Figure 1 - uploaded by Marikka Heikkilä
Content may be subject to copyright.
The layers of a business ecosystem*

The layers of a business ecosystem*

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
In recent years, we have seen increasing interest in new service concepts that take advantage of the capabilities of business ecosystems instead of single companies. In this article, we describe how a business ecosystem begins to develop around a service business idea proposed by an entrepreneur. We aim to recognize the different domains of players...

Contexts in source publication

Context 1
... (1993; tinyurl.com/cygzy6o) describes a business ecosystem as consisting of layers (Figure 1), which cor- respond to differing levels of commitment to the busi- ness. The core business layer consists of the parties forming the heart of the business. ...
Context 2
... this case study, based on previous literature and on workshops where the business model was discussed, we added the actual names of the potential players to Figures 1 and 2. Currently, the challenge in boosting the growth of the ecosystem is how to recognize who are the next actors or areas that should be contacted and in- volved in collaboration. ...

Citations

... Business ecosystem tiers. Source: Moore, J.F., Heikkilä, M.; Kuivaniemi, L., based on [9,15]. ...
... However, some concepts identify features characteristic for all business ecosystems. Therefore, typical features of the business ecosystem are [3,4,9,15,17,18]: According to Wilczyński [19], the theory of complexity that concentrates on the interaction between elements comprising a single system [20] is particularly suitable for describing phenomena in a business ecosystem. The business ecosystem supports phenomena typical of a complex adaptive system. ...
Article
Full-text available
Rapid technological changes have forced postal operators to adapt their services to the needs of the information society, exploit new business opportunities, and pay more attention to emerging and rapidly growing direct and indirect competition. The main goal of the article is to provide an answer to the question Do we have to digitalize postal services? The objectives of the article are as follows: defining of the postal ecosystem concept; defining of postal e-services; developing an action proposal approach for the operator designated to create a digital ecosystem of the postal service. Therefore, it is necessary to survey postal operators regarding the digitalization of the economy and postal e-services. The survey should focus on individual customers, businesses and telecommunications market experts. The survey covered postal e-services supplied by the designated operator in Poland. Its assessment has been based on variables which have major impact on the perception of postal e-services. These variables include: scope of e-services, regulatory framework (security), competitiveness, telecommunications infrastructure, advancement of e-services, innovation level, and digital awareness and digital skills in the society. In order to meet these objectives, the article refers to the essence of the ecosystem as a solution to the research problem. Additionally, studies on postal e-services have been presented, which enable to develop an action proposal to strengthen the position of the postal operator in the postal ecosystem. The article is based on studies that use various research methods, such as critical analysis of scientific literature, synthesis and generalization, Delphi method, versatile benchmarking and graphic visualization. Additionally, findings of studies on e-services have been presented to cover the European Union, as well as solicit opinions of individual and business clients and telecommunications market experts in Poland. This enables to develop an action proposal designed to strengthen the position of the postal operator in the postal ecosystem. The study has delivered an answer to the research question. Thus, the authors can confirm that it is necessary to digitalize postal services.
... Illustrating the roles and relations of the actors, Figure 3 pictures the main developer in the role of a keystone player while the partnering companies in its closest network form the enlarged business (see Heikkilä andKuivaniemi, 2012 andMoore, 1993). ...
... Illustrating the roles and relations of the actors, Figure 3 pictures the main developer in the role of a keystone player while the partnering companies in its closest network form the enlarged business (see Heikkilä andKuivaniemi, 2012 andMoore, 1993). ...
... Similarly, our results show that familiarity between project participants creates trust, leading to better understanding of the working habits of other participants, thus decreasing the need for formal task coordination (Pulkka et al., 2016). Further, the results indicated how the project-based J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f business ecosystem evolves over various phases as presented in Figure 4, i.e. participant involvement differs in the living and use phase when compared to the design and construction pahse, and each phase can have its specific individual goals (see also Heikkilä andKuivaniemi, 2012, Lappi et al., 2017). The key message from a managerial perspective is that the developer and main contractor need to adopt a strong leadership role over the business ecosystem, and that feedback is needed for the ecosystem to function efficiently and for learning to take place. ...
Article
Full-text available
Lowering environmental impacts by material choices is proposed as a way to promote urban sustainability transition, and one solution is building more wooden multi-storey constructions (WMCs). In the construction industry, however, there is a strong path dependency towards applying well-established construction materials and methods, as well as partnerships. To gain understanding of network-based collaboration, learning and end-user involvement in novel wooden construction business, the study uses qualitative methods and employs business ecosystem approach in the analysis. The studied WMC business case revealed that barriers of collaborative business ecosystem development include both the lack of clarity in the shared goals between actors and weak end-user involvement. Moreover, neither companies nor end-users fully recognize sustainability aspects around WMC. Enabling factors such as smooth communication and building trust among business actors during planning and building were recognised. The study suggests that a broader business ecosystem approach, including the living and use of the building, offers a mindset shift for developing sustainability-driven logic alongside profitable construction business and creating value for consumers.
