See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/387949046

Dynamic capabilities and multi-sided platforms: Fostering organizational

agility, flexibility, and resilience in B2B service ecosystems

Article in Industrial Marketing Management · January 2025

DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2025.01.006

CITATIONS READS

2 100

4 authors:

Minna Heikinheimo Pia Hautamaki

University of Eastern Finland Tampere University of Applied Sciences
4 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS 22 PUBLICATIONS 213 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Saara Julkunen Jonna Koponen

University of Eastern Finland University of Eastern Finland
32 PUBLICATIONS 342 CITATIONS 53 PUBLICATIONS 518 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jonna Koponen on 16 January 2025.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Industrial Marketing Management 125 (2025) 179–194

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indmarman

Dynamic capabilities and multi-sided platforms: Fostering organizational

agility, flexibility, and resilience in B2B service ecosystems
Minna Heikinheimo a,* , Pia Hautamäki b, Saara Julkunen c , Jonna Koponen c
a
Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, Business School, University of Eastern Finland, Box 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland
b
Business School, LUT University, Mukkulankatu 19, 15210 Lahti, Finland
c
Department of Business, University of Eastern Finland, Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The use of multi-sided platforms in business-to-business services can redefine how established businesses and
Organizational agility their operational activities meet the requirements of volatile business markets. Using an abductive research
B2B services approach, we analyzed how the dynamic capabilities of service firms as platform owners foster the organiza­
Multi-sided platforms
tional capabilities of agility, flexibility, and resilience in a multi-sided platform ecosystem. Using data from 34
Organizational flexibility
Organizational resilience
interviews, and based on the Gioia methodology, we illustrated the underlying mechanisms that foster a service
B2B marketing firm’s ability to promptly respond and deliver improved services to quickly changing market needs. This study
contributes theoretically to the B2B marketing literature, particularly regarding organizational capabilities in
digital platform ecosystems, by presenting a framework and three propositions that illustrate service firms’
pertinent organizational capabilities for long-term success. This study also offers avenues for further research as
well as several implications for managers regarding building faster, more accurate service responses.

1. Introduction more than 130,000 professionals, such as software developers, to meet

customers’ needs remotely and globally with the help of an MSP. In both
The current turbulent times, characterized by rapid environmental, marketplaces, MSPs facilitate customer matching and drive service
technological, socioeconomic, and geopolitical changes, are profoundly transactions via technologies deployed and integrated innovatively (see,
impacting societies and businesses, particularly service firms (World e.g., Mancuso et al., 2024; Principato et al., 2023; Yuan et al., 2022).
Economic Forum, 2022). To survive with new ways of working, and with In the business services context, MSPs transform traditional service
increased uncertainty in business markets, service firms are undergoing value chains into platform-based virtual ecosystems of supply and de­
major transformations to remain competitive and secure and to improve mand, constituting a complex network of people, businesses, and tech­
their market positions (Liu, Long, & Liu, 2023; Nanda & Narayandas, nologies orchestrated by a platform owner (Heikinheimo et al., 2024;
2021). First, they are deploying digital multi-sided platforms (MSPs) to Hein et al., 2020; Perks et al., 2017). Leveraging MSPs with their tech­
maintain interactions with their customers and to provide services nologies enables platform owners to reinforce these digital networks and
remotely (Heikinheimo et al., 2024; Huang & Farboudi Jahromi, 2021; strengthen their competitive advantages by increasing their resources
Liu, Chung, et al., 2023). Second, they are developing organizational and ability to react quickly to market changes (Floetgen et al., 2021; Liu,
capabilities to withstand market volatility and thrive in a rapidly Chung, et al., 2023; Ricciotti, 2020). For service firms as platform
evolving digital economy (Boh et al., 2023; Liu, Chung, et al., 2023). owners, MSPs provide a structure to manage various internal and
MSPs are digital marketplaces that provide efficient matchmaking, external experts and to deeply understand their customers’ expertise
relationship building, and transactions between two or more actors needs, which is essential due to the nature of their service businesses
(Hagiu & Wright, 2015; Micallef et al., 2023; Wallbach et al., 2019) and (Heikinheimo et al., 2024; Nanda & Narayandas, 2021).
are driven by cutting-edge technologies, such as artificial intelligence In addition to technologies, capabilities related to MSP ecosystems in
(AI) (Ameen et al., 2021; Huang & Rust, 2021). Examples of firms with a rapidly evolving digital economy help firms gain competitive advan­
digital marketplaces include Uber and eWork, the latter connecting tages (Floetgen et al., 2021; Liu, Chung, et al., 2023; Rapaccini et al.,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: minna.heikinheimo@uef.fi (M. Heikinheimo), pia.hautamaki@lut.fi (P. Hautamäki), saara.julkunen@uef.fi (S. Julkunen), jonnapauliina.
koponen@uef.fi (J. Koponen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2025.01.006
Received 14 November 2023; Received in revised form 3 January 2025; Accepted 6 January 2025
Available online 12 January 2025
0019-8501/© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Heikinheimo et al. Industrial Marketing Management 125 (2025) 179–194

2020; Salmela et al., 2022). In MPSs, organizational capabilities, such as better long-term competitiveness (Amankwah-Amoah et al., 2024;
organizational agility (OA), organizational flexibility (OF), and organi­ Berger-de León et al., 2023). More academic understanding is needed to
zational resilience (OR), help firms survive unexpected crises (Floetgen uncover how this is being implemented in real-life empirical contexts,
et al., 2021; Rapaccini et al., 2020; Salmela et al., 2022; Zia et al., 2023). specifically with the MSPs that firms utilize to maintain their
Simultaneously, there is an incrementally growing need for further ac­ competitiveness.
ademic research focusing on the role of emerging technologies and To address the gaps above, our research questions are as follows:
platforms as organizational capability accelerators connected with
firms’ survival in turbulent times (Amankwah-Amoah et al., 2024). In • How do the dynamic capabilities of service firms drive OA, OF, and
our study, we follow Ramos et al. (2023) and Salmela et al. (2022) and OR in an MSP ecosystem?
consider agility and flexibility to be closely related but separate con­ • How do OA, flexibility, and resilience support service firms in an
cepts. OA refers to a “firms’ ability to continually be aware of and MSP ecosystem?
respond to sudden market changes” (Lee et al., 2015, p. 398).
Conversely, OF is defined as “the degree to which an organization pos­ To address our research questions, we employ a qualitative research
sesses a variety of actual and potential procedures to improve the methodology (Gehman et al., 2018) with an abductive research
controllability of the organization and environment” (Palanisamy, 2003, approach (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). Between 2019 and 2022, we con­
p. 84). Both agility and flexibility are linked in research with OR (Dubey ducted an in-depth investigation focusing on 34 qualitative semi-
et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2022) as “enabling companies to adapt effec­ structured interviews with CEOs, directors, and managers of business-
tively to unexpected events, bounce back from crises, and foster future to-business (B2B) service firms acting as platform owners orches­
success” (Yuan et al., 2022, p. 87). OR builds long-term resistance to trating MSP ecosystems. This research contributes to the B2B marketing
effectively overcome impending disruptive changes (Guo, Chen, et al., literature in four ways.
2023; Ortiz-de-Mandojana & Bansal, 2016; Teixeira & Werther, 2013). First, in terms of originality (Corley & Gioia, 2011), we respond to
In this research, we adopt Singh et al.’s (2022) perception of the joint calls to empirically study the role of emerging technology–oriented ca­
role of firms’ agility, flexibility, and resilience in survival amid severe pabilities in building firms’ future success in the B2B context
market disruption and highlight the importance of investigating these (Amankwah-Amoah et al., 2024) and how service ecosystems develop
capabilities jointly. Moreover, we posit that MSP ecosystems offer agility, flexibility, and resilience (Field et al., 2021; Floetgen et al., 2021;
distinctive opportunities for firms to enhance these capabilities for Liu, Chung, et al., 2023). We produce new theoretical knowledge on
future success. Therefore, we argue that the capabilities must be organizational capabilities in a platform-based B2B context, enhancing
explored separately, since each, in our view, has a unique embodiment the current research (Guo, Chen, et al., 2023; Helfat & Raubitschek,
within the MSP ecosystem. We state that OA constitutes short-term ve­ 2018; Yuan et al., 2022). Second, in terms of incremental insights
locity and promptness with the help of AI and automation. OF is less (Corley & Gioia, 2011), we enhance the existing conceptual under­
time bound but manifests strategic utilization of flexible and reactive standing of three organizational capabilities—OA, OF, and OR—jointly
networks. OR indicates long-term competitiveness with future service used by service firms in digital platform ecosystems (Shashi et al., 2020;
offerings. Teece et al., 2016) with our framework and three propositions. Third,
Earlier management research has shown that organizational capa­ we provide scientific utility (Corley & Gioia, 2011) by enhancing the
bilities are driven by dynamic capabilities characterized as sensing, current scant knowledge on dynamic capabilities as drivers of agility,
seizing, and transforming (Teece, 2007; Teece et al., 2016) and consti­ flexibility, and resilience (Conz & Magnani, 2020; Teece et al., 2016).
tuting a set of high-level capabilities directed toward strategic change Fourth, our findings are useful in practice (Corley & Gioia, 2011) for
(Helfat & Raubitschek, 2018; Liu, Chung, et al., 2023; Salmela et al., managers of service firms, as they provide practical advice to increase
2022; Teece, 2007). Therefore, in this study, we examine how these capabilities to leverage the latest technology opportunities and re­
indispensable organizational capabilities are constituted in the MSP sources to expedite service delivery and provide more accurate service
ecosystem via dynamic capabilities theory (Teece et al., 2016). We responses to customer needs in volatile markets.
utilize dynamic capabilities as a theoretical lens because the extant
research has considered them a key factor in determining firms’ survival 2. Theoretical background
in times of crisis (Gupta et al., 2024). Recent research has shifted focus
to capabilities and seems to agree with their evident role in helping firms To present the theoretical foundation of our study, we approach the
survive in turbulent markets (Amankwah-Amoah et al., 2024; Gupta literature from the perspectives of MSP ecosystems, organizational ca­
et al., 2024; Singh et al., 2022). pabilities (OA, OF, and OR), and dynamic capabilities theory. Table 1
Dynamic capabilities reflect a firm’s ability to integrate, establish, presents key studies and the positioning of our study compared to
and restructure internal and external resources to manage strategic existing research. To our knowledge, no previous study has methodo­
change (Helfat, 2007; Matarazzo et al., 2021; Teece, 2007). Thus, dy­ logically focused on investigating in depth how OA, OF, and OR are
namic capabilities allow firms to change how their business is conducted manifested in MSP ecosystems, as the majority of existing studies have
in an evolving ecosystem and to stretch beyond ongoing practices focused on one capability and have used quantitative methods outside
(Christofi et al., 2021; Zahoor et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2019). Although the MSP context (Ahmed et al., 2022; Liu, Chung, et al., 2023). Addi­
strong dynamic capabilities are essential for enhancing OA (Ahmed tionally, few studies have examined the link between dynamic capa­
et al., 2022; Liu, Chung, et al., 2023; Zahoor et al., 2022), OF (Ramos bilities and the three organizational capabilities that we have chosen
et al., 2023), or OR (Ali et al., 2022), studies linking OR, OA, and OF at (Aslam et al., 2018; Salmela et al., 2022; Teece et al., 2016), and none
the firm level are lacking in the platform ecosystem context (Conz & has done so within the platform-based B2B service industry context.
Magnani, 2020; Huang & Farboudi Jahromi, 2021). Notably, current Dynamic capabilities are a relevant but insufficient theoretical lens in
organizational capability research lacks an in-depth understanding of determining firms’ competitive advantages and survival in times of crisis
platform-based ecosystems (Field et al., 2021; Floetgen et al., 2021), as (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Gupta et al., 2024). Therefore, this study
earlier research has mainly focused on one capability at a time (Ahmed explores also other organizational capabilities in contemporary business
et al., 2022; Guo, Chen, et al., 2023; Liu, Chung, et al., 2023). As tur­ environments.
bulence in the business market seems to be continuing due to rapid
disruptive technologies, natural disasters, and geopolitical and eco­ 2.1. Multi-sided platforms in the B2B service ecosystem
nomic insecurities, firms are building new strategies by utilizing tech­
nologies such as automation and AI to refine their ecosystems and gain MSPs are gaining growing interest in advancing joint value creation,

