The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1355-2554.htm

IJEBR
29,1 The influence of digital
entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial orientation
80 on intention of family businesses
Received 12 February 2022
Revised 21 April 2022
to adopt artificial intelligence:
22 May 2022
Accepted 22 May 2022 examining the mediating role
of business innovativeness
Nitin Upadhyay
IT Systems and Analytics, Indian Institute of Management Jammu, Jammu, India
Shalini Upadhyay
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, BITS Pilani - K K Birla Goa Campus,
Zuarinagar, India
Mutaz M. Al-Debei
Department of Business Analytics Technology, Al-Ahliyya Amman University,
Amman, Jordan and
Business School, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
Abdullah M. Baabdullah
Department of Management Information Systems,
Faculty of Economics and Administration, King Abdulaziz University,
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and
Yogesh K. Dwivedi
Emerging Markets Research Centre (EMaRC), School of Management,
Swansea University, Swansea, UK and
Symbiosis Institute of Business Management,
Pune and Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Swansea, India

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to investigate the adoption intention of artificial intelligence (AI) in family
businesses through the perspectives of digital entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship orientation.
Design/methodology/approach – The study examines contributing factors explaining the adoption
intention of AI in the context of family businesses. The developed research model is examined and validated
using structural equation modelling based on 631 respondents’ data. Purposeful sampling is used to collect the
respondents’ data.
Findings – The proposed model included two endogenous (i.e. business innovativeness and adoption
intention) and six exogenous variables (i.e. affordances, culture and flexible design, entrepreneurial orientation,

International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Declarations of interest: none
Research The authors would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief, Guest Editor and anonymous reviewers for their
Vol. 29 No. 1, 2023
pp. 80-115 careful reading of our manuscript and their many insightful comments and suggestions. The authors
© Emerald Publishing Limited would like to acknowledge and thank their respective institutes for providing a conducive environment
1355-2554
DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-02-2022-0154 to undertake the study.
generativity, openness and technology orientation) through ten direct paths and three indirect paths. The The intention
results depicted the significant influence of all the exogenous variables on the endogenous variable reflecting
support of all the hypotheses. The business innovativeness partially mediates the relationships of culture and of family
flexible design, entrepreneurial orientation and technology orientation with adoption intention. Further, the businesses
results demonstrated a model variance of 24.6% for business innovativeness and 64.2% for adoption intention
of artificial intelligence in the family business.
Research limitations/implications – The study contributes to theoretical developments in entrepreneurship
and family business research and AI’s theoretical progress, especially to digital entrepreneurship.
Originality/value – Theoretically, it contributes to the literature of entrepreneurship, particularly digital 81
entrepreneurship. Additionally, the research model adds to the role of entrepreneurial orientation and digital
entrepreneurship in the emerging family entrepreneurship literature. Considering the scarcity of research in
this field, the empirically validated model explaining critical antecedents of AI adoption intention in the family
business is a foundation for discussion, critique and future research.
Keywords Family business, Digital entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurial orientation, Artificial intelligence,
Technology adoption, Business innovativeness
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Growth in the digital economy is disrupting all sorts of businesses, and for them to stay relevant
in the market, they need to be more perceptive and agile (PwC, 2019). In the digital economy, all
kinds of businesses are witnessing several strategic, financial and operational implications due
to technological innovations and digital transformations (Ali et al., 2022; Kitsios and
Kamariotou, 2022; Kraus et al., 2019a, b; Kraus et al., 2022; Nambisan et al., 2019; Olanrewaju
et al., 2020). Even the most significant global businesses have now entered the digital economy
space, leaving aside the functioning of the core industrial sector (Sebastian et al., 2017; KPMG,
2017). Businesses are finding ways to innovate the products or services continuously (Malik
et al., 2021). In addition, businesses are redefining consumer value creation and decision-making
by embracing various digital technologies (Upadhyay et al., 2021). Emerging technologies such
as artificial intelligence (AI), cloud, the Internet of things and big data are now being
appreciated by businesses worldwide (European Commission, 2017) that help them to (re)shape
(traditional) businesses, strategies, operations and models (Hradecky et al., 2022; Bag et al.,
2021). However, various regulatory, operational and technological changes affect business
growth and competitiveness (PwC, 2019). Amidst all changes within and across the borders,
family businesses remain attractive to the market segment. Surprisingly, despite family
businesses dominating the economic landscape, accounting for two-thirds of the business
worldwide, there is a scarcity of research on family business contributions in the digital space.
Moreover, these businesses generate annual gross domestic product (GDP) of 70–90% and
provide 50–60% of jobs in most countries worldwide (Family Firm Institute, 2017).
As per the KPMG (2017) report, two out of three top concerns of family businesses are
digitalization and innovation. Emerging economies in the last few years have experienced a
diffusion of digital technology and services in non-family and family businesses (Family Firm
Institute, 2017). Additionally, research demonstrates family businesses’ high economic and
financial performance than non-family businesses (PwC, 2019). According to World Bank’s
Global Economic Prospects report (WB, 2019), India is considered the fastest-growing major
emerging economy globally. In India, the growth in the family businesses towards the digital
economy continues to grow. Moreover, family businesses thrive to remain competitive and
aspire to contribute to India’s economic resurgence in the digital economy. Indian family
businesses contribute in terms of performance and numbers to the economy (Kean et al., 2021).
According to the McKinsey report, family businesses with a dominating figure of more than 60%
in the Indian companies’ landscape have revenue of more than $1 billion (Bjornberg et al., 2014).
The opportunity space of AI in disruptive businesses at all levels, including operational,
strategic contributing to competitive advantage and enhanced performances, is immense
IJEBR (Borges et al., 2021; Dwivedi et al., 2021; Johnson et al., 2022; Werle and Laumer, 2022).
29,1 Scholars argue that AI dominance is evident in shaping the businesses and marketplace
(Makridakis, 2017). Prior research reports (for example, KPMG, 2017) that emerging
technologies offer both opportunities and challenges to businesses. However, family
businesses tend to differ in response to entrepreneurial opportunities and challenges
compared with non-family businesses (Konig et al., 2013). Moreover, new opportunities for
developing entrepreneurial ventures, activities and pursuits in the digital entrepreneurship
82 space can be explored (Giones and Brem, 2017; Nambisan et al., 2019). Therefore, family
businesses must improve their entrepreneurial orientation to sustain themselves and
compete in the fiercely competitive environment and rapidly changing technological
innovation landscape (Cenamor et al., 2019). Moreover, emerging economies are pacing
towards market-based policies (Boso et al., 2013). However, businesses operating in such an
environment face strategic, operational and financial turbulences (Ivanov and Sokolov, 2013).
Hughes (2018) argues that despite the potential benefits of emerging technologies (for
example, AI) in businesses, businesses from emerging economies remain sceptical about their
adoption, usage and usefulness. Prior research address factors such as lack of commitment and
support of top management, lack of business innovativeness, the poor orientation of
technology, lack of conducive culture and flexible environment that may account for such
scepticism (Akhtar et al., 2019; Duan et al., 2019). Previous studies argue on building a firm’s
innovativeness for strategizing capabilities, including product expansion and diversity, design
flexibility and customer satisfaction (Jantunen et al., 2012). Further, a firm’s technological
orientation enables them to attain technological advancements to offer effective services and
products. Family businesses are contemplating, adopting and exploiting new sources of
competitive advantage by embracing emerging technological innovations (PwC, 2019).
However, there is a paucity of research in understanding how family businesses are
carrying out digital transformations by exploring and embracing emerging technological
innovations in the digital entrepreneurship space. Family business scholars have to explore
and address the digital transformational landscape of family businesses to unfold their
development and growth levers. Scholars and practitioners argue that as compared to any
other known technologies, AI surpasses all the outcome expectations and opportunities space
(Makridakis, 2017). Even family businesses witness market-fit viable and potent
opportunities to explore and exploit AI (Marr and Ward, 2019). Family businesses to
exploit it for their competitive advantage and develop a market leadership position have to
explore vital factors to adopt and use AI. However, there is a paucity of research in the family
business to explore and exploit AI (Basly and Hammouda, 2020). As such, novel theorizing on
the adoption of AI in the family business is indeed required (Nambisan et al., 2019; Sussan and
Acs, 2017).
Organizations benefit from strategic connections, collaborations and collective
intelligence in driving entrepreneurial activities and projects by adopting and deploying
novel digital technologies (Anderson, 2014). Besides, technological adoption alters the digital
entrepreneurship space’s organizational business processes, operations, offerings and
business models. Zaki (2019) observes manifestation and organizational transformations (for
example, outside-in) through digital entrepreneurship. However, George and Marino (2011)
and Baker and Sinkula (2009) argue that entrepreneurially oriented organizations redefine
industry configurations and organizational forms and initiate innovative projects to shape
market offerings for their advantage at a faster pace. D€orner and Edelman (2015) argue that
every business, including family firms, has to identify, explore and re-examine the way of
doing business in the digital entrepreneurship space. Additionally, businesses need to
understand the new and novel ways of capturing, generating and delivering business values
by leveraging digital technologies. Scholars and practitioners argue that AI provides novel
opportunities to transform the marketplace and business and entrepreneurial activities (Le
Dinh, Vu and Ayayi, 2018; von Briel et al., 2018; Verma et al., 2021). However, Kraus et al. The intention
(2019a, b) and Nambisan (2017) argue that little has been explored in identifying digital of family
technologies’ role in driving entrepreneurial ventures, activities and pursuits in the extant
research in entrepreneurship and family business. Additionally, though AI’s digital
businesses
entrepreneurship is vital in undertaking and operationalizing entrepreneurial pursuits and
ventures, family firms are still contemplating emerging technologies adoption and usage
(PwC, 2019). As such, the major objective of the research is to examine the role that
entrepreneurial orientation and digital entrepreneurship play for the family business in 83
adopting AI. Although there are multiple technology adoption models, many factors drive the
adoption of technology. Therefore, it is paramount to unfold driving factors related to AI
adoption in the family business by developing a novel theoretical adoption intention model,
family business artificial intelligence (FBAI), explaining the adoption intention of AI in the
family business. We consider two important theoretical perspectives: digital
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial orientation to examine the adoption intention of
family businesses towards AI. Therefore, the article intends to answer the following research
questions:
(1) What factors determine the adoption intention of AI in the family business?
(2) To what extent entrepreneurial orientation and digital entrepreneurship explain the
family business adoption intention of AI?
We first describe the vital factors and contributing model that explains the adoption intention
of AI in family businesses. Then we empirically test and validate the model based on the
respondents’ data from the Indian family businesses. To the best of our knowledge, the
present research is the first to throw light on the adoption intention of AI in the context of
family businesses. We propose advancements in AI theoretical progress (Dwivedi et al., 2021;
Upadhyay et al., 2021), specifically in the family business, through the perspectives of
entrepreneurial orientation and digital entrepreneurship.
We, therefore, propose several contributions in the domain of family businesses and
digital entrepreneurship. First, we explore the digital entrepreneurship and AI intersection.
Second, we gather and examine vital factors explaining the adoption intention of AI in family
businesses. Third, we contribute to examining digital entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial
orientation, technology orientation, business innovativeness and culture and flexible design
in family businesses. Finally, we develop insights and a valuable stream of research in
response to the call by Nambisan et al. (2019) and Basly and Hammouda (2020).
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides theoretical
background followed by hypothesis development. Next, Section 3 elaborates on the research
methodology, followed by the results in Section 4. Next, Section 5 provides discussion on
findings emerged from this research investigation covering theoretical implications,
implications for practice, limitations and future research directions. Finally, conclusion in
presented in Section 6.

