Digital entrepreneur’s platformication and rapid internationalization through brokering, making and giving sense

ABSTRACT

In the realm of entrepreneurship and rapid international growth, the influence of digital technologies is profound. The sustained growth of Born Digital firms hinges on intricate relational and network dynamics, particularly within the context of digital platforms. This longitudinal empirical research focuses on case firms immersed in project-based activities centered around health apps. Navigating the complex landscape of digital innovation, these firms must strategically engage with established and emerging digital platform networks. To ensure the continual expansion of their digital platforms, digital entrepreneurs are compelled to exhibit a vision advantage and employ effective sensegiving within their network. The empirical findings underscore the necessity for these firms to adopt multiple dynamic strategies, characterized by rhetorical brokerage, to augment their networks for innovation and internationalization. This necessitates an entrepreneurial approach termed ‘platformication,’ which encapsulates the actions undertaken in the digital platform space. This study contributes with research and implications of platformication.

KEYWORDS:

• Digital platform brokerage
• network governance
• sensegiving
• digital entrepreneurs
• international entrepreneurship; longitudinal case study

Introduction

Today's global and digitalized marketplaces offer companies of different sizes, ages, and countries of origin rewarding opportunities to expand and achieve profitability and growth. Many social and business domains are restructured around digital communication and media infrastructures. However, digital technologies such as mobile computing, data analytics, social media, cloud computing, blockchain encryption, or crowdfunding (Nambisan, 2017) can be disruptive. Digital entrepreneurs’ platformication are accelerating disruptive business (Andreini et al., 2022; Foss & Saebi, 2017) by e.g. enabling customers to create content (YouTube), buy and sell items (eBay) or access to global producers (Alibaba) or rent out underutilized capacities (Airbnb), in which focal platform owner generates revenue from third-party advertisers (Facebook), subscription fees (Netflix), seller fees (Amazon) or through data licensing (X formerly known as Twitter). Platformication is an innovative entrepreneurial process in creating a space that provides digital facilities and highly pursuable sense giving for users and others to collaborate, interact or transact digitally. Digital technology enables business innovation, but does not drive internationalization (Rasmussen & Petersen, 2023), for the reason that platform needs entrepreneurial action (platformication).

Nevertheless, these platforms entrepreneurs who are Born Digital (Monaghan et al., 2020) have several scaling advantages compared to other rapid internationalizing entrepreneurs since they leverage the digitalization of the economy that has radically lowered costs for production (Goldfarb & Tucker, 2019; Sridhar & Fang, 2019) and growth. Digital technology and the internet thus provides a platform for production, operating, and delivery processes. Innovation diffusion and reach is critical stepstones through strategic network communication and management to assure needed network effects and successful platform implementation. This can be seen as part of an entrepreneurial (sensemaking) process with focus on its role as a socially embedded process (Petersen & Rasmussen, 2021) where meaning is materialized through language, talk and communication (Weick et al., 2005). Different tools of communication is available by how entrepreneurs use language in a sensegiving context to influence the way that another party understands or makes sense (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991) by identifying the use of gestures (Cornelissen et al., 2012), metaphors (Hill & Levenhagen, 1995; Nicholson & Anderson, 2005), rhetoric and narratives (Holt & Macpherson, 2010). Sensegiving is thus central for evolving the entrepreneurial process (Hill & Levenhagen, 1995; Hoyte et al., 2019), because it motivates needed actors for commitment as well as testing the (continued) viability of the business.

In this paper, we focus on Born Digitals (globals) with digital platforms, whose job is to link buyers, sellers, and users effectively and efficiently, thus bringing fluid borderlines between markets (networks) and stakeholders that are often strangers beforehand (Andreassen et al., 2018). Hence value creation is vital to managing interactions and transactions via a digital platform between two or more groups of actors (e.g. customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders) (Benoit et al., 2017; Rasmussen & Petersen, 2017). Their network and management (governance) become imperative to understand a digital business's competitive advantage in scope, scale, speed, sources of value creation, and capture (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Srinivasan & Venkatraman, 2018). We argue that a network brokerage perspective (Burt & Soda, 2021; Leick & Gretzinger, 2018; Provan & Kenis, 2007) are suitable for explaining network and platform value creation that become critical for these digital firms’ success (Nambisan, 2017) and their rapid internationalization. Theoretically, it could be argued that network brokerage and governance affect new ventures’ internationalization and sustained performance (Oviatt & McDougall, 2005). Markets are full of opportunities from structural holes within and between networks that entrepreneurs or business people can take advantage of by intermediating, brokering, or bridging gaps to more diverse and previously unrelated networks (Burt, 2004; Oviatt & McDougall, 2005). These Born Digitals are reliant on their network platform for international growth, but what makes their network a resource is how they manage, communicate and lead for their strategic vision.

Therefore, Born Digitals selected network governance form becomes vital by analysing network effectiveness (Provan & Kenis, 2007), entrepreneurial vision advantage (Burt & Soda, 2021), and their communication ability to motivate network partners for new venture success (Hill & Levenhagen, 1995; Holt & Macpherson, 2010). Thus contributing and joining research that understands digital business (Nambisan, 2017) and internationalization (Oviatt & McDougall, 2005) or both (Coviello et al., 2017) as entrepreneurship. In other words positioning the paper in which entrepreneur(s), their network, management, and actions affect firm-level outcomes.

