Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Can Digital Innovation Hubs improve the performance of SMEs? Empirical evidence from Italy

  • Published:
Save article
View saved research
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Digital Innovation Hubs (DIHs) are one-stop shops established by the European Union to support companies, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), in their digital transformation. DIHs foster environments where firms can enhance their economic and social performance through collaboration with new partners and access to specialized services such as technology testing, training, investment support, and network development. Given the growing attention from policymakers, investors, academics, and technology firms, this study asks whether, and to what extent, DIHs improve SME performance. Using stochastic frontier analysis and data from Italian SMEs, the findings reveal that DIHs may negatively affect the dynamics of firms’ R&D teams, thereby reducing economic and social performance. These results challenge the prevailing optimistic narrative surrounding DIHs and offer implications for SME managers, policymakers, hub administrators, and scholars concerned with the design and impact of digital support ecosystems.

Plain English Summary

Not all digital transformation support is beneficial: new evidence shows that Digital Innovation Hubs (DIHs) can sometimes harm, rather than help, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). DIHs are one-stop shops designed to assist SMEs in adopting digital technologies and improving economic and social performance. Yet, despite growing enthusiasm from policymakers, investors, and business leaders, their actual impact remains unclear. This study examines whether and to what extent DIHs improve SME performance. Using data from Italian firms, the results reveal that DIHs may negatively affect the dynamics of R&D teams, ultimately reducing overall performance. The key takeaway for both SME managers and DIH administrators is to pay closer attention to how digital support initiatives influence internal collaboration, ensuring that innovation programs truly strengthen, rather than weaken, firm performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from €37.37 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Spain)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 2
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 3
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Data availability

Official data about Italian innovative SMEs are available in a repository managed by the Italian Ministry of Enterprises and Made in Italy. The official dataset does not have an issued DOI but is available via the following link: https://startup.registroimprese.it/isin/static/pminnovative/index.html?slideJump=31

References

  • Agostini, L., & Nosella, A. (2019). Inter-organizational relationships involving SMEs: A bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Long Range Planning, 52(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agstner, P. (2024). New legal forms and rules for Italian innovative enterprises. European Business Law Review, 35(7), 1065–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alaassar, A., Mention, A. L., & Aas, T. H. (2022). Ecosystem dynamics: Exploring the interplay within fintech entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 58(4), 2157–2182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AL-Khatib, A. W., Shuhaiber, A., Mashal, I., & Al-Okaily, M. (2023). Antecedents of industry 4.0 capabilities and technological innovation: A dynamic capabilities perspective. European Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-05-2023-0158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apa, R., Grandinetti, R., & Sedita, S. R. (2017). The social and business dimensions of a networked business incubator: The case of H-Farm. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 24(2), 198–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, H. J. (1982). Moderator variables: A clarification of conceptual, analytic, and psychometric issues. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29(2), 143–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arranz, N., & de Arroyabe, J. C. F. (2012). Can innovation network projects result in efficient performance? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(3), 485–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atiase, V. Y., Kolade, O., & Liedong, T. A. (2020). The emergence and strategy of tech hubs in Africa: Implications for knowledge production and value creation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, Article 120307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (2002). The dynamic role of small firms: Evidence from the US. Small Business Economics, 18, 13–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Coad, A., & Segarra, A. (2014). Firm growth and innovation. Small Business Economics, 43, 743–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balakrishnan, R., & Das, S. (2020). How do firms reorganize to implement digital transformation? Strategic Change, 29(5), 531–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baten, M. A., Kamil, A. A., & Haque, M. A. (2009). Modeling technical inefficiencies effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(12), 1374–1382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann, M., Garkisch, M., & Zeyen, A. (2023). Together we are strong? A systematic literature review on how SMEs use relation-based collaboration to operate in rural areas. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 35(4), 515–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential observations and sources of collinearity. John Wiley & Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boiko, K. (2022). R&D activity and firm performance: Mapping the field. Management Review Quarterly, 72(4), 1051–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bøllingtoft, A. (2012). The bottom-up business incubator: Leverage to networking and cooperation practices in a self-generated, entrepreneurial-enabled environment. Technovation, 32(5), 304–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bøllingtoft, A., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2005). The networked business incubator. Leveraging entrepreneurial agency? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 265–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R., & Mason, C. (2017). Looking inside the spiky bits: A critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 49, 11–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunetto, Y., & Farr-Wharton, R. (2007). The moderating role of trust in SME owner/managers’ decision-making about collaboration. Journal of Small Business Management, 45(3), 362–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Candeias, J. C., & Sarkar, S. (2024). Entrepreneurial ecosystems policy formulation: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Perspectives, 38(1), 77–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, M. H. (2023). Cascading innovation: R&D team design and performance implications of mobility. Strategic Management Journal, 44(5), 1218–1253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhury, E. H., Fjellström, D., Osarenkhoe, A., Hannadige, S. V. S., & Weerasinghe, D. K. C. (2023). The contribution of innovation hubs towards strengthening the regional development in Sweden. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 20(2), Article 2350010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciarli, T., Kenney, M., Massini, S., & Piscitello, L. (2021). Digital technologies, innovation, and skills: Emerging trajectories and challenges. Research Policy, 50(7), Article 104289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cisi, M., & Sansalvadore, F. (2022). Formalized business networks in SMEs and structural relations for their governance. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 34(3), 295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crupi, A., Del Sarto, N., Di Minin, A., Gregori, G. L., Lepore, D., Marinelli, L., & Spigarelli, F. (2020). The digital transformation of SMEs–A new knowledge broker called the digital innovation hub. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(6), 1263–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davcik, N. S., Cardinali, S., Sharma, P., & Cedrola, E. (2021). Exploring the role of international R&D activities in the impact of technological and marketing capabilities on SMEs’ performance. Journal of Business Research, 128, 650–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demartini, M. C., & Beretta, V. (2020). Intellectual capital and SMEs’ performance: A structured literature review. Journal of Small Business Management, 58(2), 288–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2016), Roundtable on digitising European Industry Working Group 1. Digital Innovation Hubs: Mainstreaming Digital Innovation Across All Sectors. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/dei_working_group1_report_dec2016_v1.2.pdf.

