Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Purpose – This paper aims to enhance the small and medium enterprises’ (SMEs) ability to develop resilience in the face of any turbulences, addressing the question on how these organizations can maintain business continuity when faced with a critical event. Design/methodology/approach – A mediated regression analysis is conducted to investigate the relationships among big data analytics (BDA) capabilities, coinnovation (CI) and organizational resilience (OR) with reference to 192 big data SMEs in Europe. Findings – Research reveals that the BDA capability and CI are positively associated with OR. Moreover, this study discovers the mediating impact of CI on the relationship between BDA capability and OR. Originality/value – This paper provides important implications for considering CI as a viable strategy especially in a time of crisis and shows how SMEs are more able to recognize business opportunities. The microfoundations of the resilience building capacity of SMEs are also identiﬁed. These microfoundations become recommendations for practitioners to enhance SMEs’ responsiveness in light of coronavirus-related crises. Keywords SMEs, Coinnovation, Organizational resilience, Big data analytics capability Paper type Research paper © Maria Vincenza Ciasullo, Raﬀaella Montera and Alexander Douglas. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) Transforming Government: licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for People, Process and Policy both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication pp. 203-217 Emerald Publishing Limited and authors. The full terms of this licence maybe seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/ 1750-6166 legalcode DOI 10.1108/TG-07-2021-0120 1. Introduction TG The current megatrends of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic crisis and 16,2 advances in technologies, such as big data analytics (BDA), are waving the global business environment, making it increasingly turbulent, uncertain and changing (Lee and Trimi, 2021). In this scenario, many organizations, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs), are experienced a total chaos because of the severe decline of the work, income and conﬁdence, facing with a huge existential challenge (Lu et al.,2020; Bodziany et al.,2021). Under these conditions, SMEs are prompted to be in a state of urgency for resilience (Aghina et al.,2018). Vulnerability to external shocks and the need to remain competitive are critical issues for SMEs being generally less resilient than larger ﬁrmsbecause SMEstake longer to wholly or partially to “normal operations” after a critical event. In fact, crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic trigger inordinate effect on SMEs that generally struggle with proﬁtability and liquidity given their limited internal resources (i.e. ﬁnancial, technical and human) compared to large ﬁrms (Del Vecchio et al., 2018). Additionally, poor planning, inadequate staff training and inconsistent relationships between operating units and management and control mechanisms cause a low capacity to scan the context by diminishing SMEs’ ability to react to changes in complex environments (Figueiredo et al.,2020). Anyway, SMEs are more ﬂexible, thanks to their small size, private ownership structure and relatively ﬂat hierarchical organization, all of which can be helpful to sustain their ability to be innovative even more when the economy takes a turn for the worse (Juergensen et al., 2020). Scholars have pointed out that in a pandemic time, new practices need to be addressed to manage innovation and both timeless and openness become critical success factors to absorb environmental uncertainty (Chesbrough, 2020). Some managerial practices include stakeholders’ involvement in value cocreation activities, boundary spanning to establish interorganisational knowledge exchanges and acquisition of dynamic capabilities. However, the identiﬁcation of key levers that support resilience and continuous adaptation to the environment is still changing for SMEs. Martinez-Lozada and Espinosa (2020) highlight the need for empirical studies to adopt systemic approaches aimed at dealing with and understanding the relationships among necessary components to build resilience in SMEs. The study proposes relationships to shape organizational resilience (OR) in SMEs because the limited, yet emerging literature on SMEs in the wake of COVID-19 lacks in identiﬁcation of a set of strategic responses that would bring about survival during and post pandemic (Fitriasari, 2020; Liguori and Pittz, 2020). The paper’s purpose is critically important because SMEs are an essential part of the economic structure in countries across the globe and represent a crucial catalyst for socioeconomic development at local and global level (OECD, 2017). The study clariﬁes the conditions enhancing SMEs’ chances of survival in light of dynamic capability (DC) perspective and service logic. On the one hand, the DC theoretical paradigm (Teece and Pisano, 1994) can sustain a better understanding of how ﬁrms develop competitive capabilities by adopting new technologies, such as BDA capabilities. Moreover, we answer the call for future research on the opportunities and interlinkages associated with the digital technologies for SMEs (Zutshi et al., 2021). On the other hand, service science (Spohrer and Maglio, 2008) points out the necessary shift of company strategies to collaborative and collective approaches, such as coinnovation (CI), that contribute to the survival when facing instability. In this regard, the adoption of innovative models of interactions based on technological