Business Model Innovation in Established SMEs: A Configurational Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. BMI in Established Firms
2.2. SME Management Approach
2.3. Business Model Innovation Capabilities (BMICs)
2.4. BMI Drivers in SMEs: A Configurational Approach
3. Theoretical Framework
3.1. Research Framework
3.2. Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA)
3.3. Sample and Procedure
3.4. Definition and Validation of the Measurement Instrument
4. Research Method and Results
4.1. Calibration
4.2. Analysis of Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
5. Discussion and Implications
5.1. Discussion: Business Model Innovation and Open Innovation
5.2. Implications
6. Conclusions, Limitations and Further Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
First-Order Constructs: Reflective Measurement Construct/Item | Loadings | t-Value |
---|---|---|
Managerial Orientation (α = 0.812; CR = 0.886; AVE = 0.724) | ||
In the last 3 years, my strategic priorities in management have been oriented towards cost reduction rather than investment (in R&D, capital, etc.). [R] | 0.718 | 3.586 |
In the last 3 years, my strategic priorities in management have focused on the short term rather than the long term. [R] | 0.936 | 7.489 |
In the last 3 years, my strategic priorities in management have focused on low-risk projects rather than projects with greater potential but that entailed higher risks. [R] | 0.884 | 6.637 |
Organizational Culture (α = 0.933; CR = 0.948; AVE = 0.786) | ||
We promote creativity and innovation. | 0.889 | 32.985 |
People are encouraged to experiment with new ways of doing their job. | 0.917 | 36.259 |
We take advantage of people’s knowledge and initiatives (collecting suggestions, encouraging them to propose ideas or creating teams for the development of innovations). | 0.882 | 31.652 |
We promote open communication and interdepartmental exchange of information. | 0.881 | 17.542 |
We promote teamwork and interdepartmental cooperation. | 0.864 | 15.061 |
Sensing Customer Needs (α = 0.707; CR = 0.833; AVE = 0.625) | ||
We systematically observe and evaluate the needs of our customers. | 0.853 | 14.550 |
We analyse the actual use of our products/services. | 0.776 | 8.242 |
Our organization is strong in distinguishing different groups of users and market segments. | 0.737 | 7.857 |
Sensing Technological Options (α = 0.695; CR = 0.831; AVE = 0.624) | ||
We keep up to date with promising new products/services and technologies. | 0.761 | 5.544 |
We use different sources of information to identify opportunities related to new products/services and technologies. | 0.892 | 15.986 |
We follow which technologies our competitors use. | 0.705 | 7.207 |
Conceptualizing and Experimenting (α = 0.893; CR = 0.918; AVE = 0.654) | ||
We frequently come up with new ideas for products, services, value propositions or business models. | 0.833 | 17.706 |
We find it easy to convert ideas and concepts into detailed products, services, value propositions or business models. | 0.824 | 16.978 |
New concepts are tested through prototypes and pilot tests before their final development. | 0.640 | 6.433 |
We regularly experiment with new ways of both creating value for our customers and capturing value from our innovations. | 0.860 | 28.496 |
We combine technological, market, and business model knowledge in the idea generation and/or experimentation processes. | 0.881 | 33.118 |
When ideating new concepts, we analyse each of the elements of our business model (value proposition, target customers, relationships and channels, activities and resources, cost and revenue streams and key partnerships). | 0.791 | 16.814 |
Collaborating (α = 0.781; CR = 0.861; AVE = 0.673) | ||
We involve customers in our innovation processes (e.g., through active market research or developing products/services based on their specifications). | 0.866 | 15.617 |
We exchange knowledge with external partners (e.g., suppliers, universities, research centres, clusters, public organizations or other organizations). | 0.809 | 8.347 |
We collaborate with external agents in the development of innovations. | 0.784 | 8.199 |
BMI Strategy (α = 0.938; CR = 0.956; AVE = 0.844) | ||
We have a well-defined BMI strategy. | 0.917 | 32.528 |
BMI strategy is aligned with our firm’s growth strategy. | 0.936 | 52.211 |
BMI strategy is clearly articulated as a means of generating growth throughout our organization. | 0.940 | 56.996 |
We have a well-defined action plan to execute and implement our BMI strategy. | 0.879 | 25.370 |
Appendix B
High-Order Constructs: Reflective-Reflective MeasurementConstruct/Item | Loadings | t-Value |
---|---|---|
Value Delivery (α = 0.854; CR = 0.895; AVE = 0.632) | ||
In the last 3 years in our company we have met new customer needs previously unmet by the market. | 0.781 | 11.939 |
In the last 3 years in our company we have solved customer problems not solved by our competitors. | 0.811 | 15.383 |
In the last 3 years in our company we have introduced new forms of value for customers. | 0.862 | 25.363 |
In the last 3 years in our company we have introduced new forms of value for other partners (suppliers or distributors). | 0.756 | 13.255 |
In the last 3 years in our company we have diversified into new markets, targeting completely new customer types or new geographical environments a. | -- | -- |
In the last 3 years in our company we have expanded our activity to new customer segments. | 0.760 | 11.741 |
