environmental Uncertainty in the Competition Sector. Korean J. Trade Commer. 2017, 17, 135–156. [Google Scholar]
- Hwang, D.S. The Effect of Technology Entrepreneurs’ strategic orientation and network capabilities on new product development performance and corporate performance. Master’s Thesis, Hanbat University, Daejeon, Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- De Franco, G.; Hope, O.K.; Lu, H. Managerial ability and bank-loan pricing. J. Bus. Financ. Account. 2017, 44, 1315–1337. [Google Scholar]
- Chandler, G.N.; Jansen, E. The founder’s self-assessed competence and venture performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 1992, 7, 223–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandler, G.N.; Hanks, S.H. Market attractiveness, resource-based capabilities, venture strategies, and venture performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 1994, 9, 331–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burgelman, R.A.; Sayles, L.R. Transforming invention into innovation: The conceptualization stage. In Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation; McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA, USA, 2004; pp. 682–690. [Google Scholar]
- Johannisson, B. Network strategies: Management technology for entrepreneurship and change. Int. Small Bus. J. 1986, 5, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, K.Y. A Study on Factors of Technology Innovation Competency and Technology Management Activity Affecting the Management Performance. Ph.D. Thesis, Korea Polytechnic University, Siheung-si, Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Yam, R.C.; Guan, J.C.; Pun, K.F.; Tang, E.P. An audit of technological innovation capabilities in Chinese firms: Some empirical findings in Beijing, China. Res. Policy 2004, 33, 1123–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burgelman, R.A.; Christensen, C.M.; Wheelwright, S.C. Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation; McGraw-Hill/Irwin: Boston, MA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Saunila, M. Innovation capability in achieving higher performance: Perspectives of management and employees. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 29, 903–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andreou, P.C.; Karasamani, I.; Louca, C.; Ehrlich, D. The impact of managerial ability on crisis-period corporate investment. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 79, 107–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Muiña, F.E.; Navas-López, J.E. Explaining and measuring success in new business: The effect of technological capabilities on firm results. Technovation 2007, 27, 30–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, J.; Ma, N. Innovative capability and export performance of Chinese firms. Technovation 2003, 23, 737–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, S.; Fang, E.; Zhao, S. The effect of export marketing capabilities on export performance: An investigation of Chinese exporters. J. Int. Mark. 2003, 11, 32–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, D.M.; Laverick, S. Measuring corporate performance. Long Range Plan. 1994, 27, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metcalfe, J.S. Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework. Camb. J. Econ. 1995, 19, 25–46. [Google Scholar]
- Burgelman, R.A. Comparative Studies of Technological Evolution; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Coombs, J.E.; Bierly, P.E., III. Measuring technological capability and performance. RD Manag. 2006, 36, 421–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Planko, J.; Cramer, J.; Hekkert, M.P.; Chappin, M.M. Combining the technological innovation systems framework with the entrepreneurs’ perspective on innovation. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 29, 614–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Acs, Z.J.; Audretsch, D.B. Innovation in large and small firms: An empirical analysis. Am. Econ. Rev. 1988, 78, 678–690. [Google Scholar]
- Lall, S. Technological capabilities and industrialization. World Dev. 1992, 20, 165–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romijn, H.; Albaladejo, M. Determinants of innovation capability in small electronics and software firms in southeast England. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 1053–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hadjimanolis, A. A resource-based view of innovativeness in small firms. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2000, 12, 263–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoenecker, T.; Swanson, L. Indicators of firm technological capability: Validity and performance implications. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2002, 49, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 509–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stuart, R.; Abetti, P.A. Startup ventures: Towards the prediction of initial success. J. Bus. Ventur. 1987, 2, 215–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, K.H. Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: Toward a contingency perspective. Res. Policy 2009, 38, 765–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jolly, R. Human development: The world after Copenhagen. Glob. Gov. Rev. Multilater. Int. Organ. 1997, 3, 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gumbus, A.; Lussier, R.N. Entrepreneurs use a balanced scorecard to translate strategy into performance measures. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2006, 44, 407–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hvolby, H.H.; Thorstenson, A. Indicators for performance measurement in small and medium-sized enterprises. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 2001, 215, 1143–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melville, N.; Kraemer, K.; Gurbaxani, V. Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value. MIS Q. 2004, 28, 283–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Spencer, H.L. Spenser Studies: A Renaissance Poetry Annual VIII. 1993. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/518454 (accessed on 22 April 2021).
