The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1355-2554.htm

Business
Lean Startup, Agile Model
Methodologies and Customer Innovation

Development for business

model innovation 595

A systematic review and research agenda Received 9 July 2019

Revised 20 October 2019
26 November 2019
Diego Souza Silva Accepted 28 November 2019
Industrial Engineering Department,
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Antonio Ghezzi
Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering,
Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
Rafael Barbosa de Aguiar
Postgraduate Program in Public Policy,
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and
Marcelo Nogueira Cortimiglia and Carla Schwengber ten Caten
Industrial Engineering Department,
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

Abstract
Purpose – Startups have attracted increased attention over the past years. While entrepreneurs develop
startups to capture new business opportunities, also large companies are turning to these fast-growing
organizations in efforts to become more agile. However, managing business model innovation and validation is
challenging. A number of methodologies, like the Lean Startup (LS), emerged to reduce uncertainties concerning
innovation-based projects, and to contribute to business model validation. Despite its popularity, the literature
on the LS and its key underpinnings (Agile Methodologies and Customer Development) is sparse, lacking an
integrated and structured analysis of their impacts and potentialities. The paper aims to discuss this issue.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted a comprehensive systematic literature review on
the topic fully analyzing a final set of 71 papers.
Findings – There is a turning point in the research stream’s maturity with publications in conferences
and major journals, with the predominance of empirical investigations in the European region. Articles on
the topic are on the rise in several technology fields. However, the literature on the subject falls short
on providing guidance to assist practitioners and scholars on the adoption and investigation of
these methodologies.
Practical implications – The paper provides guidance for practice by presenting a staircase roadmap for
the LS implementation drawing from the final set of papers reviewed.
Originality/value – The study categorizes the current literature through a concept map, and offers a
structured research agenda beyond the categories from the thematic analysis.
Keywords Experimentation, New venture creation, Business model innovation,
Technology entrepreneurship, Lean Startup approaches, Minimum viable product
Paper type Literature review

International Journal of
The authors would like to thank Professor Paul Jones and the two anonymous reviewers for the support Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research
and suggestions that greatly contributed to the improvement of the paper. The first author would also like Vol. 26 No. 4, 2020
to thank the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq – Conselho pp. 595-628
© Emerald Publishing Limited
Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) and the Research Coordination of the Brazilian 1355-2554
Ministry of Education (CAPES) for the financial support received throughout this research. DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-07-2019-0425
IJEBR 1. Introduction
26,4 Entrepreneurs face critical obstacles in the early stages of new ventures creation and
development, such as prospecting investors and raising capital, transforming an idea into a
product/service, validating the business model built around the product and scaling their
business. New businesses are always immersed in risky environments, whether in the form
of a technology-driven business model with an all-new customer approach, or a franchise
596 company with a solid business plan being implemented in a new location. Although all new
businesses entail complexities and risks, technology new ventures, or startups, are usually
faced with more challenging environments, as they are designed to create a new product or
service under conditions of extreme uncertainty (Blank, 2013; Clarysse and Bruneel, 2007;
Hillemane et al., 2019; Innocenti and Zampi, 2019; Ries, 2011; Rippa et al., 2019).
Interest in technology entrepreneurship and the startup movement has increased in a
moment in which there is also growing debate and research regarding business models and,
more specifically, business model innovation (BMI) (Carayannis et al., 2015; Cortimiglia et al.,
2016; Kraus et al., 2019; Spieth et al., 2014; Trimi and Berbegal-Mirabent, 2012). According to
Ricciardi et al. (2016), the business model construct addresses characteristics of the
interaction between the firm and its environment that are key to the firm’s revenue, and as
the environment continuously changes, business models must also be dynamic. The critical
role BMI plays in a company’s success has been advocated by both executives (Amit and
Zott, 2012; Johnson et al., 2008) and scholars (DaSilva and Trkman, 2014; Spieth et al., 2014;
Teece, 2018) alike. BMI does not necessarily entail product or disruptive innovations, but it
rather generates changes in the value creation, value appropriation or value delivery
functions, resulting in improvements in the value proposition (Sorescu, 2017). Additionally,
BMI may refer to both design of novel business models for new organizations (startups), and
the reconfiguration of existing business models (Massa and Tucci, 2014), regardless the
field, whether in sustainability- or social-oriented business models (Margiono et al., 2018;
Todeschini et al., 2017; Zebryte and Jorquera, 2017) or technology-based industries
(García-Gutiérrez and Martínez-Borreguero, 2016; Hillemane et al., 2019; Rippa et al., 2019).
The challenge of envisioning and running a startup, however, goes beyond the BMI. In a
recent study investigating 54 countries, researchers found a moderate increase in the fear of
failure (preventing starting up a business) among adult entrepreneurs when comparing
reports of 2016 and 2017 (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2017). Similar findings have been
reported by scholars. Staniewski and Awruk (2015) indicated “risk of failure (the loss of the
invested capital)” as one of the main perceived hurdles in starting businesses. Finally,
Kollmann et al. (2017) demonstrated the mediating role that fear of failure plays in the
transition from perception of obstacles to opportunity exploitation in entrepreneurial activities.
More recently, several tools and practices have emerged to support technology
new ventures to overcome recurrent barriers, mainly during the early stages of
development. One of the most prominent methodologies that aim at assisting entrepreneurs
in innovation-oriented ventures is the Lean Startup (LS) (Ries, 2008, 2011). The LS,
introduced by Ries (2011), gained popularity and interest among entrepreneurs and scholars
(Blank, 2013; De Cock et al., 2019; Ladd and Kendall, 2017), and also rapidly gained
momentum in large companies from the most varied fields, like General Electric and
Goodyear Tire & Rubber (Ganguly and Euchner, 2018; Power, 2014). The methodology
focuses on learning from failure and recommends a set of generic practices to validate
business model elements using continuous fast iteration processes. According to Ries (2008),
the LS movement is strongly supported by two previous approaches: Agile Methodologies
(AM) and Customer Development (CD). AM seek to eliminate wasted time and resources by
focusing on iterative and incremental product development. CD, by contrast, seeks to
identify and understand customers, their needs and the appropriate solutions to satisfy
them, reducing business risks by testing hypothesis (Alvarez, 2014; Blank, 2013).
 Academic literature on LS and its underpinnings matured in the past few years. Bortolini Business
et al. (2018) conducted a comprehensive historical review to identify academic antecedents of Model
LS, positioning the methodology in the Learning School of strategic management and the Innovation
effectuation approach to entrepreneurship. Additionally, recent studies have investigated
entrepreneurial cognitions behind the methodology (Ladd and Kendall, 2017; Mansoori and
Lackéus, 2019; Yang et al., 2019). However, despite its popularity, literature exploring LS,
AM and CD is still sparse, lacking integrated understanding and analysis of the effects and 597
potentialities of the methodologies, as well as practical guidelines for is implementations for
both startups and large organizations. As a consequence, LS academic relevance and
soundness is still met with skepticism by scholars (Ghezzi and Cavallo, 2018). Thus, this
paper sheds light on current knowledge, identifying relevant issues, and advancing theory
and practice by conducting a systematic literature review (SLR) of the implementation of LS,
also covering AM and CD, addressing the following research questions:
RQ1. What is the existing research covering LS, AM and CD related to BMI in
entrepreneurial environments?
RQ2. What practices and tools have been used complementarily with LS?
RQ3. What are the organizational impacts of implementing LS practices?
RQ4. What are the critical success factors (CSFs) for LS implementation?
The present paper provides a systematic review with descriptive and thematic analyses
based on a final set of 71 papers. The research objectives are threefold: map and categorize
the current literature; identify key managerial aspects of implementing LS, such as CSFs
and organizational impacts; and provide paths for practice and research. First, the authors
present the theoretical background and the methodological procedures, thoroughly
describing the planning and selection stages conducted during the systematic review. Then,
the findings and research streams are outlined. Finally, the authors discuss gaps and
weaknesses of current literature, present the conclusions and summarize opportunities for
further research.

2. Setting the stage for the review: Lean Startup, Agile Methodologies and
Customer Development
Entrepreneurial literature discussing the startup development has recently turned its
attention to the framing and systematization of the entrepreneurial act of startup’s business
model design and subsequent validation (Ghezzi, 2018; McDonald and Eisenhardt, 2019),
so as to equip entrepreneurs with a quasi-scientific process for launching their ventures
(Camuffo et al., 2019).
A startup community-led movement to go “back to the basics” of entrepreneurial action
in a startup’s early stages of development proposed to conceive startups as the atomic unit
of analysis they are built around: a business idea to develop a product, service or solution
addressing a complex market need (Blank, 2007, 2013; Blank and Dorf, 2012; Ries, 2011).
Following this simple though effective equation, startup development could be paralleled to
new product development; and the evolution of new product development processes,
methods and practices could provide an alternative lens to interpret and inform startup
development. In this sense, Eric Ries (2011) draws from principles originated in the Japanese
Lean philosophy to propose a set of processes to systematize entrepreneurship and startups
development, termed Lean Startup (LS).
The Lean Manufacturing, coined from the Toyota Production System, is grounded in the
idea of maximizing customer value, while minimizing waste (Lean Enterprise Institute,
2019; Womack and Jones, 1997). Likewise, LS advocates that planning for conventional
IJEBR businesses and technology new ventures should be differentiated, since these
26,4 non-traditional ventures are surrounded in more volatile environments, searching for
scalable and repeatable business models. Thus, LS would assist such entrepreneurs at
validating assumptions and ceasing waste activities with no value creation, i.e. activities
customers do not ask for (Blank, 2013; Frederiksen and Brem, 2017).
In order to understand where waste lies, LS is centered in a learning process for BMI,
598 dubbed as “validated learning,” in which the entrepreneur must engage in a Build-Measure-
Learn (BML) loop (Ries, 2011, 2017). In this loop, LS puts forward a systematic process made of
falsifiable hypotheses to test through early versions of the product (commonly known as
“Minimum Viable Products”, or MVPs), quasi-scientific experiments where customer-originated
feedback helps entrepreneurs understand if they should persevere with the business model,
drop it altogether, or “pivot” it – by keeping features that customers approved, while tweaking
elements customers rejected (Eisenmann et al., 2011). The premise underneath the methodology
is that the entrepreneur must “fail fast,” learn from it as soon as possible, and avoid stubbornly
persevering in a wrong idea that may consume valuable resources (Eisenmann et al., 2011; Ries,
2011). Although it may sound simple, LS draws from the scientific method and uses
performance indicators and metrics to measure continuous business development (Maurya,
2012) so that startups can benefit from early interactions with customers, increasing the
chances of success without necessarily investing large amounts of capital to launch their
products (Stayton and Mangematin, 2018; Trimi and Berbegal-Mirabent, 2012).
Besides the clear inspiration in the Lean philosophy (incorporated in the name of
the methodology), Eric Ries (2008), in his personal blog, also mentions two other key
underpinnings of LS: Agile Methodologies (AM) and Customer Development (CD). In the agile
manifesto, Beck et al. (2001) define agile development as a set of software development
methods based on iterative and incremental development, which promotes adaptive planning,
evolutionary development and delivery, and encourages rapid and flexible response to change.
AM have the merit of promoting customer involvement since the early stages of product
development, thus making it more customer-centric (Cram and Newell, 2016; Nerur et al., 2005;
Rigby et al., 2016), which is also in line with the Lean philosophy. Notwithstanding their merits,
there are limitations impairing the use of AM, especially when considering them as a possible
way to help entrepreneurs develop a startup. In this sense, while AM deem important to build
products with customer involvement, they leave the issue of how to identify and engage with
such customers virtually unsolved. Moreover, they only implicitly account for the need
startups have to develop an outside-in, rather than an inside-out stance, meaning that
entrepreneurs should anticipate interaction with customers as early as possible, in order to
tackle customer problems or pains and adjust the business idea accordingly.
This paradigmatic change in product – and startup – development mindset is embodied in
the last (but not least) inspiration of LS: Customer Development (Alvarez, 2014; Blank, 2007,
2013; Blank and Dorf, 2012). Customer Development (CD) tweaks AM and the Lean
philosophy to focus on customers upfront, since startups in their seed and early stages have to
develop customers rather than products (Alvarez, 2014). So startups are advised to “search”
for the right customers to test their business idea assumptions on, thus obtaining validation or
refutation of the overall business model. Only after experimentation confirms all business
model assumptions, startups can develop a company and a mass market (Blank, 2007). In CD,
the first product is not designed to satisfy mainstream customers, but to be tested on a small
group of early and visionary customers called “evangelists,” in order to obtain informed
feedbacks about the proposed solution (Blank, 2013; Blank and Dorf, 2012). Although CD
constitutes an evolution of the traditional product development approach, its processes and
tools depart from the traditional focus, underscoring how startups should develop not only a
product, but a whole business model, and test all business model-related assumptions in the
market to assess for viability.
 Due to the significant overlap in scope, objective and key steps, recent contributions Business
(Ghezzi and Cavallo, 2018) couple LS and CD under the umbrella name “Lean Startup Model
Approaches.” LS gained significant momentum within the entrepreneurial community at a Innovation
global level, and to date, it is by far the most widespread approach to pragmatically support
startup development (de Aguiar et al., 2019; Frederiksen and Brem, 2017; Ghezzi, 2018;
Mollick, 2019). However, such diffusion was not matched by a concurrent theoretical
development backing the approach; and even from a practitioner standpoint, several 599
implementation issues remain obscure (Cooper, 2019; Lindgren and Münch, 2016), with
specific reference to CSFs, boundaries and opportunity of integration with other approaches
and related tools.
Recently, Bortolini et al. (2018) conducted a historical review, identifying antecedents of
the LS methodology, like principles of the Learning School of management and other
concepts, such as the theory of discovery-driven planning (McGrath and MacMillan, 1995),
effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001), entrepreneurial bricolage (Baker and Nelson, 2005) and the
probe-and-learn approach (Lynn et al., 1996). Even though there is an increase in the number
of contributions attempting to frame and generalize LS, AM and CD as startup development
processes, these contributions are still scattered and fragmented. The entrepreneurship
literature lacks a systematic review connecting and organizing this body of knowledge,
which leaves a significant gap for both theory and practice this study aims at addressing.

