Digital innovation and performance of student startups in Peru: A PLS-SEM evaluation
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.23(4).2025.30
-
Article InfoVolume 23 2025, Issue #4, pp. 407-420
- 28 Views
-
5 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
Digital innovation is critical to the competitiveness of university-based startups in emerging economies, yet empirical evidence contextualized to Peru remains limited. This study analyzes the effect of digital innovation, operationalized through digital marketing, process automation, and data analytics, on the performance of university startups in Peru using the PLS-SEM technique. We employed a quantitative design with a structured survey administered to founders or managers of 100 student startups affiliated with incubation programs at two private universities in Lima; the sample was selected for relevance (active operations and engagement with digital tools). Data were collected between August and November 2024 using multi-item Likert questionnaires. Reliability and validity were assessed with standard PLS-SEM criteria, and structural paths were evaluated via bootstrapping (5,000 resamples). Results indicate that digital marketing increases competitiveness (β = 0.54; p < .001), process automation improves operational efficiency (β = 0.41; p < .001), and data analytics strengthens strategic adaptability (β = 0.48; p < .001). Additionally, 56% of startups report financing constraints as the main barrier to digital transformation, followed by insufficient digital training (22%) and limited access to technology (15%). Taken together, these findings suggest that university incubators in resource-constrained contexts can enhance startup performance by prioritizing targeted financing instruments, hands-on training in automation and analytics, and affordable access to technology.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)O32, M13, L26, I23
-
References52
-
Tables6
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. Conceptual model
-
- Table 1. Demographic description of university startups
- Table 2. Frequency of use of digital technologies in university startups
- Table 3. Performance of university startups by level of digital technology adoption
- Table 4. Analysis of barriers to digital innovation in university startups
- Table 5. PLS-SEM results: Digital innovation → startup performance
- Table A1. Full questionnaire
-
- Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476-494.
- Alshebami, A. S., Fazal, S. A., Aljarodi, A. M., Zarin, N., Seraj, A. H. A., & Alzain, E. (2025). The influence of access to technology and digital literacy on female empowerment and digital entrepreneurial intentions. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 23(3), 1-12.
- Álvarez, J., & Seclén, J. P. (2023). To survive or not to survive: Findings from PLS-SEM on the relationship between organizational resources and startups survival. In H. Latan, J. F. Hair, & C. R. Noonan (Eds.), Partial least squares path modeling: Basic concepts, methodological issues, and applications (2nd ed.). Springer.
- Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669-678.
- Arranz, N., Arroyabe, M. F., Li, J., & Fernández de Arroyabe, J. C. (2019). An integrated model of organisational innovation and firm performance: Generation, persistence, and complementarity. Journal of Business Research, 105, 270-282.
- Assink, M. (2006). Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: A conceptual model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(2), 215-233.
- Audretsch, D., & Belitski, M. (2023). The limits to open innovation and its impact on innovation. Technovation, 119, Article 102519.
- Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097-1108.
- Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643-650.
- Baron, R. A. (2007). Entrepreneurship: A process perspective. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese, & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The psychology of entrepreneurship (pp. 19-39). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
- Belz, F. M., & Binder, J. K. (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship: A convergent process model. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(1), 1-17.
- Benítez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A., & Schuberth, F. (2020). How to perform and report an impactful analysis using partial least squares: Guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory IS research. Information & Management, 57(2), Article 103168.
- Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., & Moedas, C. (2018). Open innovation: Research, practices, and policies. California Management Review, 60(2), 5-16.
- Caloffi, A., Colovic, A., Rizzoli, V., & Rossi, F. (2023). Innovation intermediary’s types and functions: A computational analysis of literature. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 189, Article 122351.
- Cheng, C., Wang, L., Xie, H., & Yan, L. (2023). Mapping digital innovation: A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194.
- Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The stage-gate® idea-to-launch process – Update, what’s new, and NexGen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 213-232.
- Cordova-Buiza, F., Urteaga-Arias, P. E., & Coral-Morante, J. A. (2022). Relationship between social networks and customer acquisition in the field of IT solutions. IBIMA Business Review, 2022, Article 631332.
- Cunneen, D. J., Mankelow, G., & Gibson, B. (2007). Towards a process model of independent growth firm creation. Small Enterprise Research, 15(1), 90-105.
- Davidsson, P. (2016). Researching Entrepreneurship Conceptualization and Design. Springer.
