No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Ecosystem Advantage: How to Successfully Harness the Power of Partners
Abstract
Changes in the global environment are generating opportunities for companies to build advantage by creating loosely coupled networks or ecosystems. Ecosystems are larger, more diverse, and more fluid than a traditional set of bilateral partnerships or complementors. By leveraging ecosystems, companies can deliver complex solutions while maintaining corporate focus. This article describes six keys to unlock ecosystem advantage: pinpointing where value is created, defining an architecture of differentiated partner roles, stimulating complementary partner investments, reducing the transaction costs, facilitating joint learning across the network, and engineering effective ways to capture profit.
... They also gradually evolve from internal product platforms to supply chain platforms and industry platforms, spanning multiple levels [61]. As intermediaries and data centers, platforms, together with numerous suppliers, producers, manufacturers, consumers, etc., co-create a symbiotic business ecosystem [62]. Tee and Gawer [63] aggregate the entities in an ecosystem based on their roles into demand-side systems, complementary systems, and supply-side systems, with the platform enterprise as the core providing the platform architecture, rules, and components for the interaction and innovation of species such as suppliers, demanders, and third-party complementors. ...
... Ecosystem theory has previously been introduced by researchers into the field of business studies, investigating the forms, compositional structures, functional characteristics, and interaction relationships of internal enterprises, enterprise communities, and business ecosystems [112][113][114]. Correspondingly, platform theory has been applied to study the roles and functions generated by platforms as important organizational forms in industrial practices [49,62]. However, bridging the two theoretical perspectives is limited to studying the compositional structures and interaction relationships of business ecosystems where platform enterprises are located [61,62] without accurately explaining which influencing factors will change and what mechanisms will affect the goals of the entities when open and complex systems reshape across industries and supply chains. ...
... Correspondingly, platform theory has been applied to study the roles and functions generated by platforms as important organizational forms in industrial practices [49,62]. However, bridging the two theoretical perspectives is limited to studying the compositional structures and interaction relationships of business ecosystems where platform enterprises are located [61,62] without accurately explaining which influencing factors will change and what mechanisms will affect the goals of the entities when open and complex systems reshape across industries and supply chains. In the current study, we introduced the live-streaming e-commerce model into the cross-border agricultural supply chain and found that some critical internet enterprises in the live-streaming e-commerce field are not just websites or multinational corporations that provide transaction matching services [86]. ...
The organization and coordination of cross-border e-commerce platforms in agricultural product trading are continuously increasing, and the involvement of digital platforms has driven the integration and development of cross-border agricultural product supply chains with live-streaming e-commerce, effectively facilitating the comprehensive development of producers, sellers, and professional service providers within the ecosystem. However, despite the growing importance of this integration model in the market, there are still numerous unresolved issues from a supply chain perspective, and existing research provides relatively limited guidance on the effective operation of this integrated supply chain model. To address this gap in theoretical research, this study first delves into the essence and fundamental characteristics of sustainable cross-border agricultural product supply chains in the context of live streaming. Secondly, employing grounded theory as the primary research method and combining platform theory and ecosystem theory, an influencing factor system and an impact model for the development of sustainable cross-border agricultural product supply chains in the context of live streaming are constructed to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the complexity of this integrated supply chain model. Finally, from the perspectives of government agencies and practitioners, development pathways for sustainable cross-border agricultural product supply chains in the context of live-streaming e-commerce are proposed, aiming to enhance existing research and provide decision-making support for relevant stakeholders in formulating development strategies. The findings of this study contribute to expanding the research perspective on the ecosystem of live-streaming e-commerce and sustainable cross-border agricultural product supply chains, providing theoretical support for the establishment and operation of sustainable cross-border agricultural product supply chains in the context of live streaming. Additionally, it offers important references for promoting the sustainable development of live-streaming e-commerce and cross-border agricultural product supply chains, facilitating industry upgrading, global agricultural trade, and achieving mutually beneficial outcomes.
... To mediate the above described task for maintaining balance, prior literature proposes the activity for aligning complementarities through ecosystem orchestration (Kapoor 2018) or governance (Dhanaraj and Parhe 2006). In ecosystem orchestration, the goal is to align complementing parties with idiosyncratic skills and capabilities by managing the relationships of distinct organizations towards the collective goal (Williamson and De Meyer 2012). ...
... As discussed, the difficulty is that the actors need to be retained in alignment without hierarchy; the value appropriation logic needs to be fair, and the ecosystem needs to provide appropriate incentives for all affiliated parties (Jacobides et al. 2018). (2021) Leading company The one who will attempt to guide the transition and shaping the ecosystem Adner (2017) Williamson and De Meyer (2012) Collaborator/follower Parties that agree to act in accordance with leader's plan Adner (2017) Gosline and Krithivasan (2021) Anchor A role that bridges different industries together for a seamless customer journey (e.g., identification service) Gosline and Krithivasan (2021) Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved. ...
... The important role of an ecosystem orchestrator was discussed in the previous literature (e.g. Kapoor 2018; Williamson and De Meyer 2012;Cui et al. 2022), however we propose a neutral orchestration mechanism to emphasize the significance of neutrality of an orchestrator in competitive industrial context. ...
Numerous studies have investigated the formation of network relationships, but few have addressed the actual process of maintaining balance in interorganizational dynamics of networks. Even more, the topic has remained largely unexplored in the context of ecosystems, where simultaneous alignment of multiple actors is needed. This paper advances understanding on ecosystems’ actor alignment from a network dynamics perspective. Through an in-depth single case study, the paper reviews how the case ecosystem was orchestrated to create more safe, sustainable, and intelligent maritime transportation industry and how a balance in the interplay among its members was maintained. Our results reveal a nonlinear evolution process of ecosystems, complementing earlier discussion on ecosystems’ lifecycle through centripetal (constructive) and centrifugal (destructive) forces that influence actor dynamics. With the evidence from our case, we conclude that structural design choices and contextual alignment mechanisms are essential to balance the emergent forces. We find four alignment mechanisms that ecosystem orchestrators can leverage: (i) complementation: driving network effects from idiosyncratic asset providers, (ii) neutral orchestration: stabilizing trust and sharing, (iii) reconfiguration: reshaping of the ecosystem’s targets to maintain a common objective, and (iv) restructuring: coordination activity to shape the required skills to meet the ecosystem’s vision. We further suggest an elaboration to generic ecosystem roles – the role of “leading complementors” or “key complementors”, to distinguish them from generic complementors.
... However, although this process identifies partner selection as a separately identifiable phase, it does not explain how to select a partner. Intermediaries play a significant role in this context by providing necessary information [33], enhancing relational connections and networks [9,34], and helping actors to adapt to the ecosystem [42,43]. Effective collaborations between different actors in innovation ecosystems are paramount for sustainable innovation ecosystems and sustainable development [11,29,44]. ...
... Actors may not always rely on formal networks but may access valuable information and connection through informal connections. In an ecosystem, partners can collaborate flexibly through loosely coordinated development and experimentation and deal effectively with uncertainties [43]. Intermediaries, being embedded in different networks and ecosystems, support firms to access new information, complementary capabilities, resources, and trusted referrals, as well as reducing the time to access required information and develop relationships [2,9,12,21,33,42]. ...
... The interaction between firms in innovation ecosystems can be collaborative and competitive at the same time, and it goes beyond available opportunities and constraints [27,61]. Ecosystems differ in their scope, structure, and nature of relationships on which they are built [43]. For instance, actors within an ecosystem perform complementary activities such that the activities of one actor are more valuable for another actor than for other actors [62]. ...
Innovation ecosystems have increasingly been studied from various perspectives, including connecting innovation ecosystems to sustainable development. Extant studies have found that innovation is important for sustainable development, collaboration is important for innovation, and intermediaries create necessary links and opportunities for the development of relations and cooperation between different actors in an ecosystem. What has been missing, however, is an explicit analysis of the process of collaboration in innovation ecosystems to ensure sustainability and the role of intermediaries in the process. To fill this void, this paper studies six organizations that act as intermediaries, using a multiple-case design approach. It analyzes the process of collaboration in innovation ecosystems and elucidates the role of intermediaries in the development of sustainable ecosystems. The findings indicate that the process of collaboration between actors in innovation ecosystems is an iterative process facilitated by intermediaries. By connecting different actors, intermediaries support the diffusion of innovation that has important implications for building sustainable innovation ecosystems and achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
... The activities needed to operationalize OI logics are OI practices (Williamson & De meyer, 2012). The most acknowledged taxonomy distinguishes OI practice into 2 types regarding OI logic, namely outbound and inbound OI practices (Gassmann & Enkel, 2004;Hongsaprabhas et al., 2018;Van de Vrande et al., 2009). ...
... The most acknowledged taxonomy distinguishes OI practice into 2 types regarding OI logic, namely outbound and inbound OI practices (Gassmann & Enkel, 2004;Hongsaprabhas et al., 2018;Van de Vrande et al., 2009). Entrepreneurs in FI can adopt the OI approach through a variety of activities or OI practices (Galanakis, 2016;Williamson & De meyer, 2012), such as inward-outward IP licensing, joint R&D agreements, joint ventures, acquisition, etc. (Chesbrough et., al.,2006). Entrepreneurs often develop new OI practices to being used in the real work (Galanakis, 2016 ...
