Fueling Innovation through Information
Technology in SMEs*
by Clay Dibrell, Peter S. Davis, and Justin Craig

This paper describes a study that investigates the mediating effects of information
technology (IT) on the relationships among product and process innovations and firm
performance (measured in multiple profitability and growth rate metrics). Using
structural equation modeling on a sample of 397 small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs), we find evidence that (1) increases on the strategic emphasis placed on
innovation, both product and process, positively impact the prominence managers
place on IT; (2) the impact of innovation (both product and process) on performance
(both profitability and growth) is primarily indirect, felt via the mechanism of the
importance managers place on IT; and (3) an increased emphasis on IT abets
managers’ perception of their firms’ performance, as compared with that observed
among peer firms (other SMEs).

A commitment to innovation has long
been considered to be important to the
success of entrepreneurial ventures and
small firms (Fiol 1996). Research has
shown that innovation stimulates ven-
tures’ growth (e.g., Wolff and Pett
2006; Motwani et al. 1999; Hax and

Majluf 1991) and also provides a key
source of competitive advantage in the
absence of scale economies (Lewis et al.
2002). Considered from the resource-
based view of the firm (Barney 1991),
successful innovation may be dependent
on the presence of other organization-

*The authors wish to thank Don Neubaum and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful
comments and direction. Financial support was provided by the Austin Family Business
Program in the College of Business at Oregon State University.

Clay Dibrell is associate professor of strategic management in the College of Business at
Oregon State University and research fellow at Bond University.

Peter S. Davis is professor and chair of the Department of Management in the Belk College
of Business at the University of North Carolina–Charlotte.

Justin Craig is associate professor of family business and entrepreneurship at Bond
University.

Address correspondence to: Clay Dibrell, 200 Bexell Hall, College of Business, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR 97331. Tel: (541) 737-6061. E-mail: Clay.Dibrell@bus.oregonstate.edu.

Journal of Small Business Management 2008 46(2), pp. 203–218

DIBRELL, DAVIS, AND CRAIG 203




specific skills and capabilities. For
example, substantial evidence has begun
to accumulate that suggests that appro-
priate strategic employment of informa-
tion technology (IT) may be essential
in translating strategies (e.g., innovation)
into enhanced firm performance (e.g.,
Ray, Muhanna, and Barney 2005;
Sakaguchi, Nicovich, and Dibrell 2004).
A direct linkage between IT and firm
performance was established by Powell
and Dent-Micallef (1997). Bharadwaj
(2000) found that high IT-capable firms
(those that invest heavily in IT) outper-
form competitors that do not invest to
the same extent (also see, Sambamurthy,
Bharadwaj, and Grover 2003). These
results suggest IT offers firms a competi-
tive competency, which aids firms in
differentiating themselves in the market-
place, such as through innovation.

Despite their prominence as key con-
structs in the literature, possible relation-
ships among innovation, IT, and
performance have not been the subject of
extensive investigation (Aral and Weill
2007; Oh and Pinsonneault 2007; Dewett
and Jones 2001). It is generally acknowl-
edged that the effective application of IT
should enable firms to respond more
appropriately to their environment (Das,
Zahra, and Warkentin 1991) and to
receive and process information more
efficiently (Hanson 1999; Perrow 1967),
thereby facilitating competitive advan-
tage (Ray, Muhanna, and Barney 2005;
Barney 1991; Porter and Millar 1985).
Consequently, firms often invest substan-
tial resources in IT assets (e.g., computer
hardware, computer software, and per-
sonnel) (Krishnan and Sriram 2000). Over
time, firms that invest more than their
competitors in IT tend to realize greater
returns from the marketplace (Bharadwaj
2000). However, there is not a substantial
body of theory-driven empirical studies
that demonstrate how innovation inter-
acts with IT resources to enhance firm
performance (for exceptions, see King
and Burgess 2006; Huang and Liu 2005;

Croteau and Raymond 2004; Johannes-
sen, Olaisen, and Olsen 1999). The
purpose of the present study is to contrib-
ute to the closure of this gap. We achieve
this by investigating further the potential
benefits of IT, here presented as invest-
ments by the firm in both tangible and
intangible assets, for innovation pursuant
to enhanced firm performance.

Although prior studies have estab-
lished evidence of beneficial perfor-
mance and productivity impacts of IT
investments (see, e.g., Huang and Liu
2005; Bharadwaj, Bharadwaj, and Kon-
synski 1999; Bonk 1996), there is also
considerable skepticism to the benefits
of IT and, consistent with what has
become known as the “productivity
paradox” (Trott and Hoecht 2004), IT
investments do not meet performance
objectives (e.g., Clegg et al. 1997), or that
there is little or no relationship between
IT investment and firm performance
(e.g., Powell and Dent-Micallef 1997).
Various arguments have been put
forward as to why there is a lack of
consensus in the value of IT investment.
For example, Powell and Dent-Micallef
(1997) suggest that IT is now so readily
available and, as such, does not offer
competitive performance. Others point
to mismeasurement problems related to
inputs and outputs (Wilcock and Lester
1997), confusion related to generaliza-
tion of studies due to issues related to
the level of analysis, and the role of time
lag effects between investment in tech-
nology and its payoff (Sangho and Kim
2006).

We acknowledge that although rela-
tionships among IT and strategic foci,
such as innovation, and firm perfor-
mance are the focus of considerable
conjecture in various literatures
(Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, and Grover
2003; Johannessen, Olaisen, and Olsen
1999), further and ongoing investigation
of these relationships in the context of
small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) is warranted given the dramatic

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT204



advancement of IT that has shifted SMEs
to more advantageous positions in orga-
nizational flexibility and efficiency terms
(Tanabe and Watanbe 2005; Izushi 2003;
Larsen and Lomi 2002; Xiang and Lan
2001). In particular, Cooper (1998) high-
lights that due to advances in computer
technology, the declining cost of systems
and improved software and technologi-
cal sophistication of the workforce, no
longer are adaptations reserved for the
technologically elite, which results in
opportunities for innovation in the small
firm. Further support for our examina-
tion of IT and innovation relationships is
drawn from Dewett and Jones (2001, p.
326) who stress that, “because IT mod-
erates many aspects of the process of
bringing new problem-solving ideas into
use given that it determines the way
information is stored, transmitted,
communicated, processed and acted
upon, IT is an important but neglected
means of facilitating the innovation
process.”