180
M. Heikinheimo et al. Industrial Marketing Management 125 (2025) 179–194

Table 1
Positioning of our study.
Reference Objectives of the study Methodology Dynamic Multi-sided Organizational Organizational Organizational B2B
capabilities platform agility flexibility resilience services
(MSP)

Helfat & Proposes three types of dynamic conceptual ✓ ✓ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯

Raubitschek, capabilities essential for platform
2018 leaders.
Liu, Chung, Reveals the role of digital strategic quantitative ⎯ ⎯ ✓ ⎯ ⎯ ✓
et al., 2023 agility and digital platform
capabilities in knowledge-intensive
service firms.
Floetgen et al., Shows that social and environmental quantitative ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ✓ ✓ ⎯
2021 practices with business sustainability
enhance OR.
Ahmed et al., Shows the importance of intellectual quantitative ✓ ⎯ ✓ ✓ ⎯ ⎯
2022 capital in enhancing OA for
manufacturing SMEs via digital
platform capability.
Teece et al., Proposes that strong dynamic conceptual ✓ ⎯ ✓ ✓ ⎯ ⎯
2016 capabilities are needed to promote
OA.
Salmela et al., Conceptualizes digital agility based conceptual ✓ ⎯ ✓ ✓ ⎯ ⎯
2022 on previous research and publicly
available cases.
Aslam et al., Reveals that market-sensing quantitative ✓ ⎯ ✓ ✓ ⎯ ⎯
2018 capability is a predecessor to agility
and flexibility.
Guo, Chen, Explores the interlinks between quantitative ⎯ ✓ ✓ ⎯ ✓ ⎯
et al., 2023 horizontal–vertical knowledge
integration processes and resilience in
multinational SMEs and the digital
platform context in times of crisis.
Yuan et al., Investigates the mechanisms that qualitative ⎯ ✓ ⎯ ✓ ✓ ⎯
2022 produce OR in a platform-based
sharing economy.
Schreieck Describes the essential organizational qualitative ⎯ ✓ ⎯ ✓ ⎯ ✓
et al., 2021 capabilities for establishing platform
ecosystems and co-creating and
capturing value in these.
This study Investigates how dynamic qualitative ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
capabilities and MSPs enhance OA,
OF, and OR in the B2B service
trade.

interaction, and even service transactions among B2B services (Huang & research, AI is therefore considered an important element of MSP
Farboudi Jahromi, 2021; Mancuso et al., 2024; Schreieck et al., 2021). technology, fostering and supporting rapid and prompt service processes
For service firms, for whom experts producing services are the most as well as advancing the utilization of data and data analytics (Alt,
important assets (Nanda & Narayandas, 2021) and internal pro­ 2021). The evolution of MSP technology depends on the platform owner
fessionals are often insufficient, MSPs provide a means to seek and taking the initiative to establish and invest in the platform and attract
manage expertise (Heikinheimo et al., 2024; Salmela et al., 2022). various actors, such as complementary service providers and service
Existing research has witnessed MSPs transforming traditional modes of buyers, to form a common ecosystem (Heikinheimo et al., 2024; Man­
interaction, relationship building, and producing new types of dynamic cuso et al., 2024; Ricciotti, 2020; Teece, 2017). Therefore, platform
networks (i.e., platform ecosystems consisting of at least the platform owners play a critical role in designing and managing platform gover­
owner and two different actor groups, such as customers and comple­ nance, laying the foundation for the activities, structures, and elements
mentary service providers) (Hagiu & Wright, 2015; Pagani & Pardo, that characterize the MSP (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2018; Tian et al., 2021;
2017; Wallbach et al., 2019). In such networks, MSPs build value by Trabucchi & Buganza, 2020).
matching various platform users, thus allowing for more efficient and Besides platform owners, other actors may utilize MSPs’ tangible
direct service transactions among service producers and service buyers, resources, such as innovative new services and processes as well as data,
even geographically distant ones (Liu, Chung, et al., 2023; Rana et al., and intangible resources, such as information and knowledge, to
2023; Rasmussen & Petersen, 2017). This is because platform designs advance joint value creation in the platform ecosystem (He & Zhang,
based on network-centric logic foster lateral collaboration among plat­ 2022; Perks et al., 2017; Ritala & Jovanovic, 2023). Therefore, MSPs
form users (Parker et al., 2016; Wallbach et al., 2019). may provide opportunities to improve operational efficiency and flexi­
Platform technology, such as AI (Alt, 2021; Huang & Rust, 2021; bility in parallel with enabling firms to respond rapidly to changes and
Kaplan & Haenlein, 2019), plays a crucial role in MSPs’ operations by provide long-term strategic responsiveness to constantly changing
supporting the automation of the business processes along the customer business markets (Ahmed et al., 2022; Guo, Chen, et al., 2023; Salmela
journey, including service transaction and interaction processes (Alt, et al., 2022; Wallbach et al., 2019). However, research focusing on MSPs
2021; Ameen, Cheah, & Kumar, 2022; Ameen, Sharma, et al., 2022; as a means to produce more agile, efficient, and flexible business pro­
Heikinheimo et al., 2024). Following Alt (2021) and Kaplan and cesses (e.g., Guo, Chen, et al., 2023); Yuan et al., 2022), is only starting
Haenlein (2019), we define AI as “the ability embedded in a platform to to emerge, as can be seen in Table 1. Even rarer is research focusing on
accurately explicate and learn from internal and external data and MSPs and their impact in the B2B service context (e.g., Schreieck et al.,
accomplish specific tasks and goals through adaptation.” In this 2021). Regarding the recent turbulence in business markets, the benefits

181
M. Heikinheimo et al. Industrial Marketing Management 125 (2025) 179–194

of platforms in reinforcing firms’ core capabilities, competitiveness, and Mandojana and Bansal (2016), OR can be seen as an underlying path-
survival therefore merit more academic attention. dependent capability to cope with dangers and problems. Since it is
difficult to measure, its benefits are seen with a delay. Stemming from
2.2. Organizational agility, flexibility, and resilience in MSP ecosystems this, the recent research stream has connected OR to the shorter-term
capabilities of flexibility (Sharma et al., 2020; Yuan et al., 2022) or
OA enables firms to redirect resources quickly and promptly toward agility (Guo, Chen, et al., 2023).
service value creation when internal and external circumstances, such as Despite the extensive research (Table 1) on OR, research connecting
variations in demand and supply, require this (Christofi et al., 2021; resilience in platforms is gaining rising interest but is currently more
Eckstein et al., 2015; Shashi et al., 2020; Swafford et al., 2006; Teece related to consumer business in mobility platforms (Floetgen et al.,
et al., 2016). OA is a time-driven concept connected to volatile business 2021), the platform-based sharing economy (Yuan et al., 2022), or
markets and illustrated by adjectives such as “rapid,” “prompt,” and manufacturing industries (Guo, Chen, et al., 2023). In such contexts, OR
“quick” (Salmela et al., 2022). Research has demonstrated the role of is driven by various factors, such as adaptive business models (Floetgen
information technology in producing OA, including processes, commu­ et al., 2021) and dynamic capabilities to absorb and leverage learning
nication technology, and knowledge (Chen & Chiang, 2011; Lee et al., (Yuan et al., 2022). Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, no
2015; Salmela et al., 2022; Sambamurthy et al., 2003). explorative studies focus on producing new knowledge on all three ca­
Firms utilizing digital platforms with evolving technologies, such as pabilities (OA, OF, and OR) in the MSP service ecosystem. Therefore,
AI, mobile internet, and big data, can quickly identify and react to more research is needed to shed light on the capabilities necessary for
market opportunities and may gain competitive advantages in turbulent service firms to succeed in turbulent business markets (Field et al., 2021;
times (Guo, Yin, & Liu, 2023; Lee et al., 2015). As shown in Table 1, Floetgen et al., 2021; Hein et al., 2020).
research investigating OA in relation to digital platforms has emerged in
recent years (Arias-Pérez et al., 2023; Guo, Chen, et al., 2023; Liu, 2.3. Dynamic capabilities
Chung, et al., 2023; Ramos et al., 2023), although the majority has
focused on agility in other-than-transactional platforms in the profes­ Dynamic capabilities theory has been widely utilized in research to
sional services context (Table 1). comprehend firms’ strategic capabilities and their impact on competi­
The conceptualizations of OF are unclear (Christofi et al., 2021), and tive advantages (Teece, 2007). Dynamic capabilities have been regarded
some researchers regard agility and flexibility as comparable concepts as important in highly volatile business markets, but the latest findings
(see, e.g., Ahmed et al., 2022; Eckstein et al., 2015; Teece et al., 2016). suggest that such capabilities are needed in all environmental condi­
We agree with Salmela et al. (2022), considering them to be closely tions, such as organization-level routines and processes, to redirect
related but separate platform-driven concepts. OF lacks the qualifier of firms’ positions and strategic resources (Ahmed et al., 2022; Zhou et al.,
being driven by sudden external shock (Salmela et al., 2022) but is 2019). The modifier “dynamic” indicates abilities that help firms renew
related more to the firm’s capability to be successful by responding and and restructure their resources and capabilities to boost their competi­
self-organizing operations to adapt to change (Palanisamy, 2003). tive advantages in various market situations (Gupta et al., 2024; Zia
However, the need for OF has been emphasized, as business environ­ et al., 2023), making dynamic capabilities an appropriate theoretical
ments are changing more dynamically (Byrd & Turner, 2001; Palanis­ lens for this study. Dynamic capabilities are organizational capabilities
amy, 2003; Phillips & Wright, 2009). Earlier research (Table 1) has that can be classified as sensing, seizing, and transforming (Teece, 2007;
examined OF in value chains by utilizing outsourcing and flexible labor Teece et al., 2016) and consist of management routines through which
arrangements (Aslam et al., 2018; Ramos et al., 2023). However, the firms can redirect their resources (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). Such
focus in OF has recently shifted toward the strategic utilization of flex­ capabilities are essential for engagement with evolving platform eco­
ible and reactive networks, as many firms nowadays work as inter­ systems and their dynamics (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2018; Teece, 2018),
connected with various network actors (Ramos et al., 2023). but the research linking dynamic capabilities, especially in an MSP
Empirical examples have demonstrated the platforms used to ex­ context, is limited, as presented in Table 1. Furthermore, Eisenhardt and
change market knowledge between retailers and suppliers to enhance Martin (2000) argued that dynamic capabilities are essential, but not
flexibility (Chen & Chiang, 2011; Ravichandran, 2018). OF may involve sufficient, for firms to achieve a competitive advantage. Therefore, in
the capacity to build platform architecture to allow innovative utiliza­ this research, we focus on the role of dynamic capabilities in fostering
tion of networks and resources (Hein et al., 2019; Ritala & Jovanovic, organizational OA, OF, and OR capabilities in the MSP context for future
2023; Salmela et al., 2022). In MSP ecosystems, platform architecture competitiveness.
allows vertical and horizontal interconnectedness among various plat­ Sensing capability denotes a firm’s ability to acquire knowledge and
form users, producing structural flexibility in resource enhancement increase its understanding of new digital technologies, channels, and
(Shashi et al., 2020; Veile et al., 2022). By allowing networks and direct user behaviors (Badrinarayanan et al., 2022; Helfat & Raubitschek,
relationships among platform users to be harnessed innovatively, the 2018; Teece, 2017; Zia et al., 2023). Firms with high sensing capability
available resources can be utilized flexibly according to demand, with likely continuously scan for new technological opportunities and
service offerings widened (Cavallo et al., 2022; Hein et al., 2019; Ric­ disruptive threats, both internally and externally, and proactively create
ciotti, 2020; Ritala & Jovanovic, 2023). However, more understanding different scenarios based on the detected trends to understand their
is needed of how service firms can enhance OF in contemporary business implications for the future (Badrinarayanan et al., 2022; Liu, Long, &
environments, such as in MSP ecosystems, to enhance joint value crea­ Liu, 2023; Zahoor et al., 2022; Zia et al., 2023). Recent research has
tion and competitiveness, since such settings covered in the current highlighted the importance of such sensing capabilities to focus on
organizational capability research are limited (Table 1). digital mindset building and scenario planning to survive the COVID-19
The study of OR has gained momentum in recent years, driven by pandemic by harnessing digital platforms (Zia et al., 2023). For service
several global crises (Salmela et al., 2022). For instance, businesses have firms facing pressures in turbulent business markets, strong sensing
been striving to adapt their strategies to the consequences of COVID-19, capabilities could enable them to recognize the possibilities of contin­
geopolitical changes, or supply chain disruptions (Floetgen et al., 2021; uously evolving platform technologies, identify opportunities to engage
Mysore et al., 2023; Sharma et al., 2020). Overall, the OR research is with various actors, and attract them to such platforms by utilizing the
comprehensive, leading to various conceptualizations (Conz & Magnani, latest cutting-edge technologies (Alt, 2021; Helfat & Raubitschek, 2018;
2020; Floetgen et al., 2021; Guo, Chen, et al., 2023). Consequently, OR Perks et al., 2017). For instance, accumulated real-time platform data
is viewed as a capability, a process, or an outcome (Conz & Magnani, could be utilized to analyze unexpected trends with the help of AI-driven
2020; Yuan et al., 2022) at the firm level. According to Ortiz-de- predictive analytics to reduce human bias in sensing future turns

