Digital Capabilities and Product Innovation: A Strategic Nexus for Market Success

Digital Capabilities and Product Innovation: A Strategic Nexus for Market Success

Samsuden N.S ¹., Zulkarnaini N.A.S ², Shah Rollah Abdul Wahab ³, Shahrial Bungsu⁴

Business Diploma and Financial Programmes Sunway College Johor Bahru 81100 Malaysia

Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru 81310, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90400112

Received: 14 April 2024; Accepted: 21 April 2025; Published: 01 May 2025

ABSTRACT

The research aims to explore the dynamic relationship between digital capability (DC) and business performance (BP), focusing on the relationship mediated by product innovation (PI) in the retail industry. Design/Methodology/Approach: Data was gathered from 330 retail SMEs in Johor, Malaysia, using a quantitative research approach. Analysis was conducted using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM).

Research findings: DC is significantly associated with PI and BP. PI directly relates to BP and mediates the relationship between DC and BP, while CI does not moderate it.  Theoretical Contribution/Originality: This study pioneers empirical research on the relationship between DC, PI, CI, and BP within retail Bumiputera SMEs in Malaysia. It contributes to the RBV theory by examining how DC influences BP as a strategic resource. The study’s result implies that DC and PI are key drivers of BP regardless of the CI in the market. This study demonstrates how PI is a mediating factor essential to boosting BP. Practitioner/Policy Implication: This study highlights the importance of DC for Bumiputera SMEs in Johor, Malaysia. By promoting DC and providing tailored support programs, the Malaysian government can boost their competitiveness, innovation, and global reach.

Research Limitation: This study uses a cross-sectional design and relies on self-reported surveys from owner-managers of SMEs in Johor, Malaysia.

Keywords: digital capabilities, product innovation, competition intensity, business performance, SME.

INTRODUCTION

Almost half of Malaysia’s SMEs are in the wholesale and retail sectors. According to SME Corp, 45.6 per cent of SMEs are in the wholesale and retail trade industry (SMECorp, 2024). The substantial number of retail firms is from micro-enterprise, which consists of 77 per cent of Malaysian SMEs (Rahim et al., 2019). Based on the Malaysian SME corp, retail SMEs fall into the service sector and have constantly contributed significantly to Malaysia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during the last few years. In January 2024, the sales value of Wholesale and retail trade reached RM142.4 billion, growing 5.4 per cent of annual growth (DOSM, 2024). Therefore, the significance of SMEs in the retail industry in Malaysia is evident, as their successes and failures significantly impact the economy and the populace’s well-being. However, retail Bumiputera SMEs face several significant hurdles in sustaining their business. The major obstacle in this regard is indicated by (1) the disparity growth of Bumiputera SMEs that are not keeping pace with the overall economic development in Malaysia (Hanifah et al., 2019), (2) SMEs’ lack of knowledge in market study, expertise in long-term planning, and technical expertise to thrive in digital business (Dalenogare et al., 2018; Rahim et al., 2019; Hamim et al., 2021), (3) SME perceptions of innovations and digitalisation are negatively influenced by the cost of research and development (R&D) (Torres & Augusto, 2020).

The existing research shows that digital capabilities (DC) have been recognised as critical resources in the evolving digital business landscape (Muhic and Bengtsson., 2019; Vial., 2021; Warner and Wäger., 2019). This allows businesses to gain access to global markets and expand their global presence (Coulibaly et al., 2018; Bucko et al., 2018). Substantial DC will significantly advantage the effectiveness of innovation, which will lead to profitability, success, efficiency and customer satisfaction, which ultimately contribute to improvement in BP (Fellnhofer, 2017; Wang et al., 2023). Given the growing interest in DC research, Freel and Robson (2017) noted that most studies have concentrated on large firms, with little attention given to the setting of SMEs. Gassmann et al. (2010) noted that SMEs comprise a large portion of economies.

Nevertheless, research on their DC remains limited. Ritter and Pedersen (2020) have looked at different aspects of digitalisation and transformation. However, there are still not many studies that Focus on DC within SMEs. Although there is evidence of how DC has developed in the SME context, no similar evidence exists on the relationship between DC and BP from the Bumiputera retailer’s perspective.

Understanding the importance of product innovation (PI) for gaining a competitive edge. SMEs are more innovative due to their flexible nature, but their innovative capacity is limited by their resources, both human and financial (Miller et al., 2021). The dynamic global business environment requires firms to adapt to changing customer desires and needs. As a result, PI has grown essential for SMEs’ survival. However, the digital age has caused large companies to often pose significant risks to SMEs by increasing competitiveness within them. SMEs are more vulnerable due to inadequate funding, making them incapable of remaining competitive in the market (Masroor & Asim, 2019). However, competition intensity (CI) may not necessarily harm SMEs (Kim & Choi, 2016). When SMEs face high CI, they are likely to develop innovative ways to compete while figuring out how they can differentiate themselves from their rivals (Anning-Dorson, 2018).

This study examines the effects of DC on BP, with a focus on the direct impact of DC on PI, the influence of PI on BP, and PI’s mediating role. It also examines the moderating effect of CI on the DC-BP relationship among Bumiputera retailers in Malaysia. The study presents four key contributions: First, it demonstrates a model that connects DC, PI, CI, and BP, providing helpful insights into these relationships in the retail sector. Second, it examines whether the impact of DC on BP is influenced by external environmental factors, particularly CI, emphasizing the role of CI as a moderator. Third, it introduces PI as a mediator, illustrating how DC drives BP’s product innovation. Finally, the results offer useful recommendations for Bumiputera entrepreneurs aiming to improve their BP and gain a competitive advantage by leveraging DC and PI strategies.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

DC has emerged as an essential factor for business survival and growth in today’s dynamic and uncertain economic environment. The literature highlights the importance of digital capabilities (DC), business performance (BP), product innovation (PI), and competitive intensity (CI) in this model.

Resource-Based View Theory (RBV)

According to the Resource-Based View Theory (RBV), a firm’s competitive advantage results from its strategic resources, which are valuable, rare, unique, and non-substitutable (Barney, 2001). RBV’s focus on static resources might overlook external factors influencing DC, such as regulatory settings, market dynamics, and ecosystem interaction (Donnellan & Rutledge, 2019). This emphasises the importance of DC, which can explore external forces that influence how businesses adjust to changing environments. RBV prioritises inimitability and non-substitutability, although it may not completely explain how DC affects a firm’s abilities. (Sharma et al., 2021). This perspective emphasises the limitation of RBV in capturing the full scope of DC in the usage of artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain and Internet of Things (IoT) in business operations.

