Relationship,Resource and Performance of Makerspace in China: From the Perspective of Business Ties and Political Ties

Abstract

The organizational relationships that makerspaces cultivate with their business partners and government agencies exert a significant influence on their resource allocation strategies and subsequent performance outcomes. This study examines the impact of both business ties and political ties, conceptualized as facets of organizational relationships, on makerspaces’ competitive performance, with a particular focus on the mediating roles of resource bricolage and resource slack. Furthermore, environmental turbulence is recognized as a crucial boundary condition influencing the relationship between these ties and performance outcomes. Utilizing an empirical research design, data was collected through 216 valid questionnaires from makerspaces spanning diverse regions and industries. Systematic data analysis was conducted using AMOS 21.0 and SPSS 20.0. The findings indicate a positive correlation between both business ties and political ties, and competitive performance. Notably, both resource bricolage and resource slack mediate these relationships. However, environmental turbulence amplifies only the relationship between political ties and competitive performance. This research underscores the significance of organizational ties in enhancing the effectiveness of makerspaces’ incubation role in fostering innovation and entrepreneurship. By integrating external organizational relationships with the management and utilization of resources, this study offers valuable insights for the construction and optimization of makerspaces. It emphasizes that strengthening business and political ties with relevant entrepreneurial entities can effectively improve resource allocation efficiency, provide superior incubation services for innovation and entrepreneurship, and ultimately attain a heightened competitive advantage.

Plain Language Summary

How do political and business relationships of China’s makerspaces enhance their performance outcomes through resource redundancy and resource bricolage?

The relationship that makerspaces have with their business partners and government agencies significantly influences how they allocate resources and achieve their performance goals. This study looks at how these business and political ties affect a makerspace’s competitive performance, with a focus on how they use resource creativity (resource bricolage) and flexibility (resource slack). It also considers how changes in the environment (environmental turbulence) can impact these relationships. Using data from 216 makerspaces across different regions and industries, this study analyzed the information with statistical tools like AMOS 21.0 and SPSS 20.0. The findings show that both business and political ties boost a makerspace’s competitive performance. Resource bricolage and resource slack act as bridges between these ties and improved performance. Interestingly, environmental changes only make the link between political ties and competitive performance stronger. This research highlights the value of strong organizational ties in helping makerspaces promote innovation and entrepreneurship more effectively. By understanding how to manage and utilize resources alongside these external relationships, this article offers valuable insights for building and improving makerspaces. It suggests that enhancing business and political ties with other entrepreneurial stakeholders can optimize resource allocation, enhance incubation services, and ultimately lead to better performance outcomes.

Keywords

business ties political ties resource bricolage resource slack competitive performance

Introduction

Since their inception, incubators have garnered considerable attention in entrepreneurship research, serving as pivotal players in the global economy by nurturing new ventures through multifaceted support (Hausberg & Korreck, 2018; Z. Wang et al., 2020). In China, the implementation of the 2014 mass innovation and entrepreneurship policy has spurred the rapid growth of makerspaces, which focus on early-stage entrepreneurship, idea generation, and the cultivation of entrepreneurial teams. Despite the extensive discourse surrounding incubators (Albort-Morant & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2016), this study conceptualizes makerspaces as a novel entrepreneurial platform aligned with the technological revolution and industrial transformation occurring in China.

Upon reviewing the current research literature on maker spaces, there are three primary research themes. The first is the discussion of the effectiveness of incubators, aiming to verify whether they can truly enhance incubation efficiency and effectiveness (Albort-Morant & Oghazi, 2016; Albort-Morant & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2016; Lukes et al., 2019). Second, explore how incubators can help and promote the success of incubating enterprises, including the mechanisms and boundaries (Máté et al., 2024). Third, the best practice of incubator (van Erkelens et al., 2024). However, incubators are a general term for a type of organization, and there are significant differences between different incubators in the incubation industry (Shekhar et al., 2023), such as co-working spaces, accelerators, science parks, etc., the objects they serve and the focus of their services make it difficult to unify and summarize the factors and conditions that contribute to organizational success (Pauwels et al., 2016). In the extant research on incubators, two pivotal factors are emphasized for facilitating entrepreneurial problem-solving and success: resource aggregation and network facilitation. From a resource-based view, incubators serve as platforms to consolidate innovation and entrepreneurship resources (Gumbau-Albert, 2023; Lindelöf & Hellberg, 2023), bridging informational and institutional gaps, such as funding, materials, channels, and market access. Tailored resource allocation enhances transformation efficiency (Paoloni & Modaffari, 2022), boosting entrepreneurial success. Network-wise, incubators facilitate connections among innovators, producers, and consumers, fostering collaboration, economies of scale, and bargaining power (Weele et al., 2016). This study focuses on makerspaces, which, unlike established incubators, prioritize entrepreneurial incubation rates. In the early stage of entrepreneurship, start-ups need incubators to provide key assistance and support to overcome difficulties (Paoloni & Modaffari, 2022). The transformation of plans into viable projects and market survival underscores the effective utilization of resources and networks in makerspaces. While prior studies extensively analyzed incubation mechanisms and effects from resource and network angles (Gumbau-Albert, 2023), this research delves into the underexplored territory of how external networks and internal resource allocation impact makerspace performance and competitiveness.

This study focuses on the mechanism and conditions for achieving competitive performance in the context of China’s policy background, taking the makerspaces that have emerged under this background as the research object, and combining the characteristics of the relationship society under the traditional Chinese cultural background. In the context of the mass entrepreneurship and innovation policy, the Chinese government hopes to mobilize all forces to participate in socialized innovation and entrepreneurship. Therefore, the construction of complete entrepreneurial hardware facilities and cultural atmosphere is a necessary condition for promoting the development of mass entrepreneurship and innovation. As vital service hubs, makerspaces offer cost-effective workspaces, digital and social platforms, and resource-sharing opportunities, fostering an incubation ecosystem that encompasses tech incubators, accelerators, parks, and beyond. Their primary objective is to drive technology adoption, product innovation, market exploration, and business model creation through integrated online-offline innovation-entrepreneurship, incubation, and investment processes. This underscores the distinct yet complementary nature of makerspaces and traditional incubators in addressing various stages and scopes of entrepreneurship. Although the makerspace industry has developed rapidly with the support of policies, it is also facing prominent problems. The volatility of service targets poses a significant challenge to the profitability of makerspaces (Deyanova et al., 2022). Furthermore, in an effort to compete for funding and policy support from the Chinese government, managers and founders of makerspaces have tailored their functional services according to the government’s rating evaluation system. This has led to a number of constraints and difficulties, particularly in their interactions with external parties and the resources they receive (Xiang et al., 2024). Consequently, the incubation services provided by makerspaces have become increasingly homogenized, lacking clear targeting and differentiation of incubation objects. This has resulted in significant homogenization within the incubation industry and a lack of differentiated positioning among makerspaces, severely impeding their functional efficacy.

The research objectives of this study are as follows: (1) to examine how makerspaces leverage external relationships and internal resources amidst heightened homogeneous competition, (2) to analyze the interplay between external ties, internal resource utilization, and their subsequent effects on competitive performance, and (3) to provide insights into the synergistic effects of political and business ties in turbulent environment. By achieving these objectives, this study will contribute to both academia and industry, particularly in the context of the emerging “maker” culture in China. Firstly, our research combines the resource and the relationship perspective to propose an integrated framework for the best practices of makerspaces. Analyzing the mechanism that affects the outcome of competition from both internal and external factors within the organization has expanded the field of research on makerspaces. Secondly, this study discusses how the strategic choice of resource allocation can build the competitive advantage of the makerspace, and verifies the reliability of the resource-based view in explaining the incubation mechanism (Abid et al., 2023). Finally, given the traditional background of China’s relational society, we compared the roles of business and political ties in dealing with environmental uncertainty. It demonstrates the differential effects of specific relationship types on the development of makerspaces (Shih & Aaboen, 2019), expanding the discussion of relationship research. From the practical perspective of the incubation industry, this study emphasizes that in the development of makerspaces, it is necessary to effectively utilize the resource advantages provided by business and political connections, and strengthen the efficient allocation of resources to achieve favorable competitive outcomes (Abid et al., 2023). Especially in the context of the rising maker culture in China, the demand for incubation services is increasing. The development of the makerspace industry is both a platform that responds to the needs of social entrepreneurship and an important participant in fostering an innovative entrepreneurial atmosphere (Stephens & Miller, 2022). With the strong support of the mass entrepreneurship and innovation policy, the operators of makerspaces must closely engage with relevant external entities (Shih & Aaboen, 2019), whether they are commercial organizations or government departments, to expand market channels and business opportunities, actively seek policy support and legitimacy, fully mobilize and integrate resources, achieve efficient allocation, and effectively resist the operational risks and competitive obstacles posed by external environmental turbulence. The construction and development of makerspaces are the foundational conditions and essential guarantees for promoting the prosperity of innovation and entrepreneurship.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

The Performance of Makerspace

The discourse surrounding the conceptualization and implications of incubators has garnered considerable scholarly attention, as a precise understanding of their ontological nature is paramount to defining and quantifying their outcomes. However, a consensual definition of success remains elusive, exacerbating the challenge of assessing success metrics using outcome determinants (Albort-Morant & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2016). Current research categorizes incubators diversely, leading to varied scopes and perspectives of discourse.