182
M. Heikinheimo et al. Industrial Marketing Management 125 (2025) 179–194

(Warner & Wäger, 2019). suitable in situations in which theoretical frameworks exist, but it does
Seizing capability develops as a continuum to sensing capability and not provide a full understanding of the empirical phenomenon (Dubois
advances the wider implementation of sensed technological opportu­ & Gadde, 2002; Tavory & Timmermans, 2014). Furthermore, the
nities via firms’ practices, processes, and mobilization of resources for abductive research approach allowed us flexibility in the research design
new ways of capturing value (Teece, 2007; Teece et al., 2016). Seizing and reorientation of the analytical framework, while the researchers
capability involves implementing and scaling platform investments that learned from the data to provide richer analytical explanations (Gehman
are compatible with a firm’s strategic objectives, evolving business et al., 2018).
models, and platform architecture (Hein et al., 2020; Teece, 2017). Our firm-level investigation focused on service firms that deployed
Furthermore, such capabilities enable service firms to plan the timing of MSPs as digital places to make their business practices more efficient by
investments to best support platform leverage within emerging MSP digitizing the process of resource matching. The digital services in this
ecosystems (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2018; Teece, 2018; Yuan et al., research were provided by human experts, such as software coders. In
2022). Seizing capability also refers to the capability to change routines addition to in-house experts, firms leveraged the external professionals
and allocate the internal and external resources and actions needed to of complementary service providers through MSPs. To address the
extend platform networks and the services provided (Teece, 2007; limited B2B industry examples of MSPs (Heikinheimo et al., 2024;
Zahoor et al., 2022). Recent research has suggested that preventive ac­ Micallef et al., 2023; Principato et al., 2023), we focused on B2B service
tions driven by seizing capability, such as keeping resources in reserve in firms as platform owners orchestrating MSP ecosystems.
an MSP ecosystem and fostering employee training and multitasking to
mitigate the negative consequences of market uncertainties, help firms 3.2. Sampling
survive with low-capacity utilization rates (Yuan et al., 2022). A key role
in this is platform governance, which encompasses the design of plat­ We employed purposeful sampling logic (Patton, 2015) to identify
form structures and emphasizes the ease and flexibility of network four B2B service firms that had introduced MSPs as a basis for their
enhancement (Hein et al., 2020; Perks et al., 2017; Teece, 2017). business environments. These firms were part of a large-scale research
Overall, service firms’ seizing capabilities strengthen their skills and program focusing on the role of digital tools, AI, and automation in B2B
competencies for planning and implementing complex chains of actions sales. The firms were selected based on the following criteria: (1) during
to leverage platforms as part of their ecosystems in various market the start of this research, they had introduced MSPs as part of their B2B
situations. service sales; (2) they represented an industry known for utilizing digital
Lastly, closely linked to sensing capability, transforming capability solutions innovatively and thus providing a fruitful platform for inves­
enables firms to balance continuity and continuous renewal with the tigating platform-driven capabilities; and (3) they were B2B service
reconfiguration of organizational resources and structures in the plat­ companies accessible to the researchers. These criteria allowed us to
form ecosystem (Cavallo et al., 2022; Liu, Long, & Liu, 2023; Teece, obtain a sample of 27 participants from four service firms (see Table 2).
2007). It could also involve regaining stability, increasing resources and These participants were interviewed during two time periods: the first
capabilities, and reconfiguring routines as knowledge and learning set of interviews was conducted between 2019 and 2020 and the second
accumulate (Ali et al., 2022; Teece, 2007; Zahoor et al., 2022). The during 2022. The sample of 27 participants consisted of five women and
capability to transform is essential for service firms to continuously 22 men, based on the researchers’ assumption of their genders, and
challenge existing routines and adjust their operations (Cavallo et al., representing different levels of seniority and experience. The partici­
2022; Zahoor et al., 2022). As service firms face unpredictable market pants’ industry experience varied between 3 and 29 years. The data
situations with evolving platform ecosystems, transforming capability collection and analysis are explained below.
may help them overcome such changes (Teece, 2017; Zahoor et al.,
2022). Recent research has shown the importance of transforming the 3.3. Data collection and analysis
capabilities of service firms to survive COVID-19 by transforming their
business models and value creation activities by leveraging digital Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively across four
platforms (Gupta et al., 2024; Zia et al., 2023). Regarding platform phases, as illustrated in Fig. 1. We begin by explaining the data collec­
leverage, transforming capabilities, such as enhancing continuous tion process, then we describe the data analytical process. Regarding
renewal, may be the utmost essence, as platform leverage is an ongoing data collection, our research comprises two distinct datasets. In phase
process, and service firms need to keep up with the pace of technology one, dataset 1 was gathered by interviewing 24 participants during
development and competitive situations to continuously engage new 2019–2020, when the studied firms were at the beginning of their MSP
actors and resources in platforms for the benefit of entire ecosystems. adoption (see Table 2). Semi-structured interviews (see Brown et al.,
To summarize, the lack of explorative research in the field of dy­ 2024) were conducted either face-to-face or via Microsoft Teams. The
namic capabilities advancing the organizational capabilities of OA, OF, snowballing technique (Wilkinson & Young, 2004) was used to identify
and OR in MSP ecosystems has led us to investigate this phenomenon research participants within the sampled service firms by letting the
from the perspective of service firms as platform owners. We posit that firms’ representatives suggest further interviewees. Phase one aimed to
dynamic capabilities play a crucial role in building service firms’ explore ways in which the service firms could enhance agility and
competitive advantages in both the short term (OA) and the long term flexibility within their service processes, particularly in the context of
(OF and OR). Therefore, it is necessary to investigate these capabilities newly introduced MSP ecosystems.
jointly. As such capabilities are intended for strategic-level change and In phase two, we revisited the service firms in November 2022 and
increasing competitive advantages in MSP ecosystems and volatile conducted an additional 10 semi-structured interviews to confirm and
business markets, it is imperative to produce new in-depth knowledge of enhance the initial understanding of OA, OF, and OR development
these capabilities and their linkage in supporting firms’ survival. (dataset 2). We collected dataset 2, as we wanted to give time for the
MSP technologies and capabilities to develop in the service firms, since
3. Methodology platform transformation takes time (Tian et al., 2021). Furthermore, the
COVID-19 pandemic hit the service firms under investigation in spring
3.1. Research design and setting 2020, hindering MSP adoption for a short while, as firms needed to
adjust, for instance, into a fully remote working culture.
To understand how firm-level dynamic capabilities foster OA, OF, In phase three (see Fig. 1), we combined datasets 1 and 2 to confirm
and OR in an MSP ecosystem, we employed an abductive research and enhance our understanding of organizational capabilities in the MSP
approach (Dubois & Gadde, 2002, 2014). Such an approach is especially context and their linkage with the dynamic capabilities of sensing,

183
M. Heikinheimo et al. Industrial Marketing Management 125 (2025) 179–194

Table 2
Illustration of the sample.
Interviewee Position Gender Experience in Time of the interview Pages Duration of the Industry
ID *) years (month/year) interview(s), h/min

#1 director, digital services M 14 11/2019 23 1:31 Software design and

11/2022 13 0:35 development
#2 director, international M 19 11/2019 25 1:38 Software design and
business development development
#3 chief growth officer F 29 11/2019 27 1:26 Software design and
development
#4 product & development M 5 11/2019 24 1:30 Software design and
manager development
#5 capability accelerator M 23 11/2019 29 1:29 Software design and
development
#6 head of digital sales M 20 11/2019 22 1:26 Software design and
11/2022 8 0:28 development
#7 sector lead, industry F 9 11/2019 17 0:42 Software design and
development
#8 sector lead, business M 20 11/2019 19 0:52 Software design and
development
#9 sector lead, society M 27 11/2019 18 1:19 Software design and
development
#10 growth marketing lead F 8 11/2022 8 0:24 Software design and
development
#11 head of sales M 19 11/2019 27 1:41 Computer hardware and
11/2022 12 0:32 software consulting
#12 resource manager M 10 11/2019 24 1:30 Computer hardware and
software consulting
#13 chief information officer M 20 11/2019 35 1:26 Computer hardware and
software consulting
#14 business specialist M 9 11/2019 25 1:30 Computer hardware and
software consulting
#15 chief executive officer M 25 11/2019 28 1:41 Computer hardware and
11/2022 8 0:22 software consulting
#16 chairman of the board M 6 11/2019 21 1:12 Computer hardware and
software consulting
#17 chief network officer M 5 11/2022 11 0:29 Computer hardware and
software consulting
#18 account manager M 3 11/2022 16 0:32 Computer hardware and
software consulting
#19 account manager M 3 12/2019 51 1:29 Architectural services
#20 chief executive officer M 29 12/2019 20 1:10 Architectural services
11/2022 13 0:43
#21 customer success manager M 9 12/2019 14 0:54 Architectural services
#22 R&D director M 10 12/2019 17 0:53 Architectural services
#23 partner, innovation M 18 12/2019 21 1:24 Architectural services
management 11/2022 9 0:29
#24 chief marketing officer F 18 01/2020 18 0:59 Other management consulting
#25 account executive F 7 01/2020 16 0:57 Other management consulting
#26 chief executive officer M 19 01/2020 22 1:09 Other management consulting
11/2022 9 0:23
#27 chief technical officer M 7 01/2020 16 0:56 Other management consulting
*
Based on the interpretation of the researchers.

