AI · Full-text open-access quantitative empirical study

From capabilities to performance in AI-driven B2B SaaS: Website interactivity and regional differences under digital transformation

Industrial Marketing Management · 2026

Hea Sun Lee, Margaret Jekanyika Matanda

Summary

US providers benefited directly from both exploration and exploitation and indirectly through website interactivity; Asia-Pacific providers benefited solely through the indirect website-interactivity path. Higher technological turbulence intensified the positive mediation effect. 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 b2b growth and sales 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

How do exploration and exploitation capabilities, AI-enabled website interactivity and technological turbulence affect B2B SaaS performance across US and Asia-Pacific markets?

Design

Survey analysis grounded in ambidexterity theory; tests direct capability effects, mediation by AI-enabled website interactivity, regional differences and moderation by technological turbulence.

Sample and setting

362 B2B SaaS providers in the United States and Asia Pacific.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

The accessible abstract does not state detailed study limitations; editorial review of the full paper is needed for the limitations section.

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.

Additional research source ↗

Study strength

3.5/5 Useful evidence with meaningful caveats

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

The described design supports the question, but it does not establish causal effects beyond the reported setting.

Sample · 0.8/1

The reviewed source reports a sample or corpus size (362); 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? · 1/1

Firecrawl retrieved a full paper or full-text publisher page for this annotation.

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

Read the paper