The Asian Journal of Technology Management Vol. XX No.

X (20XX): XX-XX

Indonesian Fintech Business: New Innovations or Foster and Collaborate

in Business Ecosystems?
Adrian Teja
School of Business and Economics, Universitas Prasetiya Mulya, Indonesia

Abstract. There are many innovative products fail to reach minimum critical mass adopter and cease to exist. New financial technology
products are not an exception, because current financial technology to facilitate transactions, whether payment, investment, and insurance
still function remarkably well. Since new financial technology products have features to better serve low to middle level customers in the
form of higher convenience level and lower costs than the current financial technology products, the initiatives to ensure their success is
imperative. Thus, the purpose of this study is to present propositions based on literature review to encourage companies to simultaneously
have two competencies, first competencies in new product development and second, competencies to foster and collaborate with other
companies in within and across business ecosystems. The implications of this paper are companies with higher competencies to foster and
collaborate with other companies, even though they start with relatively basic innovative product, have higher probability to reach minimum
critical mass of adopter and higher probability to become leader in their business ecosystem and government need to maintain their active
role to foster collaboration within and across business ecosystem.

Keywords: Business ecosystem, business ecosystems leader, collaboration, fintech (financial technology), new product development.

1. Introduction companies; the second category is lending

with 22 fintech companies; the third category
Global investment in financial technology is investment and wealth management with
(fintech) industry is growing rapidly. KPMG 14 fintech companies and the fourth category
(2015), as one of big four auditor companies, is insurance with 7 fintech companies. These
reported that global investment in fintech four categories accounted for 68% of the
companies for the year 2013 reached US$ 5 total number of most innovative fintech
billion, which increased 240% to US$ 12 companies.
billion in 2014, and reached US$ 20 billion in
2015, or increase 66% from the previous year. In Indonesia, fintech products usually refer
KPMG then analyzed and chose fintech to m-payment (mobile payment) products.
companies from 19 countries and picked 100 All major bank, mobile network operators,
companies as the most innovative fintech securities and brokerage companies, and e-
companies. Based on country of origin, there commerce platforms already developing their
are 40 fintech companies from America, 20 unique version of fintech products, for
fintech companies from the EMEA (Europe, example Bank BCA with Sakuku, Bank
the Middle East and Africa), 18 fintech Tabungan Pensiunan Nasional (BTPN) with
companies from the United Kingdom, 12 Jenius, Telkomsel with t-Cash, GoJek with
fintech companies from Asia, and 10 fintech Go-Jek credit, and many more.
companies from Australia and New Zealand.
Standard recommendation for new product
There are four major categories based on development is almost always developing
fintech products. The first category is superior products (Zhou, 2013). The
transaction and payment with 25 fintech objective of new financial technology
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Received: April 19th, 2017; Revised: July 20th, 2017; Accepted: July 27th, 2017
Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12695/ajtm.20XX.X.X.X
Print ISSN: 1978-6956; Online ISSN: 2089-791X.
Copyright@2017. Published by Unit Research and Knowledge
School of Business and Management-Institut Teknologi Bandung
21
 The Asian Journal of Technology Management Vol. 10 No. 1 (2017): 21-29

