Bridging the Gap – Requirements and Success Strategies in Digital Start-Ups

Abstract

This paper compares the needs expressed by digital start-up founders to the factors that contribute to start-up success. Drawing on ten qualitative interviews with founders, it identifies key needs in the following five dimensions: (1) building blocks for growth, (2) entrepreneurial identity and agency, (3) start-up enablement through institutional interfaces, (4) start-up enablement through interpersonal interfaces, and (5) start-up finance and capital access. These needs are compared with success factors identified in prior research. The results show that many founder needs, such as modular learning options, early customer feedback, and financial stability, correspond to success factors. However, other needs, especially those relating to personal identity and emotional strain, are not reflected by success factors. Additionally, some important success strategies-such as innovation strategy, risk planning, and the use of digital technologies-are rarely mentioned by founders. The paper calls for improved support structures that both respond to founder needs and encourage awareness of underrecognized success factors.

Headnote

Abstract: This paper compares the needs expressed by digital start-up founders to the factors that contribute to start-up success. Drawing on ten qualitative interviews with founders, it identifies key needs in the following five dimensions: (1) building blocks for growth, (2) entrepreneurial identity and agency, (3) start-up enablement through institutional interfaces, (4) start-up enablement through interpersonal interfaces, and (5) start-up finance and capital access. These needs are compared with success factors identified in prior research. The results show that many founder needs, such as modular learning options, early customer feedback, and financial stability, correspond to success factors. However, other needs, especially those relating to personal identity and emotional strain, are not reflected by success factors. Additionally, some important success strategies-such as innovation strategy, risk planning, and the use of digital technologies-are rarely mentioned by founders. The paper calls for improved support structures that both respond to founder needs and encourage awareness of underrecognized success factors.

Keywords: digital entrepreneurship; founder needs; start-up support; entrepreneurial ecosystems; digital entrepreneurship success; digital entrepreneurship support structures; qualitative study.

1 Introduction

Digital entrepreneurship is recognized globally as a key driver of economic growth and increased employment (European Commission, 2014; Shen, Lindsay and Xu, 2018; Galindo-Martin, Castaño-Martínez and Méndez-Picazo, 2019; GEM, 2023; Olan et al., 2024). Such outcomes are only possible if ventures achieve sustainable profitability by managing the challenges of the start-up process, such as resource constraints, market entry, and business model validation. Digital entrepreneurship relates to ventures that recognize digital information and communication technologies (ICT) as an integral part of entrepreneurial opportunities, in terms of both outcomes and processes (Nambisan, 2017; Steininger, 2019). Despite the great potential of such businesses, a significant proportion fail within a short time after their founding (European Commission. Statistical Office of the European Union., 2023; Statistisches Bundesamt [Destatis], 2024; GEM [Global Entrepreneurship Monitor], 2025). This discrepancy highlights the importance of understanding what digital start-ups require to survive and grow.

The literature offers perspectives on successful digital entrepreneurship as well as insights into founder needs and ecosystem requirements that arc favorable for the development of start-ups. On the one hand, research provides insights into successful digital entrepreneurship (e.g., Berman et al., 2023; Berman, Schallmo and Kraus, 2024; Schulz, Schallmo and Schieder, 2025). This includes research on founders (e.g., Anagnou et ¿z/., 2019; Isensee, Tcuteberg and Griese, 2023; Berman, Schallmo and Kraus, 2024), the development and provision of relevant customer offerings (e.g., Antonopoulos et al., 2020; Binowo and Hidayanto, 2023; Damasceno, Morini and Pannellini, 2023), access to customers and networks (e.g., Liu and Bell, 2019; Mingione and Abratt, 2020; Ye et al., 2024; Zhang and Ravishankar, 2024), and access to financial resources (Schumacher, 2022; Ireta-Sanchez, 2023). On the other hand, studies emphasize the concrete needs and challenges of founders operating in real-world start-up environments. This research highlights the relevance of context-specific ecosystem support structures, such as access to experienced mentors and talent (e.g., Brush, Edelman and Manolo va, 2012; Stam and van de Ven, 2019), the availability and efficiency of digital infrastructure and regulatory frameworks (e.g., Zahra and Wright, 2011; Nambisan, 2017; Autio et al., 2018), and the alignment of ecosystem actors (e.g., incubators, universities, investors (e.g., Isenberg, 2010; Spigel, 2017; Stam and van de Ven, 2019) to support entrepreneurial experimentation and scalability.

Despite the insights offered by these two strands of research, few studies have systematically compared what founders say they need to succeed with insights into what successful start-ups tend to do. Filling this gap would allow the design of more effective support structures and the better translation of academic knowledge into practice. In the absence of such a comparison, it remains unclear whether the operational logic promoted in research and policy aligns with the lived realities of start-ups. Therefore, we formulate the following central research question:

RQ: What can be learned from comparing founder-stated needs with established best practices in digital entrepreneurship?

To answer this research question, we analyze transcripts of ten interviews with start-up founders from different countries and industries. Each transcript is analyzed according to the needs stated by the founder and the results are then systematically compared with Schulz, Schallmo and Schieder's (2025) findings on established success factors in digital entrepreneurship.

This study makes two main contributions: (1) it establishes a novel comparison approach that links founder-reported requirements to validated success factors, and (2) it identifies alignment gaps and blind spots that can inform policy design and ecosystem support initiatives. The analysis does not aim to explain start-up success per se but rather to explore the overlap (or lack thereof) between perceived requirements and established success factors.

The following section of the study outlines the theoretical foundation. Section 3 presents the methodological approach, including the coding framework and data analysis process. Section 4 presents the empirical findings, and section 5 discusses patterns of alignment and misalignment with success factors of digital entrepreneur ship. Section 6 presents the conclusion and identifies the study's limitations and directions for future research.

2 Theoretical Foundation

Digital Entrepreneurship

The challenges inherent in traditional entrepreneurship are intensified by the widespread use of digital ICT (Zaheer, Breyer and Dumay, 2019). As a result, the research field of digital entrepreneurship is complex and fragmented (Zaheer, Breyer and Dumay, 2019; Dana et al., 2024). This complexity is evident in the diversity of definitions of digital entrepreneur ship, with scholars offering a wide range of perspectives on the interplay between entrepreneurship and digital ICT.

Digital entrepreneurship can be conceptualized as the pursuit and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities that arise from digital media and ICT (Davidson and Vaast, 2010; European Commission, 2014). Another approach is to emphasize the integration of digital technologies as a core component of the business model (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Some definitions of digital entrepreneurship address the use of digital technologies for business development, transformation, or enhancement (European Commission, 2014; Shen, Lindsay and Xu, 2018).