3. Methodology
As the main purpose of the paper is to advance understanding regarding the
implementation stage of LS, AM and CD tools in the context of startups and BMI, the
authors conducted an SLR focusing on research related to these methodologies within
entrepreneurial environments. Literature reviews are traditionally descriptive and adopt
narrative approaches, often criticized due to lack of soundness concerning methodological
rigor and inherent bias (Denyer and Neely, 2004; Paré et al., 2015). As a consequence,
scholars have turned to systematic reviews (De Luca et al., 2019; Pret and Cogan, 2019;
Tranfield et al., 2003), since SLR helps to minimize bias and has explicit, reproducible criteria
and transparent process when compared to approaches like survey or traditional general
reviews (Cerchione and Esposito, 2016; Cook et al., 1997; Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). As
defined by Petticrew and Roberts (2006, p. 2), “systematic literature reviews are a method of
mapping out areas of uncertainty, and identifying where little or no relevant research has
been done, but where new studies are needed.”
To ensure reliability and validity of the findings, the study adopted the stages suggested
by Tranfield et al. (2003), namely: planning the review; conducting a review; and reporting
and dissemination. Following the authors’ recommendations, the authors organized the
stages into the following topics:
(1) Planning: formation of a review panel, definition of research questions, identification
of keywords, construction of search strings and selection of databases.
(2) Selection: definition of inclusion/exclusion criteria, selection process based on the
criteria and cross-checking of articles by the review panel.
(3) Descriptive analysis: categorization of the literature, and a summary view of the
selected articles.
(4) Thematic analysis: in-depth review of articles, highlighting the strengths and
weaknesses of literature, identifying emerging themes and questions for future research.
The planning and selection stages comprise the first two stages suggested by Tranfield et al.
(2003), planning the review and conducting the review, and are presented in Subsections 3.1
IJEBR and 3.2. Finally, to better address the emerging themes and recommendations, the
26,4 reporting and dissemination stage was divided into two sections of descriptive analysis
(Section 4) and thematic analysis (Section 5).

3.1 Planning
During the planning stage, a review panel was formed consisting of three researchers
600 (all authors of the paper). Each researcher had previous experience related to
entrepreneurship and/or innovative methodologies; as recommended by Tranfield et al.
(2003), the panel should include a range of experts in the field of study.
The search was conducted using three databases: ScienceDirect, Web of Science and
Scopus. The inclusion of only three databases can be seen as a limitation. However, the
databases were chosen due to their relevance within the fields of business and management,
covering main publishers, including Elsevier, Emerald, Springer and Wiley, among others.
ScienceDirect covers more than 14m publications from over 3,800 journals (Kolajo et al.,
2019). From one perspective, although Web of Science best retrieves older materials (Bauer
and Bakkalbasi, 2005) and includes well-recognized content (Scaringella and Radziwon,
2018), Scopus’ wider array of international outlets can represent better receptiveness to
dynamic and growing topics (Ghezzi et al., 2018) such as LS. Also, recent SLRs covering
emerging subjects in major management and organization journals adopted this set of
databases (e.g. de Oliveira and Cortimiglia, 2017; Subtil de Oliveira et al., 2018; Todeschini
et al., 2017). Although the choice of three databases created an overlap, their selection served
as a validation to ensure that relevant articles within the search criteria were included.
Prior to the definition of the review focus, the authors adopted an inductive approach
(Miles and Huberman, 1994) and followed the guidelines of Popay et al. (2006) to conduct a
pilot mapping of available relevant evidence (using the three databases) in order to refine
the research strategy. This mapping exercise supported the elaboration of the research
questions (RQ1–RQ4) to be both answerable and relevant for theory and practice, and to
subsequently guide the descriptive and thematic analyses of the review.
As the main purpose of the study was to investigate the implementation of emerging
methodologies in the context of new ventures, strings related to entrepreneurship, startups,
and SMEs were included. However, the authors did not exclude articles reporting or
analyzing such practices in large companies, as these organizations are increasingly turning
to startups and agile players to bolster innovation and foster entrepreneurial mindsets
among their employees (Euchner, 2016; Thornberry, 2001). The search strings and the
number of articles obtained in each database can be seen in Table I.
Due to recent and fast growth of the literature on LS, the study included articles (written
in English) published in both academic journals and international conference proceedings,
as similarly conducted in SLRs covering emerging topics (e.g. Adams et al., 2016;
Garza-Reyes, 2015; Ghezzi et al., 2018) and recommended by Saunders et al. (2016) as the
most useful and reliable sources for literature reviews. In dynamic and emerging fields, such
as LS, the inclusion of “gray literature,” i.e. heterogeneous material available outside
traditional academic peer-review processes, can provide positive contributions, such as
incorporating relevant contemporary material in dynamic topic areas where scholarship
lags, and exploring novel fields of inquiry (Adams et al., 2017). Books, reviews and editorial
materials were excluded (see Table II).
LS proposes iterative business model validation drawing from AM and CD (Ries, 2008)
and stems from previous management theories (Bortolini et al., 2018). Hence, the authors
decided to not establish a time constraint. The timespan is limited to the most time-
comprehensive database adopted (Web of Science). The study included articles
investigating the use of LS, AM and/or CD related to BMI, development and
experimentation of MVPs or prototypes, regardless the size of the organization. Both the
 Database
Business
Web of Model
Search String Science Scopus ScienceDirect Innovation
(“Agile” AND “develop*” AND (“entrepr*” OR “startup*” OR
“SME*”)) 157 323 20
(“Agile” AND “method*” AND (“entrepr*” OR “startup*” OR
“SME*”)) 124 231 12 601
(“Agile” AND “techn*” AND (“entrepr*” OR “startup*” OR “SME*”)) 85 194 11
(“Agile” AND “Management” AND (“entrepr*” OR “startup*” OR
“SME*”)) 78 190 5
(“Agile” AND “tool*” AND (“entrepr*” OR “startup*” OR “SME*”)) 39 122 4
“Agile” AND “SME*” 58 95 17
“Agile” AND “entrepr*” 30 35 7
“Agile” AND “startup*” 15 10 7 Table I.
“Agile Management” 22 29 6 Search strings and
“Customer Development” 25 81 19 number of papers
“Lean Startup” 48 87 34 obtained per
“Lean” AND “Startup*” 73 139 53 researched database

Inclusive criteria
Language English
Timespan 1945–April/2019
Document Journal articles and proceedings
types
Research Adoption of Lean Startup, customer development or agile methodologies for business model
focus innovation; adoption of Lean Startup, Customer Development or Agile Methodologies for
startup development
Exclusive criteria
Document Books, newspapers, magazines and editorial materials
types Table II.
Research Strict application of Lean Manufacturing tools, such as value stream mapping, Kanban, Inclusive and
focus single-minute exchange of die (SMED), Poka-Yoke or the like; Adoption of Agile exclusive criteria for
Methodologies for software development/programming or software architecture validation the review

LS and AM emerged in the software industry, but have gained momentum in several
technology-based fields (Eisenmann et al., 2011; Ries, 2011, 2017). Thus, papers reporting the
adoption of these practices with implications for BMI (regardless the field) were selected.
The review panel excluded research covering exclusive Lean and/or agile manufacturing
settings, i.e. elimination of waste in a facility process or limited to the application of Lean
Manufacturing tools, such as value stream mapping, Kanban, 5S or the like. The authors
also excluded articles related only to agile software development/programming or studies
on software architecture.

