Perceived Value of IS Collaboration Support in an SME Ecosystem’s

Innovation Activity

Susanne Marx

, Michael Klotz

and Kurt Sandkuhl

Faculty of Business Studies, Stralsund University of Applied Sciences, Stralsund, Germany

Institute of Computer Science, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany

Keywords: Perceived Value, Open Innovation, SME Ecosystem, Collaboration Information System.

Abstract: Networks and ecosystems are involved in Open Innovation (OI) initiatives, their collaboration mediated by

technology. A central element of OI is the generation of value as perceived by involved actors. The paper

investigates how information systems supporting collaboration (CIS) facilitate the generation of perceived

value for OI participants. As multi-method qualitative research, the study uses interview and survey data

derived from an innovation activity jointly implemented by two small and medium-sized enterprises and their

ecosystem (ten participants), facilitated by two tools: video conferencing and online whiteboard software. The

findings suggest specific functionalities and characteristics of these tools to support the development of three

types of value: excellence, efficiency, and emotional value. The identified adverse impacts of the CIS

encourage providing transparent guidelines for behaviour when using the CIS for an ecosystem’s innovation

activity. The tools’ functionalities proved appropriate, with the Perceived Usefulness independent from prior

experience. The research advances the understanding of the role of technology in value generation in an

ecosystem’s innovation activity and supports practitioners in their decisions for digital support for OI. The

study is limited by its small, qualitative approach and focus on the ideation phase of innovation.

1 INTRODUCTION

Value provision is a central topic in open innovation

(OI) research (Chesbrough et al., 2018; Kazadi et al.,

2016; Tidd & Bessant, 2018), yet the role and design

of technology to support the generation of value in

innovation processes need to be further understood

(Chesbrough et al., 2018; Lusch & Nambisan, 2015).

Analyzing calls for future OI research, West &

Bogers (2017) identify network collaboration as a

topic, where the aspect of motivation and value as

perceived by the various actors partaking in OI

activities is relevant for designing such initiatives

(Chesbrough et al., 2018; Kazadi et al., 2016; West &

Bogers, 2014).

OI is “a distributed innovation process based on

purposively managed knowledge flows across

organizational boundaries” (Chesbrough & Bogers,

2014, p.17). Chesbrough et al. (2018) define value in

OI “as all actor-perceived consequences arising from

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3294-5351

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3841-0318

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7431-8412

the deployment of a resource in a process“ (p. 932).

Value is subjective (Lepak et al., 2007; Rivière &

Mencarelli, 2012); thus, the value perceived by the

actors involved in OI can differ. The concept of

perceived value originating from marketing literature

takes up this understanding (Holbrook 1999; Rivière

& Mencarelli 2012; Sweeney & Soutar 2001) which

we suggest applying to study the participation of

actors in OI initiatives.

Technology is applied to enable the participation

of actors belonging to networks and ecosystems in OI

initiatives (Lusch & Nambisan, 2015; Moore, 1993;

Perks et al., 2012; Radziwon & Bogers, 2018).

Although facilitating technology is acknowledged to

support innovation efforts in intra- and inter-

organizational settings (Abbate et al., 2019; Cui et al.,

2018; Scuotto et al., 2017), how specific

functionalities support individually perceived value

remains to be understood. The research presented in

this paper aims to contribute to filling this gap by

256

Marx, S., Klotz, M. and Sandkuhl, K.

Perceived Value of IS Collaboration Support in an SME Ecosystem’s Innovation Activity.

DOI: 10.5220/0011088600003179

In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2022) - Volume 2, pages 256-267

ISBN: 978-989-758-569-2; ISSN: 2184-4992

addressing the research question: How can

collaboration information systems facilitate value

generation in an innovation activity of a small and

medium-sized enterprise (SME) network’s

ecosystem? The term collaboration information

systems (CIS) denotes a category of information

systems (IS) dedicated to supporting collaborative or

group work (cf. section 2.3). The exploratory study

applies a multi-method research design using

interview and survey data collected from an

innovation activity of two SMEs and representatives

from their ecosystem. The results aim to both increase

the understanding of the role of CIS for the generation

of value for participants and support practitioners in

their decisions on digital support for OI initiatives.

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Perceived Value in Innovation

Activities

The consequences of innovation activities shall be

studied beyond the direct innovation output, the value

proposition that generates revenue, argue several

authors (e.g. Burdon et al., 2015; Reypens et al.,

2016; Sjödin et al., 2020; Westergren, 2011).

Reypens et al. (2016) state that “traditional firm-level

outcomes such as patents or market share no longer

fully represent the range of value created for diverse

stakeholders in a network” (p. 40). This shift from the

single firm view toward the value derived for various

stakeholders is especially apparent for OI initiatives,

where “we need to investigate value as the motivating

factor for participation in both outside-in and inside-

out open-innovation projects“ (Chesbrough et al.,

2018, p. 931). Participants in OI initiatives attribute,

e.g., time resources for which a consequence results:

the actor specific value (Chesbrough et al., 2018).

Value depends on the perception of the beneficiary

(Edvardsson & Tronvoll, 2013; Grönroos, 2011;

Lusch & Nambisan, 2015; Nardelli & Broumels,

2018; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2003; Rubalcaba et

al., 2012; Vargo & Lusch, 2016).

The term perceived value stems from marketing

literature, investigating consumers' perceived value

of market offerings (Holbrook 1999; Rivière &

Mencarelli 2012; Sweeney & Soutar 2001). A market

offering could be a service defined “as the application

of specialized competences (knowledge and skills)

through deeds, processes, and performances for the

benefit of another entity or the entity itself.“ (Vargo

& Lusch, 2004, p. 2). The participation of various

actors in OI activities of firms could be interpreted as

a mutual service, with the firm creating the

opportunity for participation, the actors applying their

specific competencies, thus consuming the offering of

the innovation activity providing their time resources.

