New digital technologies have prompted many firms, including family firms, to innovate their business models. We study the role of dynamic capabilities as mediator in the relationship between family influence and digital business model innovation (BMI), and the moderating role of environmental dynamism. Based on unique survey data from 1,444 German firms with and without family influence, we reveal that knowledge exploitation, risk management, and marketing capabilities mediate the positive relationship between family influence and digital BMI. Surprisingly, and contrary to our assumption, we find that the positive relationship between family influence and dynamic capabilities is weakened rather than strengthened by environmental dynamism. Our findings hold important implications for family business innovation and digital BMI research, offering valuable insights into the role of dynamic capabilities and environmental dynamism in the digital economy.
AbrellT.PihlajamaaM.KantoL.vom BrockeJ.UebernickelF. (2016). The role of users and customers in digital innovation: Insights from B2B manufacturing firms. Information & Management, 53(3), 324–335.doi:10.1016/j.im.2015.12.005
2.
AmitR.ZottC. (2001). Value creation in E-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 493–520.doi:10.1002/smj.187
3.
AmoreM. D.GarofaloO.MinichilliA. (2014). Gender interactions within the family firm. Management Science, 60(5), 1083–1097.doi:10.1287/mnsc.2013.1824
4.
AmoreM. D.MinichilliA.CorbettaG. (2011). How do managerial successions shape corporate financial policies in family firms?Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(4), 1016–1027.doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2011.05.002
5.
AndersonR. C.ReebD. M. (2003). Founding‐family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. The Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1301–1328.
6.
AndersonR. C.ReebD. M. (2004). Board composition: Balancing family influence in S&P 500 firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 209–237.
7.
AndrewsD.NonneckeB.PreeceJ. (2003). Conducting research on the internet: Online survey design, development and implementation guidelines. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16(2), 185–210.
8.
AntonakisJ.BendahanS.JacquartP.LaliveR. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120.doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010
9.
ArenaM.AzzoneG.CagnoE.FerrettiG.PrunottoE.SilvestriA.TruccoP. (2013). Integrated risk management through dynamic capabilities within project-based organizations: The company dynamic response map. Risk Management, 15(1), 50–77.doi:10.1057/rm.2012.12
10.
ArregleJ.-L.HittM. A.MariI. (2019). A missing link in family firms’ internationalization research: Family structures. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(5), 809–825.doi:10.1057/s41267-019-00213-z
11.
AsparaJ.HietanenJ.TikkanenH. (2010). Business model innovation vs replication: Financial performance implications of strategic emphases. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18(1), 39–56.doi:10.1080/09652540903511290
12.
AutioE.KenneyM.MustarP.SiegelD.WrightM. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.015
13.
BascleG. (2008). Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 6(3), 285–327.doi:10.1177/1476127008094339
14.
BattR.ColvinA. J. S. (2011). An employment systems approach to turnover: Human resources practices, quits, dismissals, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 695–717.doi:10.5465/amj.2011.64869448
15.
BettisR. A.HittM. A. (1995). The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 7–19.doi:10.1002/smj.4250160915
16.
BharadwajA. S. (2000). A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 169–196.doi:10.2307/3250983
17.
BhattG. D.GroverV. (2005). Types of information technology capabilities and their role in competitive advantage: An empirical study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(2), 253–277.doi:10.1080/07421222.2005.11045844
18.
BolingJ. R.PieperT. M.CovinJ. G. (2016). CEO tenure and entrepreneurial orientation within family and nonfamily firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(4), 891–913.doi:10.1111/etap.12150
19.
BoudreauK. J.LaceteraN.LakhaniK. R. (2011). Incentives and problem uncertainty in innovation contests: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 57(5), 843–863.doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1322
20.
BrinkerinkJ. (2018). Broad search, deep search, and the absorptive capacity performance of family and nonfamily firm R&D. Family Business Review, 31(3), 295–317.
21.
CeipekR.HautzJ.De MassisA.MatzlerK.ArditoL. (2021). Digital transformation through exploratory and exploitative internet of things innovations: The impact of family management and technological diversification. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(1), 142–165.doi:10.1111/jpim.12551
22.