Regarding incubation performance, two primary viewpoints emerge: firstly, from the incubator’s function and role, success is often attributed to the entrepreneurial achievements of incubated enterprises, with performance appraised by the graduation rate of these enterprises (Mikalef et al., 2017). Secondly, as autonomous entities, incubators’ growth and impact are mirrored in their performance, encompassing financial, innovative, entrepreneurial, and societal contributions.

Makerspaces, as novel incubator platforms fostering multiparty collaboration, prioritize high-quality incubation services for entrepreneurs’ success. Amidst the Chinese makerspace industry’s intense homogenization and internal competition, this study delves into realizing the value and significance of innovative incubation, emphasizing comparative analysis with similar competitors. Consequently, the notion of competitive performance is adopted to gauge the crowdsourcing space’s superiority over rivals across multiple dimensions, aligning with the study’s objectives and context while circumventing definitional ambiguities.

Success in makerspaces translates into a heightened competitive edge over peers. Competitive performance encapsulates an organization’s performance superiority over its primary competitors (Azeem et al., 2021). Drawing from prior research, Mikalef et al. (2017) formulated a comprehensive, actionable index for competitive performance, which this study adopts as a manifestation of an organization’s holistic competitive advantage against its competitors.

Organizational Relationship of Makerspaces: Political Ties and Business Ties

Guanxi, a social network tie drawing on connections in business relations, has been identified as a powerful strategic tool helping organizations maintain competitive advantages and achieve superior performance (Luo et al., 2012; Su et al., 2023). In the Chinese socio-business landscape, Guanxi (relational ties) serves as a pivotal mechanism for transaction coordination and cooperation, sometimes perceived as the cornerstone of business success (C. Tan et al., 2022). The significance of organizational relationships has garnered substantial scholarly attention in management studies, with evidence corroborating their influence on strategic direction, corporate behaviors, and performance outcomes (Ma et al., 2020; Sharma et al., 2020).

In the context of innovation-related discourse, relationships are recognized as a pivotal influencing factor, exerting significant influence across various innovation types and forms, including but not limited to open innovation (Naqshbandi & Jasimuddin, 2022), green innovation (Liao et al., 2021; C. Zhang et al., 2022), organizational ambidextrous innovation (Díaz-Díaz et al., 2022), and product and service innovation. Moreover, in addressing the risks associated with external environmental uncertainty, relationships serve multifaceted roles for organizations, encompassing prevention, buffering, and response mechanisms (Díaz-Díaz et al., 2022; Guo et al., 2020). These assertions are supported by a robust body of research findings. Organizational external relationships can be dichotomized into political and business ties (Peng & Luo, 2000). Political ties encompass informal linkages with governmental entities at various levels, including local administrations, industrial departments, and supporting agencies (Yang et al., 2021; J. A. Zhang et al., 2020). Conversely, business ties encompass relationships with suppliers, clients, competitors, intermediaries, and other organizations (Jean et al., 2018).

Makerspaces, as novel incubator organizations, inherently engage in multifaceted interactions and collaborations. Their organizational essence necessitates connections with external entities, offering incubation services to innovation and entrepreneurship endeavors while fostering advantages and distinctive assets through these relationships (Shih & Aaboen, 2019). The progression of makerspaces confronts myriad resource constraints and obstacles, intimately tied to external linkages and diverse resource support (Deyanova et al., 2022). Therefore, the external relationships constitute vital foundations for makerspaces to secure external resources and navigate performance objectives amidst a dynamic environment (Park & Luo, 2001; J. A. Zhang et al., 2020).

The nexus between these two factors and entrepreneurial performance has been firmly established in prior research (J. A. Zhang et al., 2020). Government relations imbue organizations with legitimacy, facilitate product innovation (Jean et al., 2018), and fortify nascent enterprises’ frail foundations. Business ties, on the other hand, empower organizations to capitalize on market opportunities, expedite product commercialization, and thereby elevate survival prospects during the startup phase (X. Li et al., 2016). Incubators’ allure lies in mitigating startups’ inherent vulnerability, hindering autonomous formation of robust external linkages. Hence, the influence of both business and political ties on enhancing incubation outcomes is undeniable.

Social network theory posits that makerspaces must forge connections with externals, evolving into active nodes within socio-entrepreneurial networks. Yet, network actors occupy varied positions, those at structural holes possess comparative advantages, bridging others, garnering “information” and “control benefits,” and securing resources and channels, thereby achieving a competitive edge (Burt, 1995). Ties, as social capital, enable organizations to acquire scarce resources and uphold competitiveness in today’s fiercely competitive markets. Makerspaces’ linkages reflect network richness and position. Those embedded in dense entrepreneurial networks and occupying structural holes boast richer entrepreneurial resources, complementing and augmenting fundamental service offerings. Empirical evidence underscores that organizational business and political ties facilitate the acquisition of scarce external resources (Park & Luo, 2001).

The pivotal role of political ties in bolstering the competitive prowess of collaborative spaces revolves around policy guidance, resource procurement, and risk mitigation. Governments incentivize crowdsourcing spaces with tax relief, funding, and other measures, attracting entrepreneurial talents and enterprises, fostering agglomeration, and augmenting competitiveness (Jean et al., 2018). These ties facilitate access to governmental resources like R&D projects and talent, accelerating innovation outputs and commercialization (M. C. Wang et al., 2021). Furthermore, they mitigate operational risks, notably market and legal uncertainties, fostering a stable environment for innovation.

The makerspace’s business activities signify its external economic network strength. Business ties amplify competitiveness by fostering market integration, collaborative exchanges, and brand enhancement. They enable market insights, directing innovation toward demand, and enhancing market adaptability (Bashir et al., 2023). Collaboration with enterprises and institutions fosters resource pooling, synergy, and joint innovation (J. A. Zhang et al., 2020). Commercial partnerships and branding elevate visibility and appeal, attracting premium resources and partners, further bolstering competitiveness.

Integrating political and business ties generates synergies: political ties offer policy backing and risk buffers, while business ties strengthen market engagement, collaboration, and branding. This harmony positions makerspaces favorably in intense competition, fostering sustainable growth and prosperity.

Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:

H1: Makerspace’s (a) business ties and (b) political ties are positively related to its competitive performance.

Internal Resource Allocation: Resource Bricolage and Resource Slack

According to resource-based view (RBV), an enterprise is an aggregate of various resources. And what contributes to sustainable competitive advantage is resources that are heterogeneous, valuable, scarce, difficult to imitate and non-substituable (Barney, 1991; Zahra, 2021). In a rapid changing environment, resource bricolage is critical for organizations to resolve resource constraints, which helps organizations respond quickly to seize the opportunity and takes the lead (Du et al., 2022; Reypens et al., 2021). Resource slack indicates the level of organizations’ spare resources. Redundant resources are the buffer for organizations to catch up the rapidly changing market (Reypens et al., 2021).