Our study provides distinguishing con-
tributions to the extant literature in the
following ways. First, whereas previous
studies often collapsed product and
process innovations into a single variable,
we separate product innovation from
process innovation in our analyses to be
consistent with indications in the litera-
ture that each form of innovation would
have differing impacts on performance
outcomes (cf. Wolff and Pett 2006; Olson,
Slater, and Hult 2005; Vermeulen 2005). A
second distinguishing contribution of the
current study from prior studies is that we
broaden the measurement of firm per-
formance to include multiple profitability
and growth rate metrics. Third, a compel-
ling characteristic of the study is its
context. Although some studies have
investigated the impact of IT or innova-
tion on performance, to date, there have
been relatively few empirical studies that
have demonstrated this association
among the vast population of SMEs
(Huang and Liu 2005).

The paper is organized into four sec-
tions. The first section draws upon
strategic management and manage-
ment information systems literatures to
describe the critical components of inno-
vation and IT and presents theory-driven
links among IT, innovation, and firm
performance. From this, we distill our
hypotheses and present our conceptual
framework. The second and third sec-
tions consist of methods and results,
respectively. Lastly, the discussion and
conclusion section elaborates on the
findings of this study.

Literature Review
Innovation

Innovations vary in complexity and
can range from minor changes to exist-
ing products, processes, or services to
breakthrough products, and processes or
services that introduce first-time features
or exceptional performance. Process
definition of innovation proponents
concern themselves mainly with how the
interplay between events and people at
each stage of the process influences
events in subsequent stages, determining
whether the adoption process will con-
tinue (Cooper 1998). Issues of interest
for these scholars include the role of
communication in facilitating successful
innovation, best practices in terms of
sequencing the stages of innovation, the
characteristics of individuals and teams
in successful and unsuccessful processes,
and the nature of the relationships
between parties involved in the innova-
tion process (Frishammar and Hörte
2005). In contrast, those who see inno-
vation as a discrete event suggest that
implementation of innovation occurs
when there is actual acceptance of risk
and the commitment of resources occurs.
A growing number of practitioners and
researchers define innovation as any
idea, practice, or object that the adopting
individual or organization regards as
new (e.g., Bhaskaran 2006; Damanpour
1991). From this perspective, the

DIBRELL, DAVIS, AND CRAIG 205



newness attached to an innovation
remains a matter of perception. Innova-
tion has further been defined as “the
willingness to place strong emphasis on
research and development, new prod-
ucts, new services, improved product
lines, and general technological improve-
ment in the industry” (Slevin and Covin
1990, p. 43). Regardless of definitional
debates, success in innovation typically
requires strong managerial support and
resource commitment (Fujita 1997). Even
then, only 4 percent of all new product
innovations beat the expected return on
investment (Nussbaum, Berner, and
Brady 2005).

Examinations of innovation have
been divided into two major research
streams (Brown and Eisenhardt 1998).
The first stream examines issues related
to the diffusion of innovations across
nations, industries, and organizations
(e.g., O’Neill, Pouder, and Buchholtz
1998). In this stream, an innovation is
defined as a technology, strategy, or
management practice that a firm is
using for the first time, whether other
organizations or users have previously
adopted it, or as a significant restruc-
turing or improvement in a process
(O’Neill, Pouder, and Buchholtz 1998).
The second stream examines the influ-
ence of organizational structures, strate-
gic processes, and people on the
development and marketing of new
products (e.g., Dibrell and Craig 2006;
Zahra 1993). Within this second
research stream, an innovation refers to
a new product that an organization has
created for the market and represents
the commercialization of an invention,
where invention is an act of insight
(Damanpour 1991). New products may
take different forms, such as upgrades,
modifications, and extensions of exist-
ing products.

The most prominent innovation
dimensions within these research streams
are radical, incremental, product, pro-
cess, administrative, and technological

(Camison-Zomoza Lapiedra-Alcamí and
Boronat-Navarro 2004). The two most
common of these innovation dimensions
are product innovation and process inno-
vation (Daft 2001). Broadly, product inno-
vation reflects change in the end product
or service offered by the organization,
whereas process innovation represents
changes in the way firms produce end
products or services (Camison-Zomoza,
Lapiedra-Alcamí, and Boronat-Navarro
2004). Both product and process innova-
tion have been shown to be potentially
significant sources of strategic advantage.
Process innovation historically seems to
favor large firms operating in mature
markets with high organizational slack, is
efficiency focused and, as such, is cen-
tered on lowering a firm’s average cost of
production (Garcia and Calantone 2002).
Process innovation, in this research,
refers to the changes made in the pro-
cesses or technologies used by the orga-
nization to deliver products or services,
while product innovations are defined in
this research as new products or services
introduced to meet an external user or
market need (Walker 2005).

IT Investment
With IT’s increasing sophistication

and usage, managers now consider the
use of IT as a competitive tool used for
the implementation of strategic plans
and the support of firm core competen-
cies (e.g., Aral and Weill 2007; Oh and
Pinsonneault 2007; Dibrell and Miller
2002). As a consequence, investment in
IT by firms has dramatically escalated in
recent times (Devaraj and Kohli 2003). IT
can be used to influence a firm’s ability
to gain a competitive advantage (e.g.,
Ravichandran and Lertwongsatien 2005;
Kohli and Devaraj 2003) through the
linkage of IT with a firm’s strategy and
industry. Das, Zahra, and Warkentin
(1991) suggest that linking strategy to IT
allows firms to compete more effectively.
A study by Powell and Dent-Micallef
(1997) confirmed a direct link between

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT206



IT and firm performance. Ravichandran
and Lertwongsatien (2005) also found a
direct relationship between investments
in IT capabilities and firm financial per-
formance. However, since prior studies
focused on the population of large, often
diversified companies, questions remain
as to whether these results are general-
izable to SMEs. Supposedly, the more
flexible managerial capabilities of SMEs
dictate the extent of success of IT adop-
tion and the resulting positive effects on
financial performance (Khazanchi 2005).
In this event, smaller firms should be
able to more effectively utilize IT to
exploit newer technologies than their
larger, less agile competitors (Xiang and
Lan 2001; Bonk 1996).