Value Creation (α = 0.869; CR = 0.911; AVE = 0.719) | ||
In the last 3 years in our company we have significantly modified the set of key activities of our business through the acquisition or elimination of certain activities or their internal and/or external reorganization, allowing us to be more efficient and improve our response. | 0.824 | 16.902 |
In the last 3 years in our company we have established new collaborations with third parties that have allowed us to optimize and improve our value proposition and/or business model. | 0.894 | 37.375 |
In the last 3 years in our company we have integrated clients, suppliers, distributors and other agents in innovative ways in relation to the delivery of products and services. | 0.827 | 12.878 |
In the last 3 years in our company we have re-configured our value chain, allowing us to be more efficient and to respond better to all interested parties. | 0.846 | 14.588 |
Value Capture (α = 0.803; CR = 0.871; AVE = 0.629) | ||
In the last 3 years in our company we have introduced new ways to reduce costs. | 0.722 | 7.056 |
In the last 3 years in our company we have introduced new pricing mechanisms. | 0.731 | 7.173 |
In the last 3 years in our company we have introduced new ways to be profitable. | 0.896 | 21.815 |
In the last 3 years in our company we have introduced new revenue streams. | 0.811 | 13.547 |
BMI (α = 0.810; CR = 0.887; AVE = 0.725) | ||
Value Delivery (BMI–DEL) | 0.773 | 9.403 |
Value Creation (BMI–CRE) | 0.899 | 37.319 |
Value Capture (BMI–CAP) | 0.877 | 24.213 |
References
- Pucihar, A.; Lenart, G.; Borštnar, M.K.; Vidmar, D.; Marolt, M. Drivers and outcomes of business model innovation-micro, small and medium-sized enterprises perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hock-Doepgen, M.; Clauss, T.; Kraus, S.; Cheng, C.F. Knowledge Management Capabilities and Organizational Risk-Taking for Business Model Innovation in SMEs. J. Bus. Res. 2020. Available online: http://dro.dur.ac.uk/30141/ (accessed on 8 July 2020). [CrossRef]
- Bouwman, H.; Nikou, S.; De Reuver, M. Digitalization, business models, and SMEs: How do business model innovation practices improve performance of digitalizing SMEs? Telecommun. Policy 2019, 43, 101828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 172–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foss Nicolai, J.; Saebi, T. Business models and business model innovation: Between wicked and paradigmatic problems. Long Range Plan. 2018, 51, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kranich, A.; Wald, P. Does model consistency in business model innovation matter? A contingency-based approach. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2018, 27, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H.; Rosenbloom, R.S. The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2002, 11, 529–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Amit, R.; Zott, C. Creating Value through Business Model Innovation. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2012, 53, 41–49. [Google Scholar]
- Foss, N.J.; Saebi, T. Fifteen Years of Research on Business Model Innovation. J. Manag. 2017, 9, 34–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schneider, S.; Spieth, P. Business model innovation: Towards an integrated future research agenda. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2013, 17, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghezzi, A.; Cavallo, A. Agile Business Model Innovation in Digital Entrepreneurship: Lean Startup Approaches. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 110, 519–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frankenberger, K.; Weiblen, T.; Csik, M.; Gassmann, O. The 4I-framework of business model innovation: A structured view on process phases and challenges. Int. J. Prod. Dev. 2013, 18, 249–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wirtz, B.W.; Daiser, P. Business Model Innovation: An Integrative Conceptual Framework. J. Bus. Models 2017, 5, 14. [Google Scholar]
- Mezger, F. Toward a capability-based conceptualization of business model innovation: Insights from an explorative study. R D Manag. 2014, 44, 429–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J. Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Plan. 2018, 51, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sosna, M.; Trevinyo-Rodríguez, R.N.; Velamuri, S.R. Business model innovation through trial-and-error learning: The naturhouse case. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 383–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H. Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosco, D.; Roberto, B.C.; Mazzucchelli, A. Fostering entrepreneurship: An innovative business model to link innovation and new venture creation. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2019, 13, 561–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berends, H.; Jelinek, M.; Reymen, I.; Stultiëns, R. Product innovation processes in small firms: Combining entrepreneurial effectuation and managerial causation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2014, 31, 616–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arbussa, A.; Bikfalvi, A.; Marquès, P. Strategic agility-driven business model renewal: The case of an SME. Manag. Decis. 