Resource bricolage is defined as the organization utilizing existing resources at hand and taking immediate action to solve new problems and discover new opportunities (Busch & Barkema, 2021). Some scholars believe that resource bricolage greatly helps organizations utilize their various resources, achieving value creation and efficiency improvement of resources. From this perspective, resource bricolage can help organizations alleviate resource dilemmas, seek new market opportunities, innovate products and technologies, and thus promote organizational performance development (Guo et al., 2016). However, some scholars hold opposing views, believing that resource bricolage is often a temporary emergency action with strong limitations and timeliness, which can easily lead to low resource utilization and resource misallocation. In the face of specific situations, such behavior may help companies temporarily solve urgent problems. However, the development of an organization should be stable and orderly, and blindly pursuing the patchwork of resources may have a negative impact on organizational performance. Therefore, more attention and exploration are needed on the role of resource aggregation in organizational performance.

In reality, the disposal of resources by organizations is not 100%. When organizations cannot fully digest the resources brought by connections, redundant resources will be generated, which means there is a state of resource redundancy (Resource Slack). Resource slack refers to the actual or potential unused and remaining resources owned by an organization that exceed its actual needs (Agustí et al., 2024). There are two different perspectives on the role of redundant resources in current research. Scholars based on the resource-based view believe that redundant resources can help organizations gain competitive advantages, resist external threats, and enhance innovation capabilities (Carnes et al., 2019). From the perspective of agency theory, scholars believe that resource slack is a manifestation of low organizational efficiency, and organizations need to bear the additional cost of idle resources, which is detrimental to innovation and performance (Leyva-de la Hiz et al., 2019).

In the process of accessing resources through connection of the makerspace, resources obtained due to informal relations often have a certain timeliness. Moreover, the tenants within the maker space are diverse in terms of their types and industries, and the problems they face often vary, leading to differences in the functional and role requirements of the maker space. Makerspaces must always be prepared to address various unexpected issues, and flexible and efficient management of resources is essential (Busch & Barkema, 2022). Thus, resource bricolage is a wise choice to maximize the utilization efficiency of resources. Makerspace can easily meet the diverse needs of customers through resource bricolage (Busch & Barkema, 2021). For example, the effective using of business ties can bring support from the market, consumers, distribution channels, finance and other aspects to incubated enterprises. As a result, innovation and entrepreneurship activities receive strong support. On the other hand, by using political ties, makerspace can obtain policy support and seize opportunities. The preferential policies can not only be enjoyed by makerspace itself, but also benefit incubated enterprises. In conclusion, resource bricolage can help makerspace take the lead in the competition and improve the competitive performance (Busch & Barkema, 2021).

Resource slack represents to the actual or potential available resources that are idle in an organization. Empirical research shows that redundant resources can bring the following advantages to the organization. First, redundant resources can help relax resource constraints. In the complex and changing competitive environment, redundant resources enable organizations to take actions at any time (Zahra, 2021), which is important for makerspaces to help solving the unexpected issues. Second, redundant resources are the effective support for the organization to carry out product and technology innovation. Only with idle resources can organizations bear the huge costs in the process of trial and error (Symeou et al., 2019). Thus, makerspaces could bear the huge costs to develop new incubation services, making themselves more distinguished from the other competitors. Finally, redundant resources are the basis for the organization to show its strength to partners (Du et al., 2022). Organizations with more redundant resources can deliver positive signals to outsiders and thus provide a necessary foundation for cooperation.

Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:

H2: Makerspace’s resource slack and resource bricolage mediate the relationship between (a) business ties and (b) political ties with competitive performance.

The Moderating Role of Environmental Turbulence

Environmental turbulence has long been a subject of research inquiry (Chatterjee et al., 2023). The external environment of the organization is the key contextual factor affecting the enterprise’s strategic behaviors, capacities, arrangements, and outcomes (Zayadin et al., 2023). Generally, environmental turbulence is characterized by fluctuations in technology and changes in customer preferences (C. Wang et al., 2022), and there are two subdimensions (M. Zhang et al., 2019; J. A. Zhang et al., 2020), market turbulence which reflects the heterogeneity and variability of market preferences and demand (Al Dhaheri et al., 2024), and technological turbulence which refers to the instability of technology and the acceleration of innovation (Al Dhaheri et al., 2024, Bashir et al., 2023). The incubation of innovation and entrepreneurship in the maker space itself is highly uncertain, requiring robust operational support and abundant resource investment within the organization. At the same time, the continuous cooperation and support of external stakeholders is also an essential condition for the success of innovation and entrepreneurship. The large, rapid, or unexpected changes in the environment cause dynamics and uncertainties. Therefore, the level of environmental turbulence will directly affect the operation management, resource decision-making, and competitive means of the co-working space.

A highly volatile environment means extreme uncertainty, with factors such as market conditions, policy direction, and technological innovation all likely to change frequently, making partnerships between companies unreliable (Krishnan et al., 2016). In order to cope with potential risks in the market, managers’ cognition and decision-making are greatly affected by sudden changes in the external environment (Zayadin et al., 2023). Enterprises may be more inclined to take short-term actions, which may damage the trust foundation of long-term cooperative relationships. When trust is damaged, the effectiveness and efficiency of business connections are affected. Environmental turbulence may lead to more complex and difficult communication and coordination between partners. The rapid changes in the market environment require companies to respond more agilely, but this may also increase information asymmetry and misunderstandings between partners (Rajala & Hautala-Kankaanpää, 2023). In order to maintain the effectiveness of business connections, companies need to invest more resources and energy in communication and coordination, which increases the cost of cooperation (Sabherwal et al., 2019). In addition, business linkages are originally an effective way to achieve resource sharing and complementary advantages, but in a turbulent environment, it becomes more difficult for companies to acquire and integrate external resources, and the liquidity and availability of resources may be affected.

In an environment characterized by significant uncertainty, the political connection of the makerspace functions as a steadfast anchor for sustaining the organization’s competitive edge. Initially, amidst a volatile market landscape, makerspaces necessitate rapid adaptation and responsiveness to external shifts. Political connections facilitate makerspaces in swiftly acquiring policy insights and grasping market dynamics (Farrukh et al., 2023), thereby enabling them to promptly adjust their strategic orientations. This informational supremacy aids makerspaces in gaining a preemptive advantage in competition and augmenting their competitive efficacy. Secondly, political connections may also provide makerspaces with vital resource support, including funding and talent (M. Zhang et al., 2019), further fortifying their competitive stance. The accessibility and efficacy of acquiring these resources enable makerspaces to better develop their service offerings (M. Zhang et al., 2019), allowing them to swiftly address emerging market demands and adopt novel technologies, thereby securing a leading position in the competitive arena (J. A. Zhang et al., 2020). Lastly, during periods of environmental turbulence, policies and regulations may undergo frequent modifications, posing specific policy risks to makerspaces. Political connections can assist makerspaces in better anticipating policy trends and mitigating potential policy risks (Lapologang & Zhao, 2023). Additionally, political connections may offer makerspaces a certain level of policy shield, mitigating the adverse impacts arising from policy changes. This policy shield aids makerspaces in maintaining a stable operational environment, thereby enhancing their competitive performance.

Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:

H3a: Environmental turbulence negatively moderates the relationship between business ties of makerspace and its competitive performance in such a way that environmental turbulence weakens the positive effect of business ties on competitive performance.

H3b: Environmental turbulence positively moderates the relationship between the political ties of makerspace and its competitive performance in such a way that market turbulence intensifies the positive effect of political ties on competitive performance.

The theoretical framework of this study is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Theoretical model.

Research Design and Methodology

Procedures and Samples

This study takes the makerspace as the research object, exploring the impact of political and business ties of makerspaces on their competitive performance. To collect the data, an empirical method was used. Firstly, the questionnaire had undergone multiple rounds of revision and refinement. To ensure the accuracy and reliability of the measurement items, a back-translation method was used to make sure the English variables correct and accurate.

To ensure the accuracy of information, person in charge or those are actual operators and managers of the makerspace is identified as the respondents of the questionnaire. Because of the convenience, we distribute the questionnaire in the form of an online questionnaire. The questionnaire was accessed by respondents through a QR code generated by the website “Wenjuanxing.” It took about 6 min to complete, which included six scoring items and a series of questions related to demographics. With the help of our teachers, friends and colleagues, the QR code was distributed to incubator managers via the various instant communication tools, like email, QQ, and WeChat. During the period from November 2019 to May 2020, a total of 350 questionnaires are distributed and 263 questionnaires are recovered, with a recovery rate of 75.1%. Excluding invalid and unqualified questionnaires, 216 valid questionnaires are finally obtained, and the actual effective recovery rate is 61.7%.