... The researcher took responsibility for qualifying and categorizing the OI practice in academic terms. If the identified NPD activities did not correspond to the OI practice definition (Williamson & De meyer, 2012), the researcher categorized the activities as the ordinary NPD activity. To validate the interpretation of OI logic and practice categorization, the presence of the researcher's supervisor in the interpretation of the results enhanced the credibility within a double-coding of the interview transcripts, to make sure that the biases have been reduced. ...
The purpose of this research was to provide an appropriate academic and practical guideline for understanding open innovation (OI) in new product development (NPD) among Thai small and medium enterprises (SMEs). However, only a few studies have demonstrated that OI is used by Food SMEs. Their OI generative mechanism (GM) remains poorly understood.
To understand the role of OI in this change, specifically OI logics and practices in food SME’s NPD, and the Food-Machinery framework by Bigliardi and Galati (2013a) have been chosen to analyze 109 NPDs of 2 Thai food machinery SMEs using a critical realistic (CR) perspective. Five rounds of semi-structured interview and document review methods were utilized for data collection.
This research identified evidence that dynamic capabilities (DCs) mobilized in OI NPD is the OI GM. The results also demonstrated the Food-Machinery Flexibility Model and its six distinctive patterns within the same model, were successfully implemented by the integration of 3 OI logics (i.e., coupled OI logic with outbound dominance, coupled OI logic with inbound dominance, and no OI logic) and 8 OI practices (i.e., employee involvement, outward IP licensing, customer involvement, outsourcing R&D, inward IP licensing, insourcing R&D, supplier involvement, and regulatory body involvement) to reveal the OI knowledge in empirical domain, and consequence the analysis of 9 DCs (i.e., sensing, seizing, inventive capacity, transformative capacity, innovative capacity, absorptive capacity, connective capacity, desorptive capacity, and legally compliance capacity) revealed the underlying OI GM in the real domain. The knowledge flows have been analyzed by focusing on food recipe development at two levels of the NPD process, namely laboratory scale and industrial scale.
Finally, the identification of OI GM demonstrated the relationship between OI and DCs. The development of DCs can strengthen OI practice within the organization. They are mutually reinforcing each other. Six distinctive patterns within the same model demonstrated the ability of investigated food SMEs to develop their 14 mechanisms (DC sequences) to ensure the efficacious implementation of OI logics and practices in food NPDs, and flexibility to the nature of the collaborative strategy associated with each NPD. The results exposed Thai SMEs switching their business from generic food machinery companies to the innovation intermediary. The contribution of this research supported both academic’s view on OI literature; understanding OI GM through the OI logics, OI practices and associated DCs mechanisms in the NPD process, and food practitioner’s view by providing an appropriate 6 OI guidelines for the food innovation intermediary. The research had a limitation due to a comparison between 2 SMEs’ NPDs. Future research could benefit from exploring additional food SMEs.
... Although the orchestrator is a central and dominant firm in an ecosystem, the ecosystem's success typically depends as much on the complementors as it depends on the orchestrator (Panico and Cennamo, 2022). However, existing ecosystem research has mainly focused on the orchestrators (e.g., Iansiti and Levien, 2004;Li, 2009;Williamson and de Meyer, 2012). ...
... This concept demands that the firms interact multilaterally with independent yet interdependent firms that contribute non-generic complements (Adner, 2017;Jacobides et al., 2018). Accordingly, some firms take on the role of "ecosystem orchestrators" by setting up alignment structures for their ecosystems (Adner, 2017;Lingens et al., 2021;Williamson and de Meyer, 2012). As orchestrators do not fully control their complementors hierarchically (Jacobides et al., 2018), the orchestrators must ensure that participating in their ecosystems is advantageous for the complementors and hence must balance their own value capture with that of their complementors (Chesbrough et al., 2018). ...
... Third, we contribute to the ecosystem literature, which has so far mostly focused on ecosystem orchestrators (e.g., Iansiti and Levien, 2004;Li, 2009;Williamson and de Meyer, 2012) and their strategies (Masucci et al., 2020;Ozalp et al., 2018;Parida et al., 2019a;Ritala et al., 2014). Our study contributes to the emerging literature stream on ecosystem complementors (e.g., Kapoor and Agarwal, 2017;Miric et al., 2019;Rietveld and Eggers, 2018). ...
Supporting fast and extensive data transfer, connectivity technologies entail opportunities for stronger inter-firm collaboration and new value propositions, resulting in business model innovation. Whereas prior research has mainly focused on connectivity-induced changes in the business models of ecosystem orchestrators, we turn our attention to (prospective) ecosystem complementors. We examine how digital service providers can configure business model mechanisms to enter an ecosystem and connect themselves to its value proposition. Based on an explorative qualitative study of four cases in mobility, we develop four archetypical connection strategies for complementors. We observe that the four archetypes differ in their implications for the ecosystem value proposition, for the role of other actors in the ecosystem, and the triple-bottom-line performance of the ecosystem. Connectivity technologies can combine economic, environmental, and social benefits.
... The measurement of profit can be understood, although the metrics used may change. Within the ecosystem, firms opt to optimize their profitability often based on 'power' (Barney, 2018); trust, unless high within the ecosystem, can lead to a sub-optimal profit distribution (Williamson et al., 2012). Left alone, this can lead to unstable equilibria. ...
... People are the individual actors at the meso-level and, in aggregate, represent the micro-and macro-levels. Proper measures and institutional arrangements can support the optimization of the ecosystem's value co-creation (Williamson et al., 2012). Yet, individuals are often inherently selfish and consider 'what's in it for themselves', and some actors need to exhibit stewardship behaviors to reduce this selfish (or narcissist) tendency (Domínguez-Escrig et al., 2018). ...
A successful business is increasingly concerned with comprehending the challenges and opportunities associated with society’s shift towards sustainability. However, current business model innovation fails to embrace the sustainability dimensions sufficiently. Many organizations lack a process that allows them generate entirely new and viable alternatives for business models. Sustainable development and its three-dimensional framework significantly impact most businesses’ re-organization. The complexity of balancing the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainable development signals the need for a new business model. In this conceptual paper, the authors discuss possible transitioning from the business model to the contribution model, where the value ecosystem and value exchange plays a defining role.KeywordsBusiness modelContribution modelSustainabilityValue co-creationValue ecosystem
... The measurement of profit can be understood, although the metrics used may change. Within the ecosystem, firms opt to optimize their profitability often based on 'power' (Barney, 2018); trust, unless high within the ecosystem, can lead to a sub-optimal profit distribution (Williamson et al., 2012). Left alone, this can lead to unstable equilibria. ...
... People are the individual actors at the meso-level and, in aggregate, represent the micro-and macro-levels. Proper measures and institutional arrangements can support the optimization of the ecosystem's value co-creation (Williamson et al., 2012). Yet, individuals are often inherently selfish and consider 'what's in it for themselves', and some actors need to exhibit stewardship behaviors to reduce this selfish (or narcissist) tendency (Domínguez-Escrig et al., 2018). ...
Digital servitization describes the change of business models towards smart service offerings enabled by digitization. One challenge of digital servitization for manufacturers is to gain a better understanding how smart services generate value-in-use. To examine individual value-in-use concepts regarding smart services, we conducted and analyzed 22 in-depth interviews with the repertory grid technique. Our findings show that the respondents have a fairly uniform understanding of what constitutes an ideal service. Their perception of the service of tomorrow, smart service, and remote service offerings is closer to a future ideal than the service of today. Further we were able to group individual value perceptions into four groups and to discuss differences of an external and internal view on smart service. Interestingly sustainability was not mentioned as a value dimension in our study, which should be investigated further.KeywordsSmart serviceRepertory gridValue-in-use
... Davis (2016) and Bogers et al. (2019) studied the characteristics of the various roles in an ecosystem, distinguishing between competitors, suppliers, complementors, and lead firms. Until now most attention has focused on lead (also named focal and keystone) firms with an implicit assumption that becoming the lead firm in an ecosystem is the position all actors should strive for (Iansiti and Levien, 2004;Williamson and De Meyer, 2012;Teece, 2016;Liu et al., 2019). Therefore, ecosystem research is mostly informed from this perspective. ...
... The value appropriation dynamic is generated as suppliers work to gain the best return for the contribution they make to the ecosystem. To commit to an ecosystem, firms should perceive their return as fair (Iansiti and Levien, 2004;Williamson and De Meyer, 2012). Without an equitable return on the investment made, actors will not commit. ...
This research goes beyond the dyadic view of co-opetition in supply chains and seeks to explore how firms that act as suppliers in a dynamic manufacturing ecosystem establish and sustain their strategic position. We interviewed 31 senior managers in seven firms that were identified by a committee representing government and academia as occupying various advanced manufacturing ecosystems. We argue that as actors within a manufacturing ecosystem interact overt time to co-create the overall product-service offerings, new relationships may be formed, and existing connections may be dissolved, giving rise to three co-opetition dynamics at the ecosystem level-capability configuration, value appropriation, and network governance. Our analysis unveiled eighteen operational tactics that suppliers deploy which combine to produce nine strategic responses that allow them to sustain their position within manufacturing ecosystems. Specifically, we discuss the role of suppliers in manufacturing ecosystems and capture the relationship between ecosystem dynamics and the strategic responses as they accommodate co-opetition. This research indicates that ecosystem performance is essentially a dynamic effort, which is simultaneously collective and distributed. Thus, policymakers should avoid carrying out analysis based on overly linear and single industry conceptualisations of manufacturing value networks.