2. Theoretical background, hypothesis development and research model

2.1 Digital entrepreneurship and artificial intelligence
Hughes (2017) and The Guardian (2017) mention that digital technology associated with
products and services offerings include the digital element (software or hardware), application
or content connecting people, machines and information. Moreover, by attaining information
decoupling in physical products, growth in digital services is evident (Islam et al., 2020).
Anderson (2014) observes entrepreneurial activities and projects benefitting from the diffusion
of digital technologies providing connection, collaboration and collective intelligence
mechanisms. Organizations are altering their business processes, operations, offerings and
IJEBR business models in the digital entrepreneurship space. However, existing research in
29,1 entrepreneurship and family business lacks in exploring the role of digital technologies in
entrepreneurial ventures, activities and pursuits (Kraus et al., 2019a, b, Nambisan, 2017). Kraus
et al. (2019a, b) argue that research on digital entrepreneurship is scarce and still in the infancy
stage. Soltanifar and Smailhodzic (2021) discuss the requirement of a digital entrepreneurial
mindset to venture and explore new market opportunities in a digitized world. In our
understanding, digital entrepreneurship focuses on leveraging digital technologies, tools or
84 business models to explore and exploit entrepreneurial pursuits and opportunities. Digital
entrepreneurship reshapes business and communication with emerging and disruptive
technologies in the digital space (Rodrigues and Franco, 2021).
Digital entrepreneurship paves the way for organizations to unfold the opportunities,
enable and transform entrepreneurial processes, operations, activities, pursuits and business
models by leveraging digital technologies (Davidson and Vaast, 2010; Asghari and Gedeon,
2010). Markus and Loebecke (2013) observe attainment of substantial business value by
exploring opportunities leveraging digital technologies. Digital entrepreneurship can
manifest and transform organizations (for example, outside-in) by enabling new and
robust business models and generating new and novel customer experiences (Zaki, 2019).
Organizations have to evaluate, assess, explore and exploit the digital technologies for their
appropriation and use (Zaki, 2019; Christensen et al., 2015). Investigating the family business
intention of digital technologies is vital to understanding the digital entrepreneurship space.
Digital technologies impact all types of firms’ business models, the value chain, processes
and digital capabilities (Zaki, 2019; Gurbaxanin and Dunkle, 2019). D€orner and Edelman
(2015) argue that every business, including family firms, have to identify, explore and re-
examine the way of doing business and understand the new ways of capturing, generating
and delivering business values by leveraging digital technologies. Among many emerging
and disruptive technologies, scholars and practitioners argue that AI is a ground-breaking
technology having novel opportunities to transform the marketplace, business and pursuing
entrepreneurial activities (Le Dinh, Vu and Ayayi, 2018; von Briel et al., 2018; Verma et al.,
2021). AI contribution in business and personal landscape is evident. For example,
recommendations, voice assistants, face and biometric recognitions are well-known solutions.
Additionally, AI’s digital entrepreneurship is vital in undertaking and operationalizing
entrepreneurial pursuits and ventures. Scholars discuss AI developments into two forms:
symbolic AI and neural AI. Organizations leverage symbolic AI as a support system as it has
simple rule-based intelligence encompassing symbols to trigger the learning process. Whole
business logic rule-based thinking makes symbolic-AI systems more easily understandable and
practicable. As such, symbolic-AI systems are heavily used to automate business processes.
While neural-AI systems are based on self-learning processes to generate meaningful patterns
where algorithms and data become vital. Organizations have to consider both business and
technical perspectives to examine and consider AI for its appropriateness and use (Agrawal et al.,
2018). Lee et al. (2019) discuss the potential impact of AI in entrepreneurial pursuits in venture
creation, exploration and exploitation phase. For example, AI contributes to expediting the data
collection, sensing and analysing markets, positioning and targeting the markets, and managing
the entrepreneurial activities and engagements (Loebbecke and Picot, 2015). Even AI contributes
to the organizations’ strategic implications by transforming and (re)-creating (novel) business
models. Loebbecke and Picot (2015) and Agrawal et al. (2018) observe AI influence on
organizations business models at all levels by providing support, assistance and driving
functionalities. While AI-driven functionality develops new and novel business models, AI-
support and AI-assist functionality affects business model components and operational activities.
Family businesses show interest in AI appropriateness and use it to unlock the potential of
business models and entrepreneurial pursuits (Lee et al., 2019).
2.2 Entrepreneurial orientation The intention
Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) enables firms to explore new market opportunities and of family
venture into uncharted spaces (Boso et al., 2013) via developing innovativeness, culture,
capabilities, competitive aggressiveness, openness and flexibility (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996).
businesses
The firms’ entrepreneurial orientation quite often snowballs from the top management and
needs the support of the firms’ adequate use of resources (Engelen et al., 2015; Yadav et al.,
2021). It reflects a firm’s ability to explore new markets operationalize opportunity-seeking
behaviour that develops capabilities to offer new and novel products and services (Boso et al., 85
2013; Dubey et al., 2020). Baker and Sinkula (2009) argue that entrepreneurially oriented
organizations can redefine industry configurations and organizational forms to shape market
offerings for their advantage. George and Marino (2011) argue that entrepreneurially oriented
organizations are adept in risk-taking in exploring new opportunities. Kellermanns and
Eddleston (2006) mention that family business entrepreneurial orientation is often rare
though it is valuable. Parveen et al. (2015) consider EO vital for organizations competing in
the digital space. EO acts as a supportive force to adopt emerging technologies, enable
adaptiveness towards market dynamics, drive competitiveness and develop a propensity to
exhibit risk-taking behaviour and initiate innovative projects (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). As
an emerging and disruptive technology, AI requires family firms to act entrepreneurially and
accept uncertain outcomes (George and Marino, 2011; Parveen et al., 2015). We argue that
family firms influence the adoption of emerging technologies to shape business propositions
when they are entrepreneurially oriented (George and Marino, 2011).

2.3 Construct mapping

Nambisan (2017) discuss the significance of openness, generativity and affordance factors for
digital technologies to drive digital entrepreneurship. Digital technology openness
determines participation, contribution and outcome levels for business value. Additionally,
it identifies actors who can participate and contribute (level of access and processes) to attain
the outcomes for innovation and business value (Rothwell et al., 1974). Another factor, the
“affordance” of digital technology provides an actor with potential actions and possibilities in
a specific context (Gibson, 1979). Finally, the digital technology’s generativity factor offers to
large unrelated and uncoordinated entities/actors possibilities of incorporating unprompted
change (Turner and Fauconnier, 1997). As such, AI technology’s factors, such as affordances,
generativity and openness, are vital for the family business exploring the adoption of AI
technology.
Gurbaxani and Dunkle (2019) advise relooking at the organization’s culture and workforce
flexibility (Votto et al., 2021) to map the evolving digital business context with the
organizations’ vision and strategies. Additionally, digital entrepreneurship requires a
transformation of cultural aspects to ensure flexibility, agility and openness for smooth
functioning. Organizational culture reflects the groups and their manifestation around
underlying technology. Chrisman, Chua and Litz (2003) mention that family firms are
different and unique from non-family firms as the presence of family dynamics influences the
culture and vision of the firms (Singal and Gerde, 2015, p. 12). The shared values of firms
might violate the adoption of new technology. As such, Cooper (1994) advises firms to
examine their inertia when an organization’s culture conflicts with the technology. Culture is
manifested by digital transformation considering the digital technological appropriateness
for the organization is accountable for (re)defining business value chain, business models and
engagements. Concerning the family business, Lambrechts et al. (2017) argue that culture and
flexibility though they play a vital role in the adoption of digital technologies, they have not
been addressed appropriately, and the phenomenon is evident specifically in family small-
and-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Andriole and Stephen (2018) advise considering
IJEBR cultural values to reinvent business offering and support. Lopez-Fernandez et al. (2015) argue
29,1 alongside a family business culture, technology orientation towards the digital technology for
attaining desired business values and novelty in the offerings becoming paramount. For
example, a firm’s technology orientation describes its ability to recognize and adapt to
emerging technologies that help develop improved and new products and services.
Costa, Lages and Hortinha (2015) argue that firms that are strong in technology orientation
perform well in the marketplace and can resolve issues about regulators, policies, clients and
86 employees.
Further, Salojarvi et al. (2015) argue that firms that exhibit appropriate technology
orientation can adapt to dynamic market changes and accumulate enormous knowledge for
their sustained advantage. Alongside technology orientation, firms’ business innovativeness
helps them to exploit resources and develop new ideas by incorporating new and innovative
technologies and best practices for competitive advantage. Wang and Ahmed (2004) mention
a firm’s innovativeness is the ability to be ready to embrace a shift from its current usage of
technologies and practice to adopting new and novel technologies for venturing into a new
marketplace or developing new products and services. Firms that are innovative can (re)
define and shape business models, processes and entrepreneurial pursuits. It contributes to
the heterogeneity that affects the propensity to adopt new and emerging technologies and
innovations family (Calabro et al., 2018). As such, culture and flexibility, technology
orientation and business innovativeness play a vital role in adopting AI technology in family
businesses.
Table 1 presents the vital factors to developing the novel model for family business’ AI
adoption intention.

2.4 Hypothesis development

2.4.1 Generativity. The digital technology generativity depicts its capability to actualize
changes by involving large dissimilar and uncoordinated entities/actors (Doanld, 1991;
Turner and Fauconnier, 1997). Organizations operationalize their creativity and
entrepreneurial pursuits leveraging technology generativity (Zittrain, 2006, 2008).
Lyytinen et al. (2017) discuss technology generativity considers digital artefacts, digital
platforms, digital infrastructures, digital ecosystems attributing to digital transformation for
value creation. AI generativity in application programming interfaces facilitates
heterogeneous innovation cutting across multiple domains and interests. Organizations
keen on building and utilizing AI-supported, assisted and driven products and services need
to examine its operational and strategic implications (Upadhyay et al., 2021). Additionally,
several factors, such as IP rights, data privacy, safety and security, might affect AI
generativity. As such, family businesses considering AI inclusion in business examine AI
generativity at all levels. We argue that the generativity of AI is critical for family business
intention to adopt it. Therefore, we posit the following hypothesis:
H1. Generativity of AI in digital entrepreneurship influences the adoption intention of AI
in the family business.
2.4.2 Openness. Openness depicts technology’s ability to support and facilitate actors’
interaction, contribution, participation, operationalizing processes and specific outcomes. It
implies actors who can participate, what and how they contribute to generate outcomes.
Hughes (2017) and The Guardian (2017) mention that digital technology associated with
products and services offers various ways via digital elements (software or hardware),
application or content connecting people, machines and information to attain business value.
Moreover, digital technology enabled platforms (Tiwana, 2014) and technological ecosystems
facilitate and support governance, collaboration, joint decision-making and co-creation of
Factors Description Theorizing space
The intention
of family
Openness It refers to technology’s ability to support Theorizing Digital Entrepreneurship businesses
and facilitate actors’ interaction, Openness theorizing (Rothwell et al., 1974)
contribution, participation, AI and openness (Upadhyay et al., 2021)
operationalizing processes and specific
outcomes. It implies actors who can
participate, what and how they contribute 87
to generate outcomes
Affordance It depicts an object’s potential Theorizing Digital Entrepreneurship
possibilities and actions offered to the Theorizing sociomaterial aspects (Faraj
user in a specific context. It means that and Azad, 2012)
affordance arises from the contextual Theorizing affordances (Gibson, 1979)
relationship of the user and object where a Leonardi (2011)
user observes potential allowable actions AI and affordances (Upadhyay et al., 2021)
for achieving a goal
Generativity It depicts digital technology capability to Theorizing Digital Entrepreneurship
actualizing changes considering Theorizing generativity (Doanld, 1991)
involvement of large dissimilar and Theorizing conceptual integration (Turner
uncoordinated entities/actors and Fauconnier, 1997)
AI and generativity (Upadhyay et al., 2021)
Entrepreneurial “One that engages in product-market Theorizing Eentrepreneurial Orientation
orientation innovation, undertakes somewhat risky (Miller, 1983)
ventures and is first to come up with
‘proactive’ innovations, beating
competitors to the punch” (p. 771)
Technology It refers to the “organization’s capability Gatignon and Xuereb (1997)
orientation to recognize and adapt to new
technologies”
Business It refers to the “organization’s capabilities (Seyfang and Smith, 2007; Bamgbade et al.,
innovativeness to explore and exploit new market 2019)
opportunities by leveraging new
technologies, policies and best practices
for competitive advantage within the
industry and globally”
Culture and flexible It refers to “social or normative glue that Theorizing Organization culture,
design holds a firm together and that expresses Technology and flexible work (Cooper,
the values or social ideals and beliefs 1994; Bamgbade et al., 2019; Iivari and
which firm’s members come to share”. Huisman, 2007; Dettmers et al., 2013;
Also, showcase ability of firm’s to “adapt Smircich, 1983) Table 1.
to changing demands and to allocate the Factors for the family
work force to the varying requirements business’ AI adoption
configuring shared values” intention

