Getoar Lubeniqi
| Engelbert Zefaj* | Kestrim Avdimetaj
© 2026 The authors. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
This study provides a comprehensive scan of the strategic management literature and the practices of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Through a systematic literature review (SLR) applying the PRISMA technique, the research emphasizes the role of Strategic Techniques and Tools (STTs) in analyzing internal and external environments, shaping action plans, and measuring performance. Key tools forming the foundation of strategic decision-making are addressed and evaluated, including: SWOT, Porter’s Five Forces (PFF), Mission and Vision Statements, Ansoff Matrix, Benchmarking, Brainstorming, Balanced Scorecard (BSC), Scenario Planning, PESTEL, Business Model Canvas (BMC), Stakeholder Analysis, and Cash Flow Management. Despite their widespread use in large firms, these tools are increasingly being adopted by SMEs to develop structure, boost profits, and enhance competitiveness. A major challenge remains the selection and automated implementation of these tools, highlighting the importance of leadership support, access to information, and alignment between business needs and managerial understanding. The paper focuses on the impact of these tools on business development and performance, and on identifying research gaps for future investigation.
strategic management, Strategic Techniques and Tools, small and medium-sized enterprises, STT adoption and implementation, implementation barriers and challenges
Strategic management is essential for businesses and operates as a systematic process to guide an enterprise toward achieving long-term objectives. The core activities of strategic management involve a series of concrete steps that steer the business toward fulfilling its goals. One of the key activities involves conducting internal and external environment analyses to support sound and beneficial decision-making [1, 2]. Several widely used Strategic Techniques and Tools (STTs) have been developed for this purpose. These tools and techniques help define business objectives, assess environments, and successfully develop action plans. The effective use of strategic tools and techniques has been documented during periods when businesses began to grow more complex and competitive. The introduction of these tools and techniques has revolutionized strategic business management, making it more structured, data-driven, and efficient. Strategic tools have enabled businesses to identify their unique strengths, understand competition, and capitalize on market opportunities—ultimately creating sustainable competitive advantages [3].
The use of STTs varies across businesses, but it is generally less widespread compared to larger enterprises. Typically, businesses tend to apply these tools and techniques in a more informal and limited manner. Since managers often perform multiple roles simultaneously, this makes the formal implementation of such tools more challenging. Nevertheless, the level of use, satisfaction, and intention to apply these tools in the future can vary significantly. This potential can be realized if business managers gain more information, exposure, and success with strategic tools and techniques. The more they understand the importance of these tools and techniques, the sooner they will recognize that using strategic management tools can positively impact firm performance and that the extent of this impact depends on how effectively they are applied.
This is precisely the aim of this paper: to identify strategic business tools and techniques and to promote their value in relation to enhancing business performance and effectiveness. This study addresses and encompasses a comprehensive range of tools and techniques that are applied to strategic decision-making across all organizational levels of the enterprise. To achieve this objective, a systematic literature review (SLR) is conducted to explore both the theoretical and practical usefulness of strategic tools and techniques. In order to carry out this systematic review, the research is focused on the following research questions:
RQ1: What are the most commonly used STTs among businesses?
RQ2: To what extent have STTs influenced business development?
RQ3: What are the main challenges businesses face in applying STTs within their operations?
Strategic management tools and techniques represent essential mechanisms for supporting the decision-making process at the organizational level. These tools are not only instruments for analysis and evaluation but also conceptual platforms that help managers transform information into knowledge and knowledge into competitive advantage, especially in contexts where information is limited and the external environment is complex. This literature review focuses on a series of well-known and widely implemented STTs, including: SWOT analysis, Porter’s Five Forces (PFF) model, Mission and Vision Statements, the Ansoff Matrix, Benchmarking, Brainstorming, the Balanced Scorecard (BSC), Scenario Planning, PESTEL analysis, the Business Model Canvas (BMC), Stakeholder Analysis, and Cash Flow Management. SWOT analysis is one of the most widely used tools for assessing an organization's internal and external position, by identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats [4]. Similarly, PFF model enables a detailed analysis of an industry’s competitive structure through five dimensions: rivalry among existing competitors, threats from new entrants and substitute products, and the relative bargaining power of suppliers and customers [5]. Mission and Vision Statements play a critical role in the strategic direction of organizations. The mission helps define the organization’s goals and its stance toward stakeholders [6-8], while the vision provides an aspirational guide for its desired future [7, 8]. In addition, the Ansoff Matrix supports the formulation of growth strategies through four main options: product development, market development, market penetration, and diversification [9]. Benchmarking represents another important technique, involving the comparison of internal performance against external standards or best practices, with the aim of improvement and increased efficiency [10]. Meanwhile, Brainstorming functions as a tool for stimulating creativity in the development of new ideas, particularly in contexts where innovation is required [11]. An increasingly widespread approach to measuring organizational performance is the BSC, which goes beyond traditional financial metrics by incorporating indicators related to customers, internal processes, and organizational development [12]. In the same vein, Scenario Planning is a technique that helps organizations prepare for uncertain futures by modeling several possible event development scenarios [13-16]. In macro-level analysis, PESTEL provides a useful tool for identifying political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal factors that influence the business operating environment [17, 18]. The BMC model, on the other hand, represents a visual framework that helps organizations describe, structure, and innovate their business models through nine key elements [19]. Stakeholder Analysis is essential for identifying and managing the influence that groups or individuals may have on the achievement of organizational objectives [20]. On the financial side, cash flow remains a key indicator for managing a business’s monetary stability by tracking the inflow and outflow of funds [21]. Meanwhile, financial ratio analysis enables the identification of key aspects of an organization’s performance and financial condition [22].
