Journal of Business Research 129 (2021) 382–392

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

A microfoundational perspective on SMEs’ growth in the digital

transformation era
V Scuotto a, b, *, M. Nicotra c, M. Del Giudice d, e, f, N. Krueger g, G.L. Gregori h
a
Leonard de Vinci, Pole universitaire, Research Center, 92 916 Paris La Défense, France
b
Department of Management, University of Turin, Corso Unione Sovietica, 218bis, 10134 Torino, Italy
c
Department of Economics and Management, University of Catania, Italy
d
University of Rome “Link Campus University”, Via del Casale di S. Pio V, 44, 00165 Rome, Italy
e
Paris School of Business, 59 Rue Nationale, 75013 Paris, France
f
National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), Moscow, Russian Federation
g
Entrepreneurship Northwest, Boise, ID, USA
h
Department of Management, University “Politecnica delle Marche”, 8, Piazzale R. Martelli, 60121 Ancona, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This research illustrates the relevance of individual digital capabilities for SMEs’ growth and innovation per­
Digital transformation formance. Going beyond Penrosian growth theory, taking a microfoundational perspective demonstrates that
Individual digital capabilities these capabilities are crucial for attaining business growth and innovation.
Microfoundations
From a sample of 2,156,360 European SMEs, our findings highlight SMEs’ need for internal digital capabilities
Labour-intensive SMEs
Innovation
to respond rapidly to market changes. The current workplace requires individual capabilities able to face
increasingly complex and interactive tasks. This set of capabilities also drives SMEs towards new perspectives
and induces an increasing demand for individual digital capabilities. Employees are thus tasked to be digital
literates in the field of information, communication and software. Penrose and others argued that business
growth is leveraged primarily by interpersonal relationships based on trust, identification, and mutual obliga­
tion. However, today, individual digital capabilities have assumed an equally crucial role for growth and
innovation in our increasingly digital competitive reality.

1. Introduction capabilities, research remains limited as compared to assessing the or­

ganisation’s digital capabilities. As affirmed by Bharadwaj (2000:173),
Business and society face rapid and radical changes from the firms with individual digital capabilities ‘are able to integrate the IT and
increasing pervasiveness of digital technologies. How companies use business planning process more effectively, conceive of and develop
digital technologies matters even more significantly to their innovation reliable and cost- effective applications that support the business needs
capacity and their growth (Fitzgerald, Kruschwitz, Bonnet, & Welch, of the firm faster than competition, communicate and work with busi­
2013; Matt, Hess, & Benlian, 2015). The smart use of Information ness units more efficiently and anticipate future business needs of the
Communication Technologies (ICT) has long been an important success firm and innovate valuable new product features before competitors’.
factor for business performance (Bharadwaj, 2000), especially for SMEs Despite growing recognition of the relevance of individual capabil­
(Ivanova & Castellano, 2012; Santoro, Ferraris, & Winteler, 2019). ities in the workforce (Barney, 1991; Conner & Prahalad, 1996; NESTA,
However, a successful digital transformation requires an organisation to 2011) when dealing with determinants of innovation and growth, there
develop a wide range of current internal digital capabilities to able to is little systematic knowledge of their relevance and impact (Edquist,
respond rapidly to market needs (Bharadwaj, 2000; Henriette, Feki, & 2005; Green, Jones, & Miles, 2007).
Boughzala, 2015; Rialti, Zollo, Ferraris, & Alon, 2019; von Briel, This study goes beyond classic Penrosian growth theory and uses a
Davidsson, & Recker, 2018) (see Fig. 1). microfoundations lens to analyse the effect of individual digital capa­
While attention has turned to the role of individual digital bilities on organisation growth on a sample of 2,156,360 European

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Scuotto), [email protected] (M. Nicotra), [email protected] (M. Del Giudice), norris.krueger@gmail.
com (N. Krueger), [email protected] (G.L. Gregori).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.045
Received 2 January 2020; Received in revised form 21 January 2021; Accepted 23 January 2021
Available online 24 March 2021
0148-2963/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
V. Scuotto et al. Journal of Business Research 129 (2021) 382–392

SMEs. We highlight here the centrality of internal digital capabilities sources) and strategic skills (the capacity to use computers and network
that are imperative to respond rapidly to market changes. Additionally, sources as means for particular goals in society)’ (in Zhong, 2011;
it also suggests a link with the theory of inter-firm performance het­ p.737). Additionally, Eurostat (2015) provides another classification,
erogeneity (Penrose, 1959), pointing out the need for digital skills in which relies on four categories: information, communication, software,
three main dimensions: 1. information, 2. communication, and 3. soft­ and problem-solving. Those categories are employed in the current
ware skills. research to advance the lack of empirical research (Grant & Verona,
Moreover, the lens of microfoundations theory permits us to inves­ 2015).
tigate the individual capabilities underpinning innovation and growth in In this vein, the research embraces the concept of ‘capabilities’ as the
companies. Innovation starts with people, making human capital within power or ability to generate an outcome from digital skills. Specifically,
the workforce decisive (Anderson, 2008; Kefela, 2010; Lanvin & Kralik, we will refer to individual digital capabilities as the ability to exploit and
2009). Microfoundational theoretical approaches seek to explain an to use their own digital skills for an organisation’s purpose (Pavlou & El
organisation-level phenomenon (i.e., the organisation’s learning capa­ Sawy, 2006; Vieru et al., 2015).
bilities) in terms of fundamental, nested components (Kincaid, 1997). The current workplace requires individual capabilities able to face
Micro-level elements, especially individuals, played a central role in the increasingly complex and interactive tasks. Above all, in the knowledge
origins of management theory. Barnard (1968) argued that individuals economy, we expect workers to efficiently select and apply knowledge
are strategically relevant for a business. Also, recently, in management from a large amount of information and to adapt to the changing re­
research, numerous works point to the micro-level as important causes quirements of the job (Ahmad, Karim, Din, & Albakri, 2013; Carnevale &
of the emergence and dynamics of certain activities and processes in Smith, 2013). Such individual capabilities include collaboration,
organisations (e.g., Gavetti, 2005; Scuotto et al., 2020; Del Giudice et al., communication, digital literacy, citizenship, problem-solving, critical
2017; Felin, Foss, & Ployhart, 2015; Molina-Azorín, 2014; Teece, 2007). thinking, creativity, and productivity (Voogt & Roblin, 2012). These are
We are also conscious that this study goes through a new and exciting capabilities related to the current economic and social environment.
path of research. Compared to Multinational Corporates (MNCs), prior Researchers call such capabilities ‘21st century capabilities’ (Van Laar
research into the individual digital capabilities of SMEs is still emergent, et al., 2017). However, in the rapidly evolving world, even ‘21st century’
even more so when it comes to labour-intensive industries (Lehner & individual capabilities are not enough. Digital transformation has spread
Sundby, 2017; Vieru, Bourdeau, Bernier, & Yapo, 2015). quickly in the economic sectors, in the labour market, and in our society,
Study of these capabilities introduces another research gap as we and it requires the rapid acquisition and integration of ‘digital capabil­
need to better understand their relationship with innovation. Tether ities’ (Autor, Dorn, & Hanson, 2015; Davlembayeva, Papagiannidis, &
(2005), who state the implicit relevance of individual capabilities, Alamanos, 2019; Frey & Osborne, 2017; Galindo-Martín, Castaño-Mar­
remark that there is a paucity of studies linking innovations with ca­ tínez, & Méndez-Picazo, 2019; Rialti et al., 2019; Van Laar et al., 2017).
pabilities. Green et al. (2007) revealed major gaps in the innovation The present study provides distinct contributions to the existing SME
literature on the links between capabilities and innovation, and they literature in the following ways. First of all, the paper adopts a micro­
concluded with a call for more research on such fundamental issues as foundational approach focusing on individual-level digital capabilities
the characteristics of individual capabilities required for incremental (Bassellier & Benbasat, 2004; Bassellier, Blaize Horner, & Benbasat,
and radical innovations across different innovative processes. The 2001; Sousa & Rocha, 2019) on labour-intensive SMEs operating in
persistence of this gap is also noted by more recent studies (Toner, 2011; Europe. The contribution addresses the following research question:
Van Laar, Van Deursen, Van Dijk, & De Haan, 2017). Moreover, a unique ‘How do individual digital capabilities affect labour-intensive SMEs’
definition of capabilities has been very hard to find in the economic innovation and growth performance?’ Although there is a general
context (Lafer, 2002) due to the fact that capabilities is mainly consid­ consensus on the importance of developing digital capabilities among
ered to be a conceptual term (Esposto, 2008). Yet, Van Dijk (2002; 2006) employees in all sectors (Benson, Johnson, & Kuchinke, 2002), to the
distinguishes those capabilities in three categories: operational, infor­ best of our knowledge, there have been no efforts to highlight the effect
mation, and strategic skills: in particular, ‘operational skills (the skills to of individual digital capabilities on innovation and growth in labour-
work with hardware and software), information skills (the skills to intensive SMEs. This has resulted in a missing understanding of the
search, select, and process information in computers and network positive contributions derived from digital capabilities (Ashurst, Cragg,

Fig. 1. Research design.

Source: Our elaboration.

