From solopreneurs to synergists: a bibliometric journey into SME collaboration

Nabovati, Reza; Hosseini, Mojtaba; Ghanaati, Mohammadmehdi Article From solopreneurs to synergists: a bibliometric journey into SME collaboration Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Nabovati, Reza; Hosseini, Mojtaba; Ghanaati, Mohammadmehdi (2024) : From solopreneurs to synergists: a bibliometric journey into SME collaboration, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-24, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2399951 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326553 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 From solopreneurs to synergists: a bibliometric journey into SME collaboration Reza Nabovati, Mojtaba Hosseini & Mohammadmehdi Ghanaati To cite this article: Reza Nabovati, Mojtaba Hosseini & Mohammadmehdi Ghanaati (2024) From solopreneurs to synergists: a bibliometric journey into SME collaboration, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2399951, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2399951 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2399951 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 10 Sep 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 880 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 EntrEprEnEurship & innovation | rEviEw articlE Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2399951 From solopreneurs to synergists: a bibliometric journey into SME collaboration reza nabovatia , Mojtaba hosseinib and Mohammadmehdi Ghanaatib aLinköping university (Liu), Linköping, sweden; bBlekinge institute of technology (BtH), Karlskrona, sweden ABSTRACT collaborations, as a natural selection of small and Medium-sized Enterprises (sMEs) in the business environment, have been extensively studied. however, the core theoretical underpinnings, as well as recent research directions and themes have not been investigated. this study aims to holistically review the extant body of knowledge pertaining to sME collaboration, thereby clarifying these instances. Drawing upon a corpus of 978 scholarly articles retrieved from the scopus database, spanning the years 1982 to 2022, this study implements a bibliometric analysis utilizing the vosviewer software to map the intellectual landscape and discern patterns within the literature. the co-citation analysis depicted four primary theoretical constructs: those pertaining to relationship, open innovation, capability, and performance. the bibliographic coupling analysis depicted the prevailing trends in collaborative endeavors, encompassing supply chain, r&D, coopetition, industry 4.0, internationalization, and open innovation. Furthermore, the application of co-occurrence analysis facilitated the delineation of five distinct research themes within this domain. the investigation extends to a critical discussion on the prospective orientation and concludes with an examination of the its implications, offering insights for the research, managers, and policymakers. 1. Introduction Globally, small and Medium-sized Enterprises (sMEs) make up 95% of companies, employ 60% of the workforce, and contribute to 40% of the GDp (Dabić etal., 2020; Journeault etal., 2021). they are crucial for economic growth at all levels (pereira & Franco, 2022). with increasing globalization and competition, sMEs are adopting new technologies and data-driven approaches (ragazou et al., 2022). however, they often lack resources, such as competency, finance, and time (carneiro et al., 2021). to overcome these challenges, sMEs engage in various collaborations, gain knowledge, reduce uncertainty, enhance credibility, and improve their offerings (cairns et al., 2023; ho et al., 2023; leckel etal., 2020). in the preceding decade, the academic landscape has witnessed a proliferation of research focusing on the nature, drivers, and outcomes of collaborative ventures involving sMEs (peris-ortiz & Ferreira, 2017). this scholarly pursuit has involved the identification and elucidation of various cooperative dimensions, including partnership, strategic objectives, technological requisites (lelah etal., 2012; vidgen etal., 2004), and the delineation of optimal models and practices through empirical case studies (Bordonaba-Juste & cambra-Fierro, 2009; Journeault et al., 2021). although the scientific focus on sME collaborations is acknowledged, the precise scope (in terms of the number of publications) and impact (in terms of the number of citations) of them remain unclear. this scholarly attention has led to the aggregation of knowledge which, despite its benefits, has engendered a series of ambiguities. one of them concerns the theoretical foundations of these investigations—specifically, whether they are firmly rooted in social theories, or whether a broader array of theoretical constructs has been applied (chinomona & pretorius, 2011; Granovetter, 1985; schulze-Ehlers etal., 2014). Moreover, the literature proposes collaboration with a diverse array of stakeholders. however, © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group CONTACT Mohammadmehdi ghanaati [email protected] Blekinge institute of technology (BtH), Karlskrona, sweden. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2399951 this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY received 15 February 2024 revised 15 July 2024 accepted 19 July 2024 KEYWORDS collaboration; small and medium-sized enterprises (sMEs); inter-organization; cooperation; relationship; networking SUBJECTS industry & industrial studies; Business, Management and accounting; Economics; Environment & Business; small Business Management; international Business; strategic Management; Management of technology & innovation 2 r. naBovati Etal. there remains ambiguity regarding the degree of formality or informality of governance (lewis et al., 2015; Martin et al., 2019), choice of proximity (Jespersen et al., 2018), protection mechanisms (leiponen & Byma, 2009), exploitation and exploration approach (apa et al., 2021; hessels & parker, 2013) and the government’s role (Kang & park, 2012; Zeng et al., 2010). similarly, for researchers in business studies contemplating future research agendas, there is a lack of clarity regarding which topics to explore. in consideration of the aforementioned content, this study seeks to unveil the challenges identified in extant literature by positing the following questions: 1. what are the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of scientific production in the domain of sME cooperation in recent years? 2. which theoretical foundations have been predominately referenced in the examination of sME collaborations? 3. what forms of collaboration have attracted academic scrutiny? 4. what considerations should researchers prioritize in forthcoming studies pertaining to sME collaborations? 1.1. Literature background our review indicates that to date, four investigations have been conducted within the domain of sME collaborations. while these studies contribute significantly to the field, they fall short of addressing our specific research objectives, thus prompting the initiation of our study. among these, volery and Mazzarol (2015) and Baker et al. (2021) analyzed articles from the international small Business Journal, and small Business Economics Journal, respectively. the principal objective of these analyses was to categorize the research themes pertaining to sMEs via a bibliometric approach. Despite the recognition of sME networks as a salient subject, they have yet to encompass a comprehensive examination of the inherent characteristics and driving factors of such collaborative ventures. agostini and nosella (2019) explored the collaborative engagements among sMEs within the framework of inter-organization relations. to bring coherence to this fragmented field of study, it identified four subfields: sME strategic alliances with a focus on collective goals, social capital within sME networks, which encompasses the theoretical bases for network formation, innovation within sME networks that align predominantly with the open innovation (oi) model, and the internationalization of sME networks which pertains to international entrepreneurship. this classification aids in the systematic examination of inter-organizational interactions among sMEs. lastly, in the scholarly work of Dabić et al. (2020), the web of science database served as the foundation for research extraction, with articles being scrutinized across three distinct dimensions: subjects, theories, and methodologies. the utilization of spss software facilitated the analytical process, yielding insights into critical subtopics pertinent to sME internationalization. these include market entry strategies, human capital, and networking at the subject level; the uppsala model and the Born Global framework at the theoretical level; and a blend of conceptual and empirical approaches at the methodological level. although these findings contribute valuable knowledge, they fall short of providing a comprehensive exploration of the extensive range of collaborative practices among sMEs, nor do they thoroughly investigate the myriad factors and conditions that shape such cooperative engagements. 