Exploring collaborative entrepreneurship and technological opportunism: a comprehensive literature synthesis, review and future perspectives

In the contemporary global landscape, there is an increasing demand to adapt collaborative models to combat various challenges. More collective idea generation and exploitation are predicted to take place in future entrepreneurship, to tackle such challenges with the involvement of the collaborative millennial generation (van Gelderen et al., 2021). Sustainable Development Goal No. 17 by the United Nations emphasises the significance of partnerships, the collaborations and predicts that future managerial and organisational innovation will be centred on the same (George et al., 2023). Accordingly, today, this concept of collaboration is ever more present in business firms and other organisations directing collaborative, entrepreneurial efforts and is termed collaborative entrepreneurship (Miles et al., 2006).

Collaborative entrepreneurship is a phenomenon challenging the present building blocks of management research (Rocha, 2018). It relays the individualised definition of an entrepreneur as a hero to a more collective approach, entailing social networks and shared cognitive frames that stimulate endless innovation (Miles et al., 2006; Ribeiro-Soriano and Urbano, 2009). It can also be perceived as more than a meta-capability, rich with strong attitudes of trust and equitable treatment (Rocha and Miles, 2009). Nevertheless, the dominant conventional entrepreneurship literature has overlooked this very collaborative aspect of entrepreneurship (Cairns et al., 2024).

At the same time, the role of technology keeps evolving and increasingly changing human lives. Its progression is attractively observed in fields such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, big data analytics, blockchain, Internet of Things, robotics and virtual reality (Asghar et al., 2020; Cennamo et al., 2020). Technological opportunism is an important capability in the technology domain. It refers to the capability to sense and respond to radical novel technologies (Srinivasan et al., 2002). It is a factor enhancing organisational performance (Srinivasan et al., 2002; Voola et al., 2012), and it acts as a catalyst, driving radical technology adoption (Cho et al., 2022).

Both collaborative entrepreneurship and technological opportunism carry numerous advantages. They lead to knowledge improvement, greater access to competencies, integration of resources, scope, scale and cost advantages. Further, they facilitate better opportunity exploitation, synergy and more innovation (Cho et al., 2022; Matlay and Martin, 2009; Minhas and Sindakis, 2021; Ratten, 2014a; Rocha and Miles, 2009; Sarkees, 2011). Moreover, they have the potential benefits of improving competitive advantages, efficient business policymaking and increasing business performance and growth. These finally enable organisations to drive towards achieving sustainable development goals (Asim et al., 2019; Chen and Lien, 2013; Miles et al., 2006; Rocha and Miles, 2009; Schaltegger et al., 2018; Srinivasan et al., 2002; Voola et al., 2012).

Upon comprehending the said advantages, and with the increased interest in collaboration and technology focus on entrepreneurial behaviours, we conducted an initial broad topic exploration of the two concepts (see Figure 1). Their scholarship indicates a relatively subdued evolution since their introduction in the early 2000s. Although collaborative entrepreneurship literature has influential conceptual and empirical contributions (Miles et al., 2006; Rocha and Miles, 2009), only a few related literature review studies are observed (Minhas and Sindakis, 2021; Ratten, 2014b; Rezazadeh, 2017). In parallel, to the best of our knowledge, no literature review studies are present on technological opportunism, despite the empirical investigations conducted after the foundational study of Srinivasan et al. (2002). Overall, both domains are emerging and continue to be fragmented research areas.

Given the importance of entrepreneurial, technological and collaborative capabilities within today’s turbulent technology milieu (Nugroho and Soewarno, 2024), and the conceptual instability surrounding these constructs, a systematic literature review is both timely and necessary. Thus, this study investigates the research questions: “What is the current state of literature for collaborative entrepreneurship and technological opportunism, including their intersection?” and “How do the emerging core themes from extant literature influence future research directions on collaborative entrepreneurship and technological opportunism, including their intersections?”.

In addressing the above, we conducted a systematic literature review. After synthesising the literature, a thematic analysis was conducted (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2021). Accordingly, five themes emerged on conceptual understanding, factors and associations related to both concepts. We specifically observed that the collaborative entrepreneurship concept is less mature than technological opportunism. Thus, we propose a clear definition for collaborative entrepreneurship. Furthermore, this review develops insights into the areas that have been understudied by proposing a range of research questions that will contribute to advancing the emerging research interest of collaborative entrepreneurship and technological opportunism and their intersections.

This paper elaborates on the review methodology in the next section. Then, the results are presented. A discussion and future research directions are outlined next, followed by the conclusion and implications.

