Krausetal 2019

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2554.htm
Digital
Digital entrepreneurship entrepreneurship
A research agenda on new business models
for the twenty-first century
Sascha Kraus 353
ESCE International Business School,
Ecole Superieure du Commerce Exterieur, Paris, France Received 30 June 2018
Revised 4 August 2018
Carolin Palmer 16 August 2018
University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany, and 17 August 2018
Accepted 17 August 2018
Norbert Kailer, Friedrich Lukas Kallinger and Jonathan Spitzer
Institute for Entrepreneurship and Organizational Development,
Downloaded by Professor Sascha Kraus At 03:30 27 February 2019 (PT)
Johannes Kepler University Linz, Linz, Austria
Abstract
Purpose – Digital entrepreneurship is of high topicality as technological developments and advances in
infrastructure create various opportunities for entrepreneurs. Society’s great attention to new digital business
models is opposed to very little research regarding opportunities, challenges and success factors of digital
entrepreneurship. The purpose of this paper is to gather the state-of-the-art literature on digital
entrepreneurship and to provide an up-to-date compilation of key topics and methods discussed in the
relevant literature. Furthermore, based on findings of the systematic literature review, a research map
pointing at further research opportunities for scholars working in the field will be proposed.
Design/methodology/approach – Utilising a systematic search and review of literature across the domain
whilst following the established methodology of Tranfield et al. (2003) combined with the application of a
quality threshold for journal selection, 35 articles on digital entrepreneurship could be found relevant for an
evidence-informed literature review.
Findings – Based on a conceptual literature review, six streams of research that deal with digital
entrepreneurship are identified and discussed: digital business models; digital entrepreneurship process;
platform strategies; digital ecosystem; entrepreneurship education; and social digital entrepreneurship.
Originality/value – This systematic literature review identifies current research paths on digital
entrepreneurship by structuring the dispersed status quo of research in the identified different areas.
In addition, future research opportunities to deepen the understanding of digital entrepreneurship are
highlighted and pictured in a research map.
Keywords Business development, Opportunity, Entrepreneurship
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
Digital entrepreneurs with their new ways of doing business had an enormous effect on the
whole world, especially in the last decade. Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple not only
completely changed the business world, but also shaped the way we communicate with each
other in everyday life. At this stage, we live in a world of digitalisation, where artificial
intelligence can be used to enhance the quality of decisions and our perception of the reality
can be augmented to broaden our perspective in many ways. Developing a device is faster,
when its digital twin shows errors even before the physical product is completed.
Computing, storing and researching information is not only becoming easier, but also more
flexible and economical as cloud services are continuing to evolve and the internet
transforms towards the so-called Internet of Things (IoT). With blockchain, the transition to International Journal of
the “Internet of Values” has just begun. By 2020, IoT technology is expected to be Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research
implemented in 95 per cent of electronics for new product designs and a worldwide volume Vol. 25 No. 2, 2019
pp. 353-375
of $1bn of legalised cryptocurrencies will be traded in the banking industry (Richter, Kraus © Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-2554
and Bouncken, 2015; Panetta, 2017). DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-06-2018-0425
IJEBR As the digitalisation phenomenon causes various implications through rapid and
25,2 transformative change, it is relevant for entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship researchers to
be aware of related outcomes and connections and identify emerging opportunities on
business. In this paper we understand entrepreneurship as “the process of designing,
launching and running a new business” (Hsieh and Wu, 2018, p. 1) with its distinct
characteristic of “new value creation” (Hull et al., 2007, p. 293), though entrepreneurship is
354 more than starting up a new business. Applying a holistic perspective, entrepreneurial
activity arises of the interplay of institutions (e.g. education or business development),
stakeholders and entrepreneurs themselves (Palmer et al., 2018).
Digitalisation is not reduced to single new developments in entrepreneurship. Rather,
business models face a huge shift towards entire digital environments. In addition to new
businesses created out of arising opportunities due to digitalisation, existing branches
and businesses alter from offline to online business – establishing “digital entrepreneurship”
as a novel form of entrepreneurial activities. In this paper “digital entrepreneurship” is
understood as “a subcategory of entrepreneurship in which some or all of what would be

physical in a traditional organization has been digitized” (Hull et al., 2007, p. 293) and
thereby is defined as “the sale of digital products or services across electronic networks”
(Guthrie, 2014, p. 115).
Digital entrepreneurship is a phenomenon which arose through technological assets like
internet and information and communications technology (Le Dinh et al., 2018). In general,
any entrepreneurial activity that transfers an asset, service or major part of the business
into digital can be characterised as digital entrepreneurship. According to Hull et al. (2007),
digital entrepreneurs face a lot of differences compared to traditional entrepreneurs.
Products, marketing activities and workplace are major differentiation criteria between
digital and non-digital entrepreneurs.
Numerous opportunities for entrepreneurial activity got created through digitalisation
(cf. Hull et al., 2007). Entrepreneurs need to be aware of those opportunities in order to be
ready for sustainable innovations. Given the upward movement of digital entrepreneurship,
minimal research has addressed this topic and literature on digital entrepreneurship is quite
scarce. Besides, most of the articles selected within this literature review focus on a rather
narrow (sub)topic of digital entrepreneurship, which impedes a structured subsumption of
recent contributions in the broad domain of digital entrepreneurship.
This literature review should give guidance through the academic literature dealing with
the topic of digital entrepreneurship by providing a structured overview on the existing
literature. Furthermore, our research question concerns future developments of digital
entrepreneurship and according research. Therefore, we provide a theoretical approach to
the phenomenon of digital entrepreneurship and details about the search procedure and
“how to” of this paper, followed by a structured review elaborating impact of digitalisation
on business models (e.g. platform strategies, social digital entrepreneurship) and the digital
entrepreneurship process within the digital ecosystem. Based on the reviewed literature, we
give a brief summary of opportunities, challenges and success factors of digital
entrepreneurship and point to further research opportunities for scholars working in the
field by giving a research map on digital entrepreneurship. Limitations of this literature
review are given.
Defining digital entrepreneurship

In line with Hull et al. (2007), “digital entrepreneurship is a subcategory of entrepreneurship
in which some or all of what would be physical in a traditional organization has been
digitized” (p. 293) and thereby can be seen “as the reconciliation of traditional
entrepreneurship with the new way of creating and doing business in the digital era”
(Le Dinh et al., 2018, p. 1).
Hair et al. (2012, p. 1250045 – 2) highlight the broad range of business models predestined Digital
for digital entrepreneurship as “products, distribution, the workplace – any of these and more entrepreneurship
could take digital form in an entrepreneurial venture”. In addition, Giones and Brem (2017) add
a more technology-centred view by listing “New products and services based on the internet.
Services running only in the cloud; using big data or artificial intelligence” (p. 45) as potential
types of digital entrepreneurship and understand “Technology as an input factor” (p. 45).
Sussan and Acs (2017, p. 66) expand this view of digital entrepreneurship by considering 355
the user dimension:
However, we view digital entrepreneurs here as Kirznarian entrepreneurship that operate within
the confines of existing platforms. In other words, they are performing activities that need digital
engagement but may not in themselves be digital, for example, an Uber taxi driver. The agent
leverages digital technology and seeks and acts on these opportunities within the marketplace in
effect increasing efficiency by moving the economy closer to the technological frontier.
Davidson and Vaast (2010) provide a slightly different definition of digital entrepreneurship:
We refer to digital entrepreneurship as the pursuit of opportunities based on the use of digital
media and other information and communication technologies. Digital entrepreneurs rely upon the
characteristics of digital media and IT to pursue opportunities. In doing so, they exacerbate
changes in the competitive landscape, as they attempt to seize the opportunities and thereby
potentially further the creative destruction process of the digital economy (p. 2).
Table I contains an overview of alternative definitions of digital entrepreneurship.
In a nutshell, digital entrepreneurship comprises “the sale of digital products or services
across electronic networks” (Guthrie, 2014, p. 115). Besides different definitions of the
phenomenon of digital entrepreneurship, the terminology of digital entrepreneurship is not
used throughout all articles in the same way. It is substituted by digital venture, digital
innovation, digital enterprise or digital business. Accordingly, in this literature review the
same terminology, which was used in the corresponding articles, was used.
State-of-the-art of current research