The platform broker needs to govern the position and strategically communicate to each actor to ensure continued network value and sustaining advantages of the broker (Obstfeld et al., 2014; Petersen & Rasmussen, 2021). One way to ensure good network collaboration and support a firm's growth is through rhetorical strategies (Gallo, 2019; Holt & Macpherson, 2010) by motivating network partners and differentiating communication. Because an entrepreneurial firm's vision for digital platform growth is dependent on the ability to communicate (Hill & Levenhagen, 1995) through rhetorical strategies (Holt & Macpherson, 2010) with critical partners and relations as well as insider or outsider networks for continued and sustained internationalization (Vahlne & Johanson, 2020). Therefore, this paper's research question is: How can digital entrepreneurial firms manage rapid internationalization and growth through platform brokerage and rhetorical strategies?

The empirical setting is two rapidly internationalizing health app development firms. The case study methodology is a preferred research approach for internationalization governance and interactions in and around networks (Bizzi & Langley, 2012). The case study methodology can open up the black box of international business and entrepreneurship through new phenomena beyond extant theory (Fletcher et al., 2018). It captures the content, structure, process, and context through several data sources (interviews, archival data, observation, company records, etc.) to provide an accurate and rich description of the cases, including the networks and their evolution (Halinen & Törnroos, 2005) through a leading broker's vision and rhetorical means. The longitudinal period of the case data from 2014 to 2020 adds detail to how to sustain and develop international growth. This is a highly needed perspective because, as Coviello (2015) and (Cavusgil & Knight, 2015) noted in their field reviews, we still know alarmingly little about the medium- to long-term performance consequences of early and rapid internationalization. Thus, the two fast internationalizing cases are chosen because of their digital entrepreneurship and ability to sustain and grow their multi-sided platform business.

The paper is structured after this introduction by first outlining the theoretical background and outset. Secondly, we develop a framework for understanding digital platform entrepreneurs’ network governance, vision, and rhetorical strategies. Thirdly, we elaborate on the embedded case study methodology, case selection, and description. Fourthly, we analyse the cases from a network governance and brokerage perspective and, on a micro-network level, the focal actors’ communication strategies (rhetorical means) to grow the digital platform network for internationalization. We end by discussing the empirical and theoretical findings and concluding.

Theoretical background and outset

An extensive body of newer research has examined the influence of international networks on small firm internationalization (See, for instance, recent reviews: Cavusgil & Knight, 2015; Coviello, 2015; Øyna & Alon, 2018). This research positions itself within network-driven internationalization literature (Vahlne & Johanson, 2020) with an emphasis on digital platform-based entrepreneurship (Ojala et al., 2018; Monaghan et al., 2020) and network governance theory (Provan & Kenis, 2007; Leick & Gretzinger, 2018). However, the limited use of network governance perspectives in international entrepreneurship (Øyna & Alon, 2018) has consequences because, as Burt and Soda (2021) argue, through successful network structure and position management as well as entrepreneurs’ strategic abilities, they can sustain performance, and bridge new growth opportunities. This has a highly practical value since rapid growth and internationalization do not necessarily translate into long-term survival (Hagen & Zucchella, 2014; Zahra, 2014). For instance, Mudambi and Zahra (2018) surveyed 275 British INVs, and about 41% experienced business failure. They argued that entrepreneurs eager to grow internationally would do better if they systematically analyzed their markets (networks) and formulated competitive strategies built on their firms’ means.

This is also an essential issue in the post covid world because, as (Zahra, 2021) asks regarding digital market disruption and networks – what ‘to save, reform or invigorate?’ The covid-19 crisis has further accelerated digitalization and created new room for international network development. Nevertheless, network management becomes central for international entrepreneurs because, as Faroque et al., 2022 empirical find, network exploration is more critical than exploitation to succeed in today's dynamic global markets. Likewise, research on gazelle growth highlights SMEs’ need to stay flexible, strategic in management, and active towards new customer groups and networks (Bamiatzi & Kirchmaier, 2014; Senderovitz et al., 2016). The network and brokerage governance perspective is vital in understanding sustained growth. As Davis and Eisenhardt (2011) suggest, competitive advantages in interdependent and dynamic environments, such as most high technology industries, must be much more fluid and collaborative to embrace network diversity and growth.

Rapid internationalizing and network governance

There has been considerable debate on what qualifies as rapid internationalizing entrepreneurs (Øyna & Alon, 2018). For example, Rennie (1993) initially argued that fast-growing ventures start exporting within two years of inception to at least one country, and the revenue generated is at least 75% of total revenue. Furthermore, Cavusgil and Knight (2015) recently described it as organizations with 25% of the total revenue from foreign sales within three years. There is a need for transparency in case selection, even though it still makes it problematic to compare across studies (Øyna & Alon, 2018). To be transparent, in this study, we select cases that have at least generated 75% of total revenue within the first three years. Therefore, we are strict in selecting rapid internationalizing entrepreneurs with digital platform businesses.