For their competencies and time resources, they

achieve actor specific value (Chesbrough et al.,

2018). We, therefore, suggest analyzing the

participation in the innovation activity via the concept

of perceived value.

A typology for perceived value is suggested by

Holbrook (1999), distinguishing extrinsic versus

intrinsic value as well as self- and other-oriented.

Coutelle-Brillet et al. (2014) adapt Holbrook’s

structure suggesting six different value categories:

excellence, efficiency, emotional, social,

altruistic/ethical value, and interactional value,

stemming from the interaction of the actors. As the

present research investigates a joint innovation

activity of various actors, we assume that most value

experiences relate to interaction with others, which is

why we see it not as a separate category but inherent

to the other value types. For this research, we describe

the following perceived value categories with

examples inspired from (Chesbrough et al., 2018;

Coutelle-Brillet et al., 2014; Mahr et al., 2014)

displayed in

Figure 1:

• Excellence value: A means to an end, to achieve a

goal (e.g., results achieved, knowledge acquired,

money received) (“one admires … some

experience for its capacity to accomplish some

goal or to perform some function” (Holbrook,

1999, p. 15), “derived from the utility

characteristics, quality, performance, and

“excellence” of the offer” (Coutelle-Brillet et al.,

2014, p. 166)

• Efficiency value: Ratio of outputs to inputs, e.g.,

time savings, convenience, monetary

compensation versus resources (“measured as a

ratio of outputs to inputs” (Holbrook, 1999, p. 13)

• Emotional value: Feelings, emotional, or affective

reaction including play and aesthetics/beauty for

its own sake, e.g., enjoyment, the fun of

challenges, being part of something important

(“derived from the feelings or emotional and

affective states elicited by a product” (Coutelle-

Brillet et al., 2014, p. 166), unites the concepts of

play: “self-oriented experience - actively sought

and enjoyed for its own sake” (Holbrook, 1999, p.

18) and aesthetics/beauty: “aesthetic value in

general or beauty in particular is that it is enjoyed

purely for its own sake” (Holbrook, 1999, p. 20)

• Social value: Status or esteem to be gained from

others, e.g. improving own image or reputation

("relates to building a self-image that an

Perceived Value of IS Collaboration Support in an SME Ecosystem’s Innovation Activity

257

individual reflects to 'others' (Coutelle-Brillet et

al., 2014, p. 166), unites the categories status and

esteem to be gained from others (Holbrook,

1999))

• Ethical value: For the benefit of "others", e.g.

good citizenship (“ethics involves doing

something for the sake of others” (Holbrook,

1999, p. 21))

Holbrook also counts spirituality, a value by

adoration of, e.g., a Divine Power, which we consider

non-relevant in the field of industry and is not subject

in Coutelle-Brillet et al. (2014).

Figure 1: Typology of perceived value based on Holbrook

(1999) and Coutelle-Brillet et al. (2014).

2.2 Networks and Ecosystems in

Innovation Activities

Networks have been increasingly discussed since the

1990ies (Sydow, 2003), yet, the term is not uniformly

defined (Provan et al., 2007). The terms network (e.g.

Sydow, 2003) and network organization (Moretti,

2017) are used synonymously and distinguished from

the organizational entity of the network administrative

organization (Provan & Kenis, 2007). Sydow (2003)

identifies a network as a form of cooperation within or

between relatively autonomous organizations or units,

tied in a net of relations. Moretti (2017) defines in a

similar direction yet focusing the inter-organizational

perspective: “The network organization is constituted

by autonomous and independent organizations (or

individuals acting on behalf of the organization), which

are connected by enduring and repeated exchange

relationships, and which may or may not pursue a

collective common goal“ (p. 24). Interorganizational

networks are rarely researched for initiating OI (Sydow

& Müller-Seitz, 2020).

The term ecosystem has gained considerable

attention in innovation and service-related literature

(Lusch & Nambisan, 2015; Moore, 1993; Perks et al.,

2012; Radziwon & Bogers, 2018). In 1993, Moore

suggested looking at the business ecosystem

collaborating for innovation to gain an advantage

competing with other business ecosystems. Radziwon

and Bogers (2018) define four elements of such an

ecosystem: co-evolution, interdependencies,

orchestration, and proximity. The definition of a

service ecosystem by Lusch & Nambisan (2015)

instead focusses the self-containing aspect as a

possible distinction from a network: “relatively self-

contained, self-adjusting system of mostly loosely

coupled social and economic (resource-integrating)

actors connected by shared institutional logics and

mutual value creation through service exchange.” (p.

162). Following this definition, we conclude that

relations are consciously built with a set of mainly

organizational actors engaged in repeated relations

for a network, while an ecosystem is broader in terms

of individual actors of mutual influence. Despite the

attention to the ecosystem view in innovation, Kazadi

et al. (2016) conclude that "few studies consider firms

that simultaneously include a diverse set of

stakeholders in their innovation projects" (p. 525).

We conclude that an organization might engage in

innovation activities in organizational networks yet

also involve a broader ecosystem.

While Fasnacht (2018) claims that there is

“evidence that the most effective innovators

succeeded because of their creative communities

where a community consists of individuals or a group,

interconnected through a digital platform” (p. 144),

the design of such IT support is recommended for

further research (Chesbrough et al., 2018; Lusch &

Nambisan, 2015).

2.3 Information Systems in Innovation

Activities

As part of the service innovation framework, Lusch

and Nambisan (2015) regard information technology

(IT) as an enabler and facilitator in the process of

value creation across a network of actors. In an

empirical study, Cui et al. (2018) confirmed that IT-

enablement in the inter-organizational innovation

process supports OI performance measured by

innovativeness and speed to market. Scuotto et al.