3.2 Selection
During the selection stage, the review panel conducted searches on databases using the
search strings previously defined; overlapping results were eliminated, resulting in
514 articles. Articles were cross-checked to filter results based on the aforementioned
inclusion/exclusion criteria.
The titles, abstracts and keywords of the 514 papers were examined by all researchers
from the review panel in accordance with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The review panel
IJEBR assigned a score on a scale of 1 to 4 for each paper, where: 1 (certainly not accepted);
26,4 2 (possibly not accepted); 3 (possibly accepted); and 4 (certainly accepted). The evaluation of
the panel members was subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and correlation,
in order to verify significant differences between the answers, and to validate whether the
understanding of the inclusion and exclusion criteria was clear. Table III presents
the ANOVA.
602 There was no statistically significant differences in the review panel scores ( p W0.05).
Additionally, Table IV provides data from the correlation analysis by the review panel.
Small differences were observed between the researchers, which is expected, since the panel
members have different trajectories and perceptions; however, values higher than 0.5 show
convergence in the decisions, supporting the clarity in the definition of the selection criteria
of the articles and the understanding by the review panel.
After the evaluation, papers that obtained a mean score equals to or greater than 3 were
selected, which resulted in a final sample of 79 papers. However, eight papers were excluded
from review after verification of exclusion criteria during full readings, such as addressing
methodologies in contexts different from the research focus (e.g. Duc et al., 2016; Khalil and
Khalil, 2019; Oliva and Kotabe, 2019). Finally, the review was based on 71 papers. Figure 1
summarizes the planning process, with the selection of articles in the different stages.
After completing the planning and selection stages, the 71 papers were reviewed and
uploaded to the QSR NVivo software for analysis, since this software is used and suggested
by researchers as an effective tool in the codification of data extracted from articles (Thomas
and Harden, 2008; Thorpe et al., 2005). Based on the recommendation of Tranfield et al. (2003)

Table III. Source of variation SS df MS F p-value F crit

Analysis of variance
(ANOVA) of the Between groups 0.354085603 2 0.177042802 0.180886473 0.834547835 3.001571175
evaluations by the Within groups 1,506.297665 1,539 0.97875092
review panel Total 1,506.651751 1,541

Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 Reviewer 3

Table IV.
Correlation analysis of Reviewer 1 1
the evaluations by the Reviewer 2 0.813669616 1
review panel Reviewer 3 0.64591168 0.628213908 1

STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4

Definition Analysis
and Elimination of titles, Content
execution of abstracts analysis
of search duplicates and and
strings keywords synthesis

Web of Science Inclusion and exclusion

Figure 1. Scopus criteria
NVivo
Stages of the planning Science Direct
2,485 514 71
and selection steps papers papers papers
adopted in similar systematic reviews (Garza-Reyes, 2015; Hu et al., 2015), the report Business
presentation is divided into two parts: a descriptive analysis, with bibliographical categories, Model
and a thematic analysis, including an interpretation of the degree to which there is a Innovation
consensus regarding key themes, along with an identification of emerging themes for the
development of future research.

4. Descriptive analysis 603

To answer RQ1, this section covers the descriptive analysis of the literature about LS, AM
and CD related to BMI in entrepreneurial environments.

4.1 Publications per year, type of source and research methods

The attention over LS practices, as well as AM and CD, has been prominent in recent years.
Interest in the topic as a source of research is also increasing, as shown in Figure 2, with a
growing number of publications in the period between 2002 and April/2019.
Along with the increase of publications about the topic over the past few years, a few
studies were initially presented in conferences, and later on, more mature, published in
journals. For instance, Bajwa et al. (2016) presented a study at the International Conference
of Software Business investigating the process of pivoting (i.e. changing business model
elements) in European software startups; one year later, Bajwa et al. (2017) published a more
complete research on software ventures’ pivots in the Empirical Software Engineering
journal. This represents a natural turning point in the maturity of a topic. From the sample
of papers reviewed, publications in journals represent 57.14 percent, against 42.86 percent of
conferences, signaling the topic is still emergent.
Research on the topic was published in journals of different fields, covering related areas
of entrepreneurship, innovation, business and management (e.g. Small Business Economics,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Technovation and Industrial
Marketing Management), as well as in areas less related to the topic (e.g. Journal of Cleaner
Production and Translational Materials Research). Appendix 1 presents the publications per
journal and conference.
The most prominent method employed was the multiple-case study, corresponding to
30 percent of the publications, which can be considered another evidence of the topic’s
emergent nature, as case studies are frequently used to draw a first exploratory light in the
early stages of understanding novel phenomenon, and building and developing theory
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Voss et al., 2002). Similarly, conceptual

11
CONFERENCE JOURNAL
10 10

4
Figure 2.
3 Representation of the
2 number of
publications per year
1 1 in the analyzed
0
sources
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 April-2019
IJEBR and single-case studies are also fairly frequent (27 and 17 percent, respectively).
26,4 Less commonly used methods were labeled as others, including action research
(Marcinkowski and Gawin, 2019; Xu and Koivumäki, 2019), survey (Lindgren and
Münch, 2016) and mixed methods (Bottani, 2010). The frequency of each method among the
reviewed papers is listed in Figure 3.
Considering the emergent nature of the topic, ten studies aim at developing theoretical
604 frameworks, as well as proposing models with the improvement of the practices being
studied. From this group of studies, five papers conducted purely descriptive discussions
(Ahmed et al., 2019; Edison, 2015; Girgenti et al., 2016; Mansoori and Lackéus, 2019; Overall
and Wise, 2015), three proposed new frameworks and conducted multiple-case studies
(Bessant et al., 2002; Edison et al., 2018; Fagerholm et al., 2017) and two studies developed
models and conducted single-case studies (Pease et al., 2014; Still, 2017). The field still lacks
mixed methods with multiple sources of evidence, an approach that improves the validity
and reliability of the findings (Bhasin, 2012). An exception is the work of Kumar et al. (2018),
who propose a framework for CD in the context of the sharing economy based on literature
and interviews with customers, service providers and service enablers in three major
American cities.

4.2 Geographic areas and industry sectors

Of the 71 articles reviewed, 34 indicated the geographic area covered (Figure 4). Empirical
investigations were predominantly developed within organizations (both large enterprises
and startups/SMEs) in Finland: ten studies were entirely held in Finland (Fagerholm et al.,
2017; Hokkanen et al., 2015; Hokkanen and Leppänen, 2015; Järvinen et al., 2014; Lindgren
and Münch, 2016; Raatikainen et al., 2016; Still, 2017; Terho et al., 2015; Xu and Koivumäki,
2019; Yaman et al., 2017), while two studies conducted investigations in Finland and
Switzerland in a cross-country research (Eloranta, 2014; Leppänen, 2014).
Finland’s preponderance and the emergence of Switzerland in the development of studies
linking AM to BMI are in line with a recent ranking where Finland emerges among the seven
leading innovation countries in the European region, along with Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark,
the Netherlands, the UK and Germany (Hollanders and Es-Sadki, 2017). Additionally, Finland
ranked second, and six other European countries (Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Switzerland,
UK and Luxembourg) were in the Top 9 (out of 139 nations) in the Networked Readiness Index

Single-case study (17%)

Multiple-case study (30%)

Others (26%)

Figure 3.
Percentage of papers
according to the
research method
Conceptual study (27%)
 Business
Model
Innovation

605

12

2 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1
Finland

Brazil

Switzerland

USA

England

China

Sweden

Italy

France

Indonesia

The Netherlands

Malaysia

Poland

Singapore

Figure 4.
Number of studies
per country

of the Global Information Technology Report (World Economic Forum, 2016). This annual
report assesses digital network readiness according to indicators regarding regulatory and
business environment, information and communication technology (ICT) affordability and
infrastructure, usage and socio-economic impacts. According to World Economic Forum (2016),
Finland has good access to latest technologies and venture capital, and its businesses are highly
connected; such attributes confer the Finnish country a better-quality digital environment and
businesses, a characteristic that both prompts and facilitates empirical studies on LS and AM.
In addition to Europe, a number of papers report research conducted in other locations,
with a small representation of Brazil (Melegati et al., 2019; de Paula and Araujo, 2016; Tolfo
et al., 2018; Ximenes et al., 2015), the USA (Kumar et al., 2018; May, 2012), China (Li et al., 2014;
Yang et al., 2019), Indonesia (Nirwan and Dhewanto, 2015), Singapore (Chan et al., 2019) and
Malaysia (Ekpe et al., 2017). The small number of investigations outside Europe highlights the
lack of research and opportunities in other continents, especially in developing countries.
IJEBR In total, 53 papers reported specific industry sectors investigated. Not surprisingly,
26,4 considering the origin of LS and AM in the software industry, 42 papers (79 percent of the
total) focused on the ICT sector (Figure 5).
In spite of the high concentration of articles in ICT, there are studies in unconventional
segments, such as library management (Bieraugel, 2015) or the promotion of entrepreneurship
focused on social development (Traube et al., 2017). The emergence of studies in sectors other
606 than ICT fits the proposal of Ries (2011), which advocates the use of the methodology in
innovation projects, regardless of the field; however, the low number of studies reveals the
need for future research investigating the applicability of the methodology in different sectors,
especially in engineering and materials sciences (Harms et al., 2015; Werwath, 2019).

5. Thematic analysis
Although all selected papers address LS, AM and/or CD, the studies focused on different
aspects, with some overlap. For this reason, the authors used QSR NVivo software to
construct a concept map to help visualize the categorization and structure of the revision.
QSR NVivo has been recommended as an effective computer-assisted qualitative data
analysis software for coding data from full articles to thematic analysis in systematic
reviews (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Thomas and Harden, 2008; Thorpe et al., 2005).
Following similar SLRs (Bembom and Schwens, 2018; Garza-Reyes, 2015), the study
presents a concept map (Figure 6) displaying the current state of research, with the centralized
topic on LS, CD and AM, from which the main identified categories emerged, including
investigation: benefits, limitations, difficulties; integration with another methodology or
proposition of a new model/framework; size of the organization; industry sector; and location.
For each category and subcategory, the articles were identified according to their focus and
content and based on the assigned numbering (Appendix 2). For example, in the article
number 55, “Digital startups and the adoption and implementation of Lean Startup
Approaches: Effectuation, Bricolage and Opportunity Creation in practice,” by Antonio

42

2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ICT

Manufacturing

Materials and science

Apparel retail

Construction

Education

Library management

Social work

Sharing economy

Research

Figure 5.
Number of articles
per sector
 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,
38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 4, 8, 10, 11,
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71 21, 23, 29, 34,
25, 30, 34, 37, 41, 44, 47, 49, 55, 58 9 49
56, 59, 61, 63, 66, 67, 69 55, 62
43, 65
16, 19, 23, 25, 26, 27,
30, 32, 40, 41, 45, 49,
51, 58, 61, 62, 66 Lean Startup Customer
66 France The Netherlands
Agile Development Italy
Sweden
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 20, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 10, 12, 13,
12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 21, 22, 24,
24, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 34, 36, 41,
38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, Integration with Poland 45, 47, 69
52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, other
methodologies or Methodology Finland
64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71
proposal of new
frameworks

Europe 4, 52
Investigation- Lean Startup. Research
Customer Location England
benefits, limitations Empirical
and difficulties Development and Application
Agile Management

America 10, 13
1, 54
Switzerland
Cross-country
10, 13, 18, 28, 35, Asia 25, 30,
Singapore 59, 67
Manufacturing Sector 39, 40, 48, 57
Size of 63
organization Brazil
2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21,
22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, USA
29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 7, 58
China
39, 41, 44, 47, 52, 55, Malaysia Indonesia
56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, ICT Large Both 14, 70
65, 67, 69, 71 3, 5, 8, 16, 17, 23, 15
9, 12, 18, 27, Startup or SME 53
31, 47, 54, 71 25, 32, 33, 34, 35,
1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42,
6, 17, 20, 35, 38, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 45, 46, 49, 51, 58,
45, 46, 58 26, 28, 29, 30, 39, 41, 43, 59, 61, 64, 66, 70
Others 44, 48, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57,
62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 69
Business
Model

Figure 6.
Innovation

systematic review
Concept map of the
607
IJEBR Ghezzi on the Technological Forecasting and Social Change, the size of the organization is
26,4 identified as “startup/SME,” with industry sector “ICT,” “Italy” as the location of the study,
investigating “Lean Startup” and “Customer Development” practices, exploring “benefits,
difficulties and limitations.”
The study followed the suggestions of Tranfield et al. (2003) and included a thematic
section with the identification of emerging key themes, as well as the discussion on the extent
608 to which there is consensus in the literature regarding the topic. The authors employed a
rationale of recursive and cyclical interpretative-oriented content analysis explicitly stating
the research concerns and research questions, and selecting relevant text for further analysis
(Auerbach and Silverstein, 2003). Following the guidelines by Saunders et al. (2016), inductive
coding was employed to group similar findings regarding the impacts of LS, AM and CD on
organizations, as well as CSFs for their implementation and avenues for future research.
Data from the 71 papers reviewed were coded to move methodically to a higher
conceptual level, enabling to later sort topics from different sources in different ways,
examining related features and gaining insights (Yin, 2011). Based on the content analysis
and synthesis, three main themes address the remaining research questions (RQ2–RQ4).
All themes are individually discussed next:
• Theme 1: integration with other methodologies and a new model/framework proposal.
• Theme 2: impacts on organizations.
• Theme 3: CSFs for implementation.

