New Approaches in Management and Marketing

Abstract Abstract The present study was conducted with the aim of developing and validating an entrepreneurial marketing model with a strategic approach to technological innovation in startup companies. In terms of purpose, it is an applicable-developmental research, and in terms of methodology, it is mixed with a sequential exploratory design implemented in two qualitative and quantitative parts. In the qualitative part, the population included marketing, entrepreneurship, and startup managers who were selected based on the purposive sampling method. In the nineteenth interview, the researcher encountered repetition of concepts and conducted two supplementary interviews to prevent false saturation; finally, 21 people participated in this stage. In the quantitative part, the statistical population included startup managers and experts, and the sample size was determined as 130 people using the Cohen power analysis method and simple random sampling was performed. The data collection tool was a semi-structured interview and a researcher-made questionnaire. Qualitative data analysis was conducted using the Strauss and Corbin data-driven method in three coding stages, and the results were presented in the form of a paradigmatic model. The findings showed that causal conditions (founders’ opportunity-driven motivation, competitive pressure in the innovation ecosystem, inadequacies of traditional marketing models, and startup technological capacities) affect the pivotal phenomenon of entrepreneurial marketing. The pivotal phenomenon, contextual conditions (flexible organizational structure and innovative organizational culture), and intervening conditions (institutional and infrastructural barriers of the innovation ecosystem) affect strategies and actions (technological innovation strategy). Based on these results, an appropriate policymaking approach should focus on strengthening institutional infrastructure, targeted support for technological innovation, and creating facilitating mechanisms for the development of entrepreneurial marketing at the national level to enable the creation of sustainable competitive advantage and scalability of startups. Introduction As competitive environments become more complex, startups are forced to go beyond relying solely on technology or business model to achieve sustainable competitive advantage and require approaches that simultaneously cover market understanding, customer engagement, and strategic agility (Pangilinan et al., 2025; Hong et al., 2024). In this regard, recent management literature suggests the formation of convergence between entrepreneurial marketing, technological innovation, and a strategic approach in the process of organizational value creation (Crick et al., 2025). However, most studies have examined each of these concepts independently and a coherent framework has not been provided to explain their interaction in the context of startups. Entrepreneurial marketing, as an opportunity-oriented, innovative and proactive approach, elevates marketing from a mere promotional function to a process for discovering and exploiting market opportunities (Morris et al., 2024; Javid et al., 2025). In contrast, technological innovation, focusing on the development of new products, services and processes, is considered the main driver of growth and competitiveness of organizations (Mokhtari et al., 2023; Li & Zhang, 2024). The connection between the two will be effective when, in the form of a strategic approach, it guides the organization's long-term orientation in resource allocation and market-oriented decisions (Barney, 2024). At the global and national levels, digital transformations and the expansion of the digital economy have made technological entrepreneurship one of the main engines of economic growth and innovation (Sun & Lee, 2025; Kumar et al., 2025). In Iran as well, despite the quantitative growth of the startup ecosystem and the improvement of its global position, the lack of integrated theoretical frameworks to explain the mechanisms of startup growth and sustainability is still evident (Heydarzadeh et al., 2021 Eghbal; Moghaddam et al., 2023). A review of the literature shows that entrepreneurial marketing, technological innovation, and strategic approach have often been examined at separate analytical levels, and their synergistic role in the formation of sustainable competitive advantage has received less attention (Ezanloo et al., 2022; Udekwe & Iwu, 2025). Accordingly, the present study answers the fundamental question: how does the entrepreneurial marketing model with the strategic approach of technological innovation work in startup companies and how valid is it? Theoretical Framework - Entrepreneurial Marketing The concept of entrepreneurial marketing was first proposed in 1982 during a scientific conference at the University of Illinois at Chicago, with the support of the International Council of Small Business and the American Marketing Association, and is known as the starting point of the systematic link between entrepreneurship and marketing (Deku et al., 2023). - Technological Innovation Technological innovation, as one of the main drivers of economic development and the evolution of business models, has a central position in the literature on innovation management and technological entrepreneurship. This concept refers to the application of new or improved technologies in the development of products, processes, services or business models that lead to the creation of new value for the organization and customers (Akhlaghi et al., 2024). - Startup companies Innovative startup companies are new and agile enterprises that rely on innovation to create value, respond quickly to market changes, and achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Mahmoudi