Hagen and Zucchella (2014) and Zahra (2014) address the missing focus on governance in rapidly internationalizing SMEs and network management. The international entrepreneurship perspective needs to include the outcome of internationalization and network management rather than only explaining, e.g. the time to internationalization, speed of global expansion, and the number of foreign markets entered and exited. Oviatt and McDougall (1994) identified four necessary and sufficient elements of sustainable international entrepreneurship (internalization of some transactions, alternative governance structure, foreign location advantage, and unique resources). This paper focuses on alternative governance structures by researching network dynamics and outcomes of the behavioural and control of the international design and position fundamental for sustained internationalization.

Later Oviatt & McDougall, 2005 theoretically pointed toward brokerage as the central governance and network mechanism of rapid international value creation. They argued that brokers often provide or benefit from opportunities across national borders between actors who want to conduct global business with each other. Furthermore, Burt and Soda (2021) recently argued that brokers’ competitive advantage stems from entrepreneurial network vision of breadth, timing, and arbitrage. The breadth advantage derives from access to diverse information and resources across structural holes. The timing advantage develops from their broker's position at the crossroads between other actors or networks. The arbitrage advantage comes from translating information/knowledge to new target groups for sustaining or bringing together actors. Therefore, brokers most likely have a competitive advantage of rapid and manageable international growth because they can govern, develop, and support their global network.

A simple way to explain brokerage is a firm or an actor that trades on gaps or holes in social network structures (Burt, 2004; Obstfeld et al., 2014). The purpose of such network brokerages is twofold:

1. the broker bridges one or more gaps in the network structure and

2. the broker helps goods, information, opportunities, or knowledge flow across that gap (Stovel & Shaw, 2012).

Brokerage is a complex behavioural and structural process (Obstfeld et al., 2014; Kwon et al., 2020) because ‘brokerage is the process of connecting actors in systems of social, economic, or political relations to facilitate access to valued resources’ (Stovel & Shaw, 2012). From a network perspective, the brokerage process explains how organizations can intermediate between unconnected actors, such as networks of supply and demand-side users (Kwon et al., 2020).

Digitalization may further increase the need for brokerage governance because digitalization enables greater integration with many different, potentially complementary, actors within a firm's network (Parker et al., 2017) and new, previously unforeseen actors (Andreassen et al., 2018). This can blur the lines between national boundaries and bring change and fluidity to networks around digital platforms (Rasmussen & Petersen, 2017). However, little is known about the dynamic mechanisms that support establishing, managing, and coordinating international entrepreneurs’ network linkages and digital platform communication (Ojala et al., 2018). This differs from traditional corporate SME and entrepreneurship governance literature since the focus has been on shareholders, board of directors, management teams, founder, and organizational structure (Li et al., 2020). Instead, brokerage as network governance can give a much-needed understanding of sustained growth (Provan & Kenis, 2007).

Nevertheless, ‘networks do not act but are the context for action’ (Burt, 2004). This quote reflects network processes, such as strategic communication within and between network actors, impact network outcomes and position advantages of internationalization. Thus, we must further tune in on Born Digitals’ platform business and how they coordinate, communicate and sustain the platform network.

Born Digitals and network sensegiving

Monaghan et al. (2020) argue that digital firms from inception named Born Digitals have different and potentially better network opportunities for internationalization than less digitalized firms. Digital firms rely on the Internet for their production, operating, and delivery processes. The digital economy provides scaling advantages for all new ventures and established organizations (Goldfarb & Tucker, 2019; Sridhar & Fang, 2019) and potential international growth opportunities. Born Digitals are born into this environment and, therefore, more capable of leveraging these particular economies of scale. Scale confers benefits of the lower unit cost of products and helps enhance profitability (Bharadwaj et al., 2013). Goldfarb and Tucker (2019) and Sridhar and Fang (2019) point toward five digital costs (scaling) advantages:

1. Search costs of information are lowered through available data. For example, apps commercialized through Android or Appstore can, free of cost, measure and analyze their user engagement and marketing campaigns and monetize the particular app through analytics programmes from the platform provider. In addition, third-party websites can improve transparency and make information available to users and customers. For example, Android Market or Google play provides information to users about how many downloaded the app.

2. Replication costs are significantly lowered compared to physical products. Digital technology has created digital products with a marginal cost close to zero because software developers can replicate their code, easily adjust, and increase reach through a global market platform, such as Android Market. Furthermore, open-source platforms amplify a digital cost advantage because, for instance, an app developer can obtain this code at no cost from open-source platforms, but it is also available for rivals and other actors.

3. Transportation costs are significantly lowered because digital technology is not physically constrained since the cost of transporting information and products from one place to another is close to zero through digitalization.

4. Tracking costs are reduced to zero tracking costs because of the advantage of data in a digital environment. As previously mentioned, app developers can track the customer journey through analytics programmes and their data from CRM databases.

5. Verification costs are dramatically lowered because of the digital validation of the identity and reputation of an agent. Product quality, review, ratings, and word of mouth are facilitated through third-party websites and platforms.