5.1 Integration with other methodologies and a new model/framework proposal

Despite the novelty of the topic, 15 papers seek to integrate LS with other methodologies, or
propose new models recommending rapid hypothesis testing (Figure 6). Some articles
discussed the implementation of LS with strategic tools, such as business model design
(Ghezzi et al., 2015), with the development of the business model using business model
canvas, or internal corporate venturing (Edison, 2015), representing a set of activities used
to generate innovation within an organization. Although all the methodologies and tools
have great potential for integration, they were very little explored in the studies, and lacked
explanations about how the startups being studied used the methodologies, or how they
should be adjusted for different types of companies.
Similarly, there seems to be special attention given to combining LS with design thinking
in software project management and process improvements (Ahmed et al., 2019; Edison
et al., 2018; de Paula and Araujo, 2016; Risku and Abrahamsson, 2015; Ximenes et al., 2015)
for further problem exploration. Design thinking is a methodology proposed by Brown
(2009) that – differently from LS, which starts with a business idea – is triggered from a
problem or question and is highly recognized in literature by its appeal to creativity,
problem solving and user centeredness (Micheli et al., 2019). In their studies, the researchers
converged when observing that design thinking supports LS with moments of empathy and
user understanding to better comprehend their real needs. Despite its benefits, Risku and
Abrahamsson (2015) criticize what they perceive is little inclusion of design thinking in
academic programs outside design courses.
Balocco et al. (2019) developed an interesting framework for companies operating in
dynamic sectors. The authors recognized the roots of LS in the Japanese philosophy and
integrated single-minute exchange of die, a tool from Lean Manufacturing, in the business
model change process. According to the authors, the framework is suitable for any process
of business model change, regardless of the stage of the venture.
Finally, other authors proposed new models and/or frameworks with approaches that
combined LS with other AM (Fagerholm et al., 2017), axiomatic design (Girgenti et al., 2016),
CD (Overall and Wise, 2015), or even considering less explored areas, such as the
development of products aimed at underdeveloped countries (Pease et al., 2014), to support Business
employee-driven innovation in the context of green product development (Buhl, 2018), or Model
aiming at understanding the applicability and use of the LS paradigm within the research Innovation
context (Still, 2017). Again, despite the potential for exploration, most of the studies were
purely descriptive, with little or no empirical application; few papers also involved case
studies for further exploration (Bessant et al., 2002; Fagerholm et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2018;
Pease et al., 2014; Still, 2017). In this line, Kumar et al. (2018) proposed a strategic framework 609
for CD in the sharing economy based on literature, press and several interviews, addressing
threats and opportunities; Marcinkowski and Gawin (2019), by contrast, conducted an
in-depth canonical action research study and proposed an architecture integrating agile
methods with business process management, considering multi-scenario business
processes. Some researchers attempted to complement LS, AM and CD shortcomings,
such as interpreting customer feedback, or identifying and prioritizing critical assumptions
to be tested; nevertheless, these papers lacked results, examples, guidelines and sometimes
theoretical lenses to support the research and further its contributions.

5.2 Impacts on organizations

In his book, Ries (2011) advocated fast experimentation instead of long business plans
within the startup context, a theme that has been discussed in some of the reviewed papers.
Xu and Koivumäki (2019) revealed that LS and effectuation approaches produce more
realistic business models when compared to causation/prediction approaches. More
specifically, the authors claim Sarasvathy’s (2001) effectuation can better benefit
entrepreneurs with an advantage in personal and professional networks, whereas LS is
better suited for those with stronger technical skills, especially in high-tech fields.
Clutterbuck et al. (2009) presented the implementation of AM with results that reveal costs
involving constant adaptation changes proposed by the experimentation; however, these
costs are smaller when compared to management based on traditional business plans.
Similarly, Edison et al. (2015) stated that the BML loop from the LS – in which the
entrepreneur develops and tests hypotheses using MVP – assists with the development of
the right product, but it requires resources (whether human, financial or time) in the measure
stage that must be considered. Lindgren and Münch (2016) showed that very few
organizations use experimentation in a continuous and systematic way, lacking awareness
about such practices.
According to Ghezzi and Cavallo (2018), mainly during the early stages, digital startups
adopting LS benefit from orchestrating tensions arising from concurrently managing the
startup’s existing use of scarce resources and recombining them into new and original
resources. Furthermore, based on a large-scale survey, Ghezzi (2018) reports that digital
startups adopting LS benefited from: reducing time and costs to test the startup; aligning the
business idea to customer needs; verifying and pivoting business model parameters; receiving
rounds of financing; and offering alternatives to traditional intellectual property protection.
In an ethnographic study, Mansoori et al. (2019) investigated the impact of LS in
entrepreneur–coach relationships in a university-based accelerator. The authors revealed
interesting findings, observing that introducing LS in accelerators changes the authority of
coaches, rendering them less assertive. According to Mansoori et al. (2019), coaches’ advice
(in line with LS) mitigated team conflict by resolving intra-team deadlocks; however,
entrepreneur–coach relationships were eventually at odds when hypotheses should be
tested with empirical data, rather than having coach authority as a key principle guiding
action. As a conclusion, the authors suggest coaches should aim to formulate advice and
opinions as hypotheses to be validated, rather than unquestionable facts.
According to Ganguly and Euchner (2018), large manufacturing companies can benefit
from experimentation, since the learning from such experiments, and customers, in
IJEBR particular, is very powerful in building internal support for the business. Moreover, Yaman
26,4 et al. (2017) conducted a study with software product and service development companies
participating in a Finnish research program and observed that some of the benefits gained
by introducing continuous experimentation include improved understanding of the need for
user involvement in the development process and getting rapid feedback, in addition to
forming new insights and understandings about their product and services, users and
610 development processes. Likewise, Chan et al. (2019) reported that, by being agile in
responding to disruptive digital innovations, SMEs develop innovative capability through
organizational adaptability, which is an important component, since not all innovative
capability leads to agility.
In a combination of sustainable business model and user-driven innovation, Baldassarre
et al. (2017) conducted a study on a European innovation project addressing the challenge
of climate change and observed that iterating the value proposition with an extended range of
stakeholders creates more acceptance, commitment and support for sustainable innovations.
Similarly, Bocken et al. (2018) revealed that experimentation could provide internal and
external traction for sustainability transitions and create a more entrepreneurial atmosphere
within organizations, mitigating resistance to transitions with the aid of learning loops and
limiting negative exposure due to the low-resource and small-scale nature of experiments.
Finally, regarding the impact of emerging methodologies on entrepreneurship and
innovation, Bieraugel (2015) stated that the use of LS can contribute to the reduction of
uncertainties and fears about innovation, and Tolfo et al. (2018) showed that industry
practitioners and scholars have positive perceptions to AM enhancing entrepreneurial
skills. The studies of Ladd and Kendall (2017) and Ekpe et al. (2017) reported increased
entrepreneurial intention to start new business and self-confidence in the ability to search
for an idea in individuals exposed to LS. Bessant et al. (2002) revealed that AM strengthen
internal capabilities of organizations concerning the ability to change rapidly and
continuously, while Trimi and Berbegal-Mirabent (2012) stated that the logic behind rapid
iterations drives innovation and fosters product generation in a shorter period, wherein the
value of such methodologies lies.
Some authors have employed efforts toward understanding pivots in business model
elements and failures in the early stages of new ventures (e.g. Bajwa et al., 2016, 2017;
Pantiuchina et al., 2017; Terho et al., 2015); however, the studies are more focused on the
occurrence of such pivots and less on the relationship among them. For instance, Bajwa et al.
(2017) identified that the most common pivots among software startups regard the
understanding of customer needs, revealing the importance of properly identifying the
customers’ problem, and Terho et al. (2015) observed that unrefined key metrics might lead
to wide multiple pivots; although these are relevant findings, there is a dearth of
investigation as to the relation among such multiple pivots, whether sequential or in
parallel, and how pivots may impact the new venture.
At last, Yordanova (2018) argues that LS and the principle of user involvement hinder
the development of breakthrough innovation. Additionally, the author states that
companies tend to adopt the methodology blindly without fully understanding its
advantages and disadvantages. The study surveyed professionals working in areas of
product development, R&D, project management and innovation management, and
captured their perceptions regarding LS principles and premises. Quantitative analysis
revealing actual results to support such claims lay outside the scope of the study; however,
the research addresses compelling arguments and calls for further investigations.

5.3 Critical success factors for implementation

Surprisingly, none of the selected studies focused exclusively on identifying CSFs for
implementing LS, AM and/or CD. However, several articles dealt directly or indirectly with
important aspects when conducting a project using precepts from such methodologies. Thus, Business
the present study was able to identify key factors based on the results of some of the papers. Model
LS and its key underpinnings advocate interaction with customers since early moments Innovation
of the venture; this principle was reinforced and complemented by researchers. Nirwan and
Dhewanto (2015) state that, in addition to the early stage interaction, entrepreneurs must
assess market segmentation after each round of hypothesis testing, since the target segment
can “pivot,” as well as other characteristics of the product/service. Hokkanen and Leppänen 611
(2015) emphasize that the focus of the interaction should be on potential users, declaring that
any effort in gathering feedback from another type of user is a waste of time and resources.
Additionally, according to Ribeiro and Fernandes (2010), entrepreneurs must foster reliable
relationships early on, not only with the end user, but also with suppliers, promoting
alliances and partnerships.
Concerning the feedback-seeking stage, de Paula and Araujo (2016) and Hokkanen et al.
(2015) address the interface as a relevant element, which should be as close to the final
product as possible; according to them, a good UX (user experience) provides more
meaningful feedback. Bajwa et al. (2017) observe that it may not be easy for entrepreneurs to
identify which valuable feature to build first, so it may be beneficial to use MVPs to decide
the candidate features to include in product offerings. Fagerholm et al. (2017) state that some
skills are critical to experimentation and that entrepreneurs must know how to collect and
analyze data, having in mind what is being tested and for what reason.
Terho et al. (2016) affirm that entrepreneurs must divide the MVP into different learning
objectives, developing shorter experiments. In this line, according to Ganguly and Euchner
(2018), a well-designed business experiment has four attributes: it should be designed to
examine in isolation just a few critical factors that are crucial to the business model, it tests a
measurable assumption, it should be inexpensive and it should be quick, generating enough
information to validate (or invalidate) the hypothesis. Ghezzi (2018) notes that entrepreneurs
must accurately formulate falsifiable hypotheses and comprehensively adopt LS, rather
than randomly pick steps and elements they perceive as most useful.
Yaman et al. (2017) conclude that companies need to take some aspects into consideration
when selecting experiments, which include: availability of resources, current technologies
being used and the status of current development activities. Additionally, Ganguly and
Euchner (2018) provide insights from the experience of a global manufacturer with business
experiments, revealing that, occasionally, concerns may arise that an experiment could
damage the brand image; the organization can avoid such risk by not using the brand or
logo in the experiment.
Baldassarre et al. (2017) reveal that co-creation sessions with users allow gaining
a multifaceted stakeholder perspective and, consequently, identifying a stakeholder
network. In sustainability-oriented projects, it is important to track progress against
sustainability goals in each step of the experimentation process, because it may become
unclear as the focus may shift to different business elements (Bocken et al., 2018).
In order to successful implement LS, some of the reviewed papers advocate a need for a
flexible organizational structure with few interconnected departments to enable cooperation
and communication, as well as a culture open to experimentation that recognizes failure as a
learning method, with full support from top management (Edison et al., 2015, 2018; Lindgren
and Münch, 2016; Ribeiro and Fernandes, 2010; Terho et al., 2016). Specifically addressing
LS within internal startups in large organizations, Edison et al. (2018) revealed that having a
cross-functional team, empowering such team and having top management support speed
up the development and learning processes, as well as increase collaboration, while reducing
communication overhead. By contrast, the authors also reported that when internal startups
should balance the long-term and short-term issues, they often suffer from dilemmas to
satisfy current customers, or focus on long-term goals.
IJEBR Finally, De Cock et al. (2019) conducted a longitudinal multiple-case study and revealed
26,4 LS is constrained by the entrepreneurs’ level of prior market knowledge. According
to the authors, entrepreneurs with no prior market knowledge struggle to interpret
market information collected through experimentation. Such finding relates to results
presented by Khanna et al. (2018), in which the authors reveal entrepreneurs learn from
hypotheses testing and MVP creation; however, the amount of learning possessed by the
612 entrepreneur also depends on user involvement and previous existing knowledge about
the market.