... Reed et al. (2009) suggest that this can be effectively managed using the following steps: communicating and explaining the social and natural trends affected by the actions; identifying the organisations, groups, individuals and other stakeholders critical to the process; and prioritising them for involvement and decision-making. Furthermore, Williamson and De Meyer (2012) propose that developing a successful ecosystem requires a lead organisation that acts as the prime planner and guide to identify potential value creation. This implies that these related institutional organisations need to take leadership in driving the CPE. ...
... This implies that these related institutional organisations need to take leadership in driving the CPE. Williamson and De Meyer (2012) further highlight that the lead organisation has the primary responsibility of identifying and appealing to potential partners, identifying roles for partners, reducing risks and building confidence while developing an environment for co-learning. ...
... Advocates of ecosystem studies typically consider the role of big firms as ecosystem shapers (Moore, 1993;Teece, 2007), hubs (Williamson & De Meyer, 2012;Teece, 2016), or keystones (Iansiti & Levien, 2004). In practice, we can see there are big VC firms capable of, for example, contributing to scaling up a business resulting in the creation of a unicorn. ...
... Third, in line with the prior research, we demonstrate the existence and importance of hubs (Williamson & De Meyer, 2012;Teece, 2016). We introduce the label Active Hubs for those in the global VC-ecosystem. ...
The prior Venture Capital research (VC) has examined the micro processes of syndication and alliance formation. However, a macro and more systemic view is lacking, where past research has neglected the global VC-ecosystem. Using a qualitative method and an abductive approach, we combine and integrate two strands of research, on VC and ecosystems, to shed light on the crucial dynamics in the VC industry. We provide a VC-ecosystem definition and portray the ecosystem architecture in a segmentation matrix of investor types and roles, including Active Hubs and Complementors. Moreover, our findings identify and explain central Hub orchestration mechanisms: enablers, governance, partner management, co-specialization, and nurturing. The study concludes with a discussion on the theoretical and managerial implications, and suggestions for future research on a global ecosystem, which operates at a higher level than the traditional firm-level ecosystems on which the previous research generally focuses.
... For example, orchestration was defined as "a set of deliberate actions" providing other stakeholders with pathways and vision [95, p. 659]. It was also emphasized that orchestration includes the creation and enforcement of rules of the game [96]. Such action ensures that stakeholders adhere to these rules. ...
... Here, we found that BE research complements SECO research in showing that since keystones are resourceful and powerful, they can nurture the ecosystem by encouraging co-innovation, creating market contacts, and providing a set of common assets [4,62]. Nurturing can also spur innovation [96,97] and business model development [87]. Nurturing comes about in different ways, for instance, where ecosystem leaders carry early investment costs, provide competence development, or share core knowledge and intellectual property rights with various stakeholders [87]. ...
Business settings and ecosystems have in the past three decades been transformed by software utilization. It is being applied in several industries shaping innovation—platforms—and business characteristics, thus attracting ever more interest from both practitioners and researchers. During the last 10 years, research on software ecosystems (SECOs) has expanded, and is strongly related to the development of digital ecosystems. This expansion has led to the need to review the status of SECO research, and the present article provides a state-of-the-art literature review on the topic. We explain the connection between the relatively new research field of SECOs and the traditional streams of ecosystem research. This article contributes novel definitions of SECOs and SECO configuration, and proposes a theoretical model illustrating the relationship between vital contingency categories and processes. We identify significant research gaps and present a future research agenda.
... First, complementors play an indispensable value enhancement role in materializing the core value proposition and unlocking its full-value potential (Kapoor and Agarwal 2017;Kapoor 2018). Through network effects, complementors can meet numerous and various customer needs, generating strong competitive advantages for the entire ecosystem and contributing to its survival, development, and progress (Boudreau 2010;Williamson and de Meyer 2012;Wareham et al. 2014;Adner and Kapoor 2016;Kapoor and Agarwal 2017;Rietveld and Eggers 2018;Teece 2018;Cennamo and Santaló 2019). Complementors' value creation also impacts the performance and success of the focal firm (Kapoor and Agarwal 2017). ...
As downstream actors providing innovations that enhance the value of the core proposition, complementors have been recognized as indispensable in many definitions of ecosystems. The increasing attention they have received in the past years demonstrates the concern to enrich our knowledge of complementors. With a hybrid approach of bibliometric and content analyses, this systematic literature review aims at a clearer understanding of complementors in an ecosystem setting. The findings confirm complementors’ strategic role in enhancing the ecosystem’s focal value proposition and impacting the ecosystem survival and success, more intensely since 2018. Several characteristics of complementors are also revealed. Despite autonomy being their most affirmed feature, an inconsistent understanding of complementors in different types of ecosystems is revealed. This study represents a pioneering attempt to systematically understand complementors as ecosystem actors through extant literature. Various research gaps in the extant ecosystem research were also identified, providing research directions in terms of complementors’ coopetitive interactions, strategies, and challenges in ecosystems.
... These drastic changes result in increasingly collaborative, dependent, web-enabled business ecosystems which are well-supported by the new business understanding within IoT, I4.0, and blockchain paradigms (Akyuz & Gursoy, 2018Cloutier et al., 2020;Durugbo, 2016;Fenton et al., 2020;Hahn, 2020;Kotarba, 2018;Rosin et al., 2020;Satalkina & Steiner, 2020;Stanczyk, 2019;Wang et al., 2020;Winkelhaus & Grosse, 2020). It is generally accepted that the modern business environment is viewed as interdependent networks of connected entities to create and capture value (Subramaniam et al., 2019;Williamson & DeMeyer, 2012). Hence, in recent literature, "supply network" has become the dominant terminology, increasingly replacing the term "supply chain" and referring to collaborative, digital ecosystems of partners (suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, customers, and service providers) jointly creating value (Akyuz & Gursoy, 2019;Fawcett et al., 2011). ...
In today’s increasingly web-enabled digital world, business environment is being transformed into ecosystems of partners in which digital connectivity, real-time data, information sharing, and visibility are enabled. Partners are becoming increasingly dependent, network collaboration is turning into a key success factor, and managerial, organizational and leadership paradigms are radically changing. This study investigates the requirements of leadership under these collaborative, transformational and technology-intensive conditions. Through a comprehensive and systematic literature review, the study offers main leadership requirements, desired leadership practices, and leader profiles to become successful in this context. Therefore, a conceptual framework is developed. The findings reveal that leadership requirements for digital ecosystems (DES’s) are entirely different from traditional leadership understanding, and orchestration stands out as a key concept. This study is valuable for providing a comprehensive literature review and developing a conceptual framework.
Keywords:
collaboration; digitalization; leadership; requirements; VUCA
... Business ecosystem orchestration refers to establishing a supporting inter-organizational and multi-stakeholder infrastructure as well as championing the value chain across complementary contributions to surround, permeate, and shape a market for the technology (cf. Moore, 2006;Williamson and De Meyer, 2012). In our context, this consists of three composite activities where the first two activities are related to establishing actor networks, and the third one is about the articulation of expectations and visions. ...
This paper analyzes through what enabling mechanisms pilot and demonstration plants (PDPs) reduce supply and demand uncertainties, and thereby contributing to the market formation for novel sustainable technologies. The analysis builds on three case studies within the advanced biofuel development in Europe. For each case, we construct a narrative of the technology development and derive detailed insights into how technology actors use PDPs to drive market formation. We develop a comprehensive analytical framework, which highlights how PDPs contribute to supply uncertainty reduction through three main enabling mechanisms: building credibility for the technology, business ecosystem orchestration, and technology learning. The corresponding enabling mechanisms behind demand uncertainty reduction include technology standardization, constructing the narrative, and the creation of legitimacy for the technology. The paper also unfolds the composite activities of each mechanism, and outlines implications for technology developers, policymakers, as well as for the research community.
... This is particularly relevant when co-ordinating multi-firm collaborations or multiple platform owners, thus expanding the discussion of platform literature studies that typically underscore the role of a single "keystone" actor or platform owner in platform development (e.g. Laczko, Hullova, Needham, Rossiter, & Battisti, 2019;Williamson & De Meyer, 2012). While previous studies have emphasized value propositions as a tool for building platform ecosystems and creating value (e.g. ...
The agri-food industry is dealing with a perfect storm of financial, planetary
and societal stressors. Farms and firms are being asked to not only produce
more food, but better and more sustainable food. To achieve this will
require new types of knowledge, insights, technology and approaches. At
the same time, digitalization and an array of “smart” technologies are seen
as ushering in the next wave of technological development in the industry.
Many across the public and private sectors herald digitalization as the opportunity
to instill values like sustainability into production practices. However,
others caution that the discourse about the transformative nature of
digital technology is overblown, with any real impact yet to be realized.