Review approach
Aiming to systematically search and structure the literature across the domain, our
methodology is that of an evidence-informed literature review (Tranfield et al., 2003).
Author Definition of digital entrepreneurship
Davidson and Digital entrepreneurship: pursue new venture opportunities presented by new media
Vaast (2010, p. 8) and internet technologies
Guthrie (2014, [Digital entrepreneurship is] the creation of a venture to produce and generate revenue
p. 116) from digital goods across electronic networks
Hair et al. (2012, p. 2) Digital entrepreneurship may be defined as entrepreneurship in which some or all of
the entrepreneurial venture takes place digitally instead of in more traditional formats
Hull et al. (2007, Digital entrepreneurship is a subcategory of entrepreneurship in which some or all of
p. 293) what would be physical in a traditional organisation has been digitised
Le Dinh et al. Digital entrepreneurship is defined as the reconciliation of traditional entrepreneurship
(2018, p. 1) with the new way of creating and doing business in the digital era
Richter et al. Entrepreneurship […] is […] defined as occupying niches, monetizing business
(2017, p. 300) opportunities, as well as being innovative, radical and risk-taking
Sussan and Acs Digital entrepreneurship […] includes any agent that is engaged in any sort of venture
(2017, p. 66) be it commercial, social, government, or corporate that uses digital technologies. […] In Table I.
other words, they are performing activities that need digital engagement but may not Definitions of digital
in themselves be digital, for example, an Uber taxi driver entrepreneurship
IJEBR The first step within the literature review was utilising the Business Source Premier via
25,2 EBSCO host, selecting all available sub-databases in it (Business Source Premier, Econlit,
Entrepreneurial Studies Source), and using the key word “digital entre*”, “digital startup” as
well as the combination “digital innovation” AND “entre*”. After deleting the duplicated,
94 search results remained. After excluding all articles in non-English language as well as
reading the abstracts with regard to a topic fit (i.e. academic article with entrepreneurial
356 context), 53 search results remained. After conducting a quality threshold according to
Bouncken et al. (2015), only 35 articles in academic journals remained. We only used articles,
which are ranked in the German VHB Jourqual with “C” or higher and the corresponding
JCR impact factor of higher or the same 0.7 and the corresponding ABS ranking.
Table II provides an overview of the articles extracted, the underlying research method,
the country of sample’s origin, the research objective/aim and the main findings.
Research on digital entrepreneurship still seems to be in its infancy. Therefore, the
amount of articles dealing with the topic is not extensive. Only one article has been
published before 2010. A first empirical study has not been published before 2014. More
than half of the articles identified are younger than two years. A total of 13 of the articles
contain a theoretical approach to digital entrepreneurship. Qualitative methods are the
majority (eight articles) compared to quantitative papers ( five articles). Only two articles
apply both methods. Case studies are reported in seven papers.
Presentation of findings
To structure the findings within the selected literature, we clustered the associated research
topics into the following six categories: digital business models; digital entrepreneurship
process; platform strategies; digital ecosystem; entrepreneurship education; and social
digital entrepreneurship.
Digital business models

According to Hull et al. (2007) digital business models work in a very different way
compared to traditional ones. It is necessary for digital entrepreneurs to be aware of
differences, opportunities and threats in order to be successful; otherwise, the digital venture
is running considerable risk to fail. Wind (2008) states that digital businesses represent a
“shift from traditional management approaches to ‘network orchestration’ ” (p. 23), as
networks and communities are crucial for digital entrepreneurs.
Papers dealing with digital business models are very dominant in the existing literature.
Most of the articles dealt directly or at least indirectly with the emergence of new business
models. However, the articles have different approaches and furthermore deal with different
sectors of industry. This subsection is about identifying and discussing the different possible
business models identified by the several authors and provides a sufficient overview.
Dutot and Van Horne (2015) analysed digital business models in terms of the appearance
of goods and services, digitisation of the distribution channel, digital communication with
stakeholders and internal processes carried out on a digital basis. Richter et al. (2017) dealt
with the sharing economy, Ojala (2016) and Wright (2015) discussed new business models in
the gaming industry, Di Domenico et al. (2014) analysed home-based online ventures and the
concept of mental mobility, Kuester et al. (2018) wrote about the latest trend in
entrepreneurship concerning service innovation-based business models and Herrmann et al.
(2018) dealt with the innovation-driven transformations in the health care sector.
Furthermore, Troxler and Wolf (2017) discussed business models in the design community
and van der Ven (2017) discussed new digital business models for lawyers.
Moreover, authors not only describe new business models through digitalisation but also
deal with challenges and opportunities inherent in the emergence of new digital business
models in question. Nambisan (2017) especially deals with the refashioning of opportunities
Research
Author Year method Country Research objective/aim Main findings
Castro Soeiro et al. 2016 Qualitative Potential new business opportunity arising from Interest and potential for developing new products
and intersection of digital music and game industries combining digital music and casual digital games
quantitative across borders throughout network-based innovation (more than one region), plus social network key
approach stakeholders
Davidson and 2010 Case study USA Digital entrepreneurship and its sociomaterial Opportunities of digital entrepreneurship through
Vaast enactment social context, factors for entrepreneur’s success and
motivation
Di Domenico et al. 2014 Qualitative “Mental mobility” in the digital age: entrepreneurs Mental mobility: process through which individuals
(n ¼ 23) and the online home-based business navigate between physical and digital athmospheres of
work/overlapping home/workplace + manipulation
and reconcilation of the spatial, temporal and
emotional tensions in such work environments
Dutot and Van 2015 Qualitative France/UAE Digital entrepreneurship intention in a developed vs Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention
Horne (n ¼ 10) emerging country: an exploratory study in France and
the UAE
Dy et al. 2017 Qualitative UK Women digital entrepreneurs and intersectionality The internet is not a neutral place without representing
(n ¼ 26) theory social inequalities and discriminating the
disadvantaged
Ebel et al. 2016 Theoretical Leveraging virtual business model innovation: a Framework for business model development
framework for designing business model development
tools
Giones and Brem 2017 Theoretical Identification and description of technology Characterisation of digital technology
entrepreneurship in times of digitisation entrepreneurship
Guthrie 2014 Qualitative France Entrepreneurship education: learning project used in Low costs of starting a digital business; high interest of
(n ¼ 15) an e-commerce major in a European business school students in developing digital business
that involved launching a specialist blog
Hair et al. 2012 Theoretical Market orientation in digital entrepreneurship: Opportunities/challenges through digitalization for
advantages and challenges in a Web 2.0 networked entrepreneurs
world
Herrmann et al. 2018 Quantitative Digital transformation and disruption of the health Established corporations rely more on incremental
care sector: internet-based observational study innovation that supports their current business
models, while start-ups engage their flexibility to
(continued )
357
Current literature
entrepreneurship
on digital
Table II.
entrepreneurship
Digital
25,2
358
IJEBR
Table II.
Research
explore new market segments with notable