383
V. Scuotto et al. Journal of Business Research 129 (2021) 382–392

& Herring, 2012). Appropriate education, training, and knowledge central for understanding processes and outcomes at the organisation
among employees can thus play a more vital role in breaking down the level (e.g., Abell, Felin, & Foss, 2008; Grant, 1996; Simon, 1991). Felin,
barriers to digital implementation, with benefits in terms of innovation Foss, Koen, and Tammy (2012) specify the importance of routines and
and growth performance. Second, the research goes beyond classic capabilities as microfoundations in an organisation. They identify in­
Penrosean growth theory and embraces the theory of inter-firm perfor­ dividuals, social processes, and structure as the three primary micro-
mance heterogeneity (Penrose, 1959) in the current age, highlighting level components underlying routines and capabilities. Adopting Felin
the need of digital skills in three main dimensions: 1. information, 2. et al. (2012) multi-level framework, Ryan, Geoghegan, and Hilliard
communication, and 3. software skills. (2018) examine the microfoundations of participant firms’ capabilities
We structure this article as follows: after introducing the core for explorative innovation in university partnerships. They showed that
concept of the research and its gap alongside the original contributions a microfoundational lens allows for a deeper understanding of how to
to the field of business research, we offer a sound theoretical back­ reach innovation. More recently, Distel (2019) explores the multilevel
ground. Additionally, we develop empirical research to measure if in­ antecedents of absorptive capacity using survey data gathered from 342
dividual digital capabilities positively impact on labour-intensive SMEs’ informants at different levels of analysis in 106 medical technology
innovation and growth performance from a sample of 2,156,360 SMEs firms. Results show that knowledge workers’ cognitive process and their
from 26 European countries. The wide sample allows the generalisation creative behaviour are important microfoundations of absorptive ca­
of the results. Finally, the research concludes by discussing results in line pacity. At the same time, the study emphasises the critical role of key
with the current literature review, arguing for future research based on employees in building organisational capabilities and explaining firm-
this analysis, and discussing its limitations and novel directions sug­ level heterogeneity.
gested by this study. Existing evidence of the importance of individual capabilities in­
cludes the impact of the mobility of individuals, which has significant
2. Literature background and hypothesis development and varying effects on organisations (Agarwal, Gambardella, & Olson,
2016; Corredoira & Rosenkopf, 2010). This led some scholars to identify
2.1. Organisation growth through a micro-foundation lens individuals as the fundamental locus of activities and processes in or­
ganisations (Corrediora & Rosenkopf, 2010) and suggest a micro­
With the focus primarily on organisations, it is possible to lose sight foundations approach.
of organisations as an aggregation of individuals. Individuals can in­
fluence activities and processes in an organisation and so its evolution 2.2. Individual digital capabilities and SMEs’ growth
and success (Hess & Rothaermel, 2011; Miller & Sardais, 2011). From
this perspective, individuals in organisations can serve as micro­ The reason for focusing on individual digital capabilities lies in the
foundations of organisation growth. Individual-level components are awareness of the digital transformation as a dynamic force behind many
important building blocks for understanding organisational phenomena. socioeconomic changes and an important driver for growth, productiv­
Different characteristics, values, preferences, beliefs, knowledge, and ity, competitiveness, and innovativeness for companies in the present
experiences determine individuals’ heterogeneity (Felin & Hesterly, economic scenario (Alcacer, Cantwell, & Piscitello, 2016; Merendino
2007; Madsen, Neergaard, & Ulhøi, 2003; Molloy, Chadwick, Ployhart, et al., 2018; Verhoef et al., 2019; Zysman & Kenney, 2018). While
& Golden, 2011). This heterogeneity thus relies on skills and capabilities studies on individual-level characteristics, abilities, and human capital
that may directly influence organisation performance and growth. have received attention in the strategy literature (Adner & Helfat, 2003;
Organisation growth is a process of overcoming resource deficiencies Hatch & Dyer, 2004; Madsen et al., 2003; Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011;
resulting from the liabilities of newness and smallness (Shelton, 2005). Rothaermel & Hess, 2007), more work is needed to explicitly define how
Hoy, McDougall, and Dsouza (1992) note that growth can be measured individual digital capabilities affect performance and growth in
in different ways, from increasing market share to enhancing revenue organisations.
growth, return on investment, or the number of customers. Some other The digital market is reshaping the global economic environment,
authors offer a similar list of possible growth indicators, including as­ radically changing the way companies operate. The adoption of new
sets, profits, physical outputs, employment, firms’ resources, and sales digital technologies creates new business opportunities and managerial
(Ardishvili, Cardozo, Harmon, & Vadakath, 1998; Gilbert, 2006; and organisational advantages (Müller, Buliga, & Voigt, 2018; Quinn,
Wiklund, Davidsson, Delmar, & Aronsson, 1997). For instance, firm Dibb, Simkin, Canhoto, & Analogbei, 2016; Santoro, Vrontis, Thrassou,
revenue is widely used in empirical studies (Ardishvili et al., 1998; & Dezi, 2018). In this scenario, individual digital capabilities are a
Davidsson, 2006; Wong & Aspinwall, 2004) along with employment. driver for the adoption of new technologies as central to a rapid adap­
Both indicators are generally employed to measure a company’s growth tation to the digital revolution (Kohli & Grover, 2008; Tams, Grover, &
largely because data on sales and employment are easy to find (Cooney, Thatcher, 2014).
2012). Fortunately, employment as a variable is also not influenced by Specifically, SMEs are exploiting opportunities so as to compete
inflation and can be applied equally in cross-cultural studies and time equally with large companies. Existing research suggests that SMEs
series. constitute a dynamic and essential part of the economy in most countries
Penrosian growth theory (Penrose, 1959) introduces the relevance of (Muller, Julius, Herr, Koch, Peycheva, & McKiernan, 2017). SMEs ac­
interpersonal relationships of a working team, which relies on trust, count for over half of all businesses and employ over half of the work­
identification, and mutual obligation. Going beyond this theory, today force in developed countries (Muller et al., 2017). According to Alam
the focus is not just on the relational determinants of employees, but it and Noor (2009), the adoption of digital technology is ‘a means to
also extends research on the resource-based view of the firm (RBV) in enable businesses to compete on a global scale, with improved effi­
which internal resource and individual capabilities are the critical issues ciency, and closer customer and supplier relationships’ (p.114). To be
in achieving firm growth (Barney, 1991; Conner & Prahalad, 1996; competitive, SMEs must develop new business strategies and processes
NESTA, 2011). This newer focus is amplified where new businesses have that involve the use of digital technologies (Ferrari, 2012).
been developed in a market with greater uncertainty. For instance, the Because SMEs are not exploiting the full potential of digital tech­
Kauffman Foundation report (2009) found that half of the companies on nologies like large companies (Muller et al., 2017), the digital trans­
the 2009 Fortune 500 list were launched during a recession or bear formation is creating a deep gap between companies that have
market. Studies on performance and growth often neglect micro-level succeeded in operating in the digital ecosystem, developing new busi­
elements such as individual digital capabilities. ness models, and companies that are still stuck to traditional logics. In
However, other scholars argue that individual capabilities are the last decade, the digital divide theme has been extensively studied