values (Wareham et al., 2014). As such, the openness appropriateness of the technology
enables firms to innovate by leveraging connection, collaboration and collective intelligence
mechanisms (Anderson, 2014). Benlian, Hilkert and Hess (2015) argue that technology
openness contributes to platform and business ecosystems innovation. Moreover, openness
in technology’s standards and interfaces facilitates value creation (Tiwana, 2014).
AI’s flexible and open application programming interfaces and standards facilitate firms
to develop new and novel products and services, collaborate and co-create business values
(Upadhyay et al., 2021). Considering family businesses, they all see the potential of AI
openness in scale and degree to support, assist and drive family businesses. For example,
family businesses can expand their reach and be more inclusive in decision-making and
governance by leveraging AI openness. Therefore, we posit the following hypothesis:
IJEBR H2. Openness of AI in digital entrepreneurship influences the adoption intention of AI in
29,1 the family business.
2.4.3 Affordances. Affordance depicts an object’s potential possibilities and actions offered to
the user in a specific context. It means that affordance arises from the relationship between the
user and object in a context where a user observes potential allowable actions for achieving a
goal (Leonardi, 2011). Additionally, it does not deal with the state or action after actualizing an
88 action rather it focuses on the potential action (Strong et al., 2014). Affordances of systems and
technology influence organizational and entrepreneurial pursuits. When observing a great level
of affordance from a particular technology, organizations get involved in developing and
rolling new and novel products and services (Strong et al., 2014). Affordance becomes a vital
factor in technology adoption (Faraj and Azad, 2012). Usage of similar digital artefacts,
platforms or infrastructure does not generate similar outcomes. However, using such in a
specific context can generate, capture and deliver values (Nambisan, 2017; Nambisan et al.,
2019). The digital technologies show affordance via their synergetic features and functions to
support products and services. As AI is used to support, assist and drive businesses, its
affordance understanding is essential to examine and explore potential actions. Emerging
technologies, such as AI, shape, establish and strengthen relationships among objects and
entities in a use context. Therefore, we posit the following hypothesis:
H3. Affordances of AI in digital entrepreneurship influences the adoption intention of AI
in the family business.
2.4.4 Technology orientation. Technology orientation refers to the organization’s capability to
recognize and adapt to emerging technologies. Gatignon and Xuereb (1997) argue that
technology-oriented firms exhibit a strong tendency to be ready to experiment with new
technologies and develop new products. Family businesses with technology orientation
prioritize new technologies in shaping and developing business offerings. Costa, Lages and
Hortinha (2015) argue that technology oriented firms can resolve issues related to technology,
regulators and legal concerns and client. Concerning family business, we argue that
technology orientation towards AI to explore and exploit it in supporting, assisting and
driving business values (operationally and strategically) becomes prominent. Family
businesses exhibiting strong technology orientation will adopt new and novel technologies,
such as AI. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
H4. Family business technology orientation towards AI in digital entrepreneurship
influences the adoption intention of AI in the family business.
Organizational technology orientation is vital in developing new ideas, products, processes
and systems (Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Zhou et al., 2005). Organizations that proactively
participate and adopt and utilize new, novel and advanced technologies might contribute to
improved business innovations. This is due to their emphasis on using them to meet customer
requirements and be competitive in the market (Cooper, 1994). The organizational level of
technology orientation influences its ability to attain business innovativeness. Family
businesses can leverage technology orientation to advance and improve business
innovativeness. As such, we posit the following hypothesis:
H5. Family business technology orientation towards AI in digital entrepreneurship
influences business innovativeness.
2.4.5 Culture and flexible design. An organization’s culture refers to “the social or normative
glue that holds an organization together and expresses the values or social ideals and beliefs
that organization members come to share” (Cooper, 1994). An organization’s culture is vital for
technological advancements, developing products and services, exploring opportunities and
attaining business values. Gurbaxani and Dunkle (2019) advise checking and (re) aligning an The intention
organization’s culture and workforce flexibility with the ever-increasing dynamics of the digital of family
business context. It implies organizations have to transform their culture to respond to new and
innovative developments. Samara and Terzian (2021) advocate that cultural flexibility as
businesses
necessary to operationalize digital entrepreneurship. Organizational culture is a powerful
unifying force that promotes agreement, understanding of procedures and practices in a shared
manner. As such, organizational culture reflects the groups and their manifestation around
underlying technology. Chrisman, Chua and Litz (2003) argue that culture dynamism is more 89
prevalent in the family business than in non-family business (Singal and Gerde, 2015, p. 12),
which might influence the adoption of new technologies. As such, Cooper (1994) discusses
relooking at people, tasks and structure when an organization’s culture conflicts with
technology. Samara and Terzian (2021) discuss the significant role of culture and flexibility in
accelerating the digital transformation to (re)define business value chain, business models and
engagement. Concerning the family business, we argue that culture and flexible design aspects
affect the adoption of emerging technology, such as AI.
H6. Family business culture and flexible design in digital entrepreneurship influences
the adoption intention of AI in the family business.
As business innovativeness is vital for the organization’s success, several scholarly research
studies focus on identifying its determining factors (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010).
Organization culture and design emerged as the most influential factor in the earlier
studies (Mumford, 2000). Organizational culture and flexible design can encourage business
innovativeness among the workforce because it drives them toward accepting business
innovativeness as an organizational philosophy. Earlier research studies provide enough
evidence to establish relationships between organization culture and flexible design and
business innovativeness (B€ uschgens et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2013; Naranjo-Valencia et al., 2016;
Rezaei et al., 2018; Uzkurt et al., 2013). Therefore, we posit the following hypothesis:
H7. Family business culture and flexible design in digital entrepreneurship influences
business innovativeness in the family business.
2.4.6 Entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurial orientation depicts organizational tendency
in exploring potential opportunities (Boso et al., 2013) via developing supportive capabilities,
such as pro-activeness, innovativeness, risk-taking, opportunity-seeking, autonomy and
competitive aggressiveness (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). The management team needs to
understand and be ready to respond to the changes thrown by digital technology. Additionally,
they have to be cognizant of the interactions and relationships dynamics of the customers with
the firms and the products and services (Berman, 2012; Hughes, 2017). Naman and Slevin (1993)
argue that entrepreneurial orientation facilitates the organization to innovate and adapt to the
competitive market environment. Organizations, through business innovativeness, create
value for themselves, clients and consumers (Weerawardena, 2003) by developing new ideas,
products and processes. In this regard, organizations have to continuously sense the
environment’s dynamism and seek the opportunity to participate and compete in the market
(Preda, 2013). As such, entrepreneurial orientation reflects how organizations have to leverage
the market opportunities either proactively or conservatively. Therefore, Rauch et al. (2009)
argue that organizations can generate business innovation by considering entrepreneurial
orientation as a strategic decision-making process. For that reason, by developing and
improving entrepreneurial orientation, business innovativeness can be improved (Beekman
et al., 2012) as one of its key activities is to develop new ideas, products, systems and processes.
Therefore, we posit the following hypothesis:
IJEBR H8. Family business entrepreneurial orientation in digital entrepreneurship influences
29,1 business innovativeness in the family business.
Hughes (2017) argues that organizational leaders must exhibit the capability to examine and
understand the potential implications of the technology marketplace. Zaheer et al. (2019)
demonstrate that a successful digital start-up founder exhibits an entrepreneurial mindset
and can sense and explore the market, able to discover technological implications and
90 respond promptly to marketplace dynamics. Hughes (2017) mentions that entrepreneurially
oriented individuals focus on problems, opportunities and outcomes rather than current
products, services and activities. Considering family business, collective entrepreneurial
orientation can come from members of the family or their agents or the manifestation of a
group of employees or management team (Babinet, 2018; Bettinelli et al., 2014). EO is vital for
family firms’ competing in the digital space towards achieving digital entrepreneurship. AI
potential in supporting, assisting and driving business showcasing both operational and
strategic implication to business attracts family business to exploit it. We argue the family
business exhibiting potent EO will adopt new and novel technologies, such as AI. Thus, we
propose the following hypotheses:
H9. Family business entrepreneurial orientation in digital entrepreneurship influences
the adoption intention of AI in the family business.
2.4.7 Business innovativeness. Business innovativeness refers to the “organization’s capabilities
to explore and exploit new market opportunities by leveraging new technologies, policies and best
practices for competitive advantage within the industry and globally” (Seyfang and Smith, 2007).
When engaging in and supporting new ideas, experimentation, creative processes and
entrepreneurial pursuits, organizations tend to generate business value by developing new
and novel products and services in terms of products and services (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996).
Kellermanns et al. (2012) argue business innovativeness is vital for the family business for its
continuity and competitive advantage. Further, firms exhibiting great business innovativeness
tend to utilize new and innovative technologies to develop new and novel products and services.
Gudmundson, Tower and Hartman (2003) demonstrate evidence of higher innovations by family
businesses than non-family businesses. We argue the family business exhibiting strong business
innovativeness will adopt new and novel technologies, such as AI. Thus, we propose the following
hypothesis:
H10. Business innovativeness in digital entrepreneurship influences the adoption
intention of AI in the family business.
The extant literature has sufficiently established the role of business innovativeness towards
behavioural intentions (Upadhyay, 2019, 2020). Research suggests that firms demonstrating a
high level of innovation tend to showcase behavioural intention towards new and novel
technologies (Aboramadan et al., 2020) to develop new ideas, processes, products and systems
(Krasnicka et al., 2018). Crossan and Apaydin (2010) and Mumford (2000) argue the role of culture
and organizational design to foster innovations. For example, earlier studies found aspects of
cultural values and organizational design, such as freedom and autonomy (Ahmed, 1998;
Aboramadan et al., 2020), teamwork (Arad et al., 1997; Aboramadan et al., 2020) and flexibility
(Martins and Terblanche, 2003; Aboramadan et al., 2020) to improve a firm’s innovation.
Additionally, entrepreneurial orientation plays a vital role in a firm’s innovation as it facilitates
improving commercial and market activities (Nieto et al., 2015; Yuan et al., 2015). Besides, a firm’s
technology orientation enables its level of innovation (Zhou et al., 2005). Though relationships of
EO, TO, CFD and BI with behavioural intentions have been examined in earlier studies, the role of
BI in mediating relationships between EO, TO, CFD and BI with behavioural intentions (adoption)
has not yet been explored. We argue that additional insight regarding the role of BI for the
relationships between EO, TO, CFD and intentions is needed in the context of family business The intention
adoption intention of AI. As such, we posit the following hypothesis: of family
H11. Business innovativeness in digital entrepreneurship mediates the relationships businesses
between (a) technology orientation (b) culture and flexibility design (c)
entrepreneurial orientation and adoption intention of AI in the family business.
The theoretical research model is shown in Figure 1.
91
3. Methodology – data collection and sample
We follow the quantitative survey methodology as the validated instruments were readily
available from the earlier studies (Upadhyay et al., 2021; Miller, 1983; Gatignon and Xuereb,

[+]

Generativity
H1
[+]

openness H2

[+]
[+]
H3

Affordance

[+] H4 Family Business

Adoption
Intention of AI
H6 0
H5 H1
Technology H8
Orientation
[+]
[+]
H7

Business
Culture & Innovativeness
Flexibility Design H9

[+]

Entrepreneurship
Orientation
Figure 1.
Family business
Mediation hypotheses
artificial intelligence
H11a-H11c
adoption
intention model
Note(s): Dashed arrows represent mediation
IJEBR 1997; Seyfang and Smith, 2007; Dettmers et al., 2013; Bamgbade et al., 2019; Dutot and
29,1 Bergeron, 2016; Fan et al., 2021) to measure the latent constructs (Fowler Jr, 2002) to
examine the contribution of the vital factors explaining the adoption intention of AI. The
survey questionnaire consisted of 30-item set for the constructs – openness (3 items),
generativity (3 items), affordance (3 items), entrepreneurial orientation (5 items), technology
orientation (4 items), business innovativeness (4 items), culture and flexibility (5 items) and
family business adoption intention of AI (3 items). The questions were close-ended with
92 multiple choices for the respondents to select. A seven-point Likert scale, where
“1 5 strongly disagree; 2 5 disagree; 3 5 somewhat disagree; 4 5 neither agree nor
disagree; 5 5 somewhat agree; 6 5 agree; 7 5 strongly agree”, was employed for the
respondents to rate each question. Table A1 presents the items and sources of the
constructs. The study incorporated a self-administered questionnaire to reduce the risk of
the reliability of the information. The self-administered questionnaire ensured that the
differences in asking questions and their presentation were eliminated (Fowler, 2002). We
utilize purposeful sampling to gather data from the family business respondents in India
(Dwivedi et al., 2007). First, we utilized Prowess database maintained by the Centre for
Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) that contains financial and shareholding data, annual
reports and other information filed with regulatory agencies of a large number of listed and
unlisted companies. It is the most widely used database for research on Indian companies.
We baseline the family businesses from the BSE 500 index businesses. BSE 500 represents
more than 90% of the market capitalization of BSE representing all types of businesses.
Therefore, it serves as the best representation of the Indian market. Second, we approach
the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the entrepreneurship unit of various
institutes of National Importance in India to connect to the respondents as they possess
direct communication with the family businesses.
Four experts from the premier institute of India established the face validity of the
questionnaire. Based on their suggestions, certain items were reworded for clarity in the
study. The questionnaire’s effectiveness in terms of its clarity was checked using a pilot
study for a small population group. Researchers noted the time duration taken to answer the
questionnaire. The researchers incorporated an introduction section to acquaint the potential
respondents with the survey and its purpose based on the pilot study results. Based on the
required amendments, the questionnaire was considered appropriate for the actual study.
The survey questionnaire was administered through online survey (Google survey form)
among the potential respondents based on their consent to participate in the research. Ilieva
et al. (2002) suggest that “online surveys’ average response time is 5.59 days”. We kept the
survey open for 21 days (between 11-01-2022 and 31-01-2022) considering the slack time due
to ongoing pandemic. A total of 899 questionnaires were administered, with 761 filled
questionnaires returned. Screening of the filled questionnaire revealed that 130
questionnaires contained missing data and fields. After discarding the questionnaires with
missing data, a final respondent size of 631 was obtained for the research giving a response
rate of 70.18%. As the survey was administered through online mode, we also tested for a
non-responsive bias and mean difference for the early and late respondents as recommended
by Armstrong and Overton (1977). We did not observe any significant difference on the
responses of early and late respondents. Likewise, the non-responsive bias observed to
be low.