2.1 Integration of Strategic Techniques and Tools in small and medium-sized enterprises
As previously emphasized, the use of STTs is widely prevalent among SMEs. These tools are systematically integrated into the strategy-building process, becoming an integral part of the strategic practices of these businesses. According to Bellamy et al. [23], STTs play a dominant role in SME applications, serving as a supportive framework for the strategy formation process. In a broader context, strategic management tools and techniques offer a range of significant benefits for organizations. As argued by the same authors, beyond helping to deconstruct and simplify complex situations that affect strategy formulation and development, these tools also contribute to enhancing strategic awareness and reinforcing confidence in decision-making [23].
2.2 Facts on the implementation of Strategic Techniques and Tools
The implementation of STTs in businesses is accompanied by a range of challenges that affect their effectiveness. According to Jarzabkowski and Kaplan [24], some of the main obstacles include: the lack of autonomy for individuals with expertise to select strategic tools; the absence of choice based on alignment with personal needs and satisfaction; limitations on independence in selection regardless of hierarchical position; and the lack of negotiation of business interests in the social construction of strategies. Despite these challenges, the application of such tools brings significant benefits. Vlados [25] argued that SWOT analysis has a positive impact on strategic planning and helps neutralize emerging difficulties through the integration of knowledge and skills. Similarly, in a study on Japanese enterprises [5] found that applying PFF model contributes to strategy improvement by clarifying the impact of new entrants and customer power. Hungund and Mani [26] applied the Benchmarking model to 213 SMEs in India and identified factors influencing innovation, including age, education, experience, and competition. Nguyen et al. [27] in their analysis of the PESTEL model in Vietnam, showed that economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal factors had a positive impact on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), while political factors had no significant effect. In the Brazilian context, Moretti et al. [28] found that Brainstorming fosters the generation of new ideas through group meetings, enhancing the analysis of customer requirements. Meanwhile, Abdullah et al. [29] observed an increase in the use of Mission and Vision Statements among SMEs operating in Malaysia and Singapore. Veiga and Franco [9] identified a link between business strategy and the formation of portfolio alliances in several textile companies in Portugal. Similarly, Schwarz et al. [30] argued that Scenario Planning supports the development of strategies in the face of future uncertainties. Sort and Nielsen [31] found that the BMC model positively influences information and communication security among entrepreneurs and investors, although a negative impact was observed when no compromise was reached regarding the investment offer. Fiore et al. [32] emphasized the role of stakeholders in fostering innovation and increasing economic, social, and environmental value. Oyewo et al. [33] found that the use of the BSC positively influences organizational performance in 300 businesses in Nigeria. Markus and Rideg [34] analysed the impact of cash flow on SME competitiveness in Hungary, highlighting the greater importance of future forecasts compared to historical data. Finally, Alarussi [35] identified a negative relationship between liquidity and efficiency in an analysis of 108 companies in Malaysia.
In conclusion, the implementation of STTs represents a vital component for the development and long-term success of businesses, especially SMEs. Although structural, organizational, and contextual challenges persist, existing literature demonstrates that the benefits derived from using these tools outweigh the complexity of their implementation.
The integration of methods such as SWOT analysis, PFF model, PESTEL, Benchmarking, Mission and Vision Statements, the BSC, and the BMC enables organizations to develop more informed, flexible, and sustainability-oriented strategies. These tools are not merely technical instruments, but also bridges between analysis, decision-making, and strategic action—strengthening businesses’ capacity to navigate the uncertainties of a dynamic environment and to maximize their economic and social impact.
The central objective of this research is to identify which STTs are most widely used by SMEs, to determine the extent and manner in which managers and employees apply them, and to assess how these tools influence SME performance. To achieve these aims, the study employed the PRISMA methodological framework (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), which is recognized for ensuring systematic, transparent, and replicable procedures in reviewing scientific literature. PRISMA’s structured approach was applied across four phases—identification, screening, validation, and final selection. This framework ensured scientific rigor in identifying relevant publications, evaluating their eligibility, and selecting only those studies directly contributing to the research objectives (Figure 1).
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram – identifying, screening, validation and selecting relevant articles process
Identification Phase - The identification phase involved a systematic search for scientific studies related to the use of STTs in SMEs. Three academic platforms Emerald Insight, Taylor & Francis, and Elsevier (ScienceDirect) were selected due to their strong academic reputation, peer-reviewed content, and indexing in leading databases such as Web of Science and Scopus. Only sources meeting specific eligibility criteria were considered: publications had to be scientific articles written in English, appear between 2019 and 2025, undergo anonymous peer review, open-access publications and explicitly address strategic tools or techniques in the SME context. The time restriction was set to capture the most recent theoretical and empirical developments in the relevant field, reflecting recent technological, organizational, and economic transformations. The search was intentionally limited by excluding studies from developing, newly industrialized, or slow-growth economies (including BRICS) and by accepting only open-access publications. The exclusion of BRICS countries was implemented to maintain institutional homogeneity and analytical comparability among the studies, serving as a methodological limitation rather than a geographical or cultural judgment. The restriction of the literature review to open-access publications was implemented to ensure transparency, verifiability, and reproducibility of the research process, allowing all sources used to be accessible for verification by the scientific community without financial barriers, while also ensuring equal access to the analyzed evidence. The identification phase was carried out in two series:
First Literature Search Series - In the first search series, specific keywords were used, including: Strategic Management Tools in SMEs; Strategic Planning Techniques in SMEs; Use of Strategic Tools by SMEs; Techniques for Strategic Decision-Making in SMEs; Tools Applied by SMEs for Strategic Analysis; and Strategic Practices for SME Management. The results were as follows: Emerald Insight – 32 articles identified, 12 downloaded; Taylor & Francis – 9 articles identified, 4 downloaded; and Elsevier (ScienceDirect) – 62 articles identified, 28 downloaded. In total, 103 articles were identified and 44 were downloaded.
