Technology Relatedness Accounting System and Entrepreneur’s ‎Decision-Making Style on The Company Performance of SMEs:‎The Moderating Role of Product Diversification

  • Authors

    • Chandra Situmeang Department of Accounting, Universitas Negeri Medan, Indonesia
    • Azizul Kholis Department of Accounting, Universitas Negeri Medan, Indonesia
    • Nasirwan Department of Accounting, Universitas Negeri Medan, Indonesia
    • Choms Gary Ganda Tua Sibarani Department of Accounting, Universitas Negeri Medan, Indonesia
    • Yulita Triadiarti Department of Accounting, Universitas Negeri Medan, Indonesia
    https://doi.org/10.14419/zdsnwa33

    Received date: October 21, 2025

    Accepted date: January 2, 2026

    Published date: January 28, 2026

  • Performance of SMEs; Technology Relatedness; Entrepreneur’s Decision Making Style; Product diversification; Second Order Construct

  • Abstract

    This study examines the effects of Technology Relatedness Accounting Systems (TRAS) and Entrepreneur’s Decision-Making Style on the ‎performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), with Product Diversification as a moderating variable. Using survey data from ‎‎318 technology-adopting SMEs in Indonesia, the study applies Structural Equation Modeling with Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS) to test ‎the proposed relationships. The results indicate that technology-relatedness—conceptualized as a second-order construct reflecting the complementarity of IT strategy, IT vendor management, IT human resources, and IT infrastructure—has a significant positive effect on SME ‎performance. An entrepreneur’s decision-making style also positively influences performance. Product diversification significantly negatively ‎moderates the relationship between technology-relatedness and performance, suggesting that excessive diversification may increase coordination complexity and reduce the effectiveness of technological complementarities in resource-constrained SMEs. However, product diversification does not moderate the relationship between decision-making style and performance. This study contributes to the Resource-Based ‎View by demonstrating that the performance impact of technology-related resources depends on their internal integration and strategic ‎alignment rather than on diversification breadth alone. The findings provide actionable insights for SME managers and policymakers regarding effective digital capability development and diversification strategies.

  • References

    1. Abrokwah-Larbi, K. (2024). The nexus between customer value analytics and SME performance in emerging markets: a resource-based view per-spective. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 14(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40497-024-00396-2.
    2. Afolayan, A., Plant, E., White, G. R., Jones, P., & Beynon-Davies, P. (2015). Information technology usage in SMEs in a developing economy. Strategic Change, 24(5), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2023.
    3. Al-Mamary, Y. H., & Abubakar, A. A. (2025). Empowering ChatGPT adoption in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 66, 101015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2025.101015.
    4. Chang, S. C., & Wang, C. F. (2007). The effect of product diversification strategies on the relationship between international diversification and firm performance. Journal of World Business, 42(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2006.11.002.
    5. Chege, S. M., & Wang, D. (2020). Information technology innovation and its impact on job creation by SMEs in developing countries. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 32(3), 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2019.1651263.
    6. Chen, Y. A., Guo, S. L., & Huang, K. F. (2024). Antecedents of internationalization of Taiwanese SMEs. International Journal of Emerging Mar-kets, 19(11), 3581–3600. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-05-2022-0875.
    7. Conte, G. L., Mina, A., & Rocchetta, S. (2025). Turning Technological Relatedness into Industrial Strategy. Economic Geography, 101(1), 28–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2025.2456731.
    8. Dahri, N. A., et al. (2025). Exploring the impact of ChatGPT on teaching performance. Education and Information Technologies.
    9. Davis, C. H., & Sun, E. (2006). Business development capabilities in IT SMEs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-5027-1.
    10. El Nemar, S., et al. (2025). Resource-based view and sustainable advantage: a framework for SMEs. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 33(6), 798–821. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2022.2160486.
    11. Ferneley, E., & Bell, F. (2006). Using bricolage to integrate business and IT innovation in SMEs. Technovation, 26(2), 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.03.005.
    12. Fergnani, A. (2022). Corporate foresight. Academy of Management Perspectives, 36(2), 820–844. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2018.0178.
    13. Inostroza, M. A., et al. (2023). Gender and decision-making styles in SMEs. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 36(3), 289–334. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-05-2022-0115
    14. Katuri, D. R. K. (2025). ERP-Driven Vendor Management. International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science Engineering and In-formation Technology.
    15. Kaur, K., & Kumar, S. (2024). RBV and SME internationalization. Management Review Quarterly.
    16. Leten, B., et al. (2016). Entry and technological performance. Journal of Management Studies, 53(8), 1257–1291. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12215.
    17. Le, D. N., & Nguyen, V. H. (2024). Product diversification and SME performance. Sustainability, 16(5), 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052023.
    18. Levinthal, D. A., & Wu, B. (2025). Resource redeployment. Strategy Science, 10(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2022.0105.
    19. Lopez-Torres, G. C., et al. (2024). IT and innovation management for sustainability. European Journal of Innovation Management.
    20. McLeod, R. (1997). Management Information Systems.
    21. Morikawa, M. (2004). IT and performance of Japanese SMEs. Small Business Economics, 23(3), 171–177. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SBEJ.0000032023.11566.4b.
    22. Mahdad, M., & Roshani, S. (2025). The open innovation kaleidoscope. Review of Managerial Science, 19(6), 1637–1668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00804-7.
    23. Nageswarakurukkal, K., et al. (2020). Online solutions and efficiency. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 32(3), 286–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2019.1589627.
    24. Oladimeji, M. S., & Udosen, I. (2019). Diversification strategy and performance. Journal of Competitiveness, 11(4), 120–136. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2019.04.08.
    25. Queiroz, M., et al. (2025). IT resource relatedness. European Journal of Information Systems.
    26. Ruiz-Mercader, J., et al. (2006). IT and learning in small businesses. International Journal of Information Management, 26(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2005.10.002.
    27. Sai, F., et al. (2025). Technological relatedness and innovation. Baltic Journal of Management, 20(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-08-2024-0435.
    28. Seronato, K. M., & Martins, T. S. (2024). Decision-making styles in SMEs. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 26(4), 612–641. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRME-01-2024-0007.
    29. Schweikl, S., & Obermaier, R. (2023). IT business value and complementarity. Management Review Quarterly, 73(4), 1713–1749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00284-7.
    30. Song, M., et al. (2005). Marketing and technology complementarity. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.450.
    31. Tanriverdi, H., & Venkatraman, N. (2005). Knowledge relatedness and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.435.
    32. Turulja, L., & Bajgoric, N. (2018). IT, KM, and HRM interactions. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 48(2), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-06-2017-0035.
    33. Villasalero, M. (2017). Knowledge relatedness in diversified firms. Journal of Business Research, 71, 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.10.019.
    34. Wang, N., et al. (2021). Complementarity in innovation strategy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(2), 459–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09780-y.
    35. Weerasekara, S., & Bhanugopan, R. (2023). Decision-making style and SME performance. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 15(5), 861–884. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-03-2022-0090.
    36. Wilenius, M. (2005). Corporate responsibility challenges. Futures, 37(2–3), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2004.03.014.
    37. Zhu, G., et al. (2024). Technological relatedness and collaboration. European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(5), 1496–1520. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-09-2022-0488.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Situmeang, C., Kholis, A., Nasirwan, Sibarani, C. G. G. T. ., & Triadiarti, Y. (2026). Technology Relatedness Accounting System and Entrepreneur’s ‎Decision-Making Style on The Company Performance of SMEs:‎The Moderating Role of Product Diversification. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 13(1), 555-561. https://doi.org/10.14419/zdsnwa33