seizing, and transforming (Teece, 2007). The entire dataset consisted of capability—resilience based on the informants’ speech and feed­
34 interviews. Each interview lasted 22–102 min, with an average back—which did not align with the characteristics of the other two ca­
duration of 67 min. The data consisted of over 38 h of recordings and pabilities. This led us to revisit the literature on organizational
666 pages of transcribed voice recordings for analysis (see Table 2). capabilities (see, e.g., Lee et al., 2015, for agility; Palasimany, 2003, for
Regarding the start of the data analysis, the transcribed interviews flexibility; and Yuan et al., 2022, for resilience).
were first thoroughly read by the first and second authors to obtain an In the third phase of the analysis, we merged datasets 1 and 2 into
overall understanding of the data. In the first phase of the data analysis, theory-driven coding and abductive analysis. This iterative coding
dataset 1 was analyzed using the Gioia method (Gioia et al., 2013) to confirmed and refined our initial first-order concepts, finally resulting in
form an initial informant-centered understanding of the MSP’s role in 75 codes (see Appendix A). The second-order themes were accordingly
developing agility and flexibility in service processes and to identify iterated, modified, and removed based on their relevance to the iden­
first-order concepts of agility and flexibility in the MSP context (see tified organizational capabilities of OA, OF, and OR, finally resulting in
Fig. 1). In the Gioia method, the first-order concepts capture partici­ eight second-order themes. During this analytical phase, we identified a
pants’ perspectives, followed by the second-order themes, and finally link between the higher-level dynamic capabilities of service firms and
aggregate dimensions with the presentation of broader coherent topics the organizational capabilities of OA, OF, and OR. Therefore, we again
(Gioia et al., 2013; Magnani & Gioia, 2023). turned to the literature and employed a robust theory of dynamic ca­
After a second round of interviews, the second phase of the analysis pabilities (Teece, 2007), with its three categories of sensing, seizing, and
was conducted on dataset 2 to confirm and enhance our initial under­ transforming, as an analytical structure guiding our final analytical
standing of organizational capabilities and to identify initial second- phase (Teece, 2007). Finally, we constructed aggregate dimensions of
order themes. Furthermore, we noticed an additional organizational organizational capabilities (OA, OF, and OR) in an MSP ecosystem and

184
M. Heikinheimo et al. Industrial Marketing Management 125 (2025) 179–194

Fig. 1. Illustration of the data collection phases and analysis process.

linkages with dynamic capabilities as driving forces into those di­ 3.4. Trustworthiness of the study
mensions. An example of the final coding structure is presented in
Table 3. In phase four, we reflected on the findings with the relevant To ensure the trustworthiness and quality of our research, we
literature and validated the findings and the trustworthiness of the employed several well-established measures aligned with our qualita­
research. tive research process and examples of recent research with abductive

Table 3
Example of a coding structure.
Sensing Seizing Transforming First-order concepts Second-order themes Aggregate
dimensions

X • Data-based forecasting in demand Data-driven reactions to market needs OA in the MSP

• Harnessing real-time customer data on the platform context
• Allowing easy and open access to a platform database
• Identifying AI’s opportunities in sales analytics
X • Utilizing AI in resource matching Accurate responses with automated resource
• Exploring the possibilities of platform technology matching
• Doing technology and AI tool experiments
X • Fostering boundary resources that enable integrations Fostering an adaptable and evolving platform OF in the MSP
• Providing easy access to a service ecosystem structure context
• Low hierarchy with platform governance and between actors
X • Building a common expert resource pool Effective use of common ecosystem resources
• Allocating new roles and resources for network development
• Attracting foreign network resources
X • Developing MSP-based processes Enhanced service range and processes
• Reducing human work with AI-powered software robots and
chatbots
X • Educating customers and a market for new platform-based Amplifying platform-based service ecosystem for OR in the MSP
services expert trade context
• Upscaling the platform and resources
X • Utilizing AI to scan and suggest competence gaps Driving data-based development of future services
• Sharing data with various platform actors
X • Ability to assess and harness accumulated learning Fostering continuous development and an open
• Ability to continuously build partnerships and relationships transformative mindset
• Constantly adapting to new markets and industries
• Ability to overcome continuous improvements and
technological challenges of the platform

185
M. Heikinheimo et al. Industrial Marketing Management 125 (2025) 179–194

research logic, such as Sairanen et al. (2024). The careful data collection Table 4
by the two first authors was followed by the establishment of a common Summary of the findings.
research database with the help of ATLAS.ti software, enabling struc­ Sensing Seizing capability Transforming
tured data management and iterative triangulation between the litera­ capability of a of a platform capability of a
ture, data, and analysis following abductive reasoning logic (Dubois & platform owner: owner: platform owner:
Gadde, 2002; Farquhar et al., 2020). Interviewees were given the op­ Dynamic • Detecting • Investing in a • Continuous
portunity to provide commentaries on the research findings to enhance capabilities internal and platform development of
our analytical understanding and the validity of the findings. By col­ based on external data structure the platform and
managerial sources (people, tools, overcoming
lecting data from various professional informants over different time behavior • Following the processes) that technological
spans during the development of the MSPs, the authors increased the competitive promotes challenges
data and source triangulation. During our analysis, data saturation was situation flexibility • Continuously
reached when no new codes emerged from the data (Creswell, 2012). • Identifying • Allocating assessing own
opportunities resources for learning and the
During the coding process and data analysis, the two first authors
for and threats the strategic use of AI to scan
maintained constant dialog with each other and with two other authors to platform development of for competence
for reviewing the codes, findings, and analysis for researcher triangu­ technology the ecosystem gaps
lation and, consequently, for increasing the trustworthiness of the • Obtaining • Seizing direct • Assessing own
research (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016). The university’s research ethics knowledge of and indirect and network
AI’s network effects resources
protocols were carefully employed and explained to the research par­ opportunities • Promoting the
ticipants prior to the interviews and at the start of the interviews. For • Constantly use of common
research transparency, the research process, including the analysis, was evaluating resources
illustrated and documented in detail, following the criteria of Aguinis means for across country
better resource borders
and Solarino (2019). The following section presents our findings, along
matching
with illustrative quotations from the interviews. Organizational Embodiment of Embodiment of Embodiment of
capabilities organizational organizational organizational
4. Findings driven by agility flexibility resilience
sensing, • Data-driven • Harnessing an • Amplifying a
seizing, reactions to adaptable and platform-based
This study explores how dynamic capabilities foster OA, OF, and OR transforming market needs evolving service
in MSP ecosystems in the B2B service context. Our findings highlight the • Accurate platform ecosystem for
impact of dynamic capabilities (sensing, seizing, and transforming) as service structure expert trade
higher-level management routines within MSP ecosystems, fostering response with • Effective use of • Driving data-
automated common based develop­
service firms’ organizational capabilities that enhance competitive ad­
resource- network ment of future
vantages and survival in constantly changing business markets. A sum­ matching resources services
mary of the findings is presented in Table 4. In the upper section of • Enhanced • Fostering
Table 4, dynamic capabilities (sensing, seizing, and transforming) are service range continuous
presented from left to right as they appear in our data. The lower section and processes development and
an open,
of Table 4 focuses on presenting OA, OF, and OR as they appear in our
transformative
data. Noteworthy was the linkage of sensing capability fostering agility, mindset
seizing capability of flexibility, and transforming capability of resilience.
Based on our findings, strong sensing ability, such as the ability to detect
and interpret data faster than competitors, helps platform owners build driven reactions to market needs and accurate service responses with auto­
agility, such as making data-based decisions to provide accurate service mated resource matching.
responses. Strong seizing capability, such as the ability to harness Data-driven reactions in our findings are displayed as service firms’
network effects and optimal resource allocation for MSP ecosystem ability to harness real-time data in conducting faster data-based de­
development, helps platform owners increase flexibility within the cisions in various areas, such as forecasting service demand in target
ecosystem through the effective use of common network resources, such markets. Data are collected from internal and external sources driven by
as complimentary service providers in new markets. Lastly, strong platform owners’ sensing capability. Internal data include platform data
transformation capability, such as a commitment to continuous platform from past service projects, customer preferences, and the competences
development and learning, enables platform owners to enhance resil­ and soft skills of experts. External data encompass market trends and
ience, such as by reinforcing the new paradigm for service trade and publicly available data sources related, for instance, to new program­
building future data-based services. These capabilities are illustrated in ming languages, working methods (e.g., scrum), or search data of the
more detail in the following subsections. most recent and sought-after skills. Data from various sources can be
combined with AI and algorithms to produce various trend reports and
4.1. Sensing capability to foster organizational agility in the MSP context forecast future market demand, appearing as enhanced OA, as illus­
trated in the quotes below:
MSPs, with their evolving technology, provide the context for service [From the platform] we run reports, once a quarter, of the [skills and
firms, as platform owners, to gain potential competitive advantages by competences] that have been asked, and at the same time, we syn­
enhancing agility in the service trade. The core of a service firm’s value chronize this to the knowledge base, which is then maintained and
proposition is to quickly match the most suitable experts with various further developed.
customer needs. Based on our findings, sensing capability is essential in (Interviewee 15)
enhancing OA in MSPs, as it pushes service firms to constantly scan for
new technological opportunities and threats as well as obtain knowledge The platform’s database with smart functionalities and AI may detect
of the evolving technology to seek faster and more precise reactions to the likelihood that the [potential lead] is close to a deal. … AI is
volatile market situations. Furthermore, sensing capability is essential constantly learning about the behavior of current customers and
for service firms to recognize the importance of data, identify new data about the time they became customers. [This information] is then
sources, either internal or external, and predict market changes proac­ utilized with a group of noncustomers’ behavior data in the database
tively. Consequently, OA manifests in our data with two elements: data- to calculate the probabilities using algorithms.