Digital Capabilities and Business Performance

DC refers to the skills, knowledge, attitudes, and experience that both individuals and businesses require to effectively use digital technology and succeed in today’s digital world (Fan and Chiong, 2023). As businesses become more digital, DC has become an essential strategy (Jinto, 2018). This study outlines DC as having four main components: sensing, responsive process digitalisation, and ecosystem connectivity (Carlos et al., 2018). Sensing capabilities enable organisations to monitor and analyse environmental changes, differentiating between short-term changes and long-term strategic changes (Sampath et al., 2021). Responsive capabilities allow organisations to remain agile, adjust quickly to shifts in marketplace requirements, and thrive in turbulent environments (Maher et al., 2023). Process digitalisation involves automating processes, maximising operations, and developing a creative culture to improve communication and customer engagement (Luu, 2023). Ecosystem connectivity refers to a company’s ability to adapt and collaborate across its organisational ecosystem (Lardón-López et al., 2022). These components improve a company’s ability to innovate and adapt in a digital environment.

The impact of DC on BP is multifaceted. To assess this, the researcher used the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) framework  Kim and Kaplan, (2005), which divides BP into four areas: financial, internal processes, customer perspective, and learning and growth. Financial performance improves by higher margins of profit, higher asset returns, and cost reduction, with DC increasing efficiency and profitability \(Park et al., 2018; Putra et al., 2023). Internal processes benefit from BP boosting operational efficiency, such as cost control and supply chain optimisation. DC helps these improvements through higher inventory sharing and integrated technologies (Bagais & Aljaaidi, 2020). The customer perspective is strengthened as BP enhances customer satisfaction, service delivery, and communication, with DC fostering innovation that improves the overall customer experience (Omar et al., 2012). Finally, in the learning and growth area, BP drives employee skill development, information exchange, and job performance, while DC allows training and empowerment to support continuous development within the company (Ochoa Pacheco & Coello-Montecel, 2023). These factors contribute to the firm’s overall success and competitive advantage. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1: There is a positive relationship between DC and BP.

Digital Capabilities and Product Innovation

Digital technology has significantly impacted the development of new products and services, such as social media, mobile apps, data analytics, and cloud computing. (Hameed et al., 2021). PI is defined as significantly improved or innovative products or services produced by a business to fulfil the needs of customers and create customer benefits and value. (Falahat et al., 2020; OECD., 2018). In today’s digitalised businesses, PI is not just about introducing new product features but also about integrating digital technology into products or services to create something very creative (Zhang & Xiao, 2020). Firms need to have strong DC to efficiently incorporate digital components into their goods and services, allowing them to satisfy evolving customer needs and remain competitive in the digital economy (He et al., 2023). DC also allow firms to optimise websites and provide better services to improve consumer choices and the overall user experience (Shankar et al., 2019). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2: There is a positive relationship between DC and PI

Product Innovation and Business Performance

Previous research has proven that introducing innovative products can help businesses thrive by enhancing sales and technological expertise (Braguinsky et al., 2020). PI enhances competitiveness by improving its current offerings, addressing customer wants, and bringing up new market prospects (Primadhani & Susilawati, 2023). Additionally, customer-focused innovations increase satisfaction, which benefits BP (Lee et al., 2020). As a result, businesses gain consumer loyalty, which promotes repeat purchases and referrals to new customers (Awuku et al., 2023; Shafiq et al., 2023). PI is essential for achieving long-term growth and adjusting to a dynamic market with changing client needs. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H3: There is a positive relationship between PI and BP.

Mediating Effect of Product Innovation

Given the ambiguity of the relationship between DC and BP, this study suggests PI as a mediator between these two relationships (Martínez-Caro et al., 2020). While some studies proposed that DC by itself does not ensure success in improving BP, others believe that DC can increase flexibility and reduce expenses (Usai et al., 2021). Chae et al. (2014) further highlight the importance of exploring other factors that may influence the relationship between DC and BP. PI is essential in this context as it can leverage DC to develop new value, products, and services directly impacting customer satisfaction and BP. PI can articulate how DC helps BP by acting as a mediator, particularly in a digital context, where innovation is essential for adapting to market fluctuations and keeping an edge over competitors (Zhen et al., 2021). Therefore, this research proposes that PI mediates the relationship between DC and BP, addressing a gap in the current understanding of how digital capabilities influence business performance. Hence, we suggest the following hypothesis:

H4: The mediating effect of PI between DC and BP.

Moderating Effect of Competition Intensity

This research proposes CI as a moderator between DC and BP because external competition significantly influences the effectiveness of DC. While DC can improve BP, the impact may vary based on the competitive environment (Kumar Roy & Duraipandian, 2021). For SMEs, intense competition often presents challenges due to limited resources and financial constraints, hindering their ability to respond quickly to market changes (Gamage et al., 2020; Kumalaningrum et al., 2023). However, CI can also stimulate innovation and strategic decisions that enhance BP (Liu et al., 2022). It drives firms to adopt differentiation strategies, improve management, and leverage digital capabilities to strengthen their market position (Wang & Gao, 2021). Thus, competition intensity moderates the relationship between DC and BP by influencing how firms utilise digital capabilities to adapt and succeed. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: market behaviour and orientation. Khan et al. (2019) found that firms facing intense competition must innovate, explore new markets, and differentiate themselves from competitors (Anning-Dorson, 2021). This dynamic environment encourages firms to adopt differentiated competitive strategies, including digitalisation efforts, to strengthen their market position and respond effectively to market forces (Kim et al., 2022; Suoniemi et al., 2020). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H5: The moderating effect of CI between DC and BP.

Figure 1 provides context for visually presenting the constructed hypotheses and their relationships as elaborated in the literature review.

Fig.1 Conceptual Model of the Research Study

Note: The figure presents the constructed hypotheses and their relationships as elaborated in the literature review.

METHODOLOGY

We sampled Bumiputera retail SMEs in Johor, Malaysia, to test the hypothesised research model. The research examines Bumiputera retail SMEs registered under PUJB. PUJB is a key organisation supporting the Johor State Government’s effort to develop viable, high-quality, and productive services through efficient support aligned with national progress. In all, 402 questionnaires were collected. About 72 questionnaires were discarded due to incomplete responses and outliers, which makes the total sample size 330. The demographics of the employees are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic Profile

 Note: The table shows the demographics of the respondents among Bumiputera Retailers in Johor, Malaysia.