products is to replace current financial question what variable that may increase the
technology products. The problem is current likelihood of innovative product success in
financial technology products still function achieving minimum critical mass of early
remarkably well and user do not need to adopter. One concept that gaining popularity
change their usage habit that pose is business ecosystem, companies need to co-
tremendous challenge for new financial evolve with other companies to succeed
technology products to succeed. (Moore, 1993). Based on business ecosystem
perspective, the purpose of this paper is to
Hyytinen, Pajarinen, & Rouvinen (2015) address three research questions. What is the
stated that companies that focus their main importance role of business ecosystem
attention to development of product relative to innovativeness of new product in
superiority tend to fail. There are many cases achieving minimum critical mass of early
of superior financial technology product fail adopter? What is the role of business
to replace current financial technology ecosystem leader to foster and collaborate
product even though the new financial within business ecosystems? What is the role
technology product is being offered by big of different business ecosystems leader to
companies and market leader in their foster and collaborate across business
industries. For example, Nokia in 1997 ecosystems? This paper provide the
introduced m-payment using Short Message underlying logic and findings for companies
Services (SMS) in Finland to pay soft drinks to have competencies to foster and
bought from Coca Cola vending machine. collaborate within and across business
This innovative payment method failed to ecosystem. The findings on this paper also
achieve the minimum critical mass of early intended to urge government to maintain
adopter even though Nokia once able to active role to foster collaboration within and
become one of the largest global mobile across business ecosystems.
phone firms; NTT DoCoMo in 1997
introduced DCMX, another m-payment 2. Literature Study and Hypothesis
product, however, this product had limited Development
market acceptance. DCMX was accepted
only in Japan so this new financial product The success of new innovative product
failed to become a global m-payment product. influenced by the company competencies to
Both companies fail to reach minimum coevolve, i.e. cooperate and compete, with
critical mass of early adopter, Nokia in home other companies within and across business
market and NTT DoCoMo in global market. ecosystems to support and satisfy customer
needs. The concept as introduced by Moore
There also success story of new product (1993) and gain widespread acceptance to
development. The first one regarding success systematically explain the importance role of
story of innovative product developed by business ecosystems in adoption and speed
innovative companies with other companies of adoption of new innovative product to
within same business ecosystems. For reach minimum critical mass of early adopter.
example, Microsoft’s Windows Operating Subsequent business ecosystem literatures
Systems and Minitab’s Statistical Software. that follow Moore’s insight will be used in
The second one regarding success story of literature review and hypothesis development
innovative product developed by companies for Indonesia fintech business ecosystems.
from different business ecosystems. For
example, Microsoft Corporation as software 2.1. Fintech Business Ecosystem
developer collaboration with Intel There are literally thousands of possible ideas
Corporation as hardware developer. for innovation. The idea for innovation can
Microsoft Corporation able to collaborate be sourced within the company and through
within and across business ecosystem to collaboration with other companies (Mu,
reach minimum critical mass of early adopter Thomas, Peng, & Di Benedetto, 2016).
Different story of innovative product raise Finding combination of ideas that can reach

22
Teja, Indonesian Fintech Business: New Innovations or Foster and Collaborate in Business Ecosystems?

minimum critical mass of early adopter in the towards business ecosystem development.
shortest time possible is the key (Schemmann,
Herrmann, Chappin, & Heimeriks, 2016). There are also three levels of resource
integration. First, resource integration is
Dujarric and Hagiu (2009) and Rong, Hu, communication encounters, which refers to
Hou, Ma, and Shi (2013) argue that company consensus building and creates shared
that focus only on existing competencies face identity in the business ecosystem. Second,
risks of making the wrong innovation. It is resource integration is implementation and
easier to develop new product based on support encounters which refers to the
existing competencies than develop new identification and organization of micro-
product based on user need. It is also more specialized competencies that belong to
comfortable for companies to maintain the different stakeholders into complex resources
status quo. integration. Third, resource integration is the
same implementation and support encounter
User diverse needs provide opportunities for which formalizes synergy amongst
company to develop several ideas for product stakeholders. The combination of motives
innovation simultaneously. Since company’s and resource integration determine the level
resource is limited, company need to of collaboration between companies.
collaborate with other company to overcome
resources limitation to improve their new Based on above discussion, I propose
product offering and reduce time needed for hypothesis as follow:
user to adopt the new product (Shim & Shin, Competencies to foster and collaborate within business
2016; Guo & Bouwman, 2016). ecosystem are more important than competencies to
Collaboration among companies also needed develop new innovative product in achieving minimum
because it is an enormous task to change critical mass of early adopter.
consumer habitual choice from the current
product to a new product, and there are no 2.2. Fintech Business Ecosystem Leader
companies big enough to force consumer According to Dujarric and Hagiu (2009) a
adoption of the new product. business ecosystem leader is defined by three
elements. The first element is business
When companies collaborate with other ecosystem leader controls the key standard
companies within an industry, they create a and interfaces in the industries, which will
business ecosystem that promote common enable various ecosystem stakeholders to
business process and infrastructure sharing to work with each other. The second element is
increase the density of the knowledge rapidly business ecosystem leader controls the timing
(Clarysse, Wright, Bruneel, & Mahajan, 2014, and the pace of innovation in the industry.
Graca & Camarinha-Matos, 2017). There are times when business ecosystem
leaders need to set the pace and the direction
Pera, Occhiocupo, and Clarke (2016) of innovation. However, there are also times
suggested collaboration motives and resource when business ecosystems leaders should
integration among stakeholders need to be reduce their role and let the market lead the
developed simultaneously. There are three pace and the direction of innovation. The
motives for collaboration. First, reputation third element is business ecosystem leader
motive, this refers to how collaboration may measured by their ability to expropriate a
enrich company reputation. Second, large share of the value created by the entire
experimentation motive which refers to how business ecosystem.
to create hybridize structures and tools from
other companies from different lines of Zahra and Nambisan (2012) proposed four
industries to use in their ecosystems. Third, types of dynamic interplay between business
relationship motive which refers to ecosystems leaders and other stakeholders in
strengthening ties among stakeholders in a business ecosystem in figure 1. From
order to create a mutual feeling of urgency perspective of business ecosystems leader,