(2017) also found a positive relationship between the

use of information and communication technologies

for facilitating communication, information

exchange, and workflow and the innovation

performance in SMEs. Abbate et al. (2019) research

an OI platform used for knowledge co-creation in a

B2B regional network in Italy, concluding that such a

platform has to provide support for specific services

in the innovation process, such as identifying and

relating to participants or facilitating collaboration.

While functionalities seem to be investigated to some

extent, understanding how IS supports the

development of the perceived value of different

participants in innovation activities remains to be

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

258

further understood. Different categorizations of IS

have been proposed in the literature (see, e.g., Laudon

and Laudon 1988)). The category in the focus of work

is IS supporting collaborative work in an

organization. The term collaborative information

systems (CIS) will be used for this category (see also

Lehner et al., 2008) that is strongly related to

groupware systems and computer-supported

collaborative work (CSCW) (Rodden, 1991)).

To investigate this aspect of technological

support, we use selected constructs and items of the

technology acceptance model TAM3 (Venkatesh &

Bala, 2008), widely used and well-accepted

(Marangunić & Granić, 2015), and the D&M IS

Success Model (DeLone & McLean, 2003). The

TAM3 constructs in focus for our research project are

Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and

Behavioral Intention, which shall help understand the

benefit of the used digital platform to support the

innovation activity across an SME ecosystem.

Perceived Ease of Use affects both Perceived

Usefulness and Behavioral Intention. This effect is

moderated by experience, in that with increasing

experience with the information system for Perceived

Usefulness, the effect becomes stronger, while for

Behavioral Intention, the effect becomes weaker

(Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). Therefore, we assume that

with a different level of experience of applied systems

facilitating the innovation activity, the results of the

selected constructs differ significantly in favour of the

system for which participants have prior experience.

The construct relevant to understanding value in

the updated D&M IS Success Model (DeLone &

McLean, 2003) are the net benefits, later adapted to

net impacts (DeLone & McLean, 2016). DeLone and

McLean (2016) define net impacts as “the extent to

which information systems are contributing (or not

contributing) to the success of individuals, groups,

organizations, industries, and nations" (p. 11). The

understanding of net impacts would also allow

negative impacts. Our research focuses on the

individual participants, the group (ecosystem) and the

organizations (the SMEs); we approach identifying

net impacts on these levels.

2.4 Research Question

Given the importance of CIS facilitating the value

creation in innovation processes, the value

individually perceived by the actors involved might

help decide for IS solutions to attract participants into

OI activities. We, therefore, ask: How can

collaboration information systems facilitate value

generation in an innovation activity of an SME

network’s ecosystem? We break this question down

into the following sub-questions: To which types of

perceived value can the CIS contribute? What

functionalities and characteristics of the CIS

contribute to the perceived value perceived by the

actors? Do the Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived

Usefulness, and Behavioral Intention differ with

previous CIS experiences?

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

We conducted an exploratory, multi-method

qualitative study to assess the perceived value of IS

support in an ecosystem's innovation activities. To

understand the perception of net impacts of IS, semi-

structured interviews and a survey on the selected

TAM3 constructs were applied. Although the data

collection technique of the survey might qualify as

quantitative, we still regard it as a qualitative study

due to the small sample size and for its purpose as an

additional amendment to the interview data. The

study is embedded in a case study of a heterarchical

network. Case studies are recommended for

researching innovation (Elsahn et al., 2020) and are

suitable to answer "how"-questions with limited

control over the environment in which the research is

conducted (Yin, 2006).

Table 1: Description of participants (company: A – B;

status: O – Owner, E – Employee, F – Family/Friend; work

experience: O - < 1 year, F - 1 to 5 years, S - 6 to 10 years,

T - > 10 years; experience: y – yes, b – basic, n – no).

Participant

No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SME AAAAA B B B BB

Status to

owner SME

O E E F F O E F E E

Work

erience

T T T T O T S T N T

Interview

in minutes

23 15 17 17 23 19 14 15 18 20

Experience

VC Zoo

y y y y y y y y y y

Experience

OW Mural

n n n b n b n n n b

The sampling technique combined self-selection

and snowball sampling (Saunders et al., 2009). Two

self-selected tour operator SMEs engaged in a

heterarchical network invited four representatives

from their respective ecosystems for a joint

innovation activity. This joint innovation activity was

facilitated online by the CIS Zoom (video

conferencing (VC)) and Mural (online whiteboard

Perceived Value of IS Collaboration Support in an SME Ecosystem’s Innovation Activity

259

(OW)). The tourism sector seemed appropriate

because of its networked nature, and further research

on innovation in this industry is recommended

(Hjalager, 2010; Rubalcaba et al., 2012). Ten

individuals participated in the study: the two owners,

five employees (one freelancer), and three belonging

to the group family/friend. The snowball sampling by

the SME owners resulted in no participation of

customers. Although some respondents were also

customers of the SME, they considered their primary

relationship to the SME owner differently. Most

participants had work experience of over ten years

(Table 1). All participants had prior experience with

the VC Zoom. Before the joint online innovation

activity, they were introduced to the OW Mural’s

functionalities by a short demonstration of about five

minutes.

3.1 Interviews

Ten interviews were conducted in April 2021,

between three and seven days after the joint online

innovation activity. Each interview had a length of 14

to 23 minutes. Based on the construct of net impacts

(DeLone & McLean, 2016), we asked three questions

regarding the CIS support: How did the CIS

contribute (or not contribute) to the success of

• your individual participation in the innovation

activity?

• the collaboration with the other participants in the

innovation activity?

• the joint innovation activity for the SME(s)?

The semi-structured interviews were recorded

and transcribed. For the qualitative analysis, we

followed the six-step-process for systemic focused

interview analysis with MAXQDA (Kuckartz &

Rädiker, 2020):

• Prepare the data and explore

• From the interview structure to the category

system

• Coding interviews (Basis)

• Coding (Detailed)

• Analysis

• Documentation

The first level categories were derived

deductively based on the perceived value constructs

Figure 1. The second and third levels were

identified inductively how the IS supported these

types of value. Kuckartz and Rädiker (2020)

recommend using methods for improving coding

quality instead of working with coefficients such as

Krippendorff's Alpha, especially applying intracoder-

testing earliest two weeks after initial coding, which

we performed 21 days after initial coding.