This study used a systematic literature review approach following the best practices of Tranfield et al. (2003) and insights from Dhiman et al. (2023). Accordingly, the phases of review planning, review conducting and reporting and dissemination are detailed below (Tranfield et al., 2003).

The planning phase mainly involved identifying the need for the review and developing its protocol. Understanding the current state and pinpointing the future direction of the literature on collaborative entrepreneurship and technological opportunism, along with their intersection, was the motivation behind this review. The review protocol included designing the search strategy, selecting databases and deciding on inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure a thorough, evidence-based and unbiased process (Tranfield et al., 2003).

An effective search strategy should accommodate the breadth and depth of the extant literature within a feasible period and resources (Levac et al., 2010; Pham et al., 2014). Hence, a pilot search was conducted to understand the existing literature and design the strategy. It included four search strings to represent our research interest, as detailed in Table 1. Use of the asterisk “*” enabled the inclusion of a comprehensive range of both conceptual variants (Salam et al., 2025). Further, due to the use of “collective entrepreneurship” and “collaborative entrepreneurship” interchangeably (Andresen et al., 2014; Ratten, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c) and the keyword “startup” with “entrepreneurship,” they were also included in the search strategy.

Based on the extent of coverage of the literature related to the research questions, we opted for the databases of EBSCO host, selecting sub-databases: Business Source Complete and Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Central, Emerald Insight and Scopus. Scopus covers most papers indexed in Web of Science and more journals than Web of Science. Although Google Scholar has vast scholarly coverage, it lacks key advanced search features and the reproducible search option (Salam et al., 2025). Thus, they were excluded from the selected databases.

The search strategy included peer-reviewed manuscripts from 2000 to May 2023, using the “abstract only” restriction for every keyword. Choosing to limit the search to “abstract only” rather than “only in title”, “title and abstract” or “in the text” was a difficult decision. This approach was used to efficiently identify study concepts, as abstracts typically include the key words, and to prevent retrieving tangential literature through full-text searches (Kraus et al., 2020). However, to ensure that all relevant articles were captured, the protocol was expanded to perform individual searches on the two main concepts across the same four online databases.

The review protocol outlined the inclusion and exclusion criteria during the planning stage. Inclusion criteria comprise articles with a strong research approach, written in English and containing keywords such as “collaborative entrepreneurship”, “collective entrepreneurship”, “technological opportunism” or “technology opportunism”, along with their initial meanings. Grey literature, such as books, book chapters, case studies, conference papers and serial publications, is excluded from the review due to inconsistent peer-review standards and to maintain a manageable and focused scope. Non-English articles are excluded due to resource constraints.

This phase primarily involves carrying out database searches, study selections, quality assessment and data extraction and synthesis (Dhiman et al., 2023; Tranfield et al., 2003). Accordingly, the literature search conducted in alignment with our review protocol yielded 3790 manuscripts. After removing the duplicates, the total manuscripts counted to 3050 (see Table 1). Then we carefully reviewed their abstracts to filter out grey literature and non-English sources and reduced the records to 292. After assessing the full texts, we selected 36 eligible articles for our review (see Figure 2).

Quality assessment in literature reviews involves evaluating the internal validity and the extent to which the studies have minimised biases and errors (Tranfield et al., 2003). In ensuring the methodological rigour of the review, a quality appraisal process was used for the 36 selected studies, referring to the criteria and checklist adopted by Bate et al. (2024). Accordingly, each article was assessed on a scale of 0–3 for the criteria, namely, research questions/objectives clarity, theory robustness, methodology and supporting arguments, implication for practice and relevance of findings to the current study.

Data extraction and synthesis were carried out next from the quality-assessed selected studies (Tranfield et al., 2003). Thematic analysis was used in the process of data synthesis and analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) and followed an abductive approach (Saunders et al, 2019). The coding phase followed a systematic approach. Firstly, articles were manually coded. Next, triangulating the data analysis method, selected articles were imported into NVivo version 14 software for coding. This initial coding was informed by literature and developed through an iterative engagement with data. After the second-level coding, they were subsequently clustered into higher-order themes. Initial coding was done by a single researcher with a background in entrepreneurship and business management. This may have potentially shaped the interpretations. The higher-level codes and themes were reviewed and refined by the research team to reduce subjectivity. The research team members had diverse backgrounds in technology and business management, entrepreneurship, marketing, and experience in both qualitative and quantitative research studies.

Tranfield et al. (2003) highlighted the importance of reporting, recommendations and getting evidence into practice under the reporting and dissemination phase. Accordingly, this review will present the results of the thematic analysis and proposed future research directions in the subsequent sections.

This section addresses the first research question of the study: What is the current state of the literature on collaborative entrepreneurship and technological opportunism, including their intersection?