23
 The Asian Journal of Technology Management Vol. 10 No. 1 (2017): 21-29

Jam Center Stage do not have permanent or gamers in order to develop new products
business ecosystems leader and the other using a well-defined technology or platform.
three stages, i.e. Orchestra Stage, Creative
Bazaar Stage, and MOD (Modification) As previously mentioned, Jam Center Stage
Station Stage do have permanent business have no permanent leaders that set pace and
ecosystems leader. direction of innovation. This also implies
market want is not well defined and
Innovation constantly changing that put considerable
Source pressure for new innovative product to
succeed. While Orchestra Stage, Creative
Leader Crowd Bazaar Stage, and MOD Station Stage have
business leader that set the pace and direction
of innovation that increase the likelihood for
Initiating Orchestra Jam Center new products to succeed.

Growth Stages Based on above discussion, I propose

hypothesis as follow:
Advance Creative Bazaar MOD Station Business ecosystems leader is central to the viability of
business ecosystems through setting pace and direction
of innovation.

Figure 1. Dynamic Interplay within The

Business Ecosystem. 2.3. Fintech Business Ecosystem Leader
Collaboration Within and Across Business
In the initiating growth stage, there are two Ecosystems
models of dynamic interaction. The first To break from Jam Center Stage, companies
dynamic interaction is Jam Center Stage, need to adopt ‘get big fast’ stage to achieve
which refers to the improvised nature of critical mass minimum early adopter in the
innovation and lack of centralized leadership. shortest time possible. Research from Oliva,
The second dynamic interaction is Orchestra Sterman, and Giese (2003) shows ‘get big fast’
Stage which refers to dominant companies or strategy that focuses only on low pricing and
business ecosystem leaders that set the pace heavy marketing campaign while their
and direction of other companies’ capability to fulfill orders or provide high-
innovations. quality services cannot catch up with the
market demand poised to fail. Sterman,
In the advanced growth stage, there are also Henderson, Beinhocker and Newman (2007)
two models of dynamic interaction. The first also argued that ‘get big fast’ strategy
dynamic interaction is Creative Bazaar Stage, increases the risk of overcapacity in the
which refers to business ecosystem leader industry. Companies that are able to address
activity in acquiring innovations from other the above issues are more likely to become
companies to create new competencies and business ecosystem leaders.
unlock new opportunities. The second
dynamic interaction is the MOD ‘Get big fast’ cannot be executed alone. It has
(Modification) Station Stage, which refers to to be done with other companies to create
the company’s inability to fully comprehend quasi-monopolies to entice and grow
and service diverse market wants. This network of user and transform user into
condition force companies to give their user-developer to gain more acceptance (Lu,
customers opportunities to create their Rong, You and Shi, 2014). When companies
modifications and distribute the new collaborate with other companies whether
modified products to other customers. For they are from same industry or different
example: games industries have long tradition industry, they will create systemic innovation
in nurture close relationships with their users (Maula, Keil & Salmenkaita, 2006).

24
Teja, Indonesian Fintech Business: New Innovations or Foster and Collaborate in Business Ecosystems?

Transformation of user into user-developer enhanced if two or more business ecosystem

