Entrepreneurial Marketing and Business Performance in System Integrator Start-Ups: A Serial Mediation Analysis Through Technology Customization and Innovation Capability

  • Authors

    • Romy Pramono Universitas Ciputra, Surabaya, Indonesia
    • Thomas Stefanus Kaihatu Universitas Ciputra, Surabaya, Indonesia
    • Denny Bernardus Universitas Ciputra, Surabaya, Indonesia
    • Halek Mu'min INTI International, Nilai, Malaysia
    • Darmanto Sehan University, Yeongam, South Korea
    https://doi.org/10.14419/vsfs3065

    Received date: August 21, 2025

    Accepted date: September 26, 2025

    Published date: October 12, 2025

  • Entrepreneurial Marketing; Technology Customization; Innovation Capability; Business Performance; Dynamic Capabilities

  • Abstract

    This study identifies the fine-grained linkages between Entrepreneurial Marketing (EM), Technology Customization (TC), Innovation Capability (IC), and Business Performance (BP) of technology-oriented small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with a sequential mediation model. Complementing the resource-based view with dynamic capabilities theory, we propose that entrepreneurial marketing influences business performance both directly and indirectly by way of technology customization and the development of innovation capabilities. Applying partial least squares structural equation modeling to data obtained from SMEs from Indonesia's technological industry, our findings confirm that entrepreneurial marketing has an extremely high influence on technology customization that significantly enhances innovation capability as well as business performance. Mediation analysis reveals high indirect effects that feature technology customization and innovation capability as crucial mediators for entrepreneurial marketing--performance relationships. However, the extremely high size effects need cautious interpretation because of potential methodological artifacts related to single-source cross-sectional designs. In spite of limitations of the measurement model, such as low convergent validity for innovation capability, the model demonstrates very high predictive power. Our results enhance entrepreneurial marketing literature by spelling out mechanisms of sequential capability development and extend dynamic capabilities theory by empirical validation of interconnected capability relationships. Our study provides practical implications for SMEs driven by technologies that wish to follow integrated capability development strategies by also highlighting that entrepreneurial marketing needs complementary technological and innovation capabilities to pay off. Targeted initiatives, such as staged innovation grants and cross-capability development centers, need to be provided by policies because SMEs need to be strengthened to enhance their competitiveness in fast-evolving competitive situations.