The 36 eligible articles reviewed included 22 from collaborative entrepreneurship and 14 from technological opportunism. Technological opportunism articles (38%) were entirely empirical and mostly quantitative, whereas collaborative entrepreneurship articles included 40% of conceptual studies, with 76% of empirical studies being qualitative. However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has addressed the intersection of the two concepts (Refer to  Appendix).

Miles et al. (2006), Ratten (2014b) and Franco and Haase (2013) were the main contributors to collaborative entrepreneurship literature. Srinivasan et al. (2002), Sarkees (2011) and Urban and Maphumulo (2022) were observed as prominent scholars in the technological opportunism domain. Particularly, authors such as Ratten (2014a, 2014b, 2014c), Borde et al. (2022), Asim et al. (2019) and Urban and Maphumulo (2022) have addressed the developing country contexts. Articles were featured in high-quality journals such as Journal of Business Research, Journal of Marketing, Information and Management, Industrial Marketing Management and Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies.

Themes that emerged from our synthesised literature, which inform future research directions, are depicted in Figure 3 below.

The collaborative entrepreneurship phenomenon was introduced with a hypothetical organisation named OpWin by Raymond Miles, Grant Miles and Charles Snow in 2005, resembling a network-type business model (Miles et al., 2006). Miles et al. (2006, p. 2) defined it as “the creation of something of economic value based on new jointly generated ideas that emerge from sharing information and knowledge”. In similar lenses, it is defined as the ability of a firm to establish external partnerships for knowledge and innovation capability enhancement (Franco and Haase, 2013; Ribeiro-Soriano and Urbano, 2009).

In contrast, it is defined as an entrepreneurial process between businesses and (educational) institutions (Minhas and Sindakis, 2021), limiting the stakeholders of a collaboration. Further, a recent study by Borde et al. (2022) identifies it as an entrepreneurial collaboration between friends, family members or acquaintances. Moreover, it has vague conceptual boundaries with collective entrepreneurship (Andresen et al., 2014; Ratten, 2014c), co-opetition (Ribeiro-Soriano and Urbano, 2009), cooperation networks (Costa and Franco, 2022) and industrial symbiosis (Miles et al., 2006).

Accordingly, the conceptual inconsistencies are primarily observed in the definitions of parties involved in collaboration, relationship types and outcomes. Evolving practice outpacing the theoretical development could be the primary reason behind the conceptual vagueness in defining the collaborative parties in different contexts (Miles et al., 2006; Minhas and Sindakis, 2021). Conceptual inconsistencies may also stem from disciplinary differences between management, entrepreneurship and innovation scholars, and varying levels of analysis, such as individual, firm and network (Ben Letaifa and Goglio-Primard, 2016; Franco and Haase, 2013; Ryoo, 2017).

We observed that collaborative entrepreneurship can be identified within and beyond business contexts. Business context practices are observed in formal institutional networks, peer-to-peer innovation-distributing networks and collaborations of situational contributors and other parties forming entrepreneurial subsets (Aryan et al., 2021; Ben Letaifa and Goglio-Primard, 2016). Besides, collaborative service entrepreneurship is believed to be approached via balancing partner and end-user uncertainty (Ogilvie, 2015).

Collaborative entrepreneurship also occurs beyond commercial businesses. It is observed through the lenses of family and friends (Borde et al., 2022) and Aristotelic–Thomistic approach, that is based on ethical good practices (Rocha and Miles, 2009). It has also been observed in sports partnerships regarding collaborative access to competencies and other resources (Franco and Pessoa, 2014). Informal community networks, such as craft beer networks and networks governed by strong social norms and ties, are also examples of its practices beyond business contexts (Ben Letaifa and Goglio-Primard, 2016; Costa and Franco, 2022; Minhas and Sindakis, 2021).

We also observed that collaborative entrepreneurship characteristics are numerous and scattered. Thus, compiled them into 27 characteristics as presented below.

1. Continuous innovation;

2. Caring trust;

3. Market exploration;

4. Equitable treatment and reward;

5. Absence of pre-determined reward structures;

6. Intrinsic motivation;

7. Voluntary relationships;

8. Effective processes;

9. Maintaining idea banks (community-owned assets);

10. Attention to intrinsic value of relationships;

11. Collaborative interactions;

12. Mutual interest;

13. Synergetic value creation;

14. Sharing knowledge;

15. Independent ownership and governance of firms;

16. Both self and community interest;

17. Practical rationality approaches;

18. Strong social values;

19. Shared costs and risks;

20. Open communication;

21. Shared vision;

22. Consideration of partner performance;

23. Strategic control;

24. Empathy;

25. Commitment;

26. Satisfaction; and

27. Having effective leaders.

Source(s): Compiled by authors based on Ben Letaifa and Goglio-Primard (2016); Borde et al. (2022); Costa and Franco (2022); Miles et al. (2006); Rezazadeh (2017); Ribeiro-Soriano and Urbano (2009); Rocha and Miles (2009) 