IT Investment, Innovation, and
Firm Performance

Firm performance is enhanced when
there are synergies among the elements
of a system. Complementary factors of a
system of mutually enhancing elements
operate in such a way that doing more
of one thing increases the returns of
doing more of another (Huang and Liu
2005). As such, investment in IT does
not stimulate productivity and growth
(i.e., firm performance) without a
number of complementary develop-
ments, and, even then, resource commit-
ment in IT may detract from short-run
profitability (Johannessen, Olaisen, and
Olsen 1999). Innovation also exists with
the same characteristic, that is, focusing
on innovation is likely to influence orga-
nizational structures and systems (Craig,
Cassar, and Moores 2006). For example,
as innovation entails considerable risk-
taking (Blumentritt and Danis 2006),
successful implementation requires
making significant systemic changes in a
firm to promote risk. A strategy that
focuses on innovation will also likely
require some degree of flexibility in its
organizational structure (Blumentritt and
Danis 2006). Open channels of commu-
nication, decentralization and informal

decision-making, loosely coupled deci-
sion linkages and loosely identified job
descriptions, and flexibility in processes
and procedures are all associated with
innovative activity (Mintzberg 1979).
For an organization to develop the
capacity for sustained innovation, as
well as incorporating innovation as a
meaningful component of strategy, it
must make resources available for new
products and provide collaborative
structures and processes to solve prob-
lems creatively and connect innovations
with existing businesses (Bhaskaran
2006). IT is seen as vital to building this
capacity (King and Burgess 2006). Firm
performance is enhanced, therefore,
when innovative activity is comple-
mented by IT initiatives that result in
the systematic introduction of new pro-
cesses and products that fit with exist-
ing processes, promoting increased
customer loyalty, and stimulating
demand for other products (Frishammar
and Hörte 2005).

Hypotheses
SMEs that can demonstrate timely

responsiveness and rapid and flexible
product innovation, coupled with the
management capability to effectively
coordinate and redeploy internal and
external competences, can potentially
build a competitive advantage (Zahra,
Neubaum, and Larrañeta 2007; Tanabe
and Watanbe 2005). Such efforts largely
overlook what has rapidly become a fun-
damental and crucial firm operation, IT.
Dewett and Jones (2001) have extended
the IT to performance proposition by
stressing the need to incorporate firm-
level strategy into this body of research.
Through their theoretical examination,
the authors argue that IT directly influ-
ences the strategy to firm performance
relationship. Moreover, Lee and Runge
(2001), in their study of SMEs, found that
firms that are innovative are more likely
to employ IT successfully. These innova-
tive firms are also more likely to realize

DIBRELL, DAVIS, AND CRAIG 207



greater value from IT than firms that are
less innovative. Based on this logic, we
propose the following hypothesis:

H1: An emphasis on innovation will be
positively associated with an empha-
sis on IT in small and medium-sized
firms.

Despite the fact that the majority of
innovations come from the small busi-
ness sector (SBA 2004), empirical inno-
vation research has tended to focus on
large publicly held organizations
(Verhees and Meulenberg 2004; Gud-
mundson, Tower, and Hartman 2003).
SMEs are increasingly being recognized
for their innovativeness through new
product and process developments
(Freel 2003). Innovation in small firms is
different from large firms (Audretsch
2001; Eden, Levitas, and Martinez 1997),
and these firms are able to respond to
changes in demand through their orga-
nizational flexibility. Further, due to their
close relationships to customers, small
firms can detect market niches more effi-
ciently and effectively than larger firms.
Brown and Blackmon (2005) suggest
that smaller firms can combine the flex-
ibility of production organization with
product specialization, creating a way
out of the constraints of mass produc-
tion. Comparably, Ojha (2004) argues
that larger long-stable organizations are
especially challenged by changes in tech-
nology. These previous studies lead to
our second hypothesis:

H2: An emphasis on innovation will be
positively associated with financial
performance in small and medium-
sized firms.

Prior works, for the most part,
ignore the processes involved in the use
of IT as a means of generating greater
profitability (Dewett and Jones 2001;
Bharadwaj 2000) and only investigate
the direct linkage of IT to firm perfor-

mance (for exceptions, see Huang and
Liu 2005; Verbees and Meulenberg
2004). This point is especially poignant
when considering SMEs. In reviewing
the SME IT research, Khazanchi (2005)
emphasizes the necessity to study addi-
tional organizational variables when
considering the role of IT on firm per-
formance. Likewise, he indicates that IT
should have a demonstrable and posi-
tive effect on firm performance when
other organizational constructs are con-
sidered. Consequently, when a firm
actively engages in an innovation
strategy, we hypothesize that IT will
have a positive relationship to firm
performance:

H3: In the presence of a firm strategy of
innovation, an emphasis on IT will be
positively associated with financial
performance in small and medium-
sized firms.

The conceptual model presented in
Figure 1 provides a summary of the rela-
tionships that are under investigation in
this research.

Methodology
Sample

Following Salant and Dillman’s (1994)
recommendation for conducting survey
studies, 2,200 potential respondents
were selected from a Dun & Bradstreet
mail list of the population of firms resid-
ing in a state within the United States
that met our criteria of being for-profit
SMEs (6–499 employees) with the key
respondent (owner, chief executive
officer [CEO], director) in a knowledge-
able management position (Floyd and
Wooldridge 1994). A total of 351 respon-
dents asked to be removed from our
mailing list resulting in an effective
sample pool of 1,849, which produced
our final sample size of 375 and a
response rate of 20.3 percent. This
response rate compares more favorably
than other studies that have targeted top-

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT208



management team members (Hambrick,
Gelekanycz, and Fredrickson 1993).