186
M. Heikinheimo et al. Industrial Marketing Management 125 (2025) 179–194

(Interviewee 26) platform and AI, technical hard facts [concerning expert needs] can
be tested very well. [Later,] expert profiles will also include softer
Such data sources are essential for service firms, as platform owners,
values and ways of working.
to detect whether changes in customer behavior, such as wishes to end
(Interviewee 15)
ongoing projects, are short- or long-term phenomena in demand. For
service providers, business success is dependent on high billing rates in We should constantly strive to get more things automated [in expert
the sense that experts’ work time is efficiently allocated to hours that matching] to be able to trust AI, as AI uses much more data than one
belong to billable customer work (Nanda & Narayandas, 2021). The or 10 people.
ability to forecast future service demand, either decreases or peaks, is (Interviewee 24)
essential for service firms to be able to proactively cope with sudden
Therefore, service firms, as platform owners, continually follow the
shocks in the market. Therefore, the ability to harness real-time
development of platform technology, especially AI, driven by their
customer data on the platform is an important embodiment of OA in
sensing capability to provide better matches. This is highlighted in the
this context. Our findings also indicate service firms’ active pursuit of
following quotes:
identifying AI’s opportunities in sales analytics to secure data-driven
reactions to market changes and to secure high billable rates in any I think that speed is the ultimate strength in this business. … [The
market circumstances, as illustrated in the following quotes: platform, with its database,] speeds up [the expert–customer
matching] a lot because we don’t have to ask the customer for all the
If we see, for example, that there are going to be reductions in some
basic information. We already know them [customers] since we have
client [projects]—which expert roles this affects, which expert re­
the data.
sources we have free, looking forward, in [for instance] 2 month­
s—then we should start selling that type of expertise to our clients (Interviewee 11)
right now. … So this is [an example] of our data-based forecasting. [The value of the platform for the ecosystem] is its transparency … so
(Interviewee 1) that the pipeline is direct from the customer to the individual
[expert]. At the start of the work, a customer getting the expert from
We have an AI-driven forecasting algorithm and feedback mecha­
the platform is faster than anywhere else. And, of course, customers
nisms that predict how much [an expert] would be able to bill for the
get those talents that they want.
customer for projects of different sizes. So if you see that [experts]
are currently billing €120/h in some month-long project, and [the (Interviewee 12)
algorithm] predicts €25/h, then the [platform] would encourage For automated resource matching, service firms conduct technology
[the experts] to improve their profiles. experiments to improve their performance in terms of reaction speed by
(Interviewee 4) leveraging platform attributes, as illustrated in these quotes. Besides AI,
exploring other possibilities of platform technology is constantly being
OA also appears in our data by platform owners, allowing easy and
conducted to enhance agility driven by sensing capability. For instance,
open access to platform databases for other ecosystem actors. In this
software robotics are utilized to sense human errors in work-time allo­
way, for instance, customers may utilize the data for planning their own
cations, which are important to detect, as unreported work time would
projects and examining what kinds of competences are available. For
lower sales performance.
service firms, such search data provide hints for possible future service
needs and, again, help with demand forecasting, as illustrated by the We [experiment with platform technology and AI all the time], and
following quote: currently, we [automatically] check experts’ hard technical facts, but
we are [experimenting] with soft skills like team dynamics and
Now we have gone in the direction [with platform data usage] of
[personality] types.
being able to utilize it more proactively; customers could find those
experts really quickly themselves [from the MSP with the support of (Interviewee 15)
AI] to plan their future projects. Our software robot checks our experts’ work-time allocations.
(Interviewee 17) Because our sales are directly proportional to that, the experts
remember to mark their work hours at the right place and at the right
OA was also displayed in our data as an accurate response with auto­
time. So [the software robot] sniffs everyone’s work-time records
mating resource matching. Optimal matchmaking of experts or profes­
and notifies people who lack the input or have done it perhaps in the
sional teams, such as software testers or software architects, to customer
wrong place.
problems is at the core of the value proposition in the expert service
trade. Whether utilizing a service firm’s experts or those from comple­ (Interviewee 12)
mentary service providers, this matching relies on the platform’s data on
expert resources and previous projects. MSP, with its AI, facilitates this
matchmaking by detecting required programming skills and technolo­ 4.2. Seizing capability to foster organizational flexibility in the MSP
gies (e.g., Java or React), indicating suitable and available experts from context
the platform’s database. AI, through language models that continuously
learn, is utilized in resource matching. It can swiftly process a large Based on our findings, the seizing capability of service firms is espe­
number of platform databases to detect customer needs and basic in­ cially important in enhancing OF, as it encourages them to invest in
formation through specific questions. Automating resource matching platform structure, including people, technology, and processes, at the
enables quick reactions, but more importantly, it adds value by better right time to enhance flexibility in the ecosystem. Service firms show
matching to customer requests, benefiting not only service firms but also seizing capability by allocating resources for the strategic development
other users, such as customers and complementary service providers. of the ecosystem, including scaling the identified technology opportu­
This plays an increasingly prominent role in resource matching, pro­ nities and platform structure. Our findings indicate that seizing capa­
gressively replacing slower human work as technology works more bility contributes to advancing OF, which is manifested through three
quickly, 24/7, and thus enhances OA: key elements: fostering an adaptable and evolving platform structure,
effective use of common network resources, and enhanced service range and
At the core of [the platform] is simplified [matchmaking]; that is, the
processes.
customer’s need is identified precisely and understandably by uti­
Enhanced OF appeared in our findings, as platform owners foster an
lizing the platform’s knowledge base and AI. With the help of the
adaptable and evolving platform structure by enabling easy entrance to the

187
M. Heikinheimo et al. Industrial Marketing Management 125 (2025) 179–194

MSP ecosystem for various actors through its boundary resources. customer needs, as illustrated in the following quotes:
Through a platform’s boundary resources, such as an application pro­
Instead of a single expert going to a customer assignment, the
gramming interface (API), integrations with other systems, such as
optimal solution for the customer would be to provide flexibility in
customer relationship management systems, are possible and could be
the form of a dynamic team of five people whose specific knowledge
utilized, for instance, to target marketing messaging for the platform’s
is used for a certain amount in the customer project when necessary.
customer engagement and to attract new platform actors. Additionally,
(Interviewee 5)
integration into customers’ procurement systems through APIs may
provide enhanced business opportunities to service firms and other It’s great when these new [service providers] come [on to our plat­
ecosystem actors. The following quotes illustrate the platform struc­ form]. They’re quite excited about it, and it makes the adaptation [to
ture’s relation to flexibility: our system] easy, but the key thing, as I see it, is the know-how that
they bring, and we can get their profiles [with project history]
This whole [platform structure] is built on that adaptable and
quickly visible; that is the best.
transparent model. This includes tools, processes, and people … for
(Interviewee 1)
[experts]. There is, for instance, the opportunity to see and choose
the projects and clients that interest them. Choosing a customer The effective use of common network resources is also manifested by
assignment is self-directed in that sense. service firms’ allocation of new roles and resources for the benefit of the
(Interviewee 7) whole ecosystem, such as persons supporting complementary service
providers with their concerns. As the platform’s utilization is not
Integration into different procurement systems will enable [us, with
dependent on time or place, it provides platform owners and other
the platform,] to integrate [even more deeply] into the customer’s
platform actors with the possibility of establishing network relationships
processes, and then it will open the door for us to get bigger
with complementary service providers and customers in a distant mar­
customers.
ket. This attraction of foreign network resources driven by seizing
(Interviewee 12)
capability is illustrated as follows:
To foster an adaptable and evolving platform structure, a platform’s
This year, we built a partner network [in Poland] like we have here.
AI is utilized to provide easy access to the MSP ecosystem, for instance,
Sure, it’s still significantly smaller, but it’s already the size that you
by utilizing a CV parser. This is a deep-learning AI solution that helps the
can run a business with it, so our focus has been strongly on
new joining platform actor, such as an expert, by detecting the infor­
extending the network [abroad] with the help of [the platform].
mation from the CV input and automatically suggesting additions for
(Interviewee 15)
missing details. This saves time and increases access to the platform due
to easy entrance, which is especially relevant, for instance, to partners, OF is also manifested by enhanced service range and processes through
as illustrated in this quote: technology, such as utilizing AI-powered software robots and chatbots in
service processes. The platform’s technology, such as a dashboard with
Various means have been taken to encourage [easy access to a
key statistics on service providers’ expert sales, may provide valuable
platform], such as utilizing an AI parser structuring an existing CV
information to various platform actors and directly enable both service
and extracting the key information from there, which would speed
firms, as platform owners, and complementary service providers to
up the creation of an expert profile and a CV [in the platform by the
display such services requested by customers. Developing MSP-based
entering partner].
service processes culminates in the use of the advantages of platform
(Interviewee 17)
technology, such as AI, in replacing previously human-driven tasks to
An adaptable and evolving platform structure is also manifested with enhance service processes, as illustrated in the following quotes:
a low hierarchy with platform governance and between actors addi­
This kind of optimization of our processes on MSP moves us forward
tionally portraying OF. Such flexibility is bound to an adaptable plat­
and helps us stay on the course of development and be in the lead
form structure that allows easy and direct collaboration among platform
momentarily.
users in various locations. Therefore, any platform user may take the
(Interviewee 2)
initiative to build relationships easily on the platform. Service firms are
paying extra attention to ascertaining that such relationships may occur, AI is [constantly learning] to understand related technologies [in the
as illustrated in the following quote: service delivery process]. For instance, in the case of [certain pro­
gramming language skills], the AI may suggest a suitable expert
The [platform’s] user experience must be such that it doesn’t feel
[with close enough skills] based on the project history data [in the
[from the platform user’s perspective] like you’re at the end of a
platform]. Therefore, the person looking for an expert does not need
[long] chain but that the communication flows directly to the
to understand [similar programming languages].
customer through the platform.
(Interviewee 11)
(Interviewee 12)
Driven by seizing capability, the effective use of common network re­
sources as a form of OF is especially visible in the service firm’s ability to 4.3. Transforming capability to foster organizational resilience in the MSP
build a common, evolving expert resource pool. This ability is crucial in context
the service trade, as it involves equalizing human resource capacity
among various platform participants. Inviting complementary service Based on our findings, transforming capability is connected to OR by
providers onto the platform increases flexibility in the form of wider fostering service firms’ long-term competitive advantages and resistance
network resources, such as additional experts in a specific technology or to various market disruptions. Transforming capability manifests as
competence area. Complementary service providers gain direct visibility service firms’ ability to overcome technological challenges and is inev­
of customers’ needs on the platform to develop their service portfolios. itable because the MSP ecosystem and competitive landscapes are
As the boundaries blur between organizations and their experts in the constantly evolving. Service firms’ ability to transform by constantly
MSP, expert resources are identified as common network resources, and assessing their own learning compared to their strategic targets and
service firms gain the flexibility to utilize these shared resources across continuously renewing themselves and common network resources can
various service requests. This flexibility can be employed not only to significantly enhance OR. Our findings illustrate enhanced OR through
address demand spikes but also to offer a broader service response to three essential elements: amplifying platform-based service ecosystems for

188
M. Heikinheimo et al. Industrial Marketing Management 125 (2025) 179–194

expert trade, driving data-based development of future services, and fostering repeatedly missing technologies and rising demand, which indicates
continuous development and an open transformative mindset. areas for future improvements.
The adoption of MSPs in the service trade has marked a major (Interviewee 15)
transformation from traditional linear service value chains. By intro­
Data-based development of future services is also displayed, with the
ducing MSPs into service sales processes and engaging users, service
data being transparently shared with other platform actors. For instance,
firms, as platform owners, have commenced a new paradigm for the
customers may utilize the data to plan their own software projects by
service trade. With such strategic long-term change, service firms,
seeing available expertise and providing service firms with ideas about
driven by transforming capabilities, are constantly carrying out activ­
future service needs. Likewise, complementary service providers may
ities to amplify the platform-based service ecosystem with continuous
utilize this information to develop their own skills to match future
renewal. Service firms are compelled to educate customers as service
technical skill requirements and trends, as illustrated in the following
buyers and the market in general for the benefit of the MSP ecosystem.
quote:
Compared to traditional value chains, such a platform-based ecosystem
fosters OR through collaborative value creation and transparent and The data that the platform provides has hugely increased our part­
direct information flow. Our data revealed that service firms constantly ners’ knowledge of complicated customer requirements, processes,
reflect on gained learning and areas that need further improvement and what they actually do and why they do things the way they do.
driven by transforming capability, as illustrated in the following quote: (Interviewee 23)
This platform ecosystem is introduced to perform the current way OR is additionally portrayed as fostering continuous development and
more efficiently, and digitalization creates a new paradigm of doing an open, transformative mindset driven by transforming capability. This
things. When we do this, the whole organization has to change. So we relates to the ability to foster an innovative mindset to foster and
are creating a new paradigm [for service selling] in this platform strengthen the MSP ecosystem and to see the possibilities that such an
development. ecosystem may generate, as illustrated by the following quote:
(Interviewee 4)
Our aim is to provide a platform to manage service competencies and
Amplifying the platform-based service ecosystem for expert trade is utilize the same platform to resource [experts and teams] for
portrayed in our data because the current state of MSP leverage is not different projects and find those world-class experts who are there in
considered satisfying enough. Service firms, as platform owners, are the ecosystem. And why doesn’t some local industrial company
continuously preparing to upscale MSPs. This includes constant renewal think, “Heck, we don’t have a job for our engineers right now, so let’s
by leveraging technological possibilities and considering ways to attract put them up for sale in the ecosystem,” in which case there’s no need
more platform users and integrate their expert pools on platforms. to fire anyone, but instead, they’ll get a chance to do a consulting gig.
(Interviewee 4)
We have goals, but there is always progress with those goals. We can
get better all the time. And if we notice something isn’t working, and Fostering continuous development and an open transformative
we fail, then we change it. We have big goals in the direction we are mindset are manifested with the ability to assess and harness accumu­
going, but with smaller things, we progress through [trials and lated learning and are therefore an important form of OR as an
errors]. ecosystem and as its technology constantly evolves, as illustrated in the
(Interviewee 6) following quote:
OR appeared in our data as an ability to drive the data-based devel­ In practice, when we talk about the comprehensive move [into ser­
opment of future services. An MSP creates a common database of skills and vice practices] and the management of our network on the platform,
competencies and enables both platform owners and other platform we have taken on more responsibility for platform orchestration,
actors’ easy access to information through its dashboard. This approach even though it is shared. This responsibility is no longer concentrated
enhances OR by continually considering future services, leveraging a in a single person.
growing pool of network experts, and utilizing accumulated data. (Interviewee 9)
Monitoring competence gaps among in-house experts and the ecosystem
Fostering continuous development and an open transformative
network enables service firms to make informed decisions on service
mindset are also displayed, as the service ecosystem is based on the
development and attract suitable complementary providers, thereby
ability to engage various actors in the platform. Therefore, the ability of
enhancing long-term OR in the service trade. A platform’s AI is crucial in
a service firm to continuously build partnerships and relationships is at
driving data-based service development, as it scans accumulated data,
the heart of the success of the platform. This is also manifested by the
identifies internal competence gaps, and compares them to external data
service firms’ ability to constantly adapt to new markets and industries,
on technologies and current skill needs. It generates this information in
whereby the platform can provide benefits in matching the proper ser­
various forms, such as segmented into different markets, as explained in
vice experts with customer needs, as illustrated in the following quote:
the following quotes:
Of course, it depends on what the actual business potential is [in
[On the platform,] we can manage much better not only our own
different service industries], but when the use of AI and algorithms is
know-how but also our network’s know-how. That is, we [and other
successful, … and as the technology is built based on the assumption
platform users] see much better what skills we have [to develop
that the platform is not industry dependent, if we look at whatever
future services].
[service industry, the same problem [of matching proper experts to
(Interviewee 11)
customers’ problems] will come up there too.
Let’s take Bob as an example. For some reason, Bob hasn’t received a (Interviewee 15)
single customer assignment in the last 6 months, so then, [the plat­
form’s] AI can identify that Mary has taken all those assignments and
5. Discussion
compare the knowledge gap between Bob and Mary. Mary seems to
have some scripting skills that Bob is missing. Therefore, pointing out
This study explores how the dynamic capabilities of service firms
[missing] skills and training needs at an individual level is valuable,
foster OA, OF, and OR in MSP ecosystems. Our model (Fig. 2) demon­
but on a larger scale, we can predict trends such as identifying
strates the enhancement of organizational capabilities (OA, OF, and OR)
through which dynamic capabilities (sensing, seizing, and transforming)