So what does the ability to measure, analyze and share farm data, i.e. this
agricultural intelligence, mean for the sector and its goals for sustainability?
Combining insights from sustainability transitions and valuation studies,
this dissertation unpacks how actors in the agri-food system evaluate
and value nascent digital technologies. It argues this will have an
impact on the pathways these technologies take, one that is adaptive or
one that is transformative. It studies two cases in Sweden: vertical farming
and a digital platform. Overall the dissertation highlights that if digital
technology is going to lead to sustainability, the social elements, specifically
the values driving technology decisions and how these values
are measured (or not), should be given greater consideration within innovation
processes if a true socio-technical transition is to be achieved.
... It also leaves room for other types of organization designs to fill other gaps and culminates in an ecosystem-based approach, where all partners are aligned around addressing grand challenges. Our perspective must shift from the focus on individual organizations to entire ecosystems as networks of actors that can evolve capabilities and align their value creation (Adner 2017; Iansiti and Levien 2004;Moore 1993;Williamson and De Meyer 2012). If the NGO provides the local knowledge and the MNC the global vision, perhaps they may also require an ecosystem player that is even more agile (and innovative), such as a local start-up, to provide solutions that could then be scaled together. ...
This Point of View article discusses the implications of different organization designs for solving the Grand Challenges. In line with this Special Issue, we view “ organization designs as problem-solving systems ”. However, we are skeptical that contemporary organization designs indeed “foster collective action that is needed to solve these grand challenges” . We outline different organization design choices for solving the grand challenges and provide a categorization of how selected types of organizations are fit to respond to these based on organizational goals (social–profit), organizational scale (local–global), and organizational decision making (agile–bureaucratic). In conclusion, we offer ideas on how to harness complementarities in different organization designs to develop collaborative ecosystem solutions.
... According to Lenkenhoff, Wilkens, Zheng, Sube, Kuhlenkotter and Ming (2018), digital business ecosystem, which is a collective of firms or organizations connected by a shared interest in the prosperity of a digital technology, is a new form of value creation in networks. In other words, digital business ecosystem highlights the seamless interdependencies among businesses and their values creation (Williamson and De Meyer, 2012), made possible by digital technologies. Subramaniam, Iyer and Venkatraman (2019) make an attempt to differentiate between traditional and digital business ecosystems, which centralizes on digital envelopes and product-in-use information. ...
T his article presents how an instrumental case research-oriented approach can be used in a teacher field trip. The purpose is to help the teachers on a field trip to identify and explore research topics and propositions that have currency in today’s digital and AI economy. The authors of this article were among the 55-member team in the educational field trip to China, in 2018. The trip was motivated by the strategic significance of China as an emerging leader in the world for many contemporary phenomena in new business model and strategies, i.e. new retails (新零售, 人工智能).
The visits to Hangzhou’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) town (中国-杭州人工智能小镇) and Alibaba group headquarter led to some important propositions highlighted in this article. Clearly, there are active progress and achievements of a digitally enabled business ecosystem that emerged as a new and active trend of business model development in China. Among the identified propositions are a model describing the architecture of the business ecosystem, consisting of the production ecosystems, the consumption ecosystems, the broader socio-cultural and public domain level, and the digital envelope and information-in-use, which shares also concepts and knowledge already available in Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS).
In addition, the visit to the Banyan Tree Hotel group in Hangzhou helps the researchers to better understand the role of brand storytelling. Banyan Tree brand started with a story of the founders experiencing their honeymoon in surrounding Banyan trees in Phuket. Since then, everything they do, i.e. the quality assurance system, the infrastructure, new product development, and philanthropy activities, are all related to brand storying telling that shares the same roots of themes, and brand personality. As such, Banyan Tree is an exemplar case, which has significant instrumental utility. A narrative discussion is provided in the article.
... The product-service platformizer model necessitates the provision of access to production-side complementors. However, this modification alone does not comprise a platform ecosystem, as the various components of the product-service offering are consolidated by the platform owner, and the complementors do not function autonomously (Williamson and De Meyer, 2012). However, the platform owner exhibits characteristics akin to a platform ecosystem in its approach towards engaging with its complementors. ...
This chapter develops a typology of B2B platform business models. B2B platforms can be divided into three types depending on the nature of the platform market structures they enable. (1) The product-service platformizer business model creates a platform-like interface on top of a product or service and helps bring in production-side complements to join the focal firm's value proposition. (2) The platform ecosystem orchestrator opens a multi-sided market on top of a B2B product-service value proposition and enables customers to select complements from an ecosystem. (3) The platform market guardian creates an open or semi-open platform marketplace for other B2B firms to transact products or services. For each type, we discuss and illustrate the B2B firm's value creation and capture logic, platform governance, and platform architecture characteristics.
... Businesses may significantly enhance their interactions with stakeholders through digitalization to find, share, store, and analyze information and resources more effectively [91]. Various information technology and communication methods have been suggested to enable businesses to coordinate widely distributed knowledge and capacities [92]. For instance, by achieving real-time and accurate information exchange among supply chain stakeholders through internal digitalization [93], businesses can more effectively detect superfluous assets and weak operational links. ...
Digitalization has facilitated the improvement of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Firms develop their internal skills to deal with external challenges stemming from the digitalization process and the COVID-19 crisis. Founded on the dynamic capability view, our paper empirically tests how firms utilize their digital and creative capabilities to improve their performance during the pandemic and promote their corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. The study conducted a two-step analysis. First, the data from 151 enterprises in Vietnam was collected and analyzed qualitatively to understand their digital capabilities and export performance. Then, the Smart PLS version 3 was utilized to analyze extended quantitative data of 329 SMEs in various industries. This study contributes to the theories of dynamic capability with the implications of developing digital and creative capabilities to enhance performance and CSR differentiation strategy in dealing with external challenges, especially in global pandemics. Firm performance plays a mediating role in the relationship between capabilities and CSR differentiation strategy. Our study also enriches the CSR literature by viewing CSR as firms' achieved targets or voluntary activities instead of as an instrument to boost firm performance. This research provides the background for internationalization researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to face obstacles and overcome barriers, enhance digital and creative capabilities, engage in digital platforms, and benefit from international marketing, international retailing, and CSR activities.
... clearly in the development of ecosystems in which intermediaries bundle novel services for the benefit of customers (Moore 1993;Williamson and De Meyer 2012;Jacobides et al. 2018). One current example is the development of e-cars, which was ultimately pushed forward by a company (Tesla) from outside the industry. ...
Marketing has become accepted and proven in science and practice over the past decades. Many principles of marketing have become self-evident, but have led to gross generalizations and simplified thought patterns. This article examines myths and metaphors in marketing. A distinction is made between myths of managerial marketing and of behavioral marketing. In both sub-disciplines, we are often dealing with complex and invisible phenomena that occur in a variety of contexts. Attempts to explain these phenomena are therefore particularly prone to the emergence of myths or misconceptions. From a managerial perspective, topics such as the philosophy and leadership role of marketing, the generation of innovation success, the development of strategic competitive advantages, and brand management are reflected. Since the change from a sellers’ market to a buyers’ market, consumer behavior research and marketing have been closely intertwined. Therefore, findings from consumer behavior research form a central basis for successful decisions in marketing management. Based on this background, the second part of the article focuses on myths of consumer behavior research, here addressing unconscious phenomena in consumer behavior, mainly the discussion of subliminal priming (and its impact on manipulation) and unconscious perception as well as of unconscious motives, and approaches to implicite attitude measurement. Finally, implications are derived as to what extent the presented phenomena and the unveiling of myths have an impact on marketing management and on consumer behavior research and what roles these disciplines should take in the future. In the era of climate change and digital transformation, particular challenges are emerging. Thus, facts and not myths should determine the future path of the marketing discipline.
... In practice, a standard tool utilized for quantitative decision-making is MS-Excel, which offers scant support for dynamic simulations. Artifacts that enable decision-making with an ecosystem perspective can only view business models through a systemic lens (Williamson & Meyer, 2012). ...
Digital technologies have led to new ways of creating value across organizational boundaries within business ecosystems and now increasingly transform existing business models. However, organizations searching for a successful business model in an ecosystem environment are faced with uncertainty. Previous studies have shown that decision-making can be improved systematically with modeling and simulation. We conducted a two-year action design research study with a B2B start-up and developed a framework with a business ecosystem perspective that supports the use of System Dynamics. This research investigates how an organization in a B2B ecosystem can use simulation to decide on a business model while considering the perspective of other ecosystem actors. We contribute to research on business ecosystems and provide a foundation for further improvements of quantitative business model development tools.
... Second, because of the openness which permits legacy complementors to be subtracted from while new complementors to participate in (Cenamor et al., 2017), collaboration in PIEs is likely to be confronted with more potential complementor candidates as long as they are qualified and meet the access rules for the PIE; this is again different from the cases of both SCs and CMfg which are limited to several known candidates (Geum et al., 2013). Third, collaborations in PIEs are based on modular arrangements because of the modular architecture of PIEs, while those in both SCs and CMfg are based on chain cooperation due to their hierarchical architecture (Williamson and De Meyer, 2012;Wei et al., 2020), which causes modularity and classification to be considered when selecting complementors. ...