- Del Carpio Gallegos, J., & Seclén-Luna, J. P. (2022). The effect of technological innovation on low-tech Peruvian manufacturing firms’ performance: The role of external sources of knowledge. Academia. Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 35(3), 366-379.
- Djellal, F., Gallouj, F., & Miles, I. (2013). Two decades of research on innovation in services: Which place for public services? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 98-117.
- Elia, G., Margherita, A., & Passiante, G. (2020). Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150.
- Fagerberg, J., Landström, H., & Martin, B. R. (2012). Exploring the emerging knowledge base of ‘the knowledge society.’ Research Policy, 41(7), 1121-1131.
- Ferruz Gonzalez, S. A. F., & Claro Montes, M.C.C. (2025). NGOs and social media: A study of content for social change in Spain and Chile. Visual Review: International Visual Culture Review, 17(3), 75-88.
- Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 662-676.
- Hair, J., Hult, T., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N., & Ray, S. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications.
- Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes, C. (2021). A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: Insights for strategy and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 58, 1159-1197.
- Heredia Perez, J. A., Geldes, C., Kunc, M. H., & Flores, A. (2019). New approach to the innovation process in emerging economies: The manufacturing sector case in Chile and Peru. Technovation, 79, 35-55.
- Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715-728.
- Kraus, S., Jones, P., Kailer, N., Weinmann, A., Chaparro, N., & Tierno, N. (2021). Digital transformation: An overview of the current state of the art of research. Sage Open, 11(3).
- Kumar, R. R. R., Stauvermann, P. J., & Samitas, A. (2016). The effects of ICT on output per worker: A study of the Chinese economy. Telecommunications Policy, 40, 102-115.
- Kuratko, D. F. (2020). Entrepreneurship: Theory, process, and practice (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.
- Liu, Y., Dong, J., Ying, Y., & Jiao, H. (2021). Status and digital innovation: A middle-status conformity perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 168, Article 120781.
- Maritz, A., & Donovan, J. (2013). Entrepreneurship and innovation: Setting an agenda for greater discipline contextualisation. Education + Training, 57(1), 74-87.
- Markovic, S., Bagherzadeh, M., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Bogers, M. (2021). Managing business-to-business open innovation: A project-level approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 94, 159-163.
- Montes, J., Ávila, L., Hernández, D., Apodaca, L., Zamora-Bosa, S., & Cordova-Buiza, F. (2023). Impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of university students in Latin America. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), Article 2282793.
- Moroz, P. W., & Hindle, K. (2012). Entrepreneurship as a process: Toward harmonization of multiple perspectives. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 781-818.
- Parida, V., Sjödin, D., & Reim, W. (2019). Reviewing literature on digitalization, business model innovation, and sustainable industry: Past achievements and future promises. Sustainability, 11(2), Article 391.
- Phadke, U., & Vyakarnam, S. (2017). Camels, tigers, and unicorns: Rethinking science & technology-enabled innovation. London: World Scientific.
- Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2001). National innovative capacity. In The Global Competitiveness Report (pp. 102-118). World Economic Forum.
- PRODUCE. (2020). Innovation in the manufacturing industry and knowledge-intensive service firms, 2018. Lima: Ministerio de la Producción. (In Spanish).
- Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243-288.
- Suprayitno, S., Dwiatmadja, C., & Suharti, L. (2025). Factors affecting batik SME performance and sustainability: The role of government support and business associations. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 23(1), 249-262.
- Tether, B. S., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry–university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organizations, and the public science base. Research Policy, 37(6-7), 1079-1095.
- Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2013). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. Wiley.
- Van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & De Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives, and management challenges. Technovation, 29(6-7), 423-437.
- Vasquez-Reyes, B. J., & Cordova-Buiza, F. (2024). Inbound social media marketing and increased sales in SMEs: A correlational study in the pet food industry. Innovative Marketing, 20(3), 132-143.
- Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. MIT Press.
- Wei, Ch., & Ling, Ch.L. (2006). An integrated structural model toward successful continuous improvement activity. Technovation, 26(5-6), 697-707.
- Wright, M., Siegel, D. S., & Mustar, P. (2017). An emerging ecosystem for student startups. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 909-922.
- Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724-735.
- Zahra, S. A., & Nambisan, S. (2012). Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in business ecosystems. Business Horizons, 55(3), 219-229.