Previous Research | Independent Variable | Mediating Variable | Dependent Variable |
---|---|---|---|
[91] | Management ability, network ability | Financial performance, nonfinancial performance | Sustainable growth |
[92] | Management ability | Financial performance | |
[95] | Technical expertise, management skills | R&D capability, complementary capability | Competitive advantage |
[96] | Entrepreneurship, technical capability | Corporate competence | Corporate performance |
[97] | Management skills, specialized education and skills, founder’s previous experience direct communication, managerial support, financial potential | Management performance | |
[98,102] | Entrepreneurial competencies | Business performance | |
[103,104,105,106,107,108] | Technology innovation competencies, technology commercialization competencies | Technical performance, management performance | |
[100] | Technology innovation competencies | Commercialization performance, management performance | |
[109] | The technical ability of the CEO | The technical ability of the company | Technical performance, management performance |
[99,110,111] | Network ability, marketing ability | Management performance, technology innovation competencies, innovation performance | |
[111] | Network ability | Technology innovation competencies | Technical performance |
This Research | Management ability | Technology innovation competency | Technical performance |
Technical ability | Technology marketing competency | Financial performance | |
Proposition 1 | Independent variable → | Mediating variable | |
Proposition 2 | Mediating variable → | Dependent variable | |
Proposition 3 | Independent variable → | Dependent variable |
Frequency | Percent | ||
---|---|---|---|
Business type | Private business | 124 | 60.5 |
Corporate business | 81 | 39.5 | |
Industry sector | Electrics/electronics | 38 | 18.5 |
Machinery/parts | 30 | 14.6 | |
IT/SW | 36 | 17.6 | |
Chemicals/fibers/materials | 36 | 17.6 | |
Life industry/food | 26 | 12.7 | |
Craft/others | 39 | 19 | |
Years in operation | Under 1 year | 15 | 7.3 |
1–2 years | 66 | 32.2 | |
2–3 years | 66 | 32.2 | |
3–5 years | 48 | 23.4 | |
More than 5 years | 10 | 4.9 | |
Sales volume (USD) | Less than $0.1 million | 72 | 35.1 |
$0.1–0.3 million | 66 | 32.2 | |
$0.3–0.5 million | 45 | 22 | |
$0.5–1 million | 19 | 9.3 | |
More than $1 million | 3 | 1.5 | |
Manufacturing | Outsourcing | 47 | 22.9 |
Outsourcing and in-house | 127 | 62 | |
In-house | 31 | 15.1 | |
Employees | Fewer than three people | 95 | 46.3 |
3–5 people | 80 | 39 | |
6–9 people | 28 | 13.7 | |
More than 10 people | 2 | 1 | |
Gender | Male | 137 | 66.8 |
Female | 68 | 33.2 | |
CEO’s age (years) | 20 s | 18 | 8.8 |
30 s | 82 | 40 | |
40 s | 79 | 38.5 | |
50 or over | 26 | 12.7 |
Category | Operational Definition | References | |
---|---|---|---|
Independent variables | Management ability | Leadership, network, management, creativity | [107,108,109,114,115] |
Technical ability | Company’s technology development ability and degree of originality | [105,116,117,118,119] | |
Mediating variables | Technology innovation competency | Management system for efficient technological innovation | [105,111,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129] |
Technology marketing competency | Marketing of products developed using the latest technology | [99,100,130] | |
Dependent variables | Technical performance | Derivative effect on the technology area and technology competitiveness compared to competitors | [123,131,132] |
Financial performance | Increase in operating profit ratio, increase in market share, increase in assets | [101,133,134,135,136,137] |
Variables | Criterion | Internal Consistency Reliability | Convergent Validity | Discriminant Validity | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cronbach’s α | rho_A | Composite Reliability (C.R) | Average Variance Extracts (AVE) | Fornell–Larcker | ||
0.5 | >0.7 | 0.5~ | >0.5 | |||
FP | 0.908 | 0.910 | 0.942 | 0.845 | Yes | |
EMA | 0.817 | 0.861 | 0.891 | 0.732 | Yes | |
TP | 0.863 | 0.865 | 0.901 | 0.646 | Yes | |