Second Literature Search Series - The second series combined the phrase “Strategic Management Tools and Techniques in SMEs” with specific keywords such as SWOT, PESTEL, PFF model, Mission and Vision Statements, Ansoff Matrix, Benchmarking, Brainstorming, BSC, Scenario Planning, BMC, Stakeholder Analysis, and Cash Flow Management. Emerald Insight provided the majority of results: 583 articles identified and 67 downloaded, including 13 for SWOT, 3 for PESTEL, 2 for Mission/Vision Statements, 3 for the Ansoff Matrix, 31 for Benchmarking, 10 for Brainstorming, and 5 for Stakeholder Analysis. Taylor & Francis and Elsevier each yielded only 2 articles, with 1 downloaded for each technique (SWOT). After both series, a total of 690 articles were identified and 113 were downloaded for the screening phase.
Screening Phase
In this phase, articles were reviewed based on their title, abstract, and research methods to exclude duplicates, articles outside the scope of strategic tools, those not aligned with the study’s purpose and scope, non-academic formats, and studies from developing or newly industrialized countries. Out of 113 articles, 66 were excluded: 7 duplicates, 18 on techniques outside the study’s focus, 27 not aligned with purpose/scope, 6 non-academic, and 8 from countries outside the defined boundaries. This left 47 articles for the validation phase.
Validation Phase
During this phase, credibility and the measurability of the articles were assessed by checking their alignment with the research questions, the application of strategic tools/techniques, the significance of content, and the measurability of results. Articles were examined using the “find” function with key terms (SWOT, PESTEL, Five Forces, Mission/Vision Statements, Ansoff Matrix, Benchmarking, Brainstorming, BSC, Scenario Planning, BMC, Stakeholders, Cash Flow). 12 articles were excluded, leaving 35 validated articles for further review and analysis.
This chapter presents the findings related to the application of strategic methods and tools in SMEs, focusing on the key outcomes generated by their use as well as the challenges businesses have faced during their implementation (Table 1).
Table 1. Strategic methods and tools applied in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
|
No. |
Ref. |
Strategic Techniques/Tools |
Key Findings |
Challenges |
|
1 |
[3] |
Porter’s Five Forces, Balanced Scorecard by Kaplan & Norton, BCG Growth-Share Matrix, SWOT analysis, SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound), stakeholder maps, media response analysis, VRIN matrix, Benchmarking, Value Chains |
Strategic communication management |
Limited training, cultural barriers |
|
2 |
[23] |
Financial management instruments for resource planning and process control, internal planning tools, performance monitoring and control instruments |
SMEs focus on operational/financial aspects |
Lack of strategic thinking |
|
3 |
[36] |
Benchmarking and clear objectives, priorities, planning, and follow-up techniques |
Collaboration and long-term development |
Limited data, cultural challenges |
|
4 |
[37] |
Maintenance checklists, FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis), Root Cause Analysis, ABC Analysis, 5 Whys, Pareto Analysis, KPIs (key performance indicators), framework analysis |
Time saving, preventive maintenance |
Data integration, coordination |
|
5 |
[38] |
PDCA cycles tailored for Benchmarking, evidence resource checklists, five- or six-step critical thinking process |
More standardized decision-making |
Missing standardization, cultural challenges |
|
6 |
[39] |
Multi-level analysis, business modelling, evaluation and feedback, case studies, network analysis |
Flexibility and innovation |
Sustainable investments, human resources |
|
7 |
[40] |
Resource-Based View, dynamic systems, competitiveness index, KPIs, case studies |
Increased competitiveness |
Poor standardization, resistance to change |
|
8 |
[41] |
Business Model Canvas, Servitization Maturity Model |
85 service requests, increased flexibility |
Resistance, KPIs, complexity |
|
9 |
[42] |
SWOT analysis, PIPRECIA (Pivot Pairwise Relative Criteria Importance Assessment), MCDM (Multi-Criteria Decision Making), TOWS (extended SWOT variant) |
More effective WO2 strategy |
Subjectivity, lack of data |
|
10 |
[43] |
Data-Driven Business Model (DDBM), Big Data in Facility Management, BM Canvas, Business Model Innovation (BMI), 4Vs (Volume, Velocity, Variety, Veracity), digital transformation of business models |
Data-driven decision-making |
Technical and cultural challenges |
|
11 |
[44] |
Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Natural Language Processing, knowledge representation, hybrid human–AI decision-making |
Stronger strategic decision-making |
Data quality, ethics, cost |
|
12 |
[45] |
Cross-functional and ecosystem leadership, end-to-end cybersecurity, IT systems architecture, clear strategies and digital integration, dedicated cross-departmental teams, information/process/tool flow plans, measurable indicators/KPIs, alignment of business and digital strategies, strategic plans and maturity models, use of workshops + evaluations, top-down and bottom-up approaches |
Early-stage SMEs |
Unclear strategies, lack of resources |
|
13 |
[46] |
Visual co-design technique |
Cohesion and cost avoidance |
Transition, impact measurement |
|
14 |
[47] |
Structure and governance of Industry Peer Networks, collaborative and competitive learning, knowledge and learning management, network transformation and expansion, Benchmarking and performance evaluation |
Mutual learning, expertise |
Collaboration–competition balance |
|
15 |
[48] |
Collaboration and co-design, multi-level analysis, knowledge mobilization, organizational Canvas modelling |
Collaboration and policy influence |
Knowledge transformation, data security |
|
16 |
[49] |
Design-science research approach, scoping review, comparative analysis of existing tools, focus group discussions with practitioners |
Support for innovation ecosystems |
Local adaptation |
|
17 |
[50] |
Strategic Planning (SP), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Customer Orientation (CO), mediation model where CSR and CO interact to strengthen the SP–FP link, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), economic transition context |
CSR linked to long-term performance |
Limited data, transitional context |
|
18 |
[51] |
Formal vs. informal Sustainability Management Control Tools (SMCTs): assessment of their prevalence, how they support decision-making and data discipline, Sustainability Management Control Packages (SMCP): combining various control tools to enhance reporting and sustainability performance, non-financial reporting tools (including social and environmental performance reporting) |