Niloo et al., 2023). These companies are usually formed based on a new idea and a technology-based business model and have a flexible structure, multi-skilled teams and a risk-taking culture. Their high ability to generate, absorb, and apply new ideas, especially in areas such as digital product development, technology-based platforms, customer experience innovation, and new ways of interacting with the market, is one of the distinctive features of these firms (Kahrai & Shivaei, 2025(. Research Methodology This research is of an applicable-developmental and non-experimental type with a survey-cross-sectional design, conducted with a mixed exploratory approach. The qualitative part was conducted with the participation of theoretical and empirical experts and 21 interviews were conducted until theoretical saturation was reached. In the quantitative part, the statistical population included managers and owners of startup businesses, and the sample size was estimated to be 130 people using Cohen's power analysis and G*Power software. The qualitative part of the research was conducted with qualitative data analysis and validation of the paradigm model using the partial least squares method in SmartPLS software. Research findings The paradigmatic model of the research shows that causal conditions, by shaping the central phenomenon, create an explanatory chain that leads to strategies in interaction with contextual and intervening conditions. In this framework, opportunity-based motivation, competitive pressure, traditional marketing inadequacy, and technological capacities strengthen startups’ tendency toward entrepreneurial marketing. The realization of this phenomenon leads to a technological innovation strategy in the presence of a flexible structure and innovative culture, although institutional barriers can weaken this path. Accordingly, the policy orientation emphasizes reducing interventionist constraints and strengthening institutional infrastructures with the aim of supporting technological innovation and developing entrepreneurial marketing to achieve sustainable competitive advantage and scalability of startups. Discussion and Conclusion In the dimension of causal conditions, the findings show that entrepreneurial marketing in startup companies is formed by the simultaneous presence of four main components: opportunity-based motivation of founders, competitive pressure of the innovation ecosystem, inefficiency of traditional marketing models, and available technological capacities. This result, in contrast to studies such as Pangilinan et al. (2025) that have addressed the role of environmental pressures or entrepreneurial mindsets in isolation, suggests that the activation of entrepreneurial marketing is the result of the simultaneous interaction of individual, technological, and institutional forces, rather than the influence of an independent factor. The central phenomenon of the research, namely entrepreneurial marketing, was explained as an institutional phenomenon and the dominant logic of action in startups. This phenomenon is formed in a dynamic interaction with the organizational structure and institutional environment and goes beyond a set of marketing tactics or market-oriented behaviors. This explanation covers the gap in studies such as Samara & Galdolage (2024), whose main focus is on performance outcomes and has paid less attention to the institutional and contextual layers of the formation of this phenomenon. In the context dimension, flexible organizational structure and innovative organizational culture were identified as the main components. The findings show that these factors play an “active enabler” role in startups and pave the way for the transformation of technological ideas into market-oriented solutions. This perception, compared to studies such as Bafghi et al. (2024) and Mokhtari et al. (2023) that have analyzed structure and culture mainly as organizational constraints, indicates a redefinition of the role of these components in the context of start-ups. In contrast, intervening conditions, including institutional and infrastructural barriers of the innovation ecosystem, play a decisive role in the intensity and direction of the impact of the pivotal phenomenon on strategies. The results show that the lack of institutional support, weak technological infrastructure, and policy incoherence can undermine the process of transforming entrepreneurial marketing into effective strategies, even in the presence of high motivation and technological capacity. This finding, in comparison to studies such as Sun & Lee (2025) and Khan et al. (2025) that have marginalized these factors, highlights the importance of the institutional context as a central component of the model's explanatory logic and has clear local implications for the Iranian startup ecosystem. The strategies and actions identified in the study are explained in the form of a technological innovation strategy that is the result of the convergence of the central phenomenon with causal, contextual, and intervening conditions. This result has deeper theoretical coherence compared to studies such as Payandeh & Ansari Moghadam (2024) that have analyzed innovation and marketing in two relatively separate paths. In terms of consequences, the results show that the causal-strategic chain of the model leads to the creation of sustainable competitive advantage and the possibility of scalability. These consequences go beyond short-term performance improvements and are directly aligned with the logic of startup survival and growth in uncertain environments. This finding provides a broader analytical horizon compared to studies such as Giti Nejad & Hassan Pour ghroghchi (2024) that have limited the consequences of entrepreneurial marketing mainly to financial or behavioral indicators.