More nuanced perspectives specify the forms in which digital technologies manifest themselves (Nambisan, 2017), their role and scope in entrepreneurial contexts, or the degree of digitalization (Giones and Brem, 2017; Sussan and Acs, 2017; Kraus et al., 2019; Steininger, 2019). According to Nambisan (2017), digital technologies in entrepreneurship manifest through three interconnected elements: digital artifacts and digital platforms (both treated as entrepreneurial outcomes), and digital infrastructure (part of the entrepreneurial process). Steininger (2019), by contrast, defines digital entrepreneurship through the multiple roles that digital technologies play in it (as intermediaries, mediators, outcomes, and omnipresent resources). Sussan and Acs (2017) recognize even limited digital participation in entrepreneurial activities (e.g., Uber as a platform-based taxi business), whereas Kraus et al. (2019) argue that an asset, service, or significant part of the business must be fundamentally digitalized.

For this study, we adopt the definition by Kraus et al. (2019), which demands that digitalization be central to at least one critical dimension of the venture. While some scholars focus primarily on the entrepreneurial aspect of such enterprises and others on the technological element, the diversity of definitions makes clear that research on digital entrepreneurship is inherently interdisciplinary.

The use of digital ICT in entrepreneurship shapes the pathways to success by enhancing capabilities, agility, performance, and resilience (Khurana, Dutta and Singh Ghura, 2022; Schiuma et al., 2022; Troise et al., 2022; Dana et al., 2024). Researchers have studied the impact on ventures of specific technologies-such as digital platforms (Srinivasan and Venkatraman, 2018; Usman and Sun, 2023), digital services (Marashdeh et al., 2023), and computer simulation (Cavallo, Cosenz and Noto, 2024)-as well as overall technological orientation, which affects decision-making and longevity (Bohn and Kundisch, 2020).

Successful Digital Entrepreneurship

In management research, organizational success is generally understood as the attainment of defined objectives, with performance evaluated against the goals set by the organization (Aguilera et al., 2024). These objectives, such as "growth," can be measured in various ways-for example, through profit, sales, number of employees or products, market share, or firm value (Achtenhagen, Naidi and Melin, 2010; Pugliese, Bortoluzzi and Balzano, 2022). In addition to quantitative indicators, qualitative aspects like market position, product quality, and customer satisfaction are widely used to assess entrepreneurial performance (Gupta, Guha and Krishnaswami, 2013). Griva et al. (2023) define growth in the context of digital entrepreneurship as "the result of the company's sales capability, ability to scale-up, entrepreneurial skills, adaptability skills, innovation capacity, absorptive capacity, and ability to attract funds."

Recent scholarship highlights the need to reconccptualize success and performance to account for the diversity of entrepreneurial objectives (Aguilera et al., 2024)-to address, for example, sustainable or social digital entrepreneurship-although economic goals still tend to predominate (Lammers et al., 2022).

However, entrepreneurial success, particularly in digital contexts, rarely results from a single factor but from the interplay of multiple factors. Accordingly, the literature has proposed several models to assess, predict, or promote the success of digital start-ups (Table 1).

Overall, these models illustrate that entrepreneurial success is a multidimensional phenomenon. Despite differences in focus and terminology, several core dimensions emerge consistently across frameworks. These include the capabilities and competencies of the founder(s), the development of a viable product or service offering, effective market and customer orientation, and access to financial resources. Although technology is explicitly introduced as a separate success factor in some models (Bell and McNamara, 1991; Bouwman et al., 2008), it is implicitly embedded in certain frameworks as they are based on high-tech venture studies (e.g., Davidsson and Klofsten, 2003; Kakati, 2003; Chorev and Anderson, 2006). Even in models where it remains implicit, a venture's technological orientation often plays a decisive role in shaping success.

The experience and innovative capacity of the entrepreneurs (Abubakre, Zhou and Zhou, 2022), as well as their technological readiness and their exploration and utilization of technology (Jafari-Sadeghi et al., 2021), are also recognized as vital to digital entrepreneurial success. Although this highlights the importance of founders' individual competencies in navigating digital environments, the literature lacks systematic perspectives addressing what founders believe they require during entrepreneurial endeavors (Anim-Yeboah et al., 2020). This research gap is critical, as support systems and policy interventions risk failing to align with actual founder needs. By systematically comparing founders' stated needs with known success factors, it becomes possible to identify misalignments and blind spots. Adopting this integrative perspective is essential to advance academic research and improve practical support for digital start-ups.

3 Data and Methodology

Considering our research objective-to systematically compare founders' stated needs with established success factors in digital entrepreneurship-we choose a qualitative research approach that could both embrace the diversity of founder perspectives and allow for analytical depth. A qualitative research approach is appropriate for investigating complex phenomena that require openness to emerging and potentially unexpected insights (Flick, 2022).

In a subsequent step, the founders' needs were systematically compared with the empirically derived success factors identified in our previous study (Schulz, Schallmo and Schieder, 2025). This comparative analysis enabled us to assess the extent to which founder-stated requirements align with established best practices in digital entrepreneurship and identify possible gaps or divergences between perceived needs and success factors od digital entrepreneurship.

Data Collection

We conducted semi-structured interviews with ten founders. Participants were selected according to the following criteria: (1) classification of their start-ups as digital, (2) allocation to different founding phases, and (3) heterogeneity in terms of industry and country. The inclusion of founders from early, expansion, and later phases allowed us to capture a broad spectrum of requirements and contextual experiences. These phases are reflected in the participant IDs: EP (early phase), ExP (expansion phase), and LP (later phase).

We acknowledge that these phase classifications are not based on strict definitions as start-up development trajectories are highly individual. Nevertheless, we chose to maintain the distinctions as they may influence perceived needs and challenges. The interviews were conducted over the course of one month at the end of 2023, either remotely or face-to-face. Table 2 provides an overview of the interviewees.

We chose a semi-structured interviewing approach as it allowed us to explore particular themes based on the interviewees' responses while ensuring the coverage of central themes (Flick, 2022).

Data Analysis

All interviews were recorded and transcribed using aTrain software. The transcripts were then analyzed using an open-coding approach based on the method developed by Gioia, Corley and Hamilton (2013). This approach supports inductive pattern recognition in qualitative data while maintaining transparency between raw statements and higher-level theoretical insights (Gioia, Corley and Hamilton, 2013). The visual processing of the data using the Gioia method has great potential for collaboration between researchers from different disciplines (Sankaran et al, 2024), making it especially suitable for research at the intersection of entrepreneurship, technology, and organizational studies.