This theme addresses different associations of collaborative entrepreneurship and its related factors, such as antecedents, determinants and dimensions. Among these, associations related to collaborative entrepreneurship were fairly challenging to recognise due to the lack of empirical studies. In Portuguese firms context, entrepreneurial orientation factors maintained mixed associations with collaborative entrepreneurship (Franco and Haase, 2013). Informal but well-defined social norms(Ben Letaifa and Goglio-Primard, 2016) and business model innovation are also conceptually linked with collaborative entrepreneurship (Rezazadeh, 2017). Seo (2020b) also reports a positive association between social capital and research and development alliance performance, which is also a form of collaborative entrepreneurship.

We have catalogued a list of antecedents or determinants that lead to the occurrence and sustaining of this very concept:

• Traits of entrepreneurial management;

• Communication;

• Business acumen;

• Financial management;

• Creativity;

• Innovative potential;

• Leadership;

• Entrepreneurial attitude;

• Organisational resources;

• Intensity of richness about;

• Assumptions on human nature;

• Collaborative capabilities;

• Optimal balance of self-regarding and other’s-regarding perspective;

• Rationality;

• Complementarity;

• Compatibility; and

• Cognisance.

Source(s): Compiled by the authors based on Borde et al. (2022); Costa and Franco (2022); Franco and Haase (2013); Ratten (2014a); Rocha and Miles (2009) 

We observed dimensions of collaborative entrepreneurship in our review. Accordingly, entrepreneurial orientation, strategy, structure and management philosophy are named as dimensions (Ribeiro-Soriano and Urbano, 2009; Ryoo, 2017). Andresen et al. (2014) has investigated the process dimensions of collaborative entrepreneurship, namely, opportunity conceptualisation, resource mobilisation and legitimacy building. Further, in the context of developing countries, community innovation and entrepreneurship, social network, institutional context, international experience, cultural collaborations, natural resource-related, government and private-related dimensions have been recognised as collaborative entrepreneurship dimensions (Ratten, 2014a, 2014b).

Technological opportunism introduced by Srinivasan, Lilien and Rangaswamy in 2002 refers to the timely identification and capitalisation of novel technological developments. Simply, it is a firm’s capability to sense and respond to new technologies (Al-Omari et al., 2022). Thus, these capabilities stand as the main building blocks of technological opportunism.

Technology sensing capability refers to a firm’s skill in acquiring knowledge on internal or external development of new technologies. Technology responding capability is about a firm’s willingness and ability to react to these developments. This response can include adopting the technology within the firm, conducting limited experimentation, forming alliances to exploit the technology, monitoring it or even ignoring it, depending on its advantages and disadvantages (Srinivasan et al., 2002).

Constructs related to technological opportunism facilitate defining its conceptual boundaries (Srinivasan et al., 2002). Technological opportunism is broader than technology adoption, which is only one mode of technological response. Its distinction from organisational innovativeness lies in the focus on how innovation within an organisation is shaped by technological orientation. In contrast, technological opportunism can sense and respond to technologies developed internally or externally in an organisation. Market orientation is conceptually similar to technological opportunism regarding sensing and responding capabilities. However, it is centred on customers and competitors, not merely on technology (Sarkees, 2011; Srinivasan et al., 2002).

Resource-based view, knowledge-based view, dynamic capabilities and resource orchestration theory have differing contributions to the development of technological opportunism (Al-Omari et al., 2022; Asim et al., 2019; Cho et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023; Lucia-Palacios et al., 2016; Srinivasan et al., 2002). Nevertheless, Urban and Maphumulo (2022) state that its theoretical roots are based on the Dynamic capabilities framework. The most popular technological opportunism scale is from the introductory work of Srinivasan et al. (2002). However, when operationalising technology responding capability, organisational responsiveness framework of Homburg et al. (2007) has been deployed (Bullini Orlandi et al., 2020).

This theme comprises antecedents, dependents, drivers and the related associations of technological opportunism. Accordingly, Srinivasan et al. (2002) have indicated that future focus, top management advocacy on new technologies, adhocracy and less hierarchical culture are organisational dynamics acting as antecedents to technological opportunism. Bullini Orlandi et al. (2020) recognise the role of social media analytic deployment and marketing, information technology integration and employee skills as its antecedents. Moreover, information technology use and related human capital are identified as drivers, while technological turbulence and network externality are identified as dependent factors of technological opportunism (Chen and Lien, 2013; Lucia-Palacios et al., 2016).