2017, 55, 271–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snihur, Y.; Wiklund, J. Searching for innovation: Product, process, and business model innovations and search behavior in established firms. Long Range Plan. 2019, 52, 305–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damanpour, F. An integration of research findings of effects of firm size and market competition on product and process innovations. Br. J. Manag. 2010, 21, 996–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belenzon, S.; Anastasiya, S.; Zarutskie, R. CEO’s age and the performance of closely held firms. Strateg. Manag. J. 2019, 40, 917–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Morales, V.J.; Lloréns-Montes, F.J.; Verdú-Jover, A.J. Influence of personal mastery on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation in large firms and SMEs. Technovation 2007, 27, 547–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gherardini, F.; Renzi, C.; Leali, F. A systematic user-centred framework for engineering product design in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 91, 1723–1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicholas, J.; Ledwith, A.; Perks, H. New product development best practice in SME and large organisations: Theory vs practice. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2011, 14, 227–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osiyevskyy, J.O.; Oleksiy, D.O.; Dewald, J. Inducements, Impediments, and Immediacy: Exploring the Cognitive Drivers of Small Business Managers’ Intentions to Adopt Business Model Change. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2015, 53, 1011–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Achtenhagen, L.; Leif, M.; 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]
- Anwar, M. Business model innovation and SMEs performance-Does competitive advantage mediate? Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2018, 22, 1850057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraus, S.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D.; Schüssler, M. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in entrepreneurship and innovation research—The rise of a method. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2018, 14, 15–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harms, R.; Kraus, S.; Schwarz, E. The suitability of the configuration approach in entrepreneurship research. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2009, 21, 25–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ricciardi, F.; Zardini, A.; Rossignoli, C. Organizational dynamism and adaptive business model innovation: The triple paradox configuration. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5487–5493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- To Chester, K.M.; Au Joe, S.C.; Kan, C.W. Uncovering business model innovation contexts: A comparative analysis by fsQCA methods. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 101, 783–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, S.; Liu, Z.; Ma, C. Direct and configurational paths of open innovation and organisational agility to business model innovation in SMEs. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2019, 31, 1213–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rumble, R.; Mangematin, V. Business Model Implementation: The Antecedents of Multi-Sidedness. Business Models Model. 2015, 33, 97–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Massa, L.; Tucci, C.L. Business Model Innovation. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ragin, C. Redisigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2008; ISBN 9780226702735. [Google Scholar]
- Cragun, D.; Pal, T.; Vadaparampil, S.T.; Baldwin, J.; Hampel, H.; DeBate, R.D. Qualitative Comparative Analysis: A Hybrid Method for Identifying Factors Associated with Program Effectiveness. J. Mix. Methods Res. 2016, 10, 251–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- De Block, D.; Vis, B. Addressing the Challenges Related to Transforming Qualitative Into Quantitative Data in Qualitative Comparative Analysis. J. Mix. Methods Res. 2018, 13, 503–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Misangyi, V.F.; Greckhamer, T.; Furnari, S.; Fiss, P.C.; Crilly, D.; Aguilera, R. Embracing Causal Complexity: The Emergence of a Neo-Configurational Perspective. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 255–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rihoux, B.; Ragin, C.C. Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2008; ISBN 1452210314. [Google Scholar]
- Andreini, D.; Bettinelli, C. Business Model. Innovation: From Systematic Literature Review to Future Research Directions; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, US, 2017; ISBN 9783319533513. [Google Scholar]
- Arend, R.J. The business model: Present and future-beyond a skeumorph. Strateg. Organ. 2013, 11, 390–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritter, T.; Lettl, C. The wider implications of business-model research. Long Range Plan. 2018, 51, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belussi, F.; Orsi, L.; Savarese, M. Mapping Business Model Research: A Document Bibliometric Analysis. Scand. J. Manag. 2019, 35, 101048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taran, Y.; Chester Goduscheit, R.; Boer, H. Managing business model innovation risks-lessons for theory and practice. In Proceedings of the 16th International CINet Conference on Pursuing Innovation Leadership, Stockholm, Sweden, 13–15 September 2015; ISBN 9789077360187. [Google Scholar]