384
V. Scuotto et al. Journal of Business Research 129 (2021) 382–392

with reference to people, communities, countries, and companies (Bach, positively with the labour-intensive SMEs’ growth rate in terms of sales
Zoroja, & Vukšić, 2013; Qureshi, 2014; Wielicki & Arendt, 2010). The and numbers of employees.
digital divide among companies can be defined as the gap in the effec­
tive use of IT for profit (Wielicki & Cavalcanti, 2006). SMEs are often on 3. Individual digital capabilities and innovation
the wrong side of such a divide due to their limited access to resources,
technologies, and capabilities (Al-Qirim, 2007; Cenamor, Vinit, & Joa­ Individual digital capabilities are essential to search for and evaluate
kim, 2019; MacGregor & Vrazalic, 2005) along with resistance to change information, solve problems, exchange information, and develop ideas
(MacGregor & Vrazalic, 2005). As such, some authors recognised that in the contemporary digital context. In the paragraph above, the debate
SMEs suffer from a lack of internal individual digital capabilities that in the literature on the definition of individual digital capabilities and
could negatively affect the digital technology adoption process (Chan & their role in organisations has already been presented. As mentioned,
Chung, 2002; Chau, 1995; Cragg, Caldeira, & Ward, 2011; Fink, 1998; the discussion on digital capabilities began when several authors used it
Huarng & Hui-Kuang, 2011; Igbaria & Tan, 1997; Levy, Powell, & to refer to the ability to read hyperlinked texts and explore multimedia
Yetton, 2001; Nguyen, 2009; Van Laar et al., 2017). formats (Bawde, 2001).
In a study conducted by Arendt (2007: 83) on micro and small en­ The first definition of individual digital capabilities was given in
terprises (SMEs) from selected regions of Spain, Portugal, and Poland, 1997 by Gilster, who emphasised the capacity for critical thinking and
the author concluded that ‘the main reason why SMEs face a digital not just for IT skills. Gilster represented individual digital capabilities as
divide, is not so much the lack of access to information technology a complex integration of skills, abilities, and knowledge. Analysing
(“material access” barrier) as the lack of proper knowledge, education Gilster’s work, Bawden (2001) identifies numerous characteristics an
and skilled owner-managers and employees within the enterprise’. In individual with digital capabilities should have: 1) the ability to build
the same way, in a longitudinal study over an eight-year period of reliable information from different digital sources; 2) critical thinking to
evolution of digital technologies in 18 small companies, Cragg and formulate informed judgments on Internet sources; 3) ability to read and
Zinatelli (1995) demonstrated that the evolution of digital technologies understand non-sequential and dynamic material; 4) awareness of
was blocked in those organisations that suffer a lack of individual digital ‘networks’ as sources of advice and help; 5) familiarity with filters and
capabilities. This view is supported by other studies that describe how agents to manage incoming information; and 6) ability to post,
such capabilities are powerful determinants of technology adoption communicate, and access information. With the growing importance of
(Southern & Tilley, 2000). They are the most important foundation for information technology in organisations, scholars have become inter­
achieving a high level of digital evolution in SMEs (Ala-Mutka, 2011; ested in analysing how members of an organisation understand and use
Sarosa & Zowghi, 2003; Venkatesh & Brown, 2001). Caldeira and Ward IT resources effectively (e.g., Bassellier et al., 2001; Bassellier & Ben­
(2003) state that individual digital capabilities can generate more ben­ basat, 2004; Torkzadeh & Lee, 2003). Based on this literature and spe­
efits to SMEs. Sousa and Rocha (2019) offer a qualitative study on cifically on the definition of Pavlou and El Sawy (2006), we can affirm
managers’ digital capabilities without providing a general definition or that individual digital capabilities are related to the ability of members
operationalisation. Nevertheless, some studies support the idea that in an organisation to effectively use IT capabilities, to be aware of what
digital capabilities at an individual level in an organisation are those IT capabilities have to offer, to understand when to use them and when
knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to explore new technological to decide to use them, and to do this effectively for the benefit of the
contexts and address the technological problem in a flexible way (Cal­ entire organisation.
vani, Cartelli, Fini, & Ranieri, 2008; Ferrari, 2012; Malhotra & Malhotra, Individual capabilities can be divided into the categories of infor­
2016). mation, communication, problem-solving, and software. Indeed, as
In a detailed definition, Ferrari (2012: 43) maintains that such ca­ stated by Eurostat (2015), information capabilities means to ‘identify,
pabilities represent a ‘set of knowledge, skills, attitudes, abilities, stra­ locate, retrieve, store, organise and analyse digital information, judging
tegies, and awareness that are required when using ICT and digital its relevance and purpose’ (p.2); communication capabilities concern
media to perform tasks; solve problems; communicate; manage infor­ how to ‘communicate in digital environments, share resources through
mation; collaborate; create and share content; and build knowledge online tools, link with others and collaborate through digital tools,
effectively, efficiently, appropriately, critically, creatively, autono­ interact with and participate in communities and networks, cross-
mously, flexibly, ethically, reflectively for work, leisure, participation, cultural awareness’ (p.2); problem-solving capabilities aim to ‘identify
learning, and socializing’. Innovation capability has been found to be a digital needs and resources, make informed decisions as to which are the
multi-faceted construct and differs among small and medium enterprises most appropriate digital tools according to the purpose or need, solve
(SMEs) and big corporations (Forsman, 2011; Saunila & Ukko, 2014). conceptual problems through digital means, creatively use technologies,
In this vein, we can suppose that in SMEs, individual digital capa­ solve technical problems, update one’s own and others’ skills’ (p. 2); and
bilities are more determining than in large firms, since in small busi­ software capabilities refer to the way to ‘create and edit new content
nesses a larger proportion of workers than in large companies are (from word processing to images and video); integrate and re-elaborate
involved in the implementation of business innovation (OECD, 2015). previous knowledge and content; produce creative expressions, media
SMEs are considered the driving forces of the current economy (Muller outputs and programming; deal with and apply intellectual property
et al., 2017; Soriano & Huarng, 2013). They represent 99% of all busi­ rights and licenses, (p.3). These capabilities are connected with how an
nesses in the European Union (EU) and in the last five years, provided individual thinks, solves problems, communicates, and learns and goes
about 85% of new jobs, also ensuring two-thirds of the total private beyond mere technical skills. In technologically rich environments,
sector engagement in the region (European Commission, 2019). these are capabilities that can have a big impact on developments and
Different from large corporations, SMEs are highly flexible, adapting to innovating products and processes and thus on company growth.
market fluctuations and new customer requirements, with an organ­ Additionally, several authors sustain that digital transformation
isational structure allowing for quicker decision-making (Pérez-Goméz, supports companies in their innovation processes (Dibrell, Davis, &
Arbelo-Peréz, & Arbelo, 2018). Therefore, we deal with individual Craig, 2008; Huang & Liu, 2005; Johannessen, Olaisen, & Olsen, 1999;
digital competences in SMEs as a driving force to leverage innovation King & Burgess, 2006; Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, & Grover, 2003)
and growth. Individual digital capabilities can be central in small busi­ because it ‘moderates many aspects of the process of bringing new
nesses aiming to compete with their larger and more resource possessing problem-solving ideas into use given that it determines the way infor­
competitors. Therefore, we hypothesise that: mation is stored, transmitted, communicated, processed and acted upon,
IT is an important but neglected means of facilitating the innovation
Hypothesis 1. The degree of individual digital capabilities impacts
process’ (Dewett & Jones, 2001, p. 326). A company’s innovation

385
V. Scuotto et al. Journal of Business Research 129 (2021) 382–392

performances are generally improved by synergies among elements of Most of the firms sampled had at least more than 40% of individual
systems and collaborative processes (Bhaskaran, 2006; Scuotto, Del digital skills in information, communication, and software skills. How­
Giudice, Bresciani, & Meissner, 2017; Soriano & Huarng, 2013). ever, we did not count problem-solving skills due to the lack of data
Therefore, it is assumed that information technologies (IT) feed such related to this aspect.
connections (King & Burgess, 2006), so innovation performances are European labour-intensive SMEs are exploiting and exploring new
higher if supported by digital technologies (Ferreira, Fernandes, & technologies to survive in the current highly competitive market. They
Ferreira, 2019; Frishammar & Hörte, 2005). are experiencing the digital transformation by developing internal dig­
Yet, the increasing use of digital technologies to innovate requires ital capabilities to get a thriving business (Scuotto & Mueller, 2018;
increasing numbers of individual digital capabilities in organisations Ulaga & Reinartz, 2011). The present analysis takes into consideration
(Sousa & Rocha, 2019). This can accelerate or decelerate the develop­ only SMEs due to the different positioning and resources needed (Lau­
ment of new innovations (Miller & Friesen, 1980). Turner, Mitchell, and dien & Daxböck, 2016).
Bettis (2013) demonstrate how firms can develop a cadence for ongoing The widely used Eurostat dataset has exhibited high reliability and
innovation activities, which are leveraged by experiences, innovation validity (Laursen & Salter, 2006; Scuotto et al., 2020). The dataset was
capabilities (Coen & Maritan, 2011), and knowledge (Nelson & Winter, extracted from an open-source online database developed by Eurostat
1982). This involves a series of prototypes and more specifically tech­ (2017).
nological prototypes such as robots (Stahl, McBride, Wakunuma, & Furthermore, European SMEs are the ideal target to explore the
Flick, 2014). There is also the tendency to adopt innovations produced research scope due to several initiatives that have been released by the
elsewhere (Prajogo & Ahmed, 2006; Tidd, 1997). In this context, indi­ European Commission to enhance SMEs’ digital capabilities. For
vidual digital capabilities can be seen as an important, critical asset to instance, the innovation voucher stimulates collaboration between
allow companies to exploit those opportunities, to be more efficient, and SMEs and research centres to develop and/or improve their digital ad­
to discover new ways to create and manage a business. From all the vancements. It allows cross-fertilisation skills and also spurs in­
foregoing, we can assume that the ability of SMEs to innovate depends novations. It is widely recognised that Europe hosts many of the most
on employees with appropriate digital capabilities to maximise the use innovative countries (see Bloomberg annual report, 2019), but in the
of digital technologies. Hence, we hypothesise that: current digital era, there still is a poor understanding regarding whether
this high level of innovation is leveraged by individual digital capabil­
Hypothesis 2. The degree of individual digital capabilities positively
ities. The European context is particularly representative given that
influences labour-intensive SMEs’ innovation performance.
SMEs represent about 99 percent of the total number of companies in
When discussing the consequences of innovation, many studies have Europe (Lopez-Nicolas & Soto-Acosta, 2010).
stressed the strategic role of innovation for SMEs’ growth performance The questionnaire was voluntarily answered by SME employees
(Ganotakis, 2012; Slaper, Hart, Hall, & Thompson, 2011). Carden operating across all units. Yet, since there was the voluntary option to
(2005) presents the main results of the McKinsey Global Survey of undertake the questionnaire, we had to exclude the problem-solving
Business Executives that conclude that innovation is necessary for dimension due to the lack of data and select only those European
business growth. An earlier survey focusing on SMEs reports that countries with a large number of responses. Casewise deletion is sup­
product innovation is the single most popular strategy for expansion ported by studies such as Afghari, Washington, Prato, and Haque (2019).
across various industries (Hay & Kamshad, 1994). In the same vein, Cefis Overall, data coming from Cyprus, Denmark, Slovakia, Luxembourg,
and Orsenigo (2001) highlighted the relevance of innovation for firm and Belgium were removed due to the high number of no responses.
growth and the need for future research on such relations. Hence, if However, to validate our sample, we analyse the data with and without
individual digital capabilities are necessary to allow ICT exploitation these countries. The results do not show any differences. Table 1 sum­
and to improve the ability to innovate in SMEs, this argues strongly for marises the analysed countries.
the idea that innovation assumes a positive influence on the growth rate
of labour-intensive SMEs. We thus hypothesise that:
Hypothesis 3. Innovation thus has a positive influence on SMEs’
growth. Table 1
European Countries.
4. Methodology Bulgaria 98.046
Czechia 185.296
4.1. Sample and data collection Germany (until 1990 former territory of the FRG) 564.474
Estonia 9.286
Ireland 40.588
The scope of this study is to investigate the impact of individual
Spain 268.211
digital capabilities on SMEs’ growth and innovation in the context of the France 134.655
labour sector in Europe. This investigation relies on a microfoundational Croatia 38.454
lens. To this scope, we evaluate micro-data drawn from Eurostat’s Italy 245.510
dataset (2017) from a sample of 2,156,360 SMEs derived from a popu­ Latvia 17.420
Lithuania 29.529
lation of 3,000,000 SMEs from European countries. This dataset includes Hungary 148.997
information on employees’ digital capabilities, innovation performance, Malta 1.519
and SMEs’ growth. Netherlands 80.554
The sample was formed by taking into consideration the following Austria 34.494
Poland 453.967
criteria:
Portugal 109.123
Romania 80.704
• Company’s age (more than five years); Slovenia 27.225
• Operating in labour-intensive sectors (e.g., mainly manufacturing, Slovakia 23.029
mining and quarrying, electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning Finland 16.371
Sweden 53.927
supply, and water supply; sewerage, waste management, and reme­
United Kingdom 328.095
diation activities). Norway 14.702

Source: Eurostat 2017.