transformations of established business models: start-
ups offer higher promises of disruptive innovation and
more diversified value propositions addressing broader
areas of the health care sector
Hsieh and Wu 2018 Theoretical How can entrepreneurs take advantage of the Framework: platform strategy; innovation
platform-based innovation ecosystem in the
entrepreneurial process?
Hu et al. 2016 Case study China The role of institutional entrepreneurship in building Important role of institutional entrepreneurship in
digital ecosystem: a case study of Red Collar Group developing a digital ecosystem
(RCG)
Huang and Cox 2016 Theoretical Establishing a social entrepreneurial system to bridge Literature on digital divide and social
and case the digital divide for the poor: a case study for Taiwan entrepreneurship, proposal of social entrepreneurial
study system for greater entrepreneurship and the gradual
alleviation of poverty among disadvantaged people
Hull et al. 2007 Theoretical Typology of digital entrepreneurship Typology of entrepreneurship and differences between
digital and traditional entrepreneurship
Kuester et al. 2018 Quantitative Go-to-market strategies for e-innovations of start-ups Design of e-innovation go-to-market strategies should
primarily signal trustworthiness and usability
Le Dinh et al. 2018 Theoretical Living lab for promoting the digital entrepreneurship Framework for promoting the digital entrepreneurial
process process
Liao et al. 2013 Case studies The six facets model of technology management: a Insight into the digital business industry and also into
study in the digital business industry how process and product innovations can be managed
in an industry facing high levels of technological
change
Maiolini et al. 2016 Quantitative Digital technologies for social innovation: an empirical First, empirical recognition to social innovation by
recognition on the new enablers investigating social and innovative activities
conducted by start-ups and small and medium-sized
enterprises across the world between 2001 and 2014/
second, SI core businesses and underlying
complementarities
(continued )
Research
Nambisan 2017 Theoretical Intersection of digital technologies and Implications to overcome uncertainty through
entrepreneurship digitalization in entrepreneurship
Nichols et al. 2017 Case study Evolution and role of makerspaces in academic The emergence of makerspaces has led to new
libraries approaches to learning and knowledge creation within
the library and campus ecosystem
Nzembayie 2017 Case study Denmark Using insider action research in the study of digital Digital entrepreneurial process faces high uncertainty,
entrepreneurial processes: a pragmatic design choice? whereby flexibility and effectuation are necessary
conditions and need to be handled
Ojala 2016 Case study USA/France/ Business models and opportunity creation: how IT Theoretical model for business model development
Finland entrepreneurs create and develop business models
under uncertainty
Oumlil and Juiz 2018 Quantitative Balearic Acceptance of tourism e-entrepreneurship: application Factors contributing to e-entrepreneurship acceptance
(n ¼ 85) Islands to educational Balearic Islands context
Richter, Kraus 2015 Theoretical The shareconomy as a precursor for digital Three dimensions of the share economy (digital
and Bouncken; entrepreneurship business models sharing, physical sharing, participation)
Richter, Kraus
and Syrjä
Richter et al. 2017 Qualitative Finland, Digital entrepreneurship: innovative business models Drivers for the sharing economy
(n ¼ 14) Liechtenstein, for the sharing economy
Germany
Sarma and Sunny 2017 Theoretical Civic entrepreneurial ecosystems: smart city Opportunities and challenges to bottom-up innovation
emergence in Kansas City from local entrepreneurs
Smith et al. 2017 Theoretical Embracing digital networks: entrepreneurs’ social Bridging and bonding through digital technologies
capital online
Spiegel et al. 2016 Qualitative USA/GER/ Business model development, founders’ social capital Success factors
(n ¼ 17) China and the success of early stage internet start-ups: a
Quantitative mixed-method study
(n ¼ 145)
Srinivasan and 2018 Theoretical Entrepreneurship in digital platforms: a network Success factors related to entrepreneurs and platforms
Venkatraman centric view
Sussan and Acs 2017 Theoretical The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem Concept to understand digital entrepreneurial
ecosystem
(continued )
359
Table II.
entrepreneurship
Digital
25,2
360
IJEBR
Table II.
Research
Troxler and Wolf 2017 Qualitative The Digital maker-entrepreneurs in open design: what Activities in digital business models; changes from
(n ¼ 11) Netherlands, activities make up their business model? traditional to digital entrepreneurship
Switzerland
Van der Ven 2017 Theoretical Entrepreneurial lawyering for digital trade Lawyers must expand their activities beyond
macro-level trade agreements to ensure that the rise of
e-commerce does not leave SMEs in LDCs behind
Wright 2015 Qualitative Enterprise and entrepreneurialism in digital games Typical response to increasing instability in the labour
(n ¼ 20) market is to adopt more enterprising and
entrepreneurial behaviour in order to find work
Zaheer et al. 2018 Qualitative International Founders’ perspectives on achieving “traction” in Success factors
(n ¼ 12) digital start-ups
Ziyae et al. 2014 Quantitative The deployment and internationalization speed of e- Entrepreneur’s traits positively affect
(n ¼ 135) business in the digital entrepreneurship era internationalisation speed of e-businesses
connected with digital entrepreneurship. Furthermore, Davidson and Vaast (2010) discuss Digital
new types of opportunities, which emerge in the digitalisation era, and Castro Soeiro et al. entrepreneurship
(2016) analyse opportunities, which are enabled by digital consumption. Additionally, in the
context of opportunities and challenges, Hair et al. (2012) mention that strong market
orientation is essential for entrepreneurs to succeed in the dynamic and rapidly changing
environment. Furthermore, Hair et al. (2012) argue that digital ventures are dramatically
easier to found than traditional ventures due to vastly decreased transaction costs in the 361
digital economy.
Richter et al. (2017) identify the online sharing economy (also share economy) as a major
source of new business models. The bases for sharing economy are unused capacities which
individuals provide to others in exchange for a benefit, be it a monetary or non-monetary
one (Richter, Kraus and Bouncken, 2015; Richter, Kraus and Syrjä, 2015). Sharing economy
evolved from the possibilities digital environments offer to users (Richter et al., 2017).
However, not only unused capacities contribute to business models exploiting sharing
economy principles, but also entrepreneurs like photographers or graphic designers make
use of the sharing economy to sell their work (Troxler and Wolf, 2017). Thus, online sharing
economy is one possible type of digital business model. It is of great interest for
entrepreneurship research whether digital platforms providing sharing economy services
add new business models and markets or rather replace existing ones. Well-known
examples mentioned in this context are Uber, AirBnB and Wikipedia, which carry out
activities that are basically not novel but rather have been transferred into digital
environments and complemented by the phenomenon of sharing private equity with other
participants of the digital world. The preliminary stages for these business models were
comprised by platforms, which offer people the possibility to share their digital files without
exchanging physical storage items.
At this point it seems interesting to take a closer look at the article of Richter et al. (2017)
about the sharing and exchanging of information and in general the sharing economy. They
discuss the reliance of the sharing economy on information communication technology and
Web 2.0. Furthermore, as the requirements of the sharing economy, they specifically
identify a trustworthy business model and the ability of customers as provides. Moreover,
changed living conditions, urbanity and an open mind-set are identified as the drivers for
the sharing economy (Richter et al., 2017).
In the theoretical background of their work, Richter et al. (2017) introduce different
definitions of “sharing economy”. However, they use Kempf’s (2013) approach as a starting
point in their qualitative research project. In particular, they used his three dimensions for
engaging in the sharing economy: first, the sharing of digital content; second, the sharing of
physical goods; and finally crowdfunding. After conducting qualitative interviews with 14
companies in the entrepreneurial stage in Austria, Germany and Switzerland, Richter et al.
(2017) identified nine aspects for the sharing economy: sharing of digital content; sharing of
physical goods; customers as providers; open mind-set; changed living conditions; urbanity;
win-win situation; added value; and a trustworthy business model.
A major characteristic of sharing economy is the win-win situation of people involved in
digital businesses: both sides, customer and business owner, do not face hierarchy. Instead,
they are on a par with each other. Sharing economy often brings a high level of
trustworthiness where users are given the possibility to find out whether to rely on other
users or decline business. The application of rating systems has to be mentioned as an
example. According to Le Dinh et al. (2018), entrepreneurship regarding sharing economy is
steadily increasing, which comes along with increasing connections and technical
capabilities for the purpose of sharing information.
The sharing economy not only provides digital entrepreneurs with a business model.
Special forms of sharing economy made entrepreneurship possible in the first place.
IJEBR Many entrepreneurs, no matter if pursuing digital business models or traditional ones, got
25,2 provided with necessary capital through crowdfunding. Crowdsourcing, a system where
tasks are passed on to third parties, is another phenomenon of the sharing economy
(Richter, Kraus and Bouncken, 2015; Richter, Kraus and Syrjä, 2015).
Di Domenico et al. (2014) follow a different approach towards identifying business
models in the digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. They analysed home-based online ventures
362 and their ambiguity between physical and digital dimension of work. The concept of mental
mobility is used to explain the proximity in navigating through the desire to be autonomous
and flexible and also socially connected through technology. Those home-based online
ventures want to achieve self-control and self-management and mention mobility and free
movement as crucial.
Throughout most of the articles it was mentioned that digitalisation is responsible for a
disruptive transformation in the respective fields of entrepreneurship. Hull et al. (2007) as
well as Liao et al. (2013) differentiate between mild digital entrepreneurship, moderate
digital entrepreneurship and extreme digital entrepreneurship when assessing digital