4. Results
4.1 Profile of respondents
The profile of respondents consisting of 631 respondents is shown in Table 2. The final data
of respondents comprised 65.1% male and 43.8% female respondents. A significant part of
 Percentage
The intention
Category Frequency (%) of family
businesses
Gender Male 411 65.1
Female 220 43.8
Age 18–25 36 5.7
26–35 110 17.4
36–45 230 36.4 93
46–55 170 26.9
55 and above 85 13.4
Educational background Bachelor’s degree 192 30.4
Postgraduate degree 410 64.9
Doctorate 29 4.5
Marriage Status Single 185 38.86
Married 291 61.13
Respondents industry
Industry turnover range is of Rs. 3.3–Rs. 53,275.33 million
Industry types Total industry Industry types Total industry
Manufacture of chemicals and 12 Computer programming, 4
chemical products consultancy and related
activities
Manufacture of pharmaceuticals, 14 Hotels and restaurants 5
medicinal chemical and botanical Table 2.
products Demographic profile of
Manufacture of basic metals 16 Health services 7 respondents

the total sample, belonged to the 36–45 (36.4%) and 46–55 (26.9%) years age group,
followed by 17.4% (n 5 110) belonging to the 26–35 years age group. Regarding the
respondents’ educational qualifications, 30.4% respondents were bachelor’s degree
holders, 64.9% were postgraduate degree holders and 4.5% were doctorate holders. The
turnover of the family businesses falls in the range of Rs. 3.3–Rs. 53,275.33 million. The
dominant industry types are manufacture of chemicals and chemical products (12),
manufacture of pharmaceuticals, medicinal chemical and botanical products (14),
manufacture of basic metals (16), computer programming, consultancy and related
activities (14), hotels and restaurants (5), and health services (7). The detailed demographic
characteristics of respondents are provided in Table 2.

4.2 Common method bias

Podsakoff and Organ (1986) suggest checking for a presence of a common method bias
(CMB) to avoid any measurement errors. Due to the collection of data through a single
survey, the results might get inflated which can be verified by performing Harman’s single-
factor analysis (Ahrholdt et al., 2019). We find the absence of CMB as the single factor
aggregate variance is accounted for 43%, which is less than 50%; thus, CMB does not affect
the data.

4.3 Measurement model

We perform the analysis for the measurement model. We check for constructs’ reliability and
validity to verify the suitability of the measurement model. We perform various tests (Hair
et al., 2010, 2016a, b; Dijkstra and Henseler, 2015) such as Cronbach’s alpha (Cα), composite
reliability (CR) and consistent reliability coefficient (rho_A). We observe that for all the tests,
the results are as per the acceptable threshold value (Cα>0.7, CR > 0.7, rho_A>0.7) (Campbell
and Fiske, 1959; Hair et al., 2010). Additionally, to examine whether the items belonging to the
IJEBR same construct have a high positive correlation and share a significant proportion of
29,1 variance, we check the average variance extracted (AVE) threshold value. We find that
convergent validity as measured by AVE holds as the value is greater than 0.5 (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). The summarized results of constructs reliability and validity are shown in
Table 3.
Finally, to verify the distinctness of the construct concepts, we perform the heterotrait–
monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) test (Ahrholdt et al., 2019; Henseler et al., 2015). We
94 also use Fornell–Larker criterion to concur the results with HTMT tests. Table 4 and Table 5
represent that both the tests confirmed the presence of the discriminant validity (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981; Kline, 2015). We conclude that all the tests showcase that the measurement
model is suitable for examining the structural model.

FL Cα a
rho_A CR AVE

Affordances (AFD) 0.918 0.918 0.948 0.859

AFD1 0.921
AFD2 0.927
AFD3 0.932
Business innovativeness (BIs) 0.936 0.936 0.954 0.84
BI1 0.907
BI2 0.931
BI3 0.909
BI4 0.918
Culture and flexible design (CFD) 0.935 0.936 0.95 0.792
CFD1 0.889
CFD2 0.891
CFD3 0.896
CFD4 0.903
CFD5 0.871
Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) 0.94 0.941 0.954 0.805
EO1 0.902
EO2 0.912
EO3 0.883
EO4 0.889
EO5 0.900
Family business adoption intention of AI (FBAIAI) 0.893 0.893 0.933 0.823
FBAIAI1 0.888
FBAIAI2 0.915
FBAIAI3 0.881
Generativity (GE) 0.938 0.941 0.96 0.89
GE1 0.945
GE2 0.942
GE3 0.943
Openness (OP) 0.921 0.921 0.95 0.863
OP1 0.923
OP2 0.937
OP3 0.927
Technology orientation (TO) 0.948 0.948 0.962 0.865
TO1 0.932
TO2 0.928
TO3 0.935
Table 3. TO4 0.925
Constructs reliability Note(s): FL 5 factor loading, Cα 5 Cronbach alpha, rho_A 5 consistent reliability coefficient,
and validity CR 5 composite reliability, AVE 5 average variance extracted, aReliability coefficient >0.7
4.4 Structural model assessment The intention
We performed structural model assessment to examine its predictive power and construct of family
relationships significance (Hair et al., 2016a,b). In the model, we have two endogenous
construct (family business adoption intention of AI and business innovativeness) and six
businesses
exogenous constructs (affordances, culture and flexible design, entrepreneurial orientation,
generativity, openness and technology orientation). The endogenous variable showcased
ample variance explained through the R square (R2) for family business adoption intention of
AI (64.2%) and business innovativeness (24.6%). We applied a bootstrapping procedure with 95
5,000 re-samplings to test both the path estimates and t-statistics as the data were devoid of
any multivariate normality issues (Hair et al., 2016a, b) as depicted in Table 6. We verify the
collinearity using variance inflation factor (VIF) measures and find the multicollinearity
absence as the VIF value for all the items are in the range between 1.490 and 2.546

Fornell–Larker criterion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(1) Affordances 0.927

(2) Business innovativeness 0.388 0.916
(3) Culture and flexible design 0.626 0.442 0.89
(4) Eentrepreneurial orientation 0.478 0.372 0.499 0.897
(5) Family business adoption Intention 0.627 0.522 0.644 0.567 0.907
of AI
(6) Generativity 0.605 0.574 0.609 0.55 0.669 0.943 Table 4.
(7) Openness 0.558 0.389 0.542 0.476 0.603 0.589 0.929 Discriminant validity:
(8) Technology orientation 0.584 0.391 0.512 0.503 0.644 0.588 0.548 0.93 Fornell–Larker
Note(s): Values on diagonal which are italics are the square root of AVE criterion

Heterotrait–monotrait ratio 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(1) Affordances
(2) Business innovativeness 0.418
(3) Culture and flexible design 0.676 0.47
(4) Eentrepreneurial orientation 0.514 0.395 0.53
(5) Family business adoption intention of AI 0.693 0.571 0.703 0.618
(6) Generativity 0.65 0.614 0.648 0.582 0.73 Table 5.
(7) Openness 0.607 0.419 0.583 0.509 0.665 0.631 Discriminant validity:
(8) Technology orientation 0.627 0.415 0.545 0.531 0.699 0.622 0.586 heterotrait–
Note(s): HTMT<0.85 (Kline, 2015) monotrait ratio

Output variable (inner VIF value)

Hypothesis Input variable Business innovativeness Family business AI intention

H3 Affordance 2.13
H10 Business innovativeness 1.53
H6 H7 Culture and flexibility Design 1.516 2.05
H8 H9 Entrepreneurial orientation 1.490 1.633
Family business AI intention
H1 Generativity 2.546 Table 6.
H2 Openness 1.856 Full collinearity test for
H4LH5 Technology orientation 1.524 1.905 inner VIF value
IJEBR (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2006; Hair et al., 2010). Results summarized in Table 7 show
29,1 that all the associations have p-values < 0.05 and T-statistic> 1.96 (for a significance of 5%)
(Hair et al., 2016a,b); thus, we conclude that all the hypothesized relationships are significant.
Further, we perform an assessment of the predictive relevance of the model (Q2) by using
blindfolding to compute the Q2 for the endogenous variables – business innovativeness (0.205)
and family business adoption intention of AI (0.523). As the Q2 value of the endogenous
variables are greater than 0, the presence of predictive relevance and a greater than large size
96 effect is evident. Additionally, we perform an assessment of the model’s predictive power using
the PLS Predict algorithm. The PLS Predict algorithm checks through Q2_predict whether the
model can outperform most naı€ve linear regression benchmarks (Shmueli et al., 2016). We
observe lower prediction errors for all items than naı€ve linear regression benchmarks. As such,
we conclude that the proposed model depicts high predictive performance. Further, we assess
the effect size of each endogenous variable using f2 measure (do Valle and Assaker, 2016) to
check the model’s predictive stability. All variables except affordances (effect size 5 0.07) and
entrepreneurial orientation (0.08) depict having greater than small effect size as their f2 fell
between 0.021 and 0.16 (e.g. effect: large ≥ 0.35, medium ≥ 0.15, small ≥ 0.02) (Cohen, 1992). The
model is evaluated considering the fit indices such as root mean square residuals (RMSR) and
normed fit index (NFI) and found to satisfy the cut-off criteria of the indices (SRMR <0.08 and
NFI >0.90) (Dash and Paul, 2021). Through our analysis, we conclude that our model explains
the endogenous constructs and showcases high predictive relevance, power and stability, see
Table 7. Figure 2 shows an empirically validated research model.

4.5 Mediation analysis

We employ Hair et al. (2016a, b) method to perform a mediation analysis of business
innovativeness. Considering MacKinnon et al. (2002), “rule Z mediates the link between X and

Standard
Explanatory Original Sample deviation T statistics P
paths sample (O) mean (M) (STDEV) (jO/STDEVj) 2.50% 97.50% values

H1 0.122 0.121 0.034 3.584 0.053 0.187 0

H2 0.136 0.136 0.032 4.2 0.069 0.199 0
H3 0.281 0.284 0.043 6.542 0.202 0.366 0
H4 0.184 0.184 0.039 4.741 0.112 0.261 0
H5 0.144 0.143 0.045 3.219 0.058 0.226 0.001
H6 0.124 0.127 0.028 4.44 0.065 0.179 0
H7 0.138 0.141 0.043 3.194 0.057 0.222 0.001
H8 0.126 0.123 0.034 3.711 0.064 0.188 0
H9 0.175 0.172 0.042 4.161 0.092 0.257 0
H10 0.212 0.211 0.034 6.296 0.156 0.288 0

Model fit

Saturated model Estimated model

SRMR 0.033 0.047
NFI 0.91 0.912
Table 7.
Hypotheses results Construct cross validated redundancy (predictive and explanatory power)
[path coefficients and Q2 Q2_predict R2
confidence intervals;
model fit and Business innovativeness 0.205 0.238 0.246
predictive power] Family business adoption intention of AI 0.523 0.621 0.642
 [+] The intention
of family
businesses
Generativity

[+]
H1
: 0. 97
122
***
Openness H2:
0.13
6 ***
[+]

H3: 0.281 *** [+]

0.642
Affordance
R2
H4: 0.184 ***
[+] Family Business
*
** Adoption
*** 2
24 21 Intention of AI
: 0. 0.
Technology H5: H6 10
:
Orientation
0.14
4 ** *** H
* .1 26
:0
H8
[+] [+]
H7: 0.138 *** 0.246
R2

Culture & *** Business

.1 75 Innovativeness
Flexibility Design :0
H9

[+]

Entrepreneurial
Orientation

Mediation hypotheses
H11a: 0.024***; H11b: 0.038*** and H11c: 0.02***

Note(s): Significance of p-Value: p > 0.05(ns): Non-significant; p < 0.05: *; Figure 2.