- Spieth, P.; Schneckenberg, D.; Ricart, J.E. Business model innovation-state of the art and future challenges for the field. R D Manag. 2014, 44, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quintane, E.; Mitch Casselman, R.; Sebastian Reiche, B.; Nylund, P.A. Innovation as a Knowledge-Based Outcome. J. Knowl. Manag. 2011, 15, 928–947. [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]
- Mitchell, D.W.; Coles, C.B. The ultimate competitive advantage of continuing business model innovation. J. Bus. Strategy 2003, 24, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouwman, H.; Nikou, S.; Molina-Castillo, F.J.; De Reuver, M. The impact of digitalization on business models. Digit. Policy Regul. Gov. 2018, 20, 105–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bucherer, E.; Eisert, U.; Gassman, O. Towards Systematic Business Model Innovation: Lessons from Product Innovation Management. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2012, 21, 183–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azari, M.J.; Madsen, T.K.; Moen, O. Antecedent and outcomes of innovation-based growth strategies for exporting SMEs. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2017, 24, 733–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, H.; Lai, M.; Lin, L.; Chen, C.-T. Overcoming organizational inertia to strengthen business model innovation: An open innovation perspective. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2013, 26, 977–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Regan, N.; Ghobadian, A.; Gallear, D. In search of the drivers of high growth in manufacturing SMEs. Technovation 2006, 26, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bessant, J.; Tidd, J. Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hock, M.; Clauss, T.; Schulz, E. The impact of organizational culture on a firm’s capability to innovate the business model. R D Manag. 2016, 46, 433–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aksoy, H. How do innovation culture, marketing innovation and product innovation affect the market performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)? Technol. Soc. 2017, 51, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazonick, W. Profits without Prosperity. Harv. Bus. Sch. 2014, 92, 46–55. [Google Scholar]
- Bailey, J.; Berube, V.; Godsall, J.; Kehoe, C. Short-Termism: Insights from Business Leaders; CPPIB McKinsey Co., 2014; Available online: https://www.fcltglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/20140123-mck-quarterly-survey-results-for-fclt-org_final.pdf (accessed on 8 July 2020).
- Vicente, A.; Paloma, R.; Ferasso, M.; May, M.R. Dynamic capabilities development and business model innovation: Evidences from IT industry in an emerging country. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2018, 17, 226–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inigo, E.A.; Albareda, L.; Ritala, P. Business model innovation for sustainability: Exploring evolutionary and radical approaches through dynamic capabilities. Ind. Innov. 2017, 24, 515–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roaldsen, I. Dynamic capabilities as drivers of business model innovation-from the perspective of SMEs in mature industries. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manag. 2014, 18, 349–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, M.J.; Castaldi, C.; Alexiev, A. Dynamic capabilities for service innovation: Conceptualization and measurement. R D Manag. 2016, 46, 797–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Janssen, M.J.; Den Hertog, P. Developing Service-Based Business Models: Which Innovation Capability for Which Innovation Dimension? In Service Innovation; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 6, pp. 97–128. ISBN 978-4-431-54921-5. [Google Scholar]
- Kiani, M.N.; Ahmad, M.; Gillani, S.H.M. Service innovation capabilities as the precursor to business model innovation: A conditional process analysis. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rachinger, M.; Rauter, R.; Müller, C.; Vorraber, W.; Schirgi, E. Digitalization and its influence on business model innovation. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 1143–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibarra, D.; Ganzarain, J.; Igartua, J.I. Business model innovation through Industry 4.0: A review. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 22, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zott, C.; Amit, R.; Massa, L. The business model: Recent developments and future research. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1019–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lindgren, P. Business Model Innovation Leadership: How Do SME’s Strategically Lead Business Model Innovation? Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Warner, K.S.R.; Wäger, M. Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Plan. 2019, 52, 326–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mueller, J.M.; Buliga, O.; Voigt, K. Fortune favors the prepared: How SMEs approach business model innovations in Industry 4.0. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 132, 2–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, J.H.J.; Jung, W.Y.; Yang, J. Knowledge strategy and business model conditions for sustainable growth of SMEs. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2015, 6, 246–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scuotto, V.; Del Giudice, M.; Carayannis, E.G. The effect of social networking sites and absorptive capacity on SMES’ innovation performance. J. Technol. Transf. 2017, 42, 409–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brunswicker, S.; Vanhaverbeke, W. Open Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs): External Knowledge Sourcing Strategies and Internal Organizational Facilitators. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2015, 53, 1241–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindgardt, Z.; Reeves, M.; Stalk, G.; Deimler, M.S. Business Model Innovation: When the Game Gets Tough, Change the Game; The Boston Consulting Group: Boston, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Chesbrough, H.W. Why Companies Should Have Open Business Models. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2007, 48, 22. [Google Scholar]
