Exploring SMEs' behavioral intentions of participating in platform-based innovation ecosystems

Abstract

PurposeSmall- and-medium sized enterprises (SMEs) significantly contribute to the success of platform-based innovation ecosystems (PIEs). However, less is known about their behaviors and behavioral intentions (BIs) toward participating in PIEs. Considering that SMEs' BIs directly influence their behaviors and reveal the underlying logic of their behaviors, this study, therefore, focuses on SMEs' BIs and explores the antecedents to reveal the rational effects on BIs of the participation.Design/methodology/approachAn extended framework is proposed to understand SMEs' BIs toward the participation and empirically tested with data from a sample of 189 Chinese SMEs based on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).FindingsThe results show that (1) the framework has a good fit in the context of PIEs and a large predictability of SMEs' BIs toward the participation; (2) as expected, SMEs' BIs are directly positively affected by their attitudes (ATTs), subjective norms (SNs) and platform leaders (PLs), while indirectly positively influenced by perceived usefulness (PU) and ease and negatively influenced by perceived risks (PRs) via mediation effects and (3) surprisingly, BIs are directly negatively affected by platforms probably because of the potential collaborative risks based on platforms.Originality/valueThis study enriches PIE literature by focusing on complementors and proposing a framework of SMEs' BI toward joining PIEs, and it also expands the application of BI–behavior theories in the context of PIEs by offering a BI–behavior perspective to analyze the rational logic of SMEs' behaviors of participating to PIEs. Practically, the main findings not only benefit SMEs to better understand their BIs and to make a wise choice toward the participation, but provide implications for PLs to proactively design interventions for attracting SMEs’ complementors.

How Can Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturing Enterprises Improve Green Innovation Performance through Innovation Ecosystems?

“…Gueler and Schneider [32] studied the characteristics of the ecosystem and pointed out that all participants in the ecosystem are highly interdependent but do not own each other, and each participant is autonomous and can retain the remaining control. Wei et al [14] analyzed the reasons for enterprises to join the ecosystem and concluded that the key motivation for enterprises to integrate into the ecosystem was to establish in-depth partnerships and realize complementary collaborative innovation.…”

“…Although the role of innovation ecosystems in driving innovation has been widely recognized, there is still uncertainty regarding what factors affect the efficiency of green innovation in SMMEs that are the upstream suppliers and complementary enterprises of core enterprises and that engage in green innovation with government-industry-university-research institutions. Moreover, as an important participant in innovation ecosystems, SMMEs play an indispensable role in the process of the construction of the innovation ecosystem [14]. Therefore, clarifying the factors affecting the GIP of SMMEs is not only useful for SMMEs to obtain better GIP through the innovation ecosystem but also of great significance for the development of innovation ecosystems.…”

“…Moreover, how the resources in innovation ecosystems can be transformed into green innovation ability is crucial for SMMEs [9,14]. Green value co-creation practices (GVCCPs) are common processes in which actors achieve common goals [16], so they are important in the process of resource transformation in SMMEs.…”

The role of interoperability and inter-side benefits on merchants' e-wallet adoption: the case of Peruvian nanostores

“…, 2023), and e-consultation sites for medical purpose (Dash and Sahoo, 2021; Lee et al. , 2023; Wei et al. , 2021), as has been explored in the literature.…”

“…That is, increasing the number of users on either side of the platform increases the value on the other side. Common examples of twosided markets are Q&A communities (Zhou et al, 2023a, b), online advertising in mobile commerce (Chen et al, 2021;Lee and Lin, 2023;Zhu et al, 2023), and e-consultation sites for medical purpose (Dash and Sahoo, 2021;Wei et al, 2021), as has been explored in the literature.…”