Transparency, sustainability management |
Informal, limited use |
|
19 |
[52] |
Six Sigma, non-normal distribution analysis, Data Envelopment Analysis, performance evaluation models, Benchmarking |
More efficient cost–quality balance |
Context-based evaluation |
|
20 |
[53] |
Balanced Scorecard framework, Delphi process for indicator ranking, vision/mission analysis for strategic alignment, contextual approach with focus on indirect procurement |
29 KPIs for indirect procurement |
Non-specific PMS, lack of standards |
|
21 |
[54] |
Business Model Canvas, Business Model Integration (linking with strategy) |
More balanced strategies |
Conflicts, link to sustainability |
|
22 |
[55] |
Evaluation of SMEs’ financial indicators, strategic orientation: Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO – innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking) and Market Orientation (MO), institutional environment and regulatory context analysis |
SMEs affected by liquidity shortages |
Bureaucracy, financial access |
|
23 |
[56] |
Study and identification of good practices as strategic input, case studies to identify mechanisms and differentiating factors, implementation of the “11 Principles of Innovation” in family firms, prototype of an adaptive innovation management approach, practitioner validation and review of practices |
Family firms proactive in innovation |
Intergenerational dynamics |
|
24 |
[57] |
Online engagement exporters, asynchronous collaboration, scenario literature analysis, scenario structures as management tools, use of non-linear data infrastructures, linkage with practices and indicators, organizational impact and structuring of online interventions |
Greater interregional engagement |
Data security, planning |
|
25 |
[58] |
Data analytics for informing stakeholder engagement strategies, lifelong learning approaches, cross-functional interactions to leverage data from financial, operational, and business functions |
Career and skills improvement |
Technical–soft skills balance |
|
26 |
[59] |
Business Model Canvas, textual and graphical analyses, development cycle analysis, artifact analysis |
Strategy–IT alignment |
Lack of comprehensive guidelines |
|
27 |
[60] |
SWOT analysis, marketing analysis and product/purchasing management, Resource-Based View (RBV), integrated matrix for resource evaluation |
Marketing challenges identified |
Market monopoly, poor communication |
|
28 |
[61] |
Business value design, creation, and sustainability, Stakeholder Analysis, Business Model Canvas, value creation process chain |
Standardization and certification |
Complexity, regulations |
|
29 |
[62] |
Innovation Management Assessment Framework, Stage Gate Models, process design, KPIs |
Better idea selection |
Training, organizational culture |
|
30 |
[63] |
Stakeholder networking, use of a SWOT framework, qualitative analysis of event management practices (focus groups), change management analysis and development of inclusive culture, service infrastructure analysis and stakeholder territorial networks, performance analysis and program effectiveness evaluation, legal compliance analysis and funding opportunities |
Increased employment of PwDs (People with Disabilities) |
Regional fragmentation, scarce resources |
|
31 |
[64] |
Purchasing as a daily practice (purchasing practices), Strategic purchasing practices and maturity (strategic purchasing characteristics), Case study approach and collected data, Fit/alignment angle analysis, Use of an established framework (portfolio/strategic alignment literature) |
Procurement progress, regional harmonization |
Environmental uncertainty, integration |
|
32 |
[65] |
Miles and Snow strategic orientation paradigm, use of Mediobanca and Unioncamere criteria, in-depth interviews with firm actors, document analysis, cross-case analysis, triangulation between interview and document data |
Strategy shape’s structure |
Limited data, difficult classification |
|
33 |
[66] |
Risk management in the innovation value lifecycle, Safe-by-Design (SbD): integrating safety in early development of nano-enabled materials and products, Regulatory Preparedness (RP): proactive engagement with regulators to ensure coverage of new technologies, stakeholder collaboration (industry, regulators, academia, consumer representatives), use of a shared roadmap defining steps and timelines for SIA adoption in the industry value chain, environmental and health impact assessments, expert input and use of existing references, analysis of anticipated benefits, organizational environment and infrastructure analysis |
Safe innovation, higher profits |
Cost, stakeholder coordination |
|
34 |
[67] |
Qualitative approach (case study) and in-depth inductive analysis, concepts of “organizational knowledge,” “knowledge search,” and “knowledge implementation,” top-down governance perspective, organizational identity and culture analysis, interviews with family and non-family members, bottleneck effect and tacit similarity analysis, identification of innovation barriers |
The role of management in innovation |
Bottlenecks, emotions |
|
35 |
[68] |
TriProGenix (Strategy, Resources, Structure & Ecosystem, Culture), guidance model, implementation support methods, Business Model Canvas, Business Model Innovation, servitization and digital servitization, PSS (Product-Service Systems), SPSS (Smart Product-Service Systems), RBV (Resource-Based View), resource and capability analysis, scaling barrier analysis for PSS |
Flexible business models |
Digital integration, data security |
Use of STTs in contemporary literature - The existing literature highlights a wide range of methods and instruments applied in the strategic analysis and development of enterprises, particularly in the context of SMEs. The most commonly used tools include business and strategy models such as the BMC, SWOT and TOWS analyses, PFF model, Miles & Snow typologies, and Stage Gate models. In the field of quality and process management, the use of Six Sigma, the PDCA cycle, Benchmarking, and KPIs is widespread. Additionally, studies examine technology-driven approaches based on artificial intelligence, Big Data, digital collaboration tools, World Class Manufacturing (WCM), and Safe by Design (SbD). At the organizational level, particular emphasis is placed on competence management, organizational culture development, and stakeholder engagement. Most papers underline that combining traditional tools with digital approaches creates added value.