Abstract Abstract The aim of this research is to design an innovation powerhouse model in knowledge-based companies with a data-based approach. The research method is applicable in terms of its purpose, and qualitative in terms of its implementation method, based on the data-based method. The statistical population of the research includes 18 empirical and academic experts. The sample size was determined by purposive sampling and the interviews continued until theoretical saturation. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect information. The data-based method and Maxqda 2020 software were used to analyze the data. The main components were summarized in the form of causal, contextual, intervening factors, effective dimensions, strategies, and consequences. It showed that the innovation powerhouse model has consequences such as creating an ecosystem and culture of innovation, a comprehensive document of cooperation, effectiveness and efficiency, expertise and competence. The innovation powerhouse model has covered the most important challenges of companies, including defining a special payment system to motivate elites, defining a transparent financial system with universities and industries for continuous cooperation, and creating a special legal system and evaluation of knowledge companies. Introduction Innovation is a fundamental factor in creating competition that leads to organizational growth and future success and is like a growth engine that allows companies to enjoy better efficiency in the global economy. Therefore, companies must create new products and processes and use advanced technology in order to be able to take a step forward towards their sustainability and durability (Senoubar et al., 2011). Efficiency and performance improvement and achieving sustainability in order to be sustainable, make a profit and meet the needs of society are the fundamental missions of companies, and this is the basis for quantitative and qualitative expansion in every country. In this context, Wang stated that technical progress often leads to temporary monopolies that create excess profits, but the development of innovation capabilities affects the performance of companies, including profitability, market share, customer satisfaction and company sustainability. Failure to maintain innovation also leads to failure, so companies should try to convert innovation capabilities into innovation performance (Adnanhasoon Alkhafaji et al., 2023); On the other hand, the world's move towards a knowledge-based economy has led many countries to develop knowledge-based companies. These types of companies allow advanced countries to maintain their competitiveness against growing economies where human and production costs are lower (Mohammadkazemi et al,, 2021). Today, the survival of knowledge-based companies depends on continuous innovation in their products and processes so that they can respond to signs of environmental change, including changing customer needs (Shakeri et al., 2022). However, knowledge-based companies, given that they are new companies and usually use the structure of national and government support, usually resist innovation after the cessation of this support due to the failure to institutionalize innovation in the body of their organizational activities and after a short period of time, especially in Iran, they fail in national and international competition. On the other hand, the only advantage of these companies is their innovation in the knowledge base, which requires a structure and model to be formed in the body of these companies that will institutionalize innovation in their organizational culture; otherwise their contribution will be nothing but failure (Khyatyan et al., 2015). According to the definition of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a knowledge-based economy is an economy that is directly based on the production, distribution, and consumption of knowledge and information (Raei & Dahmardeh, 2021). This study was conducted with the general objective of presenting the innovation powerhouse model (a case study of knowledge-based companies). In order to achieve this goal, the following specific objectives were also achieved: Identifying the effective factors, including causal, contextual, and interfering factors affecting the innovation powerhouse model; Identifying the strategies effective on the model, and finally presenting the consequences of presenting the innovation powerhouse model according to the experts' opinions. Therefore, the main research question: What is the innovation powerhouse model in knowledge-based companies with a data-based approach? Theoretical framework Innovation Innovation is an important factor that can pave the way for expanding markets, benefiting from new opportunities, and obtaining more profits. Innovation has increasingly become one of the main and key factors for the long-term success of organizations in competitive markets. Innovation plays an important role in creating value and maintaining competitive advantage (Rezvani & Toghraee, 2011). Abun (2023) examined how innovative leadership of managers, as well as innovative knowledge and skills of employees, affect their innovative work behavior. The results showed that innovative leadership of managers, innovative knowledge, innovative skills, and innovative work behavior of employees were all rated high