No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
How to build up an ecosystem – recommendations for practitioners
Abstract
Although business ecosystems are still at an immature stage of its development, they are regarded to be growing significantly when it comes to research and industrial practices. This mentioned immaturity or in other words an early stage of development is due to the lack of rigid analytical evidence and further insight causing it to be entirely conceptual. Subsequently, a lack of focus from the research point of view addressing the question of how companies can create or initiate business ecosystems while dealing with surrounding restrictions. Based on a multiple case study, this paper presents two archetypal development practices to help practitioners in the establishment of business ecosystems. Finally, it intends to several ways for future research on ecosystem complementors, the organisation and the role of start-ups in ecosystems.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Rooted in the territorial approach, this theoretical paper offers a systematic literature review (SLR) of ecosystems based on a selection of 104 articles and books and their archetypes. First, we identify and discuss the four main types of ecosystems – business, innovation, entrepreneurial, and knowledge ecosystems – and indicate the presence of other transversal concepts. Second, we provide an overview of related and well-established theories from the territorial approach that have been largely omitted although they are ecosystem archetypes. Third, we identify the invariants across the four diverging streams from the ecosystem approach and the seven diverging streams from the territorial approach. Finally, we propose a research framework based on the comparison between key invariants from both approaches and discuss their similarities and differences that could serve as a foundation for future empirical research. This study therefore links the ecosystem and territorial approaches under the complex evolutionary system umbrella by creating a theoretical framework that reflects the complex interconnection between models, theories, and emerging concepts.
Innovation ecosystems are increasingly regarded as important vehicles to create and capture value from complex value propositions. While current literature assumes these value propositions can be known ex-ante and an appropriate ecosystem design derived from them, we focus instead on generative technological innovations that enable an unbounded range of potential value propositions, hence offering no clear guidance to firms. To illustrate our arguments, we inductively study two organizations, each attempting to create two novel ecosystems around new technological enablers deep in their industry architecture. We highlight how ecosystem creation in such conditions is a systemic process driven by coupled feedback loops, which organizations must try to control dynamically: firms first make the switch to creating the ecosystem following an external pull to narrow down the range of potential applications; then need to learn to keep up with ecosystem dynamics by roadmapping and preempting, while simultaneously enacting resonance. Dynamic control further entails counteracting the drifting away of the nascent ecosystem from the firm's idea of future value creation and the sliding of its intended control points for value capture. Our findings shed new light on strategy and control in emerging ecosystems, and provide guidance to managers on playing the ecosystem game.
Over the past 20 years, the term “ecosystem” has become pervasive in discussions of strategy, both scholarly and applied. Its rise has mirrored an increasing interest and concern among both researchers and managers with interdependence across organizations and activities. This article presents a structuralist approach to conceptualizing the ecosystem construct. It presents a clear definition of the ecosystem construct, a grammar for characterizing ecosystem structure, and a characterization of the distinctive aspects of ecosystem strategy. This approach offers an explicit examination of the relationship among ecosystems and a host of alternative constructs (business models, platforms, coopetition, multisided markets, networks, technology systems, supply chains, value networks) that helps characterize where the ecosystem construct adds, and does not add, insight for the strategy literature.
This chapter adopts a problem-solving perspective to analyze the competitive dynamics of innovation ecosystems. We argue that features such as uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, entail different knowledge requirements which explain the varying abilities of focal firms to coordinate the ecosystem and benefit from the activities of their suppliers, complementors, and users. We develop an analytical framework to interpret various instances of coupling patterns and identify four archetypical types of innovation ecosystems.
This dissertation is focussed on the tactic the interviewer uses while probing. A probing tactic is an interviewer stance towards the answers of the respondent and the reaction following from this stance. In this research three different probing tactics are distinguished: the accommodating, the encouraging and the challenging.
A field experiment with 36 interviewers was held to determine whether these probing tactics have an effect on the quality and content of the received information. In order to tackle any possible topic- dependency of the effects of the probing tactics, in each of the 214 interviews three different topics of social categorisation: ‘Amsterdammers’, friends and ‘allochthons’.
The results of this study are remarkable considering what is known about effects of interviewer behaviour in closed interviews and what is often supposed in literature on open interviewing.
