Web 2.0 and micro‐businesses: an exploratory investigation

Abstract

Purpose: The paper reports from an exploratory study into how small businesses use Web 2.0 information and communication technologies (ICT) to work collaboratively with other small businesses. The study had two aims: to investigate the benefits available from the use of Web 2.0 in small business collaborations, and to characterize the different types of such online collaborations. Design/methodology/approach: The research uses a qualitative case study methodology based on semi-structured interviews with the owner-managers of twelve UK-based small companies in the business services sector, who are early adopters of Web 2.0 technologies. Findings: Benefits from the use of Web 2.0 are categorised as lifestyle benefits, internal operational efficiency, enhanced capability, external communications and enhanced service offerings. A 2x2 framework is developed to categorise small business collaborations using the dimensions of the basis for inter-organizational collaboration (control vs. cooperation) and the level of Web 2.0 ICT use (simple vs. sophisticated). Research limitations/implications:A small number of firms of similar size, sector and location were studied, which limits generalisability. Nonetheless, the results offer a pointer to the likely future use of Web 2.0 tools by other small businesses. Practical implications:The research provides evidence of the attraction and potential of Web 2.0 for collaborations between small businesses. Originality/value: The paper is one of the first to report on use of Web 2.0 ICT in collaborative working between small businesses. It will be of interest to those seeking a better understanding of the potential of Web 2.0 in the small business community.

The usage of digital marketing channels in SMEs

“…Large businesses are more likely to have the required resources and knowledge to successfully adopt new digital channels and tools (Barnes et al, 2012). Past research has investigated the adoption of digital marketing in SMEs from both the internal (firm-specific factors, strategy, attitudes and experience) and external (infrastructure and environmental factors) perspectives (Dholakia and Kshetri, 2004).…”

Managerial capability for innovation for microfirms: integrating theory with empirical evidence

“…Microfirms possess characteristics including low levels of formality, a high degree of personal influence of the owner/manager on communication, limited ability to influence their business environment and limited organisational capability for specialisation (Barnes et al, 2012). The level of owner dominance is greater than in other firms as the owner plays a key operational role in the day-to-day work of the firm actively influencing employees (Kelliher and Reinl, 2009) and directly interacting with stakeholders (Phillipson et al, 2004).…”

“…Market proximity presents the owner/manager with unique opportunities to interact with and sense market developments (Kelliher and Reinl, 2009;O'Dwyer and Ryan, 2000). Furthermore, owner/managers may engage in developing new marketing methods in the microfirm (Barnes et al, 2012). The local community (Phillipson et al, 2004) and family ties (Oughton et al, 2003;Wheelock and Baines, 1998) are manifest as sources of advice, motivation and support.…”

“…Corrocher et al (2009) view process innovation as an inevitable consequence of owner/manager capability to continuously develop knowledge structures in the firm, which is often driven by new technology and comprises the altering of a firm's business processes with a view to improving overall competitive advantage. For example, process innovation can emerge through a complex interaction between owner/manager decisions to implement new technologies and deterministic impact of the wider implementation of the technologies (Barnes et al, 2012;Karjaluoto and Huhtamäki, 2010). Specifically, information technology has created many opportunities for innovative strategies in tourism (Peters and Pikkemaat, 2006), but simultaneously has challenged existing firms to radically restructure their strategic approaches (Enterprise Strategy Report Group, 2004).…”

Untitled

“…Micro-enterprises are an extremely heterogeneous group, so this concept can include, among other formats, start-up companies, family businesses and self-employed managers with one or more employees (Devins et al 2005). Micro-enterprises are characterized by a paucity of resources and expertise (Barnes et al 2012). Gilmore, Gallagher, and Henry (2007) state that communication through the Internet provides an opportunity for companies that have limited capital to succeed as international marketers in the early stages of their development.…”