may unlock new opportunities (Overholm, collaborates. For example when bank and
2014; McKelvey, Zaring, & Ljungberg, 2015). mobile network operator collaborate, they
may economize their marketing efforts
Adopting new product is an imitation process, further and increase the speed of customer
it is important to have adjacent early adopter adoption. If node 1, node 3, and node 7 are
to provide powerful word of mouth effect the customer of the same bank and the same
(Chu & Sung, 2015). Assuming new imitation mobile network operator, then node 8, who
and adoption of new fintech products happen to be customer of the same bank and
require two adjacent users, i.e. friends, the same mobile network operator, may be
colleagues, repsented by two nodes that induced to imitate and adopt the new
already adopt the new product. Company product because node 1, node 3, and node 7
that only have one early adopter represented have already adopt the product. If node 3,
by node 1 or scattered early adopter node 7, and node 8 already adopt the product,
represented by node 1 and node 4 or node 6, node 9, node 10, and node 11 will follow the
the network of user will not grow because same logic and adopt the new product. This
there are no influence from 2 adjacent nodes. adoption across bank and mobile network
But when the company succeed in adding operator may be achieved without large
another early adopter adjacent to node 1 and marketing efforts. The collaboration will
represented by node 2, the companies now ensure the attainment of increasing return of
have two adjacent of user. The adoption of scale for both the bank and mobile network
node 1 and node 2 will induce node 3 to operators. I present the imitation process
adopt the new product because 2 adjacent between business ecosystems in figure 3.
nodes, i.e. node 1 and node 2, already use the
product. The process then is repeated to
node 4, node 5, node 6, and node 7. The 6 5 4
node 2 is the key node that enables the
product adoption across the network. Hence,
rather than keep on increasing marketing
expense to increase awareness to the entire 7 2 3
network, companies should focus their
attention to identify and put marketing effort
to node 1 and node 2. I present the imitation
process within business ecosystem in figure 2. 1 Bank

4 3

Mobile Network
1 Operator

5 2 1
7 8 3

11 10 9
6 7

Figure 3. New product adoption network

Figure 2. New Product Adoption Network. across two business ecosystems.

The benefit of collaboration will be The prospect of growing faster than their

25
 The Asian Journal of Technology Management Vol. 10 No. 1 (2017): 21-29

competitors using collaboration between founded in 2012, Tapp founded in 2013,

industries and business ecosystems reduces Padipay founded in 2013, Mandiri e-cash
the need for the most innovative product founded in 2013.Veritrans founded in 2013,
because customers may not be ready to adopt XL Tunai founded in 2013, Dimo founded in
the most innovative product. 2014, Ipaymu founded in 2014, Xendit
founded in 2014, Veryfund founded in 2015,
Based on above discussion, I propose and Kesles founded in 2015. The third
hypothesis as follow: category is point of sales, e.g. Pawoon
Collaboration between business ecosystem leaders founded in 2013, Omega Pos Cloud founded
within and across business ecosystem increase the in 2013, Dealpos founded in 2013, Moka
innovative products likelihood to achieve minimum founded in 2014 and Olsera founded in 2015.
critical mass of early adopter in the shortest time The fourth category is lending, e.g. Mekar
possible. founded in 2013, Taralite founded in 2015,
Pinjam founded in 2015, Uangteman
founded in 2015, Kredivo founded in 2015,
3. Methodology Investree founded in 2015, and Modalku
founded in 2016. The fifth category is
Following approach Woo, Pettit, Kwak, and accounting, e.g. AkuntingMudah founded in
Beresford (2011), I selected journal from 2013, Jurnal founded in 2014,and jojonomic
database ScienceDirect using main keyword founded in 2015. The sixth category is
‘business ecosystems’, ‘fintech or mobile comparison, e.g. Halomoney founded 2013,
payment’, and ‘social network analysis’ and Cekaja founded 2013, Rajapremi founded in
additional keyword ‘collaboration’ and 2013, DuitPintar founded in 2013, Pasarpolis
‘cooperation’. For literature review, I use founded in 2014, Cekpremi founded in 2014,
keyword ‘systematic literature review’. Total AturDuit founded in 2014, and Cermati
110 papers were obtained from ScienceDirect founded in 2015, The seventh category is
journal database. 35 papers were identified crowd funding, e.g. Mapan founded in 2009,
for fintech or mobile payment. 35 papers Wujudkan founded in 2012, Kitabisa founded
were identified for social network analysis. 32 in 2013, GandengTangan founded in 2015.
papers were identified for business The eighth category is crypto currency, e.g.
ecosystems. 8 papers were identified for Bitcoin.co.id founded in 2013 and Quione
systematic literature review. I used relevant founded in 2014.
papers to answer the research questions and
provide additional support using data Indonesia-Investments (2016) showed that
obtained from reputable news websites. smart phone users reached 65.2 million in
2016 and the internet penetration rate
reached 100 million relative to 260 million
4. Finding and Discussion populations in Indonesia. Even though the
number of Indonesia’s smart phone and
4.1. Fintech Business Ecosystem internet users is relatively high, the users’
Investment in new fintech start-up knowledge and adoption new fintech product
companies mostly concentrated during the from fintech start-up companies is relatively
period from 2013 to 2016. Fintech Singapore low. Moreover, smart phone and internet
(2016) categorized Indonesia’s fintech users use only a small number of apps that
companies into 8 categories. The first are available on their device that put
category was personal finance, e.g. considerable pressure for start-up companies
NgaturDuit founded in 2010, and investment, to increase product awareness (Perez, 2015).
e.g. stockbit founded in 2012 and Bareksa
founded in 2013. The Second category is Beside start-up companies, existing
payment, e.g. Kartuku founded in 2001, companies also developing new fintech
Doku founded in 2007, Dompetku founded product. For example: Sakuku by Bank BCA
in 2008, TCash founded in 2011, Mimopay and Jenius by Bank BTPN. Information