We used computer simulations to examine the role and interrelationship between search processes that are forward-looking, based on actors' cognitive map of action-outcome linkages, and those that are backward-looking, or experience based. Cognition was modeled as a simple, low-dimensional representation of a more complex, higher dimensional fitness landscape. Results show that, although crude, these representations still act as a powerful guide to initial search efforts and usefully constrain the direction of subsequent experiential search. Changing a cognitive representation itself can act as an important mode of adaptation, effectively resulting in the sequential allocation of attention to different facets of the environment. This virtue of shifting cognitive representation, however, may be offset by the loss of tacit knowledge associated with the prior cognition.
The goal of every author is to write a paper that readers (and reviewers) find convincing. Since writers of papers based on case research do not have recourse to the canonical statement "results are significant at p 0.05" that helps assuage read- ers' skepticism of empirical papers, researchers us- ing case research often feel they are fighting an uphill battle to persuade their readers. In this short essay, I provide some thoughts guided by my expe- rience of reading, reviewing, and writing papers based on case-based research over the last decade. These are clearly only the views of this particular writer and thus should be taken with a consider- able grain of salt. I am seeking here more to provoke thought than to provide answers. What makes a case study persuasive? The first
Scholars who view organizational, social, and technological systems as sets of interdependent decisions have increasingly used simulation models from the biological and physical sciences to examine system behavior. These models shed light on an enduring managerial question: How much exploration is necessary to discover a good configuration of decisions? The models suggest that, as interactions across decisions intensify and local optima proliferate, broader exploration is required. The models typically assume, however, that the interactions among decisions are distributed randomly. Contrary to this assumption, recent empirical studies of real organizational, social, and technological systems show that interactions among decisions are highly patterned. Patterns such as centralization, small-world connections, power-law distributions, hierarchy, and preferential attachment are common. We embed such patterns into an NK simulation model and obtain dramatic results: Holding fixed the total number of interactions among decisions, a shift in the pattern of interaction can alter the number of local optima by more than an order of magnitude. Thus, the long-run value of broader exploration is significantly greater in the face of some interaction patterns than in the face of others. We develop simple, intuitive rules of thumb that allow a decision maker to examine two interaction patterns and determine which warrants greater investment in broad exploration. We also find that, holding fixed the interaction pattern, an increase in the number of interactions raises the number of local optima regardless of the pattern. This validates prior comparative static results with respect to the number of interactions, but highlights an important implicit assumption in earlier work--that the underlying interaction pattern remains constant as interactions become more numerous.
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.
We study the phenomenon of business ecosystems in which platform firms orchestrate the functioning of ecosystems by providing platforms and setting the rules for participation by complementor firms.We develop a theoretical framework to explain how the structural and evolutionary features of the ecosystem may shape the extent to which participating complementor firms can sustain their superior performance. The structural feature, which we refer to as ecosystem complexity, is a function of the number of unique components or subsystems that interact with the complementor's product.We incorporate the evolutionary features by considering the role of generational transitions initiated by platform firms over time as well as the role of complementors' ecosystem-specific experience. Evidence from Apple's iOS and Google's Android smartphone ecosystems supports our arguments that higher ecosystem complexity helps app developers sustain their superior performance, and that this effect is stronger for more experienced firms. In contrast, platform transitions initiated by Apple and Google make it more difficult for app developers to sustain their performance superiority, and that this effect is exacerbated by the extent of ecosystem complexity. The study offers a novel account of how the performance of complementor firms in platform-based business ecosystems may be shaped by their ecosystem-level interdependencies.
- This paper describes the process of inducting theory using case studies from specifying the research questions to reaching closure. Some features of the process, such as problem definition and construct validation, are similar to hypothesis-testing research. Others, such as within-case analysis and replication logic, are unique to the inductive, case-oriented process. Overall, the process described here is highly iterative and tightly linked to data. This research approach is especially appropriate in new topic areas. The resultant theory is often novel, testable, and empirically valid. Finally, framebreaking insights, the tests of good theory (e.g., parsimony, logical coherence), and convincing grounding in the evidence are the key criteria for evaluating this type of research.