The industry sample breakdown is as
follows: Agriculture, Forestry, Hunting,
Fishing (n = 47); Manufacturing (n = 95);
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (n = 14);
Health, Education, Social Services
(n = 23); Mining, Construction (n = 72);
Transportation, Communication, Utilities
(n = 26); Retail, Hotel, Restaurant
(n = 45); Business Services (n = 58); and
Consumer Services (n = 17). The age of
the firms ranged from 1 to greater than
40 years with the median range of the
sampled firms from 20 to 29 years. The
median size of the firms was in the 20–49
employee category with a small minority
of firms larger than 100 employees
(n = 18). We tested for potentially con-
founding effects associated with cross-
industrial surveys and found no
statistically significant differences on the
demographics of industry life cycle and
firm age. Although our response rate was
high, nonresponse bias could still ob-
fuscate our findings. As suggested by
Armstrong and Overton (1977), a t-test
on the studied constructs between early
versus late respondents was conducted,
and no statistical differences were
revealed.

Given the potential rural location spe-
cific bias associated with some of the
natural resource-based industries in our
sample (e.g., mining, agriculture), we
tested for potential confounding effects

associated with a location-specific bias
by classifying locations as rural that had
less than 50,000 residents and urban
greater than 50,000 residents. These
results suggest that there are no differ-
ences between rural and urban on the
studied dimensions. This finding
extends the generalizability of our find-
ings to include SMEs not only in rural
areas but also urban areas. Likewise,
these findings further strengthen sup-
port for our earlier finding concerning
nonresponse bias, as firms regardless of
geographical location, demographics,
and industry classification answered
comparably.

Similarly, we were concerned about
the potential effects associated with
common method bias. To check for the
effects associated with common method
bias, we conducted a principal compo-
nent analysis of all the items employed in
the study (Podsakoff and Organ 1986;
Harman 1967). Four factors emerged
with eigenvalues greater than 1, with the
first factor accounting for only 34 percent
of the explained variance indicating that
common method bias should not influ-
ence the results.

To test for effects of multicollinearity,
which may be a result of common
method variance, we conducted a mul-
tiple regression analysis with the three
criterion variables (product innovation,
process innovation, and IT investment)
regressed on the dependent variable of

Figure 1
Conceptual Model

H3 (+)

IT Investment 

Innovation
(Product/Process)

Firm Performance
(Return on Assets/Return

on Sales/Sales Growth/Market

Share Growth) 
H1 (+) 

H2 (+)

DIBRELL, DAVIS, AND CRAIG 209



firm performance. The variance inflation
factor (VIF) scores for the three measures
were below 1.5, which is much lower
than the VIF cutoff of 10 (Chatterjee and
Price 1991).

Innovation. As product and process
innovations have different performance
impacts (Olson, Slater, and Hult 2005),
we employed separate scales to ex-
amine product innovation and process
innovation.

Product Innovation. To tap product
innovation, we used a three-item scale
developed by Miller and Friesen (1982),
which has been used extensively in the
literature. The three items captured the
extent of product innovation within a
firm. Respondents were asked to
compare their firm to other firms in their
respective industries. The items were (1)
“there exists a very strong emphasis on
marketing of tried and true product/
services” compared to “there exists a
very strong emphasis on R&D, techno-
logical leadership, and innovations”; (2)
“no new lines of products, services, or
programs were introduced during the
past three years” versus “more than half
of our product lines or services were
introduced during the past three years”;
and (3) “changes in product lines have
been minor over the last three years”
opposed to “changes in product lines
have been major over the last three
years.”

Process Innovation. To assess a firm’s
emphasis on process innovation, we
adapted items assessing process innova-
tion from Dess and Davis (1984), and
Davis, Dibrell, and Janz (2002). Respon-
dents were asked to answer four ques-
tions with the anchors 1 = not at all to
5 = great extent in relation to the empha-
sis that their firm places on specific
process-related innovation activities. The
four items were (1) innovation in pro-
duction processes; (2) investing in new

R&D facilities to gain a competitive
advantage; (3) producing specialty prod-
ucts; and (4) higher production effi-
ciency than competitors.

IT Asset Investment. Management infor-
mation systems scholars (e.g., Sakagu-
chi and Dibrell 1998; Mahmood and
Mann 1993) suggest that an appropriate
way to gauge a firm’s emphasis on IT is
to look at their investments in IT assets
(e.g., hardware, software, and person-
nel) relative to other competitors within
the same industry. Drawing upon a
scale developed and validated by Sak-
aguchi and Dibrell (1998), we modified
their scale to a four-item scale that
included respondents being asked to
report their (1) total dollar value of IT
assets; (2) total IT investment; (3)
number of IT employees; and (4)
number of personal computers and ter-
minals per employee.

Firm Performance. The firms partici-
pating in this study were SMEs that
were not publicly traded. Like many of
the study’s constructs, measuring per-
formance required data that were
unavailable from suitable secondary
data sources. Hence, we used subjective
measures of performance provided by
the respondent managers to capture
firms’ relative profitability and growth
as compared with that of their peer
competitors (other SMEs). Following
Dess and Robinson (1984), and Davis,
Dibrell, and Janz (2002), managers were
asked to report their primary business
unit’s return on assets, return on
sales, sales growth, and market share
growth.

Analyses
Structural equation modeling using

LISREL 8.52 was employed for validation
of the scales through confirmatory factor
analysis and for hypothesis testing. This
statistical analysis was chosen as both
the measurement and structural models

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT210



are estimated simultaneously (e.g.,
Jöreskog 1978).

Results
As seen in Table 1, the coefficient

alphas ranged from a low of 0.69 for a
process innovation strategy to a high of
0.88 for IT asset investment and firm
financial performance. The correlation
matrix indicated that multicollinearity
did not seem to be present in the
sample.

For construct validation, a two-phase
confirmatory factor analysis approach
was conducted, as suggested by Ander-
son and Gerbing (1988). First, the reflec-
tive measures were tested. The
standardized factors loadings were above
0.50 and were statistically significant
(p < .05). Second, a series of sequential
chi-square models were compared, spe-
cifically, the null one-factor model, the
constrained four-factor model (the latent
constructs were not allowed to corre-
late), and the unconstrained four-factor
model (the latent constructs were
allowed to correlate). The unconstrained
factor model demonstrated the best fit
among the three models with the follow-
ing results (c2 = 264.69; df = 84, p < .05;
comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler
1990) = 0.95; Delta2 (Bollen 1989) =
0.95; relative noncentrality index (RNI;

McDonald and Marsh 1990) = 0.95; the
root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA; Steiger and Lind 1980) = 0.083;
and the goodness of fit index
(GFI) = 0.90. These results indicate that
the constructs in the measurement model
demonstrate convergent and discrimi-
nant validities.