386
V. Scuotto et al. Journal of Business Research 129 (2021) 382–392

4.2. Data analysis employees—this value is significant (Table 2). The p-value is
0.003228097.
The present research offers a quantitative study to measure the Hypothesis 2 (Hp2)—that is the degree of individual digital capabilities
impact of individual digital capabilities on SMEs’ growth and innovation influences positively with the labour-intensive SMEs’ innovation perform­
on SMEs’ growth in Europe by using the microfoundations lens. Spe­ ance—is significant (Table 3). The p-value is 0.00005115.
cifically, the methodology employed is multiple-regression analysis. Whereas, the last hypothesis (Hp3)—Innovation, thus, has a positive
This method, thus, is considered suitable to examine the aforementioned influence on SMEs’ growth (Table 4)—is significant. The p-value is
hypothesis in the theoretical context of microfoundations (Scuotto et al., 0.00008435.
2020; Vrgović & Jošanov-Vrgović, 2017). This test is highly popular in For better clarity, Table 5 summarises the results of three models.
the management field thanks to the fact that allows us to examine the Moreover, the R-squared multiplot value for all models is low, and it
effect of one or more independent variables on a dependent variable shows that even if the variables are supported, there is also the possi­
(Dunn & Clark, 1974; Herzog & Leker, 2010; Obschonka, Hakkarainen, bility of including other variables.
Lonka, & Salmela-Aro, 2017; Valacich, Wang, & Jessup, 2018). This
method was used to evaluate if a potentially causal effect between 6. Discussion
measures is present or not. Prior research suggests that ‘In the sample,
the nominal variable is the country. Measurement variables are obser­ It might seem unsurprising that individual digital capabilities appear
vations per country, grouped per factor and categories of each factor’ crucial in SMEs’ growth as well as for their innovation performance.
(Scuotto et al., 2020; p.6). Note, though R-squared shows the need to take into consideration other
factors along with individual digital skills, such as those included in
4.3. Measures Penrose growth theory (1959). In fact, if a business’s growth was
considered to be leveraged primarily by interpersonal relationships
4.3.1. Individual digital capabilities based on trust, identification, mutual obligation, and inter-firm het­
Previous works have divided the digital skills in operational, infor­ erogeneity, nowadays, individual digital capabilities have assumed an
mation, and strategic skills. Van Dijk (2002, 2006) describes those skills equally crucial role for growth and innovations.
as follows: ‘operational skills (the skills to work with hardware and Moreover, in reference to this theory, it may be interesting to explore
software), information skills (the skills to search, select, and process the absorptive capacity of a company to adopt digital skills and inno­
information in computers and network sources) and strategic skills (the vation (Buć & Divjak, 2018). This would establish new research
capacity to use computers and network sources as means for particular exploring the interplay of employees’ relationships along with their
goals in society)’ (in Zhong, 2011; p.737). However, as aforementioned, digital capabilities. In the USA, Domino’s Pizza engaged in a radical
we rely on the classification of skills released by Eurostat (2015): in­ digital transformation that had many benefits, but ultimately the pizza
formation skills, communication skills, software skills, and problem- recipe remained underwhelming. A firm with great tech expertise may
solving skills. In this analysis, only the first three ‘skills’ are consid­ succeed technologically but fail on the business side, but great business
ered. To sum up, information skills involve the capability of defining, acumen still requires great technical expertise.
managing, and storing information; communications skills involve the Individual digital capabilities support SME growth, but it is still a
capability of adopting digital technologies to spread a firm’s voice challenge to develop those capabilities in a small company with a lack of
among employees as well as external stakeholders; and finally software financial resources (Arendt, 2007; Cragg & Zinatelli, 1995). As we recall,
skills call for the capability of generating and modifying new content, the digital revolution has daily provoked the adoption of new technol­
such as video and images, and/or creating advanced technological ogies (Caldeira & Ward, 2003; Southern & Tilley, 2000). Hence, if SMEs
content to be preserved by copyrights (see also Cheng, Ju Choi, Chen, want to evolve, they must be digitised (Ala-Mutka, 2011; Sarosa &
Ibrahim Eldomiaty, & Millar, 2004; Chhim, Somers, & Chinnam, 2017). Zowghi, 2003; Venkatesh & Brown, 2001).
This form of digitalisation is related to the human side of a company
4.3.2. Innovation performance (Caldeira & Ward, 2003). If, as often suggested, SMEs tend to be more
Innovation performance is measured by taking into consideration ‘human’ than big companies, then they might deploy digital skills more
three factors: ongoing innovation activities, innovation prototypes, and effectively.
developed innovations (Duarte, Madeira, Moura, Carvalho, & Moreira, Those capabilities are, thus, necessary to use new technologies,
2017; Prajogo & Ahmed, 2006; Turner et al., 2013). Sousa and Rocha transfer knowledge with stakeholders, develop agile organisations, and
(2019) emphasise the need of individual digital capabilities for devel­ make innovations (Calvani et al., 2008; Ferrari, 2012; Malhotra &
oping innovations. In this context, innovations can generate intervals of Malhotra, 2016; Scuotto, Del Giudice, Bresciani, et al., 2017; Scuotto,
new ideas and prototypes. Due to the paucity of resources, there is also a Del Giudice, & Carayannis, 2017; Van Wijk, Jansen, & Lyles, 2008).
propensity towards adopting innovations already developed elsewhere Ramos, Silva, and Alverga (2009) point out the crucial role of employees
(Prajogo & Ahmed, 2006; Tidd, 1997). within a business, and if they are not digitally skilled, a company is
limited in future development (Cragg & Zinatelli, 1995). These findings
4.3.3. SME growth show that labour-intensive SMEs are open to embrace a digital approach
To determine the growth of a business, we calculate two factors: by hiring digitally skilled people. Thus, we support Ifinedo (2011) and
increasing rate of sales and increasing rate of number of employees per Caldeira and Ward (2003) works, which emphasise that SME innovation
year. This is also supported by previous studies that have highlighted the depends on digitally skilled employees.
importance of those factors in business growth (Ardishvili et al., 1998; Since there was a paucity of studies on the impact of individual
Cowling, 2004; Davidsson & Wiklund, 2006; Delmar, Davidsson, & digital skills on SMEs’ growth and innovations (Barney, 1991; Conner &
Gartner, 2003; Wong & Aspinwall, 2004). Prahalad, 1996; NESTA, 2011; Green et al., 2007; Edquist, 2005), this
study bridges this gap and encourages the involvement of those capa­
5. Findings bilities within SMEs (Fitzgerald et al., 2013; Matt et al., 2015). Sup­
porting Bharadwaj’s work (Bharadwaj, 2000), getting more familiar
By employing a multiregression analysis, the three aforementioned with the use of digital technologies helps SMEs to be more efficient and
hypotheses are confirmed. In particular, as Hypothesis 1 (Hp1) emer­ competitive. Individual digital capabilities can be seen as an important,
ged—the degree of individual digital capabilities impacts positively with the critical asset to allow companies to exploit those opportunities, to be
labour-intensive SMEs’ growth rate in terms of sales and numbers of more efficient, and to discover new ways to create and manage a

387
V. Scuotto et al. Journal of Business Research 129 (2021) 382–392

Table 2
Hypothesis 1.
Regression Analysis R squared

R multiple 0.125043
R squared 0.015636
R squared correct − 0.07385
Standard error 0.881813
Observations 25

Coefficienti Standard Error Stat t Significant Value Inferior 95% Superior 95% Inferior 95,0% Superior 95,0%
Individual digital capabilities 8,904809 2,178574 5,012202 0,004532 2,875371 16,934247 2,875371 16,934247

Table 3
Hypothesis 2.
Regression Analysis R squared

Multiple R 0.322027
R squared 0.103701
R squared correct 0.02222
Standard error 2.679936
Observations 25

Coefficienti Standard Error Stat t Significant Inferior 95% Superior 95% Inferior 95,0% Superior 95,0%
individuals digital capabilities 9,82734 2,974004 3,304413 0,003228 3,659632 15,99505 3,659632 15,99505

Table 4
Hypothesis 3.
Regression Analysis R squared

R multiple 0,231897
R squared 0,053776
R squared correct − 0.0814
Standard error 12,23587
Observations 25

Coefficients Standard error Stat t Significant value Inferiore 95% Superiore 95% Inferiore 95,0% Superiore 95,0%