CennamoC. (2020). Competing in digital markets: A platform-based perspective. The Academy of Management Perspectives, forthcoming.
23.
ChenD. Q.PrestonD. S.SwinkM. (2015). How the use of big data analytics affects value creation in supply chain management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(4), 4–39.doi:10.1080/07421222.2015.1138364
24.
ChesbroughH. (2010). Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 354–363.doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.010
25.
ChiricoF. (2008). Knowledge accumulation in family firms: Evidence from four case studies. International Small Business Journal, 26(4), 433–462.
26.
ChiricoF.BaùM. (2014). Is the family an “asset” or “liability” for firm performance? The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(2), 210–225.doi:10.1111/jsbm.12095
27.
ChiricoF.NordqvistM. (2010). Dynamic capabilities and trans-generational value creation in family firms: The role of organizational culture. International Small Business Journal, 28(5), 487–504.doi:10.1177/0266242610370402
28.
ChiricoF.NordqvistM.ColomboG.MollonaE. (2012). Simulating dynamic capabilities and value creation in family firms: Is paternalism an “asset” or a “liability”?Family Business Review, 25(3), 318–338.
29.
ChiricoF.SalvatoC. (2008). Knowledge integration and dynamic organizational adaptation in family firms. Family Business Review, 21(2), 169–181.doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.2008.00117.x
30.
ChiricoF.SalvatoC. (2016). Knowledge internalization and product development in family firms: When relational and affective factors matter. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(1), 201–229.doi:10.1111/etap.12114
31.
ChiricoF.SirmonD. G.SciasciaS.MazzolaP. (2011). Resource orchestration in family firms: Investigating how entrepreneurial orientation, generational involvement, and participative strategy affect performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(4), 307–326.doi:10.1002/sej.121
32.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.De MassisA.FrattiniF.WrightM. (2015). The ability and willingness paradox in family firm innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(3), 310–318.doi:10.1111/jpim.12207
33.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.KellermannsF. (2009). Priorities, resource stocks, and performance in family and nonfamily firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 739–760.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00324.x
34.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.PearsonA. W.BarnettT. (2012). Family involvement, family influence, and family centered non-economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(2), 267–293.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00407.x
35.
ChrismanJ. J.PatelP. C. (2012). Variations in R&D investments of family and nonfamily firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 976–997.
36.
ChuaJ. H.ChrismanJ. J.SharmaP. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39.doi:10.1177/104225879902300402
37.
ChuaJ. H.ChrismanJ. J.SteierL. P.RauS. B. (2012). Sources of heterogeneity in family firms: An introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1103–1113.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00540.x
38.
ClassenN.CarreeM.Van GilsA.PetersB. (2014). Innovation in family and non-family SMEs: An exploratory analysis. Small Business Economics, 42(3), 595–609.doi:10.1007/s11187-013-9490-z
39.
ClemonsE. K. (2009). Business models for monetizing internet applications and web sites: Experience, theory, and predictions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(2), 15–41.doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222260202
40.
ClercqD. D.SapienzaH. J.CrijnsH. (2005). The internationalization of small and medium-sized firms. Small Business Economics, 24(4), 409–419.doi:10.1007/s11187-005-5333-x
41.
CollinsD. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Quality of Life Research, 12(3), 229–238.doi:10.1023/A:102325422659212769135
42.
Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation (EFI). (2016). Research, innovation and technological performance in Germany - EFI Report 2016. EFI.
43.
CorreaniA.De MassisA.FrattiniF.PetruzzelliA. M.NatalicchioA. (2020). Implementing a digital strategy: Learning from the experience of three digital transformation projects. California Management Review, 62(4), 37–56.doi:10.1177/0008125620934864
44.
CraigJ. B.DibrellC.GarrettR. (2014). Examining relationships among family influence, family culture, flexible planning systems, innovativeness and firm performance. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(3), 229–238.doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2013.09.002
45.