- Markides, L.; Sosa, C. Pioneering and first mover advantages: The importance of business models. Long Range Plan. 2013, 46, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forkmann, S.; Henneberg, S.C.; Witell, L.; Kindström, D. Driver Configurations for Successful Service Infusion. J. Serv. Res. 2017, 20, 275–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, A.D.; Tsui, A.S.; Hinings, C.R. Configurational Approaches to Organizational Analysis. Acad. Manag. J. 1993. [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]
- Weimann, V.; Gerken, M.; Hülsbeck, M. Business model innovation in family firms: Dynamic capabilities and the moderating role of socioemotional wealth. J. Bus. Econ. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schilke, O.; Hu, S.; Helfat, C.E. Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2018, 12, 390–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fiss, P.C. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 393–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fiss, P.C. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vis, B. The Comparative Advantages of fsQCA and Regression Analysis for Moderately Large-N Analyses. Sociol. Methods Res. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leischnig, A.; Henneberg, S.C.; Thornton, S.C. Net versus combinatory effects of firm and industry antecedents of sales growth. J. Bus. Res. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Woodside, A.G. Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. J. Bus. Res. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hughes, M.; Cesinger, B.; Cheng, C.F.; Schuessler, F.; Kraus, S. A configurational analysis of network and knowledge variables explaining Born Globals’ and late internationalizing SMEs’ international performance. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2017, 80, 172–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rangus, K.; Slavec, A. The interplay of decentralization, employee involvement and absorptive capacity on firms’ innovation and business performance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 120, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fink, A. How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-Step Guide, 6th ed.; SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-4833-7848-0. [Google Scholar]
- Sarstedt, M.; Christian, M.R.; Hair, J.F. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PL-SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 2014, 5, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EU Commission. Commission recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (notified under document number C(2003) 1422) (Text with EEA relevance). Off. J. Eur. Union 2003, 124, 36–41. [Google Scholar]
- Mikalef, P.; Pateli, A. Information technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their indirect effect on competitive performance: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 70, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Genc, E.; Dayan, M.; Genc, O.F. The impact of SME internationalization on innovation: The mediating role of market and entrepreneurial orientation. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Vrande, V.; De Jong, V.; Jeroen, P.J.; Vanhaverbeke, W.; De Rochemont, M. Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation 2009, 29, 423–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huurinainen, J. Innovation Benchmark Study: Analysis of Innovation Processes in Finnish Companies. Master’s Thesis, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Covin, J.G.; Slevin, D.P. Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and Benign Environments. Strateg. Manag. J. 1989, 10, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Schrauder, S.; Kock, A.; Baccarella, C.V.; Voigt, K. Takin’Care of Business Models: The Impact of Business Model Evaluation on Front-End Success. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2018, 35, 410–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verhagen, M. Business Model Innovation in European SMEs: Thriving Configurations and Performance Implications. Master’s Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2018. Available online: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A66aae41f-7b0a-455b-b8ab-bf64fa13beb9 (accessed on 8 July 2020).
- Sarstedt, M.; Hair, J.F.; Cheah, J.H.; Michael, B.J.; Ringle, C.M. How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australas. Mark. J. 2019, 27, 197–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.-M. SmartPLS 3. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS. 2015. Available online: http://www.smartpls.com (accessed on 8 July 2020).