We observed various empirical links between technological opportunism and both organisational and non-organisational constructs. Accordingly, such significant positive associations exist across different study contexts. Key examples include the impact of IT vendor support when firms invest in IT human capital, the connection between social media analytics deployment, exploratory and exploitative innovativeness and marketing focus in business-to-business firms (Bullini Orlandi et al., 2020; Cho et al., 2022; Lucia-Palacios et al., 2016; Sarkees, 2011).

Most associations of technological opportunism denote mixed results in empirical studies. It is observed that higher technological opportunism has a link with relative earliness of wireless solution piloting and implementation (Lopperi et al., 2006). Few studies have shown that larger firms possess higher technological opportunism levels. It is also observed that technology exploitation increases the capabilities of technological opportunism and technological opportunism acts as an antecedent to business sustainability (Asim et al., 2019; Lucia-Palacios et al., 2016). Further, Chen and Lien (2013) state that technological opportunism’s impact on competitive advantage is substantial.

Different associations have been empirically established with firm performance and technological opportunism. Some studies have observed a significant direct association between technological opportunism and organisational performance (Al-Omari et al., 2022; Sarkees, 2011). Moreover, this association is moderated by entrepreneurial orientation in the context of the South African banking sector and also mediated by marketing emphasis in business-to-business firms (Lucia-Palacios et al., 2014; Sarkees, 2011; Urban and Maphumulo, 2022).

A study by Li et al. (2023) indicated that technology sensing capability and firm performance relationships are mediated by resource structuring and leveraging. Technology responding capability has a positive association with firm performance and is also mediated by resource structuring. In a moderated mediating analysis, Voola et al. (2012) has observed a moderation effect of technological opportunism on the association of market orientation and e-business adoption. However, in generalising these associations, dependent characteristics and context specificity should be considered (Lucia-Palacios et al., 2014).

This section addresses the second research question of the study: How do the emerging core themes from extant literature influence future research directions on collaborative entrepreneurship and technological opportunism, including their intersections? Accordingly, we revisit each core theme on how they can be reimagined as part of a future research agenda and propose guiding research questions. Specifically, in Tables 2–4, we identify priority questions addressing critical gaps based on theoretical contributions and practical relevance (marked with *) versus secondary exploratory questions (unmarked).

Our literature review revealed that collaborative entrepreneurship still lacks conceptual consensus. It is defined by Miles et al. (2005, p. 40) in their introductory book as “joint enterprise – the creation of something of economic value based on new, jointly created ideas or knowledge”. However, in the following year, they stated that collaborative entrepreneurship was observed in an increasing number of business firms and other various types of organisations (Miles et al., 2006), extending the scope of parties directly involved in the collaborations.

Following the above notion, the parties who collaborate in the collaborative entrepreneurship domain are not specified or kept open-ended by some researchers (Ben Letaifa and Goglio-Primard, 2016; Franco and Haase, 2013; Minhas and Sindakis, 2021; Ratten, 2014b). This vagueness in the actor and factor specificity in collaborative entrepreneurship networks limits understanding. Moreover, Neergaard (2005) emphasises the importance of understanding the nature of relational ties and interconnections between actors, as collaborative networking is an integral aspect of venture growth.

Collaborative entrepreneurship is sometimes observed and used interchangeably with many other similar concepts, such as collective entrepreneurship, cooperation, co-opetition, industrial symbiosis and collaborative and open innovation (Andresen et al., 2014; Gallaud, 2013; Ketchen et al., 2007; Miles et al., 2005; Ratten, 2014b, 2014c; Ribeiro-Soriano and Urbano, 2009; Walls and Paquin, 2015). Studies indicate that collective entrepreneurship occurs within an organisation through intra-alliances, while collaborative entrepreneurship takes place beyond organisational boundaries via inter-firm alliances (Franco and Haase, 2013; Ribeiro-Soriano and Urbano, 2009). Furthermore, it is argued that even collective entrepreneurship requires a clear categorisation (Cairns et al., 2024).

Cooperation is working together for a common purpose to serve their own and others’ interests, symbolising extrinsic motivation. Furthermore, it needs a periodic, continuous assessment of trust and commitment. However, collaborative entrepreneurship carries intrinsic motivation and caring trust, discouraging it from the discomfort of continuous evaluation of trust and commitment towards rewards (Miles et al., 2005). Co-opetition is the simultaneous act of cooperation and competition to enhance performance (Crick, 2018; Gernsheimer et al., 2024) and only the cooperation aspect resembles collaborative entrepreneurship (Miles et al., 2005).