CruzC.NordqvistM. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: A generational perspective. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 33–49.doi:10.1007/s11187-010-9265-8
46.
DaspitJ. J.LongR. G.PearsonA. W. (2019). How familiness affects innovation outcomes via absorptive capacity: A dynamic capability perspective of the family firm. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 10(2), 133–143.doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2018.11.003
47.
DavisP. (1983). Realizing the potential of the family business. Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 47–56.doi:10.1016/0090-2616(83)90026-8
48.
De ClercqD.DimovD.ThongpapanlN. T. (2013). Organizational social capital, formalization, and internal knowledge sharing in entrepreneurial orientation formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 505–537.doi:10.1111/etap.12021
49.
De MassisA.AudretschD.UhlanerL.KammerlanderN. (2018). Innovation with limited resources: Management lessons from the German Mittelstand. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(1), 125–146.doi:10.1111/jpim.12373
50.
De MassisA.ChiricoF.KotlarJ.NaldiL. (2014). The temporal evolution of proactiveness in family firms: The horizontal S-curve hypothesis. Family Business Review, 27(1), 35–50.
51.
De MassisA.Di MininA.FrattiniF. (2015). Family-driven innovation: Resolving the paradox in family firms. California Management Review, 58(1), 5–19.doi:10.1525/cmr.2015.58.1.5
52.
De MassisA.EddlestonK. A.RovelliP. (2021). Entrepreneurial by design: How organizational design affects family and non‐family firms’ opportunity exploitation. Journal of Management Studies, 58(1), 27–62.doi:10.1111/joms.12568
53.
De MassisA.FrattiniF.KotlarJ.PetruzzelliA. M.WrightM. (2016). Innovation through tradition: Lessons from innovative family businesses and directions for future research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(1), 93–116.doi:10.5465/amp.2015.0017
54.
De MassisA.FrattiniF.MajocchiA.PiscitelloL. (2018). Family firms in the global economy: Toward a deeper understanding of internationalization determinants, processes, and outcomes. Global Strategy Journal, 8(1), 3–21.doi:10.1002/gsj.1199
55.
De MassisA.FrattiniF.PizzurnoE.CassiaL. (2015). Product innovation in family vs nonfamily firms: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 1–36.doi:10.1111/jsbm.12068
56.
De MassisA.KotlarJ. (2014). The case study method in family business research: Guidelines for qualitative scholarship. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 15–29.doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.007
57.
De MassisA.SharmaP.ChuaJ. H.ChrismanJ. J. (2012). Family business studies: An annotated bibliography. Edward Elgar Publishing.
58.
Diaz-MorianaV.ClintonE.KammerlanderN.LumpkinG. T.CraigJ. B. (2020). Innovation motives in family firms: A transgenerational view. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(2), 256–287.doi:10.1177/1042258718803051
59.
DillmanD. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Wiley.
60.
DuranP.KammerlanderN.van EssenM.ZellwegerT. (2016). Doing more with less: Innovation input and output in family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1224–1264.doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0424
61.
DyerW. G.WhettenD. A. (2006). Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 785–802.
62.
Easterby-SmithM.PrietoI. M. (2008). Dynamic capabilities and knowledge management: An integrative role for learning?. British Journal of Management, 19(3), 235–249.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00543.x
63.
EbelP.BretschneiderU.LeimeisterJ. (2016). Leveraging virtual business model innovation: A framework for designing business model development tools. Information Systems Journal, 26(5), 519–550.doi:10.1111/isj.12103
FangE.ZouS. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of marketing dynamic capabilities in international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(5), 742–761.doi:10.1057/jibs.2008.96
FernándezZ.NietoM. J. (2006). Impact of ownership on the international involvement of SMEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 340–351.doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400196
68.
FichmanR. GDos SantosB. LZhengZUniversity of Texas at Dallas. (2014). Digital innovation as a fundamental and powerful concept in the information systems curriculum. MIS Quarterly, 38(2), 329–343.doi:10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.2.01
69.