Analytical attention was given to every interview segment that contained or implied a need or requirement. Both explicit and implicit needs-regardless of whether they were fulfilled or unmet-were included to ensure a comprehensive mapping of founders' perspectives. A total of 211 quotes were gathered through this method. The coding process followed Gioia's three-step structure. As a first step, we converted the founder quotes into so-called first-order concepts that represent informant-centric statements and use the interviewees' terms. The first-order concepts were numbered consecutively for each participant and attached to the respective IDs of the interviewees. In this step, we recognized that nine quotes required further segmentation to create standalone first-order concepts (indicated by the consecutive addition of lower-case letters to the ID). This produced 224 first-order concepts. As a second step, we organized the first-order concepts into more abstract second-order themes to identify relationships within the data but retain the informants' points of view. The organization of the first-order concepts was carried out in several iterations that resulted in 20 second-order themes. Initially, a rough structure was developed using provisional keywords to cluster similar statements. This preliminary grouping was subsequently reviewed and refined, with particular attention paid to the accurate and meaningful naming of the second-order themes. During this step, we recognized that 53 of the first-order concepts were suitable for different second-order themes. As a third step, we distilled our second-order themes into five aggregate dimensions to present the core insights of our study. Figure 1 shows an excerpt from the resulting data structure.

4 Results

The findings from our qualitative research are structured along five dimensions aggregated from the founders' stated needs: (1) building blocks for growth, (2) entrepreneurial identity and agency, (3) start-up enablement through institutional interfaces, (4) start-up enablement through interpersonal interfaces, and (5) start-up finance and capital access. In the following sections, we take a closer look at the individual dimensions and their underlying themes.

Building Blocks for Growth

This dimension deals with needs that can be classed as building blocks for start-up growth. It contains four second-order themes: entrepreneurial learning and competence building, product market fit through customer-centered validation, strategic focus and scaling logic, and team formation.

Entrepreneurial Learning and Competence Building

The interview data illustrate entrepreneurial learning and competence building as a continuous (EP1_9; LP118), dynamic (LP1_18), and situational (ExP2_26) process. Founders describe diverse approaches, such as self-education (EP1_9; ExP2_26), joint reflection with co-founders (EP211), reflecting on individual skills, and identifying when targeted external supplementation is required (EP115; EP118). Also emphasized is the need for time-efficient learning and competence building (ExP2_14). These descriptions indicate that learning formats need to be both modular and phase-specific and should enable founders to identify and fill competence gaps efficiently.

Entrepreneurial learning and competence building are not only described in terms of skill acquisition (ExP2_28) but also as transformations-for example, the evolution of leadership styles (LP1_8) or the development of increasing independence during the startup process (ExPl_25b). These findings point to a need for reflective learning environments that foster personal development in areas ranging from operational roles to leadership responsibilities.

Product Market Fit Through Customer-Centered Validation

The interview data show that the founders attach great importance to understanding their target groups through direct interaction and iterative feedback. These learning opportunities include continual exchanges with potential users (EP3_1), structured feedback from surveys (EP316; EP3_17) and targeted user tests before scaling (ExPl l 1 ; ExP2_2). Learning from customers is described as an integral part of product development (ExP2_9), with the aim of ensuring the usefulness and relevance of the product (ExP2_3). Additionally, customer interactions provide further insights into the targeted market segment, which could be narrower than expected due to local technology knowledge (EP4_25). These findings point to a need to embed early customer validation processes in product development routines.

Customer interaction is also seen as a way to build legitimacy (ExPl_8), attract investors (ExPl_7), and acquire potential clients (ExP2_10). This highlights a need for customer-centered validation strategics that not only inform product design but also support strategic positioning in carly-stage market communication.

Strategic Focus and Scaling Logic

The interview data reveal that founders associate strategic clarity with the ability to prioritize and sequence actions and align them with long-term goals. The validation of operational foundations before pursuing growth (ExP2_l) and the risks of unfocused scaling efforts (ExP2_8) were mentioned in this context. Additionally, prioritizing practical solutions over theoretical learning (LP123; LP124) and reducing administrative overhead (ExPl_21a) to protect strategic capacity seem to be important for growth attempts. The data also suggest that ecosystem conditions have an impact on talent acquisition (LP2_20) and the speed of start-up development (LP2_21). These insights imply a need for support structures that help founders establish strategic priorities and pace growth based on current capacities.

Team Formation

The interview data highlight team formation as a central challenge and success factor in early-stage entrepreneur ship. Founders stress the importance of strong team alignment on goals (ExP3_19), the presence of complementary expertise (EP115; EP421), and trustbased collaboration (EP1_12). Identifying and attracting suitable team members or cofounders is often described as difficult (EP4_12), especially under constraints such as limited funding (EP3_18b). These insights point toward a need for mechanisms that enable founders to identify, attract, and retain talent under start-up-specific constraints.

The data also show that team formation benefits from institutional- and ecosystembased interfaces. Founders mention successful talent acquisition via universities or venture builders (EP1_2; EP4 4) and emphasize the relevance of ecosystem conditions such as access to talent (LP2 20; LP2 21). This indicates a need for ecosystem strategies that link founders to talent resources.

Entrepreneurial Identity and Agency

This dimension focuses on the founder and contains four second-order themes: individual motivation and identity as a founder, entrepreneurial commitment despite adversity, founder-initiated network, and structural and cultural conditions for entrepreneurial participation.

Individual Motivation and Identity as a Founder

The interview data reveal that founding is strongly linked to personal identity, values, and intrinsic motivation. Many founders describe their entrepreneurial drive as grounded in autonomy (LP3_9), self-direction (LP3_9; EP212), and a desire for meaningful impact (EP4_26c). The founding decision is often framed as a deliberate, value-based choice- motivated by change orientation (EP4_26a), personal initiative (LP216), or a conscious choice between risk and security (LP1_16). These findings indicate a need for support structures that acknowledge entrepreneurship as a personal identity process and foster longterm motivation rooted in individual values and self-conception.