With the scales validated, we pro-
ceeded to test the hypothesized model.
The model fits the data strongly
(c2 = 123.40, df = 81, p < .05; CFI = 0.99;
Delta2 = 0.99; RNI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.04;
and GFI = 0.95), as shown in Table 2.
Both product (b = 0.27; p < 0.05) and
process innovations (b = 0.20; p < .05)
had positive associations with IT asset
investment, resulting in H1 being sup-
ported. The squared multiple correlation
(comparable to R2 in regression analysis)
for this equation was 0.11, suggesting
that 11 percent of the variation associ-
ated with IT can be explained through
product and process innovations. For
H2, product innovation to (a) perfor-
mance (b = 0.02; p > .05) and process
innovation to (b) performance (b = 0.04;
p > .05) were rejected. In H3, IT did have
a positive path to firm performance
(b = 0.59; p < .05), resulting in support
for this hypothesis. Further, 37 percent of
firm performance variation (the squared
multiple correlation for performance)

Table 1
Descriptives, Coefficient Alphas, and Correlation Matrix

Latent Construct Meana S.D.b Coefficient Alpha 1 2 3

1. Product Innovation 2.90 0.97 0.78
2. Process Innovation 2.70 0.89 0.69 0.31**
3. IT Investment 2.85 1.04 0.88 0.29** 0.22**
4. Firm Performance 3.32 0.96 0.88 0.20** 0.19** 0.48**

aThe measures were summated and then divided by the number of items for each
respective measure.
bS.D., standard deviation.
**p < .01 (2-tailed).

DIBRELL, DAVIS, AND CRAIG 211



was explained mainly through informa-
tion technology with a smaller percen-
tage explained by product and process
innovations.

Discussion and
Conclusion

The findings of this study extend the
SME, IT, and innovation literatures and
help build a foundation for further
understanding the link between innova-
tion and IT and performance outcomes.
From the results, we are able to make
multiple observations. First, the impact
of innovation (both product and process)
on performance (both profitability and

growth) is primarily indirect and is
instead fueled by IT. The initiatives of
innovation and IT are complementary. In
order to optimize investment in innova-
tion activities, IT initiatives should be
aligned with innovation. Second, SMEs
that compete with larger firms are able to
level the competitive playing field by uti-
lizing IT. Further, SMEs should consider
how they apply IT to other strategic ini-
tiatives, such as customer responsive-
ness, in order to enhance overall
effectiveness of the strategy.

The extant literature on innovation
reveals that through investment in
product and process innovations, firms

Table 2
Structural Model Parameter Estimates and Goodness-of-Fit

Statistics for Hypothesized Model (n = 311)a

Estimates and Fit Statistics Standardized
Estimate

t-Value

Gamma Parameters
Product Innovation → Information Technology 0.27* 4.18
Process Innovation → Information Technology 0.20* 2.96
Product Innovation → Performance 0.02 0.37
Process Innovation → Performance 0.04 0.62

Beta Parameter
Information Technology → Performance 0.59* 7.20

Theta-Epsilon Parametersb

Return on Assets ↔ Return on Sales 0.28* 4.65
Sales Growth ↔ Market Share Growth 0.15* 2.53
Value of IT Assets ↔ Total IT Investment 0.15* 3.59
Producing Specialty Products ↔ Invest in R&D 0.17* 3.11

Model Fit Statistics:
c2 = 123.40 (df = 81, p < .05); CFI = 0.99; Delta2 = 0.99; RNI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.04;
GFI = 0.95).

aTotal sample size was reduced, as we employed listwise deletion. CFI, comparative
fit index; RNI, relative noncentrality index; RMSEA, root mean square error of
approximation; GFI, goodness of fit index.
bThe errors for these individual items were allowed to correlate to improve overall
model fit.
*p < .05.

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT212



expand their core capabilities in the
areas of products, knowledge, and skills.
Because investing in capabilities like
these yield competitive advantage, the
resultant distribution of such capabilities
will tend to give certain firms an advan-
tage relative to others (Ray, Muhanna,
and Barney 2005; Barney 1991). Our
results support that the potential for
developing innovative capabilities may
not need to be closely related to particu-
lar products to yield benefits. The finding
that process innovation abets perfor-
mance, albeit indirectly, suggests that it
may be in the firm’s best interests to
invest in innovative capabilities, even
when the innovation is not directly tied
to a specific product.

The development of a range of inno-
vative capabilities, whether in the form of
products or processes, may offer the firm
a set of strategic choices that can be
exercised if customers’ expectations fail
to materialize or should shift suddenly
(Amram and Kulatilaka 1999; Bowman
and Hurry 1993). In contrast, it appears
that a failure by SMEs to invest in innova-
tion makes them slower to acquire neces-
sary innovative capabilities than other
SMEs and thus less able to respond to
changing technological and competitive
market expectations and opportunities.
Being an innovator in a fast-moving
market may confer advantages associated
with technological leadership and first-
mover advantages (Christensen 1998). A
failure to invest in one or the other form
of innovation, either product or process,
may cause an SME to be unable to
respond effectively to competitors’ intro-
duction of new products or process
enhancements. An SME that fails to con-
tinually invest in innovation places itself
at greater risk of having products and
services marginalized by technologically
superior competitors.

With regards to IT, in many respects,
our findings appear to support conten-
tions by Ravichandran and Lertwongsa-
tien (2005) that an SME that is able to

understand the power of IT and to link
this power to support the core compe-
tencies of the firm successfully can have
a competitive advantage. From our
results, it appears that managers who are
able to integrate either a product or a
process-oriented innovation strategy
with investments in IT enhance their
firms’ relative performance along two
essential dimensions: profitability and
growth. In contrast, a failure to invest in
IT can cause a firm to be unable to
support its innovation initiatives.
Perhaps, a lack of investment in IT over
time may render the firm incapable of
meeting customer requirements.