We used convenience sampling, which was limited by the resource capacity of the research team. The selected makerspaces have diverse types and wide industry distribution, ensuring the representativeness of the data as much as possible. During the questionnaire distribution process, a written consent form was also distributed with the questionnaire to explain the purpose and significance of the study to the participants, and make a statement on the confidentiality of the questionnaire to minimize the doubts of the respondents, in order to enhance the accuracy and reliability of questionnaire filling.

These 216 questionnaires were collected from 41 different makerspaces, including 23 in Hubei Province, nine in Guangdong Province, five in Shandong Province, and two in Zhejiang Province and Jiangsu Province. From the perspective of regional distribution, it is mainly concentrated in the central and southeastern coastal areas of China. In the samples, there are 115 male respondents (53.2%) and 101 female respondents (46.8%), the average age is 33.6 years old (SD = 27.7), and the age group is mostly 26 to 40 years old, accounting for 65.7%, the educational level is mainly undergraduate and master, accounting for 88.9%. 42.1% of the makerspace is at municipal level, 27.3% at national level and 30.6% at provincial level. And most of the makerspace has been established more than 3 years (77.8%).

Variable Measurement

Following Y. Li et al. (2014) and Bashir et al. (2023), business ties and political ties are measured by three and six items, respectively. Measurement of resource bricolage is adopted following Reypens et al. (2021), which has eight items in total. Resource slack is measured following the research of J. Tan and Peng (2003), which contains four items. Six items from Kohli and Jaworski (1990) are used to measure Environmental turbulence. In terms of competitive performance, according to the organizational characteristics of makerspace, this study uses three items from Mikalef et al. (2017) to measure market share, profitability and innovation ability. The above scales have been widely used in previous studies and show good reliability and validity (See Appendix 1 for specific measurement items). Seven-point Likert measurement method is used in all scales with one means completely disagree and seven means fully agree.

Control variables: According to previous research, this study controlled for the establishment time, level, and s ownership type (state-owned or not) of the makerspace. The establishment time of the makerspace adopts a stage classification method, where 1 represents less than 1 year, 2 represents more than 1 year but less than 3 years, 3 represents more than 3 years but less than 5 years, and 4 represents more than 5 years. The level of the makerspace is based on the current rating classification, where 1 represents national level, 2 represents provincial level, and 3 represents city level. The supporting entities of the makerspace are based on common types: 1 represents the government, 2 represents universities, 3 represents leading enterprises, and 4 represents multi-party co construction.

Analytical Methods

To better analyze the data and obtain reliable hypothesis test results, this study employed statistical software AMOS 21.0 and SPSS 20.0 for data processing. The choice of these tools was based on their comprehensive statistical capabilities and user-friendly interfaces, which facilitate efficient and accurate data analysis. AMOS is particularly advantageous for performing structural equation modeling, allowing for the testing of complex relationships between variables, while SPSS offers robust tools for descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and hypothesis testing.

The primary analysis steps are divided into four parts. Firstly, common method variance analysis. Given that the questionnaire survey used in this study is based on participants’ self-evaluations, the Herman single-factor method was adopted to test for common method bias, ensuring that data errors were within a reasonable range.

Secondly, reliability and validity testing. To ensure the authenticity and reliability of the measurement tools, SPSS 20.0 was used to test the Cronbach’s α, Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of the scales used. Simultaneously, AMOS 21.0 was utilized to perform confirmatory factor analysis to assess the fit of the model.

Thirdly, descriptive analysis and correlation matrix. we proceeded to conduct descriptive statistics on the sample and analyze the correlation between key research variables.

Lastly, using SPSS 20.0 and its macro module PROCESS, the research hypotheses were tested. Regarding the sampling method, convenience sampling was used in this study. Convenience sampling involves selecting participants based on their accessibility and willingness to participate.

Data Analysis

Common Method Bias Test

Harman single factor method is used to check the common method bias, and exploratory factor analysis is carried out on all multi-item variables in the questionnaire. The first common factor could only explain 33.67% of the total variance, less than the 40% threshold. Therefore, the common method bias of this study is not a major concern.

Reliability and Validity

In order to verify the reliability and validity of the measurement scale, a series of tests are carried out before the formal data analysis. In Table 1, the results show that the Cronbach’s α coefficients are greater than 0.8, indicating the high reliability of the measurement scales. The factor load of all variables is greater than 0.7, indicating that the data has high structural validity. The composite reliability (CR) of each variable is greater than 0.75, and the average variance extraction (AVE) is greater than 0.6, indicating that the scale has high convergent validity. To test the discriminant validity of the scale, AMOS 21.0 is used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In the Table 2, the results show that compared with other models, the six-factor model fits well (χ²/df = 2. 323, TLI = 0.911, CFI = 0.942, NFI = 0.933, RMSEA = 0.055), indicating that the measurement scale of this study has good structural validity.

Table 1.

Reliability and Validity Analysis of the Questionnaire.

Variable	Item	Factor loading	Cronbach’s α	CR	AVE
Political ties	PT1	0.940
	PT2	0.876	.898	0.933	0.823
	PT3	0.917	.898	0.933	0.823
Business ties	BT1	0.825
	BT2	0.839	.918	0.945	0.741
	BT3	0.837
	BT4	0.874
	BT5	0.837
	BT6	0.844
Resource bricolage	RB1	0.909
	RB2	0.902	.969	0.971	0.811
	RB3	0.912
	RB4	0.926
	RB5	0.892
	RB6	0.915
	RB7	0.916
	RB8	0.888
Resource slack	RS1	0.823	.741	0.919	0.741
	RS2	0.901
	RS3	0.910
	RS4	0.812
Environmental turbulence	ET1	0.830
	ET2	0.851	.903	0.911	0.774
	ET3	0.816
	ET4	0.811
	ET5	0.793
	ET6	0.829
Competitive performance	CP1	0.879
	CP2	0.899	.856	0.811	0.605
	CP3	0.868	.856	0.811	0.605

Note. CR stands for composite reliability, AVE stands for average variance extraction.

Table 2.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Model	Factor	χ²/df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	NFI
Six factors	PT, BT, RB, RS, CP, ET	2. 323	0.055	0.942	0.911	0.933
Five factors	PT, BT, RB, RS, CP + ET	2. 867	0.079	0.809	0.831	0.851
Four factors	PT + BT, RB + RS, CP, ET	4. 072	0.083	0.753	0.799	0.762
Three factors	PT + BT, RB + RS, CP + ET	4.109	0.105	0.611	0.683	0.696
Two factors	PT + BT + RB + RS, CP + ET	6.138	0.151	0.496	0.557	0.571
One factor	PT + BT + RB + RS + CP + ET	8. 826	0.164	0.353	0.375	0.385

Note. PT = political ties; BT = business ties; RB = resource bricolage; RS = resource slack; CP = competitive performance; ET = environmental turbulence.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis

Before the hypothesis test, the correlation analysis of the main variables conducted, and the results are shown in Table 3. The political ties and business ties, resource bricolage and resource slack of makerspace have a positive correlation with their competitive performance, which provides primary support to our arguments.

Table 3.

Mean, SD and Correlation Coefficient of Variables.

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Political ties	5.434	1.069
2. Business ties	5.371	1.221	0.678**
3. Resource bricolage	5.606	1.082	0.702**	0.530**
4. Resource slack	4.960	1.241	0.189**	0.100	0.211**
5. Competitive performance	4.991	1.264	0.628**	0. 451**	0.696**	0.257**
6. Environmental turbulence	5.569	1.031	0.682**	0. 564**	0.753**	0.205**	0.621**

Note. N = 216. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

Hypothesis Test

SPSS 22.0 is used to conduct the direct and indirect hypotheses test. According to the hierarchical regression method of Cohen et al. (2003), H1a & H1b, H2a & H2b are tested, and the results are shown in Table 4. In model two, business ties have a positive effect on makerspace’s competitive performance (β = .722, p > .001), H1a is verified. In model three, business ties have a positive effect on makerspace’s competitive performance (β = .461, p > .001), H1b is supported. In model four, both the mediating effect of resource bricolage (β = .575, p > .001) and resource slack (β = .111, p > .050) in the relationship between business ties and competitive performance are significant, and H2a is verified. In model five, both the mediating effect of resource bricolage (β = .702, p > .001) and resource slack (β = .123, p > .050) in the relationship between political ties and competitive performance are significant, and H2b is verified as well.