ForsmanH. (2011). Innovation capacity and innovation development in small enterprises. A comparison between the manufacturing and service sectors. Research Policy, 40(5), 739–750.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.003
70.
FossN. J.MahnkeV. (2002). Competence, governance, and entrepreneurship: Advances in economic strategy research. Oxford University Press.
71.
FossN. J.SaebiT. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation. Journal of Management, 43(1), 200–227.doi:10.1177/0149206316675927
72.
FossN. J.SaebiT. (2018). Business models and business model innovation: Between wicked and paradigmatic problems. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 9–21.doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2017.07.006
73.
FreemanR. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.
74.
Garcés-GaldeanoL.Larraza-KintanaM.CruzC.Contín-PilartI. (2017). Just about money? CEO satisfaction and firm performance in small family firms. Small Business Economics, 49(4), 825–839.doi:10.1007/s11187-017-9863-9
75.
GedajlovicE.CarneyM.ChrismanJ. J.KellermannsF. W. (2012). The adolescence of family firm research: Taking stock and planning for the future. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1010–1037.
76.
GeorgeG.MerrillR. K.SchillebeeckxS. J. D. (2020). Digital sustainability and entrepreneurship: How digital innovations are helping tackle climate change and sustainable development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(1), 104225871989942.doi:10.1177/1042258719899425
Gómez-MejíaL. R.MakriM.KintanaM. L. (2010). Diversification decisions in family-controlled firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 223–252.doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00889.x
79.
GreensteinS.LernerJ.SternS. (2013). Digitization, innovation, and copyright: What is the agenda?Strategic Organization, 11(1), 110–121.doi:10.1177/1476127012460940
80.
GuoH.SuZ.AhlstromD. (2016). Business model innovation: The effects of exploratory orientation, opportunity recognition, and entrepreneurial bricolage in an emerging economy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(2), 533–549.doi:10.1007/s10490-015-9428-x
81.
Gimenez-JimenezD.EdelmanL. F.MinolaT.CalabròA.CassiaL. (2020). An intergeneration solidarity perspective on succession intentions in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(20), 104225872095638.doi:10.1177/1042258720956384
82.
Gómez-MejíaL. R.HaynesK. T.Núñez-NickelM.JacobsonK. J. L.Moyano-FuentesJ. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137.doi:10.2189/asqu.52.1.106
83.
HabbershonT. G.WilliamsM.MacMillanI. C. (2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 451–465.doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00053-3
84.
HamiltonB. H.NickersonJ. A. (2003). Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 1(1), 51–78.doi:10.1177/1476127003001001218
85.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
86.
HedmanJ.SarkerS.VeitD. (2016). Digitization in business models and entrepreneurship. Information Systems Journal, 26(5), 419–420.doi:10.1111/isj.12119
87.
HeimeriksK. H.SchijvenM.GatesS. (2012). Manifestations of higher-order routines: The underlying mechanisms of deliberate learning in the context of postacquisition integration. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 703–726.doi:10.5465/amj.2009.0572
88.
HelfatC. E.RaubitschekR. S. (2018). Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research Policy, 47(8), 1391–1399.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.019
89.
HelfatC. E.WinterS. G. (2011). Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: Strategy for the (n)ever-changing world. Strategic Management Journal, 32(11), 1243–1250.doi:10.1002/smj.955
90.
HuergoE.JaumandreuJ. (2004). How does probability of innovation change with firm age?Small Business Economics, 22(3/4), 193–207.doi:10.1023/B:SBEJ.0000022220.07366.b5
91.
HuntS. D.SparkmanR. D.WilcoxJ. B. (1982). The pretest in survey research: Issues and preliminary findings. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(2), 269–273.doi:10.1177/002224378201900211
92.
JolliffeI. (2011). Principal component analysis. InLovricM. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of statistical science (pp.1094–1096). Springer.
93.
JonesC. D.MakriM.Gomez–MejiaL. R. (2008). Affiliate directors and perceived risk bearing in publicly traded, family-controlled firms: The case of diversification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 1007–1026.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00269.x
94.