Key findings reported in the studies - A number of studies report increased collaboration and organizational flexibility, as well as substantial support for innovation processes and the transition toward service-based and digitalized business models. The use of STTs also contributes to improved decision-making, making it more informed and standardized. Repeatedly, studies document enhanced performance and operational efficiency. For family-owned firms, organizational culture and strategic orientation emerge as essential factors in fostering innovation and competitiveness. Overall, the findings suggest that strategic tools have a positive impact on performance and competitive sustainability, although their effectiveness depends on the organization’s ability to integrate them coherently into practice.
Key challenges identified - The most common challenges relate to limitations in data quality and availability, organizational resistance to change, technical complexity, and difficulties in integrating new systems. In addition, many enterprises face shortages of financial, human, or time resources. Regulatory and environmental uncertainties also emerge as constraining factors. The literature emphasizes that the main issue is not the lack of STTs, but rather the difficulty in implementing and adapting them to the specific context of the enterprise.
Most common models in the literature - Among the most frequently used models, Benchmarking remains an important mechanism for performance comparison and identifying opportunities for innovation. SWOT/TOWS analysis is a consistent tool for strategic assessment, particularly in the field of sustainability. The BMC appears as a flexible tool that can be integrated with other models. Meanwhile, KPIs and the BSC are widely used for performance measurement, especially in quality management and procurement.
Key trends identified in the literature - Current trends indicate a clear shift toward digitalization and the utilization of Big Data, although many SMEs are still in the early stages of this process. Innovation in family-owned firms is increasingly being treated as a distinct field of study, where organizational culture plays a decisive role. Servitization and service-based business models are gaining importance, requiring profound organizational transformations.
Sustainability strategies including CSR, SMCT, SbD, and innovation ecosystems are being more organically integrated into the overall strategies of SMEs. Meanwhile, financial, environmental, and regulatory crises remain persistent challenges that affect the strategic capacity of enterprises.
The literature analysis identifies four key thematic areas related to the strategic and innovative development of SMEs:
(1) maintenance and operational process management,
(2) competence and resource management,
(3) digital transformation and data utilization,
(4) collaborative approaches and networking.
For each theme, in addition to convergence, notable divergences are observed that enrich but also complicate the theoretical and practical framework.
5.1 Maintenance and operational process management
Lundgren et al. [36] and Kundu et al. [37] argued that Benchmarking and the integration of tools such as FMEA and KPIs lead to efficiency and resource savings. In contrast, Kulikowski [38] emphasized that the impact of maintenance should not be viewed merely at a technical level, but as part of a broader socio-technical process, where organizational culture and human resource coordination are decisive.
This distinction suggests that while some studies give maximum importance and priority to the technical dimension, others insist on the role of human and institutional factors. In practice, this contradiction often leads to partial implementations, where technical tools are adopted without a parallel cultural transformation. In maintenance and operational management, companies such as Toyota demonstrate that tools like FMEA and KPIs can significantly enhance efficiency when embedded within a continuous improvement culture [69, 70]. Similarly, General Electric shows that predictive maintenance technologies generate measurable gains only when supported by organizational restructuring and workforce coordination [71].
5.2 Competence and resource management
Loufrani-Fedida and Aldebert [39] and Lafuente et al. [40] viewed the development of dynamic capabilities as a prerequisite for sustainability, relying on flexible and customized approaches. On the other hand, studies such as those by Adrodegari and Saccani [41] and Rasheed et al. [42] offered more structured frameworks, such as servitization or the Resource-Based View (RBV), which aim to create an applicable “recipe” across different practices. This creates a theoretical tension, should resource management be seen as an emergent and contextualized process, or as a transferable and standardizable model? This dilemma remains unresolved, especially for SMEs facing financial and knowledge constraints. Siemens illustrates how structured frameworks like servitization and the Resource-Based View can succeed in large corporations with strong technological capabilities. However, SMEs often rely on incremental and context-driven adaptations rather than standardized “recipes” [72, 73].
5.3 Digital transformation and data utilization
Here, the contradictions are more pronounced. Marcinkowski and Gawin [43] and Stone et al. [44] suggested that Artificial Intelligence and Big Data are essential for creating competitive advantages and enabling sophisticated decision-making. In contrast, Machado et al. [45] and other empirical studies show that many SMEs lack both the technical capabilities and financial capital to sustainably implement these technologies. Thus, while part of the literature is technologically optimistic, another part remains critical and realistic, viewing digital transformation as fragmented, selective, and often conditioned by public policy and institutional support. This distinction highlights a gap between theoretical potential and practical applicability. Firms such as Amazon leverage AI and Big Data to achieve competitive advantage, yet many SMEs lack the financial and technical capacity to replicate such models [74, 75].
5.4 Collaborative approaches and networking
Studies such as those by Elikan and Pigneur [46] and Leung et al. [47] viewed co-design and networking as strategies to enhance cohesion and innovation. However, Cukier et al. [48] and Jütting [49] warned that collaboration is often fragmented and its impact on public policy or long-term development remains limited. This reveals an interesting contradiction, while managerial literature often romanticizes networking as an all-encompassing solution, empirical studies show that collaboration is fragile, frequently conditioned by short-term interests and cultural challenges. This suggests the need for a more realistic and critical understanding of the role of networks. Kankam and Dza [76] provided empirical evidence from manufacturing SMEs, including firms such as Airbus and Toyota, showing that inter-organizational collaboration significantly enhances supply chain performance. Practices like information sharing, joint planning, and operational coordination positively influence efficiency, flexibility, and responsiveness.
5.5 Thematic critical summary
This analysis reveals that the literature does not present a homogeneous stance, but rather a field rich in tensions and contradictions:
- Technology vs. Organizational Culture – While some authors emphasize technology as the main catalyst, others warn that without cultural change, tools remain formal and non-functional.
- Standardized Models vs. Contextualized Approaches – The literature is divided between those offering general frameworks and those insisting on local and organizational specificities.