Personal traits such as resilience (LP218), learning drive (LP2_17), and courage (ExP2_25) are seen as essential qualities for navigating the entrepreneurial journey. Founders emphasize the importance of passion (LP122), flexibility (ExPl_26a), and the capacity to act despite uncertainty (ExPl_26b; ExP2_24). Social and structural privileges are reflected as they shape access to entrepreneurship (EP4_27). This highlights how entrepreneurial identity is not just individual but also situational. This suggests a need for identity-sensitive support formats that address the emotional and structural dimensions of entrepreneurial agency.

Entrepreneurial Commitment Despite Adversity

The interview data illustrate that founders experience start-up life as highly demanding, unpredictable, and risky. They report being exposed to continual challenges (EP117), high workloads with uncertain returns (EPl ll; ExP2_27; LP1_15), and, sometimes, external misconceptions about the ease of founding (LP1_13). These results point to a need for support structures that acknowledge the strain of entrepreneurship and help founders sustain commitment under volatile and high-pressure conditions.

Founder-Initiated Network

The interview data highlight that founders proactively develop and activate networks across personal, academic, and professional domains. Many interviewees acknowledge personal environments and prior relationships as an initial resource (EP4_3; LP12; LP22; LP3_5) but also expand their networks into new areas such as industry, academia, and corporate contexts (LP13; LP26; ExPl_2). Furthermore, founders report that their initial networks enable access to co-founders-for example, during study programs (ExP3_l). Participation in events, fairs, and coaching relationships builds contacts and offers access to knowledge and legitimacy (LP14; LP2_3; ExPl_6). This illustrates the need for networking opportunities before the start-up launch to enable the establishment of lasting and trusting entrepreneurial relationships at the start of the journey.

Structural and Cultural Conditions for Entrepreneurial Participation

On the one hand, participants describe their ecosystem as friendly, supportive, and motivating (EP1_13), and as a collaborative interplay of research, incubators and the municipality (EP2_3; ExPl_4). Open-mindedness, mutual support, and shared founder needs are described as helpful components of their entrepreneurial ecosystems (EP4_13; EP4_17; ExP3_17). Structural barriers, such as limited access to information (EP4_10), regulatory complexity (EP313-EP315), and infrastructural limitations (LP125), limit participation in such ecosystems for non-local or internationally active founders. Language and bureaucracy can hinder engagement (EP4_11), which can lead to dependency on cofounders to explain local regulations and official documents, and even to understand seminars intended by the government as support seminars (EP313-EP315). This suggests a need for ecosystem-level support measures that lower structural access barriers and consider the different backgrounds and conditions of founders.

Start-up Enablement Through Institutional Interfaces

This dimension deals with institutionalized support approaches. It has four second-order themes: institutionalized infrastructure and physical resource access, institutionalized access to knowledge, institutionalized access to expert networks, and institutionalized legal and administrative enablement.

Institutionalized Access to Infrastructure and Physical Resources

The interview data underscore the centrality of accessible physical infrastructure for startup activities. Founders emphasize the importance of having functional workspace and technical equipment to carry out entrepreneurial work (EP24; EP3_9; LP32), especially access that is flexible (ExPl_24), affordable (EP2_4), or integrated into support programs (ExP2_22). Founders mention using incubator or hub facilities to host meetings, connect with peers, and meet investors (ExPl_22b; ExPl_23; ExP3_12). These insights indicate a need for access to low-threshold, start-up-compatible infrastructure that has a representative effect and can support community-building.

Institutionalized Access to Knowledge

The interview data reveal that founders rely on both structured and informal knowledge offers made by institutions and their actors. These include support from professors (EP13), university courses (ExP3_2), cooperatives (EP214; LP28; ExPll), the chamber of commerce (EP1_16), start-up hubs, and accelerators (LP210; ExP2_5).

The structured knowledge offerings are seen as central to the start-up development. Founders report benefiting from group-based learning formats, peer exchange, and individualized coaching within these programs (LP210-LP212; ЕхРЗ За). Some use them to strengthen their pitch and business model (ExP2_5) or manage general start-up challenges (LP211). Universities in particular are highlighted as fallback options, not only for orientation and input (LP2_8) but also for introducing students to the processes of founding (ExP3_2). This suggests that institutionalized knowledge access should include modular offerings that combine situational problem-solving and long-term competence development.

Institutionalized Access to Expert Networks

Founders benefit from structured access to expert networks provided through institutional partners. These include university start-up programs, incubators, and venture builders (EP2_1; EP2_5; EP4_1) that serve as formalized access points to connect with experienced professionals, industry actors, and potential funders (EP2 2; EP2_5; LP2_5; EP2_9). Founders use these platforms to gain visibility (EP2 2), gather practical guidance (EP4_8), and build initial credibility (EP21). Such access is facilitated through events and open ecosystem components such as pitch events, workshops, and founder meetups (EP2_8; EP3 3; LP2 5). These insights point to a need for structured, low-barrier access to expert networks that provide visibility, guidance, and credibility- especially for founders without pre-existing personal tics.

Institutionalized Legal and Administrative Enablement

Founders emphasize that they have limited legal knowledge in areas such as taxes and company law (ExPl_21b; ЕхРЗП) and often rely on ad hoc help from professors or program staff when issues arise (EP2_9; EP4 20). Such opportunities include legal workshops (ExP3_ll), fixed free consultation hours (ExPl_19), and dedicated legal connections established through incubators (ЕхР1_5; EP4 20). Founders appreciate these offerings not only for their professional quality (ExPl_20) but also for reducing early-stage financial burdens (ExPl_19; EP2_6). This reveals a need for accessible and affordable legal and administrative support tailored to the early-stage context.

Start-up Enablement Through Interpersonal Interfaces

This dimension deals with support available through interpersonal interfaces. It encompasses four second-order themes: structured mentoring support, mentorship as a connector, topic-specific business coaching, and the need for trust-based personal guidance.

Structured Mentoring Support

The interview data underscore that founders perceive mentoring as a central support mechanism within entrepreneurial ecosystems. Structured mentoring formats-such as those offered via incubators and accelerators (LP31; ExPl_16; ЕхРЗба) and universityaffiliated hubs (EP3_2)-are used to obtain guidance (EP4_6; ЕхРЗ ба). Founders value both the process orientation and continuity of structured mentoring, particularly when it is combined with complementary expertise, such as industry-specific or entrepreneurial experience (ЕхРЗ бс). The extent and quality of mentoring, however, vary-some founders say that local mentoring support is too limited (ExPl_16) or redundant in the presence of strong international programs (ExPl_18). These insights suggest a need for mentoring support that is sufficiently available at the local level and ranges from strategic coaching to administrative support.