Table 4.

Direction and Indirection Effect Test.

Variable	Outcome variable: Competitive performance
Variable	Model1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Constant	4.911***	1.230**	2.470***	−0.039	0.090
Control variable
Level	0.158	0.090	0.078	0.080	0.083
Age	−0.133	−0.116	−0.027	−0.091	−0.058
Attribute	−0.003	−0.053	−0.120	−0.153	−0.189*
Independent variable
Business ties		0.722***		0.294***
Political ties			0.461***		0.125*
Mediating variable
Resource bricolage				0.575***	0.702***
Resource slack				0.111*	0.123*
R²	0.022	0.398	0.218	0.546	0.524
Adjusting R²	0.006	0.385	0.202	0.531	0.508
F	1.420	31.551***	13.397***	37.636***	34.621***

Note. N = 216.*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

According to the suggestions of Preacher and Hayes (2004), this paper uses PROCESS, the macro module in SPSS 20.0 and bootstrap method to test the moderating effect of environmental turbulence. Within the 95% confidence level, the moderating of environmental turbulence on relationship between business ties and competitive performance is tested. The results are shown in Table 5. When the environmental turbulence is low, the confidence interval ([0.273, 0.623]) does not include 0, when the environmental turbulence is high, the confidence interval ([0.255, 0.607]) does not include 0 as well. Therefore, H3a is not supported.

Table 5.

Moderation Effect Test.

Environmental turbulence	Business ties	B	Boot SE	95% CI
Environmental turbulence	Business ties	B	Boot SE	LLUL	UPUL
Low	4.517	0.449	0.089	0.273	0.623
Middle	5.572	0.440	0.082	0.279	0.601
High	6.627	0.431	0.089	0.255	0.607
				95% CI
Environmental turbulence	Political Ties	B	Boot SE	LLUL	UPUL
Low	4.538	0.133	0.076	−0.016	0.283
Middle	5.569	0.155	0.067	0.024	0.286
High	6.601	0.176	0.076	0.027	0.325

Within the 95% confidence level, the moderating of environmental turbulence on the relationship between political ties and competitive performance is tested. The results are shown in Table 5. When the environmental turbulence is low, the confidence interval ([−0.016, 0.283]) includes 0, when the environmental turbulence is high, the confidence interval ([0.027, 0.325]) does not include 0. Therefore, H3b is supported. In order to further test the moderating effect, a simple slope test is carried out by adding or subtracting one standard deviation, as shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2.

Simple slope test.

Discussion

Given China’s policy of mass innovation and entrepreneurship, makerspaces have experienced rapid development in recent years. However, following this explosive growth, several concerns have emerged that hinder the further development of makerspaces. Notably, the issue of homogenization, characterized by similar functional positioning and singular business models, has lowered their added value and threatened their sustainable development. In light of these survival challenges, understanding the key antecedents and internal mechanisms of makerspaces’ competitive performance is crucial from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Our study delves into how makerspaces fulfill their incubation role and achieve incubation performance amidst fierce competition.

By integrating resource and network perspectives, our research findings underscore the significance of resources and relationships in the success of makerspaces. As platforms that gather diverse entrepreneurial entities and resources, makerspaces must forge strong connections with external organizations to secure maximum external support for entrepreneurs. Our results indicate that both business ties and political ties positively influence competitive performance. Furthermore, the manner in which resources are utilized—specifically through resource bricolage and resource slack—plays a pivotal role in this relationship. Notably, environmental turbulence positively moderates the relationship between political ties and competitive performance.

The specific and detailed discussion of study results is shown below.

Positive Impact of Business Ties and Political Ties: Our study aligns with prior research emphasizing the multifaceted benefits organizations derive from their ties (Ramaswamy & Ozcan, 2020; Reck et al., 2022). By deepening network embeddings and fostering innovation networking, organizations can co-create value, promote technology integration, and ultimately enhance regional innovation performance (Stephens & Miller, 2022; Z. Wang et al., 2020). Our findings further extend this by demonstrating the importance of external connections for both ventures within incubators and the incubators themselves. Political and business ties effectively aid in establishing a competitive advantage for makerspaces.

Mediating Role of Resource Bricolage and Resource Slack: Building on the notion that resources are the cornerstone of organizational competition, our study reveals that resource allocation methods significantly impact makerspaces’ operational effectiveness (Abid et al., 2023; Busch & Barkema, 2021). In the face of complex, changeable, and chaotic challenges, makerspaces must leverage potential or actual resources effectively. Our results support that resource bricolage and resource slack mediate the impact of business and political ties on competitive performance. Resource slack facilitates emergency measures and crisis management (Yu & Wang, 2021), while resource bricolage maximizes resource utilization to swiftly resolve difficulties (Reypens et al., 2021).

Moderating Effect of Environmental Turbulence: Consistent with literature highlighting the influence of environmental factors on enterprise strategy (Sabherwal et al., 2019), our results show that environmental turbulence significantly impacts the relationship between political ties and competitive performance. In highly volatile environments, political ties offer legitimacy assurances and policy advantages crucial for entrepreneurial ventures’ success. The ineffective moderating effect of environmental turbulence on business ties may stem from their fundamental role in market commercial interactions, even in dynamic settings (J. A. Zhang et al., 2020). Additionally, the moderating effect of environmental turbulence on ties and resource acquisition may exhibit a nonlinear inverted U-shape (M. C. Wang et al., 2021). Given the complexity and turbulence of the environment, makerspaces must act as bridges, providing opportunities and channels for innovation and entrepreneurship entities, underscoring the indispensable nature of business ties regardless of environmental conditions.

Our research conclusion not only builds upon previous theoretical foundations, affirming that resources and connections are pivotal for an organization’s competition and development (Agustí et al., 2024; Farrukh et al., 2023). Additionally, it further expands by highlighting that an organization’s political and commercial connections influence its resource allocation strategies, and the interplay between the two significantly impacts the organization’s competitive performance. Notably, in the research realm of makerspaces, scholars have primarily focused on general performance outcomes (Binsawad et al., 2019). However, grounded in the reality of intense homogenization competition within the Chinese makerspace industry, this study shifts its focus to competitive performance, specifically analyzing how the types of relationships and resource allocation strategies of makerspaces affect their competitive effectiveness. Furthermore, existing research conclusions often lean toward the belief that both political and commercial connections positively contribute to organizational innovation and competition (Clausen & Molden, 2024). Yet, the findings of this study indicate that political connections may be more effective in addressing environmental volatility. This contributes diverse outcomes to the study of managerial relationships in the context of makerspaces.

Conclusion

Theoretical Implications

Our study proposes an integrated framework of resources and relationships, exploring how makerspaces can effectively enhance competitive performance. The main theoretical contributions include the following aspects:

Integrating Multiple Perspectives on Makerspace Effectiveness: Our research findings contribute to the understanding of makerspaces’ role in fostering innovation and entrepreneurship by integrating both resource and network perspectives. Prior studies have often focused narrowly on either internal support mechanisms or external relationships, leading to inconclusive findings. For instance, while incubators are known to support startups in various ways (van Rijnsoever, 2020), the specific form of support that most contributes to firm development remains unclear (Máté et al., 2024; van Rijnsoever & Eveleens, 2021). Lukes et al. (2019) found controversial results, suggesting that incubator tenancy might not always positively impact sales revenues or job creation, and other characteristics like ownership, certification, and size are ineffective predictors of tenant growth. The contradictory findings highlight the limitation of single-perspective analyses. Our study addresses this gap by examining both external relationship connections and internal resource allocation. Our results provide new evidence that the success of makerspaces hinges on the synergistic interaction between their ties and resources, aligning with existing research showing that incubator effectiveness is systematically based on both internal and external factors.