26
Teja, Indonesian Fintech Business: New Innovations or Foster and Collaborate in Business Ecosystems?

retrieved from Google Play Store on 12 to compete with other products that are not
October 2016, showed Sakuku launched in related to finance, for example, email, text
October 2015 and developed by bank BCA messaging, etc. The above condition expose
with market capitalization value around Rp. fintech companies to failure risk even though
385 trillion only recorded 100 thousand they provide the most innovative and
downloads. While Jenius launched in August superior product.
2016 and developed by bank BTPN with
market capitalization value around Rp. 15 Indonesia’s fintech industries are at the early
trillion already reach 100 thousand stage as shown from the relatively new
downloads within less than 3 months. It investment in fintech products with no
seems that bank BCA did not see Sakuku as a dominant firm existing in the market, and the
strategic imperative while bank BTPN saw users of fintech products concentrated only
Jenius as a strategic imperative and invested a in a handful of big cities. This condition
large sum of money, i.e.Rp 500 billion, exposed fintech companies to high failure
accordingly. The BTPN key success factor is risk due to low adoption rates and risk of
their competencies to rapidly develop a technological shifts from foreign competitors
business ecosystem of vendors that accept that enter Indonesia’s market.
m-payment transaction.
To reduce high failure risk, fintech
Above case shows that start-up companies companies should not only focus on
that focusing in product superiority relatively developing an innovative product but more
fail in achieving minimum critical mass of importantly developing their business
early adopter if compared with Jenius from ecosystems and collaborating across business
Bank BTPN that only added a little bit more ecosystems. Collaboration across industries
convenience to existing banking products but enables companies to grow faster with lower
succeed to achieving minimum critical mass cost. Government need to maintain active
of early adopter in the shortest time possible. role to foster collaboration within and across
Companies with higher competencies to business ecosystems.
foster and collaborate with other companies,
even though they start with relatively basic
innovative product, have higher probability to References
reach minimum critical mass of adopter and
higher probability to become leader in their de Reuver, M., Verschuur, E., Nikayin, F.,
business ecosystem. This argument support Cerpa, N., & Bouwman, H. (2015).
our hypothesis that competencies to foster Collective Action For Mobile Payment
and collaborate within business ecosystems Platforms: A Case Study On
are more important than competencies to Collaboration Issues Between Banks And
developed new innovative product in Telecom Operators. Electronic Commerce
achieving minimum critical mass of early Research and Applications, 14, 331-344.
adopter. Chu, S.-C., & Sung, Y. (2015). Using a
consumer socialization framework to
understand electronic word-of-mouth
5. Conclusion (eWOM) group membership among
brand followers on Twitter. Electronic
Financial technology products are always Commerce Research and Applications, 14(4),
about convenience and cost minimization 251–260.
from the creation of money to credit card https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2015.04.00
and lately electronic money. A new fintech 2
product faces an uphill battle to prove that it Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J., &
is better than the current fintech product. Mahajan, A. (2014). Creating value in
Besides current fintech products, new fintech ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between
products that rely heavily on apps also need knowledge and business ecosystems.