  • Fernandez-Vidal, J., Perotti, F. A., Gonzalez, R., & Gasco, J. (2022). Managing digital transformation: The view from the top. Journal of Business Research, 152, 29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardet, E., & Mothe, C. (2011). The dynamics of coordination in innovation networks. European Management Review, 8(4), 213–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garzoni, A., De Turi, I., Secundo, G., & Del Vecchio, P. (2020). Fostering digital transformation of SMEs: A four levels approach. Management Decision, 58(8), 1543–1562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O., & Becker, B. (2006). Towards a resource-based view of corporate incubators. International Journal of Innovation Management, 10(01), 19–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgescu, A., Avasilcai, S., & Peter, M. K. (2021). Digital Innovation Hubs—The present future of collaborative research, business and marketing development opportunities. In Marketing and Smart Technologies: Proceedings of ICMarkTech 2020 (pp. 363–374). Singapore: Springer Singapore.

  • Ghannouchi, I. (2023). Examining the dynamic nexus between industry 4.0 technologies and sustainable economy: New insights from empirical evidence using GMM estimator across 20 OECD nations. Technology in Society, 75, Article 102408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomes, L., Flechas, A., Facin, A., Borini, F., Stefani, B., & Leal, L. (2024). Entrepreneurial judgment governance adaptation for digital transformation in established firms. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 18(1), 200–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, R., & Grandi, A. (2005). Business incubators and new venture creation: An assessment of incubating models. Technovation, 25(2), 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanelt, A., Bohnsack, R., Marz, D., & Antunes Marante, C. (2021). A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: Insights and implications for strategy and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1159–1197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haukipuro, L., Väinämö, S., Virta, V., & Perälä-Heape, M. (2024). Key aspects of establishing research, knowledge, and innovation-based hubs as part of the local innovation ecosystem. R&D Management, 54(2), 283–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heij, C. V., Volberda, H. W., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Hollen, R. M. (2020). How to leverage the impact of R&D on product innovation? The moderating effect of management innovation. R&D Management, 50(2), 277–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heirman, A., & Clarysse, B. (2004). How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3), 247–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrero, I., & Pascoe, S. (2002). Estimation of technical efficiency: A review of some of the stochastic frontier and DEA software. Computers in Higher Education Economics Review, 15(1), 38–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hervas-Oliver, J. L., Gonzalez-Alcaide, G., Rojas-Alvarado, R., & Monto-Mompo, S. (2021). Emerging regional innovation policies for industry 4.0: Analyzing the digital innovation hub program in European regions. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 31(1), 106–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoisl, K., Gruber, M., & Conti, A. (2017). R&D team diversity and performance in hypercompetitive environments. Strategic Management Journal, 38(7), 1455–1477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalpaka, A., Sörvik, J., Tasigiorgou, A., & Rissola, G. (2020). Digital Innovation Hubs as policy instruments to boost digitalisation of SMEs. European Commission, https://www.ffg.at/sites/default/files/downloads/dih-handbook.pdf.