Born Digitals has scaling advantages and increased growth probability through radically lowered costs from businesses in a global digital environment. Compared to Born Globals and International New Ventures, Born Digitals’ growth and internationalization are dependent on their digital competitiveness and management. However, their network and management (governance) affect their digital advantage in scope, scale, speed, sources of value creation, and capture (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Srinivasan & Venkatraman, 2018).

This study focuses on Born Digitals, which are digital platform entrepreneurs. ‘Digital’ refers to the Internet's role in connecting distant network actors with unprecedented ease (Rasmussen & Petersen, 2017; Srinivasan & Venkatraman, 2018). ‘Platform’ refers to firms that serve multiple inter-connected markets in various types of exchange, such as buying and selling goods or producing and distributing information (Rasmussen & Petersen, 2017; Thomas et al., 2014). The success criteria for digital platform entrepreneurs with platform business models is to generate multi-stakeholder value and momentum in network effects (Andreassen et al., 2018; Benoit et al., 2017). This kind of platformication is disruptive in nature by creating digital spaces for collaboration, interaction and transaction (Andreini et al., 2022; Foss & Saebi, 2017) and thus a business model opportunity for entrepreneurs (Rasmussen & Petersen, 2023) by e.g. intermediating or brokering.

Digital platform firms can be defined as ‘a shared, common set of services and architecture that serves to host complimentary offerings’ (Nambisan, 2017, p. 1032). Platforms can operate as an organizational, product family, market intermediary, and platform ecosystem (Thomas et al., 2014). The market intermediary platform provides a networked marketplace that brings together producers and users or complementary offerings where firms can intervene and extract value from the engagement (Li et al., 2019). This extends the firm's network from established business relationships to end-users, local content producers, and other complementary asset firms. Digital platform-based firms mediate transactions between networks, relying on digital technology to do so (McIntyre & Srinivasan, 2017). However, the network needs to be developed and managed around the digital platform (Srinivasan & Venkatraman, 2018; Rasmussen & Petersen, 2017) to leverage platform action and the brokerage position over time.

A broker plays a crucial role in coordinating and sustaining the network (Kenis & Provan, 2009; Provan & Kenis, 2007). Through communication strategies, such as metaphors (Hill & Levenhagen, 1995), analogies, narratives (Cornelissen et al., 2012), and rhetorical strategies (Holt & Macpherson, 2010). In today's network-driven business landscape (Vahlne & Johanson, 2020), entrepreneurs’ or managers’ ability to influence and change others’ hearts and minds is perhaps the most significant skill that will give a business a competitive edge (Gallo, 2019). Likewise, Bonnstetter (2012) argues through a quantitative study that serial entrepreneurs’ top skill is the ability to communicate and persuade others for their entrepreneurial endeavours.

Sensegiving is thus significant because control and governance are centralized through brokerage but only sustained and influenced through the perception of (shared) value. Indeed, digital technology networks are co-created and commercially driven by meaning and sensemaking for the focal actor and the collective (Petersen & Rasmussen, 2021). That is, sensegiving is concerned with the process of attempting to influence the sensemaking and meaning construction of others (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991).

Rhetorical strategies have a practical approach to appeal to key stakeholders and networks, successfully applied through ethos, pathos, and logos by multinationals (Urde, 2016) and small entrepreneurial firms (Holt & Macpherson, 2010; Macpherson & Holt, 2007). The platform broker can give sense and act dynamically within the network through these three rhetoric strategies. To deliberately motivate, inform, or persuade the rhetorician agenda (Corbett & Connors, 1999). Thus, we need to understand digital entrepreneurs’ network governance behaviour and communication by emphasizing the influence of brokerage governance, vision, and the rhetorical micro-foundations of international network effectiveness and management. We must first understand how brokerage governance can be conceptualized using vision and rhetorical means, secondly, how it appeals to the network that creates and sustains a small firm's rapid internationalization.

1. those relating to the issue itself (logos);

2. those that are deriving from the organization's character, reputation (stories), actions (ethos), and

3. those that are appealing to the network audience's emotions (pathos).

Secondly, through the three rhetorical strategies, the actor can deliberate, inform, motivate or persuade other actors within a brokerage platform network. This becomes a network practice of blending and balancing interests, coordinating and bridging structural holes and sustaining international network communication.

Understanding an entrepreneur's business environment (digital platform governance, network, and internationalization) to develop a vision, then communicating to others and gaining support, is vital for continued growth (Hill & Levenhagen, 1995). It is argued by Holt and Macpherson (2010) that managers should use a mixture of logos, ethos, and pathos to address a variety of network actors’ interests simultaneously. Furthermore, Holt and Macpherson (2010) argue that it is not possible or desirable to attend to each separately, in sequence, or even to reconcile them. However, Urde (2016), in a longitudinal study of Volvo, shows that different periods of the company's communication can benefit from solid logos, pathos, or ethos argumentation separately, but in the end, they need to give a complete picture for their stakeholders. In other words, differentiation and rhetorical interaction rather than one-way communication are adding value to companies’ network actors by appealing from the standpoint of reason and understanding (logos), instilling trust through its character and brokerage actions (ethos) – and appealing to emotions and the individual network will (pathos). Therefore, we develop a framework emphasizing the brokers’ digital platform network governance, vision, and rhetorical means for network management and internationalization.