Mentorship as Connector

The interview data highlight that founders benefit from mentors who act as connectors to relevant networks (EP4 22; ExP3_9; LP3_13). This includes access to partners (LP1_1), talents (LP312), and investors (LP1_1). These findings indicate a need for mentoring roles that go beyond guidance to facilitate targeted connections with relevant stakeholders in the ecosystem.

Topic-Specific Business Coaching

The interview data show that founders seek mentoring with a distinct focus. They request targeted support in areas such as sales (ExP2_12), market entry (ЕхРЗ бЬ), and business refinement (ExP2_13; ExP3_4). They indicate that they need critical external feedback beyond their internal teams (ExP2_15; ExP2_16). These findings emphasize a need for coaching formats tailored to concrete start-up challenges that go beyond general mentoring to offer focused, expert-level input.

Need for Trust-Based Personal Guidance

The interview data show that founders rely on trusted individuals for personal support. These actors serve as first points of contact for guidance (LP2_7; EP2_7) or emotional reassurance (EP1_7). Founders emphasize the importance of trust and personal proximity, especially when dealing with setbacks (EP17). This indicates a need for low-threshold personal guidance embedded in relationships of trust, ideally with advisers who understand the details of the start-up project.

Start-up Finance and Capital Access

This dimension contains four second-order themes relating to start-up finance and capital access: the need for basic financial stability to sustain the start-up, investor readiness and capital strategy, public funding as a strategic funding option, and demand for start-upcompatible funding.

Need for Basic Financial Stability to Sustain the Start-up

The interview data reveal that lack of basic financial stability is a central obstacle for founders in the development of start-ups. Founders report relying on personal savings (EP4_18a), postponing key investments (EP3_10; EP311), or facing demotivation within the team due to unpaid compensation (EP3_18b). Even core activities like product development or market entry are slowed in the absence of minimum funding (EP4_18c; LP3_3). The interview data point to a need for reliable, low-threshold funding options that cover the foundational costs of start-up survival and early-stage growth.

Investor Readiness and Capital Strategy

The interview data highlight that founders prepare strategically for external investment. They engage in pitch training (EP1_4), collect letters of intent from potential customers to signal market interest for investors (EP3 6), and seek guidance on funding pathways (EP210). Programs with structured formats-for example, workshops or incubators-are used to improve readiness for investor engagement (ExP3_14; ExP3_15).

Founders show caution in their capital strategy. They aim to delay venture capital (VC) funding to avoid disproportionate equity loss (ExP2_19) and plan the timing based on valuation and personal liquidity needs (ExP2_20). They also call for smaller funding tools to bridge the pre-VC stage (ExPl_15). These findings indicate a need for structured preparation for investor engagement and stage-appropriate financial instruments.

Public Funding as a Strategic Financing Option

The interview data show that founders consider public funding a part of their financing strategy. They apply for government programs (EP3_5; EP4_5) and plan to use national programs for scaling (ExP3_8) or digitalization efforts (LP213). Additionally, the use of public funds can be a deliberate choice to reduce cost pressure on clients through cofinancing options (LP2_14). These insights reveal a need for public funding options that support growth or project-related efforts and instruments that ease market establishment through co-financing.

Demand for Start-up-Compatible Funding

Founders experience a mismatch between available funding programs and start-up dynamics. They describe application processes as slow and poorly timed (EP4_19b; ExP2_18), leaving their immediate financial needs unmet (EP4_19c). Some founders note that programs often expect a maturity level not yet reached by their ventures (EP4_19a) or that funds linked to incubators remain unsecured and unavailable when needed (ExPl_12). Small and low-threshold financing formats are viewed as helpful and appropriate for the start-up context (ExPl_10). The interview data indicate a need for small, flexible, and accessible funding options that respond to the timing and maturity constraints faced by early-stage start-ups.

Taken together, these findings provide a nuanccd picture of the needs expressed by founders and a broad outline of their ecosystems. They form the foundation of the subsequent discussion of alignments (and misalignments) between the practical requirements of digital entrepreneurship and the success factors associated with it.

5 Discussion

To acquire knowledge from these insights, we compare what founders say they need to succeed with the factors associated with entrepreneurial success identified in our previous systematic review of empirical studies (Schulz, Schallmo and Schieder, 2025). Those success factors are listed in Figure 2. Our goal is to identify the areas in which the founders' support structures and needs match or do not match (see Table 3). We aim to reveal not only where relevant support is provided but also where it is not; mismatches could point to areas where adjustments could enhance start-up survival and growth.

Alignment Between Requirements and Success Factors

As seen in Table 3, many founder needs are strongly reflected in established success factors for digital entrepreneur ship. These include learning formats and competence building, early customer validation of the product, team formation, and access to capital. The importance of social capital underscores a match with both founder-initiated networks and institutionalized expert access. Such overlaps indicate that current support structures address the central requirements of the founding process.

However, these overlaps should not be interpreted as static or complete. Although thematic parallels exist, the nuances articulated by founders reveal a significant potential for refinement. For example, the need to retain talent under start-up-specific constraints and stage-appropriate funding instruments suggests an opportunity to sharpen the design of support structures. Similarly, learning is addressed, but the founders emphasize not only content but timing, personal relevance, and the transformative nature of learning processes. This suggests that even where coverage exists, closer calibration to lived founder realities could enhance the effectiveness of support systems.

Discrepancies Between Requirements and Success Factors

Several needs do not match the success factors of digital entrepreneurship or match them only partially (see Table 3). These concern the personal identity, emotional experience, and agency of the founder, as well as basic structural enablers, such as infrastructure access and tailored legal advice. Similarly, interpersonal support structures such as mentoring and topic-specific coaching, although present, seem to not meet founders' expectations for continuity, relevance, and personal connection.

These observations suggest that current support for digital entrepreneurship may not fully meet the human and structural requirements of founders. Founders emphasize the need for support that fosters emotional resilience and trust-based guidance and recognizes heterogeneous backgrounds and access conditions.

Founder Blind Spots: Success Factors Not Reflected in Founder-Stated Needs

Support systems should not only respond to the needs expressed by founders but also focus on the success factors required to fully exploit the potential of start-ups. The reverse analysis therefore takes into account success factors that the founders rarely mention. For example, proactive risk management, the use of digital ICT such as AI, and the ability to redesign the value proposition are acknowledged by Schulz, Schallmo and Schieder (2025) but absent in the interview data. One interpretation is that such topics appear abstract or secondary during the initial start-up phases when operational survival dominates. Alternatively, some of these factors may be embedded in support structures such as mentoring or coaching without being explicitly named. Furthermore, certain once-novel practices, such as the use of digital ICT, may become so normalized that they disappear from the discourse (Helson, 1964). Such discrepancies also can signal blind spots or delayed awareness of success factors among founders. They leave room for proactive measures to sensitize founders to success-relevant factors and enable them to build associated capabilities.