  • References

    1. Afum, E., Li, Y., Han, P., & Sun, Z. (2022). Interplay between lean management and circular production system: implications for zero-waste per-formance, green value competitiveness, and social reputation. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 33(7), 1213–1231. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-01-2022-0038
    2. Agnihotri, R., & Gabler, C. B. (2024). Pursuing competitive advantages in the interactive digital marketplace and resource-advantage (R-A) theory of competition: a research agenda. Journal of Marketing Management, 40(13–14), 1155–1173. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2024.2419656
    3. Al-Hakim, L. A. Y., & Hassan, S. (2013). Knowledge management strategies, innovation, and organisational performance: An empirical study of the Iraqi MTS. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 10(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/09727981311327767
    4. Aliakbari, A., Crick, J. M., Chen, W. F., & Crick, D. (2025). Unpacking the relationship between entrepreneurial marketing activities and small firm performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 31(4), 999–1018. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-10-2024-1173
    5. Alkandi, I. (2025). Nexus between green practices, green marketing, and business performance: the mediating role of corporate social responsibility in emerging economy. Discover Sustainability, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/S43621-025-01182-0
    6. Alqahtani, N., Uslay, C., & Yeniyurt, S. (2022). Entrepreneurial marketing and firm performance: scale development, validation, and empirical test. Journal of Strategic Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2022.2059773
    7. Alqahtani, N., Uslay, C., & Yeniyurt, S. (Shen). (2024). Comparing the moderated impact of entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, and entrepreneurial marketing on firm performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 62(6), 2741–2778. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2023.2272267
    8. Alshanty, A. M., & Emeagwali, O. L. (2019). Market-sensing capability, knowledge creation and innovation: The moderating role of entrepreneuri-al-orientation. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4(3), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.02.002
    9. Arici, T., & Gok, M. S. (2023). Examining Environmental Turbulence Intensity: A Strategic Agility and Innovativeness Approach on Firm Perfor-mance in Environmental Turbulence Situations. Sustainability, 15(6), 1–17. https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i6p5364-d1100274.html
    10. Armstrong, J. S. (1982). The value of formal planning for strategic decisions: Review of empirical research. Strategic Management Journal, 3(3), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/SMJ.4250030303
    11. Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61–63. https://doi.org/10.1509/JMKG.2005.69.4.61
    12. Bag, S., Srivastava, G., Gupta, S., Zhang, J. Z., & Kamble, S. (2023). Climate change adaptation capability, business-to-business marketing capabil-ity and firm performance: Integrating institutional theory and dynamic capability view. Industrial Marketing Management, 115, 470–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2023.11.003
    13. Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of some key hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.4.607
    14. Barney, J. (1991). Special Theory Forum the Resource-Based Model of the Firm: Origins, Implications, and Prospects. Journal of Management, 17(1), 97–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700107
    15. Barney, J. B., & J.B., B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
    16. Bentler, P. M., & Huang, W. (2014). On Components, Latent Variables, PLS and Simple Methods: Reactions to Rigdon's Rethinking of PLS. Long Range Planning, 47(3), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LRP.2014.02.005
    17. Berawi, M. A., Suwartha, N., Asvial, M., Harwahyu, R., Suryanegara, M., Setiawan, E. A., Surjandari, I., Zagloel, T. Y. M., & Maknun, I. J. (2020). Digital Innovation: Creating Competitive Advantages. International Journal of Technology, 11(6), 1076–1080. https://doi.org/10.14716/IJTECH.V11I6.4581
    18. Blut, M., Chaney, D., Lunardo, R., Mencarelli, R., & Grewal, D. (2024). Customer Perceived Value: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis. Journal of Service Research, 27(4), 501–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705231222295
    19. Bolin, J. H. (2014). Hayes, Andrew F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression‐Based Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51(3), 335–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12050
    20. Bustamante, J. C., Sosa-Varela, J. C., Bullemore-Campbell, J., & Monje-Cueto, F. (2025). Leveraging CRM Capabilities for Enhanced Relationship Maintenance and Performance: Empirical Insights from Latin America's Business-to-Business Sector. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2025.2536925
    21. Chakma, R., Dhir, S., Ongsakul, V., Sakka, G., & Ahmed, Z. U. (2025). Marketing resources, competitive advantage, and marketing performance: a modified TISM and MICMAC approach. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 33(6), 758–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2022.2138954
    22. Crick, J. M., Hamzah, M. I., & Crick, D. (2025). Managing an entrepreneurial marketing orientation in turbulent competitive business environments. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 33(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2024.2445655
    23. Farooque, M., Zhang, A., Liu, Y., & Hartley, J. L. (2022). Circular supply chain management: Performance outcomes and the role of eco-industrial parks in China. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRE.2021.102596
    24. Franczak, J., & Weinzimmer, L. (2022). How SMEs Leverage Adaptability, Risk-Taking, and Action Into Positive Performance— A Moderated Mediation Model. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 32(4), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.53703/001C.40318
    25. Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika, 61(1), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/61.1.101
    26. Gliga, G., & Evers, N. (2023). Marketing capability development through networking – An entrepreneurial marketing perspective. Journal of Busi-ness Research, 156. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2022.113472
    27. Hair, J., & Alamer, A. (2022). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in second language and education research: Guide-lines using an applied example. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 100027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2022.100027
    28. Hair, J. F., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Factors versus Composites: Guidelines for Choosing the Right Structural Equation Modeling Method. Project Management Journal, 50(6), 619–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819882132
    29. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Rethinking some of the rethinking of partial least squares. European Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 566–584. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-2018-0665
    30. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360
    31. Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10 SPEC ISS.), 997–1010.
    32. Henseler, J. (2018). Partial least squares path modeling: Quo vadis? Quality & Quantity, 52(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0689-6
    33. Henseler, J., & Fassott, G. (2010). Testing Moderating Effects in PLS Path Models: An Illustration of Available Procedures. Handbook of Partial Least Squares, 713–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_31
    34. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., J., H., M., R. C., M., S., Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
    35. Henseler, J., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Computational Statistics, 28(2), 565–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-012-0317-1
    36. Huikkola, T., Rabetino, R., Kohtamäki, M., & Gebauer, H. (2020). Firm boundaries in servitization: Interplay and repositioning practices. Industrial Marketing Management, 90, 90–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2020.06.014