3.2 Survey

The survey investigated selected TAM3 constructs

measured using a 7-point Likert scale (Venkatesh &

Bala, 2008). The items for Perceived Usefulness

relate to the purpose of use in original to the “job” in

general of the user (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). In our

case, we focus on the Perceived Usefulness for the

innovation activity that might instead be part of a

task, not necessarily of the participant's job. Thus, the

items were adapted for that purpose (Table 2). The

study was implemented with German SMEs requiring

translation of the TAM3 items. For the translation, we

applied the method of back translation (Douglas &

Craig, 2007), translating from the original to the

target language, in our case German, and then

translating back by a different bilingual person to the

original language (Douglas & Craig, 2007; Sinaiko &

Brislin, 1973), in our case by a professional translator.

The questionnaire was pre-tested to ensure its

comprehensibility (Behr, 2017; Douglas & Craig,

2007) by two bilingual persons, one assisted and one

un-assisted by the researchers, while the wording was

adapted accordingly.

Table 2: Selected constructs and items based on Venkatesh

and Bala (2008, pp. 313-314) – adaptations in italic.

Perceived Usefulness

- Using the system improves my performance in my

job.  Using the system improves my participation

in the online innovation event.

- Using the system in my job increases my

productivity.  Using the system in the online

innovation event increases my productivity.

- Using the system enhances my effectiveness in my

job.  Using the system enhances my effectiveness

in the online innovation event.

- I find the system to be useful in my job.  I find the

system to be useful for participating in the online

innovation event.

Perceived Ease of Use

- My interaction with the system is clear and

understandable.

- Interacting with the system does not require a lot of

my mental effort.

- I find the system to be easy to use.

- I find it easy to get the system to do what I want it

to do.

Behavioral Intention

- Assuming I had access to the system, I intend to use

it.

- Given that I had access to the system, I predict that

I would use it.

- I

lan to use the s

stem in the next <n> months.

The items from TAM3 (Table 2) are measured

separately for both IS. We then analyze differences

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

260

between the two software tools used, hypothesizing

that the VC reaches higher results on the selected

TAM3 constructs than the OW. With n≤10, the data

is considered a small sample for which no normal

distribution can be assumed, and nonparametric tests

are preferable (Stiefl, 2018). The Wilcoxon signed-

rank test is applied to analyze the data from a paired

sample when no normal distribution can be assumed

(King et al., 2011; Schulz, 2019; Siegel, 1956; Stiefl,

2018; Wilcoxon, 1946). The test relies on a minimum

of 5 paired data sets (Schulz, 2019). For small

samples of n≤25, specific critical values for the test

statistic T apply (Siegel, 1956). The significance level

α is set to 0.05.

To measure the effect size, we apply the matched-

pairs rank biserial correlation coefficient (King et al.,

2011; Tomczak & Tomczak, 2014), that calculates

with the test statistic only, not via the z-value as in

other approaches (Field, 2013; Schulz, 2019):

𝑟



4 𝑇 −



𝑅



+ 𝑅







𝑛



𝑛+1



Ties are those pairs in the test statistic T that show

no difference and reduce n in the Wilcoxon signed-

rank test. Varying interpretations are found in the

literature on the n of the effect size for the test, e.g.,

generally the number of pairs (Marschall and

Marquier, n.d.), the sample size (Fritz et al., 2012;

Mayr et al., 2017; Rosenthal, 1994), or the number of

observations (Field, 2013; Tomczak and Tomczak,

2014). We apply n as the number of pairs including

ties, as they could be interpreted as reducing the

effect. The effect size can thus only reach 1.0 if all

pairs deviate in the same direction and no ties are

amongst the samples. R is interpreted (Cohen, 1988):

small effect size r = .1, medium effect size r = .3,

large effect size r = .5. Due to the small sample size,

distribution was not determined, preventing a

meaningful power analysis (Rasch et al., 2014).

4 RESULTS

4.1 Interviews

The interviews identify three value categories

supported by the two software tools used in the case

study innovation activity - the VC and the OW:

excellence, efficiency, and emotional value (Table 3).

In general, more detailed replies were given for the

OW since the VC was already known and such

common practice to all participants, making it difficult

for them to identify specific positive or negative

impacts, as this software seemed fundamental to them

to enable them collaborative work online.

Overall, it can be said that the combination of VC

and OW seemed sufficient and appropriate, supporting

various forms of perceived value. A few items were

identified as having adverse effects as well.

Table 3: Value categories supported by CIS in innovation

activity (unit = number of interview transcripts, n = 10).

Value categor

VC OW Both

EX – Excellence value

EX - Results achieved online

Sim

lifies documentation 1 4 -

Visualizes ideas - 3 -

EX - Work performed online

Supports decision making - 2 -

Enables synchronous individual wor

- 4-

Enables synchronous group

collaboration

1 2 -

Enables asynchronous group

collaboration

- 4 -

EX - Ne

ative

Reduced creativity - 1 -

Not increasing creativit

- 1 -

EF - Efficienc

value

EF - Time savin

Is technicall

reliable 1 1 -

Provides overview - 3 -

Supports moderation - 5 -

Standardizes - 1 -

EF - Limited in

ut re

uired

Is eas

to use 2 3 -

Is well known 1 1 -

EF - Negative

Distraction by using two CIS 1 - 1

Distraction b

simultaneous wor

- 1 -

Time effort new s

stem - 1 -

Uncertaint

1 - -

EM - Emotional value

EM - Seriousness

Fosters politeness - - 1

orts commitment - 1 -

EM - Belon

rou

orts interaction with others - 1 -

Visualizes others' work in progress - 3 -

EM - Play

Uses fun icons - 1 -

orts interactivit

(

entertainment

)