  • Karlaftis, M. G. (2010). Ownership and competition in European transit: Assessing efficiency. Transportmetrica, 6(2), 143–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. H. (2019). Multicollinearity and misleading statistical results. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 72(6), 558–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanzolla, G., Lorenz, A., Miron-Spektor, E., Schilling, M., Solinas, G., & Tucci, C. L. (2020). Digital transformation: What is new if anything? Emerging patterns and management research. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(3), 341–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leifer, R., O’connor, G. C., & Rice, M. (2001). Implementing radical innovation in mature firms: The role of hubs. Academy of Management Perspectives, 15(3), 102–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littlewood, D. C., & Kiyumbu, W. L. (2018). “Hub” organisations in Kenya: What are they? What do they do? And what is their potential? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 131, 276–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquardt, D. W. (1980). A critique of some ridge regression methods: Comment. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75(369), 87–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli, A., Mina, A., & Moggi, M. (2021). The enabling technologies of industry 4.0: Examining the seeds of the fourth industrial revolution. Industrial and Corporate Change, 30(1), 161–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matricano, D. (2023). Designing policy based on entrepreneurial venture type: The effects of innovation, hiring practices and patent ownership on enterprise development. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 30(7), 1377–1395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matricano, D. (2024b). Designing effective policies for innovative start-ups: Lessons learned in Italy. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 22, Article e00486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matricano, D. (2024).Leveraging digital technologies to reduce inconsistency about entrepreneurship processes, in Fostering Innovation to Address Grand Challenges, EURAM 2024 conference Proceedings (24th-28th June 2024, UK): Bath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., Wright, M., & Feldman, M. (2019). The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes. Research Policy, 48(8), Article 103773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, G. C., & Rice, M. P. (2001). Opportunity recognition and breakthrough innovation in large established firms. California Management Review, 43(2), 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J., Kim, J., Woo, H., & Yang, J. (2022). Opposite effects of R&D cooperation on financial and technological performance in SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 60(4), 892–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5(3–4), 137–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remneland Wikhamn, B., & Styhre, A. (2023). Open innovation ecosystem organizing from a process view: A longitudinal study in the making of an innovation hub. R&D Management, 53(1), 24–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei, S., Zandian, H., Baniasadi, A., Moghadam, T. Z., Delavari, S., & Delavari, S. (2016). Measuring the efficiency of a hospital based on the econometric stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) method. Electronic Physician, 8(2), 2025–2029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rissola, G., & Sörvik, J. (2018). Digital innovation hubs in smart specialisation strategies. Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassanelli, C., & Terzi, S. (2022). The D-BEST Based digital innovation hub customer journey analysis method: Configuring DIHs unique value proposition. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 14, 18479790221124630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scandurra, G., Thomas, A., & Appolloni, A. (2025). Supporting the diffusion of innovative SMEs: The Italian experience. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 55(4), 439–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senaviratna, N., & Cooray, T. (2019). Diagnosing multicollinearity of logistic regression model. Asian Journal of Probability and Statistics, 5(2), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serrano-Ruiz, J. C., Ferreira, J., Jardim-Goncalves, R., & Ortiz, Á. (2025). Relational network of innovation ecosystems generated by Digital Innovation Hubs: A conceptual framework for the interaction processes of DIHs from the perspective of collaboration within and between their relationship levels. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 36(3), 1505–1545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serrasqueiro, Z. S., & Maçãs Nunes, P. (2008). Performance and size: Empirical evidence from Portuguese SMEs. Small Business Economics, 31, 195–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shakina, E., Parshakov, P., & Alsufiev, A. (2021). Rethinking the corporate digital divide: The complementarity of technologies and the demand for digital skills. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, Article 120405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shkolnykova, M., & Kudic, M. (2022). Who benefits from SMEs’ radical innovations? Empirical evidence from German biotechnology. Small Business Economics, 58(2), 1157–1185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spigarelli, F., Compagnucci, L., & Lepore, D. (2025). Blockchain unlocking collaborative opportunities for environmental sustainability through innovation intermediaries. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 50(2), 516–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svahn, F., Mathiassen, L., & Lindgren, R. (2017). Embracing digital innovation in incumbent firms. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 239–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 9–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M., Mühlbacher, H., Wittmann, X., & Perrett, P. (2021). Dynamic collaboration between small-and medium-sized enterprises from highly dissimilar markets. European Management Journal, 39(2), 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, K. S., & Wäger, M. (2019). Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 326–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahoor, N., & Al-Tabbaa, O. (2020). Inter-organizational collaboration and SMEs’ innovation: A systematic review and future research directions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 36(2), Article 101109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z., Zhu, H., Zhou, Z., & Zou, K. (2022). How does innovation matter for sustainable performance? Evidence from small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Business Research, 153, 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, S., Jiang, Y., Peng, X., & Hong, J. (2021). Knowledge sharing direction and innovation performance in organizations: Do absorptive capacity and individual creativity matter? European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(2), 371–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Università Degli Studi Della Campania “L. Vanvitelli”, Corso Gran Priorato Di Malta N. 1, Capua, CE, Italy

    Diego Matricano

  2. Jim Moran College of Entrepreneurship, Florida State University, 644 West Call Street, P.O. Box 3061115, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-1115, USA

    Eric W. Liguori

Authors
  1. Diego Matricano
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric W. Liguori
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. “Introduction,” “Discussion,” and “Conclusions” were performed by Eric Liguori, “Literature review and research hypotheses,” “Methodology, data collection, and results,” and “Main limitations and implications” were performed by Diego Matricano. The drafts of the manuscript and its final version were written by both the authors, who together commented on and revised previous versions of the manuscript. Both the authors read and approved the final manuscript.”

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diego Matricano.

Ethics declarations

Ethicas approval

This study does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Matricano, D., Liguori, E.W. Can Digital Innovation Hubs improve the performance of SMEs? Empirical evidence from Italy. Small Bus Econ (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-026-01228-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-026-01228-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

Profiles

  1. Diego Matricano View author profile