Platform Adoption as a Dynamic Capability

The platform paradox: High potential, low adoption

The digital transformation of industrial value creation is increasingly taking place via platform ecosystems. Companies collaborate through digital infrastructures of Industry 4.0 platforms such as ADAMOS [1], industry hubs, or data-driven networks. These platforms promise SMEs access to complementary expertise, accelerated innovation cycles, and thus the opportunity to compensate structural resource weaknesses.

Nevertheless, a paradox emerges: While large companies orchestrate their own platform ecosystems, many SMEs remain hesitant despite strategically relevant advantages [2]. Why, then, do SMEs hesitate to adopt these platforms, and which barriers prevent their adoption? The existing literature focuses primarily on adoption motives, whilst a systematic, theoretically grounded analysis of the barriers is lacking. This paper fills this gap by conceptualizing adoption barriers as deficits in specific organizational capabilities, using the dynamic capabilities approach [3] to develop a practice-oriented framework.

Dynamic capabilities as the key to SME platform participation

SMEs differ from large companies in terms of resources, specific path dependencies (informal structures, relational practices), IP sensitivity (protection of core competencies), and governance experience (multi-stakeholder coordination) [2]. Collaboration and innovation platforms, as digital ecosystems — in contrast to transaction platforms — aim at cooperative value creation: co-product development, shared data use, and coordinated innovation processes [4]. They enable SMEs to overcome their inherent competitive disadvantages relative to large corporations (resource scarcity) and startups (path dependencies) through access to external knowledge, risk sharing, and new business models [5]. 

The concept of Dynamic Capabilities (DC), established by Teece [3], refers to an organization’s ability to adapt to changing environments. It comprises three dimensions: Sensing(identifying opportunities), Seizing(capitalizing on opportunities), and Reconfiguring(adapting the organization). This approach enables a conceptual classification of the aforementioned adoption barriers in SMEs by characterizing platform adoption not as a one-time technological decision, but as a profound organizational adaptation effort [6].

Methodological approach

This article is based on a systematic literature review following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines [7] (Fig. 1). The 45 identified articles were qualitatively analyzed using the ATLAS.ti software [8] and deductively assigned to the three capability dimensions. In addition to explicit references to DC, implicit conceptual references were also considered.

The following analysis is based on a focused synthesis of relevant literature. Key articles for the theoretical and empirical classification of the identified barriers are cited as examples.

The threefold barrier to SME platform adoption

Sensing: Blind spots hinder ecosystem awareness

In the B2B collaboration context, there is little transparency regarding platform ecosystems. SMEs frequently do not know which platforms exist or how participation can be organized in practice [9]. While large companies have in many cases established systematic ecosystem monitoring [2], SMEs frequently lack structured scanning routines. In addition, the operational involvement of senior management can limit the scope for strategic technology monitoring [10]. Cognitive path dependencies further reduce the perception of external innovation opportunities in favor of established internal development models [11, 12].

Seizing: Fear of knowledge drain

Even when SMEs are aware of collaboration platforms, they often do not adopt them. Innovation platforms require the disclosure of technical information, production data, and collaborative development processes. SMEs fear that this knowledge may be absorbed by competitors or more powerful platform partners [12]. 

Furthermore, many platforms are orchestrated by large companies that define standards and control access conditions. This creates uncertainties for SMEs regarding bargaining power, data usage, and the distribution of value [2, 4]. At the same time, integration into platform ecosystems increases organizational complexity through data management and the expansion of expertise and processes [2]. The often difficult-to-quantify benefits and returns of platform-based collaboration further increase uncertainty about the actual value created its fair distribution [2].

Reconfiguring: Organizational inertia hinders adaptation

Platform participation requires far-reaching organizational adjustments. Innovation processes in SMEs are often internally oriented [13], while external cooperation is predominantly bilateral and project-based. This “closed innovation” logic is difficult to reconcile with open platform practices [14]. 

Platform ecosystems also create interdependencies: standards, development processes, and innovation cycles are increasingly coordinated on a network basis. Autonomy-oriented SMEs, in particular, may perceive this as a loss of control [12]. At the same time, they often lack the human and financial capital [15] needed to build expertise in data management, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and platform governance, or to internalize complementary expertise [9, 16]. In particular, the subjectively high perception of adoption barriers can amplify their reciprocal effects [2].

Capability building as a path to platform readiness

Sensing: Institutionalizing ecosystem scanning

SMEs can establish regular “ecosystem reviews”: structured analyses of relevant Industry 4.0 platforms or innovation hubs, institutionalized as a top management responsibility. Mittelstand-Digital centers offer free consulting and best-practice workshops for this purpose, while industry consortia serve as intermediaries. Limited pilot projects without full system integration enable learning by doing with reduced risk.

Seizing: Selective and strategic participation

SMEs can selectively open up specific areas of innovation for collaboration (e.g., digital services), while keeping the development of core products in-house. This “modular participation strategy” reduces IP risks. Before participating, clear sharing boundaries should be defined and IP assessments conducted. At the same time, governance skills can be practiced in such a “sandbox”-setting: understanding platform terms of service, negotiating data usage rights. Additionally, SMEs can join cooperative models to pool bargaining power and reduce individual risks [1, 17]. Reliable participation can strengthen a firm’s reputation within the platform ecosystem and partly mitigate power asymmetries through reciprocity [18].

Reconfiguring: Ambidexterity between closed and open innovation

Platforms expand internal capabilities rather than replacing them. Open innovation therefore enables access to complementary knowledge and accelerated problem-solving [19]. Successful platform participation requires hybrid innovation models that combine the protection of core competencies with external collaboration [5, 20]. Training in data management, collaboration skills, IP management, and partner management can support the development of absorptive capacity [21]. In addition, an “ecosystem manager” can coordinate across R&D, IT, legal, and executive management in an interdisciplinary role.