65,48904 13,48735 4,855589 8,44E-05 37,44055 93,53752 37,44055 93,53752

ongoing innovation activities 0,092463 0,173079 0,534224 0,598797 − 0,26747 0,452401 − 0,26747 0,452401
innovation –prototype − 3,8E-05 3,79E-05 − 0,98987 0,333505 − 0,00012 4,13E-05 − 0,00012 4,13E-05
innovation developed 0,124692 0,17611 0,708035 0,486708 − 0,24155 0,490932 − 0,24155 0,490932

Table 5
Summary of results.
Model Stat t Significant Value Stat t Significant Value Stat t Significant Value

IndDigSk – SMEsGro 5,012202 0,004532

IndDigSk –InnPerf 3,304413 0,003228
Innov-Perf 4,855589 8,44E-05
Regression Analysis 0,015636 0,103701 0,053776
R squared

business. From what was discussed, we can assume that the ability of 6.1. Managerial implications
SMEs to innovate depends on employees with appropriate digital ca­
pabilities to maximise the use of digital technologies. As stated above, For managers, especially in SMEs, digital skills matter for individual
the digital capabilities allow aopt new, advance technologies, transfer employees. Even more especially for those now looking across a digital
knowledge and get organizations to be more agile (Calvani et al., 2008; divide, expert digital skills really matter. This may seem like common
Ferrari, 2012; Malhotra & Malhotra, 2016; Scuotto, Del Giudice, Bres­ sense (Ala-Mutka, 2011; Millán, Lyalkov, Burke, Millán, & van Stel,
ciani, et al., 2017; Scuotto, Del Giudice, & Carayannis, 2017 Van Wijk 2019), but it seems neglected by policymakers and others who do seem
et al., 2008). In sum, our research also shows that individual digital concerned about the digital divides between giants and SMEs and be­
capabilities leverage business growth. Indeed, those support the devel­ tween different communities. Our results call for increased action from
opment and the spread of information, communication, and software policymakers to recognise that reducing digital divides must not neglect
advancements (Eurostat, 2015). Alongside, those capabilities leverage developing expert individual digital capabilities. For instance, the Eu­
innovations (Sousa & Rocha, 2019), inducing ongoing innovation ac­ ropean Commission is delivering several grants to enhance digitalisation
tivities (Turner et al., 2013), technological prototypes (Stahl et al., in SMEs, but helping an SME be more digitally literate only works by
2014), and new collaborations to exploit existing innovations (Prajogo developing individual capabilities. On the other hand, SMEs often fail to
& Ahmed, 2006; Tidd, Bessant, & Pavitt, 1997). be proactive with this bottom-up approach, often partly from a persis­
tent top-down approach from policymakers. Firms often know what
skills they lack. A peer-to-peer approach and/or a bottom-up approach

388
V. Scuotto et al. Journal of Business Research 129 (2021) 382–392

should be adopted in order to listen to and work with companies. SMEs workers are more skilled, some even referred to as ‘digital natives’, data
are still a huge part of the worldwide economy and contribute mean­ should be plentiful. This opens the doors to future research studies. For
ingfully to GDP and especially net job formation. Great digital skills are example, does this shed new light on the presumed liabilities of size and
necessary but not sufficient; building managerial capabilities cannot be newness? Are firms that are ‘born digital’ endowed with advantages?
neglected, but those are also individual-level skills. Therefore, for future research, we may also question if newer ven­
tures with seemingly lesser technical assets nonetheless succeeded
7. Conclusions because they managed skillfully. Where have newer ventures with great
expertise failed? Does having great expertise but terrible leadership not
From what we have discussed, we can assert that the ability of SMEs work? This is going to be a fruitful arena for research going forward. It
to innovate depends on employees with appropriate digital capabilities will also be fruitful for supporting innovative SMEs. We welcome future
to maximise the use of digital technologies. However, when, where, and research on a topic that has rich potential for advancing theory,
how to deploy these capabilities effectively remain open questions for empirical research, SME and entrepreneurial practice, and public policy.
scholars. Moreover, ‘appropriate’ likely differs across industries and Concluding, the present study shows significant evidence that indi­
firm life cycles. We also need to investigate the roles of management in vidual digital skills matter and matter deeply, relating employees’ skills
successfully (or unsuccessfully) exploiting these digital skills. Does the and innovation performance on organisational outcomes. Thus, the
strategic posture of a firm matter (e.g., a firm that emphasises new research shows that individual digital capabilities leverage business
product development versus one that prefers to defend its existing seg­ growth and support a diverse array of past research. Indeed, individual
ments)? Do these skills have differential impacts on these different digital capabilities can be seen as an important, critical asset to allow
strategic activities? companies to exploit new opportunities, to be more efficient, and to
It would also be useful to compare results across time periods – has discover new ways to create and manage a business.
the centrality of digital skills increased or morphed as industries change
(e.g., are these skills even more vital for supply chain management in Acknowledgment
Industry 4.0)? It is also important to replicate results in other cultural
settings whether North America or Asia. The article is based on the study funded by the Basic Research Pro­
It may be worth developing qualitative studies to deeply investigate gram of the National Research University Higher School of Economics.
the individual level and the degree of innovation within companies
(Charmes, Gault, & Wunsch-Vincent, 2018). Alongside, the organisa­ References
tional level can be further explored referring to different proxies such as
Abell, P., Felin, T., & Foss, N. (2008). Building micro-foundations for the routines,
sales, profit, investment in innovation, and investment in digital
capabilities, and performance links. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29, 489–502.
training, among others. The scope is to understand how an SME is Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities.
reacting to the digital revolution. The research can also be extended to Strategic management journal, 24(10), 1011–1025.
emerging countries, which seem to be very innovative despite limited Afghari, A. P., Washington, S., Prato, C., & Haque, M. M. (2019). Contrasting case-wise
deletion with multiple imputation and latent variable approaches to dealing with
resources. Such research will also speak directly to the entrepreneurs missing observations in count regression models. Analytic Methods in Accident
and managers of SMEs seeking competitive advantage. Research, 24, Article 100104.
Also, scholars have stressed the critical role of digital technology in Agarwal, R., Gambardella, A., & Olson, D. M. (2016). Employee mobility and
entrepreneurship A virtual special issue. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13),
generating new innovations (Dibrell et al., 2008; Huang & Liu, 2005; 11–21.
King & Burgess, 2006; Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2004; Sambamurthy Ahmad, M., Karim, A. A., Din, R., & Albakri, I. S. M. A. (2013). Assessing ICT
et al., 2003) because it ‘moderates many aspects of the process of competencies among postgraduate students based on the 21st Century ICT
Competency Model. Asian Social Science, 9(16), 32–39.
bringing new problem-solving ideas…’ (Dewett & Jones, 2001, p. 326). Alam, S. S., & Noor, M. K. M. (2009). ICT adoption in small and medium enterprises: An
Entrepreneurs have to overcome different challenges (Usai, Scuotto, empirical evidence of service sectors in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and
Murray, Fiano, & Dezi, 2018) and use of digital technologies may help Management, 4(2), 112–125.
Ala-Mutka, K. (2011). mapping digital competence: Towards a conceptual understanding.
them out. Thus, we encourage new research investigating individual
Publications Office of the European Union.
digital capabilities based on problem-solving and innovation. This also Alcacer, J., Cantwell, J., & Piscitello, L. (2016). Internationalization in the information
calls for novel analyses on collaborative processes and individual digital age: A new era for places, firms, and international business networks? Journal of
capabilities in spurring innovation to extend existing studies that have International Business Studies., 47(5), 499–512.
Al-Qirim, N. (2007). The adoption of eCommerce communications and applications
demonstrated a positive correlation between innovation and companies’ technologies in small businesses in New Zealand. Electronic Commerce Research and
synergies (Bhaskaran, 2006; Bresciani, Ferraris, & Del Giudice, 2018; Applications, 6(4), 462–473.
Scuotto, Del Giudice, Bresciani, et al., 2017; Soriano & Huarng, 2013). Anderson, R. (2008). Implications of the information and knowledge society for
education. In J. Voogt, & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information
Moreover, while the adoption of new digital technologies creates technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 5–22). New York: Springer.
new business opportunities and managerial and organisational advan­ Ardishvili, A., Cardozo, S., Harmon, S., & Vadakath, S. (1998, May). Towards a theory of
tages, the picture is more complicated than a simple panacea of ‘more new venture growth. In Babson entrepreneurship research conference, Ghent,
Belgium (pp. 21–23).
digital capabilities’. This calls for new debates on this topic that draw on Arendt, L. (2007), Barriers to Ict Adoption In Smes – How To Bridge Digital Divide?,
both practice and theory. In the era of digital transformation, the IADIS International Conference e-Commerce, ISBN: 978-972-8924-49-2.
microfoundations perspective supports the increasing need of human Ashurst, C., Cragg, P., & Herring, P. (2012). The role of IT competences in gaining value
from e- business: A SME case study. International Small Business Journal, 30, 640–658.
beings along with machines. The relationship of human and machine Autor, D. H., Dorn, D., & Hanson, G. H. (2015). Untangling Trade And Technology:
also accompanies the process of innovation, but if innovation and digital Evidence From Local Labor Markets. The Economic Journal, 125(May), 621–646.
capabilities affect growth separately, we need to understand better their Bach, M. P., Zoroja, J., & Vukšić, V. B. (2013). Review of corporate digital divide
research: A decadal analysis (2003–2012). International Journal of Information
relative levels of influence.
Systems and Project Management, 1(4), 41–55.
As far back as 1968, impressive evidence was arising that a top Barnard, C. I. (1968). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
programmer (for example) was worth 10× or more than an average Press.
programmer. Differences in individual digital skills matter significantly Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17, 99–120.
SMEs that identify or develop such expertise can thus reap dispropor­ Bassellier, G., & Benbasat, I. (2004). Business competence of IT professionals: Conceptual
tionate benefits. Instead, the literature has preferred to focus on the development and influence on IT-business partnerships. MIS Quarterly, 28, 673–694.
team or organisation level. These findings offer evidence that individual Bassellier, G., Blaize Horner, R., & Benbasat, I. (2001). Information technology
competence of business managers: A definition and research model. Journal of
skills matter and matter significantly. Future research should explore the Management Information Systems, 17, 9–182.
impact of individuas who are very highly skilled digitally. As younger