189
M. Heikinheimo et al. Industrial Marketing Management 125 (2025) 179–194

Fig. 2. Model of dynamic capabilities fostering organizational agility (OA), organizational flexibility (OF), and organizational resilience (OR).

built as a continuum on top of each other (Teece, 2007) serve as drivers et al., 2003) by highlighting its evolution, driven by service firms’
in the MSP ecosystem. We also propose three propositions to show how sensing of technology opportunity capability. Sensing capability, the
each dynamic capability is connected to the organizational capabilities importance of which has been identified in previous research
of OA, OF, and OR. The following discussion delves more deeply into the (Badrinarayanan et al., 2022; Guo, Yin, & Liu, 2023; Gupta et al., 2024;
evolution of each capability, emphasizing its interconnectedness for Teece, 2017), empowers service firms to identify the evolving techno­
superior competitive advantages and long-term preparedness for future logical opportunities of platforms, including data and AI. This high-level
disruptions. capability (Fig. 2) acts as a driver for OA, contributing to faster reaction
speeds and accurate service responses to unexpected market needs.
Based on this, our first proposition is formulated as follows:
5.1. Service firms’ sensing capability driving organizational agility
P1. The ability to sense technological opportunities drives service
Our findings indicate that service firms have introduced MSPs to firms to identify market signals and build fast and accurate service re­
provide the basis for building a service ecosystem that enables rapid and sponses with automated resource matching.
accurate service responses to fluctuating market demands. MSPs’
accumulation of data, combined with external data sources, drives ser­ 5.2. Service firms’ seizing capability driving organizational flexibility
vice firms, as platform owners, to carry out data-driven reactions to
market needs and enhance AI-driven forecasting based on market sig­ Based on our findings, service firms, as platform owners, design MSP
nals. Furthermore, AI is utilized in MSPs to provide automated resource structures that enhance accessibility and extend reach not only to the
matching and to generate accurate service responses to customer surrounding network but also to complementary service providers and
assignments. customers to form service ecosystems with enhanced service range and
These embodiments of OA are vital for service firms to enhance their open, transparent processes. This structure facilitates the knowledge and
short-term competitive advantages via fast and precise actions. Previous skills of various experts as well as direct and multilevel collaborations
research has shown OA’s role in helping firms survive better through between ecosystem participants, allowing open utilization of network
turbulent and volatile surroundings (Ahmed et al., 2022; Guo, Yin, & resources for customer assignments.
Liu, 2023; Liu, Chung, et al., 2023; Teece et al., 2016). However, in this A platform’s structure supports collaborations and relationship
previous research, OA is a concept comparable to OF, while our findings building irrespective of time or location, boosting the service firm’s
suggest that OA is a separate, largely platform technology–driven capacity to expand networks internationally, thereby enhancing the
organizational capability in an MSP ecosystem. Based on our findings, adaptable, evolving service range. Given the constant evolution of MSPs
OA with faster reactions and accurate responses is displayed as data- and the networks built into their ecosystems, OF dynamically evolves
driven reactions and automated resource matching efficiently over time. As such, we enhance the existing research (Byrd & Turner,
handling customer needs, not only improving speed but also enhancing 2001; Salmela et al., 2022; Teece et al., 2016) by showing how flexibility
service quality through its ability to process larger datasets faster and in the platform context provides service firms with a unique competitive
with fewer errors than humans. advantage, as OF is related to service firms’ ability to foster adaptable
Our findings extend the understanding of OA in the digital platform MSP structures, enhance service processes, and harness common plat­
context (Ahmed et al., 2022; Liu, Chung, et al., 2023; Sambamurthy form resources effectively.

190
M. Heikinheimo et al. Industrial Marketing Management 125 (2025) 179–194

Building on previous research highlighting how seizing capability offerings and the reinforcement of the platform-based service selling
drives the implementation of identified technological opportunities paradigm. Additionally, the development of these capabilities requires
(Teece, 2007; Teece et al., 2016; Zahoor et al., 2022), our study shows the strong sensing, seizing, and transforming capabilities of the platform
that within dynamic capabilities, a service firm’s seizing capability acts owner.
as an enabler for OF. This capability allows service firms, as platform
owners, to harness shared network resources in MSPs effectively (Fig. 2), 6.1. Theoretical contributions
expand service offerings, and foster adaptable MSP structures. Seizing
capability relates to service firms’ willingness to continuously invest and In this research, we applied the theoretical perspective of dynamic
wisely allocate resources to implement identified technological oppor­ capabilities within B2B service firms to investigate OA, OF, and OR in
tunities innovatively in platform-based processes and to leverage the MSP ecosystem. This study makes three key contributions to the B2B
network effects to add additional sides to platforms (Sambamurthy marketing literature by producing new knowledge about organizational
et al., 2003; Teece, 2007; Wallbach et al., 2019; Zia et al., 2023). capabilities in digital platform ecosystems.
Therefore, we present our second proposition: First, we contribute to the existing B2B marketing literature in terms
of originality (Corley & Gioia, 2011). Our research provides novel and
P2. The ability to seize opportunities drives service firms to harness
original theoretical knowledge on B2B service firms building agility,
adaptable and evolving platform structures and the effective use of
flexibility, and resilience in the contemporary business environment (i.
common ecosystem resources.
e., a digital multi-sided platform ecosystem). By focusing jointly on these
three organizational capabilities, we respond to calls to study the role of
5.3. Service firms’ transforming capability driving organizational
emerging technology–oriented capabilities in building firms’ future
resilience
success in the B2B context (Amankwah-Amoah et al., 2024). Addition­
ally, service research (Field et al., 2021; Floetgen et al., 2021; Liu,
Lastly, transforming capability allows service firms, as platform
Chung, et al., 2023) has called for a new understanding of how service
owners, to learn from accumulated data, continuously advancing the
ecosystems develop agility, flexibility, and resilience with qualitative
MSP ecosystem by portraying OR. With the help of platform data,
data. Although the importance of all three capabilities jointly helping
transforming capability serves as a driver for the development of OR in
firms survive in times of crisis, such as COVID-19, has been highlighted
the long term, as indicated by our results, through the ongoing expan­
by Singh et al. (2022), we are the first to examine these capabilities as
sion of MSP ecosystems and future data-based services. We therefore
providing fast and accurate service responses to volatile market demand
enhance the existing knowledge of OR related to platforms (Ali et al.,
as well as long-term resistance and enhanced service range as pre­
2022; Boh et al., 2023; Guo, Chen, et al., 2023; Liu, Long, & Liu, 2023)
paredness for future crises.
by showing resilience as organizational capability in the platform-based
Second, we offer a framework and three propositions to demonstrate
service ecosystem, since the current literature has focused more on
the new content of organizational capabilities in the MSP ecosystem. OA
digital resilience (Boh et al., 2023) or other industries (Ali et al., 2022;
is driven by platform technology, mostly by AI, data-based decisions,
Guo, Chen, et al., 2023). Using cutting-edge technology, such as AI,
and automated tasks, to generate short-term velocity and accuracy in
enables the monitoring of knowledge and competence gaps in MSPs,
service responses outperforming human behavior. OF is less time bound
prompting actions and development to strengthen existing service
but manifests strategic utilization of flexible and reactive networks, and
portfolios.
OR shows long-term competitiveness with a future service offering and
Driven by the transforming capability emphasized by earlier strands
platform-based service selling paradigm. These incremental insights
of the literature (Ali et al., 2022; Teece, 2007; Zahoor et al., 2022), the
(Corley & Gioia, 2011) enhance the existing organizational capability
ability to harness accumulated data in assessing one’s own and network
research (Guo, Chen, et al., 2023; Liu, Long, & Liu, 2023; Salmela et al.,
resources in the ecosystem, as well as learning, enhances OR as a long-
2022). Additionally, we confirm that the difference between OA and OF
term improvement of competitive advantages in volatile markets. This
is that they bring different competitive advantages for firms’ survival in
ability, rooted in detecting changes in technologies or demand patterns,
turbulent times and, as such, contribute to the literature on agility and
fosters the continuous development of service offerings, building a
flexibility, in which the definitions have been somewhat unclear (see
foundation for long-term preparedness against upcoming challenges.
Christofi et al., 2021; Salmela et al., 2022; Teece et al., 2016).
OR-evolving MSPs and accumulated learning are capabilities that
Third, we bring scientific utility (Corley & Gioia, 2011) to B2B
develop over time. Therefore, we suggest the following as our third
marketing research on capabilities. We build a theoretical bridge be­
proposition:
tween dynamic capabilities theory, which has recently highlighted their
P3. The ability to learn from data and to produce continuous im­ role as defining firms’ success or failure in times of crisis (Gupta et al.,
provements drives service firms to amplify MSP ecosystems and drive 2024; Zia et al., 2023), and agility, flexibility, and resilience research
the data-based development of future services. that has mainly focused on one capability on time (Christofi et al., 2021;
Conz & Magnani, 2020; Eckstein et al., 2015; Guo, Chen, et al., 2023;
6. Conclusions Ramos et al., 2023; Shashi et al., 2020; Swafford et al., 2006; Teece
et al., 2016; Yuan et al., 2022). We show that OA, OF, and OR are not
This study focused on producing novel insights into organizational purely enabled by MSPs but still require dynamic capabilities as man­
capabilities within the B2B service context in MSP ecosystems. Drawing agement behaviors of service firms to drive the emergence of such ca­
on an exploratory abductive study of four B2B service firms as platform pabilities. Therefore, our research enhances the current understanding
owners orchestrating and MSP ecosystems, we found that each organi­ of the role of dynamic capabilities as drivers (Conz & Magnani, 2020;
zational capability (agility, flexibility, and resilience) is needed jointly Teece et al., 2016; Zahoor et al., 2022) by highlighting their importance
to provide service firms with short- (OA) and long-term (OF, OR) in helping firms sense the opportunities of MSPs and AI by seizing the
competitive advantages and improved readiness to withstand future platform structure for ecosystem benefit and transforming the service
disruptions. We posited that technology, mostly AI and automation, selling paradigm through data and learning.
produces speed and accuracy in service responses, outperforming
human behavior as OA. OF is a less time-bound, separate concept of OA 6.2. Managerial contributions and implications for policymakers
and culminates in the optimal utilization of adaptive platform structure
and common network resources. In particular, OR builds long-term Our results are useful in practice (Corley & Gioia, 2011) for man­
responsiveness to and competitiveness with data-based service agers and policymakers, as this study provides novel insights into