- 2-

EM - Ex

ress and

erceive emotions

Supports non-verbal communication 8 - -

Supports verbal communication 4 - -

EM - Negative

Perceived non-seriousness 2 - -

Personal dislike - 1 -

No advanta

e - 1 -

Lack of intuitive feeling - - 1

Lack of commitment - - 1

Perceived Value of IS Collaboration Support in an SME Ecosystem’s Innovation Activity

261

Excellence value is attributed to using a service or

tool to an end and achieving a goal. Here, we

identified that the CIS is used to achieve results of the

innovation activity and the work performed in a group

online due to the dispersion of the participants. The

CIS supports this value by enabling documentation of

results and the visualization of ideas. It both supports

individual work, synchronous and asynchronous

group collaboration, and decision-making processes

with the group.

Possible adverse effects on the value caused by

the CIS could be reducing or at least not increasing

creativity, thus potentially diminishing the results

achieved.

Efficiency value considers attributed outputs

versus inputs, with efficiency value in this research

stemming from time savings and limited required

input. Time savings by applying the CIS result from

a technically reliable system that is stable throughout

the interaction, standardizes how participants provide

input, allows a moderator to provide guidance, and

provides an overview of tasks. The limited input

required is based firstly on the perceived ease of use

of the CIS and secondly on prior knowledge of the

CIS. Possible adverse effects on the value of applying

the CIS is the time effort to learn a new system.

Another effect stems from using two systems in

parallel, e.g., by switching devices or the software

displayed in several windows. Using two CIS might

even result in uncertainty if participant contributions

have been made in the correct system and can be seen

by other participants. Additional clarification might

cost extra time. The OW, which visualizes the work

of other participants simultaneously, might also cause

distraction.

For the intrinsic emotional value, four value codes

have been identified: the expression and perception of

emotions, belonging to the group, play, and

seriousness. The CIS supporting the display of

emotions beyond voice is perceived to generate value,

by firstly allowing to see other participants in general

to get a personal impression, but also more

specifically to display mimic and gestures oneself, yet

also to interpret these of others to get a better feeling

for what a person means and feels. Nevertheless, this

functionality has to be taken with care. The VC

transmitting non-work-related activities has caused a

perceived non-seriousness by other participants,

potentially reducing motivation for their engagement.

The observed behavior might be explained by the

different backgrounds of participants mixed from

work and the personal background of the SME

entrepreneurs, thus seeing their participation as either

work or leisure. However, seriousness was

established as a factor for emotional value, with CIS

fostering polite behavior of participants, e.g., by not

interrupting, raising hands, and making contributions

tangible by visualizing them. Thus, the aspect of

seriousness is relevant to participants, yet the

contribution of CIS is discussed contradictory. The

CIS fosters the value factor of belonging to a group

or establishing a group feeling. It helps to interact

with others to have the feeling of collaborative group

work, which is appreciated, but also the CIS

visualizes what others work on. This sense of activity

visualized by the CIS drives motivation and a feeling

of being part of a group. A final aspect is play, where

the CIS uses, e.g., fun icons, but mainly supports

interactivity of various kinds perceived as

entertaining. Apart from the perceived lacking

seriousness, other aspects potentially harming

emotional value are an unspecific personal dislike, or

seeing no direct advantage, a felt lack of commitment

as participants could easily drop out of the online

activity, and, despite video transmission, a lack of

feeling for the group.

The frequency of third level categories was only

counted once per interview (Table 3). The

functionalities mentioned most frequently

unprompted and unweighted by the interviewees

were:

• supporting non-verbal and verbal

communication for emotional value,

• allowing moderation, giving an overview, and

being easy to use for efficiency value,

• enabling both group collaboration and

individual work and documentation for

excellence value.

Negative impacts seemed relatively rare in terms of

frequency, with only one to two mentions. We

identified some contradictions of positive and

negative impacts. While a respondent said CIS

increases commitment, another claimed it reduces it.

As discussed before, the same applies for distraction

versus improved guidance or supporting seriousness

versus non-seriousness. From these findings, we

conclude that not only do perceptions of value differ

but also the effect CIS has on them.

Other-oriented value categories (SO - Social

Value, ET - Ethical value) could not be identified in

this study, although generally possible. Ethical value

could be data privacy, e.g., allowing a background

picture in the VC or a warning when recording starts,

but the interviewees mentioned neither. Social value

could be the display of badges, qualifications, or

titles, but the interviewees did not mention it.

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

262

Table 4: Means and Wilcoxon signed-rank test of the two software tools (Pairs: ET – excl. ties, IT – incl. ties).

Construct Mean Pairs Result Wilcoxon signed-rank test Eff. size r

incl. ties

VC OW ET IT

Perceived Ease of

Use

6.45 5.20 8 10 Reject one-tailed null-hypothesis for negative ranks,

means VC > OW. (T = 0)

0.65

Perceived

Usefulness

5.55 5.40 9 10 Accept null hypothesis. (T = 20)

Behavioral

Intention

6.17 4.43 7 10 Reject one-tailed null-hypothesis for negative ranks,

means VC > OW. (T = 2)

0.44

4.2 Survey

While agreement on the items for the selected TAM3

constructs on the VC is high on all constructs 5.37-

6.45 mean), it is less but still rather considerable on

the OW (4.43-5.40 mean), treating the Likert scale as

ordinal for calculating the mean (Table 4).

Performing the Wilcoxon signed-rank test as

described in 3.2, the null hypothesis must be accepted

for the Perceived Usefulness construct. There is no

significant difference in the VC and the OW

evaluation.