Consequently, this paper considers how digital entrepreneurial firms orchestrate the international platform network through the framework of brokerage governance, vision, and rhetorical strategies in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Platformication of governance, brokerage and rhetoric for internationalization.

Data and method

The case study methodology is advantageous in researching rapid internationalization and entrepreneurship (Fletcher et al., 2018). Especially processes in and around networks (Bizzi & Langley, 2012). Since it captures the content (communication), structure (network), function (brokerage), and context (global and digital) through several data sources (interviews, archival data, observation, company records, etc.) to provide a valid and rich description of the cases, including the networks, and their evolution (Halinen & Törnroos, 2005). To research the multilevel nature of international business and entrepreneurship (Coviello et al., 2017). We are employing an embedded case study to understand different subunits of analysis (Yin, 2009) impact on Born Digitals’ internationalization. The central subunits of analysis are researched at the outset from the developed framework (FIGURE 1 – Digital platform brokerage and internationalization). The first unit of analysis is network governance, brokerage, and interactions. The second unit of analysis is the firm, responsible manager, and rhetorical strategies. By understanding the micro-meso foundation of Born Digitals’ internationalization, we can explore how they develop and sustain their growth within an increasingly globalized and digitalized business landscape. The case study as methodology is adept at uncovering how research questions in natural contemporary settings (Yin, 2009). (Figure 2)

Figure 2. Embedded case study levels of analysis.

This case study is part of a substantial research project on SMEs and network dynamics in Denmark's public-funded Health and Welfare cluster. As Yin (2009) argues, two cases are selected because more related cases can enhance robustness. Hence replication logic is used since both cases operate in the same industry, work as Born Digitals with digital platform business, and have similar organizational characteristics; both are spinoffs from Danish universities.

This case study design is longitudinal to uncover brokerage behaviour, network interactions, and rhetorical strategies over time. To deal with different subunits in this study, a quantitative network survey of 189 cluster members (2014), observation of 10 cluster events, and 30 interviews (2014-2017) are conducted to understand network governance, positions, interactions, actors, and their communication strategies. In addition, data from other sources, e.g. membership interviews and surveys by the cluster organization, consultants, or the Danish Ministry of Education and Research, innovation projects follow-up research on new products or digital services to understand their industry, digital platforms, users, and customers.

The two selected cases are both from this cluster setting and have been part of multiple internationalization events. For instance, both firms were part of a market visit in the United Kingdom (2015-2016) in which the paper's first author observed the case firms’ pitch and networking with new foreign partners. This is especially important because their rhetorical strategies become visible to the researcher and shown in action. Other retrospective data are also important, such as interviews with the case firms, their network, written statements on their website, financial information, PowerPoints, and investor material. It means that data has an overall longitudinal span from 2014 to 2020. This corresponds to (Holt & Macpherson's, 2010) argument that further quality will be added to research by studying the dynamics of rhetorical strategies in real-time and retrospective data over time. The two cases are selected to answer the research question because of their digital platform entrepreneurship and international business. Both firms develop health apps in a global network within the health sector. This provides a unique setting and timespan to research the case network internationalization process and how they sustain growth.

Multiple case description

Case1: Firm X was founded in 2005, and Case 2: Firm Y was founded in 2013. Both companies are spinoffs from Danish universities. Firms X and Y are global from their foundation because of their roots in an extensive international research network. For instance, Firm X was founded to develop a scientifically proven health platform. The healthcare platform targets the prevention of lifestyle diseases and patient support, including the 21 most extensive chronic diseases ranging from diabetes and sclerosis to obesity and osteoporosis. In addition, the company has purposefully developed solutions for different patient groups within these disease areas. The solutions are used in municipalities, hospitals, health centres, researchers, and private companies. Firm X has participated in and initiated over eight Ph.D. and research projects to validate the effects of the health platform on different citizen and patient groups. Likewise, Firm Y has a tradition of clinical and technological innovation that has led to participation in more than 20 research projects, and over 70 articles have been published about the use of the solution in different areas of suffering and clinical contexts. Institutions have bought access to Firm Y's solution, and some have been based on grants or donations from various programs that provided subsidies to cover all or part of the direct costs. The revenue initially for both cases comes from subscription payments, consulting services, and contributions from research projects. However, both cases are highly commercial in selling their m-health platform.

In 2020 Firm Y has more than eight nationalities working at the company, their Software-a-Service (SaaS) solution is working in nine languages, and the solution is implemented in nine countries (Denmark, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Australia, and the USA). 76% of their revenue is generated outside of Denmark, and there has been a 78% growth in commercial growth compared to 2019. Firm Y has physical offices in Denmark and the UK. Partners are used for internationalization to more far placed areas like the USA. Likewise, Firm X has more than 95 health projects sold and, therefore, solid experience in market data, design, concept and technical development, and international commercialization of their solutions. They initially collaborated with and became global from the first customer with one of the largest multinational pharma companies in the world. Subsequently, they have internationalized to 14 countries (US, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Latvia, Turkey, Lithuania, Sweden, Norway, Greenland, Australia, Dubai, and Qatar), and 90% of their revenue is generated outside Denmark. They have distribution partners in Germany, France, the Middle East, and the US.