For performance, our study demon-
strates that IT does have a positive and
significant effect on current profitability
and future growth. We posit that this is
due to an increase in managerial sophis-
tication of IT usage and the increased
production capacity of IT. Likewise,
managers have increased their knowl-
edge and understanding of the most
effective ways to implement their firm’s
strategies with IT. Our reasoning once
again suggests that firms are able to
create unique resources and capabilities
through the use of IT that are not easily
inimitable, which is consistent with the
resource-based view.

As with any research, associated with
our study are limitations that offer
opportunities for future research. With
only one key respondent per firm,
respondents could have a skewed per-
spective of the different model compo-
nents, which future researchers may
wish to triangulate with other respon-
dents from the same firm or from exter-
nal observers. In addition, despite
previous research showing a strong cor-
relation between objective and percep-
tual measures (Jennings and Young
1990; Dess and Robinson 1984), future
research may wish to examine alternative
measures as well to address questions
attendant to common method variance.
Finally, our findings may extend beyond

DIBRELL, DAVIS, AND CRAIG 213



the relationship demonstrated between
innovation and IT to other types of SME
orientations and behaviors; such possi-
bilities are certainly worthy of further
investigations.

Finally, we note several managerial
implications for SMEs. Recall the three
key findings that emerged: (1) product
and process innovations exhibited strong
linkages with IT; (2) IT mediated the
innovation to firm performance direct
relationship; and (3) IT was positively
related to performance. Based on these
findings, managers should be more
willing to invest in IT; however, manag-
ers must also be cognizant of the neces-
sity to create systems and processes that
most effectively optimize IT usage. Our
study, in conjunction with past research,
clearly demonstrates the need for a firm
to invest in IT and to hire employees that
are capable of utilizing IT to implement
competitive business-level strategies
successfully.

References
Amram, M., and N. Kulatilaka (1999).

Real Options. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.

Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing
(1988). “Structural Equation Modeling
in Practice: A Review and Recom-
mended Two-Step Approach,” Psycho-
logical Bulletin 103, 411–423.

Aral, S., and P. Weill (2007). “IT Assets,
Organizational Capabilities, and Firm
Performance: How Resource Alloca-
tions and Organizational Differences
Explain Performance Variation,”
Organization Science 18(5), 763–780.

Armstrong, S., and T. S. Overton (1977).
“Estimating Non-Response Bias in
Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing
Research 14, 396–402.

Audretsch, D. B. (2001). “Research Issues
Relating to Structure, Competition,
and Performance of Small
Technology-Based Firms,” Small Busi-
ness Economics 16(1), 37–51.

Barney, J. (1991). “Firm Resources and
Sustained Competitive Advantage,”
Journal of Management 17, 99–120.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). “Comparative Fit
Indexes in Structural Equation Model-
ing,” Psychological Bulletin 107(2),
238–246.

Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). “A Resource-
Based Perspective on Information
Technology Capability and Firm Per-
formance: An Empirical Investiga-
tion,” MIS Quarterly 24, 169–196.

Bharadwaj, A., S. Bharadwaj, and B.
Konsynski (1999). “Information Tech-
nology Effects on Firm Performance
as Measured by Tobin’s Q,” Manage-
ment Science 45(7), 1008–1024.

Bhaskaran, S. (2006). “Incremental
Innovation and Business Perfor-
mance: Small and Medium-Size Food
Enterprises in a Concentrated Indus-
try Environment,” Journal of Small
Business Management 44(1), 64–80.

Blumentritt, T., and W. M. Danis (2006).
“Business Strategy Types and Innova-
tive Practices,” Journal of Managerial
Issues 18, 274–291.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equa-
tions with Latent Variables. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bonk, E. T. (1996). “The Information
Revolution and Its Impact on SME
Strategy: The Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperative Forum as a Model,”
Journal of Small Business Manage-
ment 34(1), 71–77.

Bowman, E., and D. Hurry (1993). “Strat-
egy through the Option Lens: An Inte-
grated View of Resource Investments
and the Incremental-Choice Process,”
Academy of Management Review 18,
760–782.

Brown, S. L., and K. M. Eisenhardt
(1998). Competing on the Edge: Strat-
egy as Structured Chaos. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.

Brown, S., and K. Blackmon (2005).
“Aligning Manufacturing Strategy and
Business-Level Competitive Strategy in
New Competitive Environments: The

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT214



Case for Strategic Resonance,” Journal
of Management Studies 42, 793–815.

Camison-Zomoza, C., R. Lapiedra-Alcamí,
M. Segarra-Cipres, and M. Boronat-
Navarro (2004). “A Meta-Analysis of
Innovation and Organizational Size,”
Organization Studies 25, 331–361.

Chatterjee, S., and B. Price (1991).
Regression Diagnostics. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.

Christensen, C. M. (1998). “Strategies for
Survival in Fast-Changing Industries,”
Management Science 44, 207–221.

Clegg, C., C. Axtell, L. Damodaran, B.
Farbey, R. Hull, R. Lloyd-Jones, R. Sell,
and C. Tomlinson (1997). “Informa-
tion Technology: A Study of Perfor-
mance and the Role of Human and
Organizational Factors,” Ergonomics
40(2), 851–871.

Cooper, J. (1998). “A Multidimensional
Approach to the Adoption of Innova-
tion,” Management Decision 36(8),
493–502.

Craig, J. B., G. Cassar, and K. Moores
(2006). “A Ten-Year Investigation of
Strategy, Systems and Environment
upon Innovation in Family Firms,”
Family Business Review 19(1), 1–10.

Croteau, A. M., and L. Raymond (2004).
“Performance Outcomes of Strategic
and IT Competencies Alignment,”
Journal of Information Technology
19(3), 178–190.

Daft, R. L. (2001). Organization Theory
and Design, 7th ed. Cincinnati, OH:
South Western College Publishing.

Damanpour, F. (1991). “Organizational
Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects
of Determinants and Moderators,”
Academy of Management Journal 34,
555–590.

Das, S. R., S. A. Zahra, and M. E. Warken-
tin (1991). “Integrating the Content
and Process of Strategic MIS Planning
with Competitive Strategy,” Decision
Sciences 22, 953–984.

Davis, P. S., C. C. Dibrell, and B. Janz
(2002). “The Impact of Time on the
Strategy–Performance Relationship:

Implications for Managers,” Industrial
Marketing Management 31(4), 339–
347.