For the Perceived Ease of Use and Behavioral

Intention constructs, the one-tailed null hypothesis

must be rejected, with a medium to high effect of the

significant difference (r

=0.65 and 0.44), supporting

a significantly higher agreement with the VC.

Therefore, although demonstrating general

acceptance of these software tools in facilitating the

innovation activity, the VC is perceived as easier to

use with a higher intention of future usage.

5 DISCUSSION

The CIS prove to be an enabler for the inter-

organizational innovation activity in line with Cui et

al. (2018) and the generation of perceived value.

Based on the perceived value model (Coutelle-Brillet

et al., 2014; Holbrook, 1999), we identify extrinsic

and intrinsic value types supported by the CIS, yet,

only self-, but not other-oriented value. While this

result is limited by the small sample, from this study,

we conclude that CIS support is facilitating self-

oriented value types: excellence, efficiency, and

emotional value.

Specific functionalities can be attributed to help

build perceived value. Apart from facilitating

communication and collaboration in general (Abbate

et al., 2019; Scuotto et al., 2017), we could attribute

these functionalities to perceived value categories,

with excellence value derived by documentation,

visualization of ideas, and decision-making

functionalities, efficiency value by technical

reliability, providing an overview, standardization,

moderation, ease of use, and former CIS experience,

and emotional value by supporting seriousness, group

identification, play, and transmission of emotions in

the communication process. The study showed that

not only is value subjective (Lepak et al., 2007;

Rivière & Mencarelli, 2012) but also how the CIS

supports the establishment of perceived value in the

innovation activity individually, with single

functionalities mentioned ranging in frequencies

between one to seven.

In line with the understanding net impacts of CIS

(DeLone & McLean, 2003, 2016), both positive and

negative impacts were found. Special consideration

needs to be given to emotional value that CIS can both

support and harm. Extending the view from a network

of organizations (Moretti, 2017; Sydow, 2003;

Sydow & Müller-Seitz, 2020) with professionals

towards an ecosystems view (Lusch & Nambisan,

2015; Moore, 1993; Perks et al., 2012; Radziwon &

Bogers, 2018) mixes profit-oriented and non-profit-

oriented actors (Kazadi et al., 2016). The observed

behavior of participants partly in their private

environment might harm emotional value. Thus,

beyond giving instructions on how to use the CIS,

further guidelines are needed on the effects and

functionalities of the CIS for other users, e.g., what

data the CIS transmits.

Both software tools used in the innovation activity

received mean values above the midpoint for the

TAM3 constructs of Perceived Ease of Use,

Behavioral Intention, and Perceived Usefulness

(Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) despite the different

experience levels for both CIS. All participants knew

the VC before and were thoroughly familiar with it;

while 70% did not know the OW before, 30% had

basic experiences. We found a significant difference

in Perceived Ease of Use between the systems, which

might be explained by experience moderating the

Perceived Value of IS Collaboration Support in an SME Ecosystem’s Innovation Activity

263

effect of various determinants to this construct

(Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). The higher experience

was expected to strengthen the effect of Perceived

Ease of Use on Perceived Usefulness (Venkatesh &

Bala, 2008), implying that with a significantly higher

Perceived Ease of Use of the VC, the Perceived

Usefulness should also be significantly higher with an

even more significant effect. Despite the difference in

experience, the construct of Perceived Usefulness did

not produce significantly different results. This might

be explained by other influencing determinant

factors, e.g., image, job relevance, or output quality,

that were not part of this study. However, it might also

be affected by participants' motivation to join an OI

activity, where the value of improving skills might

extend towards getting to know new CIS, an

expectation that the SME owners had for the online

innovation activity. The overall positive results in the

TAM3 constructs for both CIS applied in the

innovation activity confirm the overall suitability of a

VC and OW to support such online innovation

activity. We conclude that while prior experience

with the CIS might impact the Perceived Ease of Use

and with that the Behavioral Intention, the Perceived

Usefulness seems independent from prior experience.

Although limited by the small example from

which we cannot generalize the descriptive findings,

we propose a causal model based on the qualitative

data in line with (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2020) (Figure

2). The functionalities and characteristics of the CIS

applied in an innovation activity with an ecosystem

seem to facilitate the generation of individually

perceived excellence, efficiency, and emotional

value.

6 CONCLUSIONS

CIS enable innovation activities of networks and their

ecosystem members. Their functionalities facilitate

the achievement of participants' perceived value, a

central element in OI research (Chesbrough et al.,

2018; Kazadi et al., 2016; Tidd & Bessant, 2018).

Understanding this value can help to attract

participants to OI initiatives. Although CIS is

accepted to bring about innovation activities among

many participants, its selection potentially impacts

the perceived value. The selection should be guided

towards enabling excellence, efficiency, and

emotional value, yet, with functionalities strictly and

only suiting the task at hand, amended by behavioral

guidelines for the participants. The most suitable

software can only unfold its value-generating effect

when applied by the participants in a beneficial way,

thus, confirming the understanding of the digital

facilitation in the innovation activity as an

information system, inextricably linking technology

and behavior (Hevner et al., 2004).

Figure 2: Contribution of CIS to perceived value in

innovation activities in a network ecosystem

Contribution to Theory: This study contributes to

the understanding of how technology and its

functionalities and characteristics can support the

generation of perceived value in a network

ecosystem’s innovation activity, thus both advancing

the knowledge about technology’s role (Chesbrough

et al., 2018; Lusch & Nambisan, 2015) but also to the

strand of research on OI in networks (West & Bogers,

2017). The identified perceived value types of

efficiency, excellence, and emotional value supported

by specific software tools functions can help

understand actors' motivation for participating in OI

initiatives facilitated by information technology. We

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

264

propose a link of the information system

functionalities to the identified three types of

perceived value and demonstrate how specific

software functionalities can contribute to the

perceived value for OI participants. We suggest that

in the setting of OI, participants' prior experience with

software is independent of Perceived Usefulness.