1.2. The distinction of this study table 1 presents an overview of the four studies reviewed in the previous subsection. studies 1 and 4 were focused on evaluating the performance of specific journals, thus they utilized a singular source for their analysis. in contrast, the focal point of our investigation is the sME collaborations and aims to elucidate the full breadth of collaborations that have undergone scientific analysis. such an orientation mandates the utilization of an extensive data source. study 2 posed inquiries analogous to those of our current study; however, it was predicated upon a dataset amassed in March 2015. in light of the recent expansion in scientific research, which has been coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 3 escalating at a compound annual growth rate of 3.31% (Gu & Blackmore, 2016), it is anticipated that the expanding body of knowledge will unveil novel insights into emergent trends of sME collaboration and their underlying theoretical frameworks. this development necessitates the undertaking of a novel review to assimilate and interpret the burgeoning literature. although study 3 is not constrained by resource limitations and primarily targets the internationalization aspect of sMEs, our research is not confined to such subjects. this factor warrants careful consideration during the selection of search terms. therefore, this study distinguished itself from previous works in terms of the scope and method. the scope is aimed at the explicit understanding of collaboration types adopted by sMEs using a dataset no study so far has included. we also included a content analysis of our method as a qualitative method to complement the quantitative method of bibliometrics. the remainder of this article is organized as follows. in the second section, we elaborate on the data collection process, detailing the sources of our data, the methodologies employed in its collection, and the software utilized for this purpose. in the third section, we present the results of our analysis, including the growth trajectory of the literature pertaining to the subject matter and an evaluation of articles based on citation counts. subsequently, we delved into the theoretical underpinnings and prevailing trends of these articles, as revealed by co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling. Finally, in the fourth section, we explore potential future research directions, as suggested by the articles under review. 2. Data and methods 2.1. Data in our study, we employed the scopus database to compile the necessary dataset. as one of the largest curated collections of abstracts and citations, scopus provides researchers with a wealth of high-quality, peer-reviewed documents to better comprehend the foundations and trends of this scientific field (Baas et al., 2020). according to Baas et al. (2020), it encompasses over 39,100 serial titles, with the most recently published content indexed from over 24,500 titles. additionally, scopus includes records from 120,000 conferences and 206,000 books originating from over 5,000 different publishers worldwide. to perform a search within this database, various forms of keywords pointing to small or medium-sized firms and synonyms of cooperation were identified. Boolean operators (or and anD), quotation marks, and asterisks were then used to build the initial search string. the search string that was refined was as follows: TITLE (sme OR SMEs OR ‘small and medium * enterpri*’ OR ‘small firm*’ OR ‘small business*’ OR ‘small enterpri?e*’) AND (KEY (collaboration OR collaborative* OR cooperation OR coopetition) OR TITLE (collaboration OR collaborative* OR cooperation OR ecosystem* OR coopetition)). the search was conducted on april 2023, and 978 documents published up to 2022 were obtained. the most productive subject areas were Business, Management and accounting (29.2%), computer science (15.7%), and engineering (13.7%), while the least productive areas were mathematics (2.2%), energy (2%), and medicine (1%). Meanwhile, to ensure full coverage of all publications related to sMEs, this study did not apply any filters to the subject area. after examining the citation information of the articles, those without Doi (177 articles) and those with incomplete author information (25 articles) were removed. this reduced the number of studies from 978 to 776. Figure 1 illustrates the procedure for locating and choosing papers. Table 1. an overview of the data and methods employed is previous subsection. Row Paper Data Data size Data duration Data source subject filter Method 1(Volery & Mazzarol, 2015) 660 30 years (1982–2012) isBJ no sPss 2(agostini & nosella, 2019) 297 not specified Wos Yes sPss 3(Dabić et al., 2020) 762 27 years (1992–2018) Wos no sPss 4(Baker et al., 2021) 1740 30 years (1989–2018) sBe no VosViewer 4 r. naBovati Etal. 2.2. Methods Bibliometric analysis, which is the preferred analytical tool in this study, is helpful when a scientific field has evolved over time; however, the accumulated knowledge lacks studies that highlight its chronological change and systematic classification of main and sub-fields (uriona-Maldonado et al., 2012). the results of bibliometric analysis also clarify the current stage of research in a given area, research priorities, and future lines of development, as well as its patterns and trends (Delesposte etal., 2021; Zhang etal., 2017). Given the quantitative nature of bibliometrics, it is advisable to employ content analysis as a complementary method. this integrated approach mitigates the limitations inherent to each technique, fostering a more nuanced understanding of the research landscape (Kim & so, 2022). consequently, researchers meticulously examined the titles, keywords, and abstracts of all retrieved publications. Each stage of data review adhered to rigorous protocols to ensure objectivity. among a range of software packages, including citespace, histcite, pajek, and Gephi, vosviewer was selected for our bibliometric analysis, visualization, and exploration. this more-than-a-decade tool has been extensively utilized in a wide variety of bibliometric studies such as knowledge management, education, and social science (akbari etal., 2021; Jia & Mustafa, 2022). its robust capabilities and user-friendly interface (Jia & Mustafa, 2022) make it a suitable choice for our research. By leveraging techniques such as bibliographic coupling and co-citation, we can address the research questions related to the theoretical underpinnings and trends within this scientific field (noor et al., 2020). vosviewer employs optimization and clustering algorithms to visually represent the level of similarity between the nodes of analysis and to create a two-dimensional space where the most and least connected articles are positioned closer to or farther away from the center (van oorschot et al., 2018). Examining the degree of relatedness among the elements of the analysis results in the creation of clusters with distinct non-overlapping characteristics (chistov et al., 2021). 3. Results 3.1. Research growth Figure 2 illustrates the annual distribution of publications from 1980 to 2022, demonstrating the growth of published papers on this topic. prior to 2002, the number of publications on this topic remained relatively constant, with fewer than five articles published per year. however, in the following years, there was a steady increase in the number of publications, with an average growth rate of 48.2%. the accumulation of knowledge on this topic can be divided into two distinct periods: (1) from 1980–2015 and (2) from 2016– 2022. Each period accounted for 50 percent of all the publications on the topic. the first period began with a single publication in its opening year, whereas the second period began with sixty-two publications. a comparison of these two periods reveals growing interest among scholars in the area of sME collaboration. this is evidenced by a significant increase in the number of publications on the topic over time. Figure 3 presents the distribution of citations per year and the cumulative number of citations over a defined period. of the 13,201 citations recorded, 6,583 (49.87%) occurred before 2012 and 6,618 (50.13%) after that year. the distribution of citations indicates that half of the citations occurred within the third percent of the publication period, suggesting a positive trend from 2012–2022. the decrease in the number of citations observed in the final years of the evaluation period can be attributed to the fact that it typically takes three to seven years for an article to reach its highest possible number of citations (lópez-robles et al., 2019). Figure 1. Procedures for data collection and preparation for analysis. coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 5 3.2. Citation analysis the top five most-cited articles in this field are listed in table 2. among the results, 21 articles had more than 100 citations, accounting for 38% of the total citations. Moreover, 31 articles had > 50 citations, representing 15% of the total citations. the most cited article was written by Zeng et al. (2010) and published in Technovation. the second most-cited article was authored by narula (2004) and appeared in Technovation. the third most cited article was produced by Bougrain and haudeville (2002) and published in Research Policy. Figure 2. Distribution of publications by year (1980–2022). Figure 3. Distribution of citation by year (1980–2022). 