The questionnaire was designed on Google Forms to contain demographic information and construct measurement items. Each item was evaluated using a five-point Likert scale. The DC scale was adapted from Carlos Silva Freitas Junior and Alegre (2018) and measures four aspects: sensing, responsiveness, process digitalisation, and ecosystem connectivity. The PI scale was adapted from Rodríguez-Rebés et al. (2021), while the CI scale was adapted from Prajogo and Mcdermott (2014). The measurement scale for BP was adapted from (Shukri & Ramli, 2015) and consists of four aspects: financial perspective, customer perspective, internal perspective, and learning and growth (Refer to Table 2).

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The measurement model includes evaluations for reliability and validity. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) were used to evaluate reliability in this study. Cronbach’s alpha values above 0.70 are considered to be reliable. As shown in Table 3 and Figure 2, all construct values are more than 0.70, indicating that the data is internally consistent. In addition, CR values were examined for internal consistency, given that researchers believed CR values were more accurate than Cronbach alpha (Hair et al., 2021). The results of CR for all constructs fall between 0.9 and 0.967, indicating data reliability. Next, convergent validity was established using CR, and the average variance values were obtained. Convergent validity is defined as the degree to which one construct relates to another. AVE values above 0.50 demonstrate the existence of convergent validity.

Table 2. Measurement Model

Fig 2: Measurement Model

On top of that, to verify that the constructs applied in this research were not connected (Hair Jr. et al., 2021), we assessed discriminant validity using the Fornell and Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT), which is shown in Table 3. Based on Fornell and Larcker (1981), the square roots of the AVE must be larger than the correlation between constructs. Table 3 indicates that the square roots of AVE for each construct are significantly greater than their respective correlations. Additionally, the HTMT criterion was used to evaluate discriminant validity. According to Henseler et al. (2015), discriminant validity must be below 0.90 for all constructs. This study establishes discriminant validity based on these requirements, except for the internal perspective and the learning and growth perspective, which reflect closely related dimensions of business performance where some overlap was generally expected. Given the conceptual overlap, this slight deviation has no significant effect on the discriminant validity of the entire model. Furthermore, the decision to maintain these items is consistent with the broader objective of reflecting the multidimensionality of business performance.

Table 3. Discriminant Validity

Note: CI = Competition Intensity, CP = Customer Perspective, EC = Ecosystem Connectivity, FP = Financial Perspective, IP = Internal Perspective, LG- = Learning. & Growth, PD = Process Digitalisation, PI = Product Innovation, RS = Responsive, SS = Sensing. The complete measurement scale containing entire items of indicator is provided in Appendix A

The structural model demonstrated in Figure 3 and Table 4 summarises the structural model and hypothesis accordingly. The suggested hypotheses have been examined employing the 10,000 bootstrapping resampling method. There were five hypotheses in total; only one of them, which hypothesised that CI moderated the relationship between DC and BP, was rejected.  H1 and H2 predict the favourable influence of DC on BP and PI was confirmed (β=0.186, p < 0.002 and β=0.454, p < 0.002, respectively). H3 supported the favourable influence of PI, and BP was accepted (β=0.444, p < 0.000).  H4 proposed PI mediates the link between DC and BP has been confirmed (β = 0.202, p < 0.000). Hypothesis H5 concerning the moderating influence of CI on the relationship between DC and BP has been rejected (β=0.023, p = 0.575).

Fig 3: Structural Model

Table 4. Hypotheses Summary.

The results of this study reveal several key insights into the relationships between DC, PI, and BP. First, DC has a significant positive impact on BP, highlighting its importance in improving BP, which supports previous findings on the critical role of DC in driving success (García-Sánchez et al., 2018). Additionally, DC positively influences PI, indicating that DC fosters PI within firms, aligning with research suggesting that digital tools enhance product and service development (Zhang & Xiao, 2020). Moreover, the study confirms that PI significantly impacts BP, emphasising that PI is a key driver of BP (Zhang & Xiao, 2020). The mediating role of PI between DC and BP is also supported, suggesting that PI acts as a bridge that converts DC into improved business outcomes. However, the study found no significant moderating effect of CI on the relationship between DC and BP, challenging the assumption that increased CI necessarily amplifies the impact of DC on performance. The data collection was made during the year 2023, and the lack of a significant moderating effect could be attributed to the extensive support provided by the Malaysian government, which has allocated RM14.2 billion to support SMEs in Malaysia budget in 2022 (Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia 2022). Through infrastructure development, financial assistance, advisory services, and market access, the government has strengthened the resilience and competitiveness of Malaysian SMEs on the global stage. As a result, for Bumiputera retailers, internal capabilities like DC and PI may have a more significant impact than external competitive pressures.

IMPLICATION OF STUDY

Theoretical Implication

This study contributes to the Resource-Based View (RBV) theory by examining how Digital Capabilities (DC) act as a strategic resource influencing Business Performance (BP) in Bumiputera retailers. While prior research has highlighted the importance of DC, the relationship between DC and BP, particularly in the retail industry, remains underexplored. This study fills this gap by exploring how DC and PI are internal resources that enhance BP. Additionally, it investigates the moderating role of CI in shaping the impact of DC on BP. The findings suggest that while DC and PI positively impact BP, CI does not significantly moderate this relationship in the context of Bumiputera retailers. This result implies that DC and PI are key drivers of business performance regardless of the competitive pressures in the market. This contributes to the literature by highlighting that, for Bumiputera retailers, the effectiveness of This challenges the assumption that external competition always plays a crucial role in moderating the impact of internal capabilities. DC and PI’s improvement of business performance is not contingent on the level of competition.

Furthermore, this research also demonstrates PI’s role as a mediating factor in the relationship between DC and BP. This study highlighted the need for SMEs to strategically select and implement PI that aligns with their resources and can significantly affect their BP. Thus, the study provides a nuanced understanding of how DC, PI, and BP interact in a digitalised market and contributes to the understanding of DC in the retail industry.

Theoretical Implication

On the practical side, this research provides valuable insights for practitioners and policymakers regarding Bumiputera SMEs in Johor, Malaysia, emphasising the need for these businesses to prioritise DC. Given the government’s ongoing investment in support programs, owner-managers must emphasise DC development by targeting training programs focusing on digital literacy, e-commerce, social media marketing, and data analytics. DC will also help retailers create a supportive ecosystem that can facilitate networking opportunities where Bumiputera retailers can share best practices and learn from more digitally adept peers, fostering a community of support and knowledge sharing, allowing them to operate more effectively in a digital economy.