6. Conclusions, implications and research directions

In this study, the authors conducted an SLR with an in-depth analysis of 71 papers selected
from three main databases (Web of Science, Scopus and ScienceDirect), and provided a
categorization of the current literature. Like any qualitative research, this study is not free of
limitations. During selection, the criteria did not take into account the quality of sources;
nevertheless, all papers were evaluated by researchers who verified their adherence to the
research objectives. Also, the authors used three databases of academic papers; although
these databases contain the main publishers, the authors acknowledge the search process
may have omitted relevant research. Content analysis can also be criticized by its
subjectivity, but it may be impossible to avoid a certain level of subjectivity when dealing
with the interpretative synthesis of the literature.
Despite the study presenting pertinent results and information from the review, there are
still many gaps concerning the topic. The literature on the subject lacks clear guidelines to
assist practitioners and scholars on the adoption and investigation of LS. To contribute to
this dearth of practical guidance, and stimulate future research, the following subsection
presents structured insights based on the review.

6.1 Managerial implications and avenues for future research

The present study provides direct implications for practitioners. Similar to the SLR
conducted by Hu et al. (2015), the authors developed a preliminary roadmap (Figure 7)
to guide entrepreneurs and managers on applying LS, considering the thematic analysis
from the review. The construction of the staircase followed the guidelines of Miles and
Huberman (1994), and the authors structured a time-ordered matrix with columns
corresponding to LS sequential stages of building an MVP, measuring the tests and
learning. The BML process was broken down into specific activities drawn from coded data,
using the rows of the matrix.
The inner area of the y-axis constitutes the BML stages and the “staircase” serves as
their related activities. The separation between stages is purposely blurry to represent the
fact that, in the real world, positioning the steps can be somewhat fuzzy. This roadmap
represents an initial attempt to provide practical guidance based on extant literature on the
topic. Future research should further explore the staircase sequence, revising the proposed
steps and/or incorporating new steps.
Particularly in the context of early digital startups, LS can support in the orchestration
of tensions between concurrently managing the startup’s existing endowment of
resources and recombining them into new and original resources (Ghezzi and Cavallo,
2018). Nonetheless, irrespective of the field of the startup, after validating the initial MVP
and reaching the stage in which the venture has the right product for the market
(product-market fit), entrepreneurs should continue to adopt the BML approach; in this
case, LS draws on the Japanese spirit of Kaizen (continuous improvement) from the Lean
philosophy, and “the purpose of these tests shifts from business model validation to
business model optimization” (Eisenmann et al., 2011, p. 11).
 Continuously reset the BML loop in accordance to the business strategy

LEARN
Experiment on business model elements beyond the value proposition

(re-)assess market segmentation

Concentrate efforts on interactions with potential users

For more meaningful feedbacks, focus on development of user interface and user experience

Define measureable and falsifiable assumptions

MEASURE
Build concise MVPs, conducting short and inexpensive experiments with different learning objectives

Based on the strategy analysis, define the learning objective and the aim of the test

Weigh co-creation sessions with end users for perspective enrichment

Identify early evangelists and trial users

BUILD
Review the strategic plan. In case of risks of brand damage, consider incognito experiments

TIME
Business
Model

Figure 7.
Innovation

staircase roadmap
The Lean Startup
613
IJEBR Although the results provided light on the topic, there are still several gaps and
26,4 opportunities in the current literature on LS, AM and CD toward BMI. The present study
posits several questions as avenues for future research, as similarly proposed by Dorn et al.
(2016) and Pret and Cogan (2019) in their SLRs, and recommended as an effective strategy to
guide future research (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Garza-Reyes, 2015). Thus, based on the
analysis and synthesis of the papers reviewed, Table V presents research questions
614 formulated to provide potential research agenda, with questions categorized according to
the themes derived from the content analysis.
Additionally, relevant matters emerged beyond the three thematic topics. MOS literature
is not consensual as to relating LS as an Effectuation process (Sarasvathy, 2001). Bortolini
et al. (2018) and Ghezzi (2018) claim LS can be positioned as an operational and scientific
approach to the behavioral theory of effectuation; Xu and Koivumäki (2019), by contrast,
state that the main focus of effectuating for LS is built on the rationale that the driver of
developing network and partnership is through the identification of a real problem-solution
fit, whereas Sarasvathy’s (2001) effectuation emphasizes effectuating knowledge, resource
and network. Mansoori and Lackéus (2019) conduct a thorough comparison and highlighted
core underpinnings among effectuation, discovery-driven planning, prescriptive
entrepreneurship, business planning, LS and design thinking. However, the positioning of
such practices lay outside their scope and aim. Future research could further this discussion
and debate.

Theme Research questions

Integration with other methodologies and a Are the frameworks/models suitable to all industries?
new model/framework proposal Are the frameworks/models suitable to both large
organizations and startups/SMEs?
How can sustainability tools support Lean Startup to address
social and environmental issues?
Impacts on organizations How can different sorts of pivots impact the business’ strategy?
Should multiple pivots occur sequentially or in parallel? Is
there a relationship between them?
What are the implications of Lean Startup for corporate
entrepreneurship? Does Lean Startup enhance entrepreneurial
mindsets within established organizations?
What is the impact of Lean Startup on breakthrough
innovations?
What are the implications for (large and small) businesses to
conduct experimentation using their brand or going incognito?
What should they consider beforehand?
Critical success factors Which adjustments are necessary for Lean Startup to be
implemented in large companies?
Which are the most common inhibiting factors practitioners
face when attempting to implement Lean Startup, Agile
Methodologies and Customer Development?
What are the most frequent errors practitioners make when
implementing the methodologies?
Is Lean Startup applicable to technology-based ventures
beyond software?
How can entrepreneurs better interpret customers’ feedback
and incorporate validated learning without bias?
How to best define metrics to assess MVPs?
Table V. How to best execute the Build-Measure-Learn loop when the
Research questions for organization has intermediaries and doesn’t interact directly
future agenda with end users?
In their recent research, Melegati et al. (2019) conducted a multiple-case study with Business
Brazilian software ventures and revealed that the startups do not systematically adopt LS Model
and AM, but rather ponder the adoption based on a set of influences, such as the founders, Innovation
market, business model and the startup ecosystem. Future research could further
investigate reasons for the limited adoption of such practices among digital ventures,
considering that these practices emerged in the software industry. The authors also
observed that most of the empirical papers concerning the topic took place in the 615
European region, more precisely, in European countries top ranked in innovation and
digital-quality reports. Thus, future research may also investigate whether there is a
relationship between digital affordances of a location and the usage of LS and other
emerging managerial practices.

