Product adoption · Abstract-supported quantitative empirical study

Blockchain technology adoption and its impact on SME performance: insights for entrepreneurs and policymakers

Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy · 2024

J. Kumar, G. Rani, M. Rani, V. Rani

Summary

Relative advantage, top-management support, competitive pressure and market dynamics significantly influenced blockchain adoption; the paper also tests adoption’s relationship with SME market and financial performance. For a founder, use this as a question to test in your own context, not a universal playbook.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Treat this as evidence for the specific customer behavior and adoption question studied. Compare the setting and sample to your company before changing a growth decision; use a local experiment where the paper does not match your context.

Reported result

What the study found

Research question

What the authors investigated

Which TOE/RBV factors predict blockchain adoption in SMEs, and how does adoption relate to market and financial performance?

Design

Survey of SMEs; TOE and resource-based-view framework; statistical analysis using PLS-SEM.

Sample and setting

407 SME responses from India.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

The accessible summary does not state detailed limitations; India-only cross-sectional self-report data limit causal and geographic inference.

Research sources

Publisher DOI record and accessible article/abstract directly support the bibliographic record and the summary fields; editorial review remains appropriate for duplicate checking against the unseen 300-study library. Correction notices were not separately verified in this collection; consult the current publisher record before applying the findings.

Study strength

3/5 Exploratory evidence; interpret cautiously

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design · 1/2

Synthesis or analytical design addresses the question, but conclusions depend on included literature or model assumptions.

Sample · 0.8/1

The reviewed source reports a sample or corpus size (407); size alone does not establish representativeness.

Comparison · 0.5/1

The comparison structure is limited or depends on the paper's model/context.

Can we check it? · 0.5/1

Only publisher abstract/metadata was retrieved; full methods and robustness could not be checked.

Double-blind? Blinding was not established from the captured source; it may not apply to this study design.

Read the paper