KammerlanderN.BreugstN. (2019). Construals matter: Painting the big picture or drawing the brushstrokes of the family firm. Family Business Review, 32(3), 222–232.doi:10.1177/0894486519864724
95.
KammerlanderN.De MassisA. (2020). Frequently asked questions in qualitative family business research and some guidelines to avoid risky paths. InDe MassisA.KammerlanderN. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for family business (pp.1–24). Edward Elgar Publishing.
96.
KammerlanderN.KönigA.RichardsM. (2018). Why do incumbents respond heterogeneously to disruptive innovations? The interplay of domain identity and role identity. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1122–1165.doi:10.1111/joms.12345
97.
KammerlanderN.PatzeltH.BehrensJ.RöhmC. (2020). Organizational ambidexterity in family-managed firms: The role of family involvement in top management. Family Business Review, 33(4), 393–423.doi:10.1177/0894486520961645
98.
KarimiJ.WalterZ. (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(1), 39–81.doi:10.1080/07421222.2015.1029380
99.
KellermannsF. W.EddlestonK. A. (2006). Corporate entrepreneurship in family firms: A family perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 809–830.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00153.x
100.
KellermannsF. W.EddlestonK. A.SarathyR.MurphyF. (2012). Innovativeness in family firms: A family influence perspective. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 85–101.doi:10.1007/s11187-010-9268-5
101.
KempersM.LeitterstorfM. P.KammerlanderN. (2019). Risk behavior of family firms: A literature review, framework, and research agenda. InMemiliE.DibrellC. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of heterogeneity among family firms (pp.431–460). Springer International Publishing.
102.
KoteyB.FolkerC. (2007). Employee training in SMEs: Effect of size and firm type–family and nonfamily. Journal of Small Business Management, 45(2), 214–238.
103.
KotlarJ.De MassisA. (2013). Goal setting in family firms: Goal diversity, social interactions, and collective commitment to family-centered goals. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(6), 1263–1288.
104.
KotlarJ.De MassisA.FrattiniF.BianchiM.FangH. (2013). Technology acquisition in family and nonfamily firms: A longitudinal analysis of Spanish manufacturing firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(6), 1073–1088.
105.
KotlarJ.De MassisA.FrattiniF.KammerlanderN. (2020). Motivation gaps and implementation traps: The paradoxical and time‐varying effects of family ownership on firm absorptive capacity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(1), 2–25.
106.
KriauciunasA.ParmigianiA.Rivera-SantosM. (2011). Leaving our comfort zone: Integrating established practices with unique adaptations to conduct survey‐based strategy research in nontraditional contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9), 994–1010.
107.
KohliA. K.JaworskiB. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.doi:10.1177/002224299005400201
108.
KönigA.KammerlanderN.EndersA. (2013). The family innovator’s dilemma: How family influence affects the adoption of discontinuous technologies by incumbent firms. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 418–441.doi:10.5465/amr.2011.0162
109.
LealJ.LehmannR.MarcB.WollmershäuserT.WozniakP. (2019). The weakness of the German car industry and its sectoral and global impacts. https://www.econpol.eu/
110.
LévesqueM.StephanU. (2020). It’s time we talk about time in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(2), 163–184.doi:10.1177/1042258719839711
111.
LongJ. S.ErvinL. H. (2000). Using heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. The American Statistician, 54(3), 217–224.
112.
LumpkinG. T.BrighamK. H. (2011). Long–term orientation and intertemporal choice in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(6), 1149–1169.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00495.x
113.
LumpkinG. T.LichtensteinB. B. (2005). The role of organizational learning in the opportunity-recognition process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), 451–472.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00093.x
114.
LumpkinG. T.MartinW.VaughnM. (2008). Family orientation: Individual-level influences on family firm outcomes. Family Business Review, 21(2), 127–138.doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.2008.00120.x
115.
MallettO.WapshottR. (2014). Informality and employment relationships in small firms: Humour, ambiguity and straight-talking. British Journal of Management, 25(1), 118–132.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00836.x
116.