191
M. Heikinheimo et al. Industrial Marketing Management 125 (2025) 179–194

organizational capabilities within the MSP ecosystem. Specifically, we customers and complementary service providers. Therefore, future
demonstrate how these capabilities can contribute to both short- and research should examine multiple perspectives on the organizational
long-term competitive advantages as well as enhance preparedness in capability-building process.
volatile market conditions. First, we recommend that managers of ser­ Second, our qualitative and abductive research provides a holistic
vice firms reinforce their sensing capabilities and experiment with view of OA, OF, and OR in an MSP ecosystem driven by dynamic ca­
various technological options, including AI and automation, to keep up pabilities. However, as a next step, it would be interesting to measure
with technological developments and reinforce their agility to react and test our model and propositions with a larger sample of firms. Third,
quickly to market disturbances while focusing on tasks in which tech­ as platform transformation takes time, and in our case, the firms have
nology can outperform manual efforts. Furthermore, AI can be used to succeeded in leveling up their organizational capabilities in the MSP
trigger human-driven actions, such as data-based forecasting of demand ecosystem, not all MSP ecosystems are successful and survive in the long
and accelerating service delivery. Operational efficiency and automa­ run. Therefore, it would be interesting to reveal the development pat­
tion can bolster short-term competitive advantages by enabling swift terns and underlying mechanisms of unsuccessful B2B platform eco­
responses to changing market needs. AI’s capacity to process diverse systems that failed to increase their capabilities to resist competitive
datasets also enhances the ability of service firms, as platform owners, to forces or disruptions in the industry. Fourth, we concentrated on MSPs
respond more accurately to customers’ needs. As demonstrated in this in one B2B industry providing, for instance, IT services. Even though
study, this includes improving matchmaking in the platform ecosystem. these firms were traditional firms that introduced MSPs as part of selling
Second, we recommend that managers of service firms use their their services, they may have had better readiness with dynamic capa­
seizing capability by focusing on designing and investing in business bilities and agility. Therefore, future research should examine such
structures (people, tools, and processes) that promote flexibility. In this organizational capabilities in various industries, such as public services,
research, this has meant multi-sided platform governance and structure disrupted by platforms.
that supports easy network entry, direct collaboration, and transparent
information sharing. These activities play a critical role in attracting Funding
suitable complementary service providers to platforms along with their
expert resources, thereby enhancing the knowledge and service offer­ We thank Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation for supporting Hei­
ings available in the MSP ecosystem. As shown in our study, an adapt­ kinheimo’s research work [grant number 00230088].
able platform structure may even enable the extension of a network
across country borders, providing service firms with a wider service CRediT authorship contribution statement
range to meet diverse customer needs, thereby enhancing flexibility as
an effective use of common network resources in various market Heikinheimo Minna: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Vali­
situations. dation, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal
Third, sustaining the continuous renewal of service firms and analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Hautamäki Pia: Writing –
fostering the growth of the platform-based service trade can establish review & editing, Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal
long-term resilience by transforming capability and better preparing for analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Julkunen Saara: Writing –
impending crises. Furthermore, drawing on the accumulated knowledge review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Software, Resources, Funding
of platform technology usage, such as accumulated data and addressing acquisition, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Koponen Jonna:
challenges with an open and transformative mindset, can fortify service Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Methodology,
firms’ responsiveness in navigating future crises. Formal analysis, Conceptualization.
For policymakers, we show that digital platforms are increasingly
changing the business paradigms of B2B firms. Today’s business leaders
are also policymakers because platform companies educate markets and Declaration of competing interest
actors and leave strong footprints on how societies and individuals
think, communicate, and operate. Policymakers, with their support for None.
investment, education, and training, should especially encourage
traditional firms, such as the service firms in this research, to increase Appendix A. Supplementary data
their capabilities to harness the benefits of technologies such as easily
accessible ecosystems to keep up with the competitive business envi­ Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
ronment and secure local job opportunities. Because modern humanity org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2025.01.006.
is characterized by rapid technological changes combined with turbu­
lent times and environmental, socioeconomic, and geopolitical changes, Data availability
agility, flexibility, and resilience should also be encouraged as
organization-level capabilities at the levels of society and individuals. The data that has been used is confidential.
Policymakers also have the responsibility to consider the negative ef­
fects of increased technology with speed, availability, and connectivity References
and consider the dark sides, for instance, with legislative and regulative
Aguinis, H., & Solarino, A. M. (2019). Transparency and replicability in qualitative
perspectives for building better societies and long-term resistance to
research: The case of interviews with elite informants. Strategic Management Journal,
future disruptions. 40(8), 1291–1315. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3015
Ahmed, A., Bhatti, S. H., Gölgeci, I., & Arslan, A. (2022). Digital platform capability and
organizational agility of emerging market manufacturing SMEs: The mediating role
6.3. Limitations and future research of intellectual capital and the moderating role of environmental dynamism.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 177, Article 121513. https://doi.org/
Our study has several limitations that offer potential for future 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121513
Ali, I., Arslan, A., Chowdhury, M., Khan, Z., & Tarba, S. Y. (2022). Reimagining global
research directions. First, we based our findings on interviews from
food value chains through effective resilience to COVID-19 shocks and similar future
2019 to 2022 with 27 key informants from B2B service firms as MSP events: A dynamic capability perspective. Journal of Business Research, 141, 1–12.
owners. The embodiment of OA, OF, and OR in the contemporary https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.006
platform environment in one industry sector provides a starting point for Alt, R. (2021). Electronic markets on digital platforms and AI. Electronic Markets, 31(2),
233–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-021-00489-w
several future research investigations. First, our focus on service firms as Amankwah-Amoah, J., Khan, Z., Adomako, S., & Khan, H. (2024). Business failure in
platform owners excludes perspectives from other actors, such as post-pandemic era: New challenges for industrial networks, emerging insights and