Empirically validated
p < 0.01: **; p < 0.001: ***; R2: Variance explained; Dashed arrows represent research model
mediation

Y if the direct path between X to Z and Z to Y is significant”. The results demonstrate that the
direct paths from EO to BI (β 5 0.175, p 5 0.000), TO to BI (β 5 0.144, p 5 0.001), CFD to BI
(β 5 0.138, p 5 0.001) and from BI to FBAIAI (β 5 0.212, p 5 0.000) were positive and
statistically significant. Accordingly, Matthews et al. (2018) proposed that full mediation is
established when the indirect path is significant while the direct path is insignificant; if both
the direct and indirect paths are significant, partial mediation is established. Business
innovativeness partially mediated the EO–BI–FBAIAI, TO–BI–FBAIAI and CFD– BI–
FBAIAI relationships (Table 8).
IJEBR Original Sample Standard
29,1 sample mean deviation T statistics p
Explanatory paths (O) (M) (STDEV) (jO/STDEVj) 2.50% 97.50% values

Direct effect
H4 0.184 0.184 0.039 4.741 0.112 0.261 0
H5 0.144 0.143 0.045 3.219 0.058 0.226 0.001
98 H6 0.124 0.127 0.028 4.44 0.065 0.179 0
H7 0.138 0.141 0.043 3.194 0.057 0.222 0.001
H8 0.126 0.123 0.034 3.711 0.064 0.188 0
H9 0.175 0.172 0.042 4.161 0.092 0.257 0
H10 0.212 0.211 0.034 6.296 0.156 0.288 0
Indirect effect
H11a: Technology 0.024 0.023 0.008 2.932 0.011 0.045 0.004
orientation →Business
innovativeness
→Family business
adoption intention of AI
H11b: Culture and 0.038 0.039 0.012 3.313 0.018 0.064 0.001
flexibility design
→Business
innovativeness
→Family business
adoption intention of AI
H11c: Entrepreneurial 0.02 0.02 0.008 2.485 0.007 0.037 0.013
orientation →Business
Table 8. innovativeness
Mediation analysis: →Family business
direct and indirect adoption intention of
effects AI

4.6 Importance–performance map analysis (IPMA)

We perform the importance–performance map analysis, which helps to determine
contributing factors having relatively high importance for the outcome of interest (i.e.
those that have a strong total effect), but also depict a relatively low performance (i.e. low
average latent variable scores). An IPMA relies on two essential elements in an
unstandardized form – total effects and the rescaled latent variable scores. Through
rescaling, each latent variable score gets a value between 0 and 100 (e.g. H€ock et al., 2010;
Kristensen et al., 2000). The construct’s performance represents the mean values of these
scores, with 0 indicating the lowest and 100 indicating the highest performance. A construct’s
importance relies on its total effect on the target construct. Hair et al. (2019) suggest
interpreting IPMA results as “a one-unit increase of the predecessor’s performance increases
the performance of the target construct by the size of the predecessor’s unstandardized total
effect, if everything else remains equal (ceteris paribus)”. Additionally, a four-quadrant
importance–performance map is developed (Martilla and James, 1977; Hair et al., 2019), which
depicts Q1 (it does not matter and no performance), Q2 (Some improvements is needed), Q3
(non-important aspect is having high performance) and Q4 (Management is fine so sustain it).
Results in Figure 3 depict that for business innovativeness, construct technology orientation
needs attention to improve performance, while constructs culture and flexibility design and
entrepreneurial orientation need a push. Besides, culture and flexibility has relatively higher
performance and importance than business innovativeness and technology orientation.
Similarly, for the adoption intention of AI in the family business, constructs such as business
 Importance – Performance Map The intention
100 of family
90 businesses
80 non-important
aspects are fine
aspects
70
60 99
Business Innovatineness 50
40
30
does not matter need to improve
20
10
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Total Effects
Culture & Flexibility Design Entrepreneurial Orientation Technology Orientation

Importance – Performance Map

100
90
80
70 non-important aspects are fine
60 aspects

Family Business Adoption Intention of Al 50

40
30
20
Figure 3.
10 Importance–
does not matter need to improve
0 performance map
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 analysis of business
Total Effects innovativeness and
family business
Affordance Business Innovatineness Culture & Flexibility Design adoption intention
Entrepreneurial Orientation Generativity Openness Technology Orientation
of AI

innovativeness, technology orientation and generativity need attention for improving their
respective performances. Culture and flexibility has emerged as having relatively higher
importance than any other constructs. A push in the performance improvements of culture and
flexibility, affordance, openness and entrepreneurial orientation is required. Constructs
performance and importance are shown in Table 9 and Table 10, respectively.

5. Discussion
The current study developed a research model and empirically validated it by explaining
factors contributing to AI adoption intention in the family business. We first identified critical
factors through the perspectives of digital entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial orientation
IJEBR that influence the adoption intention of AI. Then we empirically validated the significance
29,1 and explanation of the research model.
The proposed model included two endogenous (i.e. adoption intention and business
innovativeness) and six exogenous variables (i.e. affordances, culture and flexible design,
entrepreneurial orientation, generativity, openness and technology orientation). This study
examined and analysed factors that influence the adoption intention of AI in the family
business. The results depicted that our model explains the endogenous construct and
100 showcase high predictive relevance, power and stability. The result demonstrated a model
variance of 24.6% for business innovativeness and 65.3% explaining the adoption intention
of AI in the family business, respectively. The factor culture and flexible design emerged as
the top factors contributing to the adoption intention’s explanation. It is suggested that
family businesses building conducive culture and flexible design greatly influence the
inclination to adopt artificial intelligence. Undoubtedly, the workforce will be able to test run
the pilot projects, share setbacks and success and build competency by upholding shared
values. The results corroborate with the earlier studies (for example, Ogbonna and Harris,
2005; Bamgbade et al., 2019). Ogbonna and Harris (2005) argue the significance of culture and
flexible design in adoption in family firms. Additionally, Bamgbade et al. (2019) demonstrate
the significant influence of culture and flexible design to adopt technology in the construction
industry as a vital component of the organizational capabilities to achieve sustainability.
Similarly, the study confirms earlier study findings indicating that business
innovativeness (Bamgbade et al., 2019; Thong and Yap, 1996) and technology orientation
(Olivia et al., 2010; Hunter and Perreaul, 2006) influence the adoption intention of the
technology. Olivia, Matthew and Meuter (2010) demonstrate technology orientation as the
significant factor explaining the adoption intention of EHR systems in the healthcare industry.
They mentioned that technology orientation helps the workforce map hospital administrative
and business functions with the EHR. Likewise, Hunter and Perreaul (2006) note that
technology orientation contributes to sales technology’s adoption intention. Business
innovativeness partially mediates the relationships of entrepreneurial orientation, culture
and organizational design, and technology orientation with behavioural intentions.

Constructs Performances (value: 0–100)

Affordances 54.125
Business innovativeness 40.951
Culture and flexible design 51.235
Entrepreneurial orientation 51.493
Family business adoption intention of AI 61.269
Generativity 41.066
Table 9. Openness 51.477
Construct performance Technology orientation 47.73

Construct Business innovativeness Family business adoption intention of AI

Affordances 0.105
Business innovativeness 0.135
Culture and flexible design 0.281 0.175
Table 10. Entrepreneurial orientation 0.138 0.114
Constructs importance Generativity 0.111
(unstandardized total Openness 0.101
effects) Technology orientation 0.163 0.19
Bamgbade et al. (2019) and Thong and Yap (1996) discuss the importance of business The intention
innovativeness to adopt technology to achieve competitive advantage. Scholars witness that of family
the top leadership in the business depicts the decision-making and business innovativeness of
the firm (Rizzoni, 1991; Rothwell, 1977). As such, it is paramount for the top leaders in the
businesses
business to be cognizant of the latest developments and able to develop sensemaking of the
market dynamics.
The current study findings reveal entrepreneurial orientation as a significant factor
affecting the adoption intention of AI. Such results depict that family businesses act 101
entrepreneurially to attain a competitive advantage in the fierce dynamics of the marketplace.
Considering opportunity growth in AI technology in businesses, family business EO plays a
vital role in adopting AI. Our findings corroborate earlier studies (Fan et al., 2021; Karami and
Tang, 2019; Sahaym et al., 2019; Wiklund and Shepherd, 2003). Our current study findings also
concur with the suggestions of the earlier studies (Nambisan et al., 2019; Upadhyay et al., 2021),
which focus on the importance and role of openness, generativity and affordances for digital
entrepreneurship. Our findings suggest openness, generativity, and affordance influence the
adoption intention of AI. To be more relevant and competitive, by utilizing emerging
technology (for example, AI), family businesses can explore the marketplace and
operationalize entrepreneurial opportunities (Tiwana, 2014; Wareham et al., 2014). Family
businesses can strategize digital transformation plans which are driven by AI. Market services
operationalize the availability of AI services, products and solutions through various channels
(open source, collaboration and outsourcing). Along with this, it also offers open standards and
open APIs (Application programming interfaces) for horizontal and vertical solutions (Pfau
and Rimpp, 2021). In this way, the generativity and affordance affect the adoption of AI.

5.1 Theoretical implications

Concerning the family business context, our study is the first to attempt an explanation of AI
adoption intention in the digital entrepreneurship space. Theoretically, it contributes to the
literature of entrepreneurship, especially digital entrepreneurship (Bettinelli et al., 2014;
Nambisan et al., 2019; Basly and Hammouda, 2020). Additionally, our research model adds to the
role of entrepreneurial orientation and digital entrepreneurship in the emergent family
entrepreneurship literature. Considering the scarcity of research in this field, the empirically
validated model explaining critical antecedents of AI adoption intention in the family business is
a foundation for discussion, critique and future research. The study is in response to the call by
Nambisan et al. (2019) and Basly and Hammouda (2020) to develop, explore and explain factors
contributing to digital entrepreneurship. We argue that family businesses need to have
following characteristics to be able to embark into the digital entrepreneurship space and
operationalize entrepreneurship pursuits: (a) exhibit entrepreneurial orientation, (b) offer
conducive culture and flexibility, (c) showcase technology orientation and business
innovativeness and (d) understand openness, generativity and affordance of the technology.
Moreover, business innovativeness, entrepreneurial orientation and the organization’s culture
and flexible design appeared as the core (top) important factors driving the adoption intention of
the emerging technology – AI. The findings of our research corroborate with earlier research
work. Furthermore, the study extends the work of Chrisman et al. (2015) by explaining the
significance of entrepreneurial orientation and business innovativeness in the family business.
While Chrisman et al. (2015) considered aspects such as risk aversion as severe impediments
towards leveraging technology resulting in low innovation, we argue that family businesses that
have strong entrepreneurial orientation venture into new entrepreneurship endeavours, explore
new marketplace opportunities and leverage emerging technologies. We demonstrate that
family firms exhibiting strong entrepreneurial orientation influence the adoption intention of AI.
We establish partial mediation of business innovativeness and provide additional insights
regarding the role of BI for the relationships between entrepreneurial orientation, technology
IJEBR orientation, culture and flexibility design, and intentions in the context of family business
29,1 adoption intention of AI. We argue businesses involved in business innovativeness growth
tend to adopt novel and new technologies. The present study also extends the existing
literature by providing empirical insights from a business innovativeness viewpoint and its
mediating role with good explanatory power. So, it is vital for the family business to examine
and assess its current level of business innovativeness. This research provides detailed
examination of entrepreneurial orientation and digital entrepreneurship and also improves
102 research on business innovativeness.

5.2 Implications to practice

The empirically validated research model and the findings of the study could be undertaken
as a set of recommendations. In the current study, we show that family business exhibits
numerous factors contributing to the adoption intention of AI. Although research in family
business entrepreneurship discusses entrepreneurial orientation, we recommend the
development of entrepreneurial orientation by undertaking training in digital
entrepreneurship. Further, we advise the family business to develop an awareness of new
developments and understand the market dynamics to be able to adapt and respond
appropriately. By having entrepreneurial orientation family businesses can become more
agile and responsive to embrace new opportunities. Considering our IMPA results, we
suggest business innovativeness and generativity needs attention and improvement, while
technology orientation requires a slight push in the improvements. Additionally, culture and
flexible design is surfaced as the most important construct. As culture and flexible design
appeared to be the critical determinant of the adoption intention of AI, we advise the family
business to re-look at the culture and flexibility status to examine any conflict of
organizational value with the adoption intention of AI. A thorough check on the prevalent
culture and flexible design help the family business to investigate the gaps and craft
appropriate strategies towards the adoption of AI. It is necessary to identify the components
of business that are being affected by the adoption of AI. Precisely, identification of
operational, financial and strategic implications helps family business to (re)orient and (re)
align culture and flexible design. We suggest family businesses examine AI openness,
affordance and generativity aspects specific to the business context. It implies that family
businesses operate in different contexts, having varied capabilities and requirements and
thus need to weigh the AI solutions impacting business model in incremental, moderate and
large ways. Even proper awareness and training has to be designed to sensitize the workforce
about the potential opportunities and appropriateness of the AI. In addition, the family
business has to motivate the workforce and upskill them to explore and exploit AI. By doing
so, the family business will be able to overcome workforce inertia towards AI adoption.
Accordingly, we recommend that intentional improvement planning needs to be conceived
and operationalized to strengthen the family business perception of AI affordances,
generativity and openness towards its adoption.
We suggest family businesses operationalize lucrative incentives for AI-digital
entrepreneurship research and development (R&D) ventures and activities. We advise
developing and forging of business and information technology (IT) teams to pilot target
projects for specific outcomes. They can also allocate specific funds to both undertake
entrepreneurship pursuits and ventures and workforce upskilling. Additionally, they need to
update their governance and policy frameworks to strategize AI adoption (Kitchin, 2014;
World Economic Forum, 2012). Framing such a strategy boosts family business to appreciate
AI appropriateness and use. Additionally, family businesses can explore and exploit open
data, open APIs and fast-integrated solutions to appreciate openness in scaling their offerings
(Kim et al., 2014).
5.3 Limitations and future research The intention
This research examines critical factors explaining the family business’ AI adoption intention. of family
However, still, the undertaken study is not devoid of all limitations. First, the study examines
the cross-sectional data that limit the focus and boundary of the family business context.
businesses
However, future studies should consider longitudinal data and varying levels of analysis
(industry, organization and individual) to strengthen the explanation of the adoption
intention of AI. Second, the study deployed quantitative research to explore the determinants
of the AI adoption intention. However, future studies can undertake a mixed approach to 103
examine the family business intention towards adopting AI. Third, the study has not
investigated any specific AI tools’ adoption intention in the family business, thereby limiting
the scope of weighing tool-specific adoption intention. However, future studies can focus on
any particular tools, such as voice and chat assistants, to examine and investigate potential
intention to adopt the tools. Finally, further studies can explore the contextual and
contribution of factors such as infrastructure, change, risk, trust, leadership, governance,
policy and type of ownership (Weerakkody et al., 2007, 2009) to strengthen the variance of the
proposed research model.
Our research is in response to the call by Nambisan et al. (2019) and Basly and Hammouda
(2020) and provides theoretical developments in entrepreneurship, family business research
and AI (Dwivedi et al., 2021; Duan et al., 2019), especially to digital entrepreneurship
(Chalmers et al., 2020; Nambisan, 2017; Nambisan et al., 2019; Upadhyay et al., 2021).