References
Adams, R.J., Smart, P. and Huff, A.S. (2017), “Shades of grey: guidelines for working with the grey
literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies”, International
Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 432-454.
Adams, R.J., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D. and Overy, P. (2016), “Sustainability-oriented
innovation: a systematic review”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 180-205.
Adebanjo, D. (2010), “Challenges and approaches to customer development in co-located high-tech
start-ups”, IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management, Macao, pp. 163-167.
Ahmed, B., Dannhauser, T. and Philip, N. (2019), “A Lean design thinking methodology (LDTM) for
machine learning and modern data projects”, 2018 10th Computer Science and Electronic
Engineering (CEEC), IEEE, Colchester, pp. 11-14, doi: 10.1109/CEEC.2018.8674234.
Alvarez, C. (2014), Lean Customer Development, O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA.
Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2012), “Creating value through business model innovation”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 40-50.
Auerbach, C.F. and Silverstein, L.B. (2003), Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding and Analysis,
New York University Press, New York, NY.
Bajwa, S.S., Wang, X., Duc, A.N. and Abrahamsson, P. (2016), “How do software startups pivot?
Empirical results from a multiple case study”, International Conference of Software Business,
Vol. 240, pp. 169-176.
Bajwa, S.S., Wang, X., Nguyen Duc, A. and Abrahamsson, P. (2017), “ ‘Failures’ to be celebrated: an
analysis of major pivots of software startups”, Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 2373-2408.
Baker, T. and Nelson, R.E. (2005), “Creating something from nothing: resource construction through
entrepreneurial bricolage”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 329-366.
Baldassarre, B., Calabretta, G., Bocken, N.M.P. and Jaskiewicz, T. (2017), “Bridging sustainable
business model innovation and user-driven innovation: a process for sustainable value
proposition design”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 147, pp. 175-186, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.081
Balocco, R., Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A. and Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2019), “Lean business models change
process in digital entrepreneurship”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 7,
pp. 1520-1542, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-07-2018-0194
Batova, T., Card, D. and Clark, D. (2016), “Challenges of Lean customer discovery as invention”,
IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, IEEE, Austin, TX, October 2-5,
doi: 10.1109/IPCC.2016.7740514.
IJEBR Bauer, K. and Bakkalbasi, N. (2005), “An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly
26,4 communication environment”, D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 9, available at: https://doi.org/10.10
45/september2005-bauer (accessed August 11, 2018).
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Bennekum, A., van Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J. et al.
(2001), “Principles behind the agile manifesto”, available at: http://agilemanifesto.org/iso/en/
principles.html
616 Bembom, M. and Schwens, C. (2018), “The role of networks in early internationalizing firms:
a systematic review and future research agenda”, European Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6,
pp. 679-694, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.03.003
Bessant, J., Knowles, D., Briffa, G. and Francis, D. (2002), “Developing the agile enterprise”,
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 24 Nos 5‐6, p. 484.
Bhasin, S. (2012), “Performance of Lean in large organisations”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, The
Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 349-357.
Bieraugel, M. (2015), “Managing library innovation using the Lean Startup method”, Library
Management, Vol. 36 Nos 4‐5, pp. 351-361.
Blank, S.G. (2007), The Four Steps to the Epiphany, 2nd ed., Cafepress.com, San Francisco.
Blank, S.G. (2013), “Why the Lean start up changes everything”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 91
No. 5, p. 64.
Blank, S.G. and Dorf, B. (2012), The Startup Owner’s Manual: The Step-By-Step Guide for Building a
Great Company, K&S Ranch, Pescadero, CA.
Bocken, N.M.P., Schuit, C.S.C. and Kraaijenhagen, C. (2018), “Experimenting with a circular business
model: lessons from eight cases”, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Vol. 28,
September, pp. 79-95, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.02.001
Bortolini, R.F., Cortimiglia, M.N., Danilevicz, A.D.M.F. and Ghezzi, A. (2018), “Lean Startup : a
comprehensive historical review”, Management Decision, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/
MD-07-2017-0663
Bottani, E. (2010), “Profile and enablers of agile companies: an empirical investigation”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 125 No. 2, pp. 251-261, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.02.016.
Brown, T. (2009), Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires
Innovation, HarperBusiness, New York, NY.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011), Business Research Methods, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Buhl, A. (2018), “Do it yourself – a Lean Startup toolbox for employee-driven green product
innovation”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 22
Nos 4‐5, pp. 526-544.
Camuffo, A., Cordova, A., Gambardella, A. and Spina, C. (2019), “A scientific approach to
entrepreneurial decision making: evidence from a randomized control trial”, Management
Science, October, pp. 1-23, available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3249
Carayannis, E.G., Sindakis, S. and Walter, C. (2015), “Business model innovation as lever of
organizational sustainability”, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 85-104.
Cerchione, R. and Esposito, E. (2016), “A systematic review of supply chain knowledge management
research: state of the art and research opportunities”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 182, pp. 276-292, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.09.006
Chan, C.M.L., Teoh, S.Y., Yeow, A. and Pan, G. (2019), “Agility in responding to disruptive digital
innovation: case study of an SME”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 436-455.
Clarysse, B. and Bruneel, J. (2007), “Nurturing and growing innovative start-ups: the role of policy as
integrator”, R&D Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 139-149.
Clutterbuck, P., Rowlands, T. and Seamons, O. (2009), “A case study of SME web application
development via agile methods”, The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 13-26.
Conboy, K., Wang, X. and Fitzgerald, B. (2009), “Creativity in agile systems development: a literature Business
review”, in Dhillon, G., Stahl, B.C. and Baskerville, R. (Eds), Information Systems – Creativity and Model
Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Vol. 301, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,
Guimarães, pp. 122-134. Innovation
Cook, D., Mulrow, C. and Haynes, R.B. (1997), “Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions”, Annals
of Internal Medicine, Vol. 126 No. 5, pp. 376-380, doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006.
Cooper, R.G. (2019), “The drivers of success in new-product development”, Industrial Marketing 617
Management, Vol. 76, January, pp. 36-47, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.
2018.07.005
Cortimiglia, M.N., Ghezzi, A. and Frank, A.G. (2016), “Business model innovation and strategy making
nexus: evidence from a cross-industry mixed-methods study”, R&D Management, Vol. 46 No. 3,
pp. 414-432.
Cram, W.A. and Newell, S. (2016), “Mindful revolution or mindless trend? Examining agile development
as a management fashion”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 154-169.
DaSilva, C.M. and Trkman, P. (2014), “Business model: what it is and what it is not”, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 379-389.
de Aguiar, R.B., Silva, D.S., ten Caten, C.S. and Silva Filho, L.C.P. (2019), “Lean mentorship: fitting
external support to entrepreneur needs over the startup development”, Production, Vol. 29
No. e20190078, pp. 1-11, available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.20190078
De Cock, R., Bruneel, J. and Bobelyn, A. (2019), “Making the Lean start-up method work: the role of
prior market knowledge”, Journal of Small Business Management, pp. 1-21.
De Luca, V.V., Margherita, A. and Passiante, G. (2019), “Crowdfunding: a systemic framework of
benefits”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 25 No. 6,
pp. 1321-1339.
Denyer, D. and Neely, A. (2004), “Introduction to special issue: innovation and productivity performance
in the UK”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vols 5-6 Nos 3-4, pp. 131-135.
de Oliveira, D.T. and Cortimiglia, M.N. (2017), “Value co-creation in web-based multisided platforms: a
conceptual framework and implications for business model design”, Business Horizons, Vol. 60
No. 6, pp. 747-758.
de Paula, D.F.O. and Araujo, C.C. (2016), “Pet empires: combining design thinking, Lean Startup
and agile to learn from failure and develop a successful game in an undergraduate
environment”, International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 617, Toronto,
pp. 30-34.
Dorn, S., Schweiger, B. and Albers, S. (2016), “Levels, phases and themes of coopetition: a systematic
literature review and research agenda”, European Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp. 484-500.
Duc, A.N., Shah, S.M.A. and Ambrahamsson, P. (2016), “Towards an early stage software startups
evolution model”, 42nd Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced
Applications, pp. 120-127.
Edison, H. (2015), “A conceptual framework of Lean Startup enabled internal corporate venture”,
International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, Springer, Cham,
pp. 607-613.
Edison, H. (2016), “Software product innovation through startup experimentation in large companies”,
PROFES 2016: Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, Vol. 10027, Trondheim,
pp. 751-756.
Edison, H., Wang, X. and Abrahamsson, P. (2015), “Lean Startup: why large software companies should
care”, International Conference on Agile Software Development, XP 2015, Helsinki, pp. 1-7.
Edison, H., Smørsgård, N.M., Wang, X. and Abrahamsson, P. (2018), “Lean internal startups for
software product innovation in large companies: enablers and inhibitors”, Journal of Systems
and Software, Vol. 135, pp. 69-87, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.09.034
IJEBR Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case research”, Academy of Management Review,
26,4 Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007), “Theory building from cases: opportunities and
challenges”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
Eisenmann, T., Ries, E. and Dillard, S. (2011), “Hypothesis-driven entrepreneurship: the Lean Startup”,
Harvard Business School Background Note 812-095.
618 Ekpe, I., Mat, N., Yaacob, M.R. and Rahim, M.N.A. (2017), “Lean start-up awareness and effect on
entrepreneurial intentions among Malaysian youths”, International Journal of Management in
Education, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 57-69.
Eloranta, V.P. (2014), “Towards a pattern language for software start-ups”, Proceedings of the 19th
European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs, Irsee, July 9-13, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1145/2721956.2721965 (accessed March 12, 2017).
Euchner, J. (2016), “Business model innovation”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 59 No. 3,
pp. 10-11.
Fagerholm, F., Sanchez Guinea, A., Mäenpää, H. and Münch, J. (2017), “The RIGHT model for continuous
experimentation”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 123, pp. 292-305, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.03.034
Frederiksen, D.L. and Brem, A. (2017), “How do entrepreneurs think they create value? A scientific
reflection of Eric Ries’ Lean Startup approach”, International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 169-189.
Ganguly, A. and Euchner, J. (2018), “Conducting business experiments”, Research-Technology
Management, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 27-36.
García-Gutiérrez, I. and Martínez-Borreguero, F.J. (2016), “The innovation pivot framework: fostering
business model innovation in startups”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 48-56.
Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2015), “Lean and green-a systematic review of the state of the art literature”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 102, pp. 18-29, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.064
Ghezzi, A. (2018), “Digital startups and the adoption and implementation of Lean Startup approaches:
effectuation, bricolage and opportunity creation in practice”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 146, September, pp. 945-960, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.017
Ghezzi, A. and Cavallo, A. (2018), “Agile business model innovation in digital entrepreneurship: Lean
Startup approaches”, Journal of Business Research, June, pp. 1-19, available at: https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jbusres.2018.06.013
Ghezzi, A., Cavallaro, A., Rangone, A. and Balocco, R. (2015), “A comparative study on the impact of
business model design & Lean Startup approach versus traditional business plan on mobile
startups performance”, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Enterprise
Information Systems, Vol. 3, Barcelona, pp. 196-203.
Ghezzi, A., Gabelloni, D., Martini, A. and Natalicchio, A. (2018), “Crowdsourcing: a review and suggestions
for future research”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 343-363.
Giardino, C., Wang, X. and Abrahamsson, P. (2014), “Why early-stage software startups fail: a
behavioral framework”, International Conference of Software Business, Paphos, pp. 27-41.
Girgenti, A., Pacific, B., Ciappi, A. and Giorgetti, A. (2016), “An axiomatic design approach for customer
satisfaction through a Lean start-up framework”, 10th International Conference on Axiomatic
Design, Vol. 53, pp. 151-157.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2017), “GEM global report 2017/18”, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor,
Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, London Business School, London, available at:
www.gemconsortium.org/report/gem-2017-2018-global-report (accessed May 30, 2018).
Harms, R., Marinakis, Y. and Walsh, S.T. (2015), “Lean Startup for materials ventures and other
science-based ventures: under what conditions is it useful?”, Translational Materials Research,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 1-8, available at: https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1613/2/3/035001
Hillemane, B.S.M., Satyanarayana, K. and Chandrashekar, D. (2019), “Technology business incubation Business
for start-up generation”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 25 Model
No. 7, pp. 1471-1493.
Innovation
Hokkanen, L. and Leppänen, M. (2015), “Three patterns for user involvement in startups”, 20th
European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs, Kaufbeuren, July 8 -12, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1145/2855321.2855373 (accessed March 11, 2017).
Hokkanen, L., Kuusinen, K. and Vaananen, K. (2015), “Early product design in startups: towards a UX 619
strategy”, International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement,
Vol. 9459, Bolzano, pp. 217-224.
Hollanders, H. and Es-Sadki, N. (2017), Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2017, 8th ed., European
Commission, Brussels, available at: https://doi.org/10.2873/469382 (accessed October 1, 2017).
Hu, Q., Mason, R., Williams, S.J. and Found, P. (2015), “Lean implementation within SMEs:
a literature review”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26 No. 7,
pp. 980-1012.
Innocenti, N. and Zampi, V. (2019), “What does a start-up need to grow? An empirical approach for
Italian innovative start-ups”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 376-393.
Järvinen, J., Huomo, T., Mikkonen, T. and Tyrväinen, P. (2014), “From agile software development to
mercury business”, International Conference of Software Business, Vol. LNBIP 182, Helsinki,
pp. 58-71.
Johnson, M.W., Christensen, C.M. and Kagermann, H. (2008), “Reinventing your business model”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86 No. 12, pp. 50-59.
Khalil, C. and Fernandez, V. (2013), “Agile management practices in a ‘lightweight’ organization: a case