platforms of collaboration by SMEs has low Building consideration in literature, whereas it is a consolidated pattern within large companies (Del SMEs’ Vecchio et al.,2018), despite the increasing attention toward policies supporting resilience collaborative innovation in SMEs (De Marco et al., 2020). Moving from the research question on how SMEs can maintain business viability when faced with a critical event, a mediated regression analysis was conducted to investigate the relationships among BDA capabilities, CI and OR with reference to a sample of big data SMEs in Europe. The research shows the signiﬁcant role of the BDA capabilities and CI as key drivers in developing the resilience of big data SMEs and, consequentially, their opportunities for surviving in a complex scenario. Then, the research extends the literature on OR in three directions. First, it provides important implications for considering CI as a viable strategy, especially in a time of crisis. Second, we show how big data SMEs are more able than other companies to seize business opportunities. Third, the microfoundations of the resilience building capacity of SMEs are identiﬁed. These microfoundations become recommendations for practitioners to help enhance SMEs’ responsiveness in light of coronavirus-related crises. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of BDA capability, CI and OR and the hypothesized relationships between them. Section 3describes the research methodology. Section 4 proceeds with the ﬁndings. Lastly, Section 5 covers the discussion together with the concluding remarks. 2. Theory and hypotheses 2.1 Big data analytics capability, coinnovation and organizational resilience The BDA capability investigates the big data phenomenon focusing on the management and incorporation of big data into organizational processes, rather than on big data’s computational and technological infrastructural aspects (Lozada et al.,2019). In particular, the BDA capability refers to a company’s management ability, that is, the ongoing deployment of big data resources at the strategic aims to create value and develop a competitive advantage for the ﬁrm (Wamba et al.,2017). Thus, literature identiﬁes tangible resources and infrastructure, human resources including people with both technical and managerial skills for big data and intangible resources such as data-driven culture and organizational learning (Gupta and George, 2016). CI is linked to the approaches of open innovation internally and externally originated, based on the sharing of resources that are mainly intangible one (Chesbrough, 2003) and collaborative innovation coming from partnerships with various actors to share ideas and technical knowledge (Bonney et al.,2007). Thus, CI refers to the process that allows the active participation of multiple actors (i.e. users, customers, suppliers, partner organizations, universities, etc.) in collaborative networks to create value in terms of new products, services, processes or business models (Saragih et al.,2019). OR represents a ﬁrm-level capability to adapt and/or dynamically relate to its environment (Williams et al.,2017; Ciasullo et al., 2020). It is a fuzzy concept that can be taken as an umbrella that encompasses many dimensions (Ramezani and Camarinha-Matos, 2020) such as: capacity to rebound from trauma and recover (i.e. stability); capability to maintain a desirable state (i.e. bouncing back to a new equilibrium condition or an accepted state); and capacity to withstand stress with the focus on persistence thresholds (i.e. gradual adaptation and transformation). However, we consider resilience as a viable property of systems (such as organizations) that TG can be fostered even if dynamically orchestrated at intra- and interorganizational levels. 16,2 Then, a resilient organization will always ﬁnd “ways to take chances and take advantage of situations” (Aldianto et al., 2021, p. 3). Focusing on SMEs, resilience is the successful adaptation in maintaining business viability by acquiring, generating and combining internal and external knowledge resources to perceive, explore and address rapidly changing environments. 2.2 Hypotheses development 2.2.1 Big data analytics capability and the hypothesized relationships. Business innovation has become a more inclusive process, in which different actors are involved in value cocreation practices, because of the increase in the use of big data and its incorporation into the core of the processes related to innovation management (Acharya et al.,2018; Troisi et al., 2021). More in depth, BDA capability and CI share a key and complementary feature: they are managed via digital platforms and both depend on how the company uses technology to achieve greater value and long-term competitive advantage. BDA capability also enhances the joint creation of knowledge applied to speciﬁc purposes: the company could offer valuable information provided by big data as an input to the cocreation of innovative solutions to problems or challenges stemming from the uncertain scenarios (Urbinati et al.,2019; Dubey et al.,2021). In this logic, BDA capability enables people participation in decision-making and problem-solving, also fostering organisational initiatives aimed to advance the extant sources of competitive advantage, such as CI. Therefore, as Figure 1 shows, we predict that: H1. BDA capability is positively associated with co-innovation. To help mitigate the effects generated by critical events, scholars suggest the shift to the digitalization as combination of digitization and actor connectivity (Liguori and Pittz, 2020; Papadopoulos et al.,2020). The employment of integrated platforms (i.e. social media platforms, augmented reality, cloud computing platforms, artiﬁcial intelligence, Internet of Things, etc.) contributes to forecast change and provide the means for effective and efﬁcient organizational responses by enabling ﬂexible business processes, remote collaborations and real-time connectivity between all internal and external stakeholders involved in the ﬁrm’s ecosystem (Ashraﬁ et al., 2019). In sum, digitalization has the potential to reduce the magnitude and reach of HP4 (+) Co-innovation HP1 (+) HP3 (+) Figure 1. Big data analytics Organizational The conceptual capability resilience model HP2 (+) change, also increasing the agility and resilience of organization (Miceli et al., 2021). Building Hence, as Figure 1 shows, we argue that: SMEs’ resilience H2. BDA capability is positively associated with organizational resilience. 2.2.2 Coinnovation and the hypothesized relationships. To overcome the crisis and even succeed in adverse times, innovation should be considered the top strategic priority (Lee and Trimi, 2021). By innovation, in fact, organizations can adapt to environmental changes and reduce the impact of threats and risks (Aldianto et al.,2021) by improving organizational processes and dynamics. Anyway, in such a complex scenario, companies should not innovate in isolation, because the innovation resulting from collaboration and participation is much more effective than that which is undertaken on a solitary basis, especially in the time of crisis (Criado and Guevara-Gomez, 2021). In fact, innovative results are more effectively achieved by matching the sociotechnical processes of organization with external knowledge and skills in a network perspective (Iansiti and Levien, 2004) by shaping innovative ecosystems. Thus, the SMEs need for an out-of-the-box thinking nurtured by collaboration and positive contributions to the business continuity coming from users, customers, technological providers and so on. The ongoing experimentation leads to new ways of exploration that generate more knowledge (Chesbrough, 2020). In doing so, in fact, SMEs build and develop the dynamic abilities that allow preventing, anticipating, responding effectively to and survive an unforeseen situation. In this sense, openness becomes property of a system that aims to adapt to the constantly changing environment. Therefore, we predict that: H3. Co-innovation is positively associated with organizational resilience. In the digital age, innovation requires a creative integration of seemingly unrelated actors, idea, technologies to create extraordinary outcomes and possibilities (Lee and Trimi, 2018). Thus, innovation is based on the centrality of a complex and distributed reticulum of ties and relationships in which ﬁrms are embedded. In this context, big data represent the main driver of CI (Lozada et al., 2019): in fact, the adoption of big data approaches and digital tools allows acquiring additional knowledge and skills for nurturing open and collaborative innovation strategies, so that new cooperative ecosystems emerge (Lacam, 2020). The interconnection between big data and CI develops intentional and direct collaborative innovation processes as well as unintentional CI processes implemented by indirect relationships between actors (Chen et al., 2019; Bresciani et al.,2021). However, both direct and indirect forms of big data-driven CI permit to share knowledge resources that are incorporated into the data generated by customers, users and partners in digital and physical environments (Troisi et al., 2018). In this direction, SMEs collaborate to access the data and analytical capabilities that support innovation efforts (Zeng and Glaister, 2018). In doing so, the barrier of high investments needed for the deployment of a data policy can be overcome (Caputo et al.,2019). The mix of big data and CI makes companies more competitive and paves the way to new entrepreneurial opportunities (Eftekhari and Bogers, 2015). In the case of SMEs, agile sociotechnical systems enable a fast adaptation to the increasing creation and storage of detailed and segmented data that allow the simulation of different innovation scenarios and analysis of the opportunities and risks coming from markets (Lacam, 2020), by improving the survival chances to the outside disturbances and threats. Consequently, we postulate that: H4. Co-innovation positively mediates the relationship between BDA capability and TG organizational resilience. 16,2 3. Method 3.1 Sample selection and data collection In January 2021, sample was extracted from Crunchbase database containing startups worldwide operating in technology and big data industries, already successfully used for research on entrepreneurship and COVID-19 crisis (Brown and Rocha, 2020; Kuckertz, 2021). We extracted European SMEs which have up to 250 employees and an annual turnover of up to e50 m or a balance sheet of no more than e43 m and represent the backbone of the European economy (European Commission, 2019). In addition, European SMEs have been directly affected by the COVID-19 outbreak on the supply and demand sides alike (OECD, 2020). These aspects make European SMEs interesting research setting to investigate the OR after the height of the coronavirus second wave. After data cleaning run in January 2021, 715 SMEs, for which information on contacts and industries were available, formed the sample. 3.2 Data collection Field work was conducted between February 2021 and May 2021 through an online questionnaire uploaded onto an online survey platform and applied to chief executive ofﬁcers, chief information ofﬁcers, chief data ofﬁcers, chief analytics ofﬁcers, general managers, research and development directors and innovation managers. The questionnaire consisted of three sections and 32 closed questions. The ﬁrst section described the survey purpose, the identity of the researchers, the average time required to complete the survey and guarantees of the conﬁdentiality of answers. The second section comprised ﬁve questions useful to deﬁne the sample proﬁle in terms of industry, size, age and collaborative contracts’ (CC) number and duration. The third section contained 13 questions on BDA capability, 11 questions on CI and three questions on OR. A pilot test was conducted involving a convenience sample of 20 executives. In total, 192 valid questionnaires were returned, representing a response rate of 26.8%. Table 1 shows the general proﬁle of the respondent SMEs. SME’s characteristics Categories (%) Industry Industrial 44 Service 56 Size (number of employees) <10 22 10–49 30 50–250 48 Age (years) 1–527 6–10 18 11–15 16 16–20 14 21–25 11 Table 1. 26–30 9 Sample proﬁle >30 5 3.3 Measures Building To measure each construct, we used items both derived from the literature and SMEs’ adapted from the original source (below list). BDA capability was the independent resilience variable of the model measured by adopting the Singh and Singh’s (2019) scale. For measuring CI, we used Abhari et al.’s (2017) scale in its original form. The OR as mediating variable was captured by adapting Melian-Alzola et al.’s (2020) scale. We made minor modiﬁcations in wording of the items based on the feedback from pretest to improve scale performance. All scales were designed in ﬁve-point Likert format anchored as 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). Finally, CC number and duration (CC duration) were used as control variables. Measurement items: (1) Big data analytics capability (Singh and Singh, 2019) BDA1 Our ﬁrm invests in big data analytics software (e.g. SAS Enterprise Miner, Tableau). BDA2 Our ﬁrm invests in processes which ensure availability of high-quality and timely data for employees. BDA3 Our ﬁrm currently utilizes some form of distributed ﬁle systems (e.g. Hadoop Distributed File Systems - HDFS). BDA4 Our ﬁrm currently utilizes some form of distributed database systems (e.g. NoSQL or Cassandra). BDA5 Our ﬁrm has taken initiatives to increase pool of individuals skilled in big data analytics. BDA6 Our ﬁrm encourages employees to leverage their big data analytics skills to solve problems. BDA7 Our ﬁrm has managerial resources to take relevant actions on insights derived from big data analytics. BDA8 Our ﬁrm incentivizes employees to get certiﬁed in big data analytics technologies. BDA9 Our ﬁrm’s top management encourages employee to come up with innovative big data initiatives. BDA10 Our ﬁrm focuses on forging strategic contacts with analytics knowledge leaders in the ﬁeld. BDA11 Our ﬁrm invests in documenting processes and procedures for big data analytics. BDA12 Our ﬁrm invests in knowledge management systems. BDA13 Our ﬁrm participates in big data analytics conferences. (2) Co-innovation (Abhari et al., 2017) CO1 The platform enables me to submit new product ideas. CO2 The platform enables me to describe/present my product ideas. CO3 The platform enables me to monitor my idea evaluation process. CO4 The platform enables me to revise/resubmit my product ideas. CO5 The platform enables me to review different product ideas. CO6 The platform enables me to vote for different product ideas. CO7 The platform enables me to contribute to product design/development. TG CO8 The platform enables me to contribute to product commercialization. 16,2 CO9 The platform enables me to share my knowledge. CO10 The platform enables me to solicit votes/support. CO11 The platform enables me to discuss new ideas with community. (3) Organizational resilience (adapted from Melian-Alzola et al., 2020). OR1 In the face of change, our ﬁrm achieves a new organisational equilibrium by adapting to changes in the environment (e.g. offering new products or services, incorporating new technologies, negotiating with key actors). OR2 In the face of change, our ﬁrm recovers and strengthens at a strategic and operational level (e.g. recovering market share, improving its competitive position). OR3 In the face of change, our ﬁrm adapts strategically and operationally to new environmental conditions. 3.4 Data analysis A mediation analysis is adopted using the PROCESS macro in SPSS v 22 software package (Hayes, 2017). The mediation analysis allows going beyond the descriptive to a more functional understanding of the relationships among variables (Preacher and Hayes, 2004). 4. Findings Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and correlations for the key variables used. All correlation coefﬁcients are well under 0.7, indicating that there is no serious multicollinearity. Table 3 shows that the relationships between BDA and CI (H1), between CI and OR (H3) and between BDA and OR (H2)were signiﬁcant, as regression analyses conﬁrmed [respectively, equation (1)–(3)]. The relationship between BDA, CI and OR (H4)was nonsigniﬁcant when the CI was introduced in the regression model [equation (3)]. It holds the conditions necessary for mediation according to Baron and Kenny (1986).The control variables were included in all the equations used but only CC duration was positive. To establish whether the mediation was signiﬁcant, the three effects of mediation analysis were calculated as Table 4 displays. The results revealed a signiﬁcant direct effect of BDA on OR when controlling for CI. This supports the prediction that CI mediates the effect of BDA on OR. Speciﬁcally, 44% of the total effect is mediated by CI. Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 BDA 3.754 0.622 1.00 Table 2. CI 4.116 0.314 0.294 1.00 Descriptive statistics OR 3.602 0.400 0.127 0.152 1.00 and correlation matrix Notes: Number of observations = 192; Std. dev. = standard deviation 5. Discussion and conclusion Building Findings support the research hypotheses based on review of managerial and strategic SMEs’ literature, painting an interesting picture of the linkages between BDA capability, OR and CI resilience in SMEs coping with adversities. The positive signiﬁcant impact of BDA capability on CI is conﬁrmed in line with prior contributions, which also claimed the same positive linkage (Urbinati et al.,2019; Akhtar et al., 2019; Lozada et al.,2019). Thus, CI can be activated through BDA capability that actualizes colearning activities in a domain of knowledge characterized by the intensive and shared use of data, managing digital tools and technological platforms among and between companies, users, customers and other socioeconomic actors to exchange and integrate resources, ideas and information for cooperative innovating (Saragih and Tan, 2018). In this logic, BDA capability helps in sharing knowledge, especially through data integration and data analysis (Merhi and Bregu, 2020), to improve the innovation response and optimise business processes to achieve dynamic capabilities (Božic and Dimovski, 2019). Hence, BDA capability acts as a knowledge asset of strategic importance for CI processes, increasing the absorptive capacity of the companies and reducing their time, costs and risks (Troisi et al., 2018; Chen et al.,2019). In addition, the study results have corroborated the positive signiﬁcant impact of CI on OR. Hence, CI can be considered as a new approach for successfully managing uncertainties because CI contributes to organizational capacity for resilience. An opportunity for a faster and easier overcoming of the crisis adverse consequences in SMEs entails their greater openness (Paunovicand Anicic, 2021). Chesbrough (2020) highlights an even greater signiﬁcance of opening up in innovation management during the crisis recovery periods. Research outcome also supported the positive signiﬁcant impact of BDA capability on OR, enhancing the known linkage between data analytics and resilience (Papadopoulos Dependent variables Equation (1) (H1) Equation (2) (H2) Equation (3) (H3, H4) Independent/control variables CI OR OR CI 0.247 (0.000) BDA 0.074 (0.000) 0.066 (0.004) 0.038 (0.191) CC number 0.019 (0.605) 0.270 (0.915) 0.156 (0.188) CC duration 0.421 (0.000) 0.340 (0.000) 0.128 (0.003) 2 Table 3. Adjusted R 0.470 0.083 0.402 Regressions F-value 50.876 (0.000) 6.461 (0.000) 41.669 (0.000) associated with the Note: The table shows standard coefﬁcients and signiﬁcance in parentheses hypotheses Type of effect Level of effect SE LLCI ULCI P Total effect of BDA on OR 0.4848 0.0708 0.3455 0.6242 0.000 Direct effect of BDA on OR 0.2694 0.0646 0.1423 0.3965 0.000 Level of effect Boot SE Boot LLCI BOOT ULCI Table 4. Indirect effect of BDA on OR 0.2155 0.0403 0.1436 0.3037 Total, direct and Notes: Conﬁdence interval to 95%; number of bootstrap samples 5,000 indirect effects et al., 2020). According to this evidence, the cyber resilience is proposed to indicate how TG interconnected hardware (i.e. infrastructure) and software (i.e. capability) components of 16,2 BDA constitute a gateway for business viability. This concerns all industries investigated: in fact, not only service SMEs but also industrial one demonstrates to be aware of the pivotal importance to shift from hardware to software via digitalization, as digital servitization literature conﬁrms (Ciasullo et al., 2021; Gebauer et al., 2021). Finally, the study discovered the mediating impact of CI on the relationship between BDA capability and OR. A duality view (Farjoun, 2010) is adopted to interpret the mediating role of CI: it is oriented to the adaptability in the face of change due the impact of BDA capability on CI; at the same time, it is oriented to the stability due its impact on OR. Thus, the orientation to stability and adaptability referred to CI are interdependent and mutually enabling rather than contradictory. This complementarity starts a virtuous cycle with regard to the management of change, contributing to the coevolution of open knowledge ecosystems. Overall, research ﬁndings suggest the conceptual evolution of the resilience from viable property to metacapability of systems under speciﬁc conditions. Depending on such conditions, resilience as metacapability can be a source of sustainable competitive advantage and, thus, explains why some ﬁrms are more resilient and thereby more successful than others (Duchek, 2020). The above-mentioned conditions are related to the synergistic and systematic combination of entrepreneurial and service orientations. In particular, entrepreneurial orientation consists of the innovativeness, proactiveness and risk willingness, whereas service orientation embraces responsive approaches to satisfy immediate actor needs and proactive approaches that overcome these needs (Eggers, 2020). Both orientations are ampliﬁed, thanks to the BDA capability by reinforcing a data-driven culture. Thus, inside–out and outside–in knowledge ﬂows are incorporated into and dynamically orchestrated through integrated platforms by shaping a wider and varied knowledge base, even if this knowledge is far away from the system’s core business. This leads to an enrichment of the learning activities and a collective sensemaking that put new knowledge into innovative practice actualized in new products, services, processes, solutions, value propositions, markets and business models. On these bases, we introduce technical and managerial cognition capabilities as forming the microfoundations of OR of SMEs in the face of a “black swan” external shock. 5.1 Theoretical implications The paper contributes to the literature on OR in three directions. First, it provides implications for considering CI as a viable strategy, especially in a time of crisis. This important theoretical implication is in line with Ferrigno and Cucino (2021) who investigated SME innovation in a context of crisis by emphasizing how SMEs have implemented collaborative behaviors to develop innovative projects during the recent COVID-19 outbreak. Second, we show how big data SMEs are more able than other companies to recognize business opportunities in line with Eggers (2020). Third, the microfoundations of the resilience building capacity of SMEs are identiﬁed. In addition, this study enhances the body of knowledge on how SMEs cope with adversity by emphasizing some strategic issues of potential of BDA capability for overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic impact, whereas the emerging literature has mainly addressed the role of digital technology as a structural tool. Thus, the study moves away from the main current of analysis focused on big data from a technical or engineering perspective, but rather focuses on delving into the explanation of big data implications as an organizational capability typical of the networks supporting CI. Moreover, although the adversities call for greater focus on using technologies to enhance SMEs’ resilience, we Building underline the essential role played by CI because digital technologies alone are not sufﬁcient SMEs’ to resolve the barriers to the resilience of such companies. Finally, the paper is the ﬁrst resilience empirical work that tests the research model in its current forms, despite previous studies have independently studied the relationships among the variables used. 5.2 Managerial implications Practically, we propose recommendations for building strategic resilience effectively and efﬁciently in SMEs, looking at the COVID-19 as an opportunity to rethink strategies and plans in response to the crisis. The most important challenge for the management is to develop a data-driven culture and a digital preparedness both within the ﬁrm and in the entire CI network to safeguard business resilience. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic has had unprecedented impacts on business and economies (Lim, 2021), the marketplace has already been volatile, uncertain, ambiguous and complex prior to the pandemic and will likely continue in the post pandemic era (Kumar et al.,2021). In this regard, it is important that SMEs continue to leverage onBDA to coinnovate andremainresilient inthe future. SMEs can do so by using the capabilities gained and enhanced during the pandemic to empower other functional areas of business so that new capabilities and strategies can be pursued, for example, challenger marketing, which relies on knowledge infrastructures by BDA to empower marketers to unteach and teach customers in favor of products offered by challenger SMEs. 5.3 Limitations and further research The main limitation of the study is related to the generalization of the results for three reasons. First, the hypothesis model was tested in a sample of SMEs located in Europe. In future, the research could be replicated on SMEs in non-European developed and developing countries, also conducting a comparison with large companies. Second, the impact of the crisis varies substantially across industries and this will require detailed sectoral analyses. Moreover, COVID-19 was chosen as study setting but minor-scale disturbances could inﬂuence the ﬁrm’s response to build resilience. Third, the fast growth rate of technological techniques and the young ﬁeld of big data management represent a limitation per se. References Abhari, K., Davidson, E.J. and Xiao, B. (2017), “Co-innovation platform affordances: developing a conceptual model and measurement instrument”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 117 No. 5, pp. 873-895. Acharya, A., Singh, S.K., Pereira, V. and Singh, P. (2018), “Big data, knowledge co-creation and decision making in fashion industry”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 42, pp. 90-101. Aghina, W., De Smet, A., Lackey, G., Lurie, M. and Muraka, M. (2018), “The ﬁve trademarks of agile organizations”, McKinsey and Company Report, January 22. Akhtar, P., Khan, Z., Rao-Nicholson, R. and Zhang, M. (2019), “Building relationship innovation in global collaborative partnerships: big data analytics and traditional organizational powers”, R&D Management, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 7-20. Aldianto, L., Anggadwita, G., Permatasari, A., Mirzanti, I.R. and Williamson, I.O. (2021), “Toward a business resilience framework for startups”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 1-19. Ashraﬁ, A., Ravasan, A.Z., Trkman, P. and Afshari, S. (2019), “The role of business analytics TG capabilities in bolstering ﬁrms’ agility and performance”, International Journal of Information 16,2 Management, Vol. 47, pp. 1-15. Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182. Bodziany, M., S cibiorek, Z., Zamiar, Z. and Visvizi, A. (2021), “Managerial competencies and polish SMEs’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic: an insight”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 21, p. 11864. Bonney, L., Clark, R., Collins, R. and Fearne, A. (2007), “From serendipity to sustainable competitive advantage: insights from Houston’s farm and their journey of co-innovation”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 395-399. Božic, K. and Dimovski, V. (2019), “Business intelligence and analytics use, innovation ambidexterity, and ﬁrm performance: a dynamic capabilities perspective”, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 28 No. 4, p. 101578. Bresciani, S., Ciampi, F., Meli, F. and Ferraris, A. (2021), “Using big data for co-innovation processes: mapping the ﬁeld of data-driven innovation, proposing theoretical developments and providing a research agenda”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 60, p. 102347. Brown, R. and Rocha, A. (2020), “Entrepreneurial uncertainty during the COVID-19 crisis: mapping the temporal dynamics of entrepreneurial ﬁnance”, Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Vol. 14, pp. 1-10. Caputo, F., Mazzoleni, A., Pellicelli, A.C. and Muller, J. (2019), “Over the mask of innovation management in the world of big data”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 119, pp. 330-338. Chen, S., Kang, J., Liu, S. and Sun, Y. (2019), “Cognitive computing on unstructured data for customer co-innovation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 570-593. Chesbrough, H.W. (2003), “The era of open innovation”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 35-41. Chesbrough, H.W. (2020), “To recover faster from COVID-19, open up: managerial implications from an open innovation perspective”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 88, pp. 410-413. Ciasullo, M.V., Douglas, A. and Montera, R. (2020), “Antifragility for handling a systemic crisis. Some reﬂections about SMEs in the COVID age”, Conference Proceedings of Post-Covid Management think-thank, University of Coimbra (Portugal), 3-4 September. Ciasullo, M.V., Polese, F., Montera, R. and Carrubbo, L. (2021), “A digital servitization framework for viable manufacturing companies”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 13, pp. 142-160. Criado, J.I. and Guevara-Gomez, A. (2021), “Public sector, open innovation, and collaborative governance in lockdown times. A research of Spanish cases during the COVID-19 crisis”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 1750-6166. De Marco, C.E., Martelli, I. and Di Minin, A. (2020), “European SMEs’ engagement in open innovation: when the important thing is to win and not just to participate, what should innovation policy do?”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 152, p. 119843. Del Vecchio, P., Di Minin, A., Petruzzelli, A.M., Panniello, U. and Pirri, S. (2018), “Big data for open innovation in SMEs and large corporations: trends, opportunities, and challenges”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 6-22. Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Fosso Wamba, S., Roubaud, D. and Foropon, C. (2021), “Empirical investigation of data analytics capability and organizational ﬂexibility as complements to supply chain resilience”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 110-128. Duchek, S. (2020), “Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization”, Business Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 215-246. Eftekhari, N. and Bogers, M. (2015), “Open for entrepreneurship: how open innovation can foster new Building venture creation”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 574-584. SMEs’ Eggers, F. (2020), “Masters of disasters? Challenges and opportunities for SMEs in times of crisis”, resilience Journal of Business Research, Vol. 116, pp. 199-208. European Commission (2019), “Annual report on European SMEs 2018/2019 Research and Development and Innovation by SMEs”, Luxembourg. Farjoun, M. (2010), “Beyond dualism: stability and change as a duality”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35, pp. 202-225. Ferrigno, G. and Cucino, V. (2021), “Innovating and transforming during COVID-19: insights from Italian ﬁrms”, R&D Management, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 325-338. Figueiredo, R., Ferreira, J.J.M., Silveira, R.G. and Villarinho, A.T. (2020), “Innovation and co-creation in knowledge intensive business services: the spinner model”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 909-923. Fitriasari, F. (2020), “How do small and medium enterprise (SME) survive the COVID-19 outbreak?”, Jurnal Inovasi Ekonomi, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 53-62. Gebauer, H., Paiola, M., Saccani, N. and Rapaccini, M. (2021), “Digital servitization: crossing the perspectives of digitization and servitization”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 93, pp. 382-388. Gupta, M. and George, J.F. (2016), “Toward the development of a big data analytics capability”, Information and Management, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1049-1064. Hayes, A.F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, The Guilford Press, New York, NY. Iansiti, M. and Levien, R. (2004), The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA. Juergensen, J., Guimon, J. and Narula, R. (2020), “European SMEs amidst the COVID-19 crisis: assessing impact and policy responses”, Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 499-510. Kuckertz, A. (2021), “Standing up against crisis-induced entrepreneurial uncertainty: fewer teams, more habitual entrepreneurs”, International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 191-201. Kumar, S., Sureka, R., Lim, W.M., Kumar Mangla, S. and Goyal, N. (2021), “What do we know about business strategy and environmental research? Insights from business strategy and the environment”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30 No. 8. Lacam, J.S. (2020), “Data: a collaborative?”, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, p. 100370. Lee, S.M. and Trimi, S. (2021), “Convergence innovation in the digital age and in the COVID-19 pandemic crisis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 123, pp. 14-22. Lee, S.M. and Trimi, S. (2018), “Innovation for creating a smart future”, Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-8. Liguori, E.W. and Pittz, T.G. (2020), “Strategies for small business: surviving and thriving in the era of COVID-19”, Journal of the International Council for Small Business, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 106-110. Lim, W.M. (2021), “History, lessons, and ways forward from the COVID-19 pandemic”, International Journal of Quality and Innovation, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 101-108. Lozada, N., Arias-Pérez, J. and Perdomo-Charry, G. (2019), “Big data analytics capability and co- innovation: an empirical study”, Heliyon, Vol. 5 No. 10, pp. 1-7. Lu, Y., Wu, J., Peng, J. and Lu, L. (2020), “The perceived impact of the COVID-19 epidemic: evidence from a sample of 4807 SMEs in Sichuan province, China”, Environmental Hazards, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 323-340. Martinez-Lozada, A.C. and Espinosa, A. (2020), “Corporate viability and sustainability: a case study in TG a Mexican corporation”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, pp. 1-16. 16,2 Melian-Alzola, L., Fernandez-Monroy, M. and Hidalgo-Peñate, M. (2020), “Hotels in contexts of uncertainty: measuring organisational resilience”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 36, pp. 1-14. Merhi, M.I. and Bregu, K. (2020), “Effective and efﬁcient usage of big data analytics in public sector”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 605-622. Miceli, A., Hagen, B., Riccardi, M.P., Sotti, F. and Settembre-Blundo, D. (2021), “Thriving, not just surviving in changing times: how sustainability, agility and digitalization intertwine with organizational resilience”, Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 1-17. OECD (2017), Enhancing the Contributions of SMEs in a Global and Digitalised Economy, OECD, Paris. OECD (2020), “Tackling coronavirus (COVID-19): contributing to a global effort”, SME Policy Responses, OECD, Paris. Papadopoulos, T., Baltas, K.N. and Balta, M.E. (2020), “The use of digital technologies by small and medium enterprises during COVID-19: implications for theory and practice”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 55, pp. 1-4. Paunovic, B. and Anicic, Z. (2021), “Impact of the COVID-19 crisis on SMEs and possible innovation responses”, Ekonomika Preduzeca, Vol. 69 Nos 3/4, pp. 169-184. Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods Instruments, and Computers, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 717-731. Ramezani, J. and Camarinha-Matos, L.M. (2020), “Approaches for resilience and antifragility in collaborative business ecosystems”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 151, pp. 1-26. Saragih, H.S. and Tan, J.D. (2018), “Co-innovation: a review and conceptual framework”, International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 361-377. Saragih, H.S., Simatupang, T.M. and Sunitiyoso, Y. (2019), “Co-innovation processes in the music business”, Heliyon, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 1-24. Singh, N.P. and Singh, S. (2019), “Building supply chain risk resilience: role of big data analytics in supply chain disruption mitigation”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 2318-2342. Spohrer, J. and Maglio, P.P. (2008), “The emergence of service science: toward systematic service innovations to accelerate co-creation of value”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 238-246. Teece, D.J. and Pisano, G. (1994), “The dynamic capabilities of the ﬁrm”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 537-556. Troisi, O., D’Arco, M., Loia, F. and Maione, G. (2018), “Big data management: the case of Mulino Bianco’s engagement platform for value co-creation”, International Journal of Engineering Business Management, Vol. 10, pp. 1-8. Troisi, O., Visvizi, A. and Grimaldi, M. (2021), “The different shades of innovation emergence in smart service systems: the case of Italian cluster for aerospace technology”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,doi: 10.1108/JBIM-02-2020-0091. Urbinati, A., Bogers, M., Chiesa, V. and Frattini, F. (2019), “Creating and capturing value from big data: a multiple-case study analysis of provider companies”, Technovation, Vol. 84-85, pp. 21-36. Wamba, S.F., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, S.J.F., Dubey, R. and Childe, S.J. (2017), “Big data analytics and ﬁrm performance: effects of dynamic capabilities”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70, pp. 356-365. Williams, T.A., Gruber, D.A., Sutcliffe, K.M., Shepherd, D.A. and Zhao, E.Y. (2017), “Organizational Building response to adversity: fusing crisis management and resilience research streams”, Academy of SMEs’ Management Annals, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 733-769. resilience Zeng, J. and Glaister, K.W. (2018), “Value creation from big data: looking inside the black box”, Strategic Organization, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 105-140. Zutshi, A., Mendy, J., Sharma, G.D., Thomas, A. and Sarker, T. (2021), “From challenges to creativity: enhancing SMEs’ resilience in the context of COVID-19”, Sustainability,Vol.13 No. 12, pp. 1-16. Corresponding author Raﬀaella Montera can be contacted at: email@example.com For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: firstname.lastname@example.org
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy – Emerald Publishing
Published: Apr 6, 2022
Keywords: SMEs; Coinnovation; Organizational resilience; Big data analytics capability
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.