... Second, because of the openness which permits legacy complementors to be subtracted from while new complementors to participate in (Cenamor et al., 2017), collaboration in PIEs is likely to be confronted with more potential complementor candidates as long as they are qualified and meet the access rules for the PIE; this is again different from the cases of both SCs and CMfg which are limited to several known candidates (Geum et al., 2013). Third, collaborations in PIEs are based on modular arrangements because of the modular architecture of PIEs, while those in both SCs and CMfg are based on chain cooperation due to their hierarchical architecture (Williamson and De Meyer, 2012;Wei et al., 2020), which causes modularity and classification to be considered when selecting complementors. ...
... While the scope of these sub-processes of orchestrating is discussed in much more detail in the literature (Nambisan and Sawhney, 2011;Reypens, Blazevic, 2019), at its core, orchestration is about driving innovation in the meta-organisation E by influencing the involved actors, that is, especially complementors. McIntyre et al. (2020) and Williamson and De Meyer (2012), thus, point to the importance of managing complementors' portfolios including "practices such as the creation of partnership models, partner training, and consultancy and sales partner support" (Jansen, 2020). Van Alstyne et al. (2016a) make a similar observation when emphasizing innovation platforms' need to optimise their openness, motivate developers, and put "critical mass ahead of money". ...
There is a growing consensus that the digital age comes along with the distinguishing organisational form of the platform. Discussions of this organisational form, however, tend to lack a coherent theoretical framing. In this paper, I argue that the distinction between platform organising and platform organisation helps to reduce some of the equivocality in the discussion. So far, the literature has focused on the novelty of the 'organisational form' without reflecting the inherent ambiguity of the meaning of this term: whereas some scholars use it to describe a new kind of 'social ordering', others associate it with 'formal organisation'. I show that both understandings are relevant, but that they should be kept separate for analytical reasons. Platform organisations are formal organisations which are dependent on the technological infrastructure of a digital platform. Platform organising, however, is a new kind of social ordering, which combines organising outside and organising inside of formal organisations. Platform organising entails four processes: providing (organising technology), regulating (organising markets), integrating (organising networks), and orchestrating (organising the emerging meta-organisation). In shedding light on these processes in their interplay with platform organisations, this paper proposes a theoretical framework providing a basis for both further conceptual considerations and empirical research.
... Technology changes the nature of competition, the industry structure and the boundaries of companies, exposing them to both completely new opportunities and threats, and is even responsible for the fourth industrial revolution and the digital transformation (Porter & Heppelmann, 2014;World Economic Forum, 2016;European Commission, 2017). To seize opportunities and minimise threats, companies may need knowledge that can only be obtained through cooperation with other agents (Williamson & De Meyer, 2012;Benitez et al., 2020). ...
The Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (EE) articulate concepts from various streams of literature and are formed by multiple stakeholders and relate to different levels of analysis. Although the literature shows a growing relevance on the theme of EE, most studies reveal to be conceptual, and the existence of empirical studies with quantitative methodologies is still scarce. This study attempts to contribute to filling this gap by developing a dynamic model of EE and its impact on the small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) international performance by aggregating different levels of analysis. Based on a sample of 120 SMEs, the results suggest that macro (agents) and meso (different partners) level variables positively impact international performance. We also find that technology transfer has a negative moderating effect on the meso level relationship of EE with digital performance. Our study also contributes to a greater understanding of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, its internationalization and the digital performance effect.
... In the past decade, DT has become a salient force for the creation of digital ecosystems (Plekhanov, Franke and Netland, 2022). An ecosystem in the managerial context evolves when a group of organizations cooperates to create and capture better value (Williamson and De Meyer, 2012). Moreover, the focal point in such ecosystems is the ultimate joint VP, which cannot be achieved by any of the firms on their own (Lingens, Miehé and Gassmann, 2021). ...
Exceptional developments in digital technologies have made some of the old theories outdated; hence, there is a need to explore digital transformation through a holistic lens and within various industries and countries. Consequently, we introduced the case of digital transformation of business models as it takes shape in the Israeli HealthTech. We conducted 10 semi-structured expert interviews and complemented these with digital archival data for triangulation. External (e.g. shortage of workforce) and internal (e.g. low digital capabilities) challenges have highlighted the need for digital transformation of business models in healthcare. Thus, we introduce these challenges and the potential value creation in the industry. We also present how Israeli HealthTech start-ups solve challenges and create value in the process. In this way, we contribute to the business model innovation and digital transformation literature. Specifically, in healthcare, we show how value-based healthcare takes place in practice.
... This study elaborates on the characteristics of IE, suggesting that IE is open and dynamic. Owing to the existence of a great quantity of complementary and random interconnected elements in the ecosystem, innovation subjects can flexibly and continuously integrate and restructure activities, assets and capabilities to prevent the emergence of innovation obstacles (Adner, 2006;Williamson and Demeyer, 2012). ...
Purpose
This study aims to explore the effect of innovation ecosystem stability (IES) on innovation performance of enterprises through the mediating role of knowledge acquisition (KA), and to study how these effects are moderated by unabsorbed slack.
Design/methodology/approach
This study draws on data from 327 Chinese enterprises and adopts the multiple linear regression method and bootstrapping method to explore the mediating effect of KA and its moderated mediating effect.
Findings
The results demonstrate that IES is positively associated with innovation performance of enterprises, and KA plays a partially mediating role. Moreover, unabsorbed slack negatively moderates the relationship between IES and KA as well as the mediating effect of KA.
Originality/value
This study investigates the relationship between IES and innovation performance, and the mechanism of influence, which has not been previously studied in the field of innovation ecosystem. This study also examines the interaction between unabsorbed slack and IES and further clarifies the mechanism and boundary conditions of the impact of IES on innovation performance.
Circular Economy business models rely on complex data exchange between organizations, which require a supporting digital infrastructure facilitating the circularity-related processes. In a digital platform context, value is generated not by the underlying technologies but by its allied ecosystem: community, users, developers, and integrated applications. These ecosystems come with an intrinsically complex interorganisational structure often overlooked during the development phase, leading to low platform adoption and obsolete platforms in the mid to long-term. Developed through a combined action-research and design science research approach, we propose a framework to support the design and deployment of circular economy ecosystems from a sociotechnical perspective, including practices from the requirements engineering, circular innovation ecosystems and digital platforms literature.
To solve grand challenges, the collaboration between construction management and urban development professionals is essential. This article proposes that ecosystem conceptualizations can enhance our understanding of collaboration, but how these concepts contribute to this field is unclear. Therefore, a literature review is presented on how ecosystem concepts are operation- alized in construction management and urban development research. The article classifies con- ceptualizations into seven categories and analyzes their potential for contributions to ecosystem theorizing. An ecosystem research agenda is developed, arguing that it can serve as a theoret- ical bridge between these disciplines. The article also highlights how research on ecosystems in the built environment sector can contribute to management and organization research fields more broadly. Notably, conceptualizations of ecosystems as project-based or location-based are valuable contributions to ecosystem research.
In today’s increasingly web-enabled digital world, business environment is being transformed into ecosystems of partners in which digital connectivity, real-time data, information sharing, and visibility are enabled. Partners are becoming increasingly dependent, network collaboration is turning into a key success factor, and managerial, organizational and leadership paradigms are radically changing. This study investigates the requirements of leadership under these collaborative, transformational and technology-intensive conditions. Through a comprehensive and systematic literature review, the study offers main leadership requirements, desired leadership practices, and leader profiles to become successful in this context. Therefore, a conceptual framework is developed. The findings reveal that leadership requirements for digital ecosystems (DES’s) are entirely different from traditional leadership understanding, and orchestration stands out as a key concept. This study is valuable for providing a comprehensive literature review and developing a conceptual framework.
Keywords:
collaboration; digitalization; leadership; requirements; VUCA
Purpose
To improve supply chain performance, companies are now exploring new pathways including industry-wide data sharing initiatives along complex supply chains. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate research in this field by describing the benefits, obstacles and the governance required for supply chain data sharing initiatives.
Design/methodology/approach
Based on publicly available information complemented by interviews with practitioners, the authors describe how companies are establishing ambitious data sharing infrastructure and initiatives along their supply chains.
Findings
The authors describe how data sharing along supply chains is becoming increasingly important for many companies and how the automotive sector is working towards establishing a digital infrastructure for data sharing that could support a wide range of use cases. The article emphasises the importance of studying the governance of data ecosystems using new theoretical approaches. Finally, the authors suggest three areas for future research on data ecosystems, including their governance, the learning dynamics that will drive their adoption and their relationship with broader system-level changes.
Originality/value
This paper is the first, to the authors’ knowledge, that depicts how industry-wide data-sharing initiatives are expected to have an impact on supply chain performance. The authors highlight factors that affect the development and implementation of these initiatives along supply chains.
What drives the entrepreneurial imagination of unknown client markets? Based on a multi-case study of tech entrepreneurs operating out of Boston, this study examines this under-researched question. Findings suggest that tech entrepreneurs imagine unknown client markets in increasingly sophisticated ways, starting from envisioning primary users of the product, to considering multiple parallel client populations, to imagining interdependent client groups using the product in complementary ways. This evolution in thinking seems to be driven by product utility gaps - perceived gaps between the range of product uses and client constellations in which the product can create value. Importantly, at an early stage of the entrepreneurial process, these product utility gaps do not result from market feedback, but from ongoing reciprocal imagination of client markets and underutilized product value. Findings inform research on entrepreneurial imagination and opportunity idea formation, and the strategizing of business ecosystem relationships.