Case analysis

The research allows an understanding of the firms’ context and the meso-micro foundation of rapid international growth. The first section analyses the two case firms’ context and meso level of network governance, brokerage position, behaviour, and interactions. The second subunit section explores rhetorical means and communication in the two cases. Each analysis subunit starts with a within-case analysis and then a cross-case search for patterns iteratively comparing emergent to the prior developed framework (Figure 1). In other words, how entrepreneur(s), their network, management, and actions affect firm-level outcomes. Thus, seeking a robust case analysis goes from data to theory and vice versa (Yin, 2009).

1. Subunit of analysis

From the two cases that both participated in the network survey, the researchers can visualize their focal network structure from their answers. However, 115 firms from the cluster setting received the survey with an overall response rate of 38.3% in answering the question: Please specify which other cluster members; your firm has cooperated with within the last 12 months. (Drop Down menu with all the 189 members in 2015 with search function). The questionnaire asked about the company's partner(s) in the cluster network in the questionnaire. Collaboration was understood as an organization from which the company had gained knowledge, information, or resources within the last 12 months (Figure 3).

Figure 3. A network visualization.

To illustrate Firm X and Y's network behaviour and position, the network visualization above is aggregated from both cases’ survey answers and enriched through interviews with a responsible business development manager from each case. This is important as the network survey is limited to cluster members. To understand their international network and ongoing dynamics, interviews added extra needed detail. The visualization shows a complex network where the multi-sided digital platform broker has a central and coordinating role. This is further qualified through interviews with the case firms and some of their collaborators. We have analysed interviews, including statements from both sides of the relationship.

‘The digital work and collaboration performed by Firm X really helped us steer towards the right initiatives in a multi-stakeholder environment that includes patients, relatives, nurses, and doctors’ Head of Research at an international research institution.

It shows that Firm X has a central brokerage role and can create value for all stakeholders through network governance. This also matches Firm X's understanding of their role, position, and needed coordination behaviour to create value. However, they also emphasize the importance of the end-user for digital (SaaS) platform commercialization.

‘We have chosen to focus on the end-user, developing an ecosystem. The system must bring together all health actors and create solutions that consider stakeholders in the health system across hospitals, municipalities, universities, and private actors. With this approach, we will create an automatic demand from users, citizens, patients, or employees to use the solutions.’ Business Develop Manager from Firm X.

Likewise, Firm Y has a central role in brokerage and network governance. The case firm and other critical collaborators in their network also state this:

‘There were many things that we needed to get tailored to our form of dialectical behaviour therapy. At the same time, we also needed evidence and research into how we can ensure the greatest possible value for the therapists and patients. We wanted to learn and collaborate with the right digital partner within a complex interest network’. Consultant in Production, Research, and Innovation in one of the 5 Regions in Denmark.

This quote indicates that Firm Y is central in managing and coordinating needs and interests around the health app. The health apps are not simple innovation and communication but complex co-creation that needs to be coordinated by the case firm.

‘..you have to be more of a partner, and we are really good at that. So they also see that it's not just a customer-producer relationship but a little more of a partnership and an opportunity to develop things together. We attach great importance to this, and it is essential as we have our DNA from research.’ Business Develop Manager from Firm Y.

The quote from the business developer manager at Firm Y also shows that it takes a high level of relational investment to become a central partner within the network. The business development manager acknowledges the other partners’ contribution to creating a valuable digital solution and platform. The process is understood as something similar to international research projects with co-creation, generating novel valuable knowledge and solutions benefitting the individual and network overall.

Our cross-case analysis of Firm X and Firm Y shows that their network is rich in structural holes, with both firms having a central position. The prominent positions are obtained through brokerage, digital platforms, and network behaviour. The broker facilitates communication and coordinates knowledge and resources within the network. The individual network actors value the broker for promoting the flow of information and communication as long as the actors get access to valued resources and knowledge. Both supply and demand side within the network needs the brokers and vice versa. Comparing Firm X and Y's brokerage governance (Provan & Kenis, 2007) and advantage (Burt & Soda, 2021), both cases have a clear vision of leading and orchestrating their platform network through breadth and timing advantages. That is breadth advantage through access to diverse information across structural holes and timing advantage because of position at crossroads between other actors and networks. They differ, however, in terms of their arbitrage advantage of translating information and knowledge to new target groups for sustaining or bringing together actors. Firm X at their foundation focused on their intermediate role between research and the other actors within their network. However, they now focus to a higher degree on the other commercial partners, bringing and collaborating on a platform, not for research purposes, but value aimed at the end-user for commercial success.

‘We used to focus on developing scientifically proven health programs, but our vision is to create a unified platform solution. Where we can be the ones who, among other things, deliver the entire front-end part and this layer towards the users – with both the patient and the citizen, but at the same time also the health professionals – but at the same time also integrate against those who are providers in relation to devices and such. So we can make some completely unique products along the way, taking into account the entire ecosystem that must function so that we can deliver some targeted products to the end users and have a long-lasting effect as well’. Business Develop Manager from Firm X.