6 r. naBovati Etal. 3.3. Identification of theoretical background co-citation analysis revealed the knowledge bases that have been used in the field of sME cooperation since 1977. Duplicate references from the first co-citation analysis were removed using a vosviewer thesaurus file, resulting in 34,449 unique references. the constructed map of references, represented in Figure 4, consists of four relatively consistent clusters. a review of this figure indicates that there is a relative space between red and green and blue-green clusters. there is also an overlap between the red-blue, blue-yellow, and yellow-green clusters. the topics related to these clusters are explained in the following sections. 3.3.1. Red cluster: Relation-related concepts the red cluster, which includes 41 journal papers, can be labeled ‘relation-related concepts’. this cluster was the largest in terms of the publications volume and citation frequency. within this cluster, it is assumed that collaboration is predicated upon relationships, whose stipulations and norms are expressed in the arrays of concepts and theoretical frameworks it comprises. the salience of the models and theoretical constructs within it lies in the premise that an sME ought to be evaluated through the prism of its network affiliations rather than as a solitary entity. Following wernerfelt’s (1984) classification of Relationships as a Firm Resource according to the resource-Based view, the notion of Strategic Networks was introduced (Jarillo, 1988). this concept posits that firms are not solitary entities but are immersed in a web of relationships wherein their interactions influence their operations (Gulati etal., 2000). consequently, relationships are considered Strategic Assets as delineated by Barney (1991) that, alongside Dynamic Capabilities, shape the competitive destiny of firms (rosenfeld, 1996; teece et al., 1997). among the other cited concepts is Combinative Capabilities, which highlights the imperative for firms to combine the knowledge gained through relationships (Kogut & Zander, 1992) while keeping the balance between the exploration of external knowledge and the exploitation of internal knowledge (March, 1991). the Commitment-Trust Theory underscores the indispensability of commitment and trust within interfirm relationships (Morgan & hunt, 1994), while the notion of Relational Capital necessitates individual-level interaction (Dyer & singh, 1998). additionally, the construct of Social Capital emerges as a salient theme within this cluster, with seminal contributions by nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) and ahuja (2000) further elucidating this concept. other references in this cluster pertain to the methodological foundations of the research in this field. references to contributions on data collection methods, structural equation models, and case studies indicate that quantitative research is a significant approach in the study of collaboration among sMEs (Eisenhardt, 1989; Fornell & larcker, 1981). the inclusion of studies on research methodology within this group suggests the importance of deductive work in research related to the cooperation of small companies. 3.3.2. Green cluster: OI-related concepts the green cluster, which includes 32 journal papers, is referred to as ‘oi-related concepts’ due to the central themes that revolve around oi model. the significance of this cluster lies in highlighting the dynamic capabilities, search-related attributes, and the extent of openness within the innovation process. Table 2. top-5 most cited articles. Rank authors titles Year source title Citation Cite per year 1Zeng s.X.; Xie X.M.; tam C.M. Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of sMes 2010 technovation 714 54.92 2narula R. R&D collaboration by sMes: new opportunities and limitations in the face of globalization 2004 technovation 408 21.47 3Bougrain F.; Haudeville B. innovation, collaboration, and sMes internal research capacities 2002 Research Policy 352 16.76 4Robson P.J.a.; Bennett R.J. sMe growth: the Relationship with Business advice and external Collaboration 2000 small Business economics 281 12.22 5Kang K.-n.; Park H. influence of government R&D support and inter-firm collaborations on innovation in Korean biotechnology sMes 2012 technovation 265 24.09 coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 7 these factors affect the strategic formulation of firms, particularly concerning resource allocation and the development of competitive processes. the oi, introduced as a novel innovation methodology (chesbrough & crowther, 2006), encompasses the outside-in, inside-out, and coupled processes (Enkel etal., 2009). the referenced articles within this cluster elucidate the principles of these models. one of them examined the capability to exploit the oi environment, which is a dynamic capability (teece, 2007). laursen and salter (2006) investigated the breadth and depth of search as a pivotal exploration practice in oi and considered a balance between these methods as essential for attaining optimal innovation performance. van De vrande et al. (2009) examined the predominant oi practices among sMEs and identified the engagement of non-r&D personnel as the exploration strategy and co-creation with customers and external networking as the exploitation strategy should be employed concurrently. the study also noted that while the adoption of oi does not differ between manufacturing and service sectors, company size does, as independently explored by spithoven et al. (2013). lee etal. (2010) recognized the competitive advantage of sMEs within the commercialization phase of the oi continuum, and proposed a mediation model to enhance oi efficiency in sME collaboration. Dahlander and Gann (2010) expounded on the essence of openness within the inbound and outbound processes of oi, and parida et al. (2012) posited that each activity type aligns with specific innovation outcomes. 3.3.3. Blue cluster: Capability-related concepts this cluster can be perceived as an aggregation of scholarly articles that primarily focus on the concept of capability. several articles within this cluster have explored the dynamics of collaboration among diverse partners, delineating the distinct outcomes of each. these articles posit collaboration as a mechanism to enhance the capabilities of sMEs, thereby warranting their categorization within this cluster. consequently, the significance of this cluster in the discourse of sME collaboration lies in its emphasis on the fundamental aspects of capabilities pertaining to knowledge acquisition or related processes. cohen and levinthal (1990) underscored the necessity of absorptive capacity, which encapsulates a firm’s ability to identify novel knowledge, integrate it with existing knowledge, and apply it to address challenges. Bougrain and ha udeville (2002) introduced a concept termed ‘internal research capability’. Given the intricacy of the innovation process and the requisite collaboration with other firms, this article Figure 4. Co-citation map of references cited by sMe collaboration publications as the intellectual structure of the field. 14 r. naBovati Etal. sMEs managing oi within their ecosystems face challenges and require strategies such as understanding and aligning with the business models within their ecosystem and identifying linkages that impact innovation performance (Mei et al., 2019; radziwon & Bogers, 2019). to foster innovation and improve environmental performance, sMEs need to leverage industrial symbiosis partnerships and external resources and understand the role of different external sources of knowledge in various types of innovations (lefebvre et al., 2015; patricio et al., 2018). collaboration is crucial for sMEs in the development of smart products, as single companies often lack the necessary knowledge and capabilities (Kahle etal., 2020). Engaging in collaborative manufacturing and multi-partner alliances offers strategies and benefits for sMEs, including enhanced interoperability and compliance with cooperative exchange norms (lin et al., 2012; thorgren et al., 2012). 