Although digital disruption has become a buzzword, we still lack a comprehensive understanding of what digital disruption actually is and what strategies can be employed to make it happen. Therefore, this chapter starts off by explaining the notion of digital disruption and consecutively illustrating its pervasiveness using a number of detailed examples. It then offers a sneak peek of the processes happening behind the scenes of digital disruption. Specifically, it explains business model innovations, innovation ecosystems, and platforms and network effects as the core strategic concepts that are of paramount importance for understanding the digitalization dynamics. The chapter ends with the state-of-the-art insights towards future challenges and avenues for further research.KeywordsDigital disruptionBusiness model innovationInnovation ecosystemsPlatformsNetwork effects
Emerging technology requires participating members to intensely collaborate in fundamentally novel ways. This participation includes established and start-up firms, health professionals, standards bodies, regulatory agencies, and of course, patients. But how to design, implement, and manage emerging technology that cuts across shifting zones? With firm and global boundaries increasingly blurred, uneven regulatory treatment, and evolving standards, how can ecosystem partners collaborate to mitigate the risks to consumers as their data becomes ever more precise and identifiable? This chapter explores the relationships and decisions that ecosystem partners must collaboratively take together in the context of precision medicine and the challenges of working effectively – and ethically - with consumers.
Çalışmanın amacı, neoklasik iktisadi görüşlere bağlanan ve küresel pazar sistemini karşılıklı çıkara bağlı “serbest piyasa” sistemi olarak gören ana akım KPS çalışmaları ile küresel piyasa sistemini UPE bakışla çözümleyen çalışmaların karşılaştırmalı bir okumasını yaparak, KPS’nin ekonomi-politik bir strateji olup olmadığını tartışmaktır. Bu amaca yönelik olarak çalışmanın ilk bölümünde, pazarlama disiplininde UPE araştırma çerçevesinin temellendirilmesi yapılır. Bu temellendirme aracılığıyla, pazarlamanın pozitivist karakterinin, neoklasik ayrımlardan ve Amerikan merkezli tasarımından kaynaklandığı vurgulanarak, pazarlamanın UPE çerçevesinde incelenmesine imkân veren araştırmaların bu tasarımı genişletme çabalarına değinilir. İkinci bölümde ana akım yazınının KPS’ne yönelik 1960’lı yıllardan itibaren gelişimi dört temel yaklaşım çerçevesinde açıklanır. Bu yaklaşımlar, standardizasyon (standardization), konfigürasyon-koordinasyon (configuration-coordination), entegrasyon (integration) ve ekosistem (eco-system) yaklaşımlarıdır. Nitekim KPS’nin 1960’lı yıllardan itibaren ana akım yazındaki gelişimi takip edildiğinde üç temel yönelimin (standardization, configuration-coordination, integration) ön plana çıktığı (Zou ve Çavuşgil, 2002), 2000’li yıllardan itibaren ise ekosistem (ecosystem) yaklaşımlarının bu gelişime eklemlendiği görülür (Williamson ve Meyer, 2012). Çalışmanın son bölümünde ise ana akım yazının açıkladığı dört yaklaşımın özellikle 2. Dünya savaşından sonra Amerikan merkezli sermayenin zorunlu genişleme eğilimine eşlik eden kültürel ve yapısal stratejiler oldukları vurgulanır. Nitekim UPE bakışla tarihsel/bağlamsal açıdan çözümlendiğinde, KPS’nin uluslararası güç elde etme mücadelesindeki uluslararası aktörlerin hâkimiyet (teknolojik, sermaye birikimi, ekolojik, vs.) arayışlarının ekonomi-politik bir aparatı olduğu anlaşılır.
A business ecosystem consists of a hub-firm (ecosystem leader) and a community of actor-firms. Building on the extended resource-based view and business ecosystem literature, this article explains the factors that contribute to an actor-firm's service innovation. To test our framework, we obtained 100 dyadic, time-lag responses from a tourism resort ecosystem in Indonesia. We found that coopetition is more valuable than shared goals in improving an actor-firm's service innovation. Coopetition is inefficient when the reward-mediated power is high, while shared goals are more beneficial when the non-mediated power is high. These findings indicate that hub-firms should exercise caution regarding their efforts to nurture shared goals, coopetition and interfirm power to promote service innovation. Overall, this study advances the extended resource-based view by highlighting that shared goals and coopetition allow an actor-firm to acquire important resources from its ecosystem relationships with other actor-firms to facilitate service innovation. More importantly, effective access to these relationship-based resources depends on interfirm power.
The idea of a circular economy has become increasingly popular among scholars, practitioners, and policy-makers. It promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and resource depletion for a more nature-friendly economy. Despite the increasingly widespread use of the term, the implementation of the circular economy is falling behind, as barriers persist. One promising avenue for future research stems from the potential of circular ecosystems and the systematic coordination among stakeholders to implement circularity. This review introduces the circular economy and ecosystems literature, analyzes the literature on the circular ecosystem concept, and contributes by suggesting a classification of circular ecosystems, and synthesizing main success factors in circular ecosystems literature. Our classification and success factor analysis thereby decreases the current uncertainty around what a circular ecosystem is and what may make it successful in the real world.
Produzierende Firmen verspüren insbesondere aufgrund der Digitalisierung zunehmend die Notwendigkeit zu einer firmenübergreifenden Zusammenarbeit in Wertschöpfungsnetzen. Oft wird in diesem Zusammenhang auch der Begriff Ökosystem benutzt. Dieses Denken in Wertschöpfungsnetzen wird in diesem Beitrag aus der Perspektive eines Maschinenlieferanten betrachtet und anhand unterschiedlicher Beispiele, die bereits im Markt beobachtbar sind, erläutert. Dieser Trend erfordert einerseits eine strategische Positionierung eines Maschinenlieferanten im Hinblick darauf, mit wem und in welcher Form er zukünftig firmenübergreifend zusammenarbeiten will. Andererseits erfordert dies auf der technischen Ebene eine firmeninterne Standardisierung der Informationsmodelle und Informationsflüsse über alle firmeninternen Wertschöpfungsprozesse hinweg, was wiederum eine geeignete technische Infrastruktur erfordert, die firmenintern aufgebaut und betrieben werden muss.
This article explores the stability of the topological structure of the network of alliances between firms in the software sector during considerable shifts in the underlying technology architecture during 1990-2001. The software sector exhibits "small world" characteristics and its structure has been remarkably stable during this period. This article also offers lessons for managers to effectively master the challenges of navigating in dynamic networks.
To stimulate revenue growth and market response, Boeing decided to develop the 787 Dreamliner. The 787 Dreamliner is not only a revolutionary aircraft, but it also utilizes an unconventional supply chain intended to drastically reduce development cost and time. However, despite significant management efforts and capital investment, Boeing is currently facing a series of delays in its schedule for the maiden flight and plane delivery to customers. This paper analyzes Boeing's rationale for the 787's unconventional supply chain, describes Boeing's challenges for managing this supply chain, and highlights some key lessons for other manufacturers to consider when designing their supply chains for new product development.
Reflections on the early days of computing, the importance of standards, and The Old Man.
A firm often must ensure that products or services it produces match customer expectations. We define variability as any deviation in a production process yielding products or services whose attributes differ from the firm's stated target specifications. Firms pursuing products marked by low variability are more subject to maladaptation costs if production processes are not adjusted to avoid nonconformities. Furthermore, such adjustments often require idiosyncratic investments (e.g., dedicated information technology systems), thereby creating contractual hazards and potential underinvestment. We hypothesize that ownership of sequential activities in the value chain helps mitigate problems associated with maladaptation as well as suboptimalities in transaction-specific investment, thereby resulting in lower variability. Using data on delivery times from the Japanese international courier and small package services industry, we assess the variability-reducing role of ownership in two complementary ways. The first approach is parametric, allowing us to assess the impact of ownership on the variance associated with delivery time; here we focus on shipments that frequently fail to arrive precisely within the time period initially expected by customers. The second approach is more consistent with the notion of reliability, or the likelihood that shipments will not arrive later than expected: we nonparametrically estimate the distribution of deviations between actual and expected delivery time, and verify how distinct organizational choices change the distribution. Ownership of multiple segments yields a particularly pronounced effect on both variance and reliability. Ownership bestows variability-reducing benefits of ownership, especially when ownership is observed in multiple stages of the value chain.
The significant reforms being implemented in governance systems around the world reflect a broader transition of society from the modern to a new emerging era. This transition is framed in terms of a shift from a mechanistic to an ecological worldview, stimulated by a number of developments during the twentieth century and the last decade. In contrast to the mechanistic orientation toward reductionism, prediction and control, and competition, an ecological worldview emphasizes the interconnectedness, self-organizing capacity, and coevolutionary dynamics of all natural systems. This emergent worldview yields useful insights regarding the purpose, design, process, and relationships characteristic of organizational systems that strive to play an effective role in the future governance of society. The discussion outlines specific organizing principles pertinent to these four areas, identifying some compatible practices that are already being adopted by public and private organizations. The authors address the possibility that the continued transition to ecological governance may not reflect just a long, slow process of incremental change, but also could entail a sudden, systemic reorientation that results in a faster transformation of the extant institutions of public administration.