Industrial symbiosis also includes collaborative sharing of by-products, energy, material and factory waste to bring economic and environmental benefits (Walls and Paquin, 2015). In contrast, the collaborative entrepreneurship model focuses on joint enterprise to generate economic value (Miles et al., 2005). Collaborative innovation is developing and commercialising new products with external parties (Gallaud, 2013). Open innovation is about opening up the internal innovation process of a firm to purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to speed up innovation (Chesbrough, 2011). Nevertheless, collaborative entrepreneurship is not limited to innovation but entails entrepreneurial behaviours to generate economic wealth through collaborative actions (Miles et al., 2005).

Given these inconsistencies, we observed the collaborative entrepreneurship phenomenon within the broader entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems through the lenses of identity theory and social identity theory (Stets and Burke, 2000). According to our understanding from the extant literature, defining the boundaries of the collaborative entrepreneurship concept is difficult, as depicted in broken and open-ended borders in Figure 4. This nature demands a conceptual consensus on collaborative entrepreneurship.

Hence, we offer a clear definition after thoroughly examining the ambiguities present in existing literature. We define collaborative entrepreneurship as a process of creating wealth through continuous innovation by sharing resources, including creative business ideas, among inter-organisations voluntarily for equitable benefits. It is characterised by intrinsic motivation and caring trust among collaborators for successful market explorations.

In this definition, we acknowledge that collaborative entrepreneurship is an entrepreneurship process directed at generating economic wealth (Andresen et al., 2014; Miles et al., 2005; Ronstadt, 1984). Furthermore, the most important collaborative entrepreneurship characteristics as identified in the introductory and recent literature (Adomako and Nguyen, 2024; Miles et al., 2005): continuous innovation, equitable benefits, intrinsic motivation, caring trust, market explorations and voluntariness are explicitly highlighted. The inclusion of sharing resources emphasises its collaborative aspect. The special characteristic of sharing the generated knowledge through business ideas, which leads to continuous innovation, is also embedded in the definition (Adomako and Nguyen, 2024; Miles et al., 2006).

Most importantly, we identify that this collaboration can take place between inter-organisations. Thus, we state that the direct parties to this collaboration can be any external organisation (Miles et al., 2006; Ribeiro-Soriano and Urbano, 2009). Specifically, we do not limit it to peer firms, educational institutions, family, friends or acquaintances (Borde et al., 2022; Miles et al., 2005; Minhas and Sindakis, 2021). This definition also includes insights from other themes, scattered characteristics and contexts and factors and associations of collaborative entrepreneurship.

Our review presented a continuum of collaborative entrepreneurship characteristics studied, and its business and beyond-business contexts. Some are conceptual notions, and some are empirically explored and examined (Borde et al., 2022; Miles et al., 2006; Ribeiro-Soriano and Urbano, 2009; Rocha and Miles, 2009). Scholarship on entrepreneurship reveals that entrepreneurial characteristics and competencies can positively impact business performance. Moreover, these characteristics can be categorised into psychological and non-psychological stems (Gunawan, 2024; Sarwoko, 2013).

Thus, we propose that future research analyse the scattered characteristics of collaborative entrepreneurship based on rational classifications. Further investigations can be conducted to understand their differing nature and their impact on business performance. In addition, following trait theory in entrepreneurship, we see prospects for studies comparing the characteristics of collaborative entrepreneurs with Hornaday and Aboud (1971)s’ characteristics of successful entrepreneurs.

At the same time, the very introductory hypothetical model of collaborative entrepreneurship is centred around caring trust (Miles et al., 2005, 2006). It further denotes that the prior calculation of rewards is unnecessary, given the trust placed on the equitable allocation of rewards. This view is embedded with ambiguities, and its practical application is questionable, given human nature and values (Rocha and Miles, 2009; Smets, 2006). Therefore, future research directions should focus on its various practical forms and contexts.

In reengaging with the theme of collaborative entrepreneurship factors and associations, we argue that entrepreneurship is a learned behaviour. Hence, the theory of planned behaviour can be used to explore the antecedents of collaborative entrepreneurship and compare them with the former’s attitudes, social norms and perceived behavioural control (Ajzen, 1991).

Research can also focus on differentiating collaborative entrepreneurship characteristics from antecedents or determinants. Moreover, after establishing a substantial conceptual consensus for collaborative entrepreneurship, we propose studies on concept operationalisation. This is a prerequisite to conduct various studies exploring and examining its possible associations with other variables. For instance, its associations with productivity, competitive advantage, firm performance, business growth and even national economic conditions can be investigated.

Accordingly, building on the above three themes, we propose research questions for future inquiry in Table 2.