The Role of Ties and Resource Strategies in Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurship is inherently risky and challenging, with multiple factors—including resources, networks, information, funds, and channels—critically influencing success (Deyanova et al., 2022; Lindelöf & Hellberg, 2023). Existing research on makerspaces has primarily focused on their impact on tenants, emphasizing the importance of entrepreneurial networks and social resources (Abu-Rumman et al., 2021; Vu et al., 2023). Our research delves deeper into how makerspaces, as hubs of entrepreneurial networks and resources, can leverage political and business ties to enhance their competitive performance. These ties facilitate commercial activities, policy support acquisition, and competitive differentiation (Grilli & Marzano, 2023). Furthermore, as environmental turbulence intensifies, political ties become even more crucial for makerspace success (Bao et al., 2021). Additionally, we highlight the strategic importance of resource slack and resource bricolage in efficiently utilizing resources, solving complex entrepreneurial problems (Busch & Barkema, 2022), and maintaining operational stability amidst fierce competition.

Constructing a Comprehensive Theoretical Framework: By combining network and resource perspectives, our research contributes to the theoretical foundation of makerspace studies. This framework serves as both a summary of existing incubator research and a pioneering exploration that opens new cross-perspective avenues for future research. Resources form the cornerstone of organizational development, and their effective utilization and allocation enable makerspaces to gain competitive advantages, adapt swiftly to changing environments, and tackle intricate innovation and entrepreneurship challenges. Resource slack ensures adequate resources for accelerated innovation and production (Du et al., 2022; Symeou et al., 2019). Networks, as channels for resource flow, facilitate connections between makerspaces and other entrepreneurial entities, promoting goods and market circulation, driving innovation, and mitigating risks associated with environmental turbulence (Bao et al., 2021). Our dual-perspective analysis deepens the understanding of makerspaces’ role and mechanisms, offering valuable insights for both practitioners and scholars.

Managerial Implications

Since the inception of incubators, discussions concerning their optimal operational practices have persisted (Klofsten et al., 2020). An ancient Chinese proverb succinctly captures the essence: “Favorable timing, advantageous terrain, and harmonious relationships.” The triumph of entrepreneurship necessitates the concerted efforts of diverse stakeholders. Drawing from our research endeavors, we offer the following managerial insights for the advancement of makerspaces, considering both resources and networks:

(1) For operators and managers of makerspaces, they must seamlessly integrate internal and external connections and resources (Acs et al., 2018; Guo et al., 2020), adopting a comprehensive competitive strategy to enhance their incubation capabilities. The establishment and progression of makerspaces are intrinsically linked to relationships and networks. To fully harness the synergistic power of political and business ties, makerspaces can pursue these strategies: Firstly, fortify collaborations with governmental bodies to secure more policy backing and resource allocations (Sharma et al., 2020). Secondly, actively broaden business partnerships, fostering extensive cooperation networks for resource sharing and mutual benefits. Thirdly, emphasize brand development and market outreach, augmenting visibility and influence to draw in premium resources and talents (Farrukh et al., 2023).

In terms of resource management, resource slack and bricolage serve as effective strategies (Liu et al., 2021; Ravishankar, 2016). On one hand, makerspaces should maintain robust daily resource reserves, conduct thorough tenant assessments, fully tap into internal entrepreneurial resources, establish a comprehensive entrepreneurial resource repository, and ensure timely allocation and utilization of surplus resources. Additionally, by forging ties with external entities, makerspaces can construct a diversified resource network, ensuring ample resource availability. On the other hand, managers should embrace agile management principles, tightening control over resources and swiftly deploying all accessible resources to address challenges and crises amidst unforeseen circumstances.

(2) From the perspective of policy makers, we advocate that China’s support for makerspaces should meticulously examine the specific challenges faced by contemporary entrepreneurs, offering targeted policies and assistance to overcome entrepreneurial obstacles, thereby mitigating entrepreneurial difficulties and harms. Numerous studies have explored the nexus between policies and the incubation effectiveness of makerspaces. For instance, the lack and unpredictability of incubation policies in developing nations underscore the pivotal role of sponsors in incubator effectiveness (Boris, 2017), with the success of organizational sponsors influenced by the level of local urbanization and localization. Complementary policies are essential to align incubators with regional development aspirations (Amezcua et al., 2020). When crafting policies, it is imperative to consider regional factors, economic status, entrepreneurial demands, among others, to ensure a holistic match and coordination of needs for effective implementation.

(3) For entrepreneurs, we emphasize the significance of selecting an apt makerspace. The efficacy and importance of makerspaces have been validated through numerous research endeavors. From a knowledge-centric perspective, makerspaces facilitate knowledge aggregation and sharing, aiding startups in overcoming hurdles (Paoloni & Modaffari, 2022). From a resource-based lens, incubators aggregate diverse resources, alleviating entrepreneurial resource constraints (Weele et al., 2016). Studies focusing on entrepreneurial demographic characteristics reveal that younger, well-educated entrepreneurs with professional experience are more likely to reap the benefits of incubator services (Albort-Morant & Oghazi, 2016).

However, not all makerspaces guarantee benefits. Different makerspaces have their own service advantages and specialties (Sansone et al., 2020). The compatibility between makerspaces and startups directly impacts incubation effectiveness. Entrepreneurs should self-assess their strengths and weaknesses, leveraging communication and interaction to acquire service information and expertise from the makerspace (Shih & Aaboen, 2019), using it to address startup deficiencies. Amidst resource scarcity, entrepreneurs should adeptly utilize the services and functionalities of various incubation platforms, striving for survival and growth opportunities for their ventures.

(4) The volatility of the environment exerts complex influences on the strategies and behaviors of makerspaces (Zayadin et al., 2023). On the one hand, rapid technological iteration and drastic market changes signify new demands, opportunities, and preferences. Makerspaces should adopt a proactive stance to actively explore, strengthen their connections with external business organizations and government agencies, and broaden their access to information, resources, markets, and channels. This will enable them to seize new opportunities promptly and develop effective feedback responses, thereby shaping their competitive advantages. On the other hand, environmental uncertainty poses challenges to existing business models and competitive advantages. Makerspaces must be vigilant against these changes and seek robust policy support and legitimacy through increased political connections with the outside world. They must maintain the stability and continuity of their core business in complex situations, so as to marshal resources for effective adaptive changes and seek new competitive advantages.

Limitations and Future Research

Although the design of this study has undergone multiple revisions, there are still many limitations that need to be further improved and deepened in future research.

First of all, the samples and data in this study are limited to those makerspaces located in central and southern regions of China. Meanwhile, the number of makerspaces is also insufficient. We believe that expanding the geographical range and quantity of the sample may yield different results. Due to differences in regional context and national culture, makerspaces located in different geographical spaces will have various preferences in strategy selection and behavioral performance. Through comparative analysis, it can help to further explore the incubation mechanism and improve the construction of makerspaces. Future research can take this into consideration and collect data from other regions or even other countries.

Secondly, we used cross-sectional data during the data collection process and only conducted one round of questionnaire surveys. Although a common method bias test was conducted during data analysis to ensure that our data was not affected. We suggest that future research can adopt a longitudinal perspective for multi-source and multi temporal data collection, incorporating time factors into the study. As the years of the makerspace growth, its resources and network situation will inevitably change, which may lead to different competitive performance.

Thirdly, our paper employs a questionnaire survey to gather data and verify the theoretical model, utilizing a quantitative research approach involving data statistics. In the realm of contemporary entrepreneurship research, the pursuit of theoretical construction remains an ongoing endeavor. We posit that when examining research subjects such as makerspaces and research settings akin to startup incubators, the presence of multiple stakeholders, the intricate web of relationships, stringent resource limitations, and the swift evolution of entrepreneurial phenomena indicate that the adoption of qualitative methodologies could facilitate a more profound unveiling of theoretical frameworks. Consequently, we firmly advocate for future research endeavors to incorporate diverse methodologies (Lindelöf & Hellberg, 2023,), including case studies, comparative analyses, and grounded theory research, among others, to both validate and expand upon our findings.

Finally, the relationship is divided into political ties and business ties in our research, but we did not rigorously discuss whether these two play different roles in the makerspace. We believe that the resources and capital brought by different types of ties vary, which will have an impact on the subsequent strategic choices of the makerspace. We suggest that future research further differentiate the mechanisms and boundaries through which business and political ties play a role.