The Malaysian government can help these Bumiputera retailers improve their competitiveness, expand into international markets, and drive innovation by promoting essential DC and providing tailored advisory programs. The government can introduce financial incentives for SMEs that invest in digital tools and technologies, which include grants for software, hardware, or digital efforts, as well as tax reductions for companies that demonstrate substantial investment in digital transformation. Policymakers may regularly assess the effectiveness of existing policies aimed at enhancing DC and make necessary adjustments based on the findings of this study, feedback from SMEs, and outcomes.  By prioritising these areas, policymakers can create a conducive environment for Bumiputera SMEs to thrive in the digital economy.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

While this study offers valuable insights, there are some limitations to consider. First, the research uses a cross-sectional design, which captures data at a single point in time. This limits our understanding of how DC, innovation, competition, and BP change over time. Longitudinal studies could provide a clearer picture of these dynamics. Second, the data come from self-reported surveys by owner-managers, which can be subject to biases. Despite this, self-reports are still valid for understanding attitudes and behaviours. Third, focusing solely on SMEs in Johor, Malaysia, may limit the generalizability of the findings, as Johor represents only a small part of Malaysia’s SME landscape. Regional differences could affect the results.

Future research should include longitudinal studies to track changes over time, comparative studies across various industries and regions to identify specific challenges and opportunities, and qualitative methods like interviews to gain deeper insights into digitalisation. Expanding research to other countries and sectors could reveal how different factors impact DC. Additionally, exploring collaborations between SMEs and larger companies could provide strategies for enhancing DC and innovation. These approaches will help deepen our understanding of DC in SMEs and support sustainable development goals.