Martinez-ConesaI.Soto-AcostaP.CarayannisE. G. (2017). On the path towards open innovation: Assessing the role of knowledge management capability and environmental dynamism in SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(3), 553–570.doi:10.1108/JKM-09-2016-0403
117.
McKelvieA.DavidssonP. (2009). From resource base to dynamic capabilities: An investigation of new firms. British Journal of Management, 20(S1), S63–S80.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00613.x
118.
MillerD.Breton–MillerL.LesterR. (2010). Family ownership and acquisition behavior in publicly traded companies. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 201–223.
119.
MiroshnychenkoI.BarontiniR.De MassisA. (2020). Investment opportunities and R&D investments in family and nonfamily firms. R&D Management, 50(4), 447–461.
MiroshnychenkoI.De MassisA.MillerD.BarontiniR. (2020). Family business growth around the world. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 104225872091302.doi:10.1177/1042258720913028
122.
MiroshnychenkoI.StroblA.MatzlerK.De MassisA. (2020). Absorptive capacity, strategic flexibility, and business model innovation: Empirical evidence from Italian SMEs. Journal of Business Research.doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.02.015
123.
MollickE. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1–16.doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.06.005
124.
MorabitoV. (2013). Trends and challenges in digital business innovation. Springer.
125.
MorganN. A.VorhiesD. W.MasonC. H. (2009). Market orientation, marketing capabilities, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(8), 909–920.doi:10.1002/smj.764
126.
MullerD.JuddC. M.YzerbytV. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852–863.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.85216393020
127.
MüllerJ. M.BuligaO.VoigtK.-I. (2018). Fortune favors the prepared: How SMEs approach business model innovations in industry 4.0. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 132(8), 2–17.doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.019
128.
NaldiL.NordqvistM.SjöbergK.WiklundJ. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation, risk taking, and performance in family firms. Family Business Review, 20(1), 33–47.doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.2007.00082.x
129.
NambisanS. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029–1055.doi:10.1111/etap.12254
130.
NambisanSLyytinenKMajchrzakASongMXi’an Technological University. (2017). Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223–238.doi:10.25300/MISQ/2017/41:1.03
131.
NambisanS.WrightM.FeldmanM. (2019). The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes. Research Policy, 48(8), 103773–103779.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.018
132.
NarverJ. C.SlaterS. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.doi:10.1177/002224299005400403
133.
NayakA.ChiaR.CanalesJ. (2020). Noncognitive microfoundations: Understanding dynamic capabilities as idiosyncractically refined sensitivities and predispositions. Academy of Management Review, 45(2), 280–303.doi:10.5465/amr.2016.0253
134.
NietoM. J.SantamariaL.FernandezZ. (2015). Understanding the innovation behavior of family firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(2), 382–399.doi:10.1111/jsbm.12075
135.
ObalM. (2017). What drives post-adoption usage? Investigating the negative and positive antecedents of disruptive technology continuous adoption intentions. Industrial Marketing Management, 63(3), 42–52.doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.01.003
136.
OnettiA.ZucchellaA.JonesM.McDougall-CovinP. P. (2012). Internationalization, innovation and entrepreneurship: Business models for new technology-based firms. Journal of Management & Governance, 16(3), 337–368.doi:10.1007/s10997-010-9154-1
137.
O’BrienR. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673–690.doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
138.
Paarup NielsenA. (2006). Understanding dynamic capabilities through knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(4), 59–71.doi:10.1108/13673270610679363
139.
PalmiéM.ZeschkyM.WinterhalterS.SauterP. W.HaefnerN.GassmannO. (2016). Coordination mechanisms for international innovation in SMEs: Effects on time-to-market and R&D task complexity as a moderator. Small Business Economics, 46(2), 273–294.
140.
PatelP. C.ChrismanJ. J. (2014). Risk abatement as a strategy for R&D investments in family firms. Strategic Management Journal, 35(4), 617–627.
141.