... Even though it has been heavily criticized (Bawden & Zuber-Skerritt, 2002;Coghlan & Brannick, 2001;Eden & Huxham, 1996;Greenwood & Levin, 1998;Kotnour, 2011), the abductive perspective is a method to test new ideas or to make sense of new situations. Previous studies have used this methodology for understanding the role of political entrepreneurship (Björkman & Sundgren, 2005), as well as how entrepreneurial ecosystems are built (Heikkilä & Kuivaniemi, 2012). ...
Article
Full-text available
The current socio‐economic scenarios have generated several challenges for any organization. Regional authorities have designed policies that combine supply–demand needs and innovative entrepreneurship programs. The alignment between regional and business strategies has become critical to ensure the necessary resources, skills and capabilities in the region. This article analyses the alignment of regional strategies (entrepreneurial innovation ecosystems) and business strategies (development of new entrepreneurial innovations). By adopting mixed theoretical approaches, we proposed a conceptual model to understand the role of institutional strategies on the definition of business strategies. Given the nature of this study, our methodological design combines a case study approach and an action research approach. Our results provide insights into the positive outcomes generated when regional strategies and business strategies are aligned.
... Jahrhundert haben gezeigt, wie 24.000+ Personen vor mehr als 500 Jahren zu Formung, Ausbau und Nutzung der gemeinsamen Stärken beigetragen haben. Es ist ihnen gelungen, eine florierende Industrie mit erfolgreichen Organisationen (Agenten) aufzubauen (Munro, 2012 (Milinkovich, 2008;Heikkilä & Kuivaniemi, 2012). Eine Unterscheidung ist auch zwischen einem Ecosystem und einer Plattform notwendig. ...
Research
Globalisierung, Urbanisierung und Digitalisierung sind Megatrends, die das aktuelle Zeitalter charakterisieren und den Arbeitsalltag beeinflussen. Sie werden als Externalitäten wahr-genommen, die in den Vorstellungen der Menschen auf die Menschen wirken. Bei genauerer Betrachtung kann allerdings festgestellt werden, dass die Konzepte von Menschen entwickelt wurden, durch Menschen geprägt und durch sie verarbeitet, interpretiert und bewertet werden. Es sind Erscheinungen, die auf das Engste mit den Menschen verknüpft sind. In Diskussionen, die darauf abzielen, den genannten Megatrends proaktiv und mit Mitgestaltungswille zu begegnen, taucht immer öfters der Begriff Ecosystem auf. Er impliziert ein Zusammenspannen von Individuen und Organisationen in einem globalen, oftmals urbanen und nicht selten digitalen Umfeld über Organisationsgrenzen hinweg mit dem Ziel, mit vereinten Ressourcen ein gewünschtes Ergebnis zu erzielen. Vorliegendes White Papier beabsichtig, das Thema Ecosystems zu erschliessen. Es werden Schlüsselbegriffe definiert, zentrale Punkte ausgeführt sowie Relevanz und Implikationen dargelegt.
... Such leverage demands a relationship view, where firms learn to manage various degrees of close or distant relationships with other actors (Gulati & Kletter, 2005). For example, small software firms can increase sales by following a specific ecosystem leader (Ceccagnoli et al., 2012), by using a multi-ecosystem strategy (Garnsey et al., 2008), or even by creating ecosystems of their own (Heikkilä & Kuivaniemi, 2012;Overholm, 2015). Based on the above, our first research question arises: ...
... Research on BEs can be further classified on the basis of the main features of the activities performed by the organisations that compose them. We can distinguish research on BEs in general (Moore, 1993;Heikkilä and Kuivaniemi, 2012), on digital BEs (Tsatsou, Elaluf-Calderwood and Liebenau, 2010;Selander et al. 2013), on innovatio n BE (Adner, 2006;Adner and Kapoor, 2010;Wessner, 2007;Nair, 2007;Almirall and Casadesus-Masanell, 2010;Chesbrough, 2003), on technology BE (Wareham at al. 2014), on platform BE (Ceccagnoli et al. 2012;Thomas et al. 2014) and, finally, on supply BE (Ketchen et al. 2014). ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper investigates the heterogeneity of ways through which a policy innovation affects the structure and the complex interactions taking place within a business ecosystem and how different business ecosystems react differently to a policy innovation, given their structural and behavioural characteristics. The paper focuses on a specific policy innovation, namely the collective switching. We performed a cross-country analysis using the 6C framework as a tool for identifying differences in the structure and behaviours of energy business ecosystems after the introduction of collective switching. We examined in rich detail 11 European countries’ collective switching campaigns, and provide an accurate description of the transformations of their energy business ecosystems. Semi-structured interviews, conducted with consumer associations that organised collective switching campaigns, provide insights for the definition of some policy interventions.
... The theorizing in this paper suggests that, although IIEs have distinct characteristics and dynamics, impact investing scholars can learn from studies of other socio-economic ecosystems. The most relevant stream of ecosystems research is, arguably, the entrepreneurial ecosystems literature because IIEs exist as subsets or, more accurately, "sub-ecosystems" (Heikkilä & Kuivaniemi, 2012) of some entrepreneurial ecosystems. The proposed theory, which draws from entrepreneurial ecosystems theory, suggests that scholars studying the system of forces that produce and sustain impact investing could unearth important insights from mining the entrepreneurial ecosystems literature and determining what finding are transferrable across the two types of ecosystems. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose Impact investing, a type of values-based investing that combines financial investment with philanthropic goals, is receiving heightened scholarly and practitioner attention. The geography of impact investing, however, is largely unexamined, and it is not clear why some regional impact-investing communities are more vibrant than other communities. Regional differences in entrepreneurial activities are increasingly explained by differences in the vitality of entrepreneurial ecosystems, the set of interconnected forces that promote and sustain regional entrepreneurship. The purpose of this paper is to leverage insights from entrepreneurial ecosystems studies to understand the dynamics of communities that encourage and support impact investing. Design/methodology/approach To explain inter-regional differences in the prevalence and intensity of impact investing, this conceptual paper draws from research on entrepreneurial ecosystems and impact investment to theorize about the ecosystem attributes and components that drive vibrant impact investing communities. Findings It is theorized that vibrant impact investing ecosystems have three system-level attributes – diversity, cohesion and coordination – that are influenced by the core components of the ecosystems, including the characteristics of investors, the presence of social impact support organizations and cultural values that promote blending logics. Originality/value The theoretical model contributes to research on impact investing and hybrid organizing, produces concrete implications for ecosystem builders and sets an agenda for future research.
... Recently, there has been an increased interest in new service concepts, which take advantage of business ecosystems capabilities. 3 Ecosystems consist often of a variety of actors. In addition to partners and subcontractors, they also include complementors, competitors, customers, collaborators, public bodies, incubators, investors, and research organizations over several domains. ...
... In addition to partners and subcontractors, they also include complementors, competitors, customers, collaborators, public bodies, incubators, investors, and research organizations over several domains. 3,4 They have a common goal-a shared vision that helps organizations to position and align themselves in the value network. 5 Understanding the position enables adjusting the strategies for optimizing one's position. ...
... Research should be involved in addition to business, and it may be beneficial to involve competitors as co-opetitors. 3,11 A common mistake in ecosystem creation is rigid planning-the roles and responsibilities are set early without the natural evolution within the system. Business ecosystems are dynamic entities that grow and evolve. 2 Thus, they must be kept up to date. ...
Article
The contemporary world is a world of connections, codependencies, and value networks. However, finding suitable partners and key competences require considerable effort. The proposed business ecosystem creation platform provides 24/7 “available everywhere” web service, including digital infrastructure and tools for professional networking-agents, company representatives, and researchers for up-to-date information retrieval and networking.
... As Business Ecosystem structures are defined as interrelated structures, actors within the ecosystem need to fulfil certain roles to enhance and nurture stability and productivity of the whole system (Heikkilä and Kuivaniemi, 2012). Especially, as the Business Ecosystem cannot be controlled and nurtured as a whole, as not all actors have the same and enough information to actively enhance the entire system, it is important for every organisation to understand its position within the system and recognising itself as part of the system to act within the system interest (Peltoniemi, 2006). ...
Conference Paper
The increasing importance of collaboration between related business organisations and the role of knowledge shared between these partnerships requires a revision of traditional organisational concepts. In order to gain competitive advantage, organisations are required to be more open and collaborate in interorganisational structures accessing resources which lie beyond firm boundaries. There has been considerable research into different forms of collaboration across firm boundaries, such as strategic alliances, coalitions or other types of network structures. Business ecosystems are another definition of openness of firm boundaries. Business ecosystem theory gives an insight into different possible roles played in collaborative relationships such as the Keystone role. By using a strategy as practice and a qualitative data collection approach were used in this paper to explore characteristics and actions of Keystones in collaborative relationships. The results show the complexity of Keystone characteristics and actions, how they overlap and can contribute to Keystone strategy making.
... The business ecosystem can be conceptualized as a group of interdependent economic actors which simultaneously create and capture value by combining its resources; it aligns around one or more central firms or platform (Moore, 1996;Muegge, 2011Muegge, , 2013Valkokari, 2015). According to Heikkilä and Kuivaniemi (2012), the key difference between business ecosystems and business networks can be seen in the variety of actors involved. While business networks are regarded as firms collaborating to deliver value to a customer, business ecosystems usually include competitors, suppliers, potential collaborators, public institutions, and investing firms. ...
Article
Full-text available
In this multiple case study we analyze solutions based on connected devices in the context of health, social care and wellbeing. Based on the consideration that a solution is a combination of services and products, we build on the notion that business models can be studied at a firm-level and also at a network-level. The network-level analysis is used to motivate the reasons why solutions emerging at the intersection of the healthcare and the ICT industries benefit from collaboration among different actors. We conclude that the firm- and the network-level development of business models provide alignment in the business network and are useful to establish the relation that technological component have with overall solutions. Our findings suggest that some component bring novelty in the final offer without affecting the ongoing operation, while other component aim at improving the internal working processes, with minimal effects on the final offer to end users. We discuss the benefits of a network-level perspective for each case.