business models. The differentiation graduates from making use of digital assets to a
business, which is completely conducted online and thereby describes the degree to which
those businesses operate in the digital world. Whilst mild digital entrepreneurs focus on
digital products, delivery or other major digital parts constituting the business, extreme
digital entrepreneurs conduct their whole business model online. Such digital pioneers not
only digitise the goods or services themselves, but also shift all business operations, such as
production, advertising, distribution, transaction and customer relations into digitalisation.
This extreme transformation offers new challenges for every entrepreneur who wants to
make use of the emerging opportunities and challenges, which currently exist and will
emerge in the future. Hull et al. (2007) expect this extreme kind of digital entrepreneurship to
continue and to be likely to increase in the future.
Different multidimensional combinations between technology and entrepreneurship
for this extreme kind of digital entrepreneurship are at hand. Giones and Brem (2017) use
three gradations for multiple combinations of entrepreneurship and technology:
technology entrepreneurship; digital technology entrepreneurship; and digital
entrepreneurship. Each typology is thereby characterised and differentiated against the
others through the technology behind the opportunity, key activities in the process and
access to resources and funding.
Giones and Brem (2017) understand digital technology entrepreneurship as a specific
occurrence of business models for digital entrepreneurship. The main characteristic here is
that digital business is based on technology as a product for instance on one side,
supplemented by a matching digital service. Digital technology also provides entrepreneurs
with a new form of infrastructure offering a multitude of opportunities. Platforms,
crowdfunding and 3D printing are only a few of those numerous digital assets contributing
to the evolvement of digital technology entrepreneurs (Nambisan, 2017). Modular systems of
technology offer a considerably attractive setting for fast growing and advancing
technological surroundings. Digital technological components, which are loosely coupled
and can be combined in individual configurations, offer a great level of flexibility for
entrepreneurs. Flexibility in connection of functions and individual digital configurations
are possible on platforms as well. This high level of modularity fostered entrepreneurial
activities towards the production of innovative modules to be combined within digital
technologies (Srinivasan and Venkatraman, 2018).
Digital entrepreneurship process

Many articles deal with the term entrepreneurial process or process of entrepreneurship.
The entrepreneurial process is described as the stages a founder of a startup has to take
from an initial idea to collecting the rewards from hard work. Le Dinh et al. (2018) describe Digital
the digital business model development within three major, broad stages including several entrepreneurship
sub-stages, each, beginning with the generation of an idea, followed by the start-up phase
which is then further pursued by the entrepreneurial business management. Within the idea
generation phase, entrepreneurs ruminate about key questions regarding benefits, costs,
feasibility and application. The start-up phase is characterised by business planning and
establishing a team around the entrepreneur for sharing responsibilities and expanding 363
knowledge and expertise. Intensive product and/or service testing are major components as
well at this stage. As soon as the business and intellectual property are registered, the digital
start-up runs into the entrepreneurial business management phase. Improving products and
services, innovation and control are main activities fostered by entrepreneurs in this stage of
digital business development. At the same time, refinement of products and/or services as
well as the implementation of innovations characterises the business management process.
Thus, business development can be regarded as a cycle with several steps occurring
repeatedly over the life cycle of the business whilst reshaping it constantly (Ebel et al., 2016).
Dutot and Van Horne (2015) propose a process model for digital business model
development, which they tested through interviews conducted in French and UAE digital
start-ups. As reported, entrepreneurs make use of digital technologies for networking with
various kinds of stakeholders. By that, they learn about customer demands for innovation.
Furthermore, digital technology is used for storage and acquisition of information out of
business processes. To boost innovativeness, entrepreneurs also make use of information
gathering on digital platforms besides traditional forms of networking.
Through digital technologies such business development processes have become
increasingly smooth, but differ in their appearance. Platforms, for instance, highly depend
on self-generated community interactions and therefore follow a process of self-generation in
general. As a result, entrepreneurial activities and outcomes face a considerably high level of
uncertainty. Innovation and product development are highly path dependent in digital
businesses. The ability to innovate is supported by further development and processing of
information and communications technology. If an entrepreneur makes use of a particular
platform or digital technology, the advancement and improvement of this certain technology
shapes their possibility to innovate further. Thus, network effects and the uncertainty of
further development are reasons for the ambiguity in digital business models (Nambisan, 2017).
A highly discussed issue in the area of digital entrepreneurship is the entrepreneurial
process as development of digital entrepreneurship. A major finding of a large-scale study
on entrepreneurs found digital business models considerably more dynamic compared to
traditional businesses. In fact, the development of digital start-ups follows steps of
redefinition again and again. Moreover, the entrepreneur and his/her founding team are the
essential part of the business in its infancy. Therefore, it is crucial to get the right and
stable team together in order to be successful. Being willing to change things and staying
agile through the trial-and-error business development phase is crucial. Another step to
foster success of a digital start-up in an early stage is to start networking and building up
valuable social capital, whereby those network partners acquired throughout the career of
the entrepreneur are most crucial (Spiegel et al., 2016).
A considerable effect of digitisation can be seen regarding time frames of entrepreneurial
processes (Ojala, 2016). Digital technologies made it possible to create, modify and repeat
product development phases much quicker than before. Experimentation and
implementation processes are accelerated in nowadays digital economies and restart
within much shorter periods. Moreover, starting points and endpoints of each period are not
that distinct any more on digital platforms (Nambisan, 2017).
Taken together, today’s digital entrepreneurs, in comparison to traditional entrepreneurs,
do not follow a predefined blueprint or highly defined business plan. Rather, the behaviour
IJEBR and decisions of a digital entrepreneur get shaped throughout the whole entrepreneurial
25,2 process. Continuing evolution of technology and on-going interactions with the digital
economy initiate, create and change the digital entrepreneurial process many times. Thus, the
digital entrepreneur faces increasingly dynamic paths, determined by diverse activities with
uncertain time frames (Nambisan, 2017).
364 Platform strategies

Entrepreneurs make use of digital platforms to commercialise their business. The power of
digital networks offer potential for fast growing and advancing technologies, though this
potential can be seen as a major threat as well. On the downside, fast growth can mean
considerable risk, as competitors launching more innovative technological advancement
could destroy the whole business model (Giones and Brem, 2017).
Hsieh and Wu (2018) refer to platforms which appear in different contexts and forms for
development and commercialisation of products as well as for innovation. In general,
platforms are considered as digital space, which provide businesses with the opportunity to
connect with each other as well as with customers. Hsieh and Wu (2018) suggest a
classification of platform strategies based on commercialisation capabilities and tendency
towards new product and/or service development. Accordingly, platforms can be
characterised within three types. First, there are innovation platforms, such as offered by
Google or Apple, where entrepreneurs can develop complementary products and services
within a digital ecosystem. Companies like Google or Apple foster a noteworthy occurrence
of platform strategy. They make use of digital ecosystems by providing App developers a
platform like the well-known Apple iOS or Google Android for the development of new
products. Thus, this form of platform strategy makes use of third-party developers,
appearing as competitors within the digital ecosystems pushing each other for further
innovation regarding their digital products, e.g. Apps (Hsieh and Wu, 2018). Also Ford’s
SYNC3 platform works in a similar way providing the same services as Apple and Google,
but is designed for car entertainment, offering a multitude of App developers the possibility
to establish services and commercialise them. The attractiveness of becoming an
entrepreneur on such a digital platform is explained by the possibility to specialise within a
certain field in terms of technology while not needing to market and distribute the product
to the same extent as elsewhere (Nambisan, 2017). Second, transaction platforms foster
commercial activities, such as online retail or on-demand services. Third, integration
platforms are a mixture of both transaction and innovation platforms. Within this form,
entrepreneurs are given the possibility to innovate and create new technologies whereas
consumers are able to make use of these technologies.
To be successful in conducting a platform strategy as digital entrepreneur, it is inevitable
to place products and services in a unique way within online networks connecting multiple
businesses and consumers (Srinivasan and Venkatraman, 2018). This allows very fast
business growth. A main preliminary for the development and execution of the platform
strategy is the existence of a digital ecosystem (see chapter 3.2.4). Today, platform strategy
can be traced within various industries and branches. Social media, finance, human
resource, accommodation, transportation, e-commerce and digital payment are only few of
the fields in which digital businesses operate by pursuing the platform strategy (Hsieh and
Wu, 2018). Thus, those actors who create the digital platform make up a considerably
important part to provide necessary infrastructure, though those entrepreneurs and
customers who act on the digital platforms are at least equally important participants in
order to create value on the digital network and to create a digital ecosystem (Srinivasan
and Venkatraman, 2018).
A noteworthy current occurrence of digital entrepreneurship is online blogs. Previously,
blogs were only used for discussions, community management or as a reflection tool for
groups in education. Today bloggers run digital businesses by promoting products and Digital
services and carrying out marketing activities for third-party products by promoting them entrepreneurship
through their online community traffic on their platform channel in exchange for money
(Guthrie, 2014).
In order to be successful with pursuing the platform strategy, several factors play a
role. Srinivasan and Venkatraman (2018) argued that the positioning of a digital platform
within the digital ecosystem, the design of a platform in terms of technology and 365
architecture and relationships to build legitimacy are most important in this regard. They
further stated several propositions regarding the success potential of new business
models operating on platforms. Those propositions, in a brief overview, predict that
platforms are more likely to succeed if they got linked to legitimate, high-status platforms,
actors or big players in the digital ecosystem. The ecosystem provides the entrepreneur
with a multitude of actors to connect with and several prominent, diverse actors to build
up strong ties with which can be crucial for building up a successful platform. The
uniqueness of the offers provided on the platform compared to competitors is a major