and the correlation between them among employees was significant, contributing to the discourse on innovative work behavior. In summary, all the previous sources reviewed indicate a one-dimensional view of knowledge-based companies and a comprehensive, structural, and comprehensive view for promoting and sustaining innovation in knowledge-based companies was not seen, which is the need to provide a comprehensive model for sustaining knowledge-based businesses. Ahmadi (2022) in a study aimed at identifying factors affecting innovation culture, concluded that there is a positive and significant effect between the variables of support mechanism, leadership, technology, organizational change and transformation, and strategy with innovation culture, and all organizations need new ideas and novel and fresh ideas to survive in order to lead to innovative practices, and this requires the creation and promotion of an innovative culture in the organization, and in previous sources, there has been sporadic emphasis on the appropriate structure of innovation to strengthen the organization or knowledge-based companies. Research Methodology The research method is applicable in terms of its purpose, and qualitative in terms of its implementation method, based on the data-based method. The statistical population of the study consists of 18 experimental and academic experts. The sample size was conducted using a purposive sampling method, and the interviews continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. A semi-structured interview was used to collect information. Research findings Data-based method and Maxqda 2020 software were used to analyze the data. The main components were summarized in the form of causal, contextual, intervening factors, effective dimensions, strategies, and consequences. It showed that the innovation powerhouse model has consequences including creating an ecosystem and culture of innovation, a comprehensive document of cooperation, effectiveness and efficiency, expertise, and competence. The innovation powerhouse model has covered the most important shortcomings of companies, including defining a special payment system to motivate elites, defining a transparent financial system with universities and industries for continuous cooperation, and creating a special legal system and evaluation of knowledge companies.  Conclusion The present study was conducted with the aim of designing an innovation powerhouse model in knowledge-based companies with a data-based approach. The results of this study are in line with the research of Mohaisen et al. (2025), Mahmoudi et al. (2025), Abun (2023), Ahmadi (2022), Shereefa (2022), Khademi Kolahlou & Sahebkar Khorasani (2022), Akhtari et al. (2021), Rezazadeh (2021), Abolfathi et al. (2021), Udayanganie (2021), Baporikar (2018), and Mansuri et al. (2017). Khademi Kolahlou & Sahebkar Khorasani (2022) consider that Compensation and motivation; Training, development and creating a learning environment; Team building and participation; Performance appraisal management; Retention and promotion of knowledge workers; Identification, recruitment and recruitment are the most important functions of human resource managers of knowledge-based and innovative companies, along with recruitment and individual development, promotion and the payment system of the innovation powerhouse model. Considering the results of the research, the following suggestion is made: *Given that Iran is facing the phenomenon of sanctions in exports and raw material supply, and in the present model, the interviewees have generally talked about the development of knowledge-based companies, and the internal structure of the company has been discussed with regard to internal and managerial capabilities, it is suggested that the innovation powerhouse be examined quantitatively based on the impact of the sanctions variable in knowledge-based companies.

Abstract Abstract
The aim of the present study is to design and develop an innovative ecosystem model for small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran. The design of this innovation ecosystem model can act as a driving factor for involving various actors in the production, design, development and commercialization of innovative products and services in small and medium-sized enterprises. To achieve this goal, the meta-synthesis method was used and, according to previous studies, 1469 articles were selected and interpreted from among various articles. In fact, an interpretation beyond previous studies was obtained and in this method, the findings were combined and a comprehensive view of the phenomenon in question was obtained. Finally, 69 articles were selected using the screening method. The findings show that, according to the combination of studies conducted, the dimensions of the innovation ecosystem model in small and medium-sized enterprises include innovation in inputs, innovation in processes, innovation in outcomes and outputs, social innovations, strategy innovations, and environmental sustainability innovations. In fact, in addition to these dimensions, their indicators and components have also been extracted, which actually play a facilitating role in implementing the desired model. The results show that the innovation ecosystem model, which is the result of extracting indicators and components, can be applied in small and medium-sized enterprises.