6. Conclusion
At the beginning of the paper, we set our objective to examine the critical factors explaining
the adoption intention of AI in the family business. To operationalize the research objective,
we performed a detailed review of the literature identifying critical factors. Further, we
developed our research model (FBAI) comprising two endogenous (i.e. family business’ AI
adoption intention and business innovativeness) and six exogenous variables (i.e.
affordances, culture and flexible design, entrepreneurial orientation, generativity, openness
and technology orientation). We demonstrated that our model explains the endogenous
constructs and showcases high predictive relevance, power and stability based on 631
respondents’ data. Furthermore, we confirmed the significant influence of all the exogenous
variables on the endogenous variable reflecting support of all the hypotheses. Moreover, we
established partially mediated relationships explained by business innovativeness for the
entrepreneurial orientation, technology orientation, culture and flexibility design with family
business’ AI adoption intention.

References
Aboramadan, M., Albashiti, B., Alharazin, H. and Zaidoune, S. (2020), “Organizational culture,
innovation and performance: a study from a non-western context”, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 437-451.
Agrawal, A., Gans, J. and Goldfarb, A. (2018), Prediction Machines: The Simple Economics of Artificial
Intelligence, Harvard Business Press.
Ahmed, P. (1998), “Culture and climate for innovation”, European Journal of Innovation Management,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 30-43.
Ahrholdt, D.C., Gudergan, S.P. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “Enhancing loyalty: when improving consumer
satisfaction and delight matters”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 94, pp. 18-27.
Akhtar, P., Frynas, J.G., Mellahi, K. and Ullah, S. (2019), “Big data-savvy teams’ skills, big data-driven
actions and business performance”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 252-271.
IJEBR Ali, I., Balta, M. and Papadopoulos, T. (2022), “Social media platforms and social enterprise:
bibliometric analysis and systematic review”, International Journal of Information
29,1 Management, 102510, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102510.
Anderson, C. (2014), Makers: The New Industrial Revolution, Crown Business.
Andriole and Stephen (2018), “Skills and competencies for digital transformation”, IT Professional,
Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 78-81.
104 Arad, S., Hanson, M. and Schneider, R. (1997), “A framework for the study of relationships between
organizational characteristics and organizational innovation”, Journal of Creative Behavior,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 42-58.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Asghari, R. and Gedeon, S. (2010), “Significance and impact of the Internet on the entrepreneurial
process: E-entrepreneurship and completely digital entrepreneurship”, European Conference on
Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 70, Academic Conferences International, Reading.
Babinet, G. (2018), “The digital company in search of new forms of management”, Harvard Business
Review France, available at: https://www.hbrfrance.fr/chroniques-experts/2018/03/19728-
lentreprise-digitale-a-recherche-denouvelles- formes-de-management/.
Bag, S., Pretorius, J.H.C., Gupta, S. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2021), “Role of institutional pressures and
resources in the adoption of big data analytics powered artificial intelligence, sustainable
manufacturing practices and circular economy capabilities”, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, Vol. 163, 120420.
Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (2009), “The complementary effects of market orientation and
entrepreneurial orientation on profitability in small businesses”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 443-464.
Bamgbade, J.A., Nawi, M.N.M., Kamaruddeen, A.M., Adeleke, A.Q. and Salimon, M.G. (2019), “Building
sustainability in the construction industry through firm capabilities, technology and business
innovativeness: empirical evidence from Malaysia”, International Journal of Construction
Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 1-16.
Basly, S. and Hammouda, A. (2020), “Family businesses and digital entrepreneurship adoption: a
conceptual model”, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 326-364.
Beekman, A.V., Steiner, S. and Wasserman, M.E. (2012), “Where innovation does a world of good:
entrepreneurial orientation and innovative outcomes in nonprofit organizations”, Journal of
Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 22-36.
Benlian, A., Hilkert, D. and Hess, T. (2015), “How open is this platform? the meaning and measurement
of platform openness from the complementers’ perspective”, Journal of Information Technology,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 209-228.
Berman, S.J. (2012), “Digital transformation: opportunities to create new business models”, Strategy
and Leadership, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 16-24.
Bettinelli, C., Fayolle, A. and Randerson, K. (2014), “Family entrepreneurship: a developing field”,
Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 161-236.
Bjornberg, A., Elstrodt, H.P. and Pandit, V. (2014), “The family-business factor in emerging markets”,
McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 2025, pp. 1-6.
Borges, A.F., Laurindo, F.J., Spınola, M.M., Gonçalves, R.F. and Mattos, C.A. (2021), “The strategic use
of artificial intelligence in the digital era: systematic literature review and future research
directions”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 57, 102225.
Boso, N., Story, V.M. and Cadogan, J.W. (2013), “Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation,
network ties, and performance: study of entrepreneurial firms in a developing economy”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 708-727.
 uschgens, T., Bausch, A. and Balkin, D. (2013), “Organizational culture and innovation: a meta-
B€ The intention
analytic review”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1-19.
of family
Calabro, A., Vecchiarini, M., Gast, J., Campopiano, G., De Massis, A. and Kraus, S. (2018), “Innovation
in family firms: a systematic literature review and guidance for future research”, International
businesses
Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 317-355.
Campbell, D.T. and Fiske, D.W. (1959), “Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-
multimethod matrix”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 81-105.
105
Cenamor, J., Parida, V. and Wincent, J. (2019), “How entrepreneurial SMEs compete through digital
platforms: the roles of digital platform capability, network capability and ambidexterity”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 100, pp. 196-206.
Chalmers, D., MacKenzie, N.G. and Carter, S. (2020), “Artificial intelligence and entrepreneurship:
implications for venture creation in the fourth industrial revolution”, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 1028-1053.
Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H. and Litz, R. (2003), “A unified systems perspective of family firm performance:
an extension and integration”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 467-472.
Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H., De Massis, A., Frattini, F. and Wright, M. (2015), “The ability and
willingness paradox in family firm innovation”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 310-318.
Christensen, C.M., Raynor, M. and McDonald, R. (2015), “What is disruptive innovation?”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 93, pp. 44-53.
Cohen, J. (1992), “A power primer”, Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 112 No. 1, pp. 155-159.
Cooper, R. (1994), “The inertial impact of culture on IT implementation”, Information and
Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-31.
Costa, C., Lages, L.F. and Hortinha, P. (2015), “The bright and dark side of CSR in export markets: its
impact on innovation and performance”, International Business Review, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 749-757.
Crossan, M. and Apaydin, M. (2010), “A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a
systematic review of the literature”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47 No. 6,
pp. 1154-1191, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x.
Dash, G. and Paul, J. (2021), “CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and
technology forecasting”, Technology Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 173, doi: 10.1016/j.
techfore.2021.121092.
Davidson, E. and Vaast, E. (2010), “Digital entrepreneurship and its sociomaterial enactment”, 2010
43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), IEEE, HI, pp. 1-10.
Dettmers, J., Kaiser, S. and Fietze, S. (2013), “Theory and practice of flexible work: organizational and
individual perspectives. Introduction to the special issue”, Management Revue, Rainer Hampp
Verlag, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 155-161.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2006), “Formative vs reflective indicators in organizational
measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 263-282.
Dijkstra, T.K. and Henseler, J. (2015), “Consistent partial least squares path modelling”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 39, pp. 297-316.
do Valle, P.O. and Assaker, G. (2016), “Using partial least squares structural equation modeling in
tourism research: a review of past research and recommendations for future applications”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 55, pp. 695-708.
Donald, M. (1991), Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
D€orner, K. and Edelman, D. (2015), What ‘digital’ Really Means [Online], McKinsey & Company,
available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/high-tech/our-insights/what-digital-really-
means (accessed 31 January 2022).
IJEBR Duan, Y., Edwards, J.S. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2019), “Artificial intelligence for decision- making in the era
of Big Data–evolution, challenges and research agenda”, International Journal of Information
29,1 Management, Vol. 48, pp. 63-71.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Bryde, D.J., Giannakis, M., Foropon, C., Roubaud, D. and Hazen,
B.T. (2020), “Big data analytics and artificial intelligence pathway to operational performance
under the effects of entrepreneurial orientation and environmental dynamism: a study of
manufacturing organisations”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 226, 107599.
106 Dutot, V. and Bergeron, F. (2016), “From strategic orientation to social media orientation: improving
SMEs’ performance on social media”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 1165-1190.
Dwivedi, Y.K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., Dwivedi, R.,
Edwards, J., Eirug, A., Galanos, V., Ilavarasan, P.V., Anssen, M., Jones, P., Kar, A.K., Kizgin, H.,
Kronemann, B., Lal, B., Lucini, B., Medaglia, R., Lem Eunier-Fitzhugh, K., Lem Eunier-Fitzhugh,
L.C., Misra, S., Mogaji, E., Sharma, S.K., Singh, J., Raghavan, V., Raman, R., Rana, N.P.,
Samothrakis, S., Spencer, J., Tamilmani, K., Tubadji, A., Walton, P. and Williams, M.D. (2021),
“Artificial Intelligence (AI): multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges,
opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 57, p. 101994.
Dwivedi, Y.K., Khan, N. and Papazafeiropoulou, A. (2007), “Consumer adoption and usage of broadband
in Bangladesh”, Electronic Government, an International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 299-313.
Engelen, A., Gupta, V., Strenger, L. and Brettel, M. (2015), “Entrepreneurial orientation, firm
performance, and the moderating role of transformational leadership behaviors”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 1069-1097.
European Commission (2017), “Work Programme”, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/
work-programme-2017_en.
Family Firm Institute (2017), “Global data points”, the FFI website on January 2, 2022, available at:
http://www.ffi.org/page/globaldatapoints.
Fan, M., Qalati, S.A., Khan, M.A.S., Shah, S.M.M., Ramzan, M. and Khan, R.S. (2021), “Effects of
entrepreneurial orientation on social media adoption and SME performance: the moderating
role of innovation capabilities”, PLoS One, Vol. 16 No. 4, e0247320.
Faraj, S. and Azad, B. (2012), “The materiality of technology: an affordance perspective”, in Nardi, L.B.
and Kallinikos, J. (Eds), Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World,
Oxford University Press, NY City.
Fornell, C.G. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fowler, F.J. Jr (2002), Survey Research Methods, 3rd ed., Sage.
Gatignon, H. and Xuereb, J.M. (1997), “Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 77-90.
George, B.A. and Marino, L. (2011), “The epistemology of entrepreneurial orientation: conceptual
formation, modeling, and operationalization”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35
No. 5, pp. 989-1024.
Gibson, J.J. (1979), The Theory of Affordances. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception,
Houghton Mifflin, Hopewell, pp. 127-143.
Giones, F. and Brem, A. (2017), “Digital technology entrepreneurship: a definition and research
agenda”, Technology Innovation Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 44-51.
Gudmundson, D., Tower, C.B. and Hartman, E. (2003), “Innovation in small businesses: culture and
ownership structure do matter”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Gurbaxani, V. and Dunkle, D. (2019), “Gearing up for successful digital transformation”, MIS
Quarterly Executive, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 209-220.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., The intention
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
of family
Hair, J.F. Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2016a), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage publications.
businesses
Hair, J. Jr, Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L. and Ringle, C. (2016b), “Identifying and treating unobserved
heterogeneity with FIMIX- PLS: part I—Method”, European Business Review, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 63-76.
107
Hair, J.F. Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Castillo Apraiz, J., Cepeda Carrion, G.A. and
Roldan, J.L. (2019), Manual de Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)
(Segunda Edicion), OmniaScience (Sage Publications), Barcelona, Spain.
Henard, D.H. and Szymanski, D.M. (2001), “Why some new products are more successful than others”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 362-375.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance based structural equation modelling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43, pp. 115-135.
H€ock, C., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2010), “Management of multi-purpose stadiums: importance
and performance measurement of service interfaces”, International Journal of Services
Technology and Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 188-207.
Hradecky, D., Kennell, J., Cai, W. and Davidson, R. (2022), “Organizational readiness to adopt artificial
intelligence in the exhibition sector in Western Europe”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 65, 102497.
Hughes, J. (2017), “What a digital organization looks like”, available at: https://medium.com/
doteveryone/what-a-digital-organisation-looks-like- 82426a210ab8.
Hughes, M. (2018), “Do or Die: why industry must embrace AI”, available at: https://www.forbes.com/
sites/mikehughes1/2018/11/28/do-or-die-why-industry-must- th embrace-ai/#121cc8527cf6
(accessed 10 January 2022).
Hunter, G.K. and Perreault, W.D. Jr (2006), “Sales technology orientation, information effectiveness, and
sales performance”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 95-113.
Iivari, J. and Huisman, M. (2007), “The relationship between organizational culture and the
deployment of systems development methodologies”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 35-58.
Ilieva, J., Baron, S. and Healey, N.M. (2002), “Online surveys in marketing research: pros and cons”,
International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 361-376.
Islam, N., Marinakis, Y., Majadillas, M.A., Fink, M. and Walsh, S.T. (2020), “Here there be dragons, a
pre-roadmap construct for IoT service infrastructure”, Technology Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 155, 119073.
Ivanov, D. and Sokolov, B. (2013), “Control and system-theoretic identification of the supply chain
dynamics domain for planning, analysis and adaptation of performance under uncertainty”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 224 No. 2, pp. 313-323.
Jantunen, A., Ellonen, H.K. and Johansson, A. (2012), “Beyond appearances – do dynamic
capabilities of innovative firms actually differ?”, European Management Journal, Vol. 30
No. 2, pp. 141-155.
Johnson, M., Albizri, A., Harfouche, A. and Fosso-Wamba, S. (2022), “Integrating human knowledge
into artificial intelligence for complex and ill-structured problems: informed artificial
intelligence”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 64, 102479.
Karami, M. and Tang, J. (2019), “Entrepreneurial orientation and SME international performance: the
mediating role of networking capability and experiential learning”, International Small Business
Journal, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 105-124.
Kean, Y., John, G. and Edmund (2021), The Routledge Companion to Asian Family Business
Governance, Succession, and Challenges in the Age of Digital Disruption, Routledge.