ETA | 0.915 | 0.916 | 0.934 | 0.704 | Yes | |
TIC | 0.845 | 0.859 | 0.896 | 0.682 | Yes | |
TMC | 0.950 | 0.951 | 0.957 | 0.667 | Yes |
Variables | FP | EMA | TP | ETA | TIC | TMC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FP | 0.919 | |||||
EMA | 0.709 | 0.856 | ||||
TP | 0.818 | 0.821 | 0.804 | |||
ETA | 0.777 | 0.793 | 0.906 | 0.839 | ||
TIC | 0.865 | 0.731 | 0.833 | 0.798 | 0.826 | |
TMC | 0.841 | 0.736 | 0.857 | 0.819 | 0.797 | 0.817 |
Variables | FP | TP | TIC | TMC |
---|---|---|---|---|
EMA | 2.973 | 2.973 | 2.691 | 2.691 |
ET | 4.381 | 4.381 | 2.691 | 2.691 |
TIC | 3.444 | 3.444 | ||
TMC | 3.757 | 3.757 |
Hypothesis | Path | Path Coefficient | Total Indirect Effect | Total Effect | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T-Statistic | p-Value | T-Statistic | p-Value | T-Statistic | p-Value | |||
Proposition 1 | H1 (Accept) | EMA → TIC | 2.756 | 0.006 | 2.756 | 0.006 | ||
H2 (Accept) | EMA → TMC | 2.314 | 0.021 | 2.314 | 0.021 | |||
H3 (Accept) | ETA → TIC | 5.932 | 0.000 | 5.932 | 0.000 | |||
H4 (Accept) | ETA → TMC | 6.453 | 0.000 | 6.453 | 0.000 | |||
Proposition 2 | H5 (Accept) | TIC → FP | 5.421 | 0.000 | 5.421 | 0.000 | ||
H6 (Accept) | TIC → TP | 2.139 | 0.033 | 2.139 | 0.033 | |||
H7 (Accept) | TMC → FP | 4.225 | 0.000 | 4.225 | 0.000 | |||
H8 (Accept) | TMC → TP | 2.908 | 0.004 | 2.908 | 0.004 | |||
Proposition 3 | H9 (Reject) | EMA → FP | 0.282 | 0.778 | 2.708 | 0.007 | 3.327 | 0.001 |
H10 (Accept) | EMA → TP | 2.952 | 0.003 | 2.164 | 0.031 | 4.804 | 0.000 | |
H11 (Reject) | ETA → FP | 0.278 | 0.781 | 6.251 | 0.000 | 7.129 | 0.000 | |
H12 (Accept) | ETA → TP | 5.227 | 0.000 | 4.523 | 0.000 | 11.938 | 0.000 |
Indirect Path | T-Statistic | p-Value |
---|---|---|
ETA → TMC → TP | 2.574 | 0.010 |
ETA → TIC → FP | 4.043 | 0.000 |
EMA → TMC → FP | 1.994 | 0.047 |
ETA → TIC → TP | 2.164 | 0.031 |
EMA → TIC → FP | 2.409 | 0.016 |
ETA → TMC → FP | 3.196 | 0.001 |
Variables | Adjusted R2 | T-Statistic | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
FP | 0.808 | 33.663 | 0.000 |
TP | 0.882 | 51.620 | 0.000 |
TIC | 0.659 | 14.580 | 0.000 |
TMC | 0.687 | 18.300 | 0.000 |
Dependent Variables | Mediating Variables | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
FP | TP | TIC | TMC | |
EMA | 0.001 | 0.094 | 0.078 | 0.066 |
ETA | 0.001 | 0.394 | 0.379 | 0.481 |
TIC | 0.407 | 0.065 | ||
TMC | 0.214 | 0.123 |
Comparison | Variables | FP | TP |
---|---|---|---|
Overall | EMA | 0.001 | 0.094 |
ETA | 0.001 | 0.394 | |
TIC | 0.407 | 0.065 | |
TMC | 0.214 | 0.123 | |
Division 1 (DIV 1) | EMA | 0.000 | 0.028 |
ETA | 0.011 | 0.899 | |
TIC | 0.845 | 0.108 | |
TMC | 0.369 | 0.173 | |
Division 2 (DIV 2) | EMA | 0.015 | 0.025 |
ETA | 0.215 | 0.597 | |
TIC | 0.457 | 0.077 | |
TMC | 0.371 | 0.049 | |
Division 3 (DIV 3) | EMA | 0.120 | 0.451 |
ETA | 0.237 | 2.653 | |
TIC | 0.359 | 0.000 | |
TMC | 0.015 | 0.215 | |
Division 4 (DIV 4) | EMA | 0.242 | 1.600 |
ETA | 0.247 | 0.000 | |
TIC | 0.504 | 0.981 | |
TMC | 0.240 | 0.003 | |
Division 5 (DIV 5) | EMA | 0.269 | 0.416 |
ETA | 0.092 | 0.000 | |
TIC | 0.000 | 0.188 | |
TMC | 0.074 | 0.288 | |
Division 6 (DIV 6) | EMA | 0.082 | 0.046 |
ETA | 0.012 | 0.544 | |
TIC | 0.407 | 0.019 | |
TMC | 0.102 | 0.441 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
KIM, S.-S. Sustainable Growth Variables by Industry Sectors and Their Influence on Changes in Business Models of SMEs in the Era of Digital Transformation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7114. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137114
KIM S-S. Sustainable Growth Variables by Industry Sectors and Their Influence on Changes in Business Models of SMEs in the Era of Digital Transformation. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):7114. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137114
Chicago/Turabian StyleKIM, Seok-Soo. 2021. "Sustainable Growth Variables by Industry Sectors and Their Influence on Changes in Business Models of SMEs in the Era of Digital Transformation" Sustainability 13, no. 13: 7114. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137114