Contribution to Practice: Practitioners are

informed about the digital facilitation of potential OI

initiatives. The selection of the two software

products, a VC and an OW, proved sufficient to

support the ecosystem's innovation activity. The use

of established tools familiar to the participants is

recommendable, yet other systems that appear easy to

use can help drive value generation. The tools should

be as few as possible, accompanied with clear

guidance on how to use them and how to behave

appropriately in digitally facilitated activities,

especially when involving people from work and

personal backgrounds. The most important

characteristics for choosing digital tools to support

value generation in an OI innovation activity are:

video streaming, ease of use, support both individual

and group work, and document achieved results.

Limitations: The research is based on a small

sample involving two companies from a network with

selected representatives from their ecosystems,

summing up to ten participants. The qualitative study

provides exploratory insights yet needs further

empirical research for generalization. The study is

also limited by the two types of software used in the

innovation activity, and this activity focuses only on

the ideation stage of the innovation process.

Future Research: Future work is recommended in

two directions extending the reliability of the

findings: extending the number of participants and

extending the research to further stages of the

innovation process.

REFERENCES

Abbate, T., Codini , A. P. & Aquilani, B. (2019).

Knowledge co-creation in Open Innovation Digital

Platforms: processes, tools and services. Journal of

Business and Industrial Marketing, 34(7), 1434-1447.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-09-2018-0276

Behr, D. (2017). Assessing the use of back translation: the

shortcomings of back translation as a quality testing

method. International Journal of Social Research

Methodology, 20(6), 573-584. https://doi.org/10.1080/

13645579.2016.1252188.

Burdon, S., Mooney, G. R. & Al-Kilidar, H. (2015).

Navigating service sector innovation using co-creation

partnerships. Journal of Service Theory and Practice,

25(3), 285-303. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-08-2013-

0164

Chesbrough, H., Lettl, C. & Ritter, T. (2018). Value

Creation and Value Capture in Open Innovation.

Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(6),

930-938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12471

Chesbrough, H. & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating Open

Innovation: Clarifying an Emerging Paradigm for

Understanding Innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W.

Vanhaverbeke & J. West J (Eds.), New Frontiers in

Open Innovation (pp. 3-28). Oxford University Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the

Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Coutelle-Brillet, P., Riviere, A. & des Garets, V. (2014).

Perceived value of service innovation: A conceptual

framework. Journal of Business and Industrial

Marketing, 29(2), 164-172. https://doi.org/10.1108/

JBIM-04-2012-0066

Cui, T., Wu, Y. & Tong, Y. (2018). Exploring ideation and

implementation openness in open innovation projects:

IT-enabled absorptive capacity perspective.

Information and Management, 55(5), 576-587.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.12.002

DeLone, W. H. & McLean, E. R. (2003). Model of

information systems success: A ten-year update.

Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-

30. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914199107

DeLone, W. H. & McLean, E. R. (2016) Information

Systems Success Measurement. now Publishers Inc.

Douglas, S. P. & Craig, C. S. (2007). Collaborative and

iterative translation: An alternative approach to back

translation. Journal of International Marketing, 15(1),

30–43. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.15.1.030

Edvardsson, B. & Tronvoll, B. (2013). A new

conceptualization of service innovation grounded in S-

D logic and service systems. International Journal of

Quality and Service Sciences, 5(1): 19-31.

https://doi.org/10.1108/17566691311316220

Elsahn, Z., Callagher, L., Husted, K., Korber, S. & Siedlok,

F. (2020). Are rigor and transparency enough? Review

and future directions for case studies in technology and

innovation Management.

R and D Management, 50(3),

309-328. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12412

Fasnacht, D. (2018) Open Innovation Ecosystems: Creating

New Value Constellations in the Financial Services

(2nd ed.). Springer.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS

Statistics. SAGE Publications.

Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E. & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size

estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1),

2-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024338

Grönroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A

critical analysis. Marketing Theory, 11(3): 279-301.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593111408177

Hevner, A. R., March, S.T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004).

Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS

Quarterly, 28(1): 75-105. https://doi.org/10.2307/251

48625

Perceived Value of IS Collaboration Support in an SME Ecosystem’s Innovation Activity

265

Hjalager, A. M. (2010). A review of innovation research in

tourism. Tourism Management, 31(1), 1-12.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.012

Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Consumer Value : A Framework

for Analysis and Research. Taylor & Francis Group.

Kazadi, K., Lievens, A. & Mahr, D. (2016). Stakeholder co-

creation during the innovation process: Identifying

capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple

stakeholders. Journal of Business Research, 69(2),

525-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.009

King, B. M., Rosopa, P. J. & Minimum, E. W. (2011).

Statistical Reasoning in the Behavioral Sciences (6th

ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Kuckartz, U. & Rädiker, S. (2020). Fokussierte

Interviewanalyse Mit MAXQDA. Springer.

Laudon, K. C. & Laudon, J. P. (1988). Management

Information Systems. Macmillan.

Lehner, F., Wildner, S., & Scholz, M. (2008).

Wirtschaftsinformatik: eine Einführung. Hanser

Verlag.

Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G. & Taylor, M. S. (2007). Value

creation and value capture: A multilevel perspective.

Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 180-194.

https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.23464011

Lusch, R. F. & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: A

service-dominant logic perspective. MIS Quarterly:

Management Information Systems, 39(1), 155-175.

https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.1.07

Mahr, D., Lievens, A. and Blazevic, V. (2014). The value

of customer cocreated knowledge during the innovation

process. Journal of Product Innovation Management,

31(3), 599-615. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12116

Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology

acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to

2013. Universal Access in the Information Society,

14(1), 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-

0348-1

Marschall E & Marquier B (n.d.) Wilcoxon Signed Rank

Test in SPSS. Sheffield Hallam University and

University of Sheffield.