study analysis”, Journal of Modern Project Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 103-111.
Khalil, C. and Khalil, S. (2019), “Exploring knowledge management in agile software development
organizations”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, pp. 1-15, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00582-9
Khanna, D., Nguyen, A. and Wang, X. (2018), “From MVPs to pivots: a hypothesis-driven journey of
two software startups”, in Wnuk, K. and Brinkkemper, S. (Eds), 9th International Conference on
Software Business, Springer, Cham, pp. 172-186, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-0
4840-2_12
Kolajo, T., Daramola, O. and Adebiyi, A. (2019), “Big data stream analysis: a systematic literature review”,
Journal of Big Data, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-30, available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-019-0210-7
Kollmann, T., Stöckmann, C. and Kensbock, J.M. (2017), “Fear of failure as a mediator of the
relationship between obstacles and nascent entrepreneurial activity – an experimental
approach”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 280-301.
Kraus, S., Palmer, C., Kailer, N., Kallinger, F.L. and Spitzer, J. (2019), “Digital entrepreneurship: a
research agenda on new business models for the twenty-first century”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 353-375.
Kumar, V., Lahiri, A. and Dogan, O.B. (2018), “A strategic framework for a profitable business model in
the sharing economy”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 69, February, pp. 147-160,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.021
Ladd, T. and Kendall, L. (2017), “Entrepreneurial cognition in the Lean Startup method”, Academy
of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2017 No. 1, pp. 1-27, available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/
AMBPP.2017.10753abstract
Lean Enterprise Institute (2019), “What is lean?”, available at: www.lean.org/WhatsLean/ (accessed
January 14, 2019).
Lenarduzzi, V., Taibi, D. and Link, S. (2016), “MVP explained: a systematic mapping study on the
definitions of minimal viable product”, 42nd Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering
and Advanced Applications, pp. 112-119.
IJEBR Leppänen, M. (2014), “Patterns for starting up a software startup company”, 19th European Conference
26,4 on Pattern Languages of Programs, pp. 1-7.
Li, Y., Guo, Q. and Fu, Z. (2014), “Collaborative innovation research on co-working platform based on
Lean Startup model”, International Conference on Human Interface and the Management of
Information, Vol. 8521, pp. 491-502.
Lindgren, E. and Münch, J. (2016), “Raising the odds of success: the current state of experimentation in
620 product development”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 77, September, pp. 80-91,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2016.04.008
Lynn, G.S., Morone, J.G. and Paulson, A.S. (1996), “Marketing and discontinuous innovation: the probe
and learn process”, California Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 8-37.
McDonald, R.M. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (2019), “Parallel play: startups, nascent markets, and effective
business-model design”, Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 1-41, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1177/0001839219852349
McGrath, R.G. and MacMillan, I. (1995), “Discovery driven planning”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73
No. 4, pp. 44-54.
Mansoori, Y. (2017), “Enacting the Lean Startup methodology”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 812-838.
Mansoori, Y. and Lackéus, M. (2019), “Comparing effectuation to discovery-driven planning,
prescriptive entrepreneurship, business planning, Lean Startup, and design thinking”, Small
Business Economics, pp. 1-28, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00153-w
Mansoori, Y., Karlsson, T. and Lundqvist, M. (2019), “The influence of the Lean Startup methodology
on entrepreneur-coach relationships in the context of a startup accelerator”, Technovation,
Vols 84-85, June-July, pp. 37-47, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.03.001
Marcinkowski, B. and Gawin, B. (2019), “A study on the adaptive approach to technology-driven
enhancement of multi-scenario business processes”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 118-146.
Margiono, A., Zolin, R. and Chang, A. (2018), “A typology of social venture business model
configurations”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 626-650.
Massa, L. and Tucci, C.L. (2014), “Business model innovation”, in Dodgson, M., Gann, D.M. and Phillips, N.
(Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1-25,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199694945.013.002
Maurya, A. (2012), Running Lean, 2nd ed., O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA.
May, B. (2012), “Applying Lean Startup: an experience report – Lean & Lean UX by a UX veteran:
lessons learned in creating & launching a complex consumer app”, Proceedings – 2012 Agile
Conference, MiniDates, New York, NY, pp. 141-147.
Melegati, J., Goldman, A., Kon, F. and Wang, X. (2019), “A model of requirements engineering in
software startups”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 109, May, pp. 92-107, available
at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2019.02.001
Micheli, P., Wilner, S.J.S., Bhatti, S.H., Mura, M. and Beverland, M.B. (2019), “Doing design thinking:
conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 124-148.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed.,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mollick, E. (2019), “What the Lean Startup method gets right and wrong”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 10, pp. 1-4, available at: https://hbr.org/2019/10/what-the-lean-startup-method-gets-right-
and-wrong (accessed October 31, 2019).
Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R. and Mangalaraj, G. (2005), “Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 72-78.
Nirwan, M.D. and Dhewanto, W. (2015), “Barriers in implementing the Lean Startup methodology in Business
Indonesia – case study of B2B startup”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 169, pp. 23-30, Model
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.282
Innovation
Oliva, F.L. and Kotabe, M. (2019), “Barriers, practices, methods and knowledge management tools in
startups”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 1838-1856, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2018-0361
Overall, J. and Wise, S. (2015), “An S-curve model of the start-up life cycle through the lens of customer 621
development”, The Journal of Private Equity, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 23-34.
Paço, A., Ferreira, J. and Raposo, M. (2016), “Development of entrepreneurship education programmes
for HEI students: the Lean start-up approach”, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 39-52.
Pantiuchina, J., Mondini, M., Khanna, D., Wang, X. and Abrahamsson, P. (2017), “Are software startups
applying agile practices? The state of the practice from a large survey”, in Baumeister, H. and
Eds, M.R. (Eds), Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming, Vol. 283,
Springer, Cham, pp. 167-183, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57633-6_11
Paré, G., Trudel, M.C., Jaana, M. and Kitsiou, S. (2015), “Synthesizing information systems knowledge: a
typology of literature reviews”, Information and Management, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 183-199.
Pease, J.F., Dean, J.H. and Van.Bossuyt, D.L. (2014), “Toward a market-based Lean Startup product
design method for the developing world”, ASME 2014 International Design Engineering
Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Vol. 2A,
Buffalo, NY, August 17-20, available at: https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2014-34150 (accessed
June 3, 2018).
Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. (2006), Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide,
Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, doi: 10.1002/9780470754887.
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M. and Britten, N. (2006), Guidance
on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews, Lancaster University, Lancaster,
available at: www.lancaster.ac.uk/shm/research/nssr/research/dissemination/publications.php
(accessed August 1, 2017).
Power, B. (2014), “How GE applies Lean Startup practices”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 13-15.
Pret, T. and Cogan, A. (2019), “Artisan entrepreneurship: a systematic literature review and research
agenda”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 592-614.
Raatikainen, M., Komssi, M., Kiljander, H., Hokkanen, L., Märijärvi, J. and Mohout, O. (2016), “Eight
paths of innovations in a Lean Startup manner: a case study”, International Conference on
Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, Vol. 1, pp. 15-30.
Ribeiro, F.L. and Fernandes, M.T. (2010), “Exploring agile methods in construction small and medium
enterprises: a case study”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 161-180.
Ricciardi, F., Zardini, A. and Rossignoli, C. (2016), “Organizational dynamism and adaptive business
model innovation: the triple paradox configuration”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 11,
pp. 5487-5493.
Ries, E. (2008), “The Lean Startup”, available at: www.startuplessonslearned.com/2008/09/lean-startup.html
(accessed May 1, 2017).
Ries, E. (2011), The Lean Startup, Crown Business, New York, NY.
Ries, E. (2017), The Startup Way: How Modern Companies Use Entrepreneurial Management to
Transform Culture and Drive Long-Term Growth, Currency, New York, NY.
Rigby, D.K., Sutherland, J. and Takeuchi, H. (2016), “Embracing agile”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 94 No. 5, pp. 40-50.
Rippa, P., Ponsiglione, C., Bocanet, A., Capaldo, G. and Zollo, G. (2019), “Do new ventures explore,
exploit or both? A case-based analysis of six innovative Italian start-ups”, International Journal
of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 1515-1536.
IJEBR Risku, J. and Abrahamsson, P. (2015), “What can software startuppers learn from the artistic design
26,4 flow? Experiences, reflections and future avenues”, Product-Focused Software Process
Improvement (PROFES), Vol. 9459, Bolzano, pp. 584-599.
Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001), “Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic
inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 243-263.
622 Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2016), Research Methods for Business Students, 7th ed.,
Vol. 53, Pearson Education, Essex.
Scaringella, L. and Radziwon, A. (2018), “Innovation, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and business
ecosystems: old wine in new bottles?”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 136,
November, pp. 59-87, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.023
Sorescu, A. (2017), “Data-driven business model innovation”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 691-696.
Spieth, P., Schneckenberg, D. and Ricart, J.E. (2014), “Business model innovation – state of the art and
future challenges for the field”, R&D Management, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 237-247.
Staniewski, M. and Awruk, K. (2015), “Motivating factors and barriers in the commencement of one’s
own business for potential entrepreneurs”, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 583-592.
Stayton, J. and Mangematin, V. (2018), “Seed accelerators and the speed of new venture creation”,
Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 1163-1187, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10961-017-9646-0
Still, K. (2017), “Accelerating research innovation by adopting the Lean Startup paradigm”, Technology
Innovation Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 32-43.
Subtil de Oliveira, L., Echeveste, M.E. and Cortimiglia, M.N. (2018), “Critical success factors for
open innovation implementation”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 31 No. 6,
pp. 1283-1294.
Teece, D.J. (2018), “Business models and dynamic capabilities”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 51 No. 1,
pp. 40-49.
Terho, H., Suonsyrjä, S. and Systä, K. (2016), “The developers dilemma: perfect product development
or fast business validation?”, Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES),
Vol. 10027 LNCS, Trondheim, pp. 571-579.
Terho, H., Suonsyrja, S., Karisalo, A. and Mikkonen, T. (2015), “Ways to cross the Rubicon: pivoting in
software startups”, Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, Vol. 9459, Bolzano,
pp. 555-568.
Thomas, J. and Harden, A. (2008), “Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in
systematic reviews”, BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Thornberry, N. (2001), “Corporate entrepreneurship: antidote or oxymoron?”, European Management
Journal, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 526-533.
Thorpe, R., Holt, R. and Macpherson, A. (2005), “Using knowledge within small and medium-sized
firms : a systematic review of the evidence”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 7
No. 4, pp. 257-281.
Todeschini, B.V., Cortimiglia, M.N., Callegaro-de-Menezes, D. and Ghezzi, A. (2017), “Innovative and
sustainable business models in the fashion industry: entrepreneurial drivers, opportunities, and
challenges”, Business Horizons, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 759-770.
Tolfo, C., Wazlawick, R.S., Ferreira, M.G.G. and Forcellini, F.A. (2018), “Agile practices and the
promotion of entrepreneurial skills in software development”, Journal of Software: Evolution and
Process, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 1-23.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222, available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Traube, D.E., Begun, S., Petering, R. and Flynn, M.L. (2017), Beta Testing in Social Work, Vol. 27, Business
Research on Social Work Practice, School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Model
Angeles, CA, pp. 163-168.
Innovation
Trimi, S. and Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2012), “Business model innovation in entrepreneurship”,
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 449-465.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. and Frohlich, M. (2002), “Case research in operations
management”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, 623
pp. 195-219.
Weissbrod, I. and Bocken, N.M.P. (2017), “Developing sustainable business experimentation
capability – a case study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142 No. 4, pp. 2663-2676.
Werwath, M. (2019), “Lean Startup and the challenges with ‘hard tech’ startups”, IEEE Engineering
Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 22-23.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1997), “Lean thinking – banish waste and create wealth in your
corporation”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 48 No. 11, pp. 1148-1148.
World Economic Forum (2016), in Baller, S., Dutta, S. and Lanvin, B. (Eds), The Global Information
Technology Report 2016: Innovating in the Digital Economy, World Economic Forum, Geneva,
available at: www.weforum.org/gitr (accessed June 1, 2018).
Ximenes, B.H., Alves, I.N. and Araújo, C.C. (2015), “Software project management combining Agile,
Lean Startup and design thinking”, International Conference of Design, User Experience, and
Usability, Vol. 9186, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 356-367.
Xu, Y. and Koivumäki, T. (2019), “Digital business model effectuation: an agile approach”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 95, June, pp. 307-314, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2018.10.021
Yaman, S.G., Munezero, M., Münch, J., Fagerholm, F., Syd, O., Aaltola, M., Palmu, C. and Männistö, T.
(2017), “Introducing continuous experimentation in large software-intensive product and service
organisations”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 133, November, pp. 195-211, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2017.07.009
Yang, X., Sun, S.L. and Zhao, X. (2019), “Search and execution: examining the entrepreneurial
cognitions behind the Lean Startup model”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 667-679.
Yin, R.K. (2011), Qualitative Research: From Start to Finish, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Yordanova, Z.B. (2018), “Lean Startup method hampers breakthrough innovations and company’s
innovativeness”, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 1-18.
Zebryte, I. and Jorquera, H. (2017), “Chilean tourism sector ‘B corporations’: evidence of social
entrepreneurship and innovation”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 866-879.
IJEBR Appendix 1
26,4
Title of journal Count

