Content uploaded by Ben Ramdani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ben Ramdani on Mar 15, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=titd20
Information Technology for Development
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/titd20
Digital innovation in SMEs: a systematic review,
synthesis and research agenda
Boumediene Ramdani, Siddhartha Raja & Marina Kayumova
To cite this article: Boumediene Ramdani, Siddhartha Raja & Marina Kayumova (2021): Digital
innovation in SMEs: a systematic review, synthesis and research agenda, Information Technology
for Development, DOI: 10.1080/02681102.2021.1893148
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2021.1893148
Published online: 09 Mar 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Digital innovation in SMEs: a systematic review, synthesis and
research agenda
Boumediene Ramdani
a
, Siddhartha Raja
b
*and Marina Kayumova
b
*
a
Centre for Entrepreneurship, College of Business & Economics, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar;
b
The World Bank,
Washington, DC, USA
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a systematic literature review on digital innovation in
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). It aims to synthesize previous
research and identify knowledge gaps and future research opportunities.
A systematic review of the literature was carried out by analyzing 382
articles published between 1979 and 2019. From synthesizing the
extant literature, we developed a theoretical framework advocating that
digital innovation in SMEs is driven by a configuration of antecedents,
goes through different stages of innovation process, and leads to
organizational and business process performance outcomes. Using an
in-depth content analysis, we discuss the examined digital technologies,
theories underpinning digital innovation in SMEs research, contextual
orientations, and the content of research in this field. This review
identifiessignificant knowledge gaps in relation to theory, context,
method and content.
KEYWORDS
Digital; innovation;
technology; ICT; IT; SME
Introduction
Over the last four decades, an extensive body of work has surfaced on digital innovation in SMEs
(e.g. AlBar & Hoque, 2019; Ramdani et al., 2009; Stair, 1979; Thong, 1999). Digital innovation is
defined as ‘product, process, or business model that is perceived as new, requires some significant
changes on the part of adopters, and is embodied in or enabled by IT’(Fichman et al., 2014, p. 330). It
is an overarching term that is used to represent the organizational exploitation of digital technol-
ogies including Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), Information Systems (IS), and
Information Technology (IT) among others. Although scholars have carried out several reviews on
the general literature of digital innovation (Fichman, 1992,2004; Jeyaraj et al., 2006; Kohli & Melville,
2019), there is often ambiguity on what we know about digital innovation in SMEs.
SMEs are commonly defined as firms that have less than 250 employees (European Commission,
2016; OECD, 2005). They represent the majority of business enterprises, and contribute substantially
to employment and turnover in developed nations (European Commission, 2016). Compared to
SMEs in developed countries, SMEs in developing countries have a greater impact on their countries’
© 2021 Commonwealth Secretariat
CONTACT Boumediene Ramdani b.ramdani@qu.edu.qa Centre for Entrepreneurship, College of Business & Economics,
Qatar University, P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar
*This work is a product of the staffof The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions
expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the govern-
ments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. Nothing herein shall
constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which
are specifically reserved.
Francis Andoh-Baidoo is the accepting Associate Editor for this manuscript.
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2021.1893148.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2021.1893148
economies (Cataldo et al., 2020). Small businesses are the engine and the driving force of economic
development (Hanclova et al., 2015; Ntwoku et al., 2017). They are argued to be more efficient in
creating quality jobs, are more innovative and grow faster than large companies (Gibson & van
der Vaart, 2008). Thus, governments in low- and middle-income countries use SMEs as instruments
for national development (Ilavarasan, 2017). However, studies have ignored SMEs and their role in
development (Andoh-Baidoo, 2016).
Digital technologies provide SMEs with new opportunities such as better access to skills and
talent, greater access to markets, more extensive access to financing, better communication and col-
laboration, greater access to technologies and applications, more extensive product development,
and reduction in red tape (OECD, 2017). As a result, digital technologies enable SMEs to compete
against their larger counterparts by leveling the playing field (IDC, 2016). Moreover, the recent
World Development Report indicates that technology is making firms global and enabling them
to grow faster (World Bank, 2019). Digital technologies have been hailed as the answer for develop-
ing countries by enabling their SMEs to leapfrog stages of development (Mbuyisa & Leonard, 2017).
These technologies can help SMEs in developing countries to improve their productivity and com-
petitiveness (Ahmad et al., 2015; Albar & Hoque, 2019; Hanclova et al., 2015). Despite the potential
benefits of digital technologies, the reality is that SMEs are reluctant to be involved in digital inno-
vation, or fail to derive benefits from new technologies.
Researchers examining digital innovation in SMEs focused on the determinants of adoption, the
uptake of digital technologies, and the outcomes associated with adoption. A large body of the lit-
erature looked at these determinants including individual, technological, organizational, and
environmental characteristics (e.g. AL-Shboul, 2019; Awa & Ojiabo, 2016; Ramdani et al., 2013).
Other studies looked at the uptake of digital technologies by SMEs. Empirical evidence suggest
that SMEs are lagging behind large companies (Ntwoku et al., 2017), SMEs operating in developing
countries are lagging behind those operating in developed countries (Cataldo et al., 2020), and rural
SMEs are lagging behind urban SMEs (AlBar & Hoque, 2019). The outcomes associated with digital
innovation range from cost reduction (e.g. Tan et al., 2010), profitability (e.g. Bala & Feng, 2019), cus-
tomer satisfaction (e.g. Scuotto et al., 2017), competitiveness (e.g. Adeniran & Johnston, 2016), and
internationalization (e.g. Pergelova et al., 2019), to product, process (Peón & Martínez-Filgueira,
2020), and business model innovation (Bouwman et al., 2018).
Although much of the literature exists on digital innovation in SMEs, it is yet to be reviewed and
synthesized. To stimulate scholarship and provide a better sense of direction, we offer the first sys-
tematic review of this literature. We specifically endeavor to answer the following questions:
.•What is known on digital innovation in SMEs research?
.•What are the research opportunities to enhance current knowledge on digital innovation in
SMEs?
This review aims to make sense of what we know on digital innovation in SMEs and to propose a
research agenda built on renewed theoretical direction to address knowledge gaps. To these ends,
382 articles published between 1979 and 2019 in 105 journals will be analyzed. Our review makes
meaningful contributions to theory and research. First, we develop a theoretical framework of
digital innovation in SMEs to examine existing evidence. Second, we synthesize existing evidence
using our theoretical framework to establish what is known on digital innovation in SMEs research.
Third, we set out a roadmap for future research agenda proposing multiple directions for theory,
context, and content of digital innovation in SMEs.
Our review is organized as follows. The next section will outline our guiding theoretical frame-
work and its underpinning conceptualizations. Then, the review method process and steps for ana-
lyzing the identified articles will be highlighted. After that, the results of this review will be discussed
in relation to the theories used, the context, and the content under study. Finally, directions for
future research opportunities will be suggested.
2B. RAMDANI ET AL.
Theoretical framework
To assess and advance the content of what is known in this field, we have developed a theoretical
framework of digital innovation in SMEs (Figure 1). This framework is based on three conceptualiz-
ations in the extent literature with constructs described in Table 1.
The first conceptualization is the ‘Revised depiction of the dominant paradigm of IT innovation’
(Jeyaraj et al., 2006). This conceptualisation advocates that individual, innovation (technological),
organisational, and environmental antecedents influence the quantity and speed of digital inno-
vation adoption and diffusion by organisations and individuals within organisations. This conceptu-
alisation has been used for three reasons. First, this conceptualisation is based on a comprehensive
review of the theories and empirical studies on organisational uptake of digital technologies.
Second, it groups the antecedents into recognisable categories that have been used not only in
the general digital innovation literature, but also used in small business context. Third, Jeyaraj et
al. (2006) specified the dependent variables used in the digital innovation literature including
Figure 1. Digital innovation in SMEs framework.
Table 1. Theoretical framework constructs.
Construct Description
Individual antecedents The characteristics that describe an individual, such as Age (Jeyaraj et al., 2006, p. 10)
Technological
antecedents
The characteristics that describe the innovation, such as those described by TAM and Innovation
Diffusion Theory (Jeyaraj et al., 2006, p. 10)
Organizational
antecedents
The characteristics that describe the organization, such as Top Management Support (Jeyaraj et al.,
2006, p. 10)
Environmental
antecedents
The characteristics that describe the environment (Jeyaraj et al., 2006, p. 10), such as External Pressure
Intention A person’s or an organization’s intention to use or adopt an innovation in the future (Jeyaraj et al.,
2006,p.5)
Adoption Whether a person or an organization is an adopter or a non-adopter of an innovation (Jeyaraj et al.,
2006,p.5)
Implementation The extent to which a person or an organization exploits an innovation. This is usually measured as a
percentage of available features used, possible sites adopted, or possible applications (Jeyaraj et al.,
2006,p.5)
Usage The amount of actual use of an innovation by an individual or organization (Jeyaraj et al., 2006,p.5)
Organizational
performance
Overall firm performance, including productivity, efficiency, profitability, market value, competitive
advantage, etc (Melville, Kraemer, & Gurbaxani, 2004, p. 295)
Business process
performance
Operational efficiency of specific business processes, measures of which include customer service,
flexibility, information sharing, and inventory management (Melville et al., 2004, p. 295)
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 3
intention, adoption, diffusion, and actual system use, which characterise the different stages of
digital innovation maturity.
The second conceptualisation is the ‘IT business value’, which is ‘the organisational performance
impacts of IT’(Melville, Kraemer, & Gurbaxani, 2004). This conceptualisation categorises the business
performance into organisational performance, and business process performance. While the former
focuses on the overall performance of the firm, the later focuses on the operational aspects of
business processes. This conceptualisation has been used to augment a missing construct in the
first conceptualisation (i.e. digital innovation outcomes). Although organisational outcomes of
digital innovation can be product, process and business model innovations, the organisational
impacts of digital innovation in SMEs have examined the impact of digital innovations on the
business process as well as the overall performance of SMEs.
The third conceptualisation is ‘Going Beyond the Dominant Paradigm for Information Technology
Innovation Research’(Fichman, 2004). The dominant paradigm of digital innovation research advo-
cates that the more firms possess certain characteristics, the more likely they are to be involved in
digital innovation. According to Fichman (2004), ‘This paradigm is typified by the desire to explain
innovation using economic-rationalistic models, whereby organizations that have a greater quantity
of what might be called “the Right Stuff”(i.e., greater innovation-related needs and abilities) are
expected to exhibit a greater quantity of innovation (i.e., greater frequency, earliness, or extent of
adoption)’(p. 315). To go beyond this dominant paradigm, he suggests three aspects that link
the first and second conceptualisations: digital innovation antecedents direct (and moderating)
links with outcomes, the association between digital innovation process and outcomes, and the
mediators and/or moderators of the digital innovation process-outcome relationship. This concep-
tualisation does not only bring together the constructs that are examined in the digital innovation
literature, but also establishes the linkages between them. Also, it opens up avenues for future
research by exploring these linkages.