Earlier studies of business clusters have been carried out at the level of companies and industries as units of analysis. This paper explores the Cambridge high-technology cluster with individuals as the principal focus as they help to shed light on entrepreneurial processes, particularly on how their prior work experience together has shaped many of the start-ups and spin-outs from the University of Cambridge, local consulting organizations and other companies.This research explores serial entrepreneurship in the Cambridge high-technology cluster using a family tree and interlocking directorships approach. It reveals a mini-cluster of Cambridge entrepreneurs as the key influence on the success of the growth process and their links between the companies as the structural and relational social capital of the cluster.Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Much has been written about networks, strategic alliances, and virtual organizations. Yet these currently popular frameworks provide little systematic assistance when it comes to out-innovating the competition. That's because most managers still view the problem in the old way: companies go head-to-head in an industry, battling for market share. James Moore sets up a new metaphor for competition drawn from the study of biology and social systems. He suggests that a company be viewed not as a member of a single industry but as a part of a business ecosystem that crosses a variety of industries. In a business ecosystem, companies "co-evolve" around a new innovation, working cooperatively and competitively to support new products and satisfy customer needs. Apple Computer, for example, leads an ecosystem that covers personal computers, consumer electronics, information, and communications. In any larger business environment, several ecosystems may vie for survival and dominance, such as the IBM and Apple ecosystems in personal computers or Wal-Mart and K mart in discount retailing. In fact, it's largely competition among business ecosystems, not individual companies, that's fueling today's industrial transformation. Managers can't afford to ignore the birth of new ecosystems or the competition among those that already exist. Whether that means investing in the right new technology, signing on suppliers to expand a growing business, developing crucial elements of value to maintain leadership, or incorporating new innovations to fend off obsolescence, executives must understand the evolutionary stages all business ecosystems go through and, more important, how to direct those changes.
Managing the Unknown offers a new way of looking at the problem of managing projects in novel and unknown environments. From Europe's leading business school, this book shows how to manage two fundamental approaches that, in combination, offer the possibility of coping with unforeseen influences that inevitably arise in novel projects: Trial-and-Error Learning allows for redefining the plan and the project as the project unfolds Selectionism pursues multiple, independent trials in order to pick the best one at the end Managing the Unknown offers expert guidelines to the specific project mindsets, infrastructures, and management methods required to use these project management approaches and achieve success in spite of unforeseen obstacles. This book equips readers with: Causal explanations of why unforeseeable factors in novel projects make traditional project planning and project risk management insufficient Directly applicable management tools that help managers to guide novel and high-uncertainty projects Real-world case studies of both successful and unsuccessful approaches to managing high uncertainty in novel projects.
Existing studies, largely based in transaction cost economics, approach the issue of vertical scope as the decision of the individual firm about whether to make or buy, given the set of existing markets and well defined vertical segments. However, recent research has shown that the ability to make or buy should not be taken for granted. We argue that this applies not only to dis-integration, but also to re-integration, which often demands new 'all-in-one' markets. Drawing on the British building industry, we develop an inductive framework to explain why, after long periods of vertical specialization, industries shift to vertical reintegration. We observe that various groups, including professionals, play an active role in shaping the nature and the boundaries of the industry, facilitating the onset of vertical specialization, which, in turn, shapes a number of increasingly distinct knowledge bases in the industry, defining the trajectories along which capabilities evolve over time. As specialization in scope begets specialization in knowledge, difficulties in managing technical and organizational interdependencies arise, especially in the face of changing environmental conditions. The gap between what the vertically specialized system can produce, and what a changing environment demands, sets in motion a process of experimentation with integrated service provision, which is strengthened by broader social forces such as the deinstitutionalization of professions, or changes in demand structure. Reintegration is advanced by firms seeking to protect their position; enter new, related markets; or find new ways of leveraging their capabilities: Firms strategize to change their institutional environment, helping to create new all-in-one, integrated markets.
When is open innovation superior to closed innovation? Through a formal simulation model we show that an open approach to innovation allows the firm to discover combinations of product features that would be hard to envision under integration. However, when partners have divergent goals, open innovation restricts the firm's ability to establish the product's technological trajectory. The resolution of the trade-off between benefits of discovery and costs of divergence determines the best approach to innovation.
Even among internet companies, Google stands out as an enterprise designed with the explicit goal of succeeding at rapid, profuse innovation. Much of what the company does is rooted in its legendary IT infrastructure, but technology and strategy at Google are inseparable and mutually permeable - making it hard to say whether technology is the DNA of its strategy or the other way around. Whichever it is, Iyer and Davenport, of Babson College, believe Google may well be the internet-era heir to such companies as General Electric and IBM as an exemplar of management practice. Google has spent billions of dollars creating its internet-based operating platform and developing proprietary technology that allows the company to rapidly develop and roll out new services of its own or its partners' devising. As owner and operator of its innovation "ecosystem," Google can control the platform's evolution and claim a disproportionate percentage of the value created within it. Because every transaction is performed through the platform, the company has perfect, continuous awareness of, and access to, the by-product information and is the hub of all germinal revenue streams. In addition to technology explicitly designed and built for innovation, Google has a well-considered organizational and cultural strategy that helps the company attract the most talented people in the land - and keep them working hard. For instance, Google budgets innovation into job descriptions, eliminates friction from development processes, and cultivates a taste for failure and chaos. While some elements of Google's success as an innovator would be very hard and very costly to emulate, others can be profitably adopted by almost any business.
A growing body of research suggests that an organization's ties to other organizations furnish resources that bestow various benefits. Scholars have proposed different perspectives on how such networks of ties shape organizational behavior and performance outcomes, but they have paid little attention to the underlying mechanisms driving these effects. We propose reach, richness, and receptivity as three fundamental mechanisms that jointly constitute a parsimonious model for explaining how network resources contribute to organizational performance. Reach is the extent to which an organization's network connects it to diverse and distant partners. Richness represents the potential value of the resources available to the organization through its ties to partners. Receptivity denotes the extent to which the organization can access and channel network resources across interorganizational boundaries. Whereas reach specifies how wide-ranging and heterogeneous the organization's network connections are, richness characterizes the value of the combinations of resources furnished by its partners. Receptivity in turn portrays how organizational capabilities and the quality of ties to partners facilitate flows of network resources. We propose that the interplay of these three mechanisms determines the benefits that the organization obtains from its network: reach and richness jointly determine the potential value of the network, while receptivity is crucial in realizing that potential.
In this paper a preliminary theoretical frame- work for the study of business ecosystems is con- structed. It is based on theories from the fields of complexity and evolutionary economics. Impor- tant concepts include the following: coevolution, self-organization, emergence, conscious choice, limited knowledge, interconnectedness, feedback and the interaction of variation, selection and development.
This article examines how firms find pathways to high performance with a simultaneous focus on their top and bottom lines by aggressively developing and managing their relationships with key stakeholders. Top-performing firms are shrinking their core while at once expanding their periphery. At the same time that they are contracting their organizational centers and outsourcing increasing portions of their activities, these firms are extending their organizational borders by trying to provide customers with greater sets of products and services. As companies refocus, they have become increasingly dependent on reinforcing mutually beneficial ties to four sets of critical stakeholders: customers, suppliers, alliance partners, and intra-organizational business units. In each of these relationship dimensions, successful firms work their way up a ladder in which they intensify their collaborative efforts with that particular constituent. This phenomenon, which is evident across an array of industries, is one of the hallmarks of a new operating model—the relationship-centered organization.
Existing studies, largely based in the transaction cost economics tradition, approach the issue of vertical scope from the point of view of the decision faced by the individual firm about whether to make or buy, given a set of existing markets and well-defined vertical segments. However, recent research has shown that the very ability to make or buy should not be taken for granted. We argue that this is not only the case for dis-integration, but also for re-integration, which often implies the need for new "all-in-one" markets. Drawing on the analysis of the recent trend toward re-integration in the British building industry, we develop an inductive framework that explains why industries, after going through long periods of vertical specialization, shift to vertical re-integration. First, we observe that various industry groups, including professionals, play an active role in shaping the nature and the boundaries of the industry, facilitating the onset of vertical specialization. This vertical division of labour, in turn, shapes a number of increasingly distinct knowledge bases in the industry; it also defines the trajectories along which capabilities evolve over time. Over time, specialization in scope begets specialization in knowledge, and may inadvertently lead to excessive compartmentalization. The gap between what the vertically specialized system can produce and what the market demands sets in motion a process of experimentation with integrated service provision. The emergence of re-integration may be facilitated by broader social forces such as the de-institutionalization of professions, or changes in demand structure. It is also driven by the agency of firms which through re-integration seek to protect their position; enter new, related markets; or find new ways of leveraging their capabilities. We thus show how and why firms strategize to change their institutional environment and help create new markets.