Dess, G. G., and P. S. Davis (1984). “Por-
ter’s (1980) Generic Strategies as
Determinants of Strategic Group
Membership and Organizational Per-
formance,” Academy of Management
Journal 27, 467–488.

Dess, G. G., and R. B. Robinson (1984).
“Measuring Organizational Perfor-
mance in the Absence of Objective
Measures: The Case of the Privately
Held Firm and Conglomerate Business
Unit,” Strategic Management Journal
5, 263–272.

Devaraj, S., and R. Kohli (2003). “Perfor-
mance Impacts of Information Tech-
nology: Is Actual Usage the Missing
Link?” Management Science 49(3),
273–289.

Dewett, T., and G. R. Jones (2001). “The
Role of Information Technology in the
Organization: A Review, Model, and
Assessment,” Journal of Management
27, 313–346.

Dibrell, C., and J. Craig (2006). “The
Natural Environment, Innovation, and
Firm Performance: A Comparative
Study,” Family Business Review 19(4),
275–288.

Dibrell, C., and T. Miller (2002). “Orga-
nization Design: The Continuing
Influence of Information Technol-
ogy,” Management Decision 40(6),
620–627.

Eden, L., E. Levitas, and R. J. Martinez
(1997). “The Production, Transfer,
and Spillover of Technology: Compar-
ing Large and Small Multinationals as
Technology Producers,” Small Busi-
ness Economics 9(1), 53–66.

Fiol, C. M. (1996). “Squeezing Harder
Doesn’t Always Work: Continuing the
Search for Consistency in Innovation
Research,” Academy of Management
Review 21, 1012–1021.

Floyd, S. W., and B. Wooldridge (1994).
“Dinosaurs or Dynamos? Recognizing
Middle Management’s Strategic Role,”

DIBRELL, DAVIS, AND CRAIG 215



Academy of Management Executive
8(4), 47–57.

Freel, M. S. (2003). “Sectoral Patterns of
Small Firm Innovation, Networking
and Proximity,” Research Policy 32(3),
751–770.

Frishammar, J., and S. A. Hörte (2005).
“Managing External Information in
Manufacturing Firms: The Impact on
Innovation Performance,” Journal of
Product Innovation Management 22,
251–266.

Fujita, S. (1997). A Strategy for Corporate
Innovation. Tokyo: Asian Productivity
Organization.

Garcia, R., and R. Calantone (2002). “A
Critical Look at Technological Innova-
tion Typology and Innovativeness
Terminology: A Literature Review,”
Journal of Product Innovation Man-
agement 19, 110–132.

Gudmundson, D., C. B. Tower, and
E. A. Hartman (2003). “Innovation in
Small Businesses: Culture and Owner-
ship Structure do Matter,” Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship 8(1),
1–17.

Hambrick, D. C., M. A. Gelekanycz, and
J. W. Fredrickson (1993). “Top Execu-
tive Commitment to the Status Quo:
Some Tests of Determinants,” Strate-
gic Management Journal 14, 401–417.

Hanson, M. T. (1999). “The Search-
Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak
Ties in Sharing Knowledge across
Organizational Subunits,” Administra-
tive Science Quarterly 44, 82–111.

Harman, H. (1967). Modern Factor
Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.

Hax, A., and N. Majluf (1991). The Strat-
egy Concept and Process. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Huang, C. J., and C. J. Liu (2005). “Explo-
ration for the Relationship between
Innovation, IT, and Performance,”
Journal of Intellectual Capital 6(2),
237–252.

Izushi, H. (2003). “Impacts of the Length
of Relationships upon the Use of

Research Institutes by SMEs,”
Research Policy 32(3), 771–788.

Jennings, D. F., and D. M. Young (1990).
“An Empirical Comparison between
Objective and Subjective Measures of
the Product Innovation Domain of
Corporate Entrepreneurship,” Entre-
preneurship Theory and Practice l5,
53–66.

Johannessen, J. A., J. Olaisen, and B.
Olsen (1999). “Strategic Use of Infor-
mation Technology for Increased
Innovation and Performance,” Infor-
mation Management and Computer
Security 7(1), 5–22.

Jöreskog, K. G. (1978). “Structural Analy-
sis of Covariance and Correlation
Matrices,” Psychometrika 43, 443–477.

Khazanchi, D. (2005). “Information Tech-
nology (IT) Appropriateness: The
Contingency Theory of ‘Fit’ and IT
Implementation in Small and Medium
Enterprises,” Journal of Computer
Information Systems 45(3), 88–95.

King, S. F., and T. F. Burgess (2006).
“Beyond Critical Success Factors: A
Dynamic Model of Enterprise System
Innovation,” International Journal of
Information Management 26, 59–69.

Kohli, R., and S. Devaraj (2003). “Mea-
suring Information Technology
Payoff: A Meta-Analysis of Structural
Variables in Firm-Level Empirical
Research,” Information Systems
Research 14(2), 127–145.

Krishnan, G. V., and R. S. Sriram (2000).
“An Examination of the Effect of IT
Investments on Firm Value: The Case
of Y2K-Compliance Costs,” Journal of
Information Systems 14, 95–108.

Larsen, E., and A. Lomi (2002). “Repre-
senting Change: A System Model of
Organizational Inertia and Capabili-
ties as Dynamic Accumulation Pro-
cesses,” Simulation Modeling Practice
and Theory 10, 271–296.

Lee, S., and J. Runge (2001). “Adoption
of Information Technology in Small
Business: Testing Drivers of Adoption
for Entrepreneurs,” Journal of Com-

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT216



puter Information Systems 42(1),
44–57.

Lewis, M. W., M. A. Welsh, G. E. Dehler,
and S. G. Green (2002). “Product
Development Tensions: Exploring
Contrasting Styles of Project Manage-
ment,” Academy of Management
Journal 45(3), 546–564.

Mahmood, M. A., and G. J. Mann (1993).
“Measuring the Organizational Impact
of Information Technology Invest-
ment: An Exploratory Study,” Journal
of Management Information Systems
10, 97–122.

McDonald, R., and H. Marsh (1990).
“Choosing a Multivariate Model: Non-
centrality and Goodness of Fit,” Psy-
chological Bulletin 107(2), 247–255.