Previous studies show that there are different types of resource bricolage and resource slack and they have different effects on organizational performance (Carnes et al., 2019). Future researchers can go deeper and explore the effects of different types of resource bricolage and redundant resources in diverse task contexts on makerspace’s performance.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1.

Variable Measurement.

Variable	Items
Political ties	1. The makerspace has spent a lot of energy to cultivate connections with government agencies.
	2. The makerspace maintains a good relationship with government agencies.
	3. The makerspace has invested a lot of resources to maintain good relationships with government agencies.
Business ties	1. The makerspace spends a lot of energy to cultivate relationships with customers.
	2. The makerspace maintains a good relationship with customers.
	3. The makerspace has spent a lot of energy cultivating relationships with suppliers.
	4. The makerspace maintains a good relationship with suppliers.
	5. The makerspace spends a lot of energy to cultivate connections with peers.
	6. The makerspace maintains a good relationship with its peers.
Resource bricolage	1. When facing new challenges, the makerspace is confident in finding feasible solutions using existing resources.
	2. Compared with other peers, the makerspace can use existing resources to cope with more challenges.
	3. The makerspace is good at using any existing resources to deal with new problems or opportunities in development.
	4. The makerspace can cope with new challenges through the integration and utilization of existing resources and cheaply acquired new resources.
	5. When confronted with new problems or opportunities, the makerspace usually assumes that it can find feasible solutions and take practical actions.
	6. By integrating existing resources, the makerspace can effectively cope with any new challenges.
	7. When facing new challenges, the makerspace can achieve feasible solutions through creative combination of existing resources.
	8. The makerspace effectively addresses new challenges by changing the original purpose of resources.
Resource slack	1. The makerspace has sufficient undistributed profits for market expansion.
	2. The makerspace possesses abundant financial resources at its disposal.
	3. The makerspace can easily obtain necessary bank loans.
	4. The makerspace’s capabilities exceed the needs of existing production and development.
Environmental turbulence	1. The market demand in the makerspace industry changes rapidly.
	2. The technological innovation speed within the industry focus of makerspaces is swift.
	3. New services or models emerge continuously in the makerspace industry.
	4. The core foundation of competitiveness for makerspaces is constantly evolving.
	5. Market competition is crucial to the survival of makerspaces.
	6. Market competition can bring many market resources to makerspaces.
Competitive performance	1. Compared to competitors, the market share of the makerspace where I work is very high.
	2. Compared to competitors, the profitability of the makerspace where I work is very high.
	3. Compared to competitors, the frequency of launching new products or services by the makerspace where I work is very high.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the data providers, editors, and reviewers for their assistance.

ORCID iD

Tianfei Yang

Ethics Considerations

The Ethics Committee of the Ningbo University waived the need for ethics approval for the collection, analysis and publication of the retrospectively obtained and anonymised data for this non-interventional study.

Author Contributions

Y.T. and L.X.: conceptualization and writing-original draft preparation. Y.T.: methodology. Y.T.: data curation. Y.T.: software and formal analysis. Y.T. and L.X.: supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition. Y.T. and L.X.: writing-review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

Abid

Dowling

Ceci

Aftab

(2023). Does resource bricolage foster SMEs’ competitive advantage and financial performance? A resource-based perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(8), 5833–5853.

Abu-Rumman

Al Shraah

Al-Madi

(2021). Entrepreneurial networks, entrepreneurial orientation, and performance of small and medium enterprises: Are dynamic capabilities the missing link? Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 29.

Acs

Z. J.

Estrin

Mickiewicz

Szerb

(2018). Entrepreneurship, institutional economics, and economic growth: An ecosystem perspective. Small Business Economics, 51, 501–514.

Agustí

M. A.

Aguilar-Caro

Galán

J. L.

Acedo

F. J.

(2024). Dynamic resource management and slack resources. Management Decision, 62(13), 223–242.

Albort-Morant

Oghazi

(2016). How useful are incubators for new entrepreneurs? Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2125–2129.

Albort-Morant

Ribeiro-Soriano

(2016). A bibliometric analysis of international impact of business incubators. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1775–1779.

Al Dhaheri

M. H.

Ahmad

S. Z.

Papastathopoulos

. (2024). Do environmental turbulence, dynamic capabilities, and artificial intelligence force SMEs to be innovative? Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(3), 100528.

Amezcua

Ratinho

Plummer

L. A.

Jayamohan

(2020). Organizational sponsorship and the economics of place: how regional urbanization and localization shape incubator outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(4), 105967.

Azeem

Ahmed

Haider

Sajjad

(2021). Expanding competitive advantage through organizational culture, knowledge sharing and organizational innovation. Technology and Society, 66, 101635.

10.

Bao

Wang

Tao

(2021). Examining the effects of governmental networking with environmental turbulence on the geographic searching of business model innovation generations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(1), 157–174.

11.

Barney

(1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

12.

Bashir

Alfalih

Pradhan

(2023). Managerial ties, business model innovation & SME performance: Moderating role of environmental turbulence. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(1), 100329.

13.

Binsawad

Sohaib

Hawryszkiewycz

(2019). Factors impacting technology business incubator performance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(01), 1950007.

14.

Boris

(2017). Business incubation models and institutionally void environments. Technovation, 68, 44–55.

15.

Burt

R. S.

(1995). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.

16.

Busch

Barkema

(2021). From necessity to opportunity: Scaling bricolage across resource-constrained environments. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 741–773.

17.

Busch

Barkema

(2022). Planned luck: How incubators can facilitate serendipity for nascent entrepreneurs through fostering network embeddedness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(4), 884–919.

18.

Carnes

C. M.

Sirmon

D. G.

Karadag

(2019). How competitive action mediates the resource slack-performance relationship: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Management Studies, 56(1), 57–90.

19.

Chatterjee

Feng

Nakata

Sivakumar

(2023). The environmental turbulence concept in marketing: A look back and a look ahead. Journal of Business Research, 161, 113775.

20.

Clausen

T. H.

Molden

L. H.

(2024). Managerial ties, external resources, and business model innovation: Interplay and mediation analysis. Journal of Small Business Management, 62, 3164–3190.

21.

Cohen

West

S. G.

(Eds.). (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Erlbaum.

22.

Deyanova

Brehmer

Lapidus

Tiberius

Walsh

(2022). Hatching start-ups for sustainable growth: A bibliometric review on business incubators. Review of Managerial Science, 16(7), 2083–2109.

23.

Díaz-Díaz

N. L.

López-Iturriaga

F. J.

Santana-Martín

D. J.

(2022). The role of political ties and political uncertainty in corporate innovation. Long Range Planning, 55(1), 102111.

24.

Kim

P. H.

Fourne

S. P.

Wang

(2022). In times of plenty: Slack resources, R&D investment, and entrepreneurial firms in challenging institutional environments. Journal of Business Research, 145, 360–376.

25.

Farrukh

Raza

Waheed

(2023). Your network is your net worth: Political ties and innovation performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 26(1), 256–264.

26.

Grilli

Marzano

(2023). Bridges over troubled water: Incubators and start-ups’ alliances. Technovation, 121, 102689.

27.

Gumbau-Albert

(2023). Understanding the impact of intangible capital on entrepreneurship at the regional level. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15, 11063–11089.

28.

Guo

Z. F.

Ahlstrom

(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.

29.

Guo

Tang

Wei

(2020). How managerial ties impact opportunity discovery in a transition economy? Evidence from China. Management Decision, 58(2), 344–361.

30.

Hausberg

J. P.

Korreck

(2020). Business incubators and accelerators: a co-citation analysis-based, systematic literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45, 151–176.

31.

Jean

R. J.

Sinkovics

R. R.

Zagelmeyer

(2018). Antecedents and innovation performance implications of MNC political ties in the Chinese automotive supply chain. Management International Review, 58, 995–1026.

32.

Klofsten

Lundmark

Wennberg

Bank

(2020). Incubator specialization and size: Divergent paths towards operational scale. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119821.

33.

Kohli

A. K.

Jaworski

B. J.

(1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.

34.

Krishnan

Geyskens

Steenkamp

J. B. E. M

. (2016). The effectiveness of contractual and trust-based governance in strategic alliances under behavioral and environmental uncertainty. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 2521–2542.