Future research directions for technological opportunism are ample (Refer to Table 3). It demands investigations in different contexts, deploying different methodologies to explore and examine various facets in theory and practice. Technology sensing and responding capability can be further investigated as two research lines on differing organisational and business environmental dynamics. This may even open up an opportunity to relook at the already established technological opportunism scale by Srinivasan et al. (2002) to accommodate novel technologies such as artificial intelligence into the scale (Cennamo et al., 2020).

In revisiting technological opportunism’s theoretical roots, we compared it with dynamic technological capabilities. It is the technology capability to respond to peripheral environment changes, including its sensing, seizing and reconfiguring or transforming capabilities (Teece, 2007; Wang et al., 2019). Accordingly, technological opportunism can be perceived as a broader concept, as its responding capability’s scope is vast when it can be exercised even by ignoring or monitoring the technology (Srinivasan et al., 2002), aligning with the organisation’s core purpose and assessing transforming risk. This conceptual difference merits further examination.

Our review indicates that internal organisational dynamics, technology-related features and organisational line functions, such as marketing and supporting functions, such as human resource and information technology, serve as antecedents, drivers and dependents of technological opportunism (Bullini Orlandi et al., 2020; Chen and Lien, 2013; Lucia-Palacios et al., 2016; Srinivasan et al., 2002). However, the external environmental factors have been fairly overlooked. Thus, we argue from the learnings from the Dynamic capabilities framework (Teece, 2023), which insists that firms must adapt to the changing environment via their capabilities. Accordingly, external environmental dynamics can be qualified as its antecedents or determinants. Therefore, we propose future studies to explore the related possibilities of the external environment factors impacting technological opportunism (Srinivasan et al., 2002).

We further observed that very limited moderator and mediator analyses have been conducted within the technological opportunism’s empirical investigations. There is a tendency to investigate moderators and mediators in its association with performance (Nugroho and Soewarno, 2024; Taha et al., 2025). Further technological opportunism is observed among a few related constructs, such as marketing orientation, innovativeness, technology adoption and technology orientation (Srinivasan et al., 2002). This calls for further investigation into the moderating and mediating relationships of technological opportunism across the various associations of related constructs.

Our review highlighted that associations of technological opportunism with firm performance, technology adoption, competitive advantage, entrepreneurship, innovation, marketing emphasis, market orientation and business sustainability indicate mixed results (Al-Omari et al., 2022; Asim et al., 2019; Bullini Orlandi et al., 2020; Chen and Lien, 2013; Cho et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023; Lopperi et al., 2006; Lucia-Palacios et al., 2014; Sarkees, 2011; Srinivasan et al., 2002; Urban and Maphumulo, 2022; Voola et al., 2012). While cultural dynamics could be a possible cause (Chun et al., 2021) for these mixed results, conceptual understandings and their explicit positive practical associations lead to an unresolved black box.

We also observed technological opportunism construct has been tested in contexts such as business-to-business firms, ICT companies, publicly traded firms, manufacturing industries, franchises, SMEs, exporting and banking sectors in different countries (refer  Appendix). Future studies can consider different firm contexts (refer to Table 3), specifically in technology-related areas, given their rapid developments (Cennamo et al., 2020).

Within our research scope, we noticed an interesting association. Specifically, collaborations can influence an organisation’s technological opportunism’s technology sensing and responding capabilities. Sarkees (2011) stated that a strong sensing environment, which leads to technology sensing capability, allows organisations to perceive beneficial collaborative relationships with external parties. At the same time, technology responding capability can be practiced effectively by forming alliances (Srinivasan et al., 2002). Alliances may include cooperations, partnerships or networks acting as collaborative entrepreneurial platforms (Adomako and Nguyen, 2024; Candeias Fernandes and Franco, 2022). Cho et al. (2022) identify that forming alliances with external parties to capitalise on technological opportunism is an interesting future research call. Thus, by cross-comparing the concepts, we establish that intersections between collaborative entrepreneurship and technological opportunism merit future research (see Table 4).

Recent research shows social capital interacts with dynamic capabilities in multiple ways (Van Tran et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2021). These theories inform our key study concepts, collaborative entrepreneurship and technological opportunism, respectively (Seo, 2020b; Urban and Maphumulo, 2022). The dynamic capabilities framework itself involves the study of dense intra and inter-organisational interactions and sustaining strong dynamic capabilities demands entrepreneurial management (Teece, 2023). Hence, we state that high-level dynamic capabilities such as sensing and seizing can be improved by integrating different facets of social capital. For instance, bonding and bridging social capital can improve sensing capabilities by enriching access to information and improved trust. Moreover, the trust element of relational social capital can encourage more and stable seizing and transforming (Nguyen and Phan, 2025; Van Tran et al., 2024). Structural social capital elements, such as the network structure and cognitive social capital elements, such as shared common meanings, can enrich all sensing, seizing and transforming capabilities. Building on the idea that firms with strong social capital can better develop and leverage dynamic capabilities to improve firm performance, we argue that the technological opportunism of collaborations is more likely to achieve entrepreneurial success (see Table 4).