contributor to success as well.
Design parameters, be it technologically or architecturally, are major influencing factors
towards entrepreneurial opportunities regarding the interactions with the digital ecosystem.
Ease of use is among the top factors in order which cause people to act on digital platforms
(Oumlil and Juiz, 2018). Openness, decision rights and access rights shape behaviour and
interactions within digital platforms. As an example, Google’s Android digital integration
platform came up with more innovative, new digital applications than Apple’s iOS did.
Thus, more opportunities for the participants of a digital ecosystem shape actors’ decisions
to contribute, participate and pursue their unique innovations. Interaction possibilities of
entrepreneurs on platforms with the digital ecosystems therefore shape a company’s
capabilities and thus their business performance. Whether a digital entrepreneur is
successful in pursuing the business activities highly depends on the interaction possibilities
offered by the platform (Nambisan, 2017).
Digital ecosystem
Digital entrepreneurship builds on the existence or development of a digital ecosystem.
According to Li et al. (as cited in Sussan and Acs, 2017, p. 58), a digital ecosystem is
“a self-organizing, scalable and sustainable system composed of heterogeneous digital
entities and their interrelations focusing on interactions among entities to increase system
utility, gain benefits, and promote information sharing, inner and inter cooperation and
system innovation”. Users and participant of a digital ecosystem is everybody who has the
opportunity to access connected devices, e.g. computers, mobiles, tablets. The World Wide
Web created an open space to provide and access information, knowledge, data and even
free labour. Digital ecosystems therefore have a kind of self-generative nature working on a
service-oriented logic where users can act as providers at the same time. Thus, digital
ecosystems offer great opportunities for entrepreneurs (Sussan and Acs, 2017).
Nonetheless, building up a digital ecosystem is confronted with considerably complex
processes involving many internal as well as external stakeholders (Hu et al., 2016).
Accordingly, research has identified multiple key factors for success in building digital
ecosystems (institutional entrepreneurship, transaction costs, digital technology and online
social capital).
Hu et al. (2016) identify institutional entrepreneurship as a central element for creating
digital ecosystems. They analyse the transformation from traditional to digitally enabled
companies and try to give practical implications (Hu et al., 2016). However, they also state
that more research is needed to solve the mystery of how organisations achieve
organisational transformation with institutional entrepreneurship.
IJEBR Sussan and Acs (2017) identify the ability to connect customers of different groups with
25,2 each other at vastly decreasing transaction costs as the core competence of recent successful
ventures. They introduce us to a new framework for digital entrepreneurial ecosystems,
which conceptualises digital infrastructure governance, digital user citizenship, digital
entrepreneurship and digital marketplace. Here, Sussan and Acs (2017) link the digital
ecosystem with the entrepreneurial ecosystem and thereby integrate agents and users into
366 their concept of the digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. The four quadrants of the digital
entrepreneurial ecosystem should help users as well as agents to match on multisided
digital platforms whereby they use the innovative digital ecosystem governance and
business ecosystem management while reducing transaction costs (Sussan and Acs, 2017).
Sussan and Acs (2017) also introduce us to three emerging business models, which
highlight the sharing and voluntary contributing of users in online platforms as a game
changer for transaction cost-based businesses. The first user-intensive business model is the
multisided platforms business model whereby users provide free content on multisided
platforms as it can be experienced on Facebook and Instagram. The second business model
is the sharing of unused tangible assets. Typical examples of this business model are
AirBnB and Uber, which perform extremely successful throughout the globe. The third
user-intensive business model combines paid and unpaid customers whereby the business
models rely on their customers network externalities. Spotify with its either unpaid or its
premium model as well as online dating platforms can be mentioned in this respect.
Entrepreneurs value the potential of such digital ecosystems not only as business models
themselves, but also as digital innovation platforms that provide innovators an environment
to try out ideas and contribute to digital solutions through a collaborative setting (Hsieh and
Wu, 2018). However, at this point we need to make a critical remark. For sure, the business
models mentioned above create and provide value for their users. Nevertheless, Facebook
was highly criticised for their misuse of personal data, which forced policy makers
throughout the globe and especially in the European Union to introduce new laws to secure
personal data used on multisided platforms. Additionally, Facebook, as well as AirBnB and
Uber, was highly criticised for tax evasion on an international scale. Without fixing the tax
requirements and the misuse of personal data, these models might not be sustainable, even
in times of extreme digital entrepreneurship.
As mentioned above, digital technology provided businesses with a necessary
infrastructure to build a digital business on. Those technologies made it possible for users
and businesses to come together virtually and build a digital ecosystem of interactions.
According to Oumlil and Juiz (2018), the development of information and communications
technology in general made e-entrepreneurship possible. Nambisan (2017) states that, in
return, digital ecosystems foster digital entrepreneurial activities and entrepreneurial
activities in general. Groups built in digital networks considerably enhance innovation
capability and idea generation activities among entrepreneurs. Effectuation processes get
created through interactions and foster other entrepreneurial ideas. Moreover, Nambisan
(2017) states that the technological possibilities offered by the infrastructure are less
important than the purpose or intent for which the entrepreneur acts in a respective digital
infrastructure in explaining why various entrepreneurs come up with different ideas within
the same digital media.
Davidson and Vaast (2010) state that digital entrepreneurship is, in comparison to
traditional entrepreneurship, no longer a function of the entrepreneur himself/herself. Social
interactions within digital surroundings and the material context of digital technology are a
recent focus. Mutual adjustments within the digital ecosystem in regard to products,
services and locations are the factors, which shape digital entrepreneurial activities.
Business practices, thus, include a technological and social component fostering interactions
within digital ecosystems. Digital ecosystems are also referred to as online social capital.
In this context, digital ecosystems support entrepreneurs to generate ideas, identify and Digital
allocate resources, take advantage of digital market opportunities, gather information and entrepreneurship
create legitimacy for innovations. Maintaining flexibility and preventing a digital business
from failure are some more aspects, which are fostered by interactions in a digital
ecosystem. Smith et al. (2017) conceptualise the digital ecosystem as interactions providing
entrepreneurs with access to resources to be utilised for the attainment of desirable
outcomes. The characterisation of the effectiveness of digital ecosystems can be made 367
through the concept of bridging and bonding. Bridging refers to connections of actors
within the network, ideally reaching as many diverse connections as possible for getting
access to new knowledge. Bonding is referred to as the behaviour of actors within the
network. Providing others with emotional support, sharing of solidarity and enriching
relationships with commitment characterise high levels of bonding.
Entrepreneurship education
Compared to the increasing importance of digital entrepreneurship, surprisingly few papers

address the teaching of digital entrepreneurship. Digital entrepreneurship education usually
comes with low start-up and running costs. Thereby, teaching of digital entrepreneurship is
not only a current hot topic but also feasible in many educational environments and directly
addresses student’s real life.
Guthrie (2014) reports his experiences from using student’s themed blogs in a learning
project within an e-commerce major in a European business school. Furthermore, he
provides a set of digital entrepreneurship skills, which are grouped along the phases of
digital product life cycle (production, distribution, promotion). However, Guthrie (2014) fails
to discuss possible outcomes of the study findings in regard to structured research on
digital entrepreneurship training and education. Nichols et al. (2017), who describe the
supportive contribution of academic libraries to entrepreneurship and digital humanities on
campus, also lack in providing further research opportunities. Only Le Dinh et al. (2018)
suggest possible research opportunities regarding their living lab approach. It is mentioned
that further empirical research would be helpful for the generalisability of the living lab
approach, a better understanding of its various options and the inclusion of big data, though
clear reference to entrepreneurship education is missing. Nevertheless, this might be an
indicator that further research is needed, even though it has not been mentioned directly.
Social digital entrepreneurship