35.

Lapologang

Zhao

(2023). The impact of environmental policy mechanisms on green innovation performance: The roles of environmental disclosure and political ties. Technology and Society, 75, 102332.

36.

Leyva-de la Hiz

D. I.

Ferron-Vilchez

Aragon-Correa

J. A.

(2019). Do firms’ slack resources influence the relationship between focused environmental innovations and financial performance? More is not always better. Journal of Business Ethics, 159, 1215–1227.

37.

Liao

Weng

Long

Xiao

(2021). Do social ties foster firms’ environmental innovation? The moderating effect of resource bricolage. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 33(5), 476–490.

38.

Lindelöf

Hellberg

(2023). Incubation-An evolutionary process. Technovation, 124, 102755.

39.

Liu

Xiao

Jiang

(2021). Social entrepreneurs’ personal network, resource bricolage and relation strength. Management Decision, 59(11), 2774–2791.

40.

Shen

(2016). The effect of business ties and government ties on new IT venture growth: An empirical examination in China. Information Technology and Management, 17, 245–261.

41.

Chen

Liu

(2014). Managerial ties, organizational learning, and opportunity capture: A social capital perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31, 271–291.

42.

Lukes

Longo

M. C.

Zouhar

(2019). Do business incubators really enhance entrepreneurial growth? Evidence from a large sample of innovative Italian start-ups. Technovation, 82-83, 25–34.

43.

Luo

Huang

Wang

S. L.

(2012). Guanxi and organizational performance: A meta-analysis. Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 139–172.

44.

Yang

Song

(2020). The contingent effect of political ties on post-entry performance: A three-way interaction of political ties, entry mode, and industry restriction. Management Decision, 59(1), 104–117.

45.

Máté

Estiyanti

N. M.

Novotny

(2024). How to support innovative small firms? Bibliometric analysis and visualization of start-up incubation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13(1), 5.

46.

Mikalef

Pappas

I. O.

Krogstie

Giannakos

(2017). Big data analytics capabilities: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 16(2), 1–32.

47.

Naqshbandi

M. M.

Jasimuddin

S. M.

(2022). The linkage between open innovation, absorptive capacity and managerial ties: A cross-country perspective. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(2), 100167.

48.

Paoloni

Modaffari

(2022). Business incubators vs start-ups: A sustainable way of sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(5), 1235–1261.

49.

Park

S. H.

Luo

(2001). Guanxi and organizational dynamics: Organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5), 455–477.

50.

Pauwels

Clarysse

Wright

Van Hove

(2016). Understanding a new generation incubation model: The accelerator. Technovation, 50, 13–24.

51.

Peng

M. W.

Luo

(2000). Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 486–501.

52.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.

53.

Rajala

Hautala-Kankaanpää

(2023). Exploring the effects of SMEs’ platform-based digital connectivity on firm performance–the moderating role of environmental turbulence. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 38(13), 15–30.

54.

Ramaswamy

Ozcan

(2020). The “Interacted” actor in platformed networks: Theorizing practices of managerial experience value co-creation. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 35(7), 1165–1178.

55.

Ravishankar

M. N.

(2016). A bricolage perspective on technological innovation in emerging markets. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 63(1), 53–66.

56.

Reck

Fliaster

Kolloch

(2022). How to build a network that facilitates firm-level innovation: An integration of structural and managerial perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, 59(4), 998–1031.

57.

Reypens

Bacq

Milanov

(2021). Beyond bricolage: Early-stage technology venture resource mobilization in resource-scarce contexts. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(4), 106110.

58.

Sabherwal

Havakhor

Steelman

Z. R.

(2019). How does strategic alignment affect firm performance? The roles of information technology investment and environmental uncertainty. MIS Quarterly, 43, 453–474.

59.

Sansone

Andreotti

Colombelli

Landoni

(2020). Are social incubators different from other incubators? Evidence from Italy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 158, 120132.

60.

Sharma

Cheng

L. T.

Leung

T. Y.

(2020). Impact of political connections on Chinese export firms’ performance–lessons for other emerging markets. Journal of Business Research, 106, 24–34.

61.

Shekhar

Satyanarayana

Chandrashekar

(2023). Role and contributions of an incubator in academic intrapreneurship-an examination. Technovation, 126, 102821.

62.

Shih

Aaboen

(2019). The network mediation of an incubator: How does it enable or constrain the development of incubator firms’ business networks? Industrial Marketing Management, 80, 126–138.

63.

Stephens

Miller

(2022). Business incubation as a community of practice: An emergent cultural web. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 34(9-10), 890–910.

64.

Costanzo

L. A.

Lange

Ghobadian

Hitt

M. A.

Ireland

R. D.

(2023). How does Guanxi shape entrepreneurial behaviour? The case of family businesses in China. British Journal of Management, 34(4), 1895–1919.

65.

Symeou

P. C.

Zyglidopoulos

Gardberg

N. A.

(2019). Corporate environmental performance: Revisiting the role of organizational slack. Journal of Business Research, 96, 169–182.

66.

Tan

Zhang

(2022). The mechanism of team-member exchange on knowledge hiding under the background of “Guanxi”. Journal of Business Research, 148, 304–314.

67.

Tan

Peng

M. W.

(2003). Organizational slack and firm performance during economic transitions: Two studies from an emerging economy. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1249–1263.

68.

van Erkelens

A. M.

Thompson

N. A.

Chalmers

. (2024). The dynamic construction of an incubation context: A practice theory perspective. Small Business Economics, 62(2), 583–605.

69.

van Rijnsoever

F. J

. (2020). Meeting, mating, and intermediating: How incubators can overcome weak network problems in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Research Policy, 49, 103884.

70.

van Rijnsoever

F. J.

Eveleens

C. P

. (2021). Money don’t matter? How incubation experience affects start-up entrepreneurs’ resource valuation. Technovation, 106, 102294.

71.

P. M.

Van Binh

Duong

L. N. K.

(2023). How social capital affects innovation, marketing and entrepreneurial orientation: The case of SMEs in Ho chi Minh (Vietnam). Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12, 81.

72.

Wang

Qureshi

Guo

Zhang

(2022). Corporate social responsibility and disruptive innovation: The moderating effects of environmental turbulence. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1435–1450.

73.

Wang

M. C.

Chen

P. C.

Fang

S. C.

(2021). How environmental turbulence influences firms’ entrepreneurial orientation: The moderating role of network relationships and organizational inertia. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 36(1), 48–59.

74.

Wang

Xia

Sarpong

Xiong

Maas

(2020). Capacities of business incubator and regional innovation performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 158, 120125.

75.

Weele

M. V.

Rijnsoever

F. J. V.

Nauta

(2016). You can’t always get what you want: how entrepreneur’s perceived resource needs affect the incubator’s assertiveness. Technovation, 59, 18–33.

76.

Xiang

Peng

(2024). Ambidextrous learning, resource acquisition, and venture performance: The moderating effect of the entrepreneurial ecosystem network relationships. Sage Open, 14(3), 21582440241268823.

77.

Yang

Orzes

Jia

Chen

(2021). Does GRI sustainability reporting pay off? An empirical investigation of publicly listed firms in China. Business & Society, 60(7), 1738–1772.

78.

Wang

(2021). The effects of entrepreneurial bricolage and alternative resources on new venture capabilities: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Research, 137, 527–537.

79.

Zahra

S. A.

(2021). The resource-based view, resourcefulness, and resource management in startup firms: A proposed research agenda. Journal of Management, 47(7), 1841–1860.

80.

Zayadin

Zucchella

Anand

Jones

Ameen

(2023). Entrepreneurs’ decisions in perceived environmental uncertainty. British Journal of Management, 34, 831–848.

81.

Zhang

Zhou

Tian

(2022). Political connections and green innovation: The role of a corporate entrepreneurship strategy in state-owned enterprises. Journal of Business Research, 146, 375–384.

82.

Zhang

J. A.

O’Kane

Chen

(2020). Business ties, political ties, and innovation performance in Chinese industrial firms: The role of entrepreneurial orientation and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Research, 121, 254–267.

83.

Zhang

Wang

Zhao

Pawar

K. S.

(2019). Effects of business and political ties on product innovation performance: Evidence from China and India. Technovation, 80-81, 30–39.