Implications for Theory

This study contributes to the research field of digital entrepreneurship by comparing founder-expressed needs with success factors identified from empirical studies. The findings indicate that certain founder needs, such as identity-related motivation, emotional stability, and context-sensitive access, are underrepresented in success strategies. While the data do not allow conclusions about their direct impact on success, they suggest that founders perceive them as relevant for sustained engagement and participation. This raises the question of whether future models of start-up success should more explicitly consider the conditions under which entrepreneurial agency unfolds. Rather than a redefinition of success criteria, this invites a broader understanding of the supportive environment needed to activate founder potential-especially in the diverse and resource-constrained settings of digital entrepreneurship.

Implications for Practice

The findings have several implications for start-up support structures and policy. First, established supports in areas such as learning, product validation, and capital access should be maintained and selectively expanded, guided by the insights into founder needs derived from the interviews in this study. The strong alignment between founder needs and known success factors in these areas reflects effective levers of support.

Second, gaps in alignment-especially those relating to emotional strain, identity, and structural barriers-highlight the need for better differentiated support instruments. These include needs such as trust-based mentoring, access to physical infrastructure, and legal advisory. They were emphasized by founders but not underscored by the success factors identified in practice.

Third, ecosystem actors should take on dual responsibility: responding to what founders say while also introducing success-relevant topics that remain underarticulated. Integrating themes like innovation strategy, the use of digital ICT, and proactive risk management into coaching and program design may help strengthen long-term strategic capacities.

Policymakers could support these steps by reducing bureaucratic barriers, offering flexible funding mechanisms, and promoting legal advisory services to enhance the founding process. Ecosystem actors could assume clearer roles: Universities could foster identity-sensitive and exploratory learning, accelerators might focus on professionalization and investor preparation, and public institutions could help bridge structural inequalities through targeted instruments. A more deliberate division of roles could enhance coordination across the ecosystem and increase the relevance and accessibility of support.

6 Conclusion and Limitations

This paper contributes to the field of digital entrepreneurship by systematically comparing founder-stated needs with empirically derived success factors. Our findings reveal that many of the needs expressed by the founders, such as modular learning opportunities, early validation processes, and access to funding-are well aligned with the success logic identified in prior research. This confirms the relevance of current support structures in many core domains.

However, the analysis also reveals meaningful discrepancies. Some founder needs, particularly those related to identity, emotional resilience, and access to infrastructure and legal advisory, arc not yet underlined by success factors. Conversely, several success factors, such as innovation strategy and the use of digital ICT and risk management, remain largely unspoken by founders. These blind spots suggest a dual need: refining ecosystem offerings to better meet expressed needs and raising awareness among founders of strategically relevant but underrecognized capabilities.

By bridging the gap between perceived requirements and established success strategies, this study provides a practical and theoretical basis for enhancing support structures and advancing digital entrepreneurship survival and growth.

Limitations

This study is based on a qualitative analysis of ten interviews, selected to capture diversity in founding phase, country, and industry. While this approach ensures rich insight, it limits generalizability. Furthermore, founder statements reflect subjective perceptions, and the comparison to success factors is based on a single consolidated framework. Although this ensures analytical clarity, it may exclude alternative perspectives.

Future research could expand this comparative approach with a larger and more diverse sample of founders to test for patterns across start-up phases, countries, or industries. This would help identify whether certain alignment gaps are systemic or group-specific and inform more targeted ecosystem interventions.

Longitudinal designs could explore how founder needs and awareness of success factors evolve over time. This would improve our understanding of when and how to introduce certain support. Finally, future work should explore how different ecosystem actors (e.g., universities, investors, incubators) can better collaborate to close the gap between perceived needs and success factors from practice. This could lead to more coordinated and role-specific support architecture that could increase both efficiency and founder satisfaction.

Declaration

We acknowledge the use of ChatGPT (OpenAI, May 2025 version) to assist with linguistic refinements and the initial proofreading. The output was critically evaluated and adapted to the authors' argumentation, terminology, and the formal requirements of the paper.

References

References and Notes

Abubakre, M., Zhou, Y. and Zhou, Z. (2022) 'The impact of information technology culture and personal innovativeness in information technology on digital entrepreneurship success', Information Technology & People, 35(1), pp. 204-231. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-01-20200002.

Achtenhagen, L., Naidi, L. and Melin, L. (2010) '"Business Growth"-Do Practitioners and Scholars Really Talk about the Same Thing?', Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(2), pp. 289-316. Available at: https://doi.org/10.! 11 1/j.1540-6520.2010.00376.x.

Aguilera, R.V. et al. (2024) 'Organizational Goals, Outcomes, and the Assessment of Performance: Reconceptualizing Success in Management Studies', Journal of Management Studies, 61(1), pp. 1-36. Available at:<https://doi.org/10T 111/joms>. 12994.

Anagnou, M. et al. (2019) 'Two sides of the same coin - how the application of effectuation and causation shapes business model elements throughout the development stages of digital start-ups', International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 11(4), p. 309. Available at: https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1504/IJEV.2019.101630.

Anim-Yeboah, S. et al. (2020) 'Digital Entrepreneurship in Business Enterprises: A Systematic Review', in M. Hattingh et al. (eds) Responsible Design, Implementation and Use of Information and Communication Technology. Cham: Springer International Publishing (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), pp. 192-203. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44999-5_16.

Antonopoulos, I. et al. (2020) 'Artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches to energy demand-side response: A systematic review', Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 130. Available at: https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1016/j .rser.2020.109899.

Autio, E. et al. (2018) 'Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems', Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), pp. 72-95. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1266.

Bell, C.G. and McNamara, J.E. (1991) High-Tech ventures: the guide to entrepreneurial success. 8. print. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Berman, T. et al. (2023) 'Drivers and success factors of digital entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review and future research agenda', Journal of Small Business Management, pp. 1-29. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2023.2238791.

Berman, T., Schallmo, D. and Kraus, S. (2024) 'Strategies for digital entrepreneurship success: the role of digital implementation and dynamic capabilities', European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(9), pp. 198-222. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2024-0081.