27
 The Asian Journal of Technology Management Vol. 10 No. 1 (2017): 21-29

Research Policy, 43(7), 1164–1176. Framework and Empirical Illustration in

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.04.01 Engineering. Technovation, 39-40, 26-36.
4 Mu, J., Thomas, E., Peng, G., & Di Benedetto,
Dujarric, R., & Hagiu, A. (2009). Capitalizing A. (2016). Strategic orientation and new
on Innovation: The Case of Japan. product development performance: The
Harvard Business School Working Paper 09- role of networking capability and
114. networking ability. Industrial Marketing
Fintech Singapore (2016). Fintech Startups in Management.
Indonesia. http://fintechnews.sg/fintech- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.0
startups-in-indonesia/ 9.007
Graca, P., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2017). Moore, J. F. (1993, May 1). Predators and
Performance indicators for collaborative Prey: A New Ecology of Competition.
business ecosystems ? Literature review Retrieved August 8, 2017, from
and trends. Technological Forecasting and https://hbr.org/1993/05/predators-and-prey-
Social Change, 116, 237–255. a-new-ecology-of-competition
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.0 Oliva, R., Sterman, J.D., & Giese, M. (2003).
12 Limits To Growth in The New
Guo, J., & Bouwman, H. (2016). An Economy: Exploring The ‘Get Big Fast’
Analytical Framework For An M- Strategy In E-Commerce. System Dynamic
Payment Ecosystem: A Merchants’ Review, 19(2), 83-117.
Perspective. Telecommunication Policy, 40, Overholm, H. (2014). Collectively Created
147-167. Opportunities in Emerging Ecosystems:
Hyytinen, A., Pajarinen, M., & Rouvinen, P. The Case of Solar Service Ventures.
(2015). Does Innovativeness Reduce Technovation, 39-40, 14-25.
Startup Survival Rates? Journal of Business Pera, R., Occhiocupo, N., & Clarke, J. (2016).
Venturing, 30, 564-581. Motives and Resources for Value Co-
Indonesia-Investments, (2016). Indonesia is Creation in A Multi-Stakeholder
The 3rd Largest Smartphone Market in Ecosystem: A Managerial Perspective.
The Asia Pacific. http://www.indonesia- Journal of Business Research, 69, 4033-4041.
investments.com/news/todays- Perez, S. (2015). Consumers Spend 85% of
headlines/indonesia-is-the-3rd-largest- Time on Smartphones in Apps, But Only
smartphone-market-in-the-asia- 5 Apps See Heavy Use.
pacific/item6777 https://techcrunch.com/2015/06/22/consume
KPMG (2015). Fintech 100 Leading Global rs-spend-85-of-time-on-smartphones-in-apps-but-
Innovator. only-5-apps-see-heavy-use/
Lu, C., Rong, K., You, J., & Shi, Y. (2014). Rong, K., Hu, G., Hou, J., Ma, R., & Shi, Y.
Business Ecosystem and Stakeholders’ (2013). Business Ecosystem Extension:
Role Transformation: Evidence from Facilitating The Technology Substitution.
Chinese Emerging Electric Vehicle International Journal of Technology and
Industry. Expert Systems with Applications, Management, 63, 268-294.
41, 4579-4595. Schemmann, B., Herrmann, A. M., Chappin,
Maula, M.V.J., Keil, T. & Salmenkaita, J-P. M. M. H., & Heimeriks, G. J. (2016).
(2006). Open Innovation in systemic innovation Crowdsourcing ideas: Involving ordinary
contexts’. in Chesbrough, H., users in the ideation phase of new
Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (Eds.): product development. Research Policy,
Open Innovation: Researching a New 45(6), 1145–1154.
Paradigm, Oxford University Press, New https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.02.00
York. 3
McKelvey, M., Zaring, O., & Ljungberg, D. Shim, Y., & Shin, D.H. (2016). Analyzing
(2015). Creating Innovative China’s Fintech Industry from The
Opportunities Through Research Perspective of Actor-Network Theory.
Collaboration: An Evolutionary Telecommunication Policy, 40, 168-181.

28
Teja, Indonesian Fintech Business: New Innovations or Foster and Collaborate in Business Ecosystems?

Sterman, J.D., Henderson, R., Beinhocker,

E.D., & Newman, L.I. (2007). Getting
Big Too Fast: Strategic Dynamics with
Increasing Returns and Bounded
Rationality. Harvard Business School Working
Paper.
Takieddine, S., & Sun, J. (2015). Internet
Banking Diffusion: A Country-Level
Analysis. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 14, 361-371.
Tongur, S., & Engwall, M. (2014). The
Business Model Dilemma of Technology
Shifts. Technovation, 34, 525-535.
Woo, S.H., Pettit, S.J., Kwak, D.W., &
Beresford (2011). Seaport Research: A
Structured Literature Review on
Methodological Issues since the 1980s.
Transportation Research Part, A 45, 667-685.
Zahra, S.A., & Nambisan, S. (2012).
Entrepreneurship and Strategic Thinking
in Business Ecosystems. Business Horizons,
55, 219-229.
Zhou, T. (2013). An Empirical Examination
of Continuance Intention of Mobile
Payment Services. Decision Support Systems,
54, 1085-1091.

29