Introduction
Today, creativity and innovation and the ability to discover new opportunities are among the most essential characteristics of entrepreneurs. Competition in technology and ensuring and continuing life and survival in companies and industries require finding new solutions and methods of dealing with problems that depend greatly on innovation, creation of new products, processes, and approaches. In today's business world, some factors such as continuous and sometimes fundamental changes in technologies, emergence of new demands from customers, short product and service life cycles, disappearance of the boundary between industries and the constant presence of new entrants from different industries and many other factors have created a special space and as a result of these changes, companies are dependent on other companies and institutions to create value for their customers. Considering value creation from an ecosystem perspective is different from the traditional view, which is based on value creation by a specific company and is static. Therefore, to use ecosystems, companies need to change their perspective from a traditional and company-based and static view to an ecosystem view (Fuller et al., 2019). In the innovation ecosystem, key people are connected to many other factors in valuable interactions. One of the reasons for the increasing importance of innovation at the international level is the globalization of markets and the competitive pressure on companies to keep on seeking innovation. Innovation ecosystems connect the way actors, producers, service providers, end users, regulators, and civil society organizations to achieve a collective outcome (Zakobedes & Calleagues, 2017). Ecosystems similar to innovation ecosystems increase the sustainability of organizations and industries and can support their sustainable activities towards sustainable development (Reezner & Calleagues, 2019), because it is likely to have implications for both researchers and policymakers and practitioners (Dedhayer & Calleagues, 2018).
Regarding the theoretical gap in the research, it can be said that by reviewing the research, it was found that limited studies have been presented in the field of designing and developing a coherent framework for the innovation ecosystem in small and medium-sized enterprises in the country, although many of these studies were very general or only analyzed the innovation ecosystem from one aspect (Holm & Ankarkrona, 2016). Also, regarding the necessity of conducting this research, it can be said that previous studies have mainly focused on the technological dimension of the ecosystem, which limits the possibility of examining and evaluating complex ecosystems (Chen et al., 2016). On the other hand, a large part of the studies have only examined a few ecosystem actors and the interactions between them, and have not comprehensively examined all stakeholders and the relationships between them (Motoyama & Knowlton, 2017). Today, designing an innovation ecosystem model can be considered as a stimulus to increase the performance of these small and medium-sized industries. In this regard, the present study attempts to, through the study of previous research, address the question of how the innovation ecosystem model in small and medium-sized enterprises is designed and developed using the meta-synthesis model.
Theoretical framework
In the present era, innovation emerges when the organization seeks to respond to an environment in which it is operating under environmental disturbances, and this has caused managers to focus on organizational transformation in order to adapt and respond to changes in a timely manner and maintain the organization's competitive advantages, and they consider themselves in need of an appropriate leadership style and human capital management to deal with such changes (Veghry and Fileshver, 2024).
Small companies may not grow with proper innovation management, but they can still survive. Companies that have planned innovation management well will be able to survive (Zoares Eskoober and Goozman, 2017). On the other hand, businesses also face obstacles, including restrictions and laws on content production and advertising, audience limitations, the impact of political and social crises, the presence of competition, references, government restrictions, unethical behavior of audiences and competitors, and systemic problems such as messaging bugs and lack of financial support, lack of sufficient facilities, and ideological limitations (Kafshdar Toosi, 2024). As Shompiter emphasizes, innovation is a powerful tool for new companies to successfully enter the market and challenge established companies. Also, established organizations need innovation to maintain their competitive position in the face of new and emerging or “disruptive” technologies (Cresstenson, 2010). Radical innovations are those that are developed by a company and are also innovations that are new to an industry (Reechesten and Salter, 2006). SMEs, known for their centralized management and informal structures, are therefore more prone to innovation. Companies that propose product innovation should focus on new product development or technological improvements, while companies that introduce new organizational methods such as process innovation should focus on knowledge and management culture (Ikermorat and Bardoogan, 2011). However, the most difficult task for SMEs is to realize this idea to meet demand. SMEs must follow several stages until the newly created product becomes marketable. New product development is a process in which new ideas are used in the final product and service. This process consists of six stages. Research and development stage, product design, concept testing, prototype, test marketing, and commercialization or launch. All these processes require resources and budget. Studies show that in Iran, not much research has been done so far on the topic of innovation ecosystem model in small and medium-sized companies and key players, and even practical models and patterns in this field. Considering that today advanced economies have placed innovation as their main factor and driver, developing countries need innovation in services and products to accelerate their growth and development. Considering the economic conditions of the country, many small and medium-sized companies cannot continue their production cycle.