To summarize, digital innovation in SMEs is driven by a configuration of four sets of antecedents
(i.e. individual, technological, organizational, and environmental), goes through a four stages process
(i.e. intention, adoption, implementation, and usage), and leads to organizational and business
process performance outcomes. Some of the digital innovation antecedents have a direct impact
on digital innovation outcomes. Also, these antecedents and other variables (such as size, industry
and infrastructure) could mediate and/or moderate the digital innovation process-outcomes
relationship. Our framework builds on previous conceptualizations in the digital innovation literature
(Fichman, 2004; Jeyaraj et al., 2006; Melville et al., 2004). It brings together the key variables and
relationships of digital innovation in SMEs. Having this level of abstraction can help map out what
we know in this field and any knowledge gaps that could be addressed.
Review method
This review followed the systematic literature review approach advocated by Denyer and Tranfield
(2009). Compared with conventional ‘narrative’reviews, systematic literature review is a structured
process for identifying, synthesizing, and evaluating extent research (vom Brocke et al., 2015). Figure
2provides a summary of the process used to prepare this review. We began the review process by
establishing the research objectives and conceptual boundaries. Our review aims to describe what is
known on digital innovation in SMEs research and to identify research opportunities to enhance
existing knowledge. As noted in the theoretical framework section, this review followed the
definitions and conceptualizations provided by digital innovation scholars.
A sequential process of searching, analyzing and synthesizing, and writing has been applied for
our literature search (vom Brocke et al., 2015). The criteria for selecting the articles to be included in
our review are detailed in Table 2. We use a keyword search that is based on a range of possible
terms of ‘digital innovation’and ‘SME,’and a variety of search databases (Web of Science, Scopus,
and EBSCO Discovery Service) to achieve a broad coverage. A full list of Key Boolean search terms
4B. RAMDANI ET AL.
is highlighted in the Appendix A1. Our search resulted 382 articles, which were deemed relevant
after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Appendix A2 lists the journals, number of articles
per journal, and the journal ranking. Based on the initial search results, the first and second author
examined the identified papers and whether they are within the boundaries established for this field
of research. Papers identified by both authors to be within the research boundaries are added to the
review scope. In case one of the authors questioned the inclusion of an article, then the content of
the article will be discussed by the first and second author until consensus was reached. The third
author reviewed questioned papers, and a consensus was reached on all included and excluded
articles.
Figure 2. Summary of review process.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 5
A deductive approach was used to systematically analyze the articles in our sample. This is
because the review was guided by the theoretical framework of digital innovation in SMEs. We
extracted pre-determined research themes and sub-themes from the research context then syn-
thesized existing evidence (Bandara et al., 2015). Guided by our theoretical framework, the first
author and an external researcher coded the 382 papers identified in the literature search. An analy-
sis template was used to record details on examined variables and relationships. Coding results were
consolidated and any inconsistencies were resolved through meetings and discussion. Using
Cohen’s kappa, 10% of the papers were classified using our framework. For all three categories of
digital innovation antecedents, process and outcomes, the two coders achieved an agreement
above 82%. This level of Cohen’s kappa indicates a high interrater reliability suggesting a substantial
agreement between the raters (Landis & Koch, 1977). Data were synthesized not only to interpret
and explain existing evidence, but also to develop a research agenda that addresses gaps in the con-
ceptual thinking and empirical research on digital innovation in SMEs.
Table 2. Selection criteria.
Criterion Inclusion Exclusion Rationale
Relevance for
review
questions
Research with a core focus on both
digital innovation and SMEs
Research Focused on digital
innovation and included SMEs in
the research
Research focused on SMEs and
addressed digital innovation as
one element of a wider subject
Papers not focusing on digital
innovation
To provide data that will be used to
answer the review questions
Date of
publication
Up to December 2019 None No restrictions were applied to enable
the coverage of all studies in the
area
Language English All other languages Research team’s resource constraints
Type of
publication
Peer-reviewed journal articles Books; book chapters;
conference papers and
proceedings; theses,
working papers; reports;
press articles
Other types of publications and grey
literature were excluded due to the
limited peer review process
Journal ranking UK Association of Business Schools
(ABS) Academic Journal Quality
Guide, Version 5 (ABS, 2015)
All other journals This guide was used because
assessments of journal quality have
been recognized as means of
ensuring robustness of systematic
literature reviews (Wang & Chugh,
2013)
Disciplines All subject areas None Most of the research for this review is
either published in Information and
Management discipline or
Entrepreneurship and Small
Business Management discipline
Databases Web of Science, Scopus, and
EBSCO Discovery Service. Articles
that are not available will be
searched manually using
ScienceDirect and GoogleScholar
None Searching more than one database
will achieve a broader coverage
Type of research Theoretical, Empirical, Literature
reviews
None All types of research were identified
as relevant in answering the review
questions
Methodology All None All methodologies were considered in
this review
Context All None Research originating in all countries
was considered in this review
Sample SMEs that have a digital innovation Innovations that are not
digital
This review excludes other types of
innovation such as intellectual
property as these are beyond the
scope of this review
6B. RAMDANI ET AL.
Results
In this section, we present the results of our analysis on the examined digital technologies, theories
underpinning digital innovation in SMEs research, contextual orientations, and the content of
research in this field. The content will present evidence on the variables and relationships in our
theoretical framework.
Digital technologies
Several IT artifacts have been examined in this literature. As highlighted in Table 3, researchers focused
on examining ICT (28%), e-commerce (21%), enterprise systems (18%), and other technologies (15%).
The Internet, web-based technologies, cloud computing, and social media were examined by a limited
number of studies. New digital technologies such as Industry 4.0, Internet of Things (IoT), and business
intelligence have recently attracted attention. On the one hand, digital technologies have been exam-
ined using aggregate terms such as ICT (e.g. Peón & Martínez-Filgueira, 2020), IT (e.g. Chege et al.,
2020), digital technologies (Bouwman et al., 2018); Industry 4.0 (Annosi et al., 2019), and enterprise
systems (e.g. Awa, 2019). It is understandable when researchers study a group of digital technologies
that share the same features (e.g. enterprise systems). However, it is less obvious why researchers
study groups of technologies without differentiating between them. Morgan-Thomas (2016)argues
that research in this area assumes that digital technologies ‘have generic, predictable, and universal
properties’(p. 1123). Clearly, these are assumptions and the reality of digital technologies must be
questioned due to having different features and functionalities. On the other hand, specific technol-
ogies such as ERP (e.g. Van Beijsterveld & Van Groenendaal, 2016), broadband (Bowen & Morris, 2019),
and website (Daryanto et al., 2013) have also been examined in the literature.
Over the past 40 years, researchers have focused on studying digital technologies of the time (as
shown in Figure 3) [1] by examining computerization and computer-based IS (CBIS) in the 1980s, to
IT, IS and EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) in the 1990s, to ICT, Internet, website, e-commerce, e-
business and enterprise systems in the 2000s, to cloud computing and knowledge management
systems (2010-2015), to social media, Industry 4.0, digital technologies and digital platforms
(2015-2019). It has to be noted that these phases are illustrative and some of the digital technologies
such as ICT have been studied up to 2019.
1
Theories and models
In line with the general literature on digital innovation, early studies used Rogers’(1983)diffusion of
innovation theory (DOI), theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) and technology acceptance model
Table 3. Digital technologies examined in the literature.
Digital
technologies Terminologies Percentage Illustrative references
ICT ICT; IT; IS; Digital technologies 28% Peón and Martínez-Filgueira (2020); Chan et al.
(2019); Caldeira and Ward (2003)
E-commerce E-commerce; E-business; EDI; E-trade; E-
marketplace
21% Holland and Gutiérrez-Leefmans (2018);
Fariselli, Oughton, Picory, & Sugden (1999)
Enterprise
systems
EDI; ERP; CRM; SCM; Knowledge
Management
18% Biswas and Irwin Casterella (2019); Awa and Ojiabo
(2016); Ramdani et al. (2009)
Internet Internet; Broadband 7% Bowen and Morris (2019); Arbore and Ordanini
(2006)
Website Web presence; Web portal; Web-based
technologies
5% Burgess (2016); Daryanto et al. (2013);
Woolgar, Gomes, Vaux, Ezingeard, & Grieve (1998)
Cloud
computing
Cloud computing 4% Karunagaran et al. (2019); Dincăet al. (2019); Sultan
(2011)
Social media Social Media 2% Eid et al. (2019); Tajvidi and Karami (2017); Braojos-
Gomez et al. (2015)
Other
technologies
E.g. Industry 4.0; Internet of Things (IoT);
Business Intelligence Systems
15% Annosi et al. (2019); Puklavec et al. (2018);
Sivathanu (2019)
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 7
(Davis, 1989) to explore the antecedents of digital innovation in SMEs. As these models can be limit-
ing when explaining why and how SMEs carry out digital innovation, researchers have combined
them with several other models (as highlighted in Table 4). In the small business context, TOE or
Technology-Organization-Environment (Tornatzky et al., 1990) gained prominence in explaining
the antecedents of digital innovation. This generic conceptualization allows researchers to choose
from a wide range of determinants that could explain the factors influencing SMEs’intention, adop-
tion, implementation, and usage of digital technologies. Recent research added the individual ante-
cedents relating to the owners’and/or managers’characteristics, which was missing in studies using
the TOE framework. Although the general digital innovation literature delineates organizational and
individual uptake of digital technologies (Jeyaraj et al., 2006), studies in the small business context
advocate that individual characteristics are essential antecedents for digital innovation in SMEs (e.g.
AlBar & Hoque, 2019; Chang et al., 2012; Elbeltagi et al., 2013). Moreover, researchers have used or
partly used the resource-based view (RBV) with other theories such as DOI and dynamic capabilities
Figure 3. The evolution of the studied digital technologies.
Table 4. Influential theories and models used to examine digital innovation in SMEs.
Models and theories Other variations Illustrative references
Technology-Organization-
Environment
TOE AL-Shboul (2019); Awa and Ojiabo (2016); Ramdani
et al. (2013)
TOEP (Technology-Organization-
Environment-Process)
Ahani et al. (2017)
Individual-TOE AlBar and Hoque (2019); Elbeltagi et al. (2013);
Chang et al. (2012)
Diffusion of Innovation DOI Eid et al. (2019); Nguyen and Waring (2013);
Nooteboom et al. (1992)
Technology Acceptance Model TAM Al-Bakri and Katsioloudes (2015)
TAM, DOI, TOE Kumar et al. (2017)
TAM, Motivation Model; The Integrated
Model of Technology Acceptance
Caniëls et al. (2015)
TAM; Information System Success Model Lee and Kwon (2014)
Resource-Based View (RBV) and
Dynamic Capabilities
RBV Uwizeyemungu et al. (2018); Chen et al. (2016);
Caldeira and Ward (2003)
RBV and DOI Ruivo et al. (2013)
Dynamic Capabilities Eze and Chinedu-Eze (2018); Yunis et al. (2017)
RBV and Dynamic Capabilities Adeniran and Johnston (2016)
Theory of Planned Behavior TPB Grandon and Pearson (2004); Riemenschneider
and McKinney (2002); Harrison et al. (1997)
TPB and TAM Riemenschneider et al. (2003)
8B. RAMDANI ET AL.
to explore how SMEs exploit core competencies to gain competitive advantage. Although used by a
limited number of studies, the RBV (Chen et al., 2016; Ko & Liu, 2019) and dynamic capabilities (Gar-
bellano & Da Veiga, 2019; North et al., 2019) theories have not yet been employed to enrich the lit-
erature on the capabilities needed for organizations to achieve the desired digital innovation
outcomes.