Binowo, K. and Hidayanto, A.N. (2023) 'Discovering Success Factors in the Pioneering Stage of a Digital Startup', Organizacija, 56(1), pp. 3-17. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2023-0001.

Bohn, N. and Kundisch, D. (2020) 'What Are We Talking About When We Talk About Technology Pivots? - A Delphi Study', Information & Management, 57(6), p. 103319. Available at: https://doi.org/! 0.1016/j .im.2020.103319.

Bouwman, H. et al. (2008) 'Conceptualizing the STOF Model', in Harry Bouwman, H. De Vos, and Timber Haaker (eds) Mobile Service Innovation and Business Models. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 31-70. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-54079238-3-2.

Brush, C.G., Edelman, L.F. and Manolova, T.S. (2012) 'Ready for funding? Entrepreneurial ventures and the pursuit of angel financing', Venture Capital, 14(2-3), pp. 111-129. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2012.654604.

Cavallo, A., Cosenz, F. and Noto, G. (2024) 'Business model scaling and growth hacking in digital entrepreneurship', Journal of Small Business Management, 62(4), pp. 2058-2085. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2023.2195463.

Chorev, S. and Anderson, A.R. (2006) 'Success in Israeli high-tech startups; Critical factors and process', Technovation, 26(2), pp. 162-174. Available at: https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.06.014.

Cooper, A.C., Gimeno-Gascon, F.J. and Woo, C.Y. (1994) 'Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance', Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), pp. 371-395. Available at: https://doi.org/! 0.1016/0883-9026(94)90013-2.

Damasceno, A.L.T., Morini, C. and Pannellini, G.L. (2023) 'Lessons from the fastest Brazilian unicorn', Innovation & Management Review, 20(3), pp. 281-297. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-05-2021-0070.

Dana, L.-P. et al. (2024) 'Mapping the field of digital entrepreneurship: a topic modeling approach', International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 20(2), pp. 1011-1045. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/sll365-023-00926-6.

Davidson, E. and Vaast, E. (2010) 'Digital Entrepreneurship and Its Sociomaterial Enactment', Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 1-10. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2010.150.

Davidsson, P. and Klofsten, M. (2003) 'The Business Platform: Developing an Instrument to Gauge and to Assist the Development of Young Firms', Journal of Small Business Management, 41(1), pp. 1-26. Available at: https://doi.org/10.llll/1540-627X.00064.

European Commission (2014) Strategic Policy Forum on Digital Entrepreneurship - Fuelling Digital Entrepreneurship in Europe. Available at: https://www.bing.eom/ck/a?!&p=8a9c06c8d35387b6JmltdHM9MTcyN zgyNz!wMCZpZ3 VpZDOwZWNiNzE 1ZC1 iNWMxLTYwNGUtMGYzM yO2NWU 1 YjRjMTYxZGMmaW5zaWQ9NTE5NQ&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh= 3&fclid=0ecb715d-b5c 1 -604e-0f3365e5b4c 161 dc&psq=Digital+entrepreneurship+embraces+all+new+ventur es+and+the+transformation+of+existing+businesses+that+drive+economi c+and%2for+social+value+by+creating+and+using+novel+digital+techno logies.+Digital+enterprises+are+characterized+by+a+high+intensity+of+u tilization+of+novel+digital+technologies+(particularly+social%2c+big+d ata%2c+mobile+and+cloud+solutions)+to+improve+business+operations %2c+invent+new+business+models%2c+sharpen+business+intelligence% 2c+and+engage+with+customers+and+stakeholders.+They+create+the+jo bs+and+growth+opportunities+of+the+future. &u=a 1 aHR0cHM6Ly91 Y y 5 ldXJvcGEuZXUvZG9jc3Jvb20vZG9jdWllbnRzLzUzMTMvYXR0YWN obWVudHMvMS90cmFuc2xhdGlvbnMvZW4vcmVuZG10aW9ucy9uYX RpdmUjOn46dGV4dD 1 EaWdpdGFsIGVudH JlcHJlbmV 1 cnNoaXAgZW licmFjZXMgYWxsIG51dyB2ZW50dXJlcyBhbmQgdGhlIHRyYW5zZm9 ybWF0aW9uIG9m&ntb=l.

European Commission. Statistical Office of the European Union. (2023) Key figures on European business: 2023 edition. LU: Publications Office. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2785/341297 (Accessed: 12 April 2025).

Flick, U. (2022) An introduction to qualitative research. Seventh edition. Core new edition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Galindo-Martin, M.-A., Castano-Martinez, M.-S. and Méndez-Picazo, М.T. T. (2019) 'Digital transformation, digital dividends and entrepreneur ship: A quantitative analysis', Journal of Business Research, 101, pp. 522-527. Available at: https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.014.

GEM (2023) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2023/2024 Global Report: 25 Years and Growing. London: GEM. Available at: https://www.gemconsortium.org/file/open?fileld=51377.

GEM (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor) (2025) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2024/2025 Global Report: Entrepreneurship Reality Check. London: GEM.

Ghezzi, A. (2019) 'Digital startups and the adoption and implementation of Lean Startup Approaches: Effectuation, Bricolage and Opportunity Creation in practice', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, pp. 945-960. Available at: https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.017.

Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L. (2013) 'Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology', Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), pp. 15-31. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151.

Giones, F. and Brem, A. (2017) 'Digital Technology Entrepreneur ship: A Definition and Research Agenda', Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(5), pp. 44-51.

Griva, A. et al. (2023) 'What do growing early-stage digital start-ups look like? A mixed-methods approach', International Journal of Information Management, 69, p. 102427. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j .ijinfomgt.2021.102427.

Gupta, P., Guha, S. and Krishnaswami, S. (2013) 'Firm growth and its determinants', Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), p. 15. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-2-15.

Helson, H. (1964) Adaptation-level theory: an experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New Y ork: Harper and Row.

Ir eta-Sanchez, J.M. (2023) 'From establishment to scaling up of an SME in the IT sector: deliberate and emergent strategies as critical essentials for the sustainable business model', Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-022023-0048.

Isenberg, D. (2010) 'The Big Idea: How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution', Harvard Business Review [Preprint].

Isensee, C., Teuteberg, F. and Griese, K.M. (2023) 'Success factors of organizational resilience: a qualitative investigation of four types of sustainable digital entrepreneurs', Management Decision, 61(5), pp. 12441273. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2022-0326.