Miller, D., and D. Friesen (1982). “Inno-
vation in Conservative and Entrepre-
neurial Firms: Strategic Momentum,”
Strategic Management Journal 3,
1–25.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). Structuring of
Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

Motwani, J., T. Dandridge, J. Jiang, and
K. Soderquist (1999). “Managing Inno-
vation in French Small and Medium-
Sized Enterprises,” Journal of Small
Business Management 37(2), 106–114.

Nussbaum, B., R. Berner, and D. Brady
(2005). “Get Creative,” Business Week,
August 1, 60–68.

Oh, W., and A. Pinsonneault (2007). “On
the Assessment of the Strategic Value
of Information Technologies: Concep-
tual and Analytical Approaches,” MIS
Quarterly 31(2), 239–265.

Ojha, A. K. (2004). “Organizational Forms
in the Electronic Age,” The Journal for
Decision Makers 29, 83–95.

Olson, E. M., S. F. Slater, and G. T. M.
Hult (2005). “The Performance Impli-
cations of Fit among Business
Strategy, Marketing Organization
Structure, and Strategic Behavior,”
Journal of Marketing 69, 49–65.

O’Neill, H. M., R. W. Pouder, A. K. Buch-
holtz (1998). “Patterns of Diffusion of

Strategies across Organizations:
Insights from the Innovation Diffusion
Literature,” Academy of Management
Review 23, 98–114.

Perrow, C. (1967). “A Framework for the
Comparative Analysis of Organiza-
tions,” American Sociological Review
32, 194–208.

Podsakoff, P. M., and D. W. Organ
(1986). “Self-Reports in Organiza-
tional Research: Problems and Pros-
pects,” Journal of Management 12,
531–544.

Porter, M. E., and V. E. Millar (1985).
“How Information Gives You Com-
petitive Advantage,” Harvard Busi-
ness Review 63, 149–160.

Powell, T. C., and A. Dent-Micallef
(1997). “Information Technology as
Competitive Advantage: The Role of
Human, Business, and Technology
Resources,” Strategic Management
Journal 18, 375–405.

Ravichandran, T., and C. Lertwongsatien
(2005). “Effect of Information Systems
Resources and Capabilities on Firm
Performance: A Resource-Based Per-
spective,” Journal of Management
Information Systems 21, 237–276.

Ray, G., W. A. Muhanna, and J. B. Barney
(2005). “Information Technology and
the Performance of the Customer
Service Process: A Resource-Based
Analysis,” MIS Quarterly 29, 625–651.

Sakaguchi, T., S. Nicovich, and C. Dibrell
(2004). “Empirical Evaluation of an
Integrated Supply Chain Model for
Small and Medium Sized Firms,”
Information Resources Management
Journal 17(3), 1–19.

Sakaguchi, T., and C. C. Dibrell (1998).
“Measurement of the Intensity of
Global Information Technology Usage:
Quantitizing the Value of a Firm’s
Information Technology,” Industrial
Management and Data Systems 98,
380–394.

Salant, P., and D. A. Dillman (1994). How
to Conduct Your Own Survey.
Chichester: Wiley.

DIBRELL, DAVIS, AND CRAIG 217



Sambamurthy, V., A. Bharadwaj, and V.
Grover (2003). “Shaping Agility
through Digital Options: Reconceptu-
alizing the Role of Information Tech-
nology in Contemporary Firms,” MIS
Quarterly 27(2), 237–263.

Sangho, L., and S. H. Kim (2006). “A Lag
Effect of IT Investment on Firm Per-
formance,” Information Resources
Management Journal 19, 43–69.

Slevin, D. P., and J. G. Covin (1990).
“Juggling Entrepreneurial Style and
Organizational Structure—How to Get
Your Act Together,” Sloan Manage-
ment Review 31(2), 43–54.

Small Business Administration (SBA)
(2004). The Small Business Economy:
A Report to the President on Small
Firms Prepared By the U.S. Small Busi-
ness Administration’s Office of Advo-
cacy. Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office.

Steiger, J. H., and J. C. Lind (1980). “Sta-
tistically Based Tests of the Number
of Common Factors,” paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the
Psychometric Society, Iowa City
(Spring).

Tanabe, K., and C. Watanbe (2005).
“Sources of Small and Medium Enter-
prises Excellent Business Performance
in a Service Orientated Economy,”
Journal of Services Research 5(1),
5–20.

Trott, P., and A. Hoecht (2004). “Enter-
prise Resource Planning and the Price
of Efficiency: The Trade Off between
Business Efficiency and the Innovative
Capability of Firms,” Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management
16, 367–379.

Verhees, J. H., and M. T. G. Meulenberg
(2004). “Market Orientation, Innova-

tiveness, Product Innovation, and Per-
formance in Small Firms,” Journal of
Small Business Management 42(2),
134–154.

Vermeulen, P. A. M. (2005). “Uncovering
Barriers to Complex Incremental
Product Innovation in Small and
Medium-Sized Financial Services
Firms,” Journal of Small Business
Management 43(4), 432–452.

Walker, R. M. (2005). “Innovation and
Organizational Performance: A Critical
Review of the Evidence and a
Research Agenda,” Academy of Man-
agement Conference Best Paper,
B1–B6.

Wilcock, L. P., and S. Lester (1997). “In
Search of Information Productivity:
Assessment Issues,” Journal of Opera-
tional Research Society 48(11), 1082–
1094.

Wolff, J. A., and T. L. Pett (2006). “Small-
Firm Performance: Modeling the Role
of Product and Process Improve-
ments,” Journal of Small Business
Management 44(2), 268–284.

Xiang, D. C., and S. F. Lan (2001). “IT
Adoption in Manufacturing Industries:
Differences by Company Size and
Industrial Sectors—The Case of
Chinese Mechanical Industries,” Tech-
novation 21(11), 649–660.

Zahra, S. (1993). “New Product Innova-
tion in Established Companies: Asso-
ciations with Industry and Strategy
Variables,” Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 18(2), 47–69.

Zahra, S. A., D. O. Neubaum, and B.
Larrañeta (2007). “Knowledge Sharing
and Technological Capabilities: The
Moderating Role of Family Involve-
ment,” Journal of Business Research
60(10), 1070–1079.

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT218