Platforms · Systematic literature review

Digital innovation in entrepreneurial firms: a systematic literature review

Review of Managerial Science · 2023

Alessandro M. Felicetti, Vincenzo Corvello, Stefano Ammirato

Summary

Six recurring areas were start-up collaboration networks, business-model innovation, digital platforms, digital ventures, entrepreneur profile and digital-innovation ecosystems.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Use these six lenses to assess ecosystem dependencies, platform strategy and business-model experiments.

Reported result

What the study found

Six recurring areas were start-up collaboration networks, business-model innovation, digital platforms, digital ventures, entrepreneur profile and digital-innovation ecosystems.

Research question

What the authors investigated

How does the study’s stated design explain its reported outcome in this setting?

Design

Systematic literature review

Sample and setting

185 papers covering 20 years

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Review findings depend on database/search and coding choices; it does not estimate effect sizes.

Research sources

abstract_only

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

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 transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.

Read the paper