Firm X has shifted their focus from predominantly research actors to end-users by translating its knowledge about platforms to end-users for commercial success. Whereas Firm Y still focuses on nurturing research relations because they provide a differentiation advantage, as seen in the following quote:

‘Our platform is much more than mood trackers and smartphone apps currently available in the market, who want to track their mood, stress, or anxiety over time through simple ‘mental health apps.’ Our solution is a comprehensive psychiatric solution co-developed with research that optimises the monitoring of patients, helps identify behavioural patterns and medication issues, and supports the efficient communication and information flow between patients and clinicians in real-time.’ Co-founder from Firm Y.

Overall, both Firm X and Firm Y have a much more dynamic and behavioural role than structural since the brokers facilitate interaction between actors and actively communicate the strength of managing the network for the collectively good. This leads to investigating the micro foundation for rapid international growth in the next section.

2. Subunit of analysis

Firm X and Y strategically use their rhetorical means of ethos, logos, and pathos within their network governance and further platform development and new app projects. Some observations from pitch and networking events, their communication to different stakeholders and shareholders from flyers, investor material, website, and PowerPoint presentation show some clear tendencies that the two cases have three different main argumentation strategies to various stakeholders and shareholders. The following findings are aggregated from both cases (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Argumentation strategies.

Overall, it is clear that both companies have balanced rhetoric and different interactions. To manage and grow their business, the previous record of accomplishment, their global network, and collaboration competence with specialists in end-user value creation are used to sustain the brokerage role and further develop their network of internationalization. Both are actively working with the ethos to become credible and attractive platform partners and network managers. The primary target group for this communication is customers, business partners, and new shareholders. The shareholders are becoming increasingly vital for international growth; for instance, in the USA as a business development manager at Firm X argues:

‘We can, for example, easily see ourselves working more in the USA – huge market and huge potential – but that is just another kind of business. Then we cannot just drive it through organic growth; you have to take in 30–40 million.’

Both firms are driven as stock-based corporations and have specific content for their shareholders. In recent years, their sensegiving has started to emphasize how the firms work with the UN's sustainable development goals. This is the strategy to become more credible and profitable for problems at the society level in their investment business case. The following presentation quote from Firm X shows how they try to persuade dominantly through ethos and logos:

‘Firm X cooperates closely with world-leading industrial and scientific partners who have contributed to developing randomized trials and scientific documentation studies where the platform is being tested.’

Likewise, an interview statement from a business development manager from Firm Y also highlights the importance of ethos and logos in new partnerships and customer relationships:

‘You cannot make a product overnight, and then people will use it. Everyone is looking at the evidence.’

Ethos and logos are vital for sustaining and entering new health app projects. Nevertheless, as both firms have stated, end-user communication and value are essential for maintaining the health app platform. Appealing to the end-user is through emotions rather than rationality and credibility. Specific pathos messages are developed, such as better life quality, empowerment, and personal control.

In sum, across cases of both Firm X and Firm Y use the rhetorical means of ethos, logos, and pathos for their network governance and digital platform growth. They adapt their rhetorical strategies and means of interaction toward different interest groups. Overall, the complete picture of their rhetorical efforts and strategies with various means of communication reinforces their brokerage role through selected means for network coordination and international growth.

Discussion

International small firm growth can be a complex task of entrepreneurship, management, and governance. Digital platform innovation and internationalization are fluid and interchangeable in the case studies. Both firms benefit from scaling advantages within the digital economy (Goldfarb & Tucker, 2019; Sridhar & Fang, 2019). But they need to develop and sustain their digital platform governance and brokerage to survive and grow. In other words, digital platform innovation, scaling, and growth lead to internationalization, and vice versa.

This platform action (platformication) gave the small entrepreneurial firms opportunities and constraints on international growth and network development. The case firms must be able to sustain and manage their digital platform network and bridge new health app projects to grow their network. Thus, this finding is related to other research stating that a growth firm's idiosyncratic means are vital in a combination of multiple different strategies that best stimulate their competitive (network) resources for growth (Bamiatzi & Kirchmaier, 2014). Specifically, other network actors need differentiated communication with different degrees of ethos, logos, and pathos arguments on a group level. However, all three means are vital in creating network commitment and reinforcing the strength of the rhetorical arguments. Thus, sustained growth depends on a delicate balance between openness and stability of critical entrepreneurial and managerial resources (Hagen & Zucchella, 2014) and network knowledge integration, governing, and coordination through rhetorical means around digital innovation projects with new and old stakeholders. This broadens the unit of analysis to include context and meso-micro foundation levels of international and digital entrepreneurship.

Theoretical contribution

Digitalization and globalization play a critical role in network interactions and management on a meso and macro level. Theoretically, it has been argued (Coviello et al., 2017) that we need to focus on the macro context and micro foundation of international growth to advance research in the field. Whereas rhetorical strategies on the micro-level influence network development (meso level) and the level of digitalization and globalization in a macro context. This complicates research, but through longitudinal case studies that consist of real-time observation and retrospective data, researchers can get insights into the black box of managing rapid international growth and brokering networks of digital platforms.