Context
Using the World Bank country classification (World Bank, 2018), our sample covers all 7 regions and
85 countries around the world (as shown in Table 5). In terms of regions, Europe and Central Asia is
the most studied region followed by East Asia and Pacific region. Middle East and North Africa, South
Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa regions seem to have lower number of studies. The least studied region with
only 6 studies is Latin America and the Caribbean. In terms of economies, while most studies (75%)
focus on high-income economies, only 28 studies were carried out in lower-middle-income econom-
ies and 2 studies in low-income economies. Before year 2001, none of the published studies covered
any of the low-income and lower-middle-income economies. Up to 2011, only three studies covered
lower-middle-income economies focusing on three countries namely India (Lal, 2002; Oyelaran-
Oyeyinka & Lal, 2006), Bangladesh (Osterwalder, 2004), and Nigeria (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka & Lal,
2006). Since 2012, a number of studies covered countries such as Vietnam (Minh et al., 2017),
Tunisia (Ben Arfi& Hikkerova, 2019), Sri Lanka (Senarathna et al., 2014), India (Kharub, 2019),
Myanmar (Bala & Feng, 2019), and Cameroon (Ntwoku et al., 2017). Surprisingly, less attention has
been given to studying low-income economies. The two countries studied in the low-income cat-
egory are Uganda (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka & Lal, 2006) and Congo (Kabongo & Okpara, 2014). Thus,
there is still much to know about digital innovation and SMEs in numerous geographical contexts.
Although most of the studies focused more on contextual replications, there is still a need for more
research that drives theoretical insights from these contexts.
Content
Having presented the results on the examined digital technologies, theories used, and the studied
contexts, evidence on the content i.e. variables and relationships in our framework will be revealed
as follows:
Table 5. Summary of literature search results on regions and countries covered.
Regions studied; Economies (Income) studied
(Number of occurrences) Countries studied (Number of occurrences)
East Asia and Pacific (76)
Europe and Central Asia (155)
Latin America and the Caribbean (6)
Middle East and North Africa (16)
North America (55)
South Asia (14)
Sub-Saharan Africa (15)
---
Low-income economies (2)
Lower-middle-income economies (28)
Upper-middle-income economies (49)
High-income economies (249)
Antigua and Barbuda (1); Argentina (1); Australia (15); Austria (5); Azerbaijan (1);
Bangladesh (1); Barbados (1); Belgium (5);
Bolivia (1); Botswana (1); Brazil (1); Bulgaria (1); Cameroon (1); Canada (15);
Czech Republic (2); Chile (4); China (7);
Colombia (2); Congo (1); Costa Rica (1); Croatia (1);
Denmark (7); Dominican Republic (1); Ecuador (1); Egypt (2); Finland (10);
France (11); Fiji (1); Germany (17); Greece (8); Guyana (1); Hong Kong (6);
Hungary (2); India (13);
Indonesia (3); Iran (6); Ireland (11); Iceland (1); Italy (30); Jamaica (2); Japan (2);
Jordan (3); Kenya (1); Korea (3); Latvia (1); Lebanon (2); Liechtenstein (1);
Luxembourg (1); Macedonia (2); Malaysia (13); Malta (1); Mexico (2); Myanmar
(1); Netherlands (7); New Zealand (7); Nigeria (7); Norway (3);
Peru (1); Philippines (1); Poland (10); Portugal (6); Russian Federation (2);
Romania (1); Saudi Arabia (3); Singapore (9); Slovak Republic (1); Slovenia (4);
South Africa (7);
South Korea (3); Spain (19); Sri Lanka (1); Sweden (9); Switzerland (4); Taiwan;
(10); Thailand (5);
Trinidad and Tobago (1); Tunisia (2); Turkey (7); UAE (4);
Uganda (1); UK (51); USA (45); Uruguay (1); Venezuela (1); Vietnam (2)
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 9
Digital innovation antecedents
The majority of research in this field of research focused on the determinants of digital innovation in
SMEs. Specifically, researchers explored and examined the factors facilitating and/or hindering SMEs’
uptake of digital technologies. From reviewing the extent evidence, antecedents of digital inno-
vation in SMEs can be categorized into individual, technological, organizational, and environmental
determinants (e.g. Molla et al., 2006; Raymond, 2001; Wymer & Regan, 2011). Although researchers
have examined numerous antecedents, this review highlights the antecedents that have been
shown to significant.
Individual antecedents: The characteristics of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or the owner and/or
manager influence digital innovation in SMEs. These are characteristics that describe the individuals
responsible for the uptake of digital technologies (Jeyaraj et al., 2006). From reviewing the literature,
seven antecedents were shown to influence digital innovation. These antecedents are knowledge
and experience, education, attitude, motivation, age, gender, and entrepreneurial orientation of
the owner and/or manager (research summary is highlighted in Table 6). Evidence suggests that
SMEs are more likely to be engaged in digital innovation if their CEOs are aware of the potential
benefits that could be generated from digital technologies. CEOs lacking the knowledge and experi-
ence in digital technologies are less likely to be involved in digital innovation (Thong & Yap, 1995).
Moreover, studies have established that the level of CEOs’education is linked to their adoption of
digital technologies. The more educated the CEO, the more likely they are aware of new technol-
ogies, and as a result the more likely they will be involved in digital innovation. Another important
determinant is the CEO’s attitude towards new technologies. Studies have demonstrated that CEOs
forming positive attitudes towards digital technologies are more likely to adopt them. Also, CEOs
motivation and enthusiasm about digital innovation can influence their decision. Researchers
found that lack of enthusiasm as a barrier to technology adoption and diffusion (e.g. Molla et al.,
2006). In addition, prior research showed that younger CEOs are more likely to be involved in
digital innovation (Palvia & Palvia, 1999). Furthermore, although evidence is scarce, some studies
confirmed that CEOs’gender is linked to their uptake of new technologies. Awa et al. (2015)
found that male top executive to be more influential than female executives in the adoption of e-
commerce. Lastly, CEOs’entrepreneurial orientation has been found to influence their decision on
digital innovation.
Technological antecedents: These have been found to influence digital innovation in SMEs. These
are characteristics that describe the digital technology (Jeyaraj et al., 2006). Five antecedents were
identified to significantly influence the uptake of digital technologies including perceived usefulness,
perceived ease-of-use, perceived compatibility, security and privacy, and trialability (research
Table 6. Owner/manager antecedents of digital innovation in SMEs.
Antecedents Description Illustrative references
Knowledge and
Experience
Knowledge and awareness of what digital innovations could
potentially offer (Thong & Yap, 1995)
AlBar and Hoque (2019); Chang et al.
(2012); Raymond (2001)
Education Owner and/or manager level of education Ntwoku et al. (2017); Peltier et al.
(2012); Levenburg et al. (2006)
Attitude Forming a favorable or unfavorable attitude towards digital
innovation (Karahanna, Straub, & Chervany, 1999)
Ahmad et al. (2015); Peltier et al.
(2012); Caldeira and Ward (2003)
Motivation Degree of enthusiasm and enjoyment of being involved in digital
innovation (Davis, 1993)
Caniëls et al. (2015); Molla et al.
(2006); Cragg and King (1993)
Age Age of the owner and/or manager Newby et al. (2014); Chuang et al.
(2009); Palvia and Palvia (1999)
Gender Gender of the owner and/or manager Awa et al. (2015); Chuang et al.
(2009); Palvia and Palvia (1999)
Entrepreneurial
Orientation
‘the willingness to take business related risks, the willingness to
be proactive when competing with other firms, and the
willingness to innovate, i.e. to favor change and innovation in
order to obtain competitive advantage’(Naman & Slevin, 1993,
p. 143)
Yunis et al. (2017); Abebe (2014);
Aragon-Correa and Cordon-Pozo
(2005)
10 B. RAMDANI ET AL.
summary is highlighted in Table 7). Evidence suggests that SMEs are more likely to be engaged in
digital innovation if they perceive that the new technologies will deliver benefits that supersede
the benefits from their existing technologies. In addition, new technologies that are perceived to
be complex create greater uncertainty regarding their successful assimilation and could deter
SMEs from acquiring them (Premkumar & Roberts, 1999). Studies have also shown that SMEs are
more likely to be engaged with new technologies that are perceived to be compatible with SMEs’
existing values, needs, and past experiences. Furthermore, studies have shown that SMEs are
highly unlikely to be involved with technologies that are not perceived to be trustworthy. Lastly,
empirical evidence confirm that SMEs will engage with digital technologies that can be experimen-
ted with before investing since this provides SMEs with the opportunity to see what these technol-
ogies offer in terms of product, process, and business model innovation.
Organizational antecedents: These influence SMEs decision to get involved in digital innovation.
From reviewing the extent evidence, three antecedents were shown to significantly influence
digital innovation in SMEs. These antecedents are top management support, organizational readi-
ness, and organizational culture (research summary is highlighted in Table 8). Prior studies have
found that top management to be critical in creating a supportive climate for digital innovation.
In the small business context, the CEO is the decision maker and his/her support is paramount.
Another important determinant of digital innovation in SMEs is their organizational readiness.
Although fewer studies have established the link between organizational readiness and digital inno-
vation (e.g. Hajli et al., 2014; Ramdani et al., 2013), three dimensions have been confirmed to charac-
terize organizational readiness namely human, technological, and financial resources. SMEs are more
likely to be involved in digital innovation if their employees accept new technologies, their existing
infrastructure allows for digital innovation, and they have the financial means to invest in such tech-
nologies. Moreover, studies show that organizational culture that is flexible to change is more likely
to facilitate digital innovation in SMEs as opposed to a culture that is resistant to change.
Table 7. Technological antecedents of digital innovation in SMEs.
Antecedents Description Illustrative references
Perceived
Usefulness
‘The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being
better than its precursor’(Moore & Benbasat, 1991, p. 195)
AlBar and Hoque (2019); Premkumar and
Roberts (1999); Cragg and King (1993)
Perceived Ease-
of-use
‘The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being
difficult to use’(Moore & Benbasat, 1991, p. 195)
Almajali et al. (2016); Premkumar and
Roberts (1999); Sullivan and Kang (1999)
Perceived
Compatibility
‘The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being
consistent with existing values, needs, and past
experiences of potential adopters’(Moore & Benbasat,
1991, p. 195)
Ahani et al. (2017); Premkumar and Roberts
(1999); Sullivan and Kang (1999)
Security and
Privacy
The degree to which a digital technology is perceived as
reliable and trustworthy
Kim et al. (2017); Riemenschneider and
McKinney (2002)
Trialability ‘The degree to which an innovation can be experimented
with before adoption’(Moore & Benbasat, 1991, p. 195)
Ramdani et al. (2013); Ramdani et al. (2009);
Kendall et al. (2001)
Table 8. Organizational antecedents of digital innovation in SMEs.
