Cloud computing · Full-text open-access exploratory qualitative case study

Unraveling the determinants of SaaS performance: a dynamic capabilities perspective

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing · 2026

Hea Sun Lee, Margaret Jekanyika Matanda

Summary

Seven determinants were identified: marketing activities and website functionality/interactivity support sensing; customized innovation, security certifications, B2B partnerships and information sharing support seizing; the paper maps further determinants to transforming. 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

Which organizational determinants align with sensing, seizing and transforming capabilities to explain SaaS-provider performance?

Design

Exploratory qualitative case study; thematic analysis of interviews interpreted through dynamic-capabilities dimensions.

Sample and setting

Ten small and medium-sized SaaS providers headquartered in South Korea.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

The accessible publisher summary does not expose a detailed limitations section; the small, South Korea-centered qualitative sample limits transferability and warrants editorial review.

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

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

Sample · 0.4/1

The accessible source does not report a usable sample size.

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