PavlouP. A.El SawyO. A. (2010). The “third hand”: IT-enabled competitive advantage in turbulence through improvisational capabilities. Information Systems Research, 21(3), 443–471.doi:10.1287/isre.1100.0280
142.
PodsakoffP.MacKenzieS.PodsakoffN. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
143.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.87914516251
144.
PoterbaJ. M.SummersL. (1995). A CEO survey of U.S. companies’ time horizons and hurdle rates. Sloan Management Review, 37(1), 43–53.
145.
PrahaladC. K.BettisR. A. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 485–501.doi:10.1002/smj.4250070602
146.
PreacherK. J.RuckerD. D.HayesA. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.doi:10.1080/0027317070134131626821081
147.
RamosH. M.ManT. W. Y.MustafaM.NgZ. Z. (2014). Psychological ownership in small family firms: Family and non-family employees’ work attitudes and behaviours. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(3), 300–311.doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.04.001
148.
ReisingerS.LehnerJ. M. (2015). Navigating a family business through a changing environment: Findings from a longitudinal study. Review of Managerial Science, 9(2), 411–429.doi:10.1007/s11846-014-0163-3
149.
RemaneG.HaneltA.NickersonR. C.KolbeL. M. (2017). Discovering digital business models in traditional industries. Journal of Business Strategy, 38(2), 41–51.doi:10.1108/JBS-10-2016-0127
150.
SalkindN. J. (2007). Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics. SAGE.
151.
SalvatoC.MelinL. (2008). Creating value across generations in family-controlled businesses: The role of family social capital. Family Business Review, 21(3), 259–276.doi:10.1177/08944865080210030107
152.
SambamurthyV.BharadwajA.GroverV. (2003). Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 237–263.doi:10.2307/30036530
153.
SchilkeO. (2014). Second-order dynamic capabilities: How do they matter?Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 368–380.doi:10.5465/amp.2013.0093
154.
SchilkeO.HuS.HelfatC. E. (2018). Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 390–439.doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0014
155.
SchmidT.AchleitnerA.-K.AmpenbergerM.KasererC. (2014). Family firms and R&D behavior–New evidence from a large-scale survey. Research Policy, 43(1), 233–244.
156.
SchulzeW. S.LubatkinM. H.DinoR. N. (2003). Toward a theory of agency and altruism in family firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 473–490.doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00054-5
157.
SchumpeterJ. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credits, interest, and the business cycle. Transaction Publishers.
158.
SciasciaS.NordqvistM.MazzolaP.De MassisA. (2015). Family ownership and R&D intensity in small‐ and medium‐sized firms. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(3), 349–360.
159.
SenS.KotlarskyJ.BudhwarP. (2020). Extending organizational boundaries through outsourcing: Toward a dynamic risk-management capability framework. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(1), 97–113.doi:10.5465/amp.2015.0191
160.
SimsekZ. (2007). CEO tenure and organizational performance: An intervening model. Strategic Management Journal, 28(6), 653–662.doi:10.1002/smj.599
161.
SirmonD. G.ArregleJ.-L.HittM. A.WebbJ. W. (2008). The role of family influence in firms’ strategic responses to threat of imitation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 979–998.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00267.x
162.
SmyrniosK.TanewskiG.RomanoC. (1998). Development of a measure of the characteristics of family business. Family Business Review, 11(1), 49–60.doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.1998.00049.x
163.
SnihurY.WiklundJ. (2019). Searching for innovation: Product, process, and business model innovations and search behavior in established firms. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 305–325.doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2018.05.003
164.
SnihurY.ZottC. (2020). The genesis and metamorphosis of novelty imprints: How business model innovation emerges in young ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 63(2), 554–583.doi:10.5465/amj.2017.0706
165.
SolukJ.KammerlanderN. (2021). Digital transformation in family-owned Mittelstand firms: A dynamic capabilities perspective. European Journal of Information Systems, forthcoming.doi:10.1080/0960085X.2020.1857666
166.
SorescuA. (2017). Data-driven business model innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(5), 691–696.doi:10.1111/jpim.12398
167.