3.5. Co-occurrence analysis to identify the main themes in the literature on sME collaborations, 776 articles were scrutinized to tally the co-occurrence of keywords used by the authors. the initial collection of 7,537 keywords in the set of publications included several variations of the same keywords. these were consolidated using a thesaurus according to the vosviewer guidelines, resulting in a 50% decrease in the number of keywords to 3,801. two additional filters were applied to further streamline the data. First, only those keywords that appeared a minimum of ten times were chosen to highlight the most pertinent topics and improve conceptual clarity. secondly, the term ‘sME’ and its various derivatives, such as ‘small and medium-sized enterprises’, were omitted due to their high frequency of co-occurrence (371 times). ultimately, the final set of 70 keywords was categorized into four clusters, as shown in Figure 6 and table 3. the first cluster of keywords indicates various collaboration forms (such as oi, internationalization, and coopetition) and their influencing factors (such as trust, absorptive capacity, and firm size) within the manufacturing and r&D sectors, particularly in china and Europe. this cluster can be termed as ‘cooperation modes’. Figure 6. Co-occurrence map of the most-repeated keywords. coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 15 the subsequent cluster showcases technologies pertinent to an ecosystem and its management (for instance, enterprise resource planning and information and communication technologies); hence, it is referred to as ‘cooperative technologies’. the third cluster, known as ‘decision-making tools for participation’, encompasses keywords related to tools such as artificial intelligence, decision support systems, and KM within an industry or supply chain. the fourth cluster, termed ‘collaboration for competition,’ aims to depict the collaboration of small firms using keywords such as ‘societies and institutions’ and ‘university-industry collaboration to compete in the market through product design and development.’ Finally, the fifth cluster primarily focuses on ‘sustainable business development,’ aiming for international markets through cooperation via technology transfer. 4. Discussion By examining recent trends in the research topic, we find intriguing research gaps in each of them. the following paragraphs suggest directions for future research based on each research trend. 4.1. Cluster 1 the prevailing theme in the 1st cluster studies is the inherent vulnerabilities of sMEs that necessitate collaboration. this vulnerability is amplified with a sustainability approach, underscoring the imperative for collaboration among these enterprises. Given that the future of supply chain collaboration is intertwined with the achievement of these goals, it is proposed that future research should explore various facets of sustainability within this type of collaboration. this exploration should encompass the necessary resources (their characteristics, prioritization, and strategic allocation), diverse methods of embracing sustainability-related innovations (such as corporate social responsibility), the role of technology in advancing sustainability objectives, and the involvement of non-traditional stakeholders (such as international labor unions and non-governmental organizations) in such collaborations. however, the literature within this cluster has not examined the potential of sMEs’ capabilities as a foundation for collaboration. the focus has primarily been on regulating sMEs’ relationships with major supply chain actors, with attention directed towards the upstream (supplier) and downstream (customer) links of a firm (Zeng et al., 2010). an analysis of relationships from a supply network perspective, as opposed to a supply chain perspective, is conspicuously absent in this body of work. adopting a relational view would provide a more dynamic understanding of inter-firm relationships, transcending dyadic interactions. such relationships could enhance the level of knowledge accumulation and its dynamism to a degree that necessitates a new level of absorptive capacity and dynamic capabilities. the flow of Table 3. Co-occurrence table of the most repeated keywords and cluster topics. Cluster topic Keywords Cluster i Collaboration modes innovation, Collaborations, Cooperation, open innovation, networks, internationalization, Coopetition, Research and development, innovation performance, trust, absorptive capacity, inter-firm collaboration, Manufacturing, Performance, China, europe, Firm size Cluster ii Collaboration technologies ecosystems, information technology, industry 4.0, industrial research, electronic commerce, information systems, information and communication technologies, information services, information use, Project management, e-collaboration, Communication, Digital transformation, enterprise resource planning Cluster iii Decision-Making tools for Collaboration Collaborative network, Virtual corporation, Knowledge management, Manufacture, supply chains, supply chain management, Decision making, information management, supply chain collaboration, artificial intelligence, semantics, Case study, Decision support systems, interoperability Cluster iV Competition industry, Competition, industrial management, Collaborative innovation, societies and institutions, engineering, Product development, strategy, surveys, Management, Product design, technological innovation, university-industry collaboration Cluster V sustainable Business Development Commerce, sustainable development, sustainability, international cooperation, technology transfer, article, economics, electric energy storage, Commercial phenomena, entrepreneurship, technology 16 r. naBovati Etal. knowledge embodied in the oi model, along with the aforementioned capacity and capability, underscores the requirement for additional research in future studies. 4.2. Cluster 2 the r&D collaboration cluster explores the breadth and depth of collaboration, innovative objectives and their interconnectedness and comprehensiveness, prerequisites of the innovation strategy, absorptive capacity of sMEs, and innovation management in challenging environments. the study of innovation regions appears to be a crucial focus for future research. Given the path-dependent nature of the innovation process, it is imperative to examine it across different time periods, adopting a longitudinal perspective and utilizing appropriate data. to enhance the generalizability of studies, future research should be conducted across a broader geographical area and with a larger sample size. the dominant concepts utilized in these studies are the rBv and transaction cost theory (tct). the examination of innovation regions may elucidate whether it is feasible to expand rBv and tct by conceptualizing a firm as a ‘composite individual’. Furthermore, the longitudinal study of innovation not only aids in comprehending the dynamics of relationships between partners and the nature of their interactions but also enhances our understanding of the application of tct within these relationships. this methodology also enables a more precise evaluation of innovation performance and its environmental and societal impacts. a detailed evaluation of the profiles of universities or research institutes, as opposed to a broad reference, can facilitate a nuanced assessment of their roles within the partnership, thereby yielding a more profound understanding of the rBv. 4.3. Cluster 3 coopetition, characterized by its vertical and horizontal dimensions, manifests across various collaborative networks and can be promoted with the aid of ict. this cluster posits that coopetition exerts a significant influence on a firm’s comprehensive performance. as this effect has predominantly been investigated in developed countries, it is recommended that future research broaden this scope. Future studies should also identify other internal and external factors, such as government support mechanisms, that can influence the performance of sMEs in coopetition. the tactical approaches employed in coopetition have not been identified, nor has their effectiveness in achieving cooperation goals been evaluated. it is suggested that these areas be explored in future research. additionally, it is recommended that future studies extract objective performance criteria and implement probability sampling methods. conducting a longitudinal study will yield more robust statistical conclusions regarding coopetition performance. the theories utilized in the articles of this cluster are the rBv and institutional theory. Focusing on the identification of coopetition practices and factors influencing it has the potential to enhance our comprehension of institutional theory and how it works. Despite references to proximity within one article, the reduction of the analysis unit to formal relations at the firm level does not facilitate the development of this concept. it is suggested that cognitive science be utilized for this purpose. this suggestion may identify a new resource as a firm’s asset and further our understanding of rBv. 4.4. Cluster 4 this cluster of collaboration within industry 4.0 highlights the growing complexity of knowledge and the need for companies to develop their absorptive capacity and dynamic capabilities to manage the complexity of new technologies. this is particularly true as they adopt open business models to meet the demands of industry 4.0 in the market. Future research should focus on creating a comprehensive framework for industry 4.0 adoption at the sME level, considering their context and unique challenges. it’s also important to examine the applicability and generalizability of the industry 4.0 model within the sME ecosystem. additionally, resilience-building and organizational ambidexterity for sMEs are crucial, as is the potential integration of lean startup principles into industry 4.0’s open business models. Broadening the scope of research to include a variety of business sectors will provide deeper insights into the effectiveness of the industry 4.0 model and support its ongoing evolution. coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 17 the scholarly discourse within this cluster predominantly draws upon two theoretical lenses: rBv and Dynamic capability. these frameworks illuminate how companies equipped with industry 4.0 technology can fortify their market position—a competitive advantage grounded in rBv principles. By situating this perspective within the evolving landscape of industry 4.0, researchers can enrich its theoretical understanding. Furthermore, unraveling the requisite capabilities for effective technology exploitation will deepen our insights into the functioning of dynamic capability within this context. 