IJEBR Kellermanns, F.W. and Eddleston, K.A. (2006), “Corporate entrepreneurship in family firms: a family
perspective”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 809-830.
29,1
Kellermanns, F.W., Eddleston, K.A., Sarathy, R. and Murphy, F. (2012), “Innovativeness in family
firms: a family influence perspective”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 85-101.
Kim, G.H., Trimi, S. and Chung, J.H. (2014), “Big-data applications in the government sector”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 78-85.
108 Kitchin, R. (2014), “The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism”, Geo Journal, Vol. 79, pp. 1-14.
Kitsios, F. and Kamariotou, M. (2022), “Digital innovation and entrepreneurship transformation
through open data hackathons: design strategies for successful start-up settings”, International
Journal of Information Management, 102472, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102472.
Kline, R.B. (2015), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford publications.
Konig, A., Kammerlander, N. and Ender, A. (2013), “The family innovator’s dilemma: how family
influence affects the adoption of discontinuous technologies by incumbent firms”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 418-441.
KPMG (2017), Family Businesses in the Digital Economy, KPMG Singapore Report.
Krasnicka, T., Głod, W. and Wronka-Pospiech, M. (2018), “Management innovation, pro-innovation
organisational culture and enterprise performance: testing the mediation effect”, Review of
Managerial Science, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 737-769.
Kraus, S., Palmer, C., Kailer, N., Kallinger, F.L. and Spitzer, J. (2019a), “Digital entrepreneurship”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 353-375.
Kraus, S., Roig-Tierno, N. and Bouncken, R.B. (2019b), “Digital innovation and venturing: an
introduction into the digitalization of entrepreneurship”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 519-528.
Kraus, S., Durst, S., Ferreira, J.J., Veiga, P., Kailer, N. and Weinmann, A. (2022), “Digital transformation
in business and management research: an overview of the current status quo”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 63, 102466.
Kristensen, K., Martensen, A. and Grønholdt, L. (2000), “Customer satisfaction measurement at post
Denmark: results of application of the European customer satisfaction index methodology”,
Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 1007-1015.
Lambrechts, F., Voordeckers, W., Roijakkers, N. and Vanhaverbeke, W. (2017), “Exploring open
innovation in entrepreneurial private family firms in low- and medium-technology industries”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 46, pp. 244-261.
Le Dinh, T., Vu, M.C. and Ayayi, A. (2018), “Towards a living lab for promoting the digital
entrepreneurship process”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Lee, J., Suh, T., Roy, D. and Baucus, M. (2019), “Emerging technology and business model innovation:
the case of artificial intelligence”, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and
Complexity, Vol. 5 No. 3, p. 44.
Leonardi, P.M. (2011), “When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: affordance, constraint,
and the imbrication of human and material agencies”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 147-167.
Lin, H.E., McDonough, E., Lin, S.J. and Lin, C. (2013), “Managing the exploitation/exploration paradox:
the role of a learning capability and innovation ambidexterity”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 262-278.
Loebbecke, C. and Picot, A. (2015), “Reflections on societal and business model transformation arising
from digitization and big data analytics: a research agenda”, The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 149-157.
Lopez-Fernandez, M.C., Serrano-Bedia, A.M. and Perez-Perez, M. (2015), “Entrepreneurship and family
firm research: a bibliometric analysis of an emerging field”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking The intention
it to performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-172.
of family
Lyytinen, K., Sørensen, C. and Tilson, D. (2017), “Generativity in digital infrastructures: a research
note”, in The Routledge Companion to Management Information Systems, Routledge, pp. 253-275.
businesses
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. and Sheets, V. (2002), “A comparison of methods
to test mediation and other intervening variable effects”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 83.
Makridakis, S. (2017), “The forthcoming Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution: its impact on society 109
and firms”, Futures, Vol. 90, pp. 46-60.
Malik, N., Tripathi, S.N., Kar, A.K. and Gupta, S. (2021), “Impact of artificial intelligence on employees
working in industry 4.0 led organizations”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 43 No. 2,
pp. 334-354, doi: 10.1108/IJM-03-2021-0173.
Markus, M.L. and Loebbecke, C. (2013), “Commoditized digital processes and business community
platforms: new opportunities and challenges for digital business strategies”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 649-653.
Marr, B. and Ward, M. (2019), Artificial Intelligence in Practice: How 50 Successful Companies Used AI
and Machine Learning to Solve Problems, Wiley.
Martilla, J.A. and James, J.C. (1977), “Importance-performance analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 77-79.
Martins, E.C. and Terblanche, F. (2003), “Building organizational culture that stimulates creativity and
innovation”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 64-74.
Matthews, L., Hair, J. and Matthews, R. (2018), “PLS-SEM: the holy grail for advanced analysis”,
Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Miller, D. (1983), “The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms”, Management Science”,
Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 770-792.
Mumford, M. (2000), “Managing creative people: strategies and tactics for innovation”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 313-351.
Naman, J.L. and Slevin, D.P. (1993), “Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: a model and empirical
test”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 137-153.
Nambisan, S. (2017), “Digital entrepreneurship: toward a digital technology perspective of
entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 1029-1055.
Nambisan, S., Wright, M. and Feldman, M. (2019), “The digital transformation of innovation and
entrepreneurship: progress, challenges and key themes”, Research Policy, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 1-9.
Naranjo-Valencia, J.C., Jimenez-Jimenez, D. and Sanz-Valle, R. (2016), “Studying the links between
organizational culture, innovation, and performance in Spanish companies”, Revista
Latinoamericana de Psicologıa, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 30-41.
Nieto, M.J., Santamaria, L. and Fernandez, Z. (2015), “Understanding the innovation behavior of family
firms”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 382-399.
Ogbonna, E. and Harris, L.C. (2005), “The adoption and use of information technology: a
longitudinal study of a mature family firm”, New Technology, Work, and Employment, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 2-23.
Olanrewaju, A.S.T., Hossain, M.A., Whiteside, N. and Mercieca, P. (2020), “Social media and
entrepreneurship research: a literature review”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 50, pp. 90-110.
Olivia, F., Lee, M. and Meuter, L. (2010), “The adoption of technology orientation in healthcare
delivery”, International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 355-374.
Parra-Lopez, E., Bulchand-Gidumal, J. and Dıaz-Armas, R. (2011), “Intentions to use social media in
organising and taking vacation trips”, Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 640-654.
IJEBR Pfau, W. and Rimpp, P. (2021), “AI-enhanced business models for digital entrepreneurship”, in
Soltanifar, M., Hughes, M. and GVocke, L. (Eds), Digital Entrepreneurship. Future of Business
29,1 and Finance, Springer, Cham.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Parveen, F., Jaafar, N.I. and Ainin, S. (2015), “Social media usage and organizational performance:
reflections of Malaysian social media managers”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 32 No. 1,
110 pp. 67-78.
Preda, G. (2013), “The influence of entrepreneurial orientation and market-based organizational
learning on the firm’s strategic innovation capability”, Management and Marketing Challenges
for the Knowledge Society, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 607-622.
PwC (2019), PwC India Family Business Survey 2019 Powerhouses of Opportunity, PwC Report.
Rauch, A.J., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G.T. and Frese, M. (2009), “Entrepreneurial orientation and
business performance: an assessment of past research and suggestions for the future”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 761-788.
Rezaei, G., Mardani, A., Senin, A.A., Wong, K.Y., Sadeghi, L., Najmi, M. and Shaharoun, A.M. (2018),
“Relationship between culture of excellence and organizational performance in Iranian
manufacturing companies”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 29 No. 12,
pp. 94-115.
Rizzoni, A. (1991), “Technological innovation and small firms: a taxonomy”, International Small
Business Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 31-42.
Rodrigues, M. and Franco, M. (2021), “Digital entrepreneurship in local government: case study in
Municipality of Fund~ao, Portugal”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 73, 103115.
Rothwell, R. (1977), “The characteristics of successful innovators and technically progressive firms”, R
& D Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 191-206.
Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Horsley, A., Jervis, V.T.P., Robertson, A.B. and Townsend, J. (1974),
“SAPPHO updated project Sappho phase II”, Research Policy, Vol. 3, pp. 258-291.
Sahaym, A., Datta, A.A. and Brooks, S. (2019), “Crowdfunding success through social media: going
beyond entrepreneurial orientation in the context of small and medium-sized enterprises”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 25, pp. 483-494.
Salojarvi, H., Ritala, P., Sainio, L.M. and Saarenketo, S. (2015), “Synergistic effect of technology and
customer relation- ship orientations: consequences for market performance”, Journal of Business
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 511-520.
Samara, G. and Terzian, J. (2021), “Challenges and opportunities for digital entrepreneurship in
developing countries”, in Soltanifar, M., Hughes, M. and G€ocke, L. (Eds), Digital
Entrepreneurship. Future of Business and Finance, Springer, Cham.
Sebastian, I.M., Moloney, K.G., Ross, J.W., Fonstad, N.O., Beath, C. and Mocker, M. (2017), “How big
old companies navigate digital transformation”, MIS Quarterly Executive, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 197-213.
Seyfang, G. and Smith, A. (2007), “Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new
research and policy agenda”, Environmental Politics, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 584-603.
Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Velasquez Estrada, J.M. and Chatla, S.B. (2016), “The elephant in the room:
evaluating the predictive performance of PLS models”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69
No. 10, pp. 4552-4564.
Singal, M. and Gerde, V.W. (2015), “Is diversity management related to financial performance in
family firms?”, Family Business Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 243-259.
Smircich, L. (1983), “Concepts of culture and organizational analysis”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 339-358.
Soltanifar, M. and Smailhodzic, E. (2021), “Developing a digital entrepreneurial mindset for data- The intention
driven, cloud-enabled, and platform-centric business activities: practical implications and the
impact on society”, in Soltanifar, M., Hughes, M. and G€ocke, L. (Eds), Digital Entrepreneurship. of family
Future of Business and Finance, Springer, Cham. businesses
Strong, D.M., Volkoff, O., Johnson, S.A., Pelletier, L.R., Tulu, B., Bar-On, I., Trudel, J. and Garber, L.
(2014), “A theory of organization-EHR affordance actualization”, Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 53-85.
Sussan, F. and Acs, Z. (2017), “The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem”, Small Business Economics, 111
Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 55-73.
The Guardian, (2017), “Digital transformation”, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/media-
network/media-network-blog/2013/nov/21/digital-transformation.
Thong, J.Y.L. and Yap, C.S. (1996), “Information technology adoption by small business: an empirical
study”, in Kautz, K. and Pries-Heje, J. (Eds), Diffusion and Adoption of Information Technology.
IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing, Springer, Boston, MA, doi: 10.
1007/978-0-387-34982-4_12.
Tiwana, A. (2014), Platform Ecosystems: Aligning Architecture, Governance, and Strategy, Morgan
Kaufmann.
Turner, M. and Fauconnier, G. (1997), “A mechanism of creativity”, Poet Today, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 397-418.
Upadhyay, N. (2019), UnBlock the Blockchain, Springer.
Upadhyay, N. (2020), “Demystifying blockchain: a critical analysis of challenges, applications and
opportunities”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 54 No. 12, pp. 1-23.
Upadhyay, N., Upadhyay, S. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2021), “Theorizing artificial intelligence acceptance
and digital entrepreneurship model”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and
Research. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-01-2021-0052.
Uzkurt, C., Kumar, R., Semih Kimzan, H. and Emino glu, G. (2013), “Role of innovation in the
relationship between organizational culture and firm performance”, European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 92-117.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L. and Xu, X. (2012), “Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 157-178.
Verma, S., Sharma, R., Deb, S. and Maitra, D. (2021), “Artificial intelligence in marketing: systematic
review and future research direction”, International Journal of Information Management Data
Insights, Vol. 1 No. 1, 100002.
von Briel, F., Davidsson, P. and Recker, J. (2018), “Digital technologies as external enablers of new
venture creation in the IT hardware sector”, Entrepreneurship and Theory Practice, Vol. 42
No. 1, pp. 47-69.
Votto, A.M., Valecha, R., Najafirad, P. and Rao, H.R. (2021), “Artificial intelligence in tactical human
resource management: a systematic literature review”, International Journal of Information
Management Data Insights, Vol. 1 No. 2, 100047.
Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2004), “The development and validation of the organisational
innovativeness construct using confirmatory factor analysis”, European Journal of
International Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 303-313.
Wareham, J., Fox, P.B. and Cano Giner, J.L. (2014), “Technology ecosystem governance”, Organization
Science, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 1195-1215.
Weerakkody, V., Dwivedi, Y.K., Brooks, L., Williams, M.D. and Mwange, A. (2007), “E-government
implementation in Zambia: contributing factors”, Electronic Government, an International
Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 484-508.
IJEBR Weerakkody, V., Dwivedi, Y.K. and Kurunananda, A. (2009), “Implementing e-government in Sri
Lanka: lessons from the UK”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 15 No. 3,
29,1 pp. 171-192.
Weerawardena, J. (2003), “Exploring the role of market learning capability in competitive strategy”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 3/4, pp. 407-429.
Werle and Laumer (2022), “Competitor identification: a review of use cases, data sources, and
algorithms”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 65, 102507.
112
Wiklund, J. and Shepherd, D. (2003), “Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the
performance of small and medium-sized businesses”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24
No. 13, pp. 1307-1314.
World Bank (WB) (2019), Global Economic Prospects Report, World Bank.
World Economic Forum (2012), Big Data, Big Impact, New Possibilities for International
Development.
Yadav, H., Kar, A.K. and Kashiramka, S. (2021), “How does entrepreneurial orientation and SDG
orientation of CEOs evolve before and during a pandemic”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 60-178.
Yuan, K.W., Hermens, A., Huang, K.P. and Chelliah, J. (2015), “Entrepreneurial orientation and
organizational learning on SMEs’ innovation”, The International Journal of Organizational
Innovation, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 71-81.
Zaheer, H., Breyer, Y., Dumay, J. and Enjeti, M. (2019), “Straight from the horse’s mouth: founders’
perspectives on achieving ‘traction’ in digital start-ups”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 95,
pp. 262-274.
Zaki, M. (2019), “Digital transformation: harnessing digital technologies for the next generation of
services”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 429-435.
Zhou, K.Z., Yim, C.K.B. and Tse, D.K. (2005), “The effects of strategic orientations on technology-
and market-based breakthrough innovations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 42-60.
Zittrain, J. (2006), “The generative Internet”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 119 No. 7, pp. 1975-2040.
Zittrain, J. (2008), The Future of the Internet and How to Stop it, Yale University Press, New
Haven, CT.