389
V. Scuotto et al. Journal of Business Research 129 (2021) 382–392

Bawden, D. (2001). Information and digital literacies: A review of concepts. The Journal Duarte, F. A., Madeira, M. J., Moura, D. C., Carvalho, J., & Moreira, J. R. M. (2017).
of Documentation, 57(2), 218–259. Barriers to innovation activities as determinants of ongoing activities or abandoned.
Benson, D., Johnson, S. D., & Kuchinke, K. P. (2002). The use of technology in the digital International Journal of Innovation. Science.
workplace: A framework for human resource development. Advances in Developing Dunn, O. J., & Clark, V. A. (1974). Applied statistics: Analysis of variance and regression.
Human Resources, 4(4), 392–404. New York: Wiley.
Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). A resource-based perspective on information technology Edquist, C. (2005). Systems of innovation: Perspectives and challenges. In J. Fagerberg,
capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp.
169–196. 181–208). UK: Oxford University Press.
Bhaskaran, S. (2006). Incremental innovation and business performance: small and Esposto, A. (2008). Skill: An elusive and ambiguous concept in labour market studies.
medium-size food enterprises in a concentrated industry environment. Journal of Australian Bulletin of Labour, 32(1), 100–124.
Small Business Management, 44(1), 64–80. Eurostat (2015). A new comprehensive Digital Skills Indicator, retrieved on 12.01.2017
Bloomber (2019). Annual Report. https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-0 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/new-comprehensive-digital-
9-10/annual-report-2019. Retrived on 12th Genuary 2020. skills-indicator.
Bresciani, S., Ferraris, A., & Del Giudice, M. (2018). The management of organizational Felin, T., Foss, N. J., Koen, H. H., & Tammy, M. L. (2012). Microfoundations of routines
ambidexterity through alliances in a new context of analysis: Internet of Things (IoT) and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structure. Journal of Management Studies,
smart city projects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 331–338. 49(8), 1351–1374.
Buć, S., & Divjak, B. (2018). Key factors of an organization’s environment for the Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The Microfoundations Movement in Strategy
acquisition and assimilation of an innovation. Journal of Information and and Organization Theory, 9(1), 575–632.
Organizational Sciences, 42(1), 17–37. Felin, T., & Hesterly, W. S. (2007). The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and
Caldeira, M. M., & Ward, J. M. (2003). Using resource-based theory to interpret the new value creation: philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge.
successful adoption and use of information systems and technology in manufacturing Academy of Management Review, 32, 195–218.
small and medium-sized enterprises. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(2), Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital skills in practice: An analysis of frameworks. Publications Office
127–141. of the European Union.
Calvani, A., Cartelli, A., Fini, A., & Ranieri, M. (2008). Models and instruments for Ferreira, J. J., Fernandes, C. I., & Ferreira, F. A. (2019). To be or not to be digital, that is
assessing digital skills at school. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 4, the question: Firm innovation and performance. Journal of Business Research, 101,
183–193. 583–590.
Carden, S. D. (2005). What global executives think about growth and risk. McKinsey Fink, D. (1998). Guidelines for the successful adoption of information technology in
Quarterly, 2, 16–25. small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Information Management, 18
Carnevale, A. P., & Smith, N. (2013). Workplace basics: The skills employees need and (4), 243–253.
employers want. Human Resource Development International, 16(5), 491–501. Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D., & Welch, M. (2013). Embracing digital
Cefis, E., & Orsenigo, L. (2001). The persistence of innovative activities: A cross-countries technology: A new strategic imperative. Research Report: MIT Sloan Management
and cross-sectors comparative analysis. Research Policy, 30, 1139–1158. Review.
Cenamor, J., Vinit, P., & Joakim, W. (2019). How entrepreneurial SMEs compete through Forsman, H. (2011). Innovation capacity and innovation development in
digital platforms: The roles of digital platform capability, network capability and smallenterprises. A comparison between the manufacturing and service sector.
ambidexterity. Journal of Business Research, 10, 196–206. Research Policy, 40(5), 739–750.
Chan, M. F. S., & Chung, W. W. C. (2002). A framework to develop an enterprise Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs
information portal for contract manufacturing. International Journal of Production to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 14, 254–280.
Economics, 75(1–2), 113–126. Frishammar, J., & Hörte, S. A. (2005). Managing external information in manufacturing
Charmes, J., Gault, F., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2018). Measuring innovation in the firms: The impact on innovation performance. Journal of Product Innovation
informal economy–formulating an agenda for Africa. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Management, 22, 251–266.
19(3), 536–549. Galindo-Martín, M. A., Castaño-Martínez, M. S., & Méndez-Picazo, M. T. (2019). Digital
Chau, P. Y. K. (1995). Factors used in the selection of packaged software in small transformation, digital dividends and entrepreneurship: A quantitative analysis.
businesses: Views of owners and managers. Information and Management, 29(2), Journal of Business Research, 101, 522–527.
71–78. Ganotakis, P. (2012). Founders’ human capital and the performance of UK new
Cheng, P., Ju Choi, C., Chen, S., Ibrahim Eldomiaty, T., & Millar, C. C. (2004). Knowledge technology based firms. Small Business Economics, 39, 495–515.
repositories in knowledge cities: Institutions, conventions and knowledge Gavetti, G. (2005). Cognition and hierarchy: Rethinking the microfoundations of
subnetworks. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(5), 96–106. capabilities’ development. organization science, 16(6), 563–727.
Chhim, P. P., Somers, T. M., & Chinnam, R. B. (2017). Knowledge reuse through Gilbert, R. J. (2006). Competition and innovation. Journal of Industrial Organization
electronic knowledge repositories: A multi theoretical study. Journal of Knowledge Education, 1(1), 1–23.
Management, 21(4), 741–764. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management
Coen, C. A., & Maritan, C. A. (2011). Investing in capabilities: The dynamics of resource Journal, 17, 109–122.
allocation. Organization Science, 22(1), 99–117. Grant, R., & Verona, G. (2015). What’s holding back empirical research into
Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge organizational capabilities? Remedies for common problems. Strategic Organization, 13
versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5), 477–501. (1), 61–74.
Cooney, T.M. (2012). Entrepreneurship Skills for Growth-Orientated Businesses, report Green, L., Jones, B., & Miles, I. (2007), Mini Study 02 – Skills for Innovation, Global
for the Workshop on ‘Skills Development for SMEs and Entrepreneurship’, OECD, Review of Innovation Intelligence and Policy Studies, UK: IINNO-GRIIPS. Retrieved
Copenhagen, 28 November 2012. from: http://grips-public.mediactive.fr/knowledge_base/dl/222/orig_doc_file/.
Corredoira, R. A., & Rosenkopf, L. (2010). Should auld acquaintance be forgot? The Hatch, N. W., & Dyer, J. H. (2004). Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable
reverse transfer of knowledge through mobility ties. Strategic Management Journal, competitive advantage. Strategic management journal, 25(12), 1155–1178.
31, 159–181. Hay, M., & Kamshad, K. (1994). Small Firm Growth: Intentions, Implementation and
Cowling, M. (2004). The growth–profit nexus. Small Business Economics, 22(1), 1–9. Impediments. Business Strategy Review, 5(3), 49–68.
Cragg, P., Caldeira, M., & Ward, J. (2011). Organizational information systems skillss in Henriette, E., Feki, M., & Boughzala, I. (2015). The shape of digital transformation: a
small and medium-sized enterprises. Information & Management, 48, 353–363. systematic literature review. MCIS 2015 proceedings (pp. 431–443).
Cragg, P. B., & Zinatelli, N. (1995). The evolution of information systems in small firms. Herzog, P., & Leker, J. (2010). Open and closed innovation–different innovation cultures
Information and Management, 29(1), 1–8. for different strategies. International Journal of Technology Management, 52(3/4),
Davidsson, P. (2006). Nascent entrepreneurship: Empirical studies and developments. Now 322–343.
publishers inc. Hess, A., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2011). When are assets complementary? Star scientists,
Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2006). Conceptual and empirical challenges in the study of strategic alliances, and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic
firm growth. Entrepreneurship and the Growth of Firms, 1(1), 39–61. Management Journal, 32(8), 895–909.
Davlembayeva, D., Papagiannidis, S., & Alamanos, E. (2019). Mapping the economics, Hoy, F., McDougall, P. P., & Dsouza, D. E. (1992), Strategies and Environments of High-
social and technological attributes of the sharing economy. Information Technology Growth Firms. In D. L. Sexton & J. D. Kasarda (Eds.), The State Of the Art of
and People. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2018-0085. Entrepreneurship. PWS-Kent Publishing (pp. 341–357).
Del Giudice, M., Khan, Z., De Silva, M., Scuotto, V., Caputo, F., & Carayannis, E. (2017). Huang, C. J., & Liu, C. J. (2005). Exploration for the relationship between innovation, IT,
The microlevel actions undertaken by owner-managers in improving the and performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(2), 237–252.
sustainability practices of cultural and creative small and medium enterprises: A Huarng, K. H., & Hui-Kuang Yu, T. (2011). Entrepreneurship, process innovation and
United Kingdom-Italy comparison. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(9), value creation by a non-profit SME. Management Decision, 49(2), 284–296.
1396–1414. Ifinedo, P. (2011). Internet/e-business technologies acceptance in Canada’s SMEs: An
Delmar, F., Davidsson, P., & Gartner, W. B. (2003). Arriving at the high-growth firm. Exploratory Investigation. Internet Research, 21, 255–281.
Journal of business venturing, 18(2), 189–216. Igbaria, M., & Tan, M. (1997). The consequences of information technology acceptance
Dewett, T., & Jones, G. R. (2001). The role of information technology in the organization: on subsequent individual performance. Information and Management, 32(3),
A review, model, and assessment. , Journal of Management, 27, 313–346. 113–121.
Dibrell, C., Davis, P. S., & Craig, J. (2008). Fueling innovation through Information Ivanova, O., & Castellano, S. (2012). Signalling legitimacy for SMEs transition
Technology in SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(2), 203–218. environments-the case of the Bulgarian IT Sector. Journal for East European
Distel, A. P. (2019). Unveiling the microfoundations of absorptive capacity: A study of Management Studies, 398–422.
Coleman’s bathtub model. Journal of Management, 45(5), 2014–2044. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206317741963.