- Digital Optimism vs. Practical Skepticism – The discourse on Big Data and AI often clashes with the reality of SMEs’ financial and institutional constraints.
- Romanticizing Networks vs. Empirical Limitations – Although collaboration is seen as a source of innovation, in practice it faces fragility and inter-organizational tensions.
These contradictions suggest that the strategic development of SMEs should be viewed as a mediated and tension-filled process, where technology, human resources, and institutional structures interact not always harmoniously. In this sense, the literature does not propose a “one-size-fits-all” solution, but rather a fragile balance between technical, organizational, and collaborative approaches that must be adapted to context.
This study has examined the role of strategic management tools and techniques in improving the performance, efficiency, and competitiveness of SMEs. The findings indicate that the application of tools such as SWOT, PESTEL analysis, BMC, PFF model, BSC, as well as other techniques like Scenario Planning and Cash Flow Management, provides a structured framework for analyzing the environment, identifying competitive advantages, and guiding decision-making under uncertainty.
The integration of these tools has a positive impact on enhancing strategic awareness and helping businesses adapt to market changes. However, their implementation often faces obstacles such as lack of autonomy in decision-making, inappropriate tool selection, and limitations in coordination across organizational levels. These challenges can be mitigated through the development of expertise, continuous training, and the establishment of an organizational structure that supports the independent selection and use of strategic tools.
In practice, it is recommended to develop a “basic package” for SMEs, including SWOT, PESTEL, and the BMC, with the option to add tools such as the BSC or Scenario Planning based on the specific needs of the business. Their implementation should be accompanied by measurable performance indicators to ensure continuous monitoring and improvement.
Furthermore, businesses are encouraged to invest in practical training and case studies, strengthen managerial accountability mechanisms, and define clear roles at every stage of the strategic process. Integrating these tools with financial analyses and KPIs is essential to create synergy and ensure effective progress control. An open organizational culture that fosters discussion and clear communication about strategies is also crucial for increasing staff engagement.
From a research perspective, it is recommended to systematically assess the effectiveness of strategic tools and to investigate the cultural factors that influence their adoption, such as innovation orientation or risk tolerance.
In an evolving technological context, it is suggested to integrate traditional tools with advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data analytics, in order to strengthen the decision-making process and enhance the competitive sustainability of SMEs.
[1] Jiao, B., Evdorides, H. (2024). Methods of strategic road safety management: A systematic review. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 31(3): 420-430. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2024.2335503
[2] Sinnaiah, T., Adam, S., Mahadi, B. (2023). A strategic management process: The role of decision-making style and organisational performance. Journal of Work-Applied Management, 15(1): 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-10-2022-0074
[3] Volk, S.C., Zerfass, A. (2021). Management tools in corporate communication: A survey about tool use and reflections about the gap between theory and practice. Journal of Communication Management, 25(1): 50-67. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-02-2020-0011
[4] Patnaik, R., Poyyamoli, G. (2015). Developing an eco-industrial park in Puducherry region, India ‒ A SWOT analysis. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(6): 976-996. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.904768
[5] Miyamoto, M. (2015). Application of competitive forces in the business intelligence of Japanese SMEs. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 10(4): 273-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2014.966794
[6] Patel, B.S., Booker, L.D., Ramos, H.M. (2015). Mission statements and performance in non-profit organisations. Corporate Governance, 15(5): 759-774. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-07-2015-0098
[7] Mansi, M., Pandey, R., Ghauri, E. (2017). CSR focus in the mission and vision statements of public sector enterprises: Evidence from India. Managerial Auditing Journal, 32(4/5): 356-377. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-01-2016-1307
[8] Fitzsimmons, A.B., Qin, Y.S., Heffron, E.R. (2022). Purpose vs mission vs vision: Persuasive appeals and components in corporate statements. Journal of Communication Management, 26(2): 207-219. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-09-2021-0108
[9] Veiga, P.M., Franco, M. (2015). Alliance portfolios and firms’ business strategy: A content analysis approach. Management Research Review, 38(11): 1149-1171. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-04-2014-0093
[10] Rasmussen, G.M., Jensen, P.L., Gottlieb, S.C. (2017). Frames, agency and institutional change: The case of benchmarking in Danish construction. Construction Management and Economics, 35(6): 305-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2017.1298824
[11] Kalargiros, E.M., Manning, M.R. (2015). Divergent thinking and brainstorming in perspective: Implications for organization change and innovation. In Research in Organizational Change and Development. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0897-301620150000023007
[12] Tsalis, A., Nikolaou, E., Grigoroudis, E., Tsagarakis, P. (2015). A dynamic sustainability balanced scorecard methodology as a navigator for exploring the dynamics and complexity of corporate sustainability strategy. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 32(4): 281-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2015.1006129
[13] Meyerowitz, D., Lew, C., Svensson, G. (2018). Scenario-planning in strategic decision-making: Requirements, benefits and inhibitors. Foresight, 20(6): 602-621. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-04-2018-0036
[14] Meissner, P., Wulf, T. (2015). The development of strategy scenarios based on prospective hindsight: An approach to strategic decision making. Journal of Strategy and Management, 8(2): 176-190. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-01-2015-0004
[15] Postma, A. (2015). Investigating scenario planning - A European tourism perspective. Journal of Tourism Futures, 1(1): 46-52. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-12-2014-0020
[16] Chermack, T.J., Coons, L.M., O’barr, G., Khatami, S. (2017). The effects of scenario planning on participant reports of resilience. European Journal of Training and Development, 41(4): 306-326. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-08-2015-0068
[17] Calaza, M.G., Casal, C.V., Valencia, J.C. (2023). Second-hand selling apps and the notion of luxury: Trend networking and circular economy. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 16(1): 70-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2022.2118376