Jafari-Sadeghi, V. et al. (2021) 'Exploring the impact of digital transformation on technology entrepreneurship and technological market expansion: The role of technology readiness, exploration and exploitation', Journal of Business Research, 124, pp. 100-111. Available at: https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.l 1.020.

Kakati, M. (2003) 'Success criteria in high-tech new ventures', Technovation, 23(5), pp. 447-457. Available at: https://doi.org/! 0.1016/SO166-4972(02)00014-7.

Khurana, I., Dutta, D.K. and Singh Ghura, A. (2022) 'SMEs and digital transformation during a crisis: The emergence of resilience as a secondorder dynamic capability in an entrepreneurial ecosystem', Journal of Business Research, 150, pp. 623-641. Available at: https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.048.

Kollmann, T. (2019) E-Entrepreneurship : Grundlagen der Unternehmensgründung in der Digitalen Wirtschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-65827429-0.

Kraus, S. et al. (2019) 'Digital entrepreneur ship: A research agenda on new business models for the twenty-first century', International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(2), pp. 353-375. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-06-2018-0425.

Lammers, T. et al. (2022) 'An analysis of the sustainability goals of digital technology start-ups in Berlin', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 185, p. 122096. Available at: https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122096.

Liu, P. and Bell, R. (2019) 'Exploration of the initiation and process of business model innovation of successful Chinese ICT enterprises', Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 11(4), pp. 515-536. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-09-2018-0094.

MacMillan, I.C., Zemann, L. and Subbanarasimha, P.N. (1987) 'Criteria Distinguishing Successful from Unsuccessful Ventures in the Venture Screening Process', JOURNAL OF BUSINESS VENTURING, (2), pp. 123-137.

Marashdeh, H. et al. (2023) 'The impact of digital services through ICT on business creation around the world', Journal of Strategic Marketing, pp. 1-12. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2023.2216699.

Mingione, M. and Abratt, R. (2020) 'Building a corporate brand in the digital age: imperatives for transforming born-digital startups into successful corporate brands', Journal of Marketing Management, 36(1112), pp. 981-1008. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2020.1750453.

Nambisan, S. (2017) 'Digital Entrepreneur ship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship', Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), pp. 1029-1055. Available at: https://doi.org/10.! 111/etap. 12254.

Olan, F. et al. (2024) 'Refocusing digital entrepreneur ship: an updated overview of the field, emerging opportunities and challenges', International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 30(2/3), pp. 238-257. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2023-0219.

Pugliese, R., Bortoluzzi, G. and Balzano, M. (2022) 'What drives the growth of start-up firms? A tool for mapping the state-of-the-art of the empirical literature', European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(6), pp. 242-272. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-03-2021-0163.

Sankaran, S. et al. (2024) 'Enabling Collaborative Research in Project Management by Creating Gioia Data Structures as a Boundary Object', Project Management Journal, 55(3), pp. 281-296. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/87569728231212411.

Schiuma, G. et al. (2022) 'The transformative leadership compass: six competencies for digital transformation entrepreneurship', International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 28(5), pp. 1273-1291. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-01-2021-0087.

Schulz, A., Schallmo, D. and Schieder, C. (2025) 'Erfolgreiches Digital Entrepreneur ship: Eine systematische Literaturanalyse zu Strategien, Maßnahmen und Werkzeugen', HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1365/s40702-025-01153-z.

Schumacher, N. (2022) 'CAN BUSINESS MODEL COMPONENTS EXPLAIN DIGITAL START-UP SUCCESS? A Qualitative Analysis of the Business Models of Start-ups from the Perspective of German Venture Investors', Ekonomska misao i praksa, 31(1), pp. 81-98. Available at: https://doi.org/! 0.17818/EMIP/2022/1.4.

Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000) 'The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research', Academy of Management Review, 25(1), pp. 217266. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/259271.

Shen, K.N., Lindsay, V. and Xu, Y.C. (2018) 'Digital entrepreneurship', Information Systems Journal, 28(6), pp. 1125-1128. Available at: https://doi.org/10.! 11 l/isj.12219.

Spigel, B. (2017) 'The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems', Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), pp. 49-72. Available at: https://doi.org/10.! 111/etap.12167.

Srinivasan, A. and Venkatraman, N. (2018) 'Entrepreneurship in digital platforms: A network-centric view', Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), pp. 54-71. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1272.

Stam, E. and van de Ven, A. (2019) 'Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements', Small Business Economics, 56(2), pp. 809-832. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/sl 1187-019-00270-6.

Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis) (2024) 'Überlebende Unternehmen: Deutschland, Jahre, Wirtschaftszweige, Zeitpunkt der Unternehmensgründung'. Available at: https://wwwgenesis.destatis.de/genesis/online?operation=ergebnistabelleQualitaetSepa ratAUS&levelindex=l&levelid=172829560271 l&downloadname=521110013#abreadcrumb.

Steininger, D.M. (2019) 'Linking information systems and entrepreneur ship: A review and agenda for IT-associated and digital entrepreneurship research', Information Systems Journal, 29(2), pp. 363407. Available at: https://doi.org/10.llll/isj.12206.

Sussan, F. and Acs, Z J. (2017) 'The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem', Small Business Economics, 49(1), pp. 55-73. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/sl 1187-017-9867-5.

Troise, C. et al. (2022) 'How can SMEs successfully navigate VUCA environment: The role of agility in the digital transformation era', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, p. 121227. Available at: https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121227.

Usman, M.A. and Sun, X. (2023) 'The impact of digital platforms on new startup performance: Strategy as moderator', Heliyon, 9(12), p. e22159. Available at: https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22159.

Ye, D. et al. (2024) 'How to Achieve Swift Resilience: the Role of Digital Innovation Enabled Mindfulness', Information Systems Frontiers, 26(2), pp. 551-573. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0796-021-10225-6.

Zaheer, H. et al. (2019) 'Straight from the horse's mouth: Founders' perspectives on achieving "traction" in digital start-ups', Computers in Human Behavior, 95, pp. 262-274. Available at: https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.002.

Zaheer, H., Breyer, Y. and Dumay, J. (2019) 'Digital entrepreneur ship: An interdisciplinary structured literature review and research agenda', Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 148, p. 119735. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119735.

Zahra, S.A. and Wright, M. (2011) 'Entrepreneurship's Next Act', Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(4), pp. 67-83. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2010.0149.

Zhang, G. and Ravishankar, M.N. (2024) 'The role of capabilities in digital service development and delivery: the case of start-up organisations', Information Technology & People, 37(3), pp. 1156-1184. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-05-2021-0404.