390
V. Scuotto et al. Journal of Business Research 129 (2021) 382–392

Johannessen, J. A., Olaisen, J., & Olsen, B. (1999). Strategic use of information Quinn, L., Dibb, S., Simkin, L., Canhoto, A., & Analogbei, M. (2016). Troubled waters:
technology for increased innovation and performance. Information Management and The transformation of marketing in a digital world. European Journal of Marketing, 50
Computer Security, 7(1), 5–22. (12), 2103–2133.
Kefela, G. T. (2010). Knowledge-based economy and society has become a vital Qureshi, S. (2014). Overcoming technological determinism in understanding the digital
commodity to countries. International NGO Journal, 5(7), 160–166. divide: Where do we go from here? Information Technology for Development, 20(3),
Kincaid, H. (1997). Individualism and the unity of science: Essays on reduction, explanation, 215–217.
and the special sciences. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Ramos, A., Silva, E., & Alverga, P. (2009). The strategic role of IT in micro and small
King, S. F., & Burgess, T. F. (2006). Beyond critical success factors: A dynamic model of companies. Natal: Sebrae.
enterprise system innovation. International Journal of Information Management, 26, Rialti, R., Zollo, L., Ferraris, A., & Alon, I. (2019). Big data analytics capabilities and
59–69. performance: Evidence from a moderated multi-mediation model. Technological
Kohli, R., & Grover, V. (2008). Business value of IT: An essay on expanding research Forecasting and Social Change, 149, Article 119781.
directions to keep up with the times. Journal of the Association for Information Rothaermel, F. T., & Hess, A. M. (2007). Building dynamic capabilities: Innovation
Systems, 9(1), 23. driven by individual-, firm-, and network-level effects. Organization Science, 18(6),
Lafer, G. (2002). The jobs training charade. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. 898–921.
Lanvin, B., & Kralik, M. (2009). E-skills: Who made that big dent in my flat world? Ryan, P., Geoghegan, W., & Hilliard, R. (2018). The microfoundations of firms’
Information Technologies and International Development, 5(2), 81–84. explorative innovation capabilities within the triple helix framework. Technovation,
Laudien, S. M., & Daxböck, B. (2016). Path dependence as a barrier to business model Elsevier, 76, 15–27.
change in manufacturing firms: Insights from a multiple-case study. Journal of Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2003). Shaping agility through digital
Business Economics, 86(6), 611–645. options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining firms. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 237–263.
innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Santoro, G., Ferraris, A., & Winteler, D. J. (2019). Open innovation practices and related
Journal, 27(2), 131–150. internal dynamics: Case studies of Italian ICT SMEs. EuroMed Journal of Business.
Lehner, F., & Sundby, M. W (2017). ICT Skills and Competencies for SMEs: Results from a Santoro, G., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Dezi, L. (2018). The Internet of Things: Building
Structured Literature Analysis on the Individual Level. In C. Harteis The Impact of knowledge management system for open innovation and knowledge management
Digitalization in the Workplace Springer, pp 55-69. capacity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 347–354.
Levy, M., Powell, P., & Yetton, P. (2001). SMEs: Aligning IS and the strategic context. Sarosa, S., & Zowghi, D. (2003). Strategy for adopting information technology for SMEs:
Journal of Information Technology, 16(3), 133–144. Experience in adopting email within an Indonesian furniture company. Electronic
Lopez-Nicolas, C., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2010). Analyzing ICT adoption and use effects on Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 6(2), 165–176.
knowledge creation: An empirical investigation in SMEs. International Journal of Saunila, M., & Ukko, J. (2014). Intangible aspects of innovation capability in SMEs:
Information Management, 30, 521–528. Impacts of size and industry. Journal of Engineering and TechnologyManagement, 33,
MacGregor, R. C., & Vrazalic, L. (2005). A basic model of electronic commerce adoption 32–46.
barriers: A study of regional small businesses in Sweden and Australia. Journal of Scuotto, V., Beatrice, O., Valentina, C., Nicotra, M., Di Gioia, L., & Briamonte, M. F.
Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(4), 510–527. (2020). Uncovering the micro-foundations of knowledge sharing in open innovation
Madsen, H., Neergaard, H., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2003). Knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship partnerships: An intention-based perspective of technology transfer. Technological
and human capital. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Forecasting and Social Change, 152, Article 119906.
Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2004). Enabling knowledge creation in far-flung teams: Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M., Bresciani, S., & Meissner, D. (2017). Knowledge-driven
Best practices for IT support and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge preferences in informal inbound open innovation modes. An explorative view on
Management, 8(4), 75–88. small to medium enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management.
Malhotra, C. K., & Malhotra, A. (2016). How CEOs can leverage Twitter. MIT Sloan Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M., & Carayannis, E. G. (2017). The effect of social networking
Management Review, 57(2), 73. sites and absorptive capacity on SMES’innovation performance. The Journal of
Matt, C., Hess, T., & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital Transformation Strategies, Business and Technology Transfer, 42(2), 409–424.
Information. Systems Engineering, 57(5), 339–343. Scuotto, V., & Mueller, J. (2018). ICT adoption for knowledge management: Opportunities
Merendino, A., Dibb, S., Meadows, M., Quinn, L., Wilson, D., Simkin, L., & Cahnoto, A. for SMEs. Oxford: RossiSmith Academic Publishing.
(2018). Big Data Big Decisions: The impact of big data on board level decision- Shelton, L. M. (2005). Scale barriers and growth opportunities: a resource-based model of
making. Journal of Business Research., 93, 67–78. new venture expansion. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13(4), 333–357.
Millán, J. M., Lyalkov, S., Burke, A., Millán, A., & van Stel, A. (2019). ‘Digital divide’ Simon, H. A. (1991). Organizations and markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(2),
among European entrepreneurs: Which types benefit most from ICT 25–44.
implementation? Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Slaper, T. F., Hart, N. R., Hall, T. J., & Thompson, M. F. (2011). The index of innovation:
jbusres.2019.10.034. a new tool for regional analysis. Economic Development Quarterly, 25, 36–53.
Miller, D., & Friesen, O. H. (1980). Momentum and revolution in organizational Soriano, D. R., & Huarng, K. H. (2013). Innovation and entrepreneurship in knowledge
adaptation. The Academy of Management Journal, 23(4), 591–614. industries. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1964–1969.
Miller, D., & Sardais, C. (2011). Angel Agents: Agency theory reconsidered. The Academy Sousa, M. J., & Rocha, Á. (2019). Skills for disruptive digital business. Journal of Business
of Management Perspectives, 25, 6–13. Research, 94, 257–263.
Molina-Azorín, J. F. (2014). Microfoundations of strategic management: Toward Southern, A., & Tilley, F. (2000). Small firms and information and communication
micro–macro research in the resource-based theory. Business Research Quarterly, 17 technologies (ICTs): Toward a typology of ICTs usage. New Technology, Work and
(2), 102–114. Employment, 15(2), 138–154.
Molloy, J. C., Chadwick, C., Ployhart, R. E., & Golden, S. J. (2011). Making intangibles Stahl, B. C., McBride, N., Wakunuma, K., & Flick, C. (2014). The empathic care robot: A
“tangible” in tests of resource-based theory. Journal of Management, 37, 1496–1518. prototype of responsible research and innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social
Müller, J. M., Buliga, O., & Voigt, K.-I. (2018). Fortune favors the prepared: How SMEs Change, 84, 74–85.
approach business model innovations in Industry 4.0 Technological Forecasting and Tams, S., Grover, V., & Thatcher, J. (2014). Modern information technology in an old
Social Change (Vol. 132, pp. 2–17). workforce: toward a strategic research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information
Muller, P., Julius, J., Herr, D., Koch, L., Peycheva, V., & McKiernan, S. (2017). Annual Systems, 23(4), 284–304.
Report on European SMEs 2016/2017, European Commission, Directorate-General Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations
for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Managemtn Journal, 28(13),
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). The Schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. The American 1319–1350.
Economic Review, 72(1), 114–132. Tether, B. S. (2005). Do services innovate (differently)? Insights from the European
Nguyen, T. U. H. (2009). Information technology adoption in SMEs: An integrated innobarometer survey. Industry & Innovation, 12(2), 153–184.
framework. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 15(2), Tidd, J. (1997). Complexity, networks & learning: Integrative themes for research on
162–186. innovation management. International Journal of Innovation Management, 1(01),
Obschonka, M., Hakkarainen, K., Lonka, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2017). Entrepreneurship 1–21.
as a twenty- first century skill: Entrepreneurial alertness and intention in the Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (1997). Managing Innovation: Integrating technological,
transition to adulthood. Small Business Economics, 48(3), 487–501. market and organizational change. New York: John Wiley.
Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2006). From IT leveraging competence to competitive Toner, P. (2011), Workforce Skills and Innovation: An Overview of Major Themes in the
advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new product development. Literature. OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry (STI), Centre for
Information Systems Research, 17, 198–227. Educational Research and Innovation (CERI): SG/INNOV(2011)1.
Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of growth of the firm. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Torkzadeh, G., & Lee, J. (2003). Measures of Perceived End-user Computing Skills.
Pérez-Goméz, P., Arbelo-Peréz, M., & Arbelo, A. (2018). Profit efficiency and its Information & Management, 40, 607–615.
determinants in small and medium-sized enterprises in Spain. BRQ Business Turner, S. F., Mitchell, W., & Bettis, R. A. (2013). Strategic momentum: How experience
Reasearch Quarterly, 21(4), 238–250. shapes temporal consistency of ongoing innovation. Journal of Management, 39(7),
Ployhart, R. E., & Moliterno, T. P. (2011). Emergence of the human capital resource: A 1855–1890.
multilevel model. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 127–150. Ulaga, W., & Reinartz, W. J. (2011). Hybrid offerings: How manufacturing firms combine
Prajogo, D. I., & Ahmed, P. K. (2006). Relationships between innovation stimulus, goods and services successfully. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 5–23.
innovation capacity, and innovation performance. R&D Management, 36(5), Usai, A., Scuotto, V., Murray, A., Fiano, F., & Dezi, L. (2018). Do entrepreneurial
499–515. knowledge and innovative attitude overcome “imperfections” in the innovation
process? Insights from SMEs in the UK and Italy. Journal of Knowledge Management,
22(8), 1637–1654.