SpiethP.SchneckenbergD.RicartJ. E. (2014). Business model innovation–state of the art and future challenges for the field. R&D Management, 44(3), 237–247.
168.
TagiuriR.DavisJ. A. (1992). On the goals of successful family companies. Family Business Review, 5(1), 43–62.doi:10.1111/j.1741-6248.1992.00043.x
169.
TarafdarM.PullinsE. B.Ragu-NathanT. S. (2015). Technostress: Negative effect on performance and possible mitigations. Information Systems Journal, 25(2), 103–132.doi:10.1111/isj.12042
170.
TarafdarM.TuQ.Ragu-NathanT. S. (2010). Impact of technostress on end-user satisfaction and performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(3), 303–334.doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222270311
171.
TarkaP. (2018). An overview of structural equation modeling: Its beginnings, historical development, usefulness and controversies in the social sciences. Quality & Quantity, 52(1), 313–354.doi:10.1007/s11135-017-0469-829416184
172.
TeeceD. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.doi:10.1002/smj.640
173.
TeeceD. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194.doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003
174.
TeeceD. J. (2014). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 328–352.doi:10.5465/amp.2013.0116
175.
TeeceD. J. (2018a). Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Research Policy, 47(8), 1367–1387.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.015
176.
TeeceD. J. (2018b). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40–49.doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007
TroiloG.De LucaL. M.GuenziP. (2017). Linking data‐rich environments with service innovation in incumbent firms: A conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(5), 617–639.doi:10.1111/jpim.12395
179.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.doi:10.1037/a001896320438233
180.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.112417835457
181.
van DoornS.HeydenM. L. M.VolberdaH. W. (2017). Enhancing entrepreneurial orientation in dynamic environments: The interplay between top management team advice-seeking and absorptive capacity. Long Range Planning, 50(2), 134–144.doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2016.06.003
182.
VeitD.ClemonsE.BenlianA.BuxmannP.HessT.SpannM.KundischD.LeimeisterJ. M.LoosP. (2014). Business models: An information systems research agenda. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6(1), 45–53.
183.
VialG. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118–144.doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
von BrielF.DavidssonP.ReckerJ. (2018). Digital technologies as external enablers of new venture creation in the it hardware sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(1), 47–69.doi:10.1177/1042258717732779
WirtzB. W.SchilkeO.UllrichS. (2010). Strategic development of business models: Implications of the web 2.0 for creating value on the Internet. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 272–290.
188.
WrightM.ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.SteierL. P. (2014). Family enterprise and context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(6), 1247–1260.doi:10.1111/etap.12122
189.
YeowA.SohC.HansenR. (2018). Aligning with new digital strategy: A dynamic capabilities approach. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27(1), 43–58.doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2017.09.001
190.
YooY.BolandR. J.LyytinenK.MajchrzakA. (2012). Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5), 1398–1408.doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0771
191.
YooY.HenfridssonO.LyytinenK. (2010). Research commentary: The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724–735.doi:10.1287/isre.1100.0322
192.
ZellwegerT. M.KellermannsF. W.ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H. (2012). Family control and family firm valuation by family CEOs: The importance of intentions for transgenerational control. Organization Science, 23(3), 851–868.doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0665
193.
ZhaoX.LynchJ. G.ChenQ. (2010). Reconsidering baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.doi:10.1086/651257
194.
ZhuK.KraemerK. L.DedrickJ. (2004). Information technology payoff in e-business environments: An international perspective on value creation of e-business in the financial services industry. Journal of Management Information Systems, 21(1), 17–54.doi:10.1080/07421222.2004.11045797
195.
ZobelA.-K. (2017). Benefiting from open innovation: A multidimensional model of absorptive capacity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(3), 269–288.doi:10.1111/jpim.12361
196.
ZolloM.WinterS. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780
197.
ZottC.AmitR. (2007). Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 18(2), 181–199.doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0232
198.
ZottC.AmitR. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 216–226.doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.004
199.
ZottC.AmitR.MassaL. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.doi:10.1177/0149206311406265
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