Huang and Cox (2016) conducted their research on narrowing the digital gap with a case
study in Taiwan. The authors mention that the motivation for low-income people to engage
in social digital opportunities might be an interesting field for further research. Moreover,
comparing practical methods on the organisational level might also be of interest for further
research, as this would allow policy makers to take the efficient steps in the transformation
to bridge the digital gap for the poor.
Maiolini et al. (2016) give an overview of social and innovative activities conducted by
start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) across the globe between 2001
and 2014 and identify three sets of drivers for social digital entrepreneurship: mobile as a
device; web and social as channels/platforms; and marketing, education and e-commerce as
relevant businesses. Maiolini et al. (2016) see implications for further research in the
interplay of different technologies and industries, especially from a longitudinal perspective.
In addition, they encourage the study of practices that companies successfully use to satisfy
social needs and to put more research effort into sustainable innovations in the field of social
Sarma and Sunny (2017) understand smart cities as an outcome of linking social with
digital entrepreneurship. For an improved understanding of the dynamics affecting smart
IJEBR cities, digital scholars should put their research focus on resource constraints and
25,2 technology disruptions. Moreover, to deepen our understanding of smart cities’ success
factors and to anticipate future developments, the role of policy makers and incentives for
entrepreneurs within smart cities has to be studied.
The accumulation of social capital seems to differ in the online context compared to
traditional social entrepreneurship (Smith et al., 2017). To understand the specific nature of
368 social digital entrepreneurship, Smith et al. (2017) stimulate several possible research areas:
digital user profile affordances on bridging social capital; digital search affordances on
bridging social capital; digital relations affordances on bridging social capital; network
transparency affordances on bridging social capital; digital user profile affordances on
bonding social capital; digital search affordances on bonding social capital; digital relations
affordances on bonding social capital; and network transparency affordances on bonding
social capital.
Dy et al. (2017) offer direction for further research, especially in the context of women
entrepreneurship. Contrary to the popular notion of the internet being a gender neutral and
thereby non-biased platform for entrepreneurial activities, they found evidence for
online inequality in terms of marked bodies, social positionality and associated resource
constraints. Further research should target these issues and study to what extent female
social digital entrepreneurs are disadvantaged or in turn could benefit from the emerging
digital opportunities.
Discussion and theoretical integration

The most dominant part of the existing literature is aimed at analysing new business
models. However, the digital entrepreneurship environment is rapidly changing at a high
level and it seems that academia is just about to catch up with the latest developments.
To aggregate the findings of our literature review, we give a brief summary of opportunities,
challenges and success factors of digital entrepreneurship.
Opportunities
A highly discussed fragment within academic literature existing on digital entrepreneurship
discusses opportunities arising through the phenomenon of digital entrepreneurship.
As there is a multitude of opportunities mentioned, the following section of this paper
outlines only those opportunities which we consider as most relevant.
Digital environments, where consumers and businesses interact with each other,
provide companies with a considerable amount of information, which they can exploit for
their own business purposes. The access of this huge amount of information gives
entrepreneurs the possibility to exactly analyse what potential customers are looking for.
Traditional non-digital entrepreneurs do not have equal access to information (Hair et al.,
2012). By using big data and algorithms digital companies can even identify need before
(potential) customers are aware of it or manipulate consumer behaviour and attitudes, e.g.
by selective, customised advertising. For this reason, digital information and its
management is not only the source of digital entrepreneurship but should also be its
continuous driver.
Not only are there information-related advantages present on digital platforms, getting
a high user base on a platform can also induce tremendous network effects. This is where
the digital ecosystem comes to play. Network effects, meaning support of users,
participants adopting a provided technology, interactions and feedback from the digital
society, offer a huge potential for digital entrepreneurs. Success in launching phases can
be highly dependent on the support generated by the digital society (Srinivasan and
Venkatraman, 2018).
Challenges Digital
Despite those favourable opportunities and the usual challenges of being self-employed, entrepreneurship
digital entrepreneurs have to cope with specific obstacles. Comparatively new business
models, such as Facebook or Google, demonstrate not only the power of digital
entrepreneurship, but also its high level of uncertainty. It is not only the uncertainty
regarding advancement of digital technologies, but also the risk to face diverse legal or tax
regulations once the field of business is established. With most digital companies operating 369
global from their initial market entry, country-specific regulations are an exceptional risk.
As already mentioned, technological developments occur under high uncertainty. New
technologies might turn out as failures, whilst others go towards unpredictable directions
(Brundin and Gustafsson, 2013). Thus, the whole digital business development process
takes place within high uncertainty. Therefore, continuous feedback from the market, rapid
development of products, services, infrastructure and feedback loops are ways to cope with
high uncertainty (Ojala, 2016). Another problem, which arises through the high level of
uncertainty, is the difficulty to find appropriate investors that provide the business with
vital money. Srinivasan and Venkatraman (2018) suggest building up close relationships
and getting support of high-status people in order to create legitimacy for the business
model. This might help to get investors providing the business with money, as many
investors trust the voice of prominent people.
If digital entrepreneurs build their business on a platform, they link their business model
directly to the technological status of the platform technology. Technological advancements
of a platform require rapid advancement of the business technology and vice versa. In fact,
digital entrepreneurs in this case couple the outcomes of their business directly to those of
the platform. This can be a positive effect, though in negative surroundings this may create
a considerable threat for the business model of a digital entrepreneur. Moreover, digital
entrepreneurs need to innovate and differentiate on an on-going basis. Their possibility to
differentiate is limited to the technological possibilities offered by the platform (Srinivasan
and Venkatraman, 2018).
These findings lead to another considerable threat digital entrepreneurs have to face.
When launching a technology on an integration platform like Android, for instance, the
newness of the respective technology is a preliminary for success. Thus, the development of
the technology already took a lot of time in which competitors also could have produced or
even launched a competing technology. Thus, it is increasingly difficult for digital
entrepreneurs to keep pace with rapid technological advancement, not only within platforms
(Srinivasan and Venkatraman, 2018).
Another major challenge digital entrepreneurs face within the development of their
business is the establishment of trust among market participants. Previously, it is apparent
that this topic was marginally assessed; nonetheless, it seems appropriate to increase
understanding on this issue. Trust is an issue which is prevalent in offline businesses as
well; nonetheless, through the depersonalisation of digital business it is much more relevant
in the field of non-face-to-face commerce. For example, Nzembayie (2017) mentions the
missing of body language and “functional familiarity” poses as possible causes of
misunderstandings. The trust of a potential customer is a necessary condition in order to do
business with them. Feedback of customers, which is visible for all market participants, is
one way to build trust between potential customers and business partners. However, market
participants must directly link the feedback to a certain customer and to the digital business
in order to increase trust, what might be perceived as critical, again (Hair et al., 2012).
Despite arguments that digital environment lowers barriers to enter entrepreneurship, Dy
et al. (2017) found that social hierarchies or rather social inequalities limit the possibility to
become a digital entrepreneur. Obstacles to become an entrepreneur that exist offline regarding
social structures are equally present in online activities towards becoming an entrepreneur.
IJEBR Success factors
25,2 One factor contributing to the success of a business is related to the positioning of the
platform where the digital business is built on. Success does not solely depend on the
business itself, but rather on the architectural and technology decisions a platform company
takes. If a platform does not enjoy a considerably high reputation and good positioning, the
success of the built-upon business is limited, too (Srinivasan and Venkatraman, 2018).
370 In addition, relationship capital is vital for digital entrepreneurial success. Personal
relationships and stable business networks as well as interactions with users and
participants on platforms are increasingly important for digital entrepreneurs to build
legitimacy for their business and assemble resources necessary to conduct business
activities (Srinivasan and Venkatraman, 2018). Hair et al. (2012) argue that market
orientation (i.e. meeting customer demands with the business operations) is one of the most
vital issues in start-up business. Electronic communities offer great possibilities to sense
peoples’ demands and whether an entrepreneur’s strategy is on track with innovation
activities and business development.