Appendices

Table 2. Appendix A: Measurement Scale

REFERENCES

1. Anning-Dorson, T. (2018). Innovation and competitive advantage creation: The role of organisational leadership in service firms from emerging markets. International Marketing Review, 35(4), 580–600. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-11-2015-0262/FULL/XML
2. Anning-Dorson, T. (2021). Organisational culture and leadership as antecedents to organisational flexibility: implications for SME competitiveness. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 13(5), 1309–1325. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-08-2020-0288/FULL/PDF
3. Arora, B., & Rahman, Z. (2017). Information technology capability as a competitive advantage in emerging markets: Evidence from India. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 12(3), 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJoEM-07-2015-0127
4. Awuku, E., Agyei, P. M., & Gonu, E. (2023). Service innovation practices and customer loyalty in the telecommunication industry. PLOS ONE, 18(3), e0282588. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0282588
5. Bagais, O. A., & Aljaaidi, K. S. (2020). An empirical investigation of the associations of technological capability, logistics capability and supply chain management strategies with a competitive advantage: Evidence from Saudi manufacturers. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 8(4), 799–804. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2020.6.007
6. Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700602
7. Barney, J. B. (2008). Evaluating a firm’s internal capabilities. Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage, 74–107. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=id&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Jay+B.+Barney+%26+William+S.+Hesterly%2C+2008&btnG=
8. Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). A Resource-Based Perspective on Information Technology Capability and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation Bharadwaj/IT Capability and Firm Performance Q rMIS Qrterjy A RESOURCE-BASED PERSPECTIVE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITY AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION1. In Source: MIS Quarterly (Vol. 24, Issue 1).
9. Braguinsky, S., Ohyama, A., Okazaki, T., & Syverson, C. (2020). Product Innovation, Product Diversification, and Firm Growth: Evidence from Japan’s Early Industrialization. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3523301
10. Bucko, J., Kakalejčík, L., & Ferencová, M. (2018). Online shopping: Factors that affect consumer purchasing behaviour. Cogent Business and Management, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1535751
11. Bustinza, O. F., Gomes, E., Vendrell-Herrero, F., & Baines, T. (2019). Product–service innovation and performance: the role of collaborative partnerships and R&D intensity. R and D Management, 49(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12269
12. Carlos Silva Freitas Junior, J. DA, & Alegre, P. (2018). Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul Escola De Administração Programa De Pós-Graduação Em Administração Nível Doutorado the Relationship Between Digital Capabilities and Digital Business Performance.
13. Chae, H. C., Koh, C. E., & Prybutok, V. R. (2014). Information technology capability and firm performance: Contradictory findings and their possible causes. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 38(1), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.1.14
14. Coulibaly, S. K., Erbao, C., & Metuge Mekongcho, T. (2018). Economic globalisation, entrepreneurship, and development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127(September), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.028
15. (2024). Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by State, 2023. https://www.dosm.gov.my/portal-main/release-content/gross-domestic-product-gdp-by-state-20232023
16. Falahat, M., Ramayah, T., Soto-Acosta, P., & Lee, Y. Y. (2020). SMEs internationalisation: The role of product innovation, market intelligence, pricing and marketing communication capabilities as drivers of SMEs’ international performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 152(January), 119908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119908
17. Fan, Z., & Chiong, R. (2023). Identifying digital capabilities in university courses: An automated machine learning approach. Education and Information Technologies, 28(4), 3937–3952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11075-8
18. Fellnhofer, K. (2017). Drivers of innovation success in sustainable businesses. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 1534–1545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.197
19. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313
20. Freel, M., & Robson, P. J. (2017). Appropriation strategies and open innovation in SMEs. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 35(5), 578–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616654957
21. Gamage, S. K. N., Ekanayake, E. M. S., Abeyrathne, G. A. K. N. J., Prasanna, R. P. I. R., Jayasundara, J. M. S. B., & Rajapakshe, P. S. K. (2020). A Review of Global Challenges and Survival Strategies of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Economies 2020, Vol. 8, Page 79, 8(4), 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/ECONOMIES8040079
22. Sánchez, E., García-Morales, V. J., & Martín-Rojas, R. (2018). Analysis of the influence of the environment, stakeholder integration capability, absorptive capacity, and technological skills on organisational performance through corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(2), 345–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0436-9
23. Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. In R and D Management (Vol. 40, Issue 3, pp. 213–221). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00605.x
24. Hair Jr., J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R. 197. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7
25. Hameed, W. U., Nisar, Q. A., & Wu, H. C. (2021). Relationships between external knowledge, internal innovation, firms’ open innovation performance, service innovation and business performance in the Pakistani hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102745. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHM.2020.102745
26. Hanifah, H., Abdul Halim, H., Ahmad, N. H., & Vafaei-Zadeh, A. (2019). Emanating the key factors of innovation performance: leveraging on the innovation culture among SMEs in Malaysia. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 13(4), 559–587. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-04-2018-0130
27. He, B., He, X., Zhang, Y., Tang, R., & Ma, C. (2023). Dynamically Expandable Graph Convolution for Streaming Recommendation. ACM Web Conference 2023 – Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2023, 1457–1467. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543507.3583237
28. Hsu, T. T., Tsai, K. H., Hsieh, M. H., & Wang, W. Y. (2014). Strategic orientation and new product performance: The roles of technological capability. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 31(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1274
29. Jajja, M. S. S., Kannan, V. R., Brah, S. A., & Hassan, S. Z. (2017). Linkages between firm innovation strategy, suppliers, product innovation, and business performance: Insights from resource dependence theory. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 37(8), 1054–1075. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09-2014-0424
30. Jinto, L. Das. (2018). Master Thesis Digital Capabilities of Internet-based Consultancy Startups.
31. Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia. (2022). Inti pati ekonomi bagi Bajet 2022. https://www.mof.gov.my/portal/ms/berita/akhbar/inti-pati-ekonomi-bagi-bajet-2022
32. Khan, K. U., Xuehe, Z., Atlas, F., & Khan, F. (2019). The impact of dominant logic and competitive intensity on SMEs performance: A case from China. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 4(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2018.10.001
33. Kim, J., Kollmann, T., Palangkaraya, A., & Webster, E. (2022). Does local technological specialisation, diversity, and dynamic competition enhance firm creation? Research Policy, 51(7), 104557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104557
34. Kim, R. M., & Kaplan, S. M. (2005). Information Technology & People Article information : In Information Technology & People: Vol. 18 No.3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593840510615888
35. Kim, Y., & Choi, J. (2016). The role of a large competitor’s entry and level of innovativeness in consumer adoption of new products. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjie-12-2016-004
36. Kumar Roy, R., & Duraipandian, R. (2021). Analysis of Business External Factors that Impact the Growth of IT Entrepreneurship. Psychology and Education Journal, 58(1), 5526–5532. https://doi.org/10.17762/PAE.V58I1.2169
37. Lardón-López, M. E., Martín-Rojas, R., & García-Morales, V. J. (2022). “Social media technologies: a waste of time or a good way to learn and improve technological competencies?” Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(11), 348–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2022-0130
38. Lee, S., Oh, H. Y., & Choi, J. (2020). Service Design Management and Organizational Innovation Performance. Sustainability 2021, Vol. 13, Page 4, 13(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13010004
39. Limniou, M., Varga-Atkins, T., Hands, C., & Elshamaa, M. (2021). Learning, student digital capabilities and academic performance over the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 11(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070361
40. Liu, Q., Qu, X., Wang, D., Abbas, J., & Mubeen, R. (2022a). Product Market Competition and Firm Performance: Business Survival Through Innovation and Entrepreneurial Orientation Amid COVID-19 Financial Crisis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 790923. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2021.790923/BIBTEX
41. Liu, Q., Qu, X., Wang, D., Abbas, J., & Mubeen, R. (2022b). Product Market Competition and Firm Performance: Business Survival Through Innovation and Entrepreneurial Orientation Amid COVID-19 Financial Crisis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 790923. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2021.790923/BIBTEX
42. Luu, T. D. (2023). Digital transformation and export performance: a process mechanism of firm digital capabilities. Business Process Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-01-2023-0024
43. Maher, A., Ali, M., Fadel, N., & Razzaq, A. (2023). THE IMPACT OF AGILE MANUFACTURING REQUIREMENTS ON THE EVALUATION OF STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE. Russian Law Journal, 11(3s), 3. https://doi.org/10.52783/RLJ.V11I3S.2187
44. Martínez-Caro, E., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & Alfonso-Ruiz, F. J. (2020). Digital technologies and firm performance: The role of digital organisational culture. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 154(June 2019), 119962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119962
45. Martzoukou, K., Kostagiolas, P., Lavranos, C., Lauterbach, T., & Fulton, C. (2022). A study of university law students’ self-perceived digital competencies. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 54(4), 751–769. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211048004
46. Masroor, N., & Asim, M. (2019). SMEs in the Contemporary Era of Global Competition. Procedia Computer Science, 158, 632–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.097
47. Miller, K., McAdam, M., Spieth, P., & Brady, M. (2021). Business models big and small: Review of conceptualisations and constructs and future directions for SME business model research. Journal of Business Research, 131, 619–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2020.12.036
48. Muhic, M., & Bengtsson, L. G. (2019). Dynamic capabilities triggered by cloud sourcing – a stage model. Https://Doi.Org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.15991abstract, 2019(1), 15991. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.15991ABSTRACT
49. Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2020). Digital innovation: Towards a transdisciplinary perspective. Handbook of Digital Innovation, 2–12. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788119986.00008
50. Ochoa Pacheco, P., & Coello-Montecel, D. (2023). Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between digital competencies and job performance? Computers in Human Behavior, 140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107575
51. OECD/Eurostat. (2018). Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation. In The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264304604-en.pdf?expires=1635188344&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=A0EFE082698559115B1F21499AE294A1%0Ahttps://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en
52. Omar, R., Takim, R., & Nawawi, A. H. (2012). Measuring of technological capabilities in technology transfer (TT) projects. Asian Social Science, 8(15), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n15p211
53. Park, J. H., Kook, S. H., Im, H., Eum, S., & Lee, C. (2018). Fabless semiconductor firms’ financial performance determinant factors: Product platform efficiency and technological capability. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103373
54. Prajogo, D., & Mcdermott, C. M. (2014). Antecedents of Service Innovation in SMEs: Comparing the Effects of External and Internal Factors. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(3), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12047
55. Primadhani, P., & Susilawati, D. (2023). Classification and Procedure of Business Product Innovation. Enigma in Economics, 1(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.61996/ECONOMY.V1I1.6
56. Putra, I. G. C., Mendra, N. P. Y., & Novitasari, L. G. (2023). Integration of information technology capabilities in generating small and medium enterprise performance. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 11(2), 843–854. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2023.3.010
57. Rahim, H. L., Abdul Kadir, M. A. B., Osman, C. A., Rosly, H. E., & Bakri, A. A. (2019a). The Essentials and Challenges of Online Business Among Bumiputera SME Entrepreneurs in Malaysia. Research in World Economy, 10(3), 45. https://doi.org/10.5430/rwe.v10n3p45
58. Rahim, H. L., Abdul Kadir, M. A. B., Osman, C. A., Rosly, H. E., & Bakri, A. A. (2019b). The Essentials and Challenges of Online Business Among Bumiputera SME Entrepreneurs in Malaysia. Research in World Economy, 10(3), 45. https://doi.org/10.5430/rwe.v10n3p45
59. Randhawa, P., Kim, M., … C. V.-C. H., & 2016, undefined. (2016). Hospitality service innovations in private clubs. Sagepub.Com, 57(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965515586791
60. Ritter, T., & Pedersen, C. L. (2020). Digitisation capability and the digitalisation of business models in business-to-business firms: Past, present, and future. Industrial Marketing Management, 86(November 2019), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.11.019
61. Rodríguez-Rebés, L., Navío-Marco, J., & Ibar-Alonso, R. (2021). Influence of organisational innovation and innovation in general on eco-innovation in European companies. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(5), 840–867. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-06-2020-0203
62. Sampath, G., Bhattacharyya, S. S., & Krishnamoorthy, B. (2021). Microfoundations approach to strategic agility – Exploration to operationalisation. Https://Doi.Org/10.1177/0306307020939359, 46(2), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306307020939359
63. Shafiq, M. A., Khan, M. M. A., Ali, M. S. e, & Asim, S. (2023). Assessment of Service Quality and Innovation in Developing Customer Loyalty; The mediating role of Customer Commitment and Satisfaction. Pakistan Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 11(1), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.52131/PJHSS.2023.1101.0346
64. Shankar, K., Shankar, R., & Sindhwani, R. (2019). Advances in Industrial and Production Engineering. In Springer- Lecture Notes in Mechanical EngineeringAdvances in Industrial and Production Engineering (Issue September). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-981-13-6412-9
65. Sharma, Y., Balamurugan, B., Snegar, N., & Ilavendhan, A. (2021). How IoT, AI, and Blockchain Will Revolutionize Business. Blockchain, Internet of Things, and Artificial Intelligence, 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429352898-13
66. Shuk N. F. M., & Ramli, A. (2015). Organisational Structure and Performances of Responsible Malaysian Healthcare Providers: A Balanced Scorecard Perspective. Procedia Economics and Finance, 28(April), 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)01101-6
67. (2024). SME Corporation Malaysia – Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. https://www.smecorp.gov.my/index.php/en/small-and-medium-sized-enterprises
68. Suoniemi, S., Meyer-Waarden, L., Munzel, A., Zablah, A. R., & Straub, D. (2020). Big data and firm performance: The roles of market-directed capabilities and business strategy. Information & Management, 57(7), 103365. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IM.2020.103365
69. Tamtam, F., & Tourabi, A. (2020). Agile workforce assessment: Manufacturing companies cases. Proceedings – 2020 5th International Conference on Logistics Operations Management, GOL 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/GOL49479.2020.9314745
70. Torres, P., & Augusto, M. (2020). Understanding complementarities among different forms of innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(5), 813–834. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2019-0012
71. Usai, A., Fiano, F., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Paoloni, P., Farina Briamonte, M., & Orlando, B. (2021). Unveiling the impact of the adoption of digital technologies on firms’ innovation performance. Journal of Business Research, 133, 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2021.04.035
72. Vial, G. (2021). Understanding digital transformation : A review and a research agenda. Managing Digital Transformation, 13–66. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003008637-4
73. Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11747-015-0455-4/METRICS
74. Walter, A. T. (2020). Organisational agility: ill-defined and somewhat confusing? A systematic literature review and conceptualisation. Management Review Quarterly 2020 71:2, 71(2), 343–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11301-020-00186-6
75. Wang, L. L., & Gao, Y. (2021). Competition network as a source of competitive advantage: The dynamic capability perspective and evidence from China. Long Range Planning, 54(2), 102052. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LRP.2020.102052
76. Anning-Dorson, T. (2018). Innovation and competitive advantage creation: The role of organisational leadership in service firms from emerging markets. International Marketing Review, 35(4), 580–600. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-11-2015-0262/FULL/XML
77. Anning-Dorson, T. (2021). Organisational culture and leadership as antecedents to organisational flexibility: implications for SME competitiveness. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 13(5), 1309–1325. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-08-2020-0288/FULL/PDF
78. Arora, B., & Rahman, Z. (2017). Information technology capability as a competitive advantage in emerging markets: Evidence from India. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 12(3), 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJoEM-07-2015-0127
79. Awuku, E., Agyei, P. M., & Gonu, E. (2023). Service innovation practices and customer loyalty in the telecommunication industry. PLOS ONE, 18(3), e0282588. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0282588
80. Bagais, O. A., & Aljaaidi, K. S. (2020). An empirical investigation of the associations of technological capability, logistics capability and supply chain management strategies with a competitive advantage: Evidence from Saudi manufacturers. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 8(4), 799–804. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2020.6.007
81. Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700602
82. Barney, J. B. (2008). Evaluating a firm’s internal capabilities. Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage, 74–107. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=id&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Jay+B.+Barney+%26+William+S.+Hesterly%2C+2008&btnG=
83. Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). A Resource-Based Perspective on Information Technology Capability and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation Bharadwaj/IT Capability and Firm Performance Q rMIS Qrterjy A RESOURCE-BASED PERSPECTIVE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITY AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION1. In Source: MIS Quarterly (Vol. 24, Issue 1).
84. Braguinsky, S., Ohyama, A., Okazaki, T., & Syverson, C. (2020). Product Innovation, Product Diversification, and Firm Growth: Evidence from Japan’s Early Industrialization. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3523301
85. Bucko, J., Kakalejčík, L., & Ferencová, M. (2018). Online shopping: Factors that affect consumer purchasing behaviour. Cogent Business and Management, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1535751
86. Bustinza, O. F., Gomes, E., Vendrell-Herrero, F., & Baines, T. (2019). Product–service innovation and performance: the role of collaborative partnerships and R&D intensity. R and D Management, 49(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12269
87. Carlos Silva Freitas Junior, J. DA, & Alegre, P. (2018). Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul Escola De Administração Programa De Pós-Graduação Em Administração Nível Doutorado the Relationship Between Digital Capabilities and Digital Business Performance.
88. Chae, H. C., Koh, C. E., & Prybutok, V. R. (2014). Information technology capability and firm performance: Contradictory findings and their possible causes. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 38(1), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.1.14
89. Coulibaly, S. K., Erbao, C., & Metuge Mekongcho, T. (2018). Economic globalisation, entrepreneurship, and development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127(September), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.028
90. (2024). Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by State, 2023. https://www.dosm.gov.my/portal-main/release-content/gross-domestic-product-gdp-by-state-20232023
91. Falahat, M., Ramayah, T., Soto-Acosta, P., & Lee, Y. Y. (2020). SMEs internationalisation: The role of product innovation, market intelligence, pricing and marketing communication capabilities as drivers of SMEs’ international performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 152(January), 119908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119908
92. Fan, Z., & Chiong, R. (2023). Identifying digital capabilities in university courses: An automated machine learning approach. Education and Information Technologies, 28(4), 3937–3952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11075-8
93. Fellnhofer, K. (2017). Drivers of innovation success in sustainable businesses. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, 1534–1545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.197
94. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313
95. Freel, M., & Robson, P. J. (2017). Appropriation strategies and open innovation in SMEs. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 35(5), 578–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616654957
96. Gamage, S. K. N., Ekanayake, E. M. S., Abeyrathne, G. A. K. N. J., Prasanna, R. P. I. R., Jayasundara, J. M. S. B., & Rajapakshe, P. S. K. (2020). A Review of Global Challenges and Survival Strategies of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Economies 2020, Vol. 8, Page 79, 8(4), 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/ECONOMIES8040079
97. García-Sánchez, E., García-Morales, V. J., & Martín-Rojas, R. (2018). Analysis of the influence of the environment, stakeholder integration capability, absorptive capacity, and technological skills on organisational performance through corporate entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(2), 345–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0436-9
98. Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. In R and D Management (Vol. 40, Issue 3, pp. 213–221). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00605.x
99. Hair Jr., J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R. 197. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7
100. Hameed, W. U., Nisar, Q. A., & Wu, H. C. (2021). Relationships between external knowledge, internal innovation, firms’ open innovation performance, service innovation and business performance in the Pakistani hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102745. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHM.2020.102745
101. Hanifah, H., Abdul Halim, H., Ahmad, N. H., & Vafaei-Zadeh, A. (2019). Emanating the key factors of innovation performance: leveraging on the innovation culture among SMEs in Malaysia. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 13(4), 559–587. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-04-2018-0130
102. He, B., He, X., Zhang, Y., Tang, R., & Ma, C. (2023). Dynamically Expandable Graph Convolution for Streaming Recommendation. ACM Web Conference 2023 – Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2023, 1457–1467. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543507.3583237
103. Hsu, T. T., Tsai, K. H., Hsieh, M. H., & Wang, W. Y. (2014). Strategic orientation and new product performance: The roles of technological capability. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 31(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1274
104. Jajja, M. S. S., Kannan, V. R., Brah, S. A., & Hassan, S. Z. (2017). Linkages between firm innovation strategy, suppliers, product innovation, and business performance: Insights from resource dependence theory. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 37(8), 1054–1075. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09-2014-0424
105. Jinto, L. Das. (2018). Master Thesis Digital Capabilities of Internet-based Consultancy Startups.
106. Kementerian Kewangan Malaysia. (2022). Inti pati ekonomi bagi Bajet 2022. https://www.mof.gov.my/portal/ms/berita/akhbar/inti-pati-ekonomi-bagi-bajet-2022
107. Khan, K. U., Xuehe, Z., Atlas, F., & Khan, F. (2019). The impact of dominant logic and competitive intensity on SMEs performance: A case from China. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 4(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2018.10.001
108. Kim, J., Kollmann, T., Palangkaraya, A., & Webster, E. (2022). Does local technological specialisation, diversity, and dynamic competition enhance firm creation? Research Policy, 51(7), 104557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104557
109. Kim, R. M., & Kaplan, S. M. (2005). Information Technology & People Article information : In Information Technology & People: Vol. 18 No.3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593840510615888
110. Kim, Y., & Choi, J. (2016). The role of a large competitor’s entry and level of innovativeness in consumer adoption of new products. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjie-12-2016-004
111. Kumar Roy, R., & Duraipandian, R. (2021). Analysis of Business External Factors that Impact the Growth of IT Entrepreneurship. Psychology and Education Journal, 58(1), 5526–5532. https://doi.org/10.17762/PAE.V58I1.2169
112. Lardón-López, M. E., Martín-Rojas, R., & García-Morales, V. J. (2022). “Social media technologies: a waste of time or a good way to learn and improve technological competencies?” Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(11), 348–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2022-0130
113. Lee, S., Oh, H. Y., & Choi, J. (2020). Service Design Management and Organizational Innovation Performance. Sustainability 2021, Vol. 13, Page 4, 13(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13010004
114. Limniou, M., Varga-Atkins, T., Hands, C., & Elshamaa, M. (2021). Learning, student digital capabilities and academic performance over the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 11(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070361
115. Liu, Q., Qu, X., Wang, D., Abbas, J., & Mubeen, R. (2022a). Product Market Competition and Firm Performance: Business Survival Through Innovation and Entrepreneurial Orientation Amid COVID-19 Financial Crisis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 790923. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2021.790923/BIBTEX
116. Liu, Q., Qu, X., Wang, D., Abbas, J., & Mubeen, R. (2022b). Product Market Competition and Firm Performance: Business Survival Through Innovation and Entrepreneurial Orientation Amid COVID-19 Financial Crisis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 790923. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2021.790923/BIBTEX