4.5. Cluster 5 while the relationship between internationalization and innovation has been established in cluster 5, it is recommended that subsequent studies broaden the scope of cooperation measurement to include not only developed but also emerging economies. additionally, a comparative analysis of high-tech versus low-tech exporters within a nation is warranted. the attainment of success in international markets is contingent upon sustaining a competitive edge, wherein intermediaries like the tcn play a pivotal role. the influence of such intermediary entities on technology transfer, including artificial intelligence, warrants investigation in future research endeavors. the theoretical underpinnings of this cluster’s studies are twofold: internally, they draw upon the rBv, and externally, they are largely informed by social capital and resource Dependency theories. Enhanced comprehension of new roles and specific groups will elucidate corporate operations within the international context, thereby enriching our understanding of resource dependency theory. Moreover, insights into the functioning of ambidexterity in international collaborations will shed light on the dynamics capabilities in the global business environment. studying the manner in which social capital facilitates the procurement of necessary resources for successful international ventures offers a novel perspective on social capital and rBv theories in the international domain. 4.6. Cluster 6 a recurrent theme across these studies, which have engaged with the utilization of oi in sMEs, is the interchange of knowledge among sMEs and the resultant accumulation of knowledge. however, the mechanisms through which such exchanges contribute to sustained knowledge accumulation, or whether they should be regarded as an ad-hoc activity, remain unexplored. additionally, the function of intermediary entities such as loi within the oi is acknowledged, yet there is a call for future research to systematically scrutinize the efficacy of such firms, including public institutions and commercially-driven consultants. this approach necessitates an expansion in the corpus of oi research to provide the requisite data. Given the distinct application of oi in sMEs as opposed to lEs, these studies have the potential to enrich our comprehension of the oi paradigm’s dynamics within sME collaborations, the involvement of various agents, and inbound and outbound oi practices. Furthermore, an integrative approach that combines the KM approach with oi could yield deeper insights into the methodologies of knowledge transfer and accumulation, as well as their impact on various types of innovation. 5. Conclusion 5.1. Implications for research sMEs, which constitute the majority of active business entities globally, possess the potential to address significant challenges through collective efforts. to elucidate the nature of collaborations involving sMEs that have been investigated by scholars, a bibliometric analysis was undertaken. this review revealed that scholarly inquiries into sME collaborations have predominantly focused on six trends: supply chain, r&D, coopetition, industry 4.0, internationalization, and oi. these domains have been conceptualized through four principal theoretical lenses: relation, oi, capability, and performance. Each thematic cluster received individualized scrutiny, culminating in propositions for future research trajectories. in recent years, a substantial corpus of research has emerged concerning sME collaboration, necessitating a comprehensive review to categorize this expanding knowledge domain. this review entailed the 18 r. naBovati Etal. extraction of the quantity and growth rate of extant studies, alongside the identification of pivotal research themes and cited theoretical constructs. presently, we possess a theoretical understanding of the foremost types of collaboration and their foundational rationales, enabling researchers to tailor future inquiries to the identified gaps within this body of work. the forward-looking suggestions presented by this article, are intended to enhance the theoretical foundations of collaborative ventures, invite researchers to recalibrate existing sME-centric theories, or develop new conceptual models in alignment with progressions in cognitive science and artificial intelligence. Moreover, there is a call for an escalation in empirical studies aimed at gathering data to elaborate and perfect the theoretical structures under consideration. 5.2. Implications for business owners this scholarly inquiry provides a detailed exposition of the collaborative frameworks among sMEs as investigated in academic literature. the methodologies delineated within the respective articles of each thematic cluster may be directly implemented by owners or serve as a foundation upon which to devise strategies tailored to their specific operational, economic, social, and environmental contexts. owners of sMEs operating within supply chains, upon consulting the findings of cluster 1, can identify the fundamental elements necessary for effective operations and pinpoint potential partners for innovation-centric collaborations. the domain of r&D, as outlined in cluster 2, enables business owners to highlight the critical performance metrics that should be monitored closely in collaborations. insights from cluster 3 advocate for strategic engagement with competitors, suggesting that such interactions are not only advantageous but also imperative. cluster 4 underscores the significance of intricate knowledge in collaborations that involve emergent technologies. cluster 5 reveals that delving into international markets presents a broad and challenging arena that challenges their explorative skills and social capital. lastly, cluster 6 highlights the inherent obstacles associated with the adoption of oi principles within the confines of smaller-scale enterprises. 5.3. Implications for policymakers collaborative engagement is recognized as a strategic imperative for sMEs, with its efficacy in achieving organizational objectives affirmed by extensive academic research. policymakers are positioned to appraise sMEs for governmental funding eligibility predicated on their collaborative methodologies. this evaluative process is considered one of the most potent policy instruments, as endorsed by experts (leckel etal., 2020). sMEs demonstrating geographic proximity often show a tendency towards local collaborations. this inclination, reinforced by affirmative research outcomes, can inform policymakers in pinpointing both existing and potential regions to harness these benefits optimally. acknowledging the instrumental role of intermediary entities, consulting firms, and both governmental and academic institutions in fostering cooperative synergies, policymakers have the opportunity to lay the groundwork for the proliferation of such entities. additionally, they may incentivize these bodies to forge collaborative ties with sMEs. the study’s revelations indicate that unique regulatory frameworks support each type of collaboration, compelling policymakers to incorporate these academic insights into the development of relevant laws and guidelines. should a gap be identified, it could be proposed as an item for future research by academic or other research bodies. Acknowledgement we extend our appreciation to the academic community for their contribution to our understanding of the subject matter. this work was completed without direct external assistance but benefited from the collective knowledge available in the field. Author contributions reza nabovati, Mojtaba hosseini, and Mohammadmehdi Ghanaati co-authored this paper. they were involved in the conception and design, as well as the analysis and interpretation of the data. they drafted the paper and revised it coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 19 critically for intellectual content. they gave their final approval of the version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Declaration of interest statement no potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Data availability Data sharing is not applicable to this article, as