Concrete empirical examples of the intersection of collaborative entrepreneurship and technological opportunism remain scarce in scholarly literature. However, in our reviewed literature, Oguamanam (2020) discussed capitalising on available technology for Nollywood with collaborative innovation models. Matlay and Martin’s (2009) collaborative strategies of small e-businesses and Bullini Orlandi et al.’s (2020) claim on the importance of inter-functional collaboration for technological opportunism are noteworthy. These indicate the need for future research on concept intersections to obtain competitive advantages.

Overall, technology is evolving, and collaboration is increasingly becoming a core aspect of the modern business milieu. Hence, understanding the ins and outs of collaborative entrepreneurship and technological opportunism is essential to adapting to the present business landscape. Accordingly, to the best of our knowledge, we conducted the first comprehensive literature review that integrates these concepts of collaborative entrepreneurship and technological opportunism. We synthesised our key findings related to these concepts through five themes, namely:

1. Conceptual vagueness of collaborative entrepreneurship.

2. Scattered collaborative entrepreneurship characteristics and contexts.

3. Factors and associations of collaborative entrepreneurship.

4. Building blocks of technological opportunism.

5. Factors and associations of technological opportunism.

Our theoretical contributions are mainly threefold. Firstly, driven by the theme of conceptual vagueness of collaborative entrepreneurship, we proposed a definition for collaborative entrepreneurship. Accordingly, it is a process that creates wealth through continuous innovation by sharing resources, including creative business ideas among inter-organisations voluntarily, for equitable benefits. It is characterised by intrinsic motivation and caring trust among collaborators for successful market explorations.

Secondly, we proposed future research directions with guiding research questions by revisiting each theme. Thirdly, we presented a cross-concept analysis of collaborative entrepreneurship and technological opportunism, and related research questions informed by themes and theoretical foundations.

Our study findings provide important practical implications for entrepreneurs and business practitioners and inform insights to craft strategies in policy development. We highlight the importance of prioritising collaborative behaviours by any firm to sharpen technological capabilities to achieve synergetic benefits. This includes a spectrum of collaborations, ranging from partnerships with various stakeholders to active engagements in innovation hubs and industry consortia, to enable collective resource sharing and gain synergetic benefits.

Our findings can inform vital insights into policy-making, particularly in the context of emerging economies with underdeveloped formal institutions and entrepreneurial ecosystems relying on informal trust-based networks (Van Tran et al., 2024). For instance, deliberate state-sponsored incentives, such as special funding schemes for encouraging proactive technology-based collaborations, can be developed. Startup and incubation initiatives in emerging economies, such as Startup Sri Lanka and Startup India Seed Fund Scheme, can draw insights from our cross-concept analysis for designing joint funding schemes requiring collaborative applications from two or more firms, forecasted outcomes of collaborative continuous innovation and including collaborative technology sensing capability assessment in the selection criteria (Startup India Seed Fund Scheme n.d.; Startup SL n.d.). Even developed economies such as Australia can consider our cross-concept analysis in designing funding schemes, requiring collaborative applications extending beyond TechVouchers for productivity improvement (NSW Government n.d.).

Policy makers could also consider investments in infrastructure related to collaborative technology sensing and responding, such as technology parks and incubators. Strategies to form and strengthen government and firm-specific collaborations for collaborative technology innovation and capacity-building programs for collaborative technology opportunism are vital. Further, introducing collaborative entrepreneurship and technological opportunism integrations to school and university curricula to promote collaborative venture creation, collaborative technology sensing and innovation can contribute to positive attitudinal changes.

On the whole, promoting collaboration and technologically proactive opportunism increases firm growth and contributes to creating economic wealth. Particularly, social capital created through this synergetic occurrence of collaborative entrepreneurship and technological opportunism can extend beyond business boundaries to enrich societal attitudes to achieve inclusive sustainability goals.

Our study confronted a few limitations. We confined our article search between the years 2000 and May 2023. The database scope was limited to ProQuest Central, Emerald Insight, Scopus and EBSCO within the time constraints. Grey literature and non-English articles were excluded from the review to maintain a focused scope and quality, and due to limited expertise in other languages. Further, in the data synthesis phase, the initial coding was carried out by a single researcher, given the time and resource constraints.