    37. Hunt, S. D., & Madhavaram, S. (2020). Adaptive marketing capabilities, dynamic capabilities, and renewal competences: The "outside vs. inside" and "static vs. dynamic" controversies in strategy. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2019.07.004
    38. Iqbal, S., Rasheed, M., Khan, H., & Siddiqi, A. (2021). Human resource practices and organizational innovation capability: role of knowledge man-agement. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 51(5), 732–748. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-02-2020-0033
    39. J., C. (n.d.). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
    40. Kasoga, P. S. (2020). Does investing in intellectual capital improve financial performance? Panel evidence from firms listed in Tanzania DSE. Co-gent Econ Financ, 8(1), 1802815. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2020.1802815
    41. Kuo, S. Y. (2024). Improving innovation performance through learning capability and adaptive capability: The moderating role of big data analytics. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 22(4), 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2023.2212182
    42. Le, T. H., & Ngoc-Khuong, M. (2025). Fostering SME's organizational effectiveness through strategic orientations, learning capability, and innova-tion. Journal of Small Business Management, 63(1), 249–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2024.2312390
    43. Leemann, N., & Kanbach, D. K. (2022). Toward a taxonomy of dynamic capabilities–a systematic literature review. Manag Res Rev, 45(4), 486–501. https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-01-2021-0066
    44. Liao, S. H., Hu, D. C., & Chen, S. T. (2022). Supply chain integration, capability and performance – a business-to-business network cooperation. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 37(5), 1127–1137. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2020-0467
    45. MacKenzie, C. A., Garavan, T. N., & Carbery, R. (2012). Through the looking glass: Challenges for human resource development (hrd) post the global financial crisis–business as usual? Human Resource Development International, 15(3), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2012.669236
    46. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., Podsakoff, N. P., MacKenzie, Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2011). Construct Measurement and Val-idation Procedures in MIS and Behavioral Research: Integrating New and Existing Techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293. https://doi.org/10.2307/23044045
    47. Migdadi, M. M. (2021). Organizational learning capability, innovation and organizational performance. European Journal of Innovation Manage-ment, 24(1), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2018-0246
    48. Nasiri, M., Ukko, J., Saunila, M., Rantala, T., & Rantanen, H. (2020). Digital-related capabilities and financial performance: the mediating effect of performance measurement systems. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 32(12), 1393–1406. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1772966
    49. Olaleye, B. R., Lekunze, J. N., & Sekhampu, T. J. (2024). Examining structural relationships between innovation capability, knowledge sharing, en-vironmental turbulence, and organisational sustainability. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2393738
    50. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
    51. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2016). Recommendations for Creating Better Concept Definitions in the Organizational, Behavioral, and Social Sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 19(2), 159–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115624965
    52. Pradhana, G. G., Sembiring, M., Dewi, L., Kaihatu, T. S., Mu'min, H., Pradhana, G. G., Sembiring, M., Dewi, L., Kaihatu, T. S., & Mu'min, H. (2025). Social Innovation as A Transmission Mechanism: How Government Commitment Translates Into Socio-Economic Development In Emerg-ing Markets. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(4), 515–525. https://doi.org/10.14419/r235r455
    53. Purnawan, M. P., Rachbini, W., Mu'min, H., Darmanto, Purnawan, M. P., Rachbini, W., Mu'min, H., & Darmanto. (2025). Digital Entrepreneurial Orientation and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Digital Innovation Competence and The Moderating Effect of Digital Tech-nology Preparedness. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(5), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.14419/n6q13j78
    54. Rabetino, R., Kohtamäki, M., Foss, N. J., Rahman, N., & Huikkola, T. (2025). Microfoundations for business model innovation: Exploring the in-terplay between individuals, practices, and organizational design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 42(4), 704–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/JPIM.12784
    55. Radiany, A. A., Mu'min, H., Darma, Purnawan, M. P., & Biki, S. B. (2025). The Impact of Social Media on Organizational Innovation in Cultural Institutions: A Mediation Analysis of Visitor Co-Creation and Competitive Performance. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Stud-ies, 12(5), 617–627. https://doi.org/10.14419/gbzzek97
    56. Robinson, R. B., & Pearce, J. A. (1988). Planned patterns of strategic behavior and their relationship to business‐unit performance. Strategic Man-agement Journal, 9(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/SMJ.4250090105
    57. Sarwar, Z., Gao, J., & Khan, A. (2024). Nexus of digital platforms, innovation capability, and strategic alignment to enhance innovation perfor-mance in the Asia Pacific region: a dynamic capability perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(2), 867–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10490-023-09879-4
    58. Shahadat, M. M. H., Nekmahmud, Md., Ebrahimi, P., & Fekete-Farkas, M. (2023). Digital Technology Adoption in SMEs: What Technological, Environmental and Organizational Factors Influence in Emerging Countries? Global Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509221137199
    59. Sullivan, Y., Wamba, S. F., & Dunaway, M. (2023). Internet of things and competitive advantage: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(3), 745–781. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00807
    60. Susanty, A., Sumiyati, L. S., Syaiful, S., & Nihlah, Z. (2022). The impact of lean manufacturing practices on operational and business performances at SMES in the wooden furniture industry. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 13(1), 203–231. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-08-2020-0124
    61. Teece, D. J. (1981). Internal Organization and Economic Performance: An Empirical Analysis of the Profitability of Principal Firms. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 30(2), 173. https://doi.org/10.2307/2098201
    62. Teece, D. J. (2019). A capability theory of the firm: an economics and (Strategic) management perspective. New Zealand Economic Papers, 53(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00779954.2017.1371208
    63. Teece, D. J., & D.J., T. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
    64. Velyako, V., & Musa, S. (2023). The Relationship Between Digital Organizational Culture, Digital Capability, Digital Innovation, Organizational Resilience, and Competitive Advantage. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13132-023-01575-4
    65. Yadegaridehkordi, E., Foroughi, B., Iranmanesh, M., Nilashi, M., & Ghobakhloo, M. (2023). Determinants of environmental, financial, and social sustainable performance of manufacturing SMEs in Malaysia. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 35, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.10.026
    66. Yu, W., Jacobs, M. A., & Chavez, R. (2022). Exploring the Effect of Business Environment on Supply Chain Integration and Financial Perfor-mance: An Environment-System-Performance Paradigm. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(6), 3197–3211. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.3035830

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Pramono, R. ., Kaihatu, T. S., Bernardus, D. . ., Mu'min, H. ., & Darmanto. (2025). Entrepreneurial Marketing and Business Performance in System Integrator Start-Ups: A Serial Mediation Analysis Through Technology Customization and Innovation Capability. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(6), 475-486. https://doi.org/10.14419/vsfs3065