Besides technical developments, changing customer preferences, new forms of
competition and markets as well as accompanying legal and tax regulations, it seems
that the individual level of the entrepreneur has not been taken into account in digital
entrepreneurship literature appropriately. Few researchers address individual prerequisites
for successful digital entrepreneurship.
According to Zaheer et al. (2018), who interviewed founders of 12 digital start-ups, the
entrepreneur’s experience and education as well as vision, purpose, values, timing and focus
are directly linked to entrepreneurial success. Family background, personal commitment,
motivation and knowledge as well as personal skills related to the industry and industrial
sector are important factors contributing to entrepreneurial success. Obviously, the level of
flexibility and adaptability of the founder and/or CEO directly contributes to a digital
business’ success. Participative structures enable innovative environments and give the
opportunity to directly response to market forces. If success gets measured in terms of
internationalisation speed, then international experience of the entrepreneur also plays a
critical role for success. Entrepreneurs who spent time abroad tend to exploit international
possibilities much faster than others (Ziyae et al., 2014).
Theoretical integration and research map

Given a global trend of digitalisation in almost every area of life and a growing number of
businesses build around this development, entrepreneurship scholars are encouraged to
contribute by a structured, but yet adaptive research agenda. To extend our understanding
of digital entrepreneurship and its various characteristics, an integrative view on the
different parameter as well as an extension of existing knowledge regarding
entrepreneurship is indispensable.
We integrate the findings of our literature review of digital entrepreneurship and
worthwhile other determinants and outcomes for future investigation in an overarching
research map of digital entrepreneurship presented in Figure 1. We understand this
research map as a first attempt to link previous research in entrepreneurship with findings
from computer sciences and psychology. We explicitly want to point out that this map is not
exhaustive, but open for future additions or rearrangement.
Entrepreneurship researchers gain enhanced insights into the digital entrepreneurship
phenomenon by cross-sectional studies contrasting different groups or scenarios,
e.g., compare strategies and growth of different competing companies, contrast industries
with their specific dynamics and conditions or study needs and behaviour of varying
customer groups. If trajectories of industries, business models or technologies are in the
spotlight, longitudinal studies are the method of choice.
Digital
Digital entrepreneurship
entrepreneurship
Digital entrepreneurship process
(cross-sectional vs longitudinal)
Levels of analysis
• Cultural
Digital ecosystem 371
• (Inter-)national vs regional clusters e.g.,
• Industry • Institutional entrepreneurship
• Organisational level • Transaction costs
• Founders/owners • Digital technology
• Shareholders • Online social capital
• Stakeholders
• Customers
• Employees Digital business model
Figure 1.
• Individual level e.g.,

• Platform strategies Research map
• Social digital entrepreneurship of digital
entrepreneurship
In addition to the time perspective (cross-sectional vs longitudinal), different levels of