Antecedents Description Illustrative references
Management
Support
Degree of willingness and commitment of the top
management
AlBar and Hoque (2019); Ramdani et al. (2009);
Premkumar and Roberts (1999)
Organizational
Readiness
Degree of human, technological, and financial
resources availability
Ramdani et al. (2013); Mehrtens et al. (2001);
Iacovou et al. (1995)
Human Ahani et al. (2017); Scupola (2009); Yap et al. (1992)
Technological Choshin and Ghaffari (2017); Scupola (2009);
Caldeira and Ward (2003)
Financial Ahani et al. (2017); Riemenschneider and McKinney
(2002); Yap et al. (1992)
Organizational
Culture
Degree of flexibility to change as a result of being
involved in digital innovation
AlBar and Hoque (2019); Shah Alam (2009); Fink
(1998)
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 11
Environmental antecedents: Digital innovation in SMEs is influenced by environmental antece-
dents, which are characteristics that describe the external environment (Jeyaraj et al., 2006). Six ante-
cedents were shown to significantly influence digital innovation in SMEs. These are competitive
pressure, partners’network, government support, clients’demands, vendor support and market
scope (research summary is highlighted in Table 9). Evidence suggests that SMEs under competitive
threats are more likely to resort to digital innovation to lessen the extent of losing customers. More-
over, prior studies have confirmed that SMEs are more likely to be involved in digital innovation if
their trading partners have a high degree of digital sophistication. Also, researchers have
confirmed the role of government support in SMEs’uptake of digital technologies including aware-
ness campaigns, financial incentives, and tax breaks (Scupola, 2003). Furthermore, studies have
shown that one of the critical environmental antecedents is meeting clients’demands through
digital innovation in order for SMEs to do business with these clients. In addition, evidence shows
that SMEs are more likely to be involved with digital innovation when technology suppliers are
willing to provide the needed technical support. Otherwise, SMEs will not engage in digital inno-
vation due to lacking internal technical support, and the costs associated with hiring external con-
sultants. Lastly, SMEs are eager to be involved in digital innovation when their market scope gets
larger, thus requiring new technologies to facilitate local, regional and international operations.
Digital innovation process
The digital innovation process has been portrayed in the general innovation literature to comprise
different stages that firms go through when conducting digital innovation (Fichman et al., 2014).
From reviewing the extent evidence, studies focus on four stages that characterize the process of
digital innovation in SMEs namely intention, adoption, implementation and usage (illustrative refer-
ences are provided in Table 10). The vast majority of studies focused on the adoption stage, while a
limited number of empirical studies explored more than one stage (e.g. De Waal & Knott, 2013; Lin
2014; Newby et al., 2014; Nguyen & Waring, 2013). Early studies have questioned the simple pro-
gressive path suggested by ‘stages of growth’models (e.g. Levy & Powell, 2003; Martin & Matlay,
2001). However, less attention has been paid to exploring the phases SMEs go through for a particu-
lar type of digital innovation (i.e. product, organizational, and business model). Also, much can be
studied in relation to the activities deployed in each phase, the relationships between phases,
Table 9. Environmental antecedents of digital innovation in SMEs.
Antecedents Description Illustrative references
Competitive
Pressure
Extent of losing customers to competitors if digital innovation is
not carried out
Ahani et al. (2017); Kuan and Chau
(2001); Cragg and King (1993)
Partners
Network
Degree of digital sophistication among a firm’s trading partners Ahmad et al. (2015); Chong (2008);
Premkumar and Roberts (1999)
Government
Support
Degree of support provided in terms of informational campaigns,
financial incentives, tax breaks among other initiatives (Scupola,
2003)
AlBar and Hoque (2019); Scupola
(2009); Kuan and Chau (2001)
Clients Demands Degree to which customers are demanding the uptake of digital
technologies for doing business with them
Ahani et al. (2017); Choshin and
Ghaffari (2017); Ramsey et al. (2008)
Vendor Support Extent of having vendor’s technical support when carrying out
digital innovation
Kim et al. (2017); Yap et al. (1992)
Market Scope Degree to which a firm’s scope of operations is local, regional,
and/or global
Caniëls et al. (2015); Ramdani et al.
(2013)
Table 10. Stages of digital innovation in SMEs.
Stages Illustrative references
Intention Kim et al. (2017); Levenburg et al. (2006); Thong (1999)
Adoption AlBar and Hoque (2019); Ramdani et al. (2009); Thong (1999)
Implementation Newby et al. (2014); Yee-Loong Chong et al. (2009); Panizzolo (1998)
Usage Eggers et al. (2017); Shah Alam (2009)
12 B. RAMDANI ET AL.
and the different pathways SMEs undertake. Activities can be identified for each phase depending on
the type of innovation and the managerial issues faced (Fichman et al., 2014). Also, it is essential to
examine the relationships between phases and whether a particular digital innovation strengthens
and/or weakens the transition from one phase to the next. Molla et al. (2006) suggest
that researchers may use path dependency to explore the paths that SMEs really undertake in
their digital innovation journey.
Digital innovation outcomes
As highlighted in Table 11, digital innovation impact SMEs’performance leading to organizational
and business process performance outcomes. While many studies have examined the overall organ-
izational impact of digital innovation, fewer studies assessed digital innovation impacts on specific
business processes. Among the organizational performance measures are profitability, customer sat-
isfaction, competitiveness, and internationalization. Innovation (product, process, and business
model) is one of the least studied outcomes. Moreover, three operational impacts have been the
subject of measurement such as improving organizational processes, increasing efficiency, and redu-
cing costs. Despite the numerous potential benefits that could be realized from digital innovation in
SMEs, research is still scarce on the impact of emerging digital technologies such as IoT, artificial
intelligence (AI), machine learning, and big data analytics. Also, very little is known on which
digital technologies impact small business performance, and which fall short and why. One of the
less explored aspects in this literature is the organizational capabilities facilitating the delivery of
specific digital innovation outcomes. Furthermore, digital innovation outcomes such as SME per-
formance have been shown to be directly affected by digital innovation antecedents (e.g. Bala &
Feng, 2019; Soto-Acosta et al., 2018). However, less is known on the antecedents leading to
product, process and business model innovation outcomes.
Mediators and/or moderators
Some studies suggest that digital innovation process-outcomes relationship is not straightforward
for two reasons. First, some of the antecedents discussed earlier have been found to mediate
and/or moderate this relationship. For example, Chen et al. (2016) found that the perceived useful-
ness of a portal moderates the relationship between portal interface and organizational perform-
ance. Second, some other variables were also found to mediate and/or moderate this relationship
including size (Shin, 2006; Verbano & Crema, 2016), location (Verbano & Crema, 2016), industry
(Cataldo et al., 2020; Daniel et al., 2002; Rangaswamy & Nair, 2012; Shin, 2006), and the existing
digital infrastructure (Awa et al., 2015). Other studies have shown that certain organizational capa-
bilities such as marketing capabilities (Tajvidi & Karami, 2017), and absorptive capacity (Francalanci &
Morabito, 2008) also mediate this relationship. Although researchers have started gathering evi-
dence on the mediators and/or moderators of digital innovation process-outcomes association, it
is still unclear which variables play intervening roles in this relationship.
Table 11. Outcomes of digital innovation in SMEs.
Outcomes Measures Illustrative references
Organizational
Performance
Profitability Bala and Feng (2019); Harrigan et al. (2009)
Customer Satisfaction Scuotto et al. (2017); Harrigan et al. (2009); Iacovou et al.
(1995)
Competitiveness Adeniran and Johnston (2016); Riemenschneider and
McKinney (2002); Sullivan and Kang (1999)
Internationalization Pergelova et al. (2019); Harrigan et al. (2009)
Innovation (Product, Process, and
Business Model)
Peón and Martínez-Filgueira (2020); Bouwman et al. (2018)
Business Process
Performance
Process Chen et al. (2016); Yang and Su (2009)
Efficiency Scupola (2009); Iacovou et al. (1995)
Cost Reduction Tan et al. (2010); Iacovou et al. (1995)
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 13
Discussion
One of the key results from this review is that digital innovation in SMEs is influenced by a
configuration of antecedents and has different outcomes depending on the digital technology
being studied. Thus far, there is no consensus on the determinants of particular digital technol-
ogies, nor the digital outcomes. This is due to studying a wide range of digital technologies in
different contexts using different theoretical underpinnings. This complexity is amplified when
researcher study a group of digital technologies that have different features and functionalities
using aggregate terms such as ICT, IT, Industry 4.0, digital technologies among other terms.
Researcher examining groups of technologies with common features and functionalities such
as enterprise systems will add to the existing knowledge. However, researchers studying digital
technologies in groups that do not have common features and functionalities will hamper the
progress in this field of research. To identify and determine the antecedents and outcomes of
a particular digital innovation, researchers need to specify and differentiate between the digital
technologies they intend to empirically examine.
Another key result from this review is that a configuration of individual, technological, organ-
izational, and environmental antecedents influences digital innovation process and outcomes. The
review provides a synthesis of the most prominent antecedents, stages, and outcomes of digital
innovation in SMEs. However, it is not yet clear which configuration of antecedents influences
which stages of digital innovation process. This confusion could be due to not specifying the
digital technologies under study as well as different theoretical underpinnings used in different
contexts. Thus, it is critical that researchers accumulate evidence on specific technologies high-
lighting the configuration of antecedents relating to specific technologies, and the stages they
influence.
In the small business context, the digital innovation process comprises four stages namely inten-
tion, adoption, implementation, and usage. The vast majority of the studies in this field focused on
only one stage. While most studies in this field focus on the adoption stage, a limited number of
studies explored the other stages. Three reasons could explain this trend. First, the adoption of
digital technologies is highly practical and can be easily measured. Second, exploring the implemen-
tation stage requires employing qualitative studies (e.g. Gengatharen & Standing, 2005; Sharma
et al., 2012), which usually take longer to conduct. Third, many studies in this area have examined
other dependent variables such as success (DeLone, 1988), practical use (e.g. Oh et al., 2009),
overall IS effectiveness (e.g. de Guinea et al., 2005), and IT appropriateness (e.g. Khazanchi, 2005).
Moreover, very few studies explored more than one stage of digital innovation process (e.g. Molla
et al., 2006; Newby et al., 2014; Nguyen & Waring, 2013). We call for more studies to explore multiple
stages of digital innovation process.
Digital innovation impacts SMEs’organizational and business process performance. Studies have
focused more on the organizational performance and less on specific business process performance.
Also, evidence is inconclusive as to which digital technologies can generate which outcomes, and
the literature provides little clarity on when SMEs can achieve certain digital innovation outcomes.
It is critical for future studies to examine what outcomes can be achieved from different stages of
digital innovation process. This review acknowledges the intervening roles played by antecedent,
mediators and/or moderators in the process-outcomes relationship. Further evidence is needed
on these variables and how SMEs can achieve more organizational and business process perform-
ance outcomes.
Future research
Our results suggest several avenues for future research in relation to theory, context, method and
content. Although these areas are interlinked, we draw them out by focusing on key research
gaps and corresponding research questions (summarized in Table 12).
14 B. RAMDANI ET AL.
Theory
From reviewing the theoretical underpinnings of digital innovation in SMEs research, conceptual
contributions are limited, which in turn may hamper the progress of this field of research. Most
of these contributions are either contextually-driven (e.g. Martin & Matlay, 2001; Stroeken, 2001),
or technologically-driven (e.g. Metaxiotis, 2009; Thakkar et al., 2008). Morgan-Thomas (2016), is
the exception here, advocating a complete rethinking of digital innovation in small business
context by calling on the emerging field of technology-in-practice. Thus, we call for contributions
that will build a theoretical grounding that is distinct from what already exists in the digital inno-
vation in SMEs literature.
As previously discussed, the most influential theories are TOE (e.g. Awa & Ojiabo, 2016), DOI (e.g.
Nguyen & Waring, 2013), TAM (e.g. Al-Bakri & Katsioloudes, 2015), RBV and dynamic capabilities (e.g.
Chen et al., 2016), and TPB (e.g. Grandon & Pearson, 2004). TOE is especially pertinent across the
majority of studies focusing on the antecedents of digital innovation. The other theories have
been used to either explore the antecedents or examine the capabilities needed for certain digital
technologies (e.g. Chao & Chandra, 2012; Chen et al., 2016). For future studies, we advocate a
much broader approach to developing useful explanatory theory for digital innovation in SMEs.
Table 12. Future research directions for digital innovation in SMEs research.
Theory How can extent theory be developed or enhanced to help explain digital innovation in SMEs?
Which theories from organizational science have the potential for conceptual contributions?
Which organizational theories can be used to better explain digital innovation in SMEs?
Should new theories be developed?
Context What is the status and prospects of digital innovation and SMEs in America and the Caribbean
region and in low-income economies?
What are the similarities and differences of digital innovation in SMEs among low-income
economies?
What are the differences of digital innovation in SMEs across nations?
How does the context shape digital innovation in SMEs among low-income economies?
What geo-political and socio-political antecedents influence digital innovation in SMEs?
What are the institutional pressures and how they differ from country to country?
Method What innovative methods from other disciplines can be used to explore digital innovation in SMEs
more effectively?
What methods can be used to compare digital innovation in SMEs across nations?
How can current understanding of digital innovation in SMEs be enhanced using other methods
such as longitudinal studies and ethnographic research?
Content
Digital innovation
antecedents
What are the antecedents of emerging digital technologies (such as IoT, AI, machine learning, and
big data analytics) in SMEs?
What are the similarities and differences of antecedents influencing different digital technologies?
What combinations of antecedents are needed for SMEs’initiation, adoption, implementation,
and usage of digital technologies?
What are the antecedents that have a direct impact on digital innovation outcomes?
What are the antecedents that moderate and/or mediate digital innovation process-outcome
relationship?
Digital innovation process What is the process of digital innovation for emerging digital technologies in SMEs?
What is the process for different types of digital innovation (product, organizational, and business
model)?
What are the similarities and differences of digital innovation process for different digital
technologies?
What are the linkages between different digital innovation stages?
How digital innovation in SMEs can help achieve product, process, and business models
innovations?
Digital innovation
outcomes
What are the outcomes resulting from digital innovation of emerging technologies in SMEs?
How do these outcomes compare to outcomes of studied digital innovations?
Which are the digital technologies that can generate organizational and business process
outcomes?
What organizational capabilities can facilitate certain outcomes?
What are the variables mediating and/or moderating digital innovation process-outcomes
relationship?
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 15
This field of research could be advanced by drawing on theoretical perspectives from organizational
science literature. For example, Van Beijsterveld and Van Groenendaal (2016) used contingency
theory to show how SMEs handle off-the-shelve ERP system misfits in Dutch SMEs. Moreover, Fran-
calanci and Morabito (2008) used absorptive capacity to examine the link between digital technol-
ogy and business performance. Continuing with learning perspectives, bricolage was used by
Ferneley and Bell (2006) to show how SMEs exploit the can-do approach to digital technology
that is particular to small businesses.
Context
Because less developed economies generally lack the resources and capabilities (Qureshi et al.,
2009), we call for more research on the status and prospects of SMEs’digital innovation in low-
income economies. This will contribute to our understanding of the overall impact of digital technol-
ogies on development (Qureshi, 2015). Also, this will help draw a better picture on similarities and
differences of digital innovation in SMEs not only among low-income economies, but also across
nations. Cross-country comparative analysis of digital innovation in SMEs is still in its infancy. Wie-
licki and Arendt (2010) conducted a comparative study of developed economies namely US and
European SMEs in their perception of digital technology implementation barriers. Also, Lee and
Lan (2011) conducted a comparative study of two high-income economies in East Asia namely
Taiwan and Hong Kong to understand the role of government in facilitating digital innovation
in SMEs. Instead of contextual replications, researchers are encouraged to dig deeper into contex-
tual intricacies that shape digital innovation in SMEs among low-income economies. Andoh-Baidoo
(2017) argues that ICT for development researchers could make theoretical and empirical contri-
butions through ‘context-specific theorizing.’He argues that a specific context-based research
problem could be addressed by seeking to develop a theory with variables that capture the
context. In addition to technology, IT users, and IT usage, the author argues that culture, geo-pol-
itical, and socio-political contexts are also important for advancing research. Although organiz-
ational culture has been included in previous studies, geo-political and socio-political contexts
are yet to be examined. Finally, theories such as institutional theory (Coffey et al., 2013) can
help gain a deeper and more nuanced understanding of digital innovation in SMEs across national
contexts.
Method
There are several ways to improve SMEs’digital innovation research methodologically. In designing
future studies, researchers may consider going beyond the TOE framework to include individual
antecedents, accounting for more than one stage of the digital innovation process, and examining
different digital innovation outcomes. In comparing digital innovation in SMEs across nations,
researchers in this area could collaborate by developing and running a standard survey that captures
elements described in our framework. Although quantitative approaches can provide substantive
insights on digital innovation in SMEs research, these approaches are rarely sufficient in explaining
the workings of small business and the conditions that facilitate digital innovation. Thus, researcher
could employ more qualitative methods that are longitudinal in nature and ethnography-oriented
methods to gain a deeper understanding of digital innovation in SMEs.
Content
Future research needs to examine digital technologies in a ‘disaggregated manner’(Ilavarasan, 2017)
by looking at specific digital technologies’antecedents, process, and outcomes. Although starting to
gather pace, studies of emerging digital technologies in SMEs (e.g. Kumar et al., 2017; Pérez-González
et al., 2017) are still scarce. Further research is needed to explore the antecedents, the process, and
16 B. RAMDANI ET AL.
outcomes of emerging digital technologies in SMEs. Also, it is worth investigating how the findings
on emerging digital technologies compare with existing evidence on digital technologies that have
already been examined.
While much of the literature focuses on the antecedents of digital innovation, further research is
still needed to clarify the different combination of antecedents for different digital technologies.
Also, empirical studies are needed to explore which combinations of antecedents are needed for
which stages of digital innovation process. It will be insightful for future research to provide empiri-
cal evidence on the antecedents needed for SMEs to go through a particular stage or multi-stages of
the digital innovation process.
Existing contributions on the digital innovation process show fragmented insights and do not
attempt to provide an integrated perspective into the key stages and the associations between
them. Although some researchers have explored more than one stage, the linkages between
these stages are still unexplored. Thus, identifying the key stages, their sequences, and linkages war-
rants further investigation. We call for further research to unravel the activities associated with the
digital innovation process and the paths undertaken by SMEs to undertake digital innovation in prac-
tice. In particular, qualitative and longitudinal research is needed to explore how digital innovation in
SMEs can help achieve product, process, and business models innovation.
Despite the importance of digital innovation outcomes, the associated variables have received
very little attention in the literature. Thus, this presents a real opportunity for future research.
From our review, it is still unclear which digital technologies can help generate which digital inno-
vation outcomes. Also, evidence is scarce on the activities and capabilities facilitating specific digital
innovation outcomes. Therefore, it is essential that future research examines the process-outcomes
relationship and the intervening role of mediators and/or moderators of this relationship.
Conclusion
This paper presents a comprehensive systematic review of the literature on digital innovation in
SMEs. Selected papers have been evaluated to identify the digital technologies, theories, contextual
orientations, and the content under study. The literature has been synthesized into a conceptualiz-
ation advocating that digital innovation in SMEs is driven by a configuration of four sets of antece-
dents (i.e. individual, technological, organizational, and environmental), goes through a four stages
process (i.e. intention, adoption, implementation, and usage), and leads to two outcomes (organiz-
ational and business process performance). However, this review has limitations in relation to crea-
tivity and publication bias. Our review does not escape from the typical limitations of systematic
reviews, where creativity is limited and articles are excluded as a result of applying ridged criteria
(Easterby-Smith et al., 2012; Wang & Chugh, 2013). Our analysis is limited to papers in peer-reviewed
ABS journals, which excludes other peer-reviewed journals. Also, our review suffers from publication
bias as we ignored work published in unrecognized outlets, books and conferences. This review
emphasized that research in digital innovation and SMEs is highly diverse and significant knowledge
gaps exist in relation to theory, context, method, and content. Future research agenda has been
drawn by highlighting the key topics and associated research questions that could progress this
filed of research.
This review makes several contributions to the theory of digital innovation in general and ICT for
development in particular. We have emphasized that digital innovation in the small business context
need conceptual contributions that are distinct from what already exists to move the field forward.
We developed a theoretical framework showing that digital innovation in SMEs is driven by a
configuration of antecedents, goes through different stages, and leads to various outcomes. More-
over, this review makes contributions to the theory of ICT for development as it sheds light on the
empirical evidence that strengthens the association of digital innovation with outcomes relating
socio-economic development. This review shows that digital innovation in SMEs has several out-
comes including profitability, competitiveness and internationalization. Finally, this review shows
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 17
that a limited number of studies have been conducted in low-income economies and calls for more
empirical studies to further our understanding of the role of digital innovation for development.
The findings of this review are relevant for owner and/or mangers of SMEs, technology vendors
and/or consultants, and policy makers. Owner and/or mangers of SMEs can use the findings of this
review to understand and develop the business case for digital innovation, and be aware of the
factors that could facilitate the uptake of digital technologies. Technology vendors and/or consult-
ants could use our framework to demonstrate how SMEs carry out digital innovation. For policy
makers, existing technology awareness programs, training and incentives need to be revised in
light with findings presented in this review.