Journal of Systems and Software 3

Information and Software Technology 2
624 International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal
Journal of Cleaner Production
Small Business Economics
Business Process Management Journal 1
Computers in Human Behavior
Empirical Software Engineering
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
IEEE Engineering Management Review
Industrial Marketing Management
Information Systems Journal
Information Technology & People
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management
International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management
International Journal of Management in Education
International Journal of Production Economics
International Journal of Technology Management
Journal of Business Research
Journal of Enterprise Information Management
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education
Journal of Modern Project Management
Journal of Small Business Management
Journal of Software: Evolution and Process
Library Management
Management Decision
Research on Social Work Practice
Research-Technology Management
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Technology Innovation Management Review
Table AI. Technovation
Journals that sourced The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation
publications for The Journal of Private Equity
content analysis Translational Materials Research
Title of conference Count
Business
Model
International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement 7 Innovation
International Conference of Software Business 4
European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs 2
International Conference on Agile Software Development
Academy of Management Annual Meeting 1
Agile Conference 625
Computer Science and Electronic Engineering
Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications
European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs
IEEE International Conference on Industrial Eng. and Eng. Management
IEEE International Professional Communication Conference
Indonesia International Conference on Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Small Business
Information Systems – Creativity and Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability
International Conference on Axiomatic Design
International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
International Conference on Human Interface and the Management of Information Table AII.
International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Conferences that
International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in sourced publications
Engineering Conference for content analysis
IJEBR Appendix 2
26,4

Article Author/year Title

626 1 Bessant et al. (2002) Developing the agile enterprise
2 Clutterbuck et al. (2009)
A case study of SME web application development via agile methods
3 Conboy et al. (2009) Creativity in agile systems development: a literature review
4 Adebanjo (2010) Challenges and approaches to customer development in co-located high-
tech start-ups
5 Bottani (2010) Profile and enablers of agile companies: an empirical investigation
6 Ribeiro and Fernandes Exploring agile methods in construction small and medium enterprises: a
(2010) case study
7 May (2012) Applying Lean Startup: an experience report – Lean & Lean UX by a UX
veteran: lessons learned in creating & launching a complex consumer app
8 Trimi and Berbegal- Business model innovation in entrepreneurship
Mirabent (2012)
9 Khalil and Fernandez Agile management practices in a “Lightweight” organization: a case study
(2013) analysis
10 Eloranta (2014) Towards a pattern language for software start-ups
11 Giardino et al. (2014) Why early-stage software startups fail: a behavioral framework
12 Järvinen et al. (2014) From agile software development to mercury business
13 Leppänen (2014) Patterns for starting up a software startup company
14 Li et al. (2014) Collaborative innovation research on co-working platform based on Lean
Startup model
15 Nirwan and Dhewanto Barriers in implementing the Lean Startup methodology in Indonesia – case
(2015) study of B2B startup
16 Pease et al. (2014) Toward a market-based Lean Startup product design method for the
developing world
17 Bieraugel (2015) Managing library innovation using the Lean Startup method
18 Edison et al. (2015) Lean Startup: why large software companies should care
19 Ghezzi et al. (2015) A comparative study on the impact of business model design & Lean
Startup approach versus traditional business plan on mobile startups
performance
20 Harms et al. (2015) Lean Startup for materials ventures and other science-based ventures:
under what conditions is it useful?
21 Hokkanen et al. (2015) Early product design in startups: towards a UX strategy
22 Hokkanen and Three patterns for user involvement in startups
Leppänen (2015)
23 Overall and Wise An S-curve model of the start-up life cycle through the lens of customer
(2015) development
24 Terho et al. (2015) Ways to cross the Rubicon: pivoting in software startups
25 Ximenes et al. (2015) Software project management combining agile, Lean Startup and design
thinking
26 Risku and What can software startuppers learn from the artistic design flow?
Abrahamsson (2015) Experiences, reflections and future avenues
27 Edison (2015) A conceptual framework of lean Startup enabled internal corporate venture
28 Bajwa et al. (2016) How do software startups pivot? Empirical results from a multiple case
study
29 Batova et al. (2016) Challenges of Lean customer discovery as invention
30 de Paula and Araujo Pet empires: combining design thinking, Lean Startup and agile to learn from
(2016) failure and develop a successful game in an undergraduate environment
31 Edison (2016) Software product innovation through startup experimentation in large
companies
Table AIII.
Articles selected for
the systematic review (continued )
Article Author/year Title
Business
Model
32 Girgenti et al. (2016) An axiomatic design approach for customer satisfaction through a Lean Innovation
Start-up framework
33 Lenarduzzi et al. (2016) MVP explained: a systematic mapping study on the definitions of minimal
viable product
34 Lindgren and Münch Raising the odds of success: the current state of experimentation in product
(2016) development 627
35 Paço et al. (2016) Development of entrepreneurship education programmes for HEI students:
the Lean Start-up approach
36 Raatikainen et al. (2016) Eight paths of innovations in a Lean Startup manner: a case study
37 Terho et al. (2016) The developers dilemma: perfect product development or fast business
validation?
38 Traube et al. (2017) Beta testing in social work
39 Bajwa et al. (2017) “Failures” to be celebrated: an analysis of major pivots of software startups
40 Baldassarre et al. (2017) Bridging sustainable business model innovation and user-driven
innovation: a process for sustainable value proposition design
41 Fagerholm et al. (2017) The RIGHT model for continuous experimentation
42 Frederiksen and Brem How do entrepreneurs think they create value? A scientific reflection of Eric
(2017) Ries’ Lean Startup approach
43 Mansoori (2017) Enacting the Lean Startup methodology: the role of vicarious and
experiential learning processes
44 Pantiuchina et al. (2017) Are software startups applying agile practices? The state of the practice
from a large survey
45 Still (2017) Accelerating research innovation by adopting the Lean Startup paradigm
46 Weissbrod and Bocken Developing sustainable business experimentation capability – a case study
(2017)
47 Yaman et al. (2017) Introducing continuous experimentation in large software-intensive
product and service organisations
48 Ladd and Kendall Entrepreneurial cognition in the Lean Startup method
(2017)
49 Bocken et al. (2018) Experimenting with a circular business model: lessons from eight cases
50 Bortolini et al. (2018) Lean Startup: a comprehensive historical review
51 Buhl (2018) Do it yourself – a Lean Startup toolbox for employee-driven green product
innovation
52 De Cock et al. (2019) Making the Lean Start-up method work: the role of prior market knowledge
53 Ekpe et al. (2017) Lean Start-up awareness and effect on entrepreneurial intentions among
Malaysian youths
54 Ganguly and Euchner Conducting business experiments: validating new business models: well-
(2018) designed business experiments can help validate assumptions and reduce
risk associated with new business models
55 Ghezzi (2018) Digital startups and the adoption and implementation of Lean Startup
approaches: effectuation, bricolage and opportunity creation in practice
56 Ghezzi and Cavallo Agile business model innovation in digital entrepreneurship: Lean Startup
(2018) approaches
57 Khanna et al. (2018) From MVPs to pivots: a hypothesis-driven journey of two software startups
58 Kumar et al. (2018) A strategic framework for a profitable business model in the sharing economy
59 Tolfo et al. (2018) Agile practices and the promotion of entrepreneurial skills in software
development
60 Yordanova (2018) Lean Startup method hampers breakthrough innovations and company’s
innovativeness
61 Ahmed et al. (2019) A Lean design thinking methodology (LDTM) for machine learning and
modern data projects
62 Balocco et al. (2019) Lean business models change process in digital entrepreneurship
63 Chan et al. (2019) Agility in responding to disruptive digital innovation: case study of an SME

(continued ) Table AIII.

IJEBR Article Author/year Title
26,4
64 Mansoori and Lackéus Comparing effectuation to discovery-driven planning, prescriptive
(2019) entrepreneurship, business planning, Lean Startup, and design thinking
65 Mansoori et al. (2019) The influence of the Lean Startup methodology on entrepreneur-coach
relationships in the context of a startup accelerator
66 Marcinkowski and A study on the adaptive approach to technology-driven enhancement of
628 Gawin (2019) multi-scenario business processes
67 Melegati et al. (2019) A model of requirements engineering in software startups
68 Werwath (2019) Lean Startup and the challenges with “hard tech” startups
69 Xu and Koivumäki Digital business model effectuation: an agile approach
(2019)
70 Yang et al. (2019) Search and execution: examining the entrepreneurial cognitions behind the
Lean Startup model
71 Edison et al. (2018) Lean internal startups for software product innovation in large companies:
Table AIII. enablers and inhibitors

About the authors

Diego Souza Silva is a PhD candidate at the Industrial Engineering Graduate Program, Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). He holds a Bachelor Degree in Production Engineering
(Universidade Federal do Vale do São Francisco, Brazil) and his research interests include the linkages
and intersections among race, entrepreneurship, innovation and regional development. More
specifically, he currently investigates the effects of digital technologies in business development,
entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems and black entrepreneurship. Diego Souza Silva is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Antonio Ghezzi, PhD, is Professor of Strategic Management and Entrepreneurship, and Head of the
Hi-tech Startups applied research center at the Department of Management, Economics and Industrial
Engineering – Politecnico di Milano. His main research field is Strategy and Digital Entrepreneurship,
with a focus on startups’ business model design, innovation and validation and the role of Lean Startup
Approaches. He is author of more than 80 scientific journal articles (appearing in outlets such as
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, International Journal of Management Reviews, Journal of
Business Research, International Journal of Production Economics, Management Decision and R&D
Management), books, book chapters and conference proceedings.
Rafael Barbosa de Aguiar holds a Master Degree in Public Policy at Universidade Federal do Rio
Grande do Sul and bachelor degree in Business Administration at Universidade Federal de Lavras,
both in Brazil. His research interests are innovation ecosystems, entrepreneurship, creative economy
and state capacities.
Marcelo Nogueira Cortimiglia, PhD, is Professor of Technology Management and Information
Systems at the Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
(Brazil). His main research interests include strategic technology management and innovation
management, with a particular focus on business model innovation. Prof. Cortimiglia has previously
published in Technovation, Research Policy, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Business
Horizons, R&D Management and Management Decision.
Carla Schwengber ten Caten, PhD, is Full Professor of Innovation Ecosystems and Quantitative
Methods (Department of Industrial Engineering), Head of the Hestia Technological Incubator and
Vice-Director of the School of Engineering at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil). Her
research interests include innovation ecosystems and technology entrepreneurship. Prof. ten Caten has
previously published in the Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change and Computers & Industrial Engineering.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.