192
M. Heikinheimo et al. Industrial Marketing Management 125 (2025) 179–194

market opportunities. Industrial Marketing Management, 117, A3–A9. https://doi.org/ Floetgen, R. J., Strauss, J., Weking, J., Hein, A., Urmetzer, F., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H.
10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.12.014 (2021). Introducing platform ecosystem resilience: Leveraging mobility platforms
Ameen, N., Cheah, J. H., & Kumar, S. (2022). It’s all part of the customer journey: The and their ecosystems for the new normal during COVID-19. European Journal of
impact of augmented reality, chatbots, and social media on the body image and self- Information Systems, 30(3), 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/
esteem of generation Z female consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 39, 2110–2129. 0960085X.2021.1884009
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21715 Gehman, J., Glaser, V. L., Eisenhardt, K. M., Gioia, D., Langley, A., & Corley, K. G.
Ameen, N., Hosany, S., & Tarhini, A. (2021). Consumer interaction with cutting-edge (2018). Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to
technologies. Computers in Human Behavior, 120, Article 106761. https://doi.org/ theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(3), 284–300. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2021.106761 10.1177/1056492617706029
Ameen, N., Sharma, G. D., Tarba, S., Rao, A., & Chopra, R. (2022). Toward advancing Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in
theory on creativity in marketing and artificial intelligence. Psychology & Marketing, inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research
39, 1802–1825. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21699 Methods, 16(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
Arias-Pérez, J., Chacón-Henao, J., & López-Zapata, E. (2023). Unlocking agility: Trapped Guo, R., Yin, H., & Liu, X. (2023). Coopetition, organizational agility, and innovation
in the antagonism between co-innovation in digital platforms, business analytics performance in digital new ventures. Industrial Marketing Management, 111,
capability and external pressure for AI adoption? Business Process Management 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.04.003
Journal, 29(6), 1791–1809. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-2022-0484 Guo, Y., Chen, Y., Usai, A., Wu, L., & Qin, W. (2023). Knowledge integration for
Aslam, H., Blome, C., Roscoe, S., & Azhar, T. M. (2018). Dynamic supply chain resilience among multinational SMEs amid the COVID-19: From the view of global
capabilities: How market sensing, supply chain agility and adaptability affect supply digital platforms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(1), 84–104. https://doi.org/
chain ambidexterity. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38 10.1108/JKM-02-2022-0138
(12), 2266–2285. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09-2017-0555 Gupta, N., Sardana, D., & Lee, R. (2024). Dynamic capabilities that matter for business
Badrinarayanan, V., Madhavaram, S., & Manis, K. T. (2022). Technology-enabled sales failure versus survival. Industrial Marketing Management, 116, 40–50. https://doi.
capability: A capabilities-based contingency framework. The Journal of Personal org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.11.004
Selling & Sales Management, 42(4), 358–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Hagiu, A., & Wright, J. (2015). Multi-sided platforms. International Journal of Industrial
08853134.2022.2108823 Organization, 43, 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2015.03.003
Berger-de León, M., Jenkins, P., Libarikian, A., & Ulmer, L. (2023). New-business building: He, J., & Zhang, S. (2022). How digitalized interactive platforms create new value for
A winning strategy in uncertain times. McKinsey. December 2023 https://www. customers by integrating B2B and B2C models? An empirical study in China. Journal
mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insigh of Business Research, 142, 694–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.004
ts/new-business-building-a-winning-strategy-in-uncertain-times#/. Retrieved on Heikinheimo, M., Hautamäki, P., Julkunen, S., & Koponen, J. (2024). B2B service sales
December 17, 2024. on a digital multi-sided platform: Transformation from value chains to value
Boh, W., Constantinides, P., Padmanabhan, B., & Viswanathan, S. (2023). Building networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 116, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
digital resilience against major shocks. MIS Quarterly, 47(1), 343–360. indmarman.2023.11.006
Brown, D. M., Apostolidis, C., Dey, B. L., Singh, P., Thrassou, A., Kretsos, L., & Hein, A., Schreieck, M., Riasanow, T., Setzke, D. S., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H.
Babu, M. M. (2024). Sustainability starts from within: A critical analysis of internal (2020). Digital platform ecosystems. Electronic Markets, 30(1), 87–98. https://doi.
marketing in supporting sustainable value co-creation in B2B organisations. org/10.1007/s12525-019-00377-4
Industrial Marketing Management, 117, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Hein, A., Weking, J., Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2019). Value
indmarman.2023.12.006 co-creation practices in business-to-business platform ecosystems. Electronic Markets,
Byrd, T. A., & Turner, D. E. (2001). An exploratory examination of the relationship 29(3), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00337-y
between flexible IT infrastructure and competitive advantage. Information & Helfat, C. E. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations.
Management, 39(1), 41–52. Blackwell Publishing.
Cavallo, A., Burgers, H., Ghezzi, A., & van de Vrande, V. (2022). The evolving nature of Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2018). Dynamic and integrative capabilities for
open innovation governance: A study of a digital platform development in profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research Policy, 47,
collaboration with a big science Centre. Technovation, 116, Article 102370. https:// 1391–1399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.019
doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102370 Huang, A., & Farboudi Jahromi, M. (2021). Resilience building in service firms during
Chen, W.-H., & Chiang, A. H. (2011). Network agility as a trigger for enhancing firm and post COVID-19. The Service Industries Journal, 41(1–2), 138–167. https://doi.
performance: A case study of a high-tech firm implementing the mixed channel org/10.1080/02642069.2020.1862092
strategy. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(4), 643–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2021). Engaged to a robot? The role of AI in service. Journal
j.indmarman.2011.01.001 of Service Research, 24(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520902266
Christofi, M., Pereira, V., Vrontis, D., Tarba, S., & Thrassou, A. (2021). Agility and Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land?
flexibility in international business research: A comprehensive review and future On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence.
research directions. Journal of World Business, 56, Article 101194. https://doi.org/ Business Horizons, 62, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004
10.1016/j.jwb.2021.101194 Lee, O. K., Sambamurthy, V., Lim, K. H., & Wei, K. K. (2015). How does IT ambidexterity
Conz, E., & Magnani, G. (2020). A dynamic perspective on the resilience of firms: A impact organizational agility? Information Systems Research, 26(2), 398–417. https://
systematic literature review and a framework for future research. European doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0577
Management Journal, 38(3), 400–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.12.004 Liu, R., Long, J., & Liu, L. (2023). Seeking the resilience of service firms: A strategic
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What learning process based on digital platform capability. The Journal of Services
constitutes a theoretical contribution? The Academy of Management Review, 36(1), Marketing, 37(3), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-04-2022-0124
12–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.55662499 Liu, Y., Chung, H. F., Zhang, Z., & Wu, M. (2023). When and how digital platforms
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five empower professional services firms: An agility perspective. Journal of Service Theory
approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. and Practice, 33(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-04-2022-0092
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Fosso Wamba, S., Roubaud, D., & Foropon, C. Magnani, G., & Gioia, D. (2023). Using the Gioia methodology in international business
(2021). Empirical investigation of data analytics capability and organizational and entrepreneurship research. International Business Review, 32(2), Article 102097.
flexibility as complements to supply chain resilience. International Journal of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2022.102097
Production Research, 59(1), 110–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Mancuso, I., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Panniello, U. (2024). Value creation in data-centric B2B
00207543.2019.1582820 platforms: A model based on multiple case studies. Industrial Marketing Management,
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2014). “Systematic combining” – A decade later. Journal of 119, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.04.001
Business Research, 67(6), 1277–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Matarazzo, M., Penco, L., Profumo, G., & Quaglia, R. (2021). Digital transformation and
jbusres.2013.03.036 customer value creation in made in Italy SMEs: A dynamic capabilities perspective.
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case Journal of Business Research, 123, 642–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
research. Journal of Business Research, 55, 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148- jbusres.2020.10.033
2963(00)00195-8 Micallef, M., Keränen, J., & Kokshagina, O. (2023). The (un)intended consequences of
Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C., & Henke, M. (2015). The performance impact of multi-sided platform adoption for different actors in business networks. Industrial
supply chain agility and supply chain adaptability: The moderating effect of product Marketing Management, 115, 214–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
complexity. International Journal of Production Research, 53(10), 3028–3046. https:// indmarman.2023.09.018
doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.970707 Mysore, M., Raggl, A., Robertson, M., & Thun, M. (2023, November 8). Resilience during
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic uncertainty: What industrial leaders must know. McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.
Management Journal, 21(10− 11), 1105–1121. com/industries/industrials-and-electronics/our-insights/resilience-during-uncertai
Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2016). Qualitative methods in business research (2nd ed.). nty-what-industrial-leaders-must-know (Retrieved on May 2024).
London: Sage Publications. Nanda, A., & Narayandas, D. (2021). What professional service firms must do to thrive. In
Farquhar, J., Michels, N., & Robson, J. (2020). Triangulation in industrial qualitative , 2021. Harvard business review (pp. 1–11). Harvard Business Review.
case study research: Widening the scope. Industrial Marketing Management, 87, Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., & Bansal, P. (2016). The long-term benefits of organizational
160–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.001 resilience through sustainable business practices. Strategic Management Journal, 37
Field, J. M., Fotheringham, D., Subramony, M., Gustafsson, A., Ostrom, A. L., (8), 1615–1631. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2410
Lemon, K. N., … McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2021). Service research priorities: Designing Pagani, M., & Pardo, C. (2017). The impact of digital technology on relationships in a
sustainable service ecosystems. Journal of Service Research: JSR, 24(4), 462–479. business network. Industrial Marketing Management, 67(67), 185–192. https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705211031302 org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.009

193
M. Heikinheimo et al. Industrial Marketing Management 125 (2025) 179–194

Palanisamy, R. (2003). Measurement and enablement of information systems for Journal of Business Research, 141, 656–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
organizational flexibility: An empirical study. Journal of Services Research, 3(2), jbusres.2021.11.066
81–103. Swafford, P. M., Ghosh, S., & Murthy, N. N. (2006). A framework for assessing value
Parker, G. G., Alstyne, M. W. V., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution: How chain agility. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 26(2),
networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. W. 118–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570610641639
W. Norton & Company. Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and University of Chicago Press.
practice (4th ed.). SAGE. Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility:
Perks, H., Kowalkowski, C., Witell, L., & Gustafsson, A. (2017). Network orchestration for Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. California Management
value platform development. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 106–121. https:// Review, 58(4), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13
doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.002 Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations
Phillips, P. A., & Wright, C. (2009). E-business’s impact on organizational flexibility. of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13),
Journal of Business Research, 62(11), 1071–1080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
jbusres.2008.09.014 Teece, D. J. (2017). Dynamic capabilities and (digital) platform lifecycles. In J. Furman,
Principato, L., Trevisan, C., Formentini, M., Secondi, L., Comis, C., & Pratesi, C. A. A. Gawer, B. S. Silverman, & S. Stern (Eds.), Entrepreneurship, innovation, and
(2023). The influence of sustainability and digitalisation on business model platforms: Vol. 37. Advances in strategic management (pp. 211–225). Emerald
innovation: The case of a multi-sided platform for food surplus redistribution. Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0742-332220170000037008.
Industrial Marketing Management, 115, 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Teece, D. J. (2018). Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling
indmarman.2023.09.001 technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Research Policy,
Ramos, E., Patrucco, A. S., & Chavez, M. (2023). Dynamic capabilities in the “new 47(8), 1367–1387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.015
normal”: A study of organizational flexibility, integration and agility in the Peruvian Teixeira, E. O., & Werther, W. B. (2013). Resilience: Continuous renewal of competitive
coffee supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 28(1), advantages. Business Horizons, 56(3), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
55–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-12-2020-0620 bushor.2013.01.009
Rana, N. P., Kar, A. K., Gupta, M., Pappas, I. O., & Papadopoulos, T. (2023). Unravelling Tian, J., Vanderstraeten, J., Matthyssens, P., & Shen, L. (2021). Developing and
the dark side of sharing economy – Managing and sustaining B2B relationships on leveraging platforms in a traditional industry: An orchestration and co-creation
digital platforms. Industrial Marketing Management, 113, A4–A10. https://doi.org/ perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 92, 14–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.06.002 indmarman.2020.10.007
Rapaccini, M., Saccani, N., Kowalkowski, C., Paiola, M., & Adrodegari, F. (2020). Trabucchi, D., & Buganza, T. (2020). Fostering digital platform innovation: From two to
Navigating disruptive crises through service-led growth: The impact of COVID-19 on multi-sided platforms. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(2), 345–358.
Italian manufacturing firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 225–237. https:// https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12320
doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.017 Veile, J. W., Schmidt, M.-C., & Voigt, K.-I. (2022). Toward a new era of cooperation: How
Rasmussen, E. S., & Petersen, N. H. (2017). Platforms for innovation and industrial digital platforms transform business models in industry 4.0. Journal of
internationalization. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(5), 23–31. https:// Business Research, 143, 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.062
doi.org/10.22215/timreview1074 Wallbach, S., Coleman, K., Elbert, R., & Benlian, A. (2019). Multi-sided platform
Ravichandran, T. (2018). Exploring the relationships between IT competence, innovation diffusion in competitive B2B networks: Inhibiting factors and their impact on
capacity and organizational agility. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 27, network effects. Electronic Markets, 29(4), 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/
22–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.07.002 s12525-019-00382-7
Ricciotti, F. (2020). From value chain to value network: A systematic literature review. Warner, K. S. R., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital
Management Review Quarterly, 70(2), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301- transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3),
019-00164-7 326–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001
Ritala, P., & Jovanovic, M. (2023). Platformizers, orchestrators, and guardians: Three Wilkinson, I., & Young, L. (2004). Improvisation and adaptation in international business
types of B2B platform business models. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/ research interviews. In R. Marschan-Piekkari, & C. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of
10.2139/ssrn.4399864 qualitative research methods for international business (pp. 207–223). Edward Elgar
Sairanen, M., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Kaipainen, J. (2024). Customer-perceived value in Publishing Inc.
the circular economy: A multidimensional framework. Industrial Marketing World Economic Forum. (2022). Taking big leaps in value chain resilience: Adaptation
Management, 117, 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.01.006 and transformation. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/taking-big-leaps-i
Salmela, H., Baiyere, A., Tapanainen, T., & Galliers, R. D. (2022). Digital agility: n-value-chain-resilience-adaptation-and-transformation/.
Conceptualizing agility for the digital era. Journal of the Association for Information Yuan, R., Luo, J., Liu, M. J., & Yu, J. (2022). Understanding organizational resilience in a
Systems, 23(5), 1080–1101. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00767 platform-based sharing business: The role of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business
Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2003). Shaping agility through digital Research, 141, 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.012
options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary Zahoor, N., Golgeci, I., Haapanen, L., Ali, I., & Arslan, A. (2022). The role of dynamic
firms. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 237–263. capabilities and strategic agility of B2B high-tech small and medium-sized
Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., & Krcmar, H. (2021). Capabilities for value co-creation and enterprises during COVID-19 pandemic: Exploratory case studies from Finland.
value capture in emergent platform ecosystems: A longitudinal case study of SAP’s Industrial Marketing Management, 105, 502–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cloud platform. Journal of Information Technology, 36(4), 365–390. https://doi.org/ indmarman.2022.07.006
10.1177/02683962211023780 Zhou, J., Mavondo, F. T., & Saunders, S. G. (2019). The relationship between marketing
Sharma, A., Rangarajan, D., & Paesbrugghe, B. (2020). Increasing resilience by creating agility and financial performance under different levels of market turbulence.
an adaptive salesforce. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 238–246. https://doi. Industrial Marketing Management, 83, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.023 indmarman.2018.11.008
Shashi, C. P., Cerchione, R., & Ertz, M. (2020). Agile supply chain management: Where Zia, N. U., Shamim, S., Zeng, J., Awan, U., Chromjakova, F., Akhtar, P., & Orel, M.
did it come from and where will it go in the era of digital transformation? Industrial (2023). Avoiding crisis-driven business failure through digital dynamic capabilities.
Marketing Management, 90, 324–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. B2B distribution firms during the COVID-19 and beyond. Industrial Marketing
indmarman.2020.07.011 Management, 113, 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.05.015
Singh, P., Brown, D. M., Chelekis, J., Apostolidis, C., & Dey, B. L. (2022). Sustainability in
the beer and pub industry during the COVID-19 period: An emerging new normal.

194

View publication stats