Note
1. Thanks to anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
Acknowledgements
Open Access funding provided by the Qatar National Library. We thank the associate editor Dr Francis Andohbaidoo
and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments. The authors acknowledge the
funding for this research from Digital Development Partnership (DDP) of the World Bank. DDP is in a partnership
with Denmark, Finland, GSMA, Japan, Korea, Microsoft, the United Kingdom, and Norway. All residual errors remain
the responsibility of the authors.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The authors acknowledge the funding for this research from Digital Development Partnership (DDP) of the World Bank.
DDP is in a partnership with Denmark, Finland, GSMA, Japan, Korea, Microsoft, the United Kingdom, and Norway. All
residual errors remain the responsibility of the authors.
Notes on contributors
Dr. Boumediene Ramdani is an Assistant Professor of Management at Qatar University. He is a member of the Centre for
Entrepreneurship at the College of Business & Economics. His research interest focuses on how executives develop and
embed innovation capabilities in response to changing conditions. His research has been published in various journal
including: Australian Journal of Management, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, California Management Review, and Information & Management among others. Before moving to
Qatar, Dr. Ramdani held positions at a number of UK institutions including University of Exeter, UWE-Bristol, and
Cranfield. He was also a visiting professor at University Jean Moulin - Lyon 3 (France), University of Deusto (Spain),
and The University of West Indies (Jamaica). He acted as an external examiner for The University of Manchester, Univer-
sity of Hertfordshire, and Regent’s University London. He has 4 successful PhD completions, and supervised many MBA
and Masters’dissertations. He delivered numerous consultancy and advisory assignments for public institutions such as
UNDP and the World Bank Group, and private companies such as CA Technologies and Datamonitor.com.
Dr. Siddhartha Raja is senior Digital Development specialist with the World Bank Group. He works with governments
across Asia and Europe to connect more people to information, to markets, and to public services. Siddhartha’s work has
led to the expansion of broadband connectivity, to people developing their digital skills and working online, public
agencies getting online to delivery services to more people, and to exponential improvements in international connec-
tivity in countries across Europe and Asia. He writes and has published regularly with the World Bank on telecommu-
nications policy and the future of work. Dr. Raja has a bachelor’s degree in telecommunications engineering from the
University of Bombay, a master’s degree in infrastructure policy studies from Stanford University, has studied media law
and policy at the University of Oxford, and has a doctorate in telecommunications policy from the University of Illinois.
Marina Kayumova is an Operations Analyst with the World Bank’s Development Economics Vice Presidency. She led the
development of indicators for information and communication technology topic. Marina has been involved into
18 B. RAMDANI ET AL.
analytical work on digital development, inclusive digital economy, innovation of SMEs, regulatory enablers, and digital
agriculture. Previously, Marina was a Research Fellow at George Washington University. She also worked for GSM
Association in London and European Parliament in Brussels. She holds a Master of Philosophy in Innovation, Strategy
and Organisation from the University of Cambridge, UK and a Master in Advanced European Studies and International
Relations from the European Institute, France.
References
Abebe, M. (2014). Electronic commerce adoption, entrepreneurial orientation and small- and medium-sized enterprise
(SME) performance. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,21(1), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JSBED-10-2013-0145
ABS. (2015). Academic journal quality guide. Chartered Association of Business Schools.
Adeniran, T. V., & Johnston, K. A. (2016). The impacts of ICT utilisation and dynamic capabilities on the competitive
advantage of South African SMEs. International Journal of Information Technology and Management,15(1), 59–89.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJITM.2016.073915
Ahani, A., Rahim, N. Z. A., & Nilashi, M. (2017). Forecasting social CRM adoption in SMEs: A combined SEM-neural network
method. Computers in Human Behavior,75(10), 560–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.032
Ahmad, S. Z., Abu Bakar, A. R., Faziharudean, T. M., & Mohamad Zaki, K. A. (2015). An empirical study of factors affecting
e-commerce adoption among small- and medium-sized enterprises in a developing country: Evidence from Malaysia.
Information Technology for Development,21(4), 555–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2014.899961
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control.
SSSP Springer series in Social Psychology (pp. 11–39). Springer.
Al-Bakri, A. A., & Katsioloudes, M. I. (2015). The factors affecting e-commerce adoption by Jordanian SMEs. Management
Research Review,38(7), 726–749. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-12-2013-0291
AL-Shboul, M. A. (2019). Towards better understanding of determinants logistical factors in SMEs for cloud ERP adoption
in developing economies. Business Process Management Journal,25(5), 887–907. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-01-
2018-0004
AlBar, A. M., & Hoque, M. R. (2019). Factors affecting the adoption of information and communication technology in
small and medium enterprises: A perspective from rural Saudi Arabia. Information Technology for Development,25
(4), 715–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2017.1390437
Almajali, D. A., Masa’deh, R. E., & Tarhini, A. (2016). Antecedents of ERP systems implementation success: A study on
Jordanian healthcare sector. Journal of Enterprise Information Management,29(4), 549–565. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JEIM-03-2015-0024
Andoh-Baidoo, F. K. (2016). Organizational information and communication technologies for development. Information
Technology for Development,22(2), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1160703
Andoh-Baidoo, F. K. (2017). Context-specific theorizing in ICT4D research. Information Technology for Development,23(2),
195–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2017.1356036
Annosi, M. C., Brunetta, F., Monti, A., & Nati, F. (2019). Is the trend your friend? An analysis of technology 4.0 investment
decisions in agricultural SMEs. Computers in Industry,109,59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.04.003
Aragon-Correa, J. A., & Cordon-Pozo, E. (2005). The influence of strategic dimensions and the environment on the intro-
duction of internet as innovation into small and medium-sized enterprises. Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management,17(2), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320500088856
Arbore, A., & Ordanini, A. (2006). Broadband divide among SMEs: The role of size, location and outsourcing strategies.
International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship,24(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0266242606059781
Awa, H. O. (2019). Some antecedent factors that shape actors’adoption of enterprise systems. Enterprise Information
Systems,13(5), 576–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2018.1466368
Awa, H. O., Baridam, D. M., & Nwibere, B. M. (2015). Demographic determinants of electronic commerce (EC) adoption by
SMEs: A twist by location factors. Journal of Enterprise Information Management,28(3), 326–345. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JEIM-10-2013-0073
Awa, H. O., & Ojiabo, O. U. (2016). A model of adoption determinants of ERP within TOE framework. Information
Technology and People,29(4), 901–930. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-03-2015-0068
Bala, H., & Feng, X. (2019). Success of small and medium enterprises in Myanmar: Role of technological, organizational,
and environmental factors. Journal of Global Information Technology Management,22(2), 100–119. https://doi.org/10.
1080/1097198X.2019.1603511
Bandara, W., Furtmueller, E., Gorbacheva, E., Miskon, S., & Beekhuyzen, J. (2015). Achieving rigor in literature reviews:
Insights from qualitative data analysis and tool-support. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems,37(1), 154–204. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03708
Ben Arfi, W., & Hikkerova, L. (2019). Corporate entrepreneurship, product innovation, and knowledge conversion: The
role of digital platforms. Small Business Economics,https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00262-6
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 19
Biswas, S., & Irwin Casterella, G. (2019). Does conventional wisdom apply? An enterprise system sourcing decision for a
retail business in Fiji. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,44(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.
17705/1CAIS.04406
Bouwman, H., Nikou, S., Molina-Castillo, F. J., & de Reuver, M. (2018). The impact of digitalization on business models.
Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance,20(2), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-07-2017-0039
Bowen, R., & Morris, W. (2019). The digital divide: Implications for agribusiness and entrepreneurship. Lessons from
Wales. Journal of Rural Studies,72,75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.10.031
Braojos-Gomez, J., Benitez-Amado, J., & Llorens-Montes, F. J. (2015). How do small firms learn to develop a social media
competence? International Journal of Information Management,35(4), 443–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.
2015.04.003
Burgess, S. (2016). Representing small business web presence content: The web presence pyramid model. European
Journal of Information Systems,25(2), 110–130.
Caldeira, M. M., & Ward, J. M. (2003). Using resource-based theory to interpret the successful adoption and use of infor-
mation systems and technology in manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises. European Journal of
Information Systems,12(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000454
Caniëls, M. C., Lenaerts, H. K., & Gelderman, C. J. (2015). Explaining the internet usage of SMEs: The impact of market
orientation, behavioural norms, motivation and technology acceptance. Internet Research,25(3), 358–377. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2013-0266
Cataldo, A., Pino, G., & McQueen, R. J. (2020). Size matters: The impact of combinations of ICT assets on the performance
of Chilean micro, small and medium enterprises. Information Technology for Development,26(2), 292–315. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02681102.2019.1684870
Chan, C. M., Teoh, S. Y., Yeow, A., & Pan, G. (2019). Agility in responding to disruptive digital innovation: Case study of an
SME. Information Systems Journal,29(2), 436–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12215
Chang, S. I., Hung, S. Y., Yen, D., & Lee, P. J. (2012). Critical factors of ERP adoption for small- and medium-sized enter-
prises: An empirical study. Journal of Global Information Management,18(3), 205–230. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-
61350-480-2.ch009
Chao, C. A., & Chandra, A. (2012). Impact of owner’s knowledge of information technology (IT) on strategic alignment
and IT adoption in US small firms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,19(1), 114–131. https://doi.
org/10.1108/14626001211196433
Chege, S. M., Wang, D., & Suntu, S. L. (2020). Impact of information technology innovation on firm performance in Kenya.
Information Technology for Development,26(2), 316–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2019.1573717
Chen, Y. Y. K., Jaw, Y. L., & Wu, B. L. (2016). Effect of digital transformation on organisational performance of SMEs:
Evidence from the Taiwanese textile industry’s web portal. Internet Research,26(1), 186–212. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IntR-12-2013-0265
Chong, S. (2008). Success in electronic commerce implementation: A cross-country study of small and medium-sized
enterprises. Journal of Enterprise Information Management,21(5), 468–492. https://doi.org/10.1108/
17410390810904247
Choshin, M., & Ghaffari, A. (2017). An investigation of the impact of effective factors on the success of e-commerce in
small- and medium-sized companies. Computers in Human Behavior,66(1), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.
09.026
Chuang, T. T., Nakatani, K., & Zhou, D. (2009). An exploratory study of the extent of information technology adoption in
SMEs: An application of upper echelon theory. Journal of Enterprise Information Management,22(1/2), 183–196.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17410390910932821
Coffey, P., Tate, M., & Toland, J. (2013). Small business in a small country: Attitudes to “green”IT. Information Systems
Frontiers,15(5), 761–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-013-9410-4
Cragg, P. B., & King, M. (1993). Small-firm computing: Motivators and inhibitors. MIS Quarterly,17(1), 47–60. https://doi.
org/10.2307/249509
Daniel, E., Wilson, H., & Myers, A. (2002). Adoption of e-commerce by SMEs in the UK: Towards a stage model.