117. Luu, T. D. (2023). Digital transformation and export performance: a process mechanism of firm digital capabilities. Business Process Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-01-2023-0024
118. Maher, A., Ali, M., Fadel, N., & Razzaq, A. (2023). THE IMPACT OF AGILE MANUFACTURING REQUIREMENTS ON THE EVALUATION OF STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE. Russian Law Journal, 11(3s), 3. https://doi.org/10.52783/RLJ.V11I3S.2187
119. Martínez-Caro, E., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & Alfonso-Ruiz, F. J. (2020). Digital technologies and firm performance: The role of digital organisational culture. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 154(June 2019), 119962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119962
120. Martzoukou, K., Kostagiolas, P., Lavranos, C., Lauterbach, T., & Fulton, C. (2022). A study of university law students’ self-perceived digital competencies. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 54(4), 751–769. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211048004
121. Masroor, N., & Asim, M. (2019). SMEs in the Contemporary Era of Global Competition. Procedia Computer Science, 158, 632–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.097
122. Miller, K., McAdam, M., Spieth, P., & Brady, M. (2021). Business models big and small: Review of conceptualisations and constructs and future directions for SME business model research. Journal of Business Research, 131, 619–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2020.12.036
123. Muhic, M., & Bengtsson, L. G. (2019). Dynamic capabilities triggered by cloud sourcing – a stage model. Https://Doi.Org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.15991abstract, 2019(1), 15991. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.15991ABSTRACT
124. Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2020). Digital innovation: Towards a transdisciplinary perspective. Handbook of Digital Innovation, 2–12. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788119986.00008
125. Ochoa Pacheco, P., & Coello-Montecel, D. (2023). Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between digital competencies and job performance? Computers in Human Behavior, 140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107575
126. OECD/Eurostat. (2018). Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation. In The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264304604-en.pdf?expires=1635188344&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=A0EFE082698559115B1F21499AE294A1%0Ahttps://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en
127. Omar, R., Takim, R., & Nawawi, A. H. (2012). Measuring of technological capabilities in technology transfer (TT) projects. Asian Social Science, 8(15), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n15p211
128. Park, J. H., Kook, S. H., Im, H., Eum, S., & Lee, C. (2018). Fabless semiconductor firms’ financial performance determinant factors: Product platform efficiency and technological capability. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103373
129. Prajogo, D., & Mcdermott, C. M. (2014). Antecedents of Service Innovation in SMEs: Comparing the Effects of External and Internal Factors. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(3), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12047
130. Primadhani, P., & Susilawati, D. (2023). Classification and Procedure of Business Product Innovation. Enigma in Economics, 1(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.61996/ECONOMY.V1I1.6
131. Putra, I. G. C., Mendra, N. P. Y., & Novitasari, L. G. (2023). Integration of information technology capabilities in generating small and medium enterprise performance. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 11(2), 843–854. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2023.3.010
132. Rahim, H. L., Abdul Kadir, M. A. B., Osman, C. A., Rosly, H. E., & Bakri, A. A. (2019a). The Essentials and Challenges of Online Business Among Bumiputera SME Entrepreneurs in Malaysia. Research in World Economy, 10(3), 45. https://doi.org/10.5430/rwe.v10n3p45
133. Rahim, H. L., Abdul Kadir, M. A. B., Osman, C. A., Rosly, H. E., & Bakri, A. A. (2019b). The Essentials and Challenges of Online Business Among Bumiputera SME Entrepreneurs in Malaysia. Research in World Economy, 10(3), 45. https://doi.org/10.5430/rwe.v10n3p45
134. Randhawa, P., Kim, M., … C. V.-C. H., & 2016, undefined. (2016). Hospitality service innovations in private clubs. Journals.Sagepub.Com, 57(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965515586791
135. Ritter, T., & Pedersen, C. L. (2020). Digitisation capability and the digitalisation of business models in business-to-business firms: Past, present, and future. Industrial Marketing Management, 86(November 2019), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.11.019
136. Rodríguez-Rebés, L., Navío-Marco, J., & Ibar-Alonso, R. (2021). Influence of organisational innovation and innovation in general on eco-innovation in European companies. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(5), 840–867. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-06-2020-0203
137. Sampath, G., Bhattacharyya, S. S., & Krishnamoorthy, B. (2021). Microfoundations approach to strategic agility – Exploration to operationalisation. Https://Doi.Org/10.1177/0306307020939359, 46(2), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306307020939359
138. Shafiq, M. A., Khan, M. M. A., Ali, M. S. e, & Asim, S. (2023). Assessment of Service Quality and Innovation in Developing Customer Loyalty; The mediating role of Customer Commitment and Satisfaction. Pakistan Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 11(1), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.52131/PJHSS.2023.1101.0346
139. Shankar, K., Shankar, R., & Sindhwani, R. (2019). Advances in Industrial and Production Engineering. In Springer- Lecture Notes in Mechanical EngineeringAdvances in Industrial and Production Engineering (Issue September). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-981-13-6412-9
140. Sharma, Y., Balamurugan, B., Snegar, N., & Ilavendhan, A. (2021). How IoT, AI, and Blockchain Will Revolutionize Business. Blockchain, Internet of Things, and Artificial Intelligence, 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429352898-13
141. Shukri, N. F. M., & Ramli, A. (2015). Organisational Structure and Performances of Responsible Malaysian Healthcare Providers: A Balanced Scorecard Perspective. Procedia Economics and Finance, 28(April), 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)01101-6
142. (2024). SME Corporation Malaysia – Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. https://www.smecorp.gov.my/index.php/en/small-and-medium-sized-enterprises
143. Suoniemi, S., Meyer-Waarden, L., Munzel, A., Zablah, A. R., & Straub, D. (2020). Big data and firm performance: The roles of market-directed capabilities and business strategy. Information & Management, 57(7), 103365. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IM.2020.103365
144. Tamtam, F., & Tourabi, A. (2020). Agile workforce assessment: Manufacturing companies cases. Proceedings – 2020 5th International Conference on Logistics Operations Management, GOL 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/GOL49479.2020.9314745
145. Torres, P., & Augusto, M. (2020). Understanding complementarities among different forms of innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(5), 813–834. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2019-0012
146. Usai, A., Fiano, F., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Paoloni, P., Farina Briamonte, M., & Orlando, B. (2021). Unveiling the impact of the adoption of digital technologies on firms’ innovation performance. Journal of Business Research, 133, 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2021.04.035
147. Vial, G. (2021). Understanding digital transformation : A review and a research agenda. Managing Digital Transformation, 13–66. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003008637-4
148. Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11747-015-0455-4/METRICS
149. Walter, A. T. (2020). Organisational agility: ill-defined and somewhat confusing? A systematic literature review and conceptualisation. Management Review Quarterly 2020 71:2, 71(2), 343–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11301-020-00186-6
150. Wang, L. L., & Gao, Y. (2021). Competition network as a source of competitive advantage: The dynamic capability perspective and evidence from China. Long Range Planning, 54(2), 102052. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LRP.2020.102052
151. Wang, Z., Lin, S., Chen, Y., Lyulyov, O., & Pimonenko, T. (2023). Digitalisation Effect on Business Performance: Role of Business Model Innovation. Sustainability 2023, Vol. 15, Page 9020, 15(11), 9020. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU15119020
152. Warner, K. S. R., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001
153. Yu, J., & Moon, T. (2021). Impact of digital strategic orientation on organisational performance through digital competence. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179766
154. Zhang, H., & Xiao, Y. (2020). Customer involvement in big data analytics and its impact on B2B innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 86, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2019.02.020
155. Zhen, Z., Yousaf, Z., Radulescu, M., & Yasir, M. (2021). Nexus of Digital Organizational Culture, Capabilities, Organizational Readiness, and Innovation: Investigation of SMEs Operating in the Digital Economy. Sustainability 2021, Vol. 13, Page 720, 13(2), 720. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13020720