no new data were created or analyzed in this study. Funding no funding was received. About the authors Reza Nabovati earned his Bachelor of telecommunication Engineering from the scientific-applied Faculty of post and telecommunications in 2004 and his MBa from linköping university (liu) in 2018. his research interests encompass the study of innovation and collaboration within various networks and ecosystems, particularly emphasizing the role of small and medium-sized enterprises. Mojtaba Hosseini, senior lecturer in industrial Economics at Blekinge institute of technology (Bth) since september 2021, earned a ph.D. in Economics specializing in international entrepreneurship from linköping university (liu) in 2016. he teaches courses on innovation, entrepreneurship, and project management, and contributes to research in the tiEK department, Bt h. his research focuses on firm-level entrepreneurship, business networks, and the internationalization of sMEs. prior to Bt h, he taught and conducted research at liu, advising MBa students and studying the internationalization of sMEs in the wood industry. Mohammadmehdi Ghanaati is a phD student in industrial Economics at Blekinge institute of technology (Bt h) since February 2023, focusing on the digital entrepreneurship ecosystem. he holds an MBa from linköping university (2018) and a Master’s degree in industrial Management from iau (2005). he also has experience teaching management subjects, such as operations research, entrepreneurship, and economics. ORCID reza nabovati http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6804-2053 Mojtaba hosseini http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4547-8406 Mohammadmehdi Ghanaati http://orcid.org/0009-0005-8777-378X References agostini, l., & nosella, a. (2019). inter-organizational relationships involving sMEs: a bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Long Range Planning, 52(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.12.003 ahn, J. M., Minshall, t., & Mortara, l. (2015). open innovation: a new classification and its impact on firm performance in innovative sMEs. Journal of Innovation Management, 3(2), 33–54. https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_003.002_0006 ahuja, G. (2000). the duality of collaboration: inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 317–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200003)21:3<317::aiD-sMJ90>3.0.co;2-B akbari, M., Khodayari, M., Khaleghi, a., Danesh, M., & padash, h. (2021). technological innovation research in the last six decades: a bibliometric analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(5), 1806–1831. https://doi.org/10.1108/ EJiM-05-2020-0166 ali, i., nagalingam, s., & Gurd, B. (2017). Building resilience in sMEs of perishable product supply chains: Enablers, barriers and risks. Production Planning & Control, 28(15), 1236–1250. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1362487 apa, r., De Marchi, v., Grandinetti, r., & sedita, s. r. (2021). university-sME collaboration and innovation performance: the role of informal relationships and absorptive capacity. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(4), 961–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09802-9 Baas, J., schotten, M., plume, a., côté, G., & Karimi, r. (2020). scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. https://doi. org/10.1162/qss_a_00019 20 r. naBovati Etal. Baker, h. K., Kumar, s., & pandey, n. (2021). thirty years of small Business Economics: a bibliometric overview. Small Business Economics, 56(1), 487–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00342-y Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 Belderbos, r., carree, M., & lokshin, B. (2004). cooperative r&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33(10), 1477– 1492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.07.003 Bengtsson, M., & Johansson, M. (2014). Managing coopetition to create opportunities for small firms. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 32(4), 401–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242612461288 Bertello, a., Ferraris, a., De Bernardi, p., & Bertoldi, B. (2022). challenges to open innovation in traditional sMEs: an analysis of pre-competitive projects in university-industry-government collaboration. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 18(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00727-1 Bhagwat, r., & sharma, M. K. (2007). information system architecture: a framework for a cluster of smalland medium-sized enterprises (sMEs). Production Planning & Control, 18(4), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537280701248578 Birru, w. t. (2011). horizontal inter-firm cooperation in Ethiopian small and medium enterprises: Evidence from leather shoe manufacturing firms in addis ababa. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 18(4), 806–820. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001111179811 Blind, K., & Mangelsdorf, a. (2013). alliance formation of sMEs: Empirical evidence from standardization committees. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60(1), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1109/tEM.2012.2192935 Bordonaba-Juste, v., & cambra-Fierro, J. J. (2009). Managing supply chain in the context of sMEs: a collaborative and customized partnership with the suppliers as the key for success. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 14(5), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540910980305 Boschma, r. (2005). proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74. https://doi. org/10.1080/0034340052000320887 Bougrain, F., & haudeville, B. (2002). innovation, collaboration and sMEs internal research capacities. Research Policy, 31(5), 735–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00144-5 Boyack, K. w., & Klavans, r. (2010). co‐citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21419 Brunetto, Y., & Farr-wharton, r. (2007). the moderating role of trust in sME owner/managers’ decision-making about collaboration. Journal of Small Business Management, 45(3), 362–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2007.00218.x cairns, i., southern, a., & whittam, G. (2023). collective entrepreneurship in low-income communities: the importance of collective ownership, collective processes and collective goods. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 42(3), 335–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/02662426231197939 carneiro, v., Barata da rocha, a., rangel, B., & alves, J. l. (2021). Design Management and the sME product Development process: a Bibliometric analysis and review. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 7(2), 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2021.03.001 chan, F. t. s., Yee-loong chong, a., & Zhou, l. (2012). an empirical investigation of factors affecting e-collaboration diffusion in sMEs. International Journal of Production Economics, 138(2), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.04.004 chen, D., & Karami, a. (2010). critical success factors for inter-firm technological cooperation: an empirical study of high-tech sMEs in china. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(2/3/4), 282–299. https://doi. org/10.1504/iJtM.2010.033806 chesbrough, h., & crowther, a. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R and D Management, 36(3), 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00428.x chien-liang Kuo, D., chen, w.-h., & smits, M. t. (2005). sME-based collaborative supply chain management: the impact of information technologies. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 2(3/4), 360– 373. https://doi.org/10.1504/iJMED.2005.006567 chinomona, r., & pretorius, M. (2011). sME manufacturers’ cooperation and dependence on major dealers’ expert power in distribution channels. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 14(2), 170–187. https:// doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v14i2.50 chistov, v., aramburu, n., & carrillo-hermosilla, J. (2021). open eco-innovation: a bibliometric review of emerging research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 311, 127627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127627 cohen, w. M., & levinthal, D. a. (1990). absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553 cortés, J. D., Guix, M., & carbonell, K. B. (2021). innovation for sustainability in the Global south: Bibliometric findings from management & business and stEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields in developing countries. Heliyon, 7(8), e07809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07809 costa, E., soares, a. l., & De sousa, J. p. (2016). information, knowledge and collaboration management in the internationalisation of sMEs: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Information Management, 36(4), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.03.007 costa, E., soares, a. l., & de sousa, J. p. (2020). industrial business associations improving the internationalisation of sMEs with digital platforms: a design science research approach. International Journal of Information Management, 53, 102070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102070 coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 21 cumbers, a., Mackinnon, D., & chapman, K. (2003). innovation, collaboration, and learning in regional clusters: a study of sMEs in the aberdeen oil complex. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 35(9), 1689–1706. https://doi.org/10.1068/a35259 D’angelo, a., & Baroncelli, a. (2020). an investigation over inbound open innovation in sMEs: insights from an italian manufacturing sample. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 32(5), 542–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537 325.2019.1676888 Dabić, M., Maley, J., Dana, l.-p., novak, i., pellegrini, M. M., & caputo, a. (2020). pathways of sME internationalization: a bibliometric and systematic review. Small Business Economics, 55(3), 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00181-6 Dahlander, l., & Gann, D. M. (2010). how open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2010.01.013 de Jong, J. p. J., & Freel, M. (2010). absorptive capacity and the reach of collaboration in high technology small firms. Research Policy, 39(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.10.003 Delesposte, J. E., rangel, l. a. D., Meiriño, M. J., narcizo, r. B., & alencar Junior, a. a. M. d (2021). use of multicriteria decision aid methods in the context of sustainable innovations: Bibliometrics, applications and trends. Environment Systems and Decisions, 41(4), 501–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-021-09814-2 Dotsika, F., & patrick, K. (2013). collaborative KM for sMEs: a framework evaluation study. Information Technology & People, 26(4), 368–382. https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-11-2012-0142 Du plessis, M. (2008). the strategic drivers and objectives of communities of practice as vehicles for knowledge management in small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Information Management, 28(1), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.05.002 Dyer, J. h., & singh, h. (1998). the relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660. https://doi.org/10.2307/259056 Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557 Enkel, E., Gassmann, o., & chesbrough, h. (2009). open r&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00570.x Faems, D., van looy, B., & Debackere, K. (2005). interorganizational collaboration and innovation: toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(3), 238–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00120.x Fernández-olmos, M., & ramírez-alesón, M. (2017). how internal and external factors influence the dynamics of sME technology collaboration networks over time. Technovation, 64-65, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.06.002 Fink, M., harms, r., & Kraus, s. (2008). cooperative internationalization of sMEs: self-commitment as a success factor for international Entrepreneurship. European Management Journal, 26(6), 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.09.003 Fornell, c., & larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 Freel, M., & harrison, r. (2006). innovation and cooperation in the small firm sector: Evidence from “northern Britain”. Regional Studies, 40(4), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400600725095 Freel, M., & robson, p. J. (2017). appropriation strategies and open innovation in sMEs. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 35(5), 578–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242616654957 Ganzarain, J., & Errasti, n. (2016). three stage maturity model in sME’s towards industry 4.0. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 9(5), 1119–1128. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2073 Garzoni, a., De turi, i., secundo, G., & Del vecchio, p. (2020). Fostering digital transformation of sMEs: a four levels approach. Management Decision, 58(8), 1543–1562. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2019-0939 Grandinetti, r. (2016). absorptive capacity and knowledge management in small and medium enterprises. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2016.2 Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/228311 Gu, X., & Blackmore, K. l. (2016). recent trends in academic journal growth. Scientometrics, 108(2), 693–716. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1985-3 Gulati, r., nohria, n., & Zaheer, a. (2000). strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 203–215. https:// doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200003)21:3<203::aiD-sMJ102>3.0.co;2-K han, h., & trimi, s. (2022). towards a data science platform for improving sME collaboration through industry 4.0 technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121242 hardwick, J., & anderson, a. r. (2019). supplier-customer engagement for collaborative innovation using video conferencing: a study of sMEs. Industrial Marketing Management, 80, 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.02.013 henttonen, K., & lehtimäki, h. (2017). open innovation in sMEs: collaboration modes and strategies for commercialization in technology-intensive companies in forestry industry. European Journal of Innovation Management, 20(2), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJiM-06-2015-0047 hervás-oliver, J.-l., parrilli, M. D., rodríguez-pose, a., & sempere-ripoll, F. (2021). the drivers of sME innovation in the regions of the Eu. Research Policy, 50(9), 104316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104316 hessels, J., & parker, s. c. (2013). constraints, internationalization and growth: a cross-country analysis of European sMEs. Journal of World Business, 48(1), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.06.014 hewitt-Dundas, n. (2006). resource and capability constraints to innovation in small and large plants. Small Business Economics, 26(3), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-2140-3 22 r. naBovati Etal. ho, M., soo, c., tian, a., & teo, s. t. (2023). influence of strategic hrM and entrepreneurial orientation on dynamic capabilities and innovation in smalland medium-sized enterprises. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 42(5), 611–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/02662426231201761 hossain, M., & Kauranen, i. (2016). open innovation in sMEs: a systematic literature review. Journal of Strategy and Management, 9(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/JsMa-08-2014-0072 hottenrott, h., & lopes-Bento, c. (2014). (international) r&D collaboration and sMEs: the effectiveness of targeted public r&D support schemes. Research Policy, 43(6), 1055–1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.004 Jarillo, J. c. (1988). on strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 9(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250090104 Jespersen, K., rigamonti, D., Jensen, M. B., & Bysted, r. (2018). analysis of sMEs partner proximity preferences for process innovation. Small Business Economics, 51(4), 879–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9969-0 Jia, c., & Mustafa, h. (2022). a bibliometric analysis and review of nudge research using vosviewer. Behavioral Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 13(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13010019 Jones, s. l., Fawcett, s. E., wallin, c., Fawcett, a. M., & Brewer, B. l. (2014). can small firms gain relational advantage? Exploring strategic choice and trustworthiness signals in supply chain relationships. International Journal of Production Research, 52(18), 5451–5466. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.915068 Journeault, M., perron, a., & vallières, l. (2021). the collaborative roles of stakeholders in supporting the adoption of sustainability in sMEs. Journal of Environmental Management, 287, 112349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112349 Kahle, J. h., Marcon, É., Ghezzi, a., & Frank, a. G. (2020). smart products value creation in sMEs innovation ecosystems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 156, 120024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120024 Kang, K.-n., & park, h. (2012). influence of government r&D support and inter-firm collaborations on innovation in Korean biotechnology sMEs. Technovation, 32(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.08.004 Khurana, i., Dutta, D. K., & singh Ghura, a. (2022). sMEs and digital transformation during a crisis: the emergence of resilience as a second-order dynamic capability in an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Journal of Business Research, 150, 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.048 Kim, h., & so, K. K. F. (2022). two decades of customer experience research in hospitality and tourism: a bibliometric analysis and thematic content analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 100, 103082. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103082 Kogut, B., & Zander, u. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 lasagni, a. (2012). how can external relationships enhance innovation in sMEs? new evidence for Europe. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(2), 310–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2012.00355.x laursen, K., & salter, a. (2006). open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among u.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507 leckel, a., veilleux, s., & Dana, l. p. (2020). local open innovation: a means for public policy to increase collaboration for innovation in sMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, 119891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119891 lee, s., park, G., Yoon, B., & park, J. (2010). open innovation in sMEs—an intermediated network model. Research Policy, 39(2), 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.12.009 lefebvre, v. M., steur, h. D., & Gellynck, X. (2015). External sources for innovation in food sMEs. British Food Journal, 117(1), 412–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2013-0276 leiponen, a., & Byma, J. (2009). if you cannot block, you better run: small firms, cooperative innovation, and appropriation strategies. Research Policy, 38(9), 1478–1488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.06.003 lelah, a., Mathieux, F., Brissaud, D., & vincent, l. (2012). collaborative network with sMEs providing a backbone for urban pss: a model and initial sustainability analysis. Production Planning & Control, 23(4), 299–314. https://doi.or g/10.1080/09537287.2011.627660 lewis, K. v., cassells, s., & roxas, h. (2015). sMEs and the potential for a collaborative path to environmental responsibility. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(8), 750–764. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1843 lichtenthaler, u. (2008). open innovation in practice: an analysis of strategic approaches to technology transactions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1109/tEM.2007.912932 lin, h. w., nagalingam, s. v., Kuik, s. s., & Murata, t. (2012). Design of a global decision support system for a manufacturing sME: towards participating in collaborative manufacturing. International Journal of Production Economics, 136(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.07.001 lindström, t., & polsa, p. (2016). coopetition close to the customer—a case study of a small business network. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.06.005 lópez-robles, J. r., otegi-olaso, J. r., porto Gómez, i., & cobo, M. J. (2019). 30 years of intelligence models in management and business: a bibliometric review. International Journal of Information Management, 48, 22–38. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.013 March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https:// doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 Martin, D., romero, i., & wegner, D. (2019). individual, organizational, and institutional determinants of formal and informal inter-firm cooperation in sMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(4), 1698–1711. https://doi. org/10.1111/jsbm.12445 coGEnt BusinEss & ManaGEMEnt 23 Mei, l., Zhang, t., & chen, J. (2019). Exploring the effects of inter-firm linkages on sMEs’ open innovation from an ecosystem perspective: an empirical study of chinese manufacturing sMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144, 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.04.010 Mennens, K., van Gils, a., odekerken-schröder, G., & letterie, w. (2018). Exploring antecedents of service innovation performance in manufacturing sMEs. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 36(5), 500– 520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242617749687 Morgan, r. M., & hunt, s. D. (1994). the commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302 Muscio, a. (2007). the impact of absorptive capacity on sMEs’ collaboration. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(8), 653–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590600983994 nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, s. (1998). social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242. https://doi.org/10.2307/259373 narula, r. (2004). r&D collaboration by sMEs: new opportunities and limitations in the face of globalisation. Technovation, 24(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4972(02)00045-7 nieto, M. J., & santamaría, l. (2010). technological collaboration: Bridging the innovation gap between small and large firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(1), 44–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2009.00286.x nieto, M. J., & santamaría, l. (2007). the importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation, 27(6-7), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.10.001 noor, s., Guo, Y., shah, s. h. h., nawaz, M. s., & Butt, a. s. (2020). Bibliometric analysis of social media as a platform for knowledge management. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(3), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.4018/ iJKM.2020070103 okamuro, h. (2007). Determinants of successful r&D cooperation in Japanese small businesses: the impact of organizational and contractual characteristics. Research Policy, 36(10), 1529–1544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol. 2006.12.008 olander, h., hurmelinna-laukkanen, p., & heilmann, p. (2011). Do sMEs benefit from hrM-related knowledge protection in innovation management? International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(03), 593–616. https://doi. org/10.1142/s1363919611003453 parida, v., westerberg, M., & Frishammar, J. (2012). inbound open innovation activities in high-tech sMEs: the impact on innovation performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(2), 283–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540627X.2012.00354.x partanen, J., Kohtamäki, M., patel, p. c., & parida, v. (2020). supply chain ambidexterity and manufacturing sME performance: the moderating roles of network capability and strategic information flow. International Journal of Production Economics, 221, 107470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.08.005 patricio, J., axelsson, l., Blomé, s., & rosado, l. (2018). Enabling industrial symbiosis collaborations between sMEs from a regional perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 202, 1120–1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.230 pereira, r., & Franco, M. (2022). cooperation between universities and sMEs: a systematic literature review. Industry and Higher Education, 36(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422221995114 peris-ortiz, M., & Ferreira, J. J. (2017). cooperation and networks in small business strategy: an overview. in M. peris-ortiz & J. J. Ferreira (Eds.), Cooperative and networking strategies in small business (pp. 1–9). springer international publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44509-0_1 radziwon, a., & Bogers, M. (2019). open innovation in sMEs: Exploring inter-organizational relationships in an ecosystem. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.021 ragazou, K., passas, i., Garefalakis, a., & Dimou, i. (2022). investigating the research trends on strategic ambidexterity, agility, and open innovation in sMEs: perceptions from bibliometric analysis. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(3), 118. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030118 rashid, s., & ratten, v. (2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems during coviD-19: the survival of small businesses using dynamic capabilities. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 17(3), 457–476. https://doi.org/10.1108/wJEMsD-09-2020-0110 robert, F., Marques, p., & le roy, F. (2009). coopetition between sMEs: an empirical study of French professional football. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 8(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1504/iJEsB.2009.024103 robson, p. J. a., & Bennett, r. J. (2000). sME growth: the relationship with business advice and external collaboration. Small Business Economics, 15(3), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008129012953 rosenfeld, s. a. (1996). Does cooperation enhance competitiveness? assessing the impacts of inter-firm collaboration. Research Policy, 25(2), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(95)00835-7 ruivo, p., oliveira, t., & neto, M. (2015). using resource-based view theory to assess the value of Erp commercial-packages in sMEs. Computers in Industry, 73, 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2015.06.001 schulze-Ehlers, B., steffen, n., Busch, G., & spiller, a. (2014). supply chain orientation in sMEs as an attitudinal construct: conceptual considerations and empirical application to the dairy sector. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(4), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1108/scM-07-2013-0241 scuotto, v., Del Giudice, M., & obi omeihe, K. (2017). sMEs and mass collaborative knowledge management: toward understanding the role of social media networks. Information Systems Management, 34(3), 280–290. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10580530.2017.1330006