Further reading
Arunachalam, S., Ramaswami, S.N., Herrmann, P. and Walker, D. (2018), “Innovation pathway to
profitability: the role of entrepreneurial orientation and marketing capabilities”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 744-766.
Davis, F.D., Bogozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
Gursoy, D., Chi, O.H., Lu, L. and Nunkoo, R. (2019), “Consumers acceptance of artificially intelligent
(AI) device use in service delivery”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 49,
pp. 157-169.
Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A. and Marton, A. (2013), “The ambivalent ontology of digital artifacts”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 357-370.
Kwonsang, S. and Ohbyung, K. (2020), “Technology acceptance theories and factors influencing
artificial Intelligence-based intelligent products”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 47, 101324,
doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2019.101324.
Nambisan, S. and Baron, R.A. (2019), “On the costs of digital entrepreneurship: role conflict, stress,
and venture performance in digital platform-based ecosystems”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 125, pp. 520-532.
Appendix The intention
of family
businesses
Construct Items Sources

Openness OP1: “AI allows multilevel actors’ Rothwell et al. (1974), Upadhyay et al.
participation, contribution, process and (2021)
outcomes” 113
OP2: “Actors’ participation, contribution,
process and outcomes are supported by
AI”
OP3: “AI provides various ways to
collaborate, participate, use process to
generate outcomes”
Affordance AF1: “AI is affordable in a use context” Faraj and Azad (2012), Gibson (1979),
AF2: “I require AI in a use context” Leonardi (2011), Upadhyay et al.
AF3: “In a use context, AI is affordable” (2021)
Generativity GE1: “AI helps to create new digital Doanld (1991), Turner and
artefacts, products and services” Fauconnier (1997), Upadhyay et al.
GE2: “AI provide APIs and libraries to (2021)
build new digital artefacts, products and
services”
GE3: “I can develop new digital artefacts,
products and services using AI APIs and
Libraries”
Entrepreneurial EO1: “Our firm appreciate innovations Dutot and Bergeron (2016), Fan et al.
orientation above everything else” (2021), Miller (1983)
EO2: “Our firm emphasize risk taking”
EO3: “Our firm intend to get into markets
before our competition”
EO4: “Our firm in last five years have
brought several new products or services
to the market”
EO5: “Our firm emphasize R&amp;D,
technological leadership and
innovativeness instead of trusting only
those products and services, which we
have traditionally found to be good”
Technology orientation TO1: “Our firm uses innovative Bamgbade et al. (2019), Gatignon and
technologies in providing solutions” Xuereb (1997)
TO2: “Our firm uses state of the art of
technology for products development”
TO3: “Our firm is very proactive in
providing innovative solutions to respond
to clients’ needs”
TO4: “Our firm has the will and the
capacity to build and market innovative
solutions” Table A1.
Items and sources of
(continued ) constructs
IJEBR Construct Items Sources
29,1
Business BI1: “Creating new ideas, processes, Seyfang and Smith (2007), Bamgbade
innovativeness products and systems is critical to the et al. (2019)
success of our firm”
BI2: “Our firm tends to be an early adopter
of the innovative technologies”
114 BI3: “Our firm actively seeks innovative
technologies”
BI4: “Our firm proactively use innovative
technologies to meet changing customer
needs”
Culture and flexible CFD1: “Managers communicate to Cooper (1994), Bamgbade et al. (2019),
design workforce the shared values of the Iivari and Huisman (2007), Dettmers
organization” et al. (2013), Smircich (1983)
CFD2: “Workforce can identify and
articulate the firm’s shared values”
CFD3: “Workforces’ behaviours that are
coherent with organizational culture are
rewarded”
CFD4: “Organizational shared values
promote a willingness, even eagerness, to
change”
CFD5: “Managers provide support to
workforce to reach organizational goals”
Family business FBAIAI1: “Our firm is planning to adopt Parra-Lopez et al. (2011), Upadhyay
adoption intention of <accept> AI” et al. (2021), Venkatesh et al. (2012)
AI FBAIAI2: “Our firm will adopt AI for all
my requirements”
FBAIAI3: “I think that our firm will adopt
Table A1. <accept> AI”

About the authors

Nitin Upadhyay. He is currently working as a Chairperson Integrated Programme in Management, Co-
Chairman IT Systems and Services and is also associated with IT Systems and Analytics at the India
Institute of Management, Jammu, India. He is a fellow of the prestigious Royal Society of Arts London
and a fellow of the Institute of Engineers (I). Over the years, he has engaged with select top Fortune 500
companies. He is a leading authority and speaker on the blockchain, emerging technology, innovation,
information systems, cloud computing, big data and analytics, future technology and user experience.
He has contributed 100þ peer-reviewed publications/presentations/posters/talks, 13 books and 50þ
innovations. His research interests are at the interface of IS, IT and frontiers in business, focusing on
issues related to IS/IT adoption and diffusion of emerging digital innovations, blockchain, business
models, cloud, information systems, emerging technology, big data and analytics particularly in the
context of frontiers in business.
Shalini Upadhyay. She is currently working as an associate professor in the Department of
Humanities and Social Sciences at BITS Pilani K K Birla Goa Campus, Goa, India. She has more than
22 years of experience in teaching, research and consultancy. She has published scholarly work in the
refereed journals and conferences including the International Journal of Mobile Banking and
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and research. Her research areas include
communication, EFL/ELT, social media analytics, technology in society, public relations,
entrepreneurship, tourism and spiritual intelligence.
Mutaz M. Al-Debei is currently working as the Dean of the Business School at Al-Ahliyya Amman
University. Beforehand, he was a Senior Territory Manager for the Public Sector at Oracle. Also at
Oracle, he was a Senior Territory Manager for Autonomous Data Management and Cloud Technology.
Previously, Al-Debei had a previous role as a Principal Cloud Platform Consultant – Big Data and
Business Analytics also at Oracle. Before joining Oracle, Al-Debei was working as the Director of Big The intention
Data and Advanced Analytics at INTRASOFT MEA. Moreover and before joining INTRASOFT, Al-
Debei was serving as an Associate Professor of Information Systems and Computing at the University of of family
Jordan (UJ) and also as an ICT Chief Consultant at the National Center for Security and Crises businesses
Management. He also worked as an IT Manager for Arab Radio and Television (ART) in Jordan Media
City, and he held other positions in Al-Ahli Bank (Master Card Department) and Royal Scientific Society.
Al-Debei earned his Ph.D. from Brunel University London (BUL) in Information Systems and Computing
in May 2010. Furthermore, Al-Debei has received many international and nationally significant research 115
awards, such as the Abdul Hameed Shoman Award for Arab Researchers – ICTs, 2015, the prestigious
Vice Chancellor’s Prize for Doctoral Research from Brunel University London in 2010, the Distinguished
Researcher Award from the University of Jordan – three times in 2012, 2014 and 2018. Also, he received
best paper awards from UKAIS (2008) and another one from IFIP 8.2 (2010).
Dr Abdullah M. Baabdullah is an Associate Professor of Information Systems at the Department of
Management Information Systems, Faculty of Economics and Administration, King Abdulaziz
University, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. His academic qualifications include a PhD. in Information
Systems from Swansea University in Wales; MSc in Management Information Systems from University
of Surrey and BSc in Management Information Systems from King Abdulaziz University. Dr
Baabdullah’s research interests are in the area of information systems, analysis/development of IS
theories/models, IT/IS adoption, diffusion of emerging ICTs, acceptance and use of e-services and m-
applications, e-government/m-government and social media/social networking.
Yogesh K. Dwivedi is a Professor of Digital Marketing and Innovation and Founding Director of the
Emerging Markets Research Centre (EMaRC) at the School of Management, Swansea University, Wales,
UK. In addition, he holds a Distinguished Research Professorship at the Symbiosis Institute of Business
Management (SIBM), Pune, India. Professor Dwivedi is also currently leading the International Journal
of Information Management as its Editor-in-Chief. His research interests are at the interface of
information systems (IS) and marketing, focusing on issues related to consumer adoption and diffusion
of emerging digital innovations, digital government and digital and social media marketing, particularly
in the context of emerging markets. Professor Dwivedi has published more than 500 articles in a range of
leading academic journals and conferences that are widely cited (more than 35 thousand times as per
Google Scholar). He has been named on the annual Highly Cited Researchers™ 2020 and 2021 lists from
Clarivate Analytics. Professor Dwivedi is an Associate Editor of the Journal of Business Research,
European Journal of Marketing, Government Information Quarterly and International Journal of
Electronic Government Research and Senior Editor of the Journal of Electronic Commerce Research.
Yogesh K. Dwivedi is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: y.k.dwivedi@swansea.ac.uk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com