[18] Ahmad, N.K., Brito, M.P., Rezaei, J., Tavasszy, L.A. (2017). An integrative framework for sustainable supply chain management practices in the oil and gas industry. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(4): 577-601. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1178105
[19] O'Neill, T.W. (2015). The business model canvas as a platform for business information literacy instruction. Reference Services Review, 43(3): 450-460. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-02-2015-0013
[20] Loi, T.H. (2016). Stakeholder management: A case of its related capability and performance. Management Decision, 54(1): 148-173. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2015-0244
[21] Omopariola, E.D., Windapo, A., Edwards, D.J., Thwala, W.D. (2020). Contractors’ perceptions of the effects of cash flow on construction projects. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 18(2): 308-325. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-04-2019-0099
[22] Williams, R.I., Smith, A., Aaron, J.R., Manley, S.C., McDowell, W.C. (2020). Small business strategic management practices and performance: A configurational approach. Economic Research - Ekonomska Istraživanja, 33(1): 2378-2396. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1677488
[23] Bellamy, L.C., Amoo, N., Mervyn, K., Hiddlestone-Mumford, J. (2019). The use of strategy tools and frameworks by SMEs in the strategy formation process. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(2): 337-367. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-02-2018-1363
[24] Jarzabkowski, P., Kaplan, S. (2015). Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4): 537-558. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2270
[25] Vlados, C. (2019). On a correlative and evolutionary SWOT analysis. Journal of Strategy and Management, 12(3): 347-363. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-02-2019-0026
[26] Hungund, S., Mani, V. (2019). Benchmarking of factors influencing adoption of innovation in software product SMEs: An empirical evidence from India. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(5): 1451-1468. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2018-0127
[27] Nguyen, M.V., Thuc, L.D., Nguyen, T.T. (2025). PESTEL analysis of corporate social responsibility performance in construction organizations. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 32(11): 7266-7298. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2024-0575
[28] Moretti, D.M., Alves, F.C., Bomtempo, J.V. (2020). Entrepreneurial-oriented strategic renewal in a Brazilian SME: A case study. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27(2): 219-236. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-07-2019-0254
[29] Abdullah, Z., Anumudu, C.E., Raza, S.H. (2022). Examining the digital organizational identity through content analysis of missions and vision statements of Malaysian and Singaporean SME company websites. The Bottom Line, 35(2/3): 137-158. https://doi.org/10.1108/BL-12-2021-0108
[30] Schwarz, J.O., Ram, C., Rohrbeck, R. (2019). Combining scenario planning and business wargaming to better anticipate future competitive dynamics. Futures, 105: 133-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.10.001
[31] Sort, J.C., Nielsen, C. (2018). Using the business model canvas to improve investment processes. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 20(1): 10-33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRME-11-2016-0048
[32] Fiore, M., Galati, A., Gołębiewski, J., Drejerska, N. (2021). Stakeholders' involvement in establishing sustainable business models: The case of Polish dairy cooperatives. British Food Journal, 122(5): 1671-1691. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-04-2019-0263
[33] Oyewo, B., Moses, O., Erin, O. (2022). Balanced scorecard usage and organizational effectiveness: Evidence from manufacturing sector. Measuring Business Excellence, 26(4): 558-582. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-01-2021-0005
[34] Markus, G., Rideg, A. (2021). Understanding the connection between SMEs’ competitiveness and cash flow generation: An empirical analysis from Hungary. Competitiveness Review, 31(3): 397-419. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-01-2020-0019
[35] Alarussi, A.S. (2021). Financial ratios and efficiency in Malaysian listed companies. Asian Journal of Economics and Banking, 5(2): 116-135. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJEB-06-2020-0014
[36] Lundgren, C., Bokrantz, J., Skoogh, A. (2021). A strategy development process for smart maintenance implementation. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 32(9): 142-166. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-06-2020-0222
[37] Kundu, K., Cifone, F., Costa, F., Portioli-Staudacher, A., Rossini, M. (2022). An evaluation of preventive maintenance framework in an Italian manufacturing company. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 28(1): 37-57. https://doi.org/10.1108/JQME-02-2020-0007
[38] Kulikowski, K. (2021). The model of evidence-based benchmarking: A more robust approach to benchmarking. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28(2): 721-736. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-04-2020-0175
[39] Loufrani-Fedida, S., Aldebert, B. (2021). A multilevel approach to competence management in innovative small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): Literature review and research agenda. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 43(2): 507-523. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-04-2020-0173
[40] Lafuente, E., Szerb, L., Rideg, A. (2020). A system dynamics approach for assessing SMEs' competitiveness. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 27(4): 555-578. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-06-2019-0204
[41] Adrodegari, F., Saccani, N. (2020). A maturity model for the servitization of product-centric companies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(4): 775-797. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-07-2019-0255
[42] Rasheed, R., Tahir, F., Fatima, M. (2024). Evaluating future strategies for sustainable growth of fiberglass composites industry in developing countries: A novel hybrid SWOT-Fuzzy extended PIPRECIA approach. Heliyon, 10(11): e32137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32137
[43] Marcinkowski, B., Gawin, B. (2021). Data-driven business model development - Insights from the facility management industry. Journal of Facilities Management, 19(2): 129-149. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-08-2020-0051
[44] Stone, M., Aravopoulou, E., Ekinci, Y., Evans, G., et al. (2020). Artificial intelligence (AI) in strategic marketing decision-making: A research agenda. The Bottom Line, 33(2): 183-200. https://doi.org/10.1108/BL-03-2020-0022
[45] Machado, C.G., Winroth, M., Almström, P., Öberg, A.E., Kurdve, M., AlMashalah, S. (2021). Digital organisational readiness: Experiences from manufacturing companies. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 32(9): 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-05-2019-0188
[46] Elikan, D., Pigneur, Y. (2019). A visual tool for identity communication strategy. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 26(6-7): 831-854. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-04-2019-0141
[47] Leung, A., Xu, H., Wu, G.J., Luthans, K.W. (2019). Cooperative and competitive interorganizational learning and network outcomes. Management Research Review, 42(1): 122-140. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-02-2018-0057