analysis are potentially available. Researchers in the field of digital entrepreneurship
might initially focus on digital organisations with their various related groups, such as
founders/owners, shareholders, stakeholders, customers and employees. Existing literature
regarding digital entrepreneurship also takes industry background into account. Further
research could also consider internationality aspects in terms of national or international
ventures compared to regional clusters (e.g. smart cities). Besides strategic decisions to stay
local or operate global, legal and tax regulations as well as distributional and
communication aspects should be included. Cultural differences in the adoption of digital
entrepreneurship – both from the entrepreneur’s and customers’ perspective including
cultural influences in general – increase understanding of why some digital strategies could
not be transferred in other cultures without overcoming certain barriers. Finally, individual
characteristics of the entrepreneur will explain why some digital ventures succeed whilst
others fail. Variables worth studying on an individual level are demography, psychological
characteristics (skills, cognition and ability; personality; motives and values; in short, the
entrepreneurial mind-set), entrepreneurship education, expertise and industry knowledge
and networks.
Further research is required to evaluate business models in digital entrepreneurship.
Besides a deeper understanding of the essential mechanisms and outcomes of platform
strategies and social digital entrepreneurship (Margiono et al., 2018), more clarification
about why, when and how companies decide to pursue either a mild, moderate or extreme
digital business model are of note. Moreover, technological developments as well as
advanced analytics and a better infrastructure will accelerate digitalisation and go along
with the emergence of new business models.
For this reason, the importance of a strong and exploitable digital ecosystem is obvious.
Besides already identified elements of a digital ecosystem (institutional entrepreneurship,
transaction costs, digital technology, online social capital), further research should be
stimulated to identify alternative drivers supporting digital entrepreneurship. In this
context, the detection of possible restraints and possibilities to limit risk is as important as
the search for facilitators.
In sum, research on digital entrepreneurship benefits from the integration of a profound
general entrepreneurship literature with information technology literature. By expanding
the knowledge about entrepreneurship in general to the domain of digital entrepreneurship,
IJEBR we encourage scholars to share their contributions quickly and in a systematic order.
25,2 Thereby, further research must explore the rapid evolution in the field of digital
entrepreneurship. Clear statements about the research questions, methods and findings as
well as an increased number of quantitative studies with larger samples will add to theory
building as well as to practical usability in terms of counselling of entrepreneurs or
entrepreneurship education.
372
Limitations
As a matter of course, our literature review does not come without limitations. First, our
search consisting of selected keywords was limited to only peer-reviewed English written
academic journals, with a full-text pdf access. Scholars working in different language areas
or fields of research might label the phenomenon of digital entrepreneurship in other ways.
In consequence, these contributions could not be found and included in our review. Second,
colleagues might cluster the articles found in another way or denominate the clusters
alternatively. Third, literature searches in fields developing that fast are out-dated very
quickly. We conducted our literature search in spring 2018, meanwhile submitted or already
published studies therefore missing. As can be seen from Table II, an upward trend in
numbers of papers about digital entrepreneurship per year lets expect more qualitative and
quantitative studies for 2018 onwards.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to provide an updated and complete assessment of
relevant academic articles on digital entrepreneurship. Clustering existing literature
resulted in six categories: digital business models; digital entrepreneurship process;
platform strategies; digital ecosystem; entrepreneurship education; and social digital
entrepreneurship.
As this literature review indicates, digitalisation brought a major shift into how
entrepreneurs conduct business today. Not only business models and their various
possible forms and characterisations got shaped around digital potential; in fact, many
new forms of businesses did not exist until modern advances in digital technology.
Thus, numerous new opportunities have been created for entrepreneurs and success
factors as well as challenges for digital entrepreneurial activities have been analysed
by scholars.
However, as already indicated, it is assumed that research on digital entrepreneurship
is still in its infancy. Only 35 articles could been found so far. Most of them (49 per cent)
followed a qualitative approach (including case studies). We assume that the
superior number of qualitative studies contributes to a yet unsorted pile of articles
with various, partly non-overlapping topics. Based on the depiction of the existing
literatures findings, the study proposes a research map of digital entrepreneurship.
We hope our research map, which is in no case terminated or exhaustive, stimulates
further research by pointing to the interesting interactions of different levels of analysis
as well as varying time perspectives that come with the complex phenomenon of
Challenges of digital entrepreneurship are considerably diverse. Technological
infrastructures are constantly advancing and digital technology continuously offers new
developments to society. From one perspective, challenges, such as low diffusion rates of
specific technologies (e.g. NFC for payments), might be overcome soon. By contrast, new
challenges will form by advanced technological opportunities. Entrepreneurship research
should keep the challenges and opportunities emerging in the near future on the agenda,
as these may be presumably the only interest of potential new entrepreneurs.
References Digital
Articles of the literature review sample are marked with an asterisk (*). entrepreneurship
Bouncken, R.B., Gast, J., Kraus, S. and Bogers, M. (2015), “Coopetition: a systematic review, synthesis,
and future research directions”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 577-601.
Brundin, E. and Gustafsson, V. (2013), “Entrepreneurs’ decision making under different levels of
uncertainty: the role of emotions”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 568-591. 373
*Castro Soeiro, F., Santos, M. and Alves, J. (2016), “Network-based innovation: the case for mobile
gaming and digital music”, European Business Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 155-175.
*Davidson, E. and Vaast, E. (2010), “Digital entrepreneurship and its sociomaterial enactment”,
Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1-10.
*Di Domenico, M., Daniel, E. and Nunan, D. (2014), “ ‘Mental mobility’the digital age: entrepreneurs and
the online home-based business”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 266-281.
*Dutot, V. and Van Horne, C. (2015), “Digital entrepreneurship intentiona developed vs emerging
country: an exploratory studyFrance and the UAE”, Transnational Corporations Review, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 79-96.
*Dy, A.M., Marlow, S. and Martin, L. (2017), “A web of opportunity or the same old story? Women
digital entrepreneurs and intersectionality theory”, Human Relations, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 286-311.
*Ebel, P., Bretschneider, U. and Leimeister, J.M. (2016), “Leveraging virtual business model innovation:
a framework for designing business model development tools”, Information Systems Journal,
Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 519-550.
*Giones, F. and Brem, A. (2017), “Digital technology entrepreneurship: a definition and research
agenda”, Technology Innovation Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 44-51.
*Guthrie, C. (2014), “The digital factory: a hands-on learning projectdigital entrepreneurship”, Journal
of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 115-133.
*Hair, N., Wetsch, L., Hull, C., Perotti, V. and Hung, Y.-T. (2012), “Market orientationdigital
entrepreneurship: advantages and challengesa web 2.0 networked world”, International Journal
of Innovation and Technology Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 1-17.
*Herrmann, M., Boehme, P., Mondritzki, T., Ehlers, J.P., Kavadias, S. and Truebel, H. (2018), “Digital
transformation and disruption of the health care sector: internet-based observational study”,
Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, p. e104.
*Hsieh, Y.-J. and Wu, Y. (2018), “Entrepreneurship through the platform strategythe digital era:
insights and research opportunities”, Computers in Human Behavior, pp. 1-9.
*Hu, H., Huang, T., Zeng, Q. and Zhang, S. (2016), “The role of institutional entrepreneurship in
building digital ecosystem: a case study of Red Collar Group (RCG)”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 496-499, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.12.004.
*Huang, S.-C. and Cox, J.L. (2016), “Establishing a social entrepreneurial system to bridge the digital
divide for the poor: a case study for Taiwan”, Universal Accessthe Information Society, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 219-236.
*Hull, C.E., Hung, Y.-T.C., Hair, N., Perotti, V. and DeMartino, R. (2007), “Taking advantage of digital
opportunities: a typology of digital entrepreneurship”, International Journal of Networking and
Virtual Organizations, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 290-303.
Kempf, D. (2013), SharEconomy, BITKOM, Hannover.
*Kuester, S., Konya-Baumbach, E. and Schuhmacher, M.C. (2018), “Get the show on the road: go-to-market
strategies for e-innovations of start-ups”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 83, pp. 65-81.
*Le Dinh, T., Vu, M.C. and Ayayi, A. (2018), “Towards a living lab for promoting the digital
entrepreneurship process”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
IJEBR *Liao, A., Hull, C.E. and Sriramachandramurthy, R. (2013), “The six facets model of technology
25,2 management: a studythe digital business industry”, International Journal of Innovation and
Technology Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 1350019-1-1350019-24.
Margiono, A., Zolin, R. and Chang, A. (2018), “A typology of social venture business model
configurations”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 626-650.
374 *Maiolini, R., Marra, A., Baldassarri, C. and Carlei, V. (2016), “Digital technologies for social innovation:
an empirical recognition on the new enablers”, Journal of Technology Management and
Innovation, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 22-28.
*Nambisan, S. (2017), “Digital entrepreneurship: toward a digital technology perspective of
entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 1029-1055.
*Nichols, J., Melo, M.M. and Dewland, J. (2017), “Unifying space and service for makers, entrepreneurs,
and digital scholars”, Portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 363-374.
*Nzembayie, K.F. (2017), “Using insider action researchthe study of digital entrepreneurial processes: a
pragmatic design choice?”, European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and
Management Studies. Academic Conferences International Limited, pp. 451-460.
*Ojala, A. (2016), “Business models and opportunity creation: how IT entrepreneurs create
and develop business models under uncertainty”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 451-476.
*Oumlil, R. and Juiz, C. (2018), “Acceptance of tourism E-entrepreneurship: application to educational
Balearic Islands context”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Palmer, C., Kraus, S., Oner, H., Kailer, N. and Huber, L. (2018), “Entrepreneurial burnout: a systematic
review and research map”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business.
Panetta, K. (2017), “Gartner top strategic predictions for 2018 and beyond”, available at: www.gartner.
com/smarterwithgartner/gartner-top-strategic-predictions-for-2018-and-beyond/ (accessed
6 January 2018).
Richter, C., Kraus, S. and Bouncken, R.B. (2015), “Virtual currencies like Bitcoin as a paradigm shiftthe
field of transactions”, International Business & Economics Research Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 575-582.
*Richter, C., Kraus, S. and Syrjä, P. (2015), “The shareconomy as a precursor for digital
entrepreneurship business models”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 18-35.
*Richter, C., Kraus, S., Brem, A., Durst, S. and Giselbrecht, C. (2017), “Digital entrepreneurship:
innovative business models for the sharing economy”, Creativity and Innovation Management,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 300-310.
*Sarma, S. and Sunny, S.A. (2017), “Civic entrepreneurial ecosystems: smart city emergenceKansas
City”, Business Horizons, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 843-853.
*Smith, C., Smith, J.B. and Shaw, E. (2017), “Embracing digital networks: entrepreneurs’ social capital
online”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 18-34.
*Spiegel, O., Abbassi, P., Zylka, M., Schlagwein, D., Fischbach, K. and Schoder, D. (2016), “Business
model development, founders’ social capital and the success of early stage internet start-ups: a
mixed-method study”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 421-449.
*Srinivasan, A. and Venkatraman, N. (2018), “Entrepreneurshipdigital platforms: a network centric
view”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 54-71.
*Sussan, F. and Acs, Z. (2017), “The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem”, Small Business Economics,
Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 55-73, doi: 10.1007/s11187-017-9867-5.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed
management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 207-222.
*Troxler, P. and Wolf, P. (2017), “Digital maker-entrepreneursopen design: what activities make up Digital
their business model?”, Business Horizons, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 807-817. entrepreneurship
*van der Ven, C. (2017), “Entrepreneurial lawyering for digital trade”, International Trade Forum,
Vol. 2, pp. 28-29.
Wind, Y.J. (2008), “A plan to invent the marketing we need today”, MIT Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 21-28.
*Wright, A. (2015), “It’s all about games: enterprise and entrepreneurialismdigital games”, 375
New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 32-46.
*Zaheer, H., Breyer, Y., Dumay, J. and Enjeti, M. (2018), “Straight from the horse’s mouth: founders’
perspectives on achieving ‘traction’digital start-ups”, ComputersHuman Behavior, pp. 1-13.
*Ziyae, B., Sajadi, S. and Mobaraki, M. (2014), “The deployment and internationalization speed of
e-businessthe digital entrepreneurship era”, Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Corresponding author
Sascha Kraus can be contacted at: sascha.kraus@zfke.de
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Krausetal 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Krausetal 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

Johannes Kepler University Linz, Linz, Austria

understood as “a subcategory of entrepreneurship in which some or all of what would be

Defining digital entrepreneurship

State-of-the-art of current research

Author Definition of digital entrepreneurship

Digital business models

explore new market segments with notable

digital entrepreneurship and extreme digital entrepreneurship when assessing digital

Digital entrepreneurship process

364 Platform strategies

uniqueness of the offers provided on the platform compared to competitors is a major

Compared to the increasing importance of digital entrepreneurship, surprisingly few papers

Social digital entrepreneurship

Discussion and theoretical integration

activities and business development.

Theoretical integration and research map

• Individual level e.g.,

In addition to the time perspective (cross-sectional vs longitudinal), different levels of

You might also like