International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship,20(3), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0266242602203002
Daryanto, A., Khan, H., Matlay, H., & Chakrabarti, R. (2013). Adoption of country-specific business websites. Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development,20(3), 650–660. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-04-2013-0048
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS
Quarterly,13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral
impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies,38(3), 475–487. http://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022
de Guinea, A. O., Kelley, H., & Hunter, M. G. (2005). Information systems effectiveness in small businesses: Extending a
Singaporean model in Canada. Journal of Global Information Management,13(3), 55–79. https://doi.org/10.4018/
jgim.2005070104
DeLone, W. H. (1988). Determinants of success for computer usage in small business. MIS Quarterly,12(1), 51–61. https://
doi.org/10.2307/248803
20 B. RAMDANI ET AL.
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage handbook
of organizational research methods (pp. 671–689). Sage.
De Waal, G. A., & Knott, P. (2013). Innovation tool adoption and adaptation in small technology-based firms.
International Journal of Innovation Management,17(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919613400124
Dincă, V. M., Dima, A. M., & Rozsa, Z. (2019). Determinants of cloud computing adoption by Romanian SMEs in the digital
economy. Journal of Business Economics and Management,20(4), 798–820. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2019.9856
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. R. (2012). Management research. Sage.
Eggers, F., Hatak, I., Kraus, S., & Niemand, T. (2017). Technologies that support marketing and market development in
SMEs—Evidence from social networks. Journal of Small Business Management,55(2), 270–302. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jsbm.12313
Eid, R., Abdelmoety, Z., & Agag, G. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of social media marketing use: An empirical
study of the UK exporting B2B SMEs. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,35(2), 284–305. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JBIM-04-2018-0121
Elbeltagi, I., Al Sharji, Y., Hardaker, G., & Elsetouhi, A. (2013). The role of the owner-manager in SMEs’adoption of infor-
mation and communication technology in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Global Information Management,21
(2), 23–50. https://doi.org/10.4018/jgim.2013040102
European Commission. (2016). What is an SME? Retrieved January 2018 from http://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/
businessfriendly-environment/sme-definition/index_en.htm
Eze, S. C., & Chinedu-Eze, V. C. (2018). Examining information and communication technology (ICT) adoption in SMEs.
Journal of Enterprise Information Management,31(2), 338–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-12-2014-0125
Fariselli, P., Oughton, C., Picory, C., & Sugden, R. (1999). Electronic commerce and the future for SMEs in a global market-
place: Networking and public policies. Small Business Economics,12(3), 261–275. http://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1008029924987
Ferneley, E., & Bell, F. (2006). Using bricolage to integrate business and information technology innovation in SMEs.
Technovation,26(2), 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.03.005
Fichman, R. G. (1992). Information technology diffusion: A review of empirical research. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth
International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Dallas (pp. 195–206).
Fichman, R. G. (2004). Going beyond the dominant paradigm for information technology innovation research: Emerging
concepts and methods. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,5(8), 314–355. https://doi.org/10.17705/
1jais.00054
Fichman, R. G., Dos Santos, B. L., & Zheng, Z. E. (2014). Digital innovation as a fundamental and powerful concept in the
information systems curriculum. MIS Quarterly,38(2), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.2.01
Fink, D. (1998). Guidelines for the successful adoption of information technology in small and medium enterprises.
International Journal of Information Management,18(4), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268-4012(98)00013-9
Francalanci, C., & Morabito, V. (2008). IS integration and business performance: The mediation effect of organizational
absorptive capacity in SMEs. Journal of Information Technology,23(4), 297–312. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2008.18
Garbellano, S., & Da Veiga, M. D. R. (2019). Dynamic capabilities in Italian leading SMEs adopting industry 4.0. Measuring
Business Excellence,23(4), 472–483. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-06-2019-0058
Gengatharen, D. E., & Standing, C. (2005). A framework to assess the factors affecting success or failure of the implemen-
tation of government-supported regional e-marketplaces for SMEs. European Journal of Information Systems,14(4),
417–433. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000551
Gibson, T., & van der Vaart, H. J. (2008, September). Defining SMEs: A less imperfect way of defining small and medium
enterprises in developing countries. Brooking Global Economy and Development Institution, Working papers Series.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2008/9/development%20gibson/09_development_
gibson.pdf
Grandon, E., & Pearson, J. M. (2004). E-commerce adoption: Perceptions of managers/owners of small and medium sized
firms in Chile. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,13(1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.
2003.12.010
Hajli, N., Sims, J., & Shanmugam, M. (2014). A practical model for e-commerce adoption in Iran. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management,27(6), 719–730. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2013-0070
Hanclova, J., Rozehnal, P., Ministr, J., & Tvrdikova, M. (2015). The determinants of IT adoption in SMEs in the Czech-Polish
border areas. Information Technology for Development,21(3), 426–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2014.
916249
Harrigan, P., Ramsey, E., & Ibbotson, P. (2009). Investigating the e-CRM activities of Irish SMEs. Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development,16(3), 443–465. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000910977161
Harrison, D. A., Mykytyn, P. P., Jr., & Riemenschneider, C. K. (1997). Executive decisions about adoption of information
technology in small business: Theory and empirical tests. Information Systems Research,8(2), 171–195. https://doi.
org/10.1287/isre.8.2.171
Holland, C. P., & Gutiérrez-Leefmans, M. (2018). A taxonomy of SME e-commerce platforms derived from a market-level
analysis. International Journal of Electronic Commerce,22(2), 161–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2017.
1364114
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 21
Iacovou, C. L., Benbasat, I., & Dexter, A. S. (1995). Electronic data interchange and small organizations: Adoption and
impact of technology. MIS Quarterly,19(4), 465–485. https://doi.org/10.2307/249629
IDC. (2016, February). Thriving in the digital economy: How small and midsize enterprises are adapting to digital transform-
ation. An IDC InfoBrief, sponsored by SAP. https://news.sap.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/IDC-Thriving-in-the-
Digital-Economy.pdf
Ilavarasan, P. V. (2017). Bridging ICTD research and policy-making: Notes from a systematic review on MSMEs in the low-
and middle-income countries. Information Technology for Development,23(4), 723–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02681102.2017.1315355
Jeyaraj, A., Rottman, J. W., & Lacity, M. C. (2006). A review of the predictors, linkages, and biases in IT innovation adoption
research. Journal of Information Technology,21(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000056
Kabongo, J. D., & Okpara, J. O. (2014). ICT possession among Congolese SMEs: An exploratory study. Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development,21(2), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-10-2013-0143
Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional
comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly,23(2), 183–213.
Karunagaran, S., Mathew, S. K., & Lehner, F. (2019). Differential cloud adoption: A comparative case study of large enter-
prises and SMEs in Germany. Information Systems Frontiers,21(4), 861–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9781-z
Kendall, J. D., Tung, L. L., Chua, K. H., Ng, C. H. D., & Tan, S. M. (2001). Receptivity of Singapore’s SMEs to electronic com-
merce adoption. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems,10(3), 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-8687
(01)00048-8
Kharub, M. (2019). Critical factors of effective implementation of IT-enabled ISO-9000 QMS. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management,36(9), 1600–1619. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-09-2018-0253
Khazanchi, D. (2005). Information technology (IT) appropriateness: The contingency theory of “fit”and IT implemen-
tation in small and medium enterprises. Journal of Computer Information Systems,45(3), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.
1080/08874417.2005.11645846
Kim, S. H., Jang, S. Y., & Yang, K. H. (2017). Analysis of the determinants of software-as-a-service adoption in small
businesses: Risks, benefits, and organizational and environmental factors. Journal of Small Business Management,
55(2), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12304
Ko, W. W., & Liu, G. (2019). How Information technology assimilation promotes exploratory and exploitative innovation
in the small- and medium-sized firm context: The role of contextual ambidexterity and knowledge base. Journal of
Product Innovation Management,36(4), 442–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12486
Kohli, R., & Melville, N. P. (2019). Digital innovation: A review and synthesis. Information Systems Journal,29(1), 200–223.
https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12193
Kuan, K. K., & Chau, P. Y. (2001). A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology–
organization–environment framework. Information and Management,38(8), 507–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0378-7206(01)00073-8
Kumar, D., Samalia, H. V., & Verma, P. (2017). Factors influencing cloud computing adoption by small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) in India. Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems,9(3), 25–48. https://doi.org/
10.17705/1pais.09302
Lal, K. (2002). E-business and manufacturing sector: A study of small and medium-sized enterprises in India. Research
Policy,31(7), 1199–1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00191-3
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics,33(1), 159–
174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lee, J. S., & Kwon, Y. (2014). Exploring key factors of application software services and their relationships for organiz-
ational success in SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management,52(4), 753–770. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12053
Lee, M. R., & Lan, Y. C. (2011). Toward a unified knowledge management model for SMEs. Expert Systems with
Applications,38(1), 729–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.07.025
Levenburg, N., Magal, S. R., & Kosalge, P. (2006). An exploratory investigation of organizational factors and e-
business motivations among SMFOEs in the US. Electronic Markets,16(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10196780500491402
Levy, M., & Powell, P. (2003). Exploring SME internet adoption: Towards a contingent model. Electronic Markets,13(2),
173–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/1019678032000067163
Lin, H. F. (2014). Contextual factors affecting knowledge management diffusion in SMEs. Industrial Management and
Data Systems,114(9), 1415–1437. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-08-2014-0232
Martin, L. M., & Matlay, H. (2001). ‘Blanket’approaches to promoting ICT in small firms: Some lessons from the DTI ladder
adoption model in the UK. Internet Research,11(5), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006118
Mbuyisa, B., & Leonard, A. (2017). The role of ICT use in SMEs towards poverty reduction: A systematic literature review.
Journal of International Development,29(2), 159–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3258
Mehrtens, J., Cragg, P. B., & Mills, A. M. (2001). A model of Internet adoption by SMEs. Information and Management,39
(3), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00086-6
Melville, N., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. (2004). Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative
model of IT business value. MIS Quarterly,28(2), 283–322. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148636
22 B. RAMDANI ET AL.
Metaxiotis, K. (2009). Exploring the rationales for ERP and knowledge management integration in SMEs. Journal of
Enterprise Information Management,22(1/2), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410390910922822
Minh, N. D., Dat, L. Q., Son, N. H., Tuan, P. M., & Toan, N. D. (2017). Application of visual management in small medium
enterprises in Vietnam. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management,21(6), 509–529. https://
doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2017.086950
Molla, A., Heeks, R., & Balcells, I. (2006). Adding clicks to bricks: A case study of e-commerce adoption by a Catalan small
retailer. European Journal of Information Systems,15(4), 424–438. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000623
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an infor-
mation technology innovation. Information Systems Research,2(3), 192–222. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192
Morgan-Thomas, A. (2016). Rethinking technology in the SME context: Affordances, practices and ICTs. International
Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship,34(8), 1122–1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242615613839
Naman, J. L., & Slevin, D. P. (1993). Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: A model and empirical tests. Strategic
Management Journal,14(2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140205
Newby, M., Nguyen, T. H., & Waring, T. S. (2014). Understanding customer relationship management technology adop-
tion in small and medium-sized enterprises: An empirical study in the USA. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management,27(5), 541–560. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-11-2012-0078
Nguyen, T. H., & Waring, T. S. (2013). The adoption of customer relationship management (CRM) technology in SMEs: An
empirical study. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,20(4), 824–848. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-
01-2012-0013
Nooteboom, B., Coehoorn, C., & Der Zwaan, A. V. (1992). The purpose and effectiveness of technology transfer to small
businesses by government-sponsored innovation centres. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management,4(2), 149–
166. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329208524089
North, K., Aramburu, N., & Lorenzo, O. J. (2019). Promoting digitally enabled growth in SMEs: A framework proposal.