[48] Cukier, W., Donaldson, L., Augustin, T.J., Chavoushi, Z.H. (2025). Advancing inclusive innovation in Canada: The impact of the IIE-Net project. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-11-2023-0383
[49] Jütting, M. (2024). Introducing the lifecycle perspective to innovation ecosystem design: The innovation ecosystem clock model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 483: 144262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144262
[50] Bordean, O.N., Welsh, K. (2023). The interplay of strategy, corporate social responsibility and customer orientation in explaining firm performance: A stakeholder view. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(3): 2201295. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2023.2201295
[51] Corsi, K., Arru, B. (2021). Role and implementation of sustainability management control tools: Critical aspects in the Italian context. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 34(9): 29-56. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-02-2019-3887
[52] Dalalah, D. (2019). Benchmarking of Six Sigma in telecom services. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(6): 1799-1822. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2017-0190
[53] Darom, M., Plant, E. (2023). The development of a performance measurement system for indirect procurement: A Delphi study. Measuring Business Excellence, 27(4): 579-601. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-05-2019-0047
[54] Drzewiecki, J. (2023). Strategic management in Polish startups: Strategy vs business model approach - Research results. Procedia Computer Science, 225: 3163-3172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.10.310
[55] Eggers, F. (2020). Masters of disasters? Challenges and opportunities for SMEs in times of crisis. Journal of Business Research, 116: 199-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.025
[56] Frank, H., Kessler, A., Bachner, C., Fuetsch, E., Suess-Reyes, J. (2019). Principles for innovation management in family firms: An analysis of long-term successful good practices with a practitioner validation of the principles. Journal of Family Business Management, 9(3): 319-348. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-09-2018-0049
[57] Hew, A., Perrons, R.K., Washington, S., Page, L., Zheng, Z. (2020). Using digital technologies to deliver scenarios to geographically dispersed stakeholders: Lessons learned from the transportation sector. Futures, 120: 102567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102567
[58] Jackson, D., Michelson, G., Munir, R. (2022). New technology and desired skills of early career accountants. Pacific Accounting Review, 34(4): 548-568. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-04-2021-0045
[59] Kitsios, F., Kamariotou, M. (2019). Business strategy modelling based on enterprise architecture: A state of the art review. Business Process Management Journal, 25(4): 606-624. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-05-2017-0122
[60] Kompaniets, O.R. (2022). Sustainable competitive advantages for a nascent wine country: An example from southern Sweden. Competitiveness Review, 32(3): 376-390. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-04-2021-0063
[61] Kulkov, I., Chirumalla, K., Stefan, I., Dahlquist, E., Johansson, G. (2025). Business models for second life batteries: A comprehensive framework for selecting sustainable business options. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 75: 101874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2025.101874
[62] Lobo, S., Samaranayake, P. (2020). An innovation management assessment framework. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(5): 1633-1656. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-02-2019-0085
[63] Moscatelli, M., Pavesi, N., Ferrari, C. (2024). Targeted placement for people with disabilities in Italy: A perspective from Lombardian companies. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 43(9): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-07-2023-0228
[64] Patrucco, A.S., Luzzini, D., Krause, D., Moretto, A.M. (2023). What is the right purchasing strategy for your company? The fit between strategic intent, strategic purchasing and perceived environmental uncertainty. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 53(9): 1043-1072. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-07-2021-0286
[65] Penco, L., Torre, T., Scarsi, R. (2020). Does strategic orientation influence strategy formulation and organisational design in Italian food medium sized enterprises? The role of the family. British Food Journal, 122(5): 1397-1419. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2019-0210
[66] Shandilya, N., Marcoulaki, E., Barruetabeña, L., Llopis, I.R., et al. (2020). Perspective on a risk-based roadmap towards the implementation of the safe innovation approach for industry. NanoImpact, 20: 100258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2020.100258
[67] Szymańska, I., Blanchard, A., Kuhns, K. (2019). Paradoxical influence of family ownership on innovation-focused organizational change: Evidence from a large family business retail firm. Journal of Family Business Management, 9(4): 429-450. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-09-2018-0034
[68] Wirth, J., Erb, S., Hoffmann, F., Metternich, J., Bauernhansl, T. (2024). Framework for the introduction of data-driven and service-oriented business models in mechanical and plant engineering companies. Procedia CIRP, 130: 1124-1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2024.10.216
[69] Liker, J.K. (2004). The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[70] Stamatis, D.H. (2003). Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press.
[71] Lee, S. M., Lee, D., Kim, Y.S. (2019). The quality management ecosystem for predictive maintenance in the Industry 4.0 era. International Journal of Quality Innovation, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40887-019-0029-5
[72] Baines, T., Lightfoot, H., Benedettini, O., Kay, J.M. (2009). The servitization of manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20(5): 547-567. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380910960984
[73] Kohtamäki, M., Parida, V., Oghazi, P., Gebauer, H. Baines, T. (2019). Digital servitization business models in ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 104: 380-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.027
[74] Wamba, S.F., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, S.J.F., Dubey, R., Childe, S.J. (2017). Big data analytics and firm performance: Effects of dynamic capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 70: 356-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.009
[75] Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Blome, C., Papadopoulos, T. (2019). Big data and predictive analytics and manufacturing performance: Integrating institutional theory, resource-based view and big data culture. British Journal of Management, 30(2): 341-361. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12355
[76] Kankam, G., Dza, M. (2025). Navigating the supply chain frontier: Insights from SMEs on the effects of inter-organizational collaboration and inter-organizational trust on supply chain performance. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 11(2): 100560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2025.100560