Mayr, S., Erdfelder, E. & Buchner, A. (2017). G Power 3.1

manual. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for

Psychology.

Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and Prey: A new ecology of

Competition. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 75-

88.

Moretti, A. (2017). The Network Organization: A

Governance Perspective on Structure, Dynamics and

Performance. Palgrave Macmillan.

Nardelli, G. & Broumels, M. (2018). Managing innovation

processes thorugh value co-creation: A process case

from Business-to-Business service practice.

Interantional Journal of Innovation Management,

22(3), 1850030. https://doi.org/10.1142/S136391961

8500305

Perks, H., Gruber, T. & Edvardsson, B. (2012). Co-creation

in radical service innovation: A systematic analysis of

microlevel processes. Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 29(6), 935-951. https://doi.org/10.1111/

j.1540-5885.2012.00971.x

Prahalad, C. K. & Ramaswamy, V. (2003). The new

frontier of experience innovation. MIT Sloan

Management Review, 44(4), 12-18.

Provan, K. G. & Kenis, P. (2007). Modes of Network

Governance: Structure, Management, and

Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-252.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015

Provan, K. G., Fish, A. & Sydow, J. (2007).

Interorganizational networks at the network nevel: A

review of the empirical literature on whole networks.

Journal of Management, 33(3): 479-516.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307302554

Radziwon, A. & Bogers, M. (2018). Open innovation in

SMEs: Exploring inter-organizational relationships in

an ecosystem. Technological Forecasting and Social

Change, 146(May 2018), 573-587.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.021

Rasch, B., Friese, M., Hofmann, W. & Naumann, E. (2014).

Quantitative Methoden. Band 2 (4th ed.). Springer.

Reypens, C., Lievens, A. & Blazevic, V. (2016).

Leveraging value in multi-stakeholder innovation

networks: A process framework for value co-creation

and capture. Industrial Marketing Management,

2016(56), 40-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.indmarman.2016.03.005

Rivière, A. & Mencarelli, R. (2012) Towards a Theoretical

Clarification of Perceived Value in Marketing.

Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English

Edition), 27(3), 97-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/

205157071202700305

Rodden, T. (1991). A survey of CSCW systems. Interacting

with Computers, 3(3), 319-353.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0953-5438(91)90020-3

Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric Measures of Effect Size.

In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges LV (Eds.), The Handbook

of Research Synthesis (pp. 231–244). Russell Sage

Foundation.

Rubalcaba, L., Michel, S., Sundbo, J., Brown, S. W. &

Reysono, J. (2012). Shaping, organizing, and rethinking

service innovation: A multidimensional framework.

Journal of Service Management, 23(5), 696-715.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231211269847

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research

Methods for Business Students (9th ed.). Pearson

Education.

Schulz, S. (2019). Grundlagen der medizinischen Statistik

für Gesundheitsberufe. In R. Haring (Ed.)

Gesundheitswissenschaften (pp. 61–75). Springer.

Scuotto, V., Santoro, G., Bresciani, S & Del Giudice, M.

(2017). Shifting intra- and inter-organizational

innovation processes towards digital business: An

empirical analysis of SMEs. Creativity and Innovation

Management,

26(3), 247-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/

caim.12221

Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric Statistics for the

Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill.

Sinaiko, H. W. & Brislin, R. W. (1973). Evaluating

language translations: Experiments on three assessment

ICEIS 2022 - 24th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

266

methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 328-

334. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034677

Sjödin, D., Parida, V., Kohtamäki, M. & Wincent, J. (2020).

An agile co-creation process for digital servitization: A

micro-service innovation approach. Journal of Business

Research, 112(June 2019), 478-491.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.009

Stiefl, J. (2018) Wirtschaftsstatistik (3rd ed.). De Gruyter.

Sweeney, J. C. & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived

value: The development of a multiple item scale.

Journal of Retailing, 77(2): 203-220.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0

Sydow, J. (2003). Editorial – Über Netzwerke,

Allianzsysteme, Verbünde, Kooperationen und

Konstellationen. In J. Sydow (Ed.), Management von

Netzwerkorganisationen (pp. 1-6). Gabler Verlag.

Sydow, J. & Müller-Seitz, G. (2020). Open innovation at

the interorganizational network level – Stretching

practices to face technological discontinuities in the

semiconductor industry. Technological Forecasting

and Social Change, 155(June 2020), 119398.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.036

Tidd, J. & Bessant, J. (2018). Innovation Management

Challenges : From fads to fundamentals. International

Journal of Innovation Management, 22(5), 1840007.

https://doi.org/10.1142/s1363919618400078

Tomczak, M. & Tomczak, E. (2014). The need to report

effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some

recommended measures of effect size. Trends in Sport

Sciences, 1(21), 19–25.

Vargo, S. L. & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New

Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing,

68(January), 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.

1.24036

Vargo, S. L. & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms:

an extension and update of service-dominant logic.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5-

23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3

Venkatesh, V. & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance

Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions.

Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x

West, J. & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources

of innovation: A review of research on open innovation.

Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4),

814-831. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12125

West, J. & Bogers, M. (2017). Open innovation: current

status and research opportunities. Innovation:

Management, Policy and Practice, 19(1), 43-50.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1258995

Westergren, U. H. (2011). Opening up innovation: The

impact of contextual factors on the co-creation of IT-

enabled value adding services within the manufacturing

industry. Information Systems and e-Business

Management, 9(2), 223-245. https://doi.org/

10.1007/s10257-010-0144-2

Wilcoxon, F. (1946). Individual comparisons of grouped

data by ranking methods. Journal of economic

entomology, 39(6), 269. https://doi.org/10.1093/

jee/39.2.269

Yin, R. K. (2006) Case Study Research - Design and

Methods. SAGE Publications.

Perceived Value of IS Collaboration Support in an SME Ecosystem’s Innovation Activity

267