391
V. Scuotto et al. Journal of Business Research 129 (2021) 382–392

Valacich, J. S., Wang, X., & Jessup, L. M. (2018). Did I buy the wrong gadget? How the Capital, and an Editorial Board member of the Journal of Knowledge Management.
evaluability of technology features influences technology feature preferences and Furthermore, in 2020, Veronica’s work on JOB has been awarded as the tenth most cited
subsequent product choice. MIS Quarterly, 42(2), 633–644. article. She also received two awards as the best Paper of the EuroMed\SIMA track “New
Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2002). A framework for digital divide research. Electronic Journal of Challenges in Open Innovation” in 2016 and the “best-commended paper” in 2017 at the
Communication, 12(1), 2. annual EuroMed Academy of Business (EMAB) conference. In 2018 she was recognized by
Van Dijk, J. A. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, International Council for Small Business (ICSB) as a global partner of excellence.
34(4–5), 221–235.
Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J., Van Dijk, J. A., & De Haan, J. (2017). The relation
Melita Nicotra, Assistant Professor and Qualified Associate Professor of Management at
between 21st- century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review.
the University of Catania, Department of Economics and Management. She teaches
Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588.
“Management of public services” and “Management of financial and insurance com­
Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2008). Inter-and intra-organizational
panies”. She is also authored several articles in leading scholarly peer to peer journals. The
knowledge transfer: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and
main research themes are related to absorptive capacity, knowledge transfer, start-ups,
consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 830–853.
and entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S. (2001). A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in
homes: Adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS Quarterly, 25, 71–102.
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N., & Manlio Del Giudice is Full Professor of Management at the University of Rome “Link
Haenlein, M. (2019). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and Campus”, where he serves as Deputy Chancellor of the LCU Campus of Naples and Director
research agenda. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. of the CERMES Research Centre. He had been hired as Full Professor on 2018 as one of the
jbusres.2019.09.022. 20 youngest professors in Italy, in every scientific sector. He serves as Editor in Chief of the
Vieru, D., Bourdeau, S., Bernier, A., Yapo, S. (2015). Towards a Multi-Dimensional Model Journal of Knowledge Management. His scholar profile shows more than 100 peer-
of Digital Competence in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Encyclopedia of reviewed articles, about 70 of them ranked in the highest “A Class” within the Italian
Information Science and Technology, 3rd ed. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666- ANVUR ranking, and 12 international monographs by flagship publishers like Springer,
5888-2.ch660. Palgrave Macmillan, Elsevier. His researches have been published or are forthcoming on
von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., & Recker, J. (2018). Digital technologies as external enablers such flagship top tier peer-reviewed journals ABS ranked like MIS Quarterly (4* Elite),
of new venture creation in the IT hardware sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Journal of Organizational Behavior (4*), Journal of World Business (4*), Long Range Planning
Practice, 42(1), 47–69. (3*), IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (3*), Journal of Technology Transfer
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for (3*), Journal of Business Research (3*), R&D Management (3*), Technological Forecasting and
21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Social Change (3*), Production, Planning & Control (3*), International Marketing Review (3*).
Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. His studies had been internationally recognized by significant impact, as evidenced by about
Vrgović, P., & Jošanov-Vrgović, I. (2017). Crowdsourcing user solutions: Which 7,300 citations and the H-index (= 43) he has received (at November, 2020) and from his
questions should companies ask to elicit the most ideas from its users? Innovation, 19 about 40 publications in only ABS 3* and 4* Journals in the last three years. His main research
(4), 452–462. interests deal with knowledge management, technology transfer, innovation and tech­
Wielicki, T., & Arendt, L. (2010). A knowledge-driven shift in perception of ICT nology management.
implementation barriers: Comparative study of US and European SMEs. Journal of
Information Science, 36(2), 162–174.
Norris Krueger is active in both the entrepreneurial and economic development world
Wielicki, T., & Cavalcanti, G. (2006). Study of digital divide: Measuring ICT utilization
and in academe: Serving Entrepreneurs: Co-Organizer for the Idaho Startup Weekend, an
and implementation barriers among SMEs of central California. Business Information
Entrepreneur in Residence at the Allegiance Corporate Solutions, Regional Coordinator for
Systems, 277–294.
Idaho in the Global Entrepreneurship Week, and currently Lead organizer for 1 Million
Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., Delmar, F., & Aronsson, M. (1997). Expected consequences of
Cups Boise, under the banner of Entrepreneurship Northwest (2006-present). Serving
growth and their effect on growth willingness in different samples of small firms.
Academe: Director at Large for the International Council for Small Business (and member of
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 17.
ICSBs Online Learning Excellence) and twice an elected officer in the Academy of Man­
Wong, K. Y., & Aspinwall, E. (2004). Characterizing knowledge management in the small
agement. Norris chairs the Global Scholar Development Committee. Research Leadership:
business environment. Journal of Knowledge management.
Formerly, External Fellow for the Max Planck Institute for Economics and now Senior
Zhong, Z. J. (2011). From access to usage: The divide of self-reported digital skills among
Research Fellow for the School for Advanced Studies for University of Phoenix (since
adolescents. Computers & Education, 56(3), 736–746.
2014). Norris is currently Senior Subject Matter Expect at OECD/EU HE Innovate and
Zysman, J., & Kenney, M. (2018). The next phase in the digital revolution: Abundant
Entrepreneurship360 (since 2012).
computing, platforms, growth, and employment. Communications of the Association of
Computing Machinery, 61(2), 54–63.
Gian Luca Gregori is a full Professor in Economics and Business Management at the
University “Politecnica delle Marche”.. He spent a visiting period of study at the University
Veronica Scuotto (PhD, FHEA, MBA, BA-Honour) after working at the University of the
of Edinburgh under the guidance of prof. J. Dawson. He has conducted various studies and
West of Scotland (UK) and then at the Pôle Universitaire Léonard de Vinci in Paris (France)
research on business management issues, with particular reference to footwear, “wellness”
as an Associate Professor in Entrepreneurship and Innovation, she joined the University of
and distribution. He has also developed several study projects in the field of industrial
Turin (Italy). She has got the Italian National qualification as Full Professor in 2020. She
marketing and services. He is member of A.I.D.E.A. (Italian Academy of Business Eco­
received a PhD in marketing and enterprise management from Milan Bicocca University
nomics) and E.A.E.R.C.D. International Association of Distribution Studies (composed of
(Italy). She has been invited as a guest speaker to GfWM Knowledge Camp; World Young
Researchers and University Professors - based in Stirling - UK). Since 2003 he has joined
Forum; PDW at the AoM Conference, among others. Her research interests are focused on
the SIM (Italian Marketing Company). In 2007 he held a course on on marketing topics at
SMEs, entrepreneurship, knowledge management, and digital technologies. Her work has
Tongji University in Shanghai. He has been director Director of the Department of Man­
been featured in several peer to peer journals such as the Journal of World Business (4*),
agement and Industrial Organisation, Dean of Economics Faculty and the Coordinator of
Journal of Organizational Behaviour (4*), Journal of Business Research (3*), Production
the PhD program in Economics. He is currently Pro Vice Chancellor at the University
Planning & Control (3*), Technological Forecasting and Social Change (3*), International
“Politecnica delle Marche”.
Marketing Review (3*), IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (3*), among others.
She has authored two books. Veronica is the Editorial Assistant of Journal of Intellectual

392