- Clauss, T. Measuring business model innovation: Conceptualization, scale development, and proof of performance. R D Manag. 2017, 47, 385–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Dijkstra, T.K.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Diamantopoulos, A.; Straub, D.W.; Ketchen, D.J.; Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Calantone, R.J. Common Beliefs and Reality About PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organ. Res. Methods 2014, 17, 182–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Netemeyer, R.G.; Boles, J.S.; McMurrian, R. Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. J. Appl. Psychol. 1996, 81, 400–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hogarty, K.Y.; Hines Constance, V.K.; Jeffrey, D.; Perron, J.; Mumford, M.; Karen, R. The quality of factor solutions in exploratory factor analysis: The influence of sample size, communality, and overdetermination. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2005, 65, 202–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, R.; Rohay, J.; Sereika, M.; Susan, M.; Zheng, Y.; Yu, Y.; Burke, L.E. Psychometric Evaluation of the Barriers to Healthy Eating Scale: Results from Four Independent Weight Loss Studies. Obesity 2019, 27, 700–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bearden, W.; Hardesty, O.; David, M.; Rose, R.L. Consumer Self-Confidence: Refinements in Conceptualization and Measurement. J. Consum. Res. 2001, 28, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, J.C. Phychometric Theory; Tata McGraw-hill education: Pennsylvania, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Bollen, K.; Lennox, R. Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A Structural Equation Perspective. Psychol. Bull. 1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.; Risher, F.; Jeffrey, J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Hubona, G.; Ray, P.A. Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016, 116, 2–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed.; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-1-60623-876-9. [Google Scholar]
- Schneider, C.Q.; Wagemann, C. Set-theoretic Methods for the Social Science: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; ISBN 9781107601130. [Google Scholar]
- Duarte, P.; Pinho, J.C. A mixed methods UTAUT2-based approach to assess mobile health adoption. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 102, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salam, M.A.; Ali, M.; Kan, S.; Anderson, K. Analyzing supply chain uncertainty to deliver sustainable operational performance: Symmetrical and asymmetrical modeling approaches. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leischnig, A.; Geigenmüller, A. When does alliance proactiveness matter to market performance? A comparative case analysis. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heikkilä, M.; Bouwman, H.; Pucihar, A.; Kljajić Borštnar, M.; Ravesteijn, P.; Seitz, J.; Bons, R. Business Model Innovation in European SMEs: Descriptive analysis of quantitative survey and case survey data. Digit. Transform. Meet. Chall. 2018, 543–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jokubauskienė, R.; Vaitkienė, R. Assumptions of Customer Knowledge Enablement in the Open Innovation Process. Econ. Bus. 2017, 31, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kraus, S.; Rigtering, J.; Coen, P.; Hughes, M.; Hosman, V. Entrepreneurial orientation and the business performance of SMEs: A quantitative study from the Netherlands. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2012, 6, 161–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Torchia, M.; Calabrò, A. Open Innovation in SMEs: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Enterprising Cult. 2019, 27, 201–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiaroni, D.; Chiesa, V.; Frattini, F. Unravelling the process from Closed to Open Innovation: Evidence from mature, asset-intensive industries. R D Manag. 2010, 40, 222–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, J.J.; Yang, J.; Park, K. Open Innovation to Business Model: New Perspective to connect between technology and market. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2016, 21, 324–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Item | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Factor 5 | Factor 6 | Factor 7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MO1 | 0.49 | ||||||