Further research

Future research could further improve the link between an entrepreneur's agency and structure in studying rapid growth. Because as found in this study and others (Holt & Macpherson, 2010), they are elements of a double-edged sword. Small firms act and often become challenged by the structure of opportunities and constraints in their environment. An example from this study enables global health app projects, the entrepreneurial brokers, to become a central coordinator around digital platforms between large organizations (powerful actors) and individuals, but only through its sensegiving and ability to handle individual and collective value, potential conflicts, role confusion or role conflicts. This has methodological consequences because it demands data for multiple analysis units and a variety of sources with a longitudinal timespan. Even though an embedded case study (Yin, 2009) seems suitable, which incorporates the former mentioned methodological elements. No authentic life case study design is generic because of difficulties in defining and delimiting the case, such as entrepreneurial actions and networks. For instance, a business case network is regarded as an arbitrary boundary (Halinen & Törnroos, 2005) because its context extends without borders through connected relationships. Therefore, prior theory (Yin, 2009) and other researchers (Halinen & Törnroos, 2005) could inform case design and selection.

Another theoretical way could be through the sensemaking perspective (Weick et al., 2005). Entrepreneurs or managers enact their context through the ecological change in which extracted cues and retrospective selection affect the retention of alleged actions and structures. The perspective is related to today's critical managerial challenges for c-level executives and owner-managers across industries: How to shift from a customer-centric to a digital multi-stakeholder and data-driven organization within its (network) environment? This should be reflected in strategy development, decisions, and realization (Morgan et al., 2019) and, thus, how they make sense and create digital opportunities (Weick et al., 2005). Brokers can play a significant role as digital innovation sensemakers for network partners’ commercial strategies and outcomes (Petersen & Rasmussen, 2021). However, it is not enough to make sense; entrepreneurs or managers need to give sense in which they actively can legitimate their institutional actions and communication through metaphors, analogies, narratives (Cornelissen et al., 2012), or rhetorical strategies (Holt & Macpherson, 2010). Sensegiving is future-oriented, and it occurs when entrepreneurial managers try to communicate what change, innovation, and transformation mean to other network actors, such as employees, customers, and investors, for commitment. This has critical practical implications, because the chosen language and communication form, function and meaning influence actors sensemaking. That is, how entrepreneurs strategically use and give sense through e.g. rhetorical means is seen in recent digital media, such as social media, website engagement, and crowdfunding platforms. For instance, Tafesse (2021) investigated the performance implication of 8000 reward-based crowdfunding campaigns from kickstarter.com. His research points out that emotional (pathos) and informational (logos) campaigns differ in funding success, moderated by the product's tangibility and intangibility (service, experience) as well as vividness in a media form (text, pictures, video). Thus, entrepreneurs should strategically use their rhetorical means differentiated depending on target groups, product types, formats, and media outlets.

Nevertheless, it is essential not to forget the meso level of the focal actor's resources, governance, and networks because this may be what keeps the double-edged sword sharp or a blunt blade. Brokerage can play a role through entrepreneurial vision advantages (Burt, 2004; Burt & Soda, 2021) and governing coordinated actions for the individual and collective network benefits (Obstfeld et al., 2014; Provan & Kenis, 2007). This extends governance research to include the entrepreneurial behaviour and management of networks for growth as a focal unit of analysis. Here the networks must be understood broadly as social, personal, organizational, and inter-organizational by the boards of directors, managers, responsible employees, key shareholders, and other stakeholders.

Conclusion

Rapid international growth is managed by the case firms’ digital platform co-creation and network brokerage. The cases within this study do not have individual control and administration of their product or services because their success depends on their value co-creation network. The health apps only become created, communicated, and commercialized through shared interests and benefits to their network's individual and collective needs. This becomes a network practice of blending and balancing interests, coordinating and bridging structural holes and sustaining international network sensegiving. Therefore, we can observe in the data that digital innovation and internationalization are fluid and happen interchangeably in the case of firms. However, there is a need for a brokerage position and coordination behaviour around the digital platform network. The brokers’ rhetorical strategies are essential in sustaining and developing the network and creating new projects and networks. The rhetorical strategies help the broker communicate effectively and efficiently within complex networks. Ethos and logos are essential to the customers, business partners, and shareholders. At the same time, pathos is most effective in appealing to users, such as healthcare workers, patients, citizens, and employees, to commercialize the digital platform. Overall, the broker's rhetoric creates vital means for successful collaboration within their network in which they adapt dynamic communication for differentiated interactions depending on their actors’ interests and needs. Their rhetoric adapts over time toward more ethos appealing to shareholders to support continued growth through their communication of a sustainable business investment case.

In conclusion, the platformication through brokers’ governance, position, and sensegiving have a crucial influence on the case firm's networks of internationalization and its long-term survival and growth. Nevertheless, there must be a common thread between ethos, logos, and pathos arguments between network groups of interest and needs. They reinforce each other's view for managing ‘old’ networks and spreading them through good bridging to new digital platform actors, projects, and networks. Bridging can overcome liability interest conflicts and network lock-ins or outsider disadvantages for international and global growth.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).