Journal of Enterprise Information Management,33(1), 238–262. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-04-2019-0103
Ntwoku, H., Negash, S., & Meso, P. (2017). ICT adoption in Cameroon SME: Application of Bass diffusion model.
Information Technology for Development,23(2), 296–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2017.1289884
OECD. (2005). Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Retrieved January 2018 from https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/
detail.asp?ID=3123
OECD. (2017, January 12). Key issues for digital transformation in the G20. Report prepared for a Joint G20 German
Presidency/OECD Conference, Berlin. https://www.oecd.org/g20/key-issues-for-digital-transformation-in-the-g20.
pdf
Oh, K. Y., Cruickshank, D., & Anderson, A. R. (2009). The adoption of e-trade innovations by Korean small and medium
sized firms. Technovation,29(2), 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.08.001
Osterwalder, A. (2004). Understanding ICT-based business models in developing countries. International Journal of
Information Technology and Management,3(2-4), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJITM.2004.005042
Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B., & Lal, K. (2006). Learning new technologies by small and medium enterprises in developing
countries. Technovation,26(2), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.07.015
Palvia, P. C., & Palvia, S. C. (1999). An examination of the IT satisfaction of small-business users. Information and
Management,35(3), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00086-X
Panizzolo, R. (1998). Managing innovation in SMEs: A multiple case analysis of the adoption and implementation of
product and process design technologies. Small Business Economics,11(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1007941228765
Peltier, J. W., Zhao, Y., & Schibrowsky, J. A. (2012). Technology adoption by small businesses: An exploratory study of the
interrelationships of owner and environmental factors. International Small Business Journal: Researching
Entrepreneurship,30(4), 406–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610365512
Peón, D., & Martínez-Filgueira, X. (2020). Determinants of investing in innovative activities by agri-food and KIBS firms in
rural areas: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Small Business Management,58(6), 1155–1186. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jsbm.12513
Pérez-González, D., Trigueros-Preciado, S., & Popa, S. (2017). Social media technologies’use for the competitive infor-
mation and knowledge sharing, and its effects on industrial SMEs’innovation. Information Systems Management,
34(3), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2017.1330007
Pergelova, A., Manolova, T., Simeonova-Ganeva, R., & Yordanova, D. (2019). Democratizing entrepreneurship? Digital
technologies and the internationalization of female-led SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management,57(1), 14–39.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12494
Premkumar, G., & Roberts, M. (1999). Adoption of new information technologies in rural small businesses. Omega,27(4),
467–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(98)00071-1
Puklavec, B., Oliveira, T., & Popovič,A.(2018). Understanding the determinants of business intelligence system adoption
stages. Industrial Management & Data Systems,118(1), 236–261. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-05-2017-0170
Qureshi, S. (2015). Are we making a better world with information and communication technology for development
(ICT4D) research? Findings from the field and theory building. Information Technology for Development,21(4),
511–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2015.1080428
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT 23
Qureshi, S., Kamal, M., & Wolcott, P. (2009). Information technology interventions for growth and competitiveness in
micro-enterprises. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems,5(2), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.4018/jeis.
2009040105
Ramdani, B., Chevers, D., & Williams, D. A. (2013). SMEs’adoption of enterprise applications: A technology-organisation-
environment model. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,20(4), 735–753. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JSBED-12-2011-0035
Ramdani, B., Kawalek, P., & Lorenzo, O. (2009). Predicting SMEs’adoption of enterprise systems. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management,22(1/2), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410390910922796
Ramsey, E., Ibbotson, P., & McCole, P. (2008). Factors that impact technology innovation adoption among Irish pro-
fessional service sector SMEs. International Journal of Innovation Management,12(4), 629–654. https://doi.org/10.
1142/S1363919608002114
Rangaswamy, N., & Nair, S. (2012). The PC in an Indian urban slum: Enterprise and entrepreneurship in ICT4D 2.0.
Information Technology for Development,18(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2011.643211
Raymond, L. (2001). Determinants of web site implementation in small businesses. Internet Research,11(5), 411–424.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240110410363
Riemenschneider, C. K., Harrison, D. A., & Mykytyn, P. P., Jr. (2003). Understanding IT adoption decisions in small
business: Integrating current theories. Information and Management,40(4), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0378-7206(02)00010-1
Riemenschneider, C. K., & McKinney, V. R. (2002). Assessing belief differences in small business adopters and non-adop-
ters of web-based e-commerce. Journal of Computer Information Systems,42(2), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08874417.2002.11647494
Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press.
Ruivo, P., Oliveira, T., Johansson, B., & Neto, M. (2013). Differential effects on ERP post-adoption stages across
Scandinavian and Iberian SMEs. Journal of Global Information Management,21(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/
jgim.2013070101
Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M., & Obi Omeihe, K. (2017). SMEs and mass collaborative knowledge management: Toward
understanding the role of social media networks. Information Systems Management,34(3), 280–290. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10580530.2017.1330006
Scupola, A. (2009). SMEs’e-commerce adoption: Perspectives from Denmark and Australia. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management,22(1/2), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410390910932803
Scupola, A. (2003). The adoption of Internet commerce by SMEs in the south of Italy: An environmental, technological
and organizational perspective. Journal of Global Information Technology Management,6(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1097198X.2003.10856343
Senarathna, I., Warren, M., Yeoh, W., & Salzman, S. (2014). The influence of organisation culture on E-commerce adop-
tion. Industrial Management and Data Systems,114(7), 1007–1021. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2014-0076
Shah Alam, S. (2009). Adoption of internet in Malaysian SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,16
(2), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000910956038
Sharma, S., Daniel, E. M., & Gray, C. (2012). Absorptive capacity and ERP implementation in Indian medium-sized firms.
Journal of Global Information Management,20(4), 54–79. https://doi.org/10.4018/jgim.2012100103
Shin, I. (2006). Adoption of enterprise application software and firm performance. Small Business Economics,26(3), 241–
256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-0215-9
Sivathanu, B. (2019). Adoption of industrial IoT (IIoT) in auto-component manufacturing SMEs in India. Information
Resources Management Journal,32(2), 52–75. https://doi.org/10.4018/IRMJ.2019040103
Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S., & Martinez-Conesa, I. (2018). Information technology, knowledge management and environ-
mental dynamism as drivers of innovation ambidexterity: A study in SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management,22(4),
824–849. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0448
Stair, R. M., Jr. (1979). Acquiring computer programs and software for the small business. Journal of Small Business
Management,1730(41), 37–42.
Stroeken, J. H. (2001). The adoption of IT by SMEs: The Dutch case. Journal of Enterprising Culture,9(1), 129–152. https://
doi.org/10.1142/S0218495801000080
Sullivan, P., & Kang, J. (1999). Quick response adoption in the apparel manufacturing industry: Competitive advantage of
innovation. Journal of Small Business Management,37(1), 1–13.
Sultan, N. A. (2011). Reaching for the “cloud”: How SMEs can manage. International Journal of Information Management,
31(3), 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.08.001
Tajvidi, R., & Karami, A. (2017). The effect of social media on firm performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.026
Tan, S. K., Chong, C. S., Lin, B., & Eze, C. U. (2010). Internet-based ICT adoption among SMEs: Demographic versus
benefits, barriers, and adoption intention. Journal of Enterprise Information Management,23(1), 27–55. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17410391011008897
24 B. RAMDANI ET AL.
Thakkar, J., Kanda, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2008). A conceptual role interaction model for supply chain management in
SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,15(1), 74–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/
14626000810850856
Thong, J. Y. (1999). An integrated model of information systems adoption in small businesses. Journal of Management
Information Systems,15(4), 187–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1999.11518227
Thong, J. Y., & Yap, C. S. (1995). CEO characteristics, organizational characteristics and information technology adoption
in small businesses. Omega,23(4), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(95)00017-I
Tornatzky, L. G., Fleischer, M., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (1990). The processes of technological innovation. Issues in organization
and management series. Lexington Books.
Uwizeyemungu, S., Raymond, L., Poba-Nzaou, P., & St-Pierre, J. (2018). The complementarity of IT and HRM capabilities
for competitive performance: A configurational analysis of manufacturing and industrial service SMEs. Enterprise
Information Systems,12(10), 1336–1358. https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2018.1448118
Van Beijsterveld, J. A., & Van Groenendaal, W. J. (2016). Solving misfits in ERP implementations by SMEs. Information
Systems Journal,26(4), 369–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12090
Verbano, C., & Crema, M. (2016). Linking technology innovation strategy, intellectual capital and technology innovation
performance in manufacturing SMEs. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management,28(5), 524–540. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09537325.2015.1117066
vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Riemer, K., Niehaves, B., Plattfaut, R., & Cleven, A. (2015). Standing on the shoulders of giants:
Challenges and recommendations of literature search in information systems research. Communications of the
Association for Information Systems,37(1), 205–244. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03709
Wang, C. L., & Chugh, H. (2013). Entrepreneurial learning: Past research and future challenges. International Journal of
Management Reviews,16(1), 24–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12007
Wielicki, T., & Arendt, L. (2010). A knowledge-driven shift in perception of ICT implementation barriers: Comparative
study of US and European SMEs. Journal of Information Science,36(2), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0165551509354417
Woolgar, S., Gomes, P., Vaux, J., Ezingeard, J. N., & Grieve, R. (1998). Abilities and competencies required, particularly by
small firms, to identify and acquire new technology. Technovation, 18, 575–584. https://doi.org/10.1049/ic:19971216
World Bank. (2018). World Bank country and lending groups.https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/
articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups
World Bank. (2019). The changing nature of work, world development report.http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/
wdr2019
Wymer, S., & Regan, E. A. (2011). Influential factors in the adoption and use of e-business and e-commerce information
technology (EEIT) by small and medium businesses. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations,9(1), 56–82.
https://doi.org/10.4018/jeco.2011010104
Yang, C., & Su, Y. F. (2009). The relationship between benefits of ERP systems implementation and its impacts on firm
performance of SCM. Journal of Enterprise Information Management,22(6), 722–752. https://doi.org/10.1108/
17410390910999602
Yap, C. S., Soh, C. P. P., & Raman, K. S. (1992). Information systems success factors in small business. Omega,20(5-6), 597–
609. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(92)90005-R
Yee-Loong Chong, A., Ooi, K. B., Lin, B., & Yi Tang, S. (2009). Influence of interorganizational relationships on SMEs’e-
business adoption. Internet Research,19(3), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240910965379
Yunis, M., El-Kassar, A. N., & Tarhini, A. (2017). Impact of ICT-based innovations on organizational performance: The role
of corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprise Information Management,30(1), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JEIM-01-2016-0040