In light of the increasing popularity of interfirm alliances, the resource-based view is revisited and extended in order to allow for the consideration of network resources in evaluating the competitive advantage of interconnected firms. The proposed model distinguishes shared resources from non-shared resources, identifies new types of rent, and illustrates how firm-specific, relation-specific, and partner-specific factors determine the contribution of network resources to the rents that firms extract from their alliance networks. The resource-based conditions of heterogeneity, imperfect mobility, imitability and substitutability are reassessed, concluding that the nature of relationships may matter more than the nature of resources in creating and sustaining competitive advantage in networked environments.
In this study, we extend the analysis of adaptation in theories of economic organization beyond traditional considerations of incentive conflict (hold-up). We conceptualize adaptation as coordinated and cooperative response to change, and define the adaptive capacity of a vertical relationship as the ability to generate coordinated and cooperative responses across procurer and supplier to changes in procurement conditions. We draw on the concepts of differentiation and integration to dimensionalize the adaptive capacity of different modes of procurement. Using data on all component classes procured internally and externally by Ford and Chrysler, we show that different procurement modes differ in terms of their adaptive capacity and performance. We also show that performance differences across modes of procurement arise as a function of the match between adaptive capacity and adaptation requirements associated with the exchange, and not only the match between governance form and transaction hazards. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Instead of the currently prevailing competitive model, a more collaborative strategy is needed to address the concerns related to the unsustainability of today’s business. This article aims to explore collaborative
approaches where enterprises seek to build long-term, mutually beneficial relationships with all stakeholders and want to
produce sustainable values for their whole business ecosystem. Cases here analyzed demonstrate that alternative ways of doing
business are possible. These enterprises share more democratic ownership structures, more balanced and broader governance
systems, and a more comprehensive view of organizational goals and performance – which goes beyond the narrow concept of financial
bottom line and into a stronger and systematic care of the needs and requirements of the different stakeholder groups. Thanks
to this evidence and different theoretical and empirical contributions, we suggest that the strength and sustainability of
enterprises come from their ability to fit into the environmental, social, and cultural context in which they operate. By
creating values for all stakeholders, enterprises can involve them and gain deep support based on their commitment. This may
lead to superior performance from a multiple-bottom-line perspective.
The purpose of this paper is to propose a new, empirically derived typology of plants in the international manufacturing network of multinational companies. This typology is based on the knowledge flows between the plants. In our research, network analysis has been used as a methodology for understanding the position of plants in international manufacturing networks. The focus has been primarily on the intangible knowledge network, and secondarily on the physical, logistic network. Our analysis leads to four types of plants with different network roles: the isolated plants, the receivers, the hosting network players, and the active network players. Our analysis shows that the different types of plants play a different strategic role in the company, have a different focus, and differ in age, autonomy, and level of resources and investments. Also, the analysis suggests that the evolution of the plant depends to some extent on the network role of the plant. Finally, two scenarios for the development of a strong network role are identified. The research is useful for the scholar studying the architecture of knowledge networks, as well as for the practitioner who is in charge of an international network of manufacturing units.
Acquirers who buy small technology based firms for their technological capabilities often discover that post merger integration can destroy the very innovative capabilities that made the acquired organization attractive in the first place. Viewing structural integration as a mechanism to achieve coordination between acquirer and target organizations helps explain why structural integration may be necessary in technology acquisitions despite the costs of disruption this imposes, as well as the conditions under which it becomes less (or un-) necessary. We show that interdependence motivates structural integration, but pre-existing common ground offers acquirers an alternate path to achieving coordination, which may be less disruptive than structural integration.
Our understanding of how markets and businesses operate was passed down to us more than a century ago by English economist Alfred Marshall. It is based on the assumption of diminishing returns: products or companies that get ahead in a market eventually run into limitations so that a predictable equilibrium of prices and market shares is reached. The theory was valid for the bulk-processing, smokestack economy of Marshall's day. But in this century, Western economies have gone from processing resources to processing information, from the application of raw energy to the application of ideas. The mechanisms that determine economic behavior have also shifted--from diminishing returns to increasing returns. Increasing returns are the tendency for that which is ahead to get further ahead and for that which is losing advantage to lose further advantage. If a product gets ahead, increasing returns can magnify the advantage, and the product can go on to lock in the market. Mechanisms of increasing returns exist alongside those of diminishing returns in all industries. But, in general, diminishing returns hold sway in the traditional, resource-processing industries. Increasing returns reign in the newer, knowledge-based industries. Modern economies have split into two interrelated worlds of business corresponding to the two types of returns. The two worlds have different economics. They differ in behavior, style, and culture. They call for different management techniques, strategies, and codes of government regulation. The author illuminates those differences by explaining how increasing returns operate in high tech and in service industries. He also offers advice to managers in knowledge-based markets.
High-definition televisions should, by now, be a huge success. Philips, Sony, and Thompson invested billions of dollars to develop TV sets with astonishing picture quality. From a technology perspective, they've succeeded: Console manufacturers have been ready for the mass market since the early 1990s. Yet the category has been an unmitigated failure, not because of deficiencies, but because critical complements such as studio production equipment were not developed or adopted in time. Under-performing complements have left console producers in the position of offering a Ferrari in a world without gasoline or highways--an admirable engineering feat, but not one that creates value for customers. The HDTV story exemplifies the promise and peril of innovation ecosystems--the collaborative arrangements through which firms combine their individual offers into a coherent, customer-facing solution. When they work, innovation ecosystems allow companies to create value that no one firm could have created alone. The benefits of these systems are real. But for many organizations the attempt at ecosystem innovation has been a costly failure. This is because, along with new opportunities, innovation ecosystems also present a new set of risks that can brutally derail a firm's best efforts. Innovation ecosystems are characterized by three fundamental types of risk: initiative risks--the familiar uncertainties of managing a project; interdependence risks--the uncertainties of coordinating with complementary innovators; and integration risks--the uncertainties presented by the adoption process across the value chain. Firms that assess ecosystem risks holistically and systematically will be able to establish more realistic expectations, develop a more refined set of environmental contingencies, and arrive at a more robust innovation strategy. Collectively, these actions will lead to more effective implementation and more profitable innovation.
Intel and Microsoft neither buy from nor sell to each other directly, but they are undeniably in business together. They are probably the world's most widely known pair of complementors--companies that independently provide complementary products or services to mutual customers. Complementors increase the value of each other's offerings and the size of the total market. So it's not surprising that so many just assume that their interests are aligned. Nothing could be further from the truth. Discord can develop in many areas, such as pricing, technology, standards, and control of the market--both in terms of which company has the most influence over customers and which one gets the biggest slice of the pie. The issue of pricing perfectly captures this tension. Ideally, you'd like to price your goods high while your complementors price theirs low. Airlines, for instance, would be happy to see vacation lodgings go for a song, while destination resorts could raise rates and still fill their rooms if customers could fly there for free. The first step in managing relationships with complementors is to develop a deep understanding of their economics, their strategies and goals, their existing capabilities, their incentives for cooperation, and any potential areas of conflict. Then, to gain the upper hand, companies can use a variety of tools that fall into two main categories: hard power (inducements or coercion to get what you want) and soft power (persuasion through indirect means to get others to want what you want). The authors explain how to build both hard power and soft, illustrate the strengths and limits of each, and offer guidelines for choosing one over the other. Conflict among complementors is inevitable, but together, hard and soft power can help companies manage the dark side of complementor relationships and take full advantage of the opportunities that cooperation should create.
"This paper explores Intel's strategy with respect to complements. We find that, as the literature predicts, Intel's entry decisions are shaped by the belief that it does not have the capabilities to enter all possible markets, and thus that it must encourage widespread entry despite the fact that potential entrants (rationally) fear Intel's ability to "squeeze" them ex post. We explore the ways in which Intel addresses this issue, highlighting in particular the firm's use of organizational structure and processes as commitment mechanisms. Our results have implications for our understanding of the dynamics of competition in complements and of the role of organizational form in shaping competition." Copyright 2007, The Author(s) Journal Compilation (c) 2007 Blackwell Publishing.
The Competitive Advantage of Interconnected Firms: An Extension of the Resource- Based View Academy of Management Review Platform Owner Entry and Innovation in Complementary Markets: Evidence from Intel
- D Lavie
- A Gawer
- R Henderson
D. Lavie, " The Competitive Advantage of Interconnected Firms: An Extension of the Resource-
Based View, " Academy of Management Review, 31/3 (July 2006): 638-358; A. Gawer and
R. Henderson, " Platform Owner Entry and Innovation in Complementary Markets: Evidence from Intel, " Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16/1 (Spring 2007): 1-34.
ARM Holdings PLC.: Ecosystem Advantage
- P Williamson
- A. De Meyer
P. Williamson and A. De Meyer, "ARM Holdings PLC.: Ecosystem Advantage," Judge Business
School case collection and ECCH, Case No. 310-127-1, 2009.
Lessons From IBM: Smart Energy Systems Need a Lot of Friends
- J Gathwaite
J. Gathwaite, "Lessons From IBM: Smart Energy Systems Need a Lot of Friends," Big Green,
June 23, 2009.
- A D Chandler
A.D. Chandler, Strategy and Structure (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1962), p. 31.
- T Friedman
T. Friedman, The World is Flat (London: Allen Lane, 2005), pp. 72-73.