Methodology
This research is applicable in terms of purpose, qualitative in terms of data collection, and with a meta-synthesis approach in terms of research implementation method. This research is based on the seven-step method of Sandelowski and Barroso (2007) in meta-synthesis.
Research findings
In this research, based on articles discovered from reputable journals and databases, 68 articles were fully reviewed and by combining the findings, six dimensions along with their indicators and components were identified for the innovation ecosystem, described below. Based on the results of the meta-synthesis, the dimensions of the innovation ecosystem can be categorized into six main areas, including input innovation, process innovation, strategy innovation, output and outcome innovation, social innovation, and environmental innovation.
Conclusion
 The first dimension is the input innovation dimension, consistent with the research of Liang & Wang (2023) and Block et al., (2023), and based on the research conducted, it is suggested that in order to have an effective input in the field of innovation, its indicators and components need to be calculated in a real sense and in accordance with the environment in which it operates. These indicators and components include crowdfunding, launching a venture capital fund, hiring startup-minded employees, innovation in financing methods, etc. The second dimension is the process innovation dimension, which acts as a strategic role in converting inputs into outputs and, in a way, extracts accurate and correct outputs and actions after a targeted and effective analysis of inputs. The results of this dimension are consistent with the research of Piñera-Salmerón et al., (2023). In this dimension, indicators and components such as the production of artificial intelligence-based services, updating machinery and equipment, setting up a research and development unit, using artificial intelligence capabilities, smartening business processes, continuous product improvement, application of quality tools, redesigning parts and components, etc. are mentioned. The third dimension is innovation in outputs and outcomes, which are actually indicators such as obtaining an electronic trust mark, developing new product versions, setting up spin-off companies, using online sales platforms, developing the export of innovative products, obtaining a knowledge-based mark for products, commercializing innovative products, etc., and is consistent with the research of Jin & Li (2023). The fourth dimension is social innovation, the results of which are consistent with the research of Sampaio & Sebastião (2024), and these studies showed that this dimension facilitates the cooperation of non-governmental sectors and civil society to promote innovation and also influence the innovation process. In fact, social innovation is an environmental factor that plays a decisive role in the adoption of innovation and the production of innovation. The indicators of this dimension include the development of corporate citizenship behavior, the allocation of budget lines to the field of social responsibility, the creation of local networks for the exchange of knowledge and benefits, etc. The fifth dimension is innovation strategies, which is consistent with the research of Agazu & Kero (2024). The components of this dimension include the development of entrepreneurial culture, the development of digital entrepreneurship, co-creation in the production of new products, and the development of gradual innovation, and therefore it is suggested that strategy be considered as a facilitator of the role of the innovation path and the purposefulness of the innovation development process. The sixth dimension is environmental innovation, which includes indicators and components such as green innovation development, green management development, green product development, green marketing development, reduction of environmental pollutants, use of less polluting materials, etc., which is consistent with the research of Kirikkaleli et al., (2023). The three dimensions of social innovation, environmental innovation, and strategic innovation are considered as external environmental dimensions of innovation that affect the internal environment of innovation and in a way stimulate innovation. Any research or management action in the field of innovation ecosystems requires a precise understanding of the six dimensions.