Based on the identified barriers, a capability-based framework can be derived (Fig. 2). Capability building is an iterative learning process: Sensing is refined through seizing experiences, while Seizing is facilitated by successful Reconfiguring measures.

Platform operators, in turn, should establish SME-friendly governance (modular participation options, transparent IP regulations). Policymakers can provide additional support through digitalization vouchers, awareness campaigns, and intermediaries [22].

From barriers to capabilities: Platform adoption as a learnable competency

Based on a systematic literature review, this article examines why SMEs often refrain from adopting digital collaboration platforms despite their substantial advantages. The analysis reveals consistent barriers across all DC dimensions. It turns out that SMEs do not adopt collaboration platforms because they are constrained in three ways: they fail to recognize ecosystem opportunities (Sensing), are reluctant to participate (Seizing), and struggle with organizational adaptation (Reconfiguring). 

These barriers reflect deficits in dynamic capabilities and can therefore, in principle, be developed. By focusing on adoption barriers, this paper contributes to DC research. The capability-building framework provides SMEs a structured roadmap for strategic participation in platform ecosystems: establish ecosystem scanning, launch selective pilot participation, and implement hybrid innovation models. As a conceptual paper, this analysis is based on a synthesis of existing literature — empirical validation is still pending. Future research should shift the focus more explicitly and in a generalizable manner to adoption barriers in order to develop and evaluate effective interventions.

This article was produced as part of the “PLATIN-STRAT-KMU” project, which is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Research, Technology, and Space under grant number 02J24A120.

You might also be interested in

Classification of Digital Supply Chain Management Platforms Review of existing classification approaches from a circular economy perspective Sophia Botsch , Eva Mante , Marcel Papert , Alexander Pflaum

Assessing the impact of digital industrial platforms on the dynamics and resilience of supply chains requires clear classification of such platforms. This article examines the extent to which a current classification proposal from the field of supply chain management must be further developed in the context of digital platforms for implementing the circular economy (CE). The authors conclude that a fundamental revision is not necessary, as the digital CE platforms under consideration fit well into the existing classification system. However, new research questions arise regarding the distinction between digital service platforms and digital data-oriented platforms, as well as the link between the circular economy and supply chain management—particularly in connection with supply chain control towers, which are becoming increasingly established in supply chain management practice.

Industry 4.0 Science | Volume 42 | 2026 | Edition 4 | Pages 62-70 | DOI 10.30844/I4SE.26.4.7

A Competition Law Perspective on Interoperability Definition, potential, and challenges Tim Becker

The networking meetings of the research funding program “Dynamics of Digitally Networked Value Creation Systems (DynaVer)” have shown that different disciplines disagree on what interoperability is and whether it is ultimately desirable. This article aims to shed light on the difficulties involved in developing a universally applicable and, at the same time, legally sound definition of interoperability. Furthermore, drawing on insights from competition economics, the article assesses whether and under what circumstances interoperability is a desirable outcome of regulation.

Industry 4.0 Science | Volume 42 | 2026 | Edition 4 | Pages 92-97 | DOI 10.30844/I4SE.26.4.10

Industry 4.0—Progress and Digitalization in Limbo Status of sustainable transformation and digitalization in production engineering Christian Donhauser , Daniel Riepl

Digitalization projects help users represent complex processes more simply and efficiently. However, there are many obstacles to implementation. Reluctance to implement these projects is palpable. This affects, among others, employers and employees, who may fall behind economically by waiting or avoiding change. These observations can be traced back to an overarching research question: What barriers and systemic challenges hinder sustainable transformation within the context of Industry 4.0, particularly when considering human labor in production engineering? What questions are the affected stakeholders asking? The primary goal of this long-term research project is to define these questions decisively and in detail in order to develop a conceptual foundation that integrates research, teaching, and technological development and thus combines the potential of digital technologies with the experiential and practical knowledge of production workers.

Industry 4.0 Science | Volume 42 | 2026 | Edition 3 | Pages 56-60

Open-Source Implementation of the Industrial Metaverse Case study and best practices Henning Strauß , Tim Johannsen

The digital transformation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector is hampered by vendor lock-in, high cloud costs, and stringent data sovereignty requirements when implementing Industrial Metaverse solutions. Although the Industrial Metaverse is quickly becoming a key concept in Industry 5.0, SMEs are often at a disadvantage when using proprietary solutions. This paper demonstrates how Industrial Metaverse applications can be realized by combining proven communication standards with open web technologies, thereby reducing barriers. This makes immersive applications for training, maintenance, and monitoring feasible even in SMEs. Using an open-source-based prototype as a best-practice implementation, the paper illustrates how the Industrial Metaverse can be made technologically and economically accessible to SMEs.

Industry 4.0 Science | Volume 42 | Edition 3 | Pages 68-73

Serious Gaming and the Energy Transition Collaborative knowledge generation and interactive understanding of complex interrelationships Janine Gondolf , Gert Mehlmann, Jörn Hartung, Bernd Schweinshaut, Anne Bauer

Conveying the complexity and multifaceted nature of the energy transition to a broad audience is a challenge. This article demonstrates how interactive serious games on a multitouch table can help make connections tangible and comprehensible. The games and the table were used in various conversational contexts. These are presented here in three case vignettes based on participant observation of the different applications, as well as situated and shared reflection. The vignettes demonstrate how interaction can trigger epistemic processes, enable shifts in perspective, and foster collective thinking, all of which are necessary for shaping the future of society as a whole.

Industry 4.0 Science | Volume 42 | 2026 | Edition 2 | Pages 62-69