MO2 | 0.89 | ||||||
MO3 | 0.75 | ||||||
IC1 | 0.74 | ||||||
IC2 | 0.89 | ||||||
IC3 | 0.85 | ||||||
IC4 | 0.87 | ||||||
IC5 | 0.94 | ||||||
SCN1 | 0.69 | ||||||
SCN2 | 0.91 | ||||||
SCN3 | 0.75 | ||||||
STO1 | 0.94 | ||||||
STO2 | 0.65 | ||||||
STO3 | 0.45 | ||||||
CE1 | 0.84 | ||||||
CE2 | 0.85 | ||||||
CE3 | 0.58 | ||||||
CE4 | 0.84 | ||||||
CE5 | 0.87 | ||||||
CE6 | 0.78 | ||||||
CO1 | 0.41 | ||||||
CO2 | 0.79 | ||||||
CO3 | 0.86 | ||||||
BMIS1 | 0.96 | ||||||
BMIS2 | 0.88 | ||||||
BMIS3 | 0.85 | ||||||
BMIS4 | 0.83 |
Item | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 |
---|---|---|---|
BMI-DEL 1 | 0.79 | ||
BMI-DEL 2 | 0.75 | ||
BMI-DEL 3 | 0.69 | ||
BMI-DEL 4 | 0.46 | ||
BMI-DEL 5 | |||
BMI-DEL 6 | 0.60 | ||
BMI-CRE 1 | 0.67 | ||
BMI-CRE 2 | 0.80 | ||
BMI-CRE 3 | 0.52 | ||
BMI-CRE 4 | 0.75 | ||
BMI-CAP 1 | 0.61 | ||
BMI-CAP 2 | 0.63 | ||
BMI-CAP 3 | 0.93 | ||
BMI-CAP 4 | 0.46 |
Statistics | Variables | Coding | Descriptive Statistics | Calibration Criteria | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max | 75% | 50% | 25% | |||
Conditions | Managerial orientation | MO | 3.44 | 0.91 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 3.67 | 2.75 |
Innovative culture | IC | 3.95 | 0.76 | 1.80 | 5.00 | 4.60 | 4.00 | 3.60 | |
BMI strategy | BMIS | 3.48 | 0.81 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 3.75 | 3.00 | |
Sensing customer needs | SCN | 3.63 | 0.62 | 1.67 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 3.67 | 3.33 | |
Sensing technological options | STO | 3.61 | 0.59 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 3.67 | 3.33 | |
Conceptualizing and experimenting | CE | 3.22 | 0.74 | 1.80 | 5.00 | 3.80 | 3.40 | 2.60 | |
Collaborating | CO | 3.45 | 0.78 | 1.67 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 3.67 | 3.00 | |
Outcome | BMI | BMI | 3.21 | 0.68 | 1.00 | 4.92 | 3.67 | 3.27 | 2.85 |
Conditions Tested | Consistency | Coverage | Conditions Tested | Consistency | Coverage |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
MO | 0.604 | 0.606 | ~MO | 0.500 | 0.487 |
IC | 0.624 | 0.655 | ~IC | 0.475 | 0.443 |
BMIS | 0.703 | 0.733 | ~BMIS | 0.380 | 0.357 |
SCN | 0.699 | 0.701 | ~SCN | 0.391 | 0.381 |
STO | 0.745 | 0.705 | ~STO | 0.346 | 0.357 |
CE | 0.732 | 0.742 | ~CE | 0.343 | 0.330 |
CO | 0.639 | 0.703 | ~CO | 0.455 | 0.407 |
Configurations | Solutions | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
Managerial orientation | ◯ | ◯ | ● | ● | ◯ | ● |
Innovative culture | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |
Sensing customer needs | ● | ● | ● | | | |
Sensing technological options | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● |
Conceptualizing and experimenting | | | | | ◯ | ◯ |
Collaborating | ● | ● | ● | ◯ | ◯ | |
BMI strategy | ● | ● | ● | ◯ | ● | |
Consistency | 0.989 | 0.989 | 0.903 | 0.891 | 0.808 | 0.974 |
Raw coverage | 0.140 | 0.136 | 0.228 | 0.184 | 0.057 | 0.087 |
Unique coverage | 0.017 | 0.025 | 0.073 | 0.030 | 0.014 | 0.045 |
Overall solution consistency | 0.913 | |||||
Overall solution coverage | 0.434 |
© 2020 by the authors. 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ibarra, D.; Bigdeli, A.Z.; Igartua, J.I.; Ganzarain, J. Business Model Innovation in Established SMEs: A Configurational Approach. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030076
Ibarra D, Bigdeli AZ, Igartua JI, Ganzarain J. Business Model Innovation in Established SMEs: A Configurational Approach. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2020; 6(3):76. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030076
Chicago/Turabian StyleIbarra, Dorleta, Ali Ziaee Bigdeli, Juan Ignacio Igartua, and Jaione Ganzarain. 2020. "Business Model Innovation in Established SMEs: A Configurational Approach" Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6, no. 3: 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030076
APA StyleIbarra, D., Bigdeli, A. Z., Igartua, J. I., & Ganzarain, J. (2020). Business Model Innovation in Established SMEs: A Configurational Approach. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(3), 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030076