The study considers the interdependencies between complementors in the business ecosystem and explores the nature of collaborative interactions between them. It sheds light on the organizational and the strategic contexts in which such interactions take place, and shows how they may influence the pattern and the benefits of collaboration. The evidence presented is based on fieldwork followed by a detailed survey instrument administered to firms in the semiconductor industry. The findings, while reinforcing the shift in the locus of value creation from focal firms to collaborative business ecosystems characterized by information sharing and joint action among complementors, illustrate the organizational and the competitive challenges that firms face in their pursuit of joint value creation.
We study the economic tradeoffs that drive organizations to position themselves closer to or further away from a multi-sided platform (MSP) business model, relative to three traditional alternatives: vertically integrated firms, resellers or input suppliers. These tradeoffs lead to a comprehensive discussion of the defining features of MSPs. The formal model we develop focuses on the MSP versus vertical integration choice, which we interpret in the context of professional services. A key tradeoff emerges between the need to coordinate decisions that generate spillovers across professionals (best achieved by a vertical integrated firm) and the need to both motivate unobservable effort by professionals and ensure professionals adapt their decisions to their private information (best achieved by a MSP). We show how this baseline tradeoff is impacted by the nature of contracts available to the vertically integrated firm and the MSP, and by the possibility of professionals holding pessimistic expectations when deciding whether or not to join the vertically integrated firm or MSP.
Why do some new technologies emerge and quickly supplant incumbent technologies while others take years or decades to take off? We present a framework that considers both the focal competing technologies as well as the ecosystems in which they are deployed. We consider the joint effects of the ecosystem emergence challenges that confront the new technology and the ecosystem extension opportunities that are available to the old technology. We identify four qualitatively distinct regimes with clear predictions for the pace of substitution. We test our framework with data on ten technology transitions in the semiconductor lithography equipment industry from 1972–2009. We find strong support for our framework in explaining variance in the pace of substitution. We discuss the implication of our approach for firm strategy.
I outline a synthesis of micro and macro levels that attempts to provide a broader conceptualization of academic entrepreneurship and an appreciation of the contextual heterogeneity of academic entrepreneurship and the implications for how it occurs. The micro-level concerns how firms orchestrate their resources and capabilities, specifically knowing where resources come from and how to accumulate, bundle and configure them to generate sustainable returns. At the macro level, I analyse four different dimensions of context: temporal, institutional, social and spatial. Consequently, I argue that there is a need for a reconciliation of utilitarian and education-for-education’s sake perspectives on the role of universities.
The modern corporation has long been the central focus of the field of organization design. Such firms can be likened to nation-states: they have boundaries that circumscribe citizen-employees, and they engage in production and trade. But individual corporations are no longer adequate to serve as the primary unit of analysis. Over the years, systems of distributed innovation – so-called business ecosystems – have become increasingly prevalent in many industries (Adner & Kapoor, 2010; Iansiti & Levien, 2004; von Hippel, 1988). Ecosystems generally encompass numerous corporations, individuals, and communities that might be individually autonomous but related through their connection with an underlying, evolving technical system.In the future, I believe the key problem for organization design will be the management of distributed innovation in such dynamic ecosystems. Specifically, how should diverse entities be integrated into a coherent network that generates goods in the present and new designs for the future? To answer that question, organization designers must think about how to distribute property rights, people, and activities across numerous self-governing enterprises in ways that are advantageous for the group (ecosystem) as well as for the designer’s own firm or community.
The paper proposes a method for analysing, modelling and foresighting the business ecosystems as network structures interacting one with each other. The methodology's name is “methodology of business ecosystem network analysis” (MOBENA). The paper shows how it is possible to systematically study the structure and fluxes of a business ecosystem. The main problems of other modelling languages for firm interactions that MOBENA tries to overcome are that (1) the methodologies tailored for BEs are very few, the others neglect interdependences or focus only on tangible or intangible aspects, and (2) they limit potential for strategic analysis and they do not take in a future-perspective. The paper includes an analysis of literature on Strategic Management (in particular, strategic models on relationships), Network Analysis and Foresight, from whence the theoretical proposal of the MOBENA is born. Then, the authors illustrate its application via a case study conducted inside the Telecom Italia Future Centre, and in particular taking as example the digital imaging ecosystem. The original aspects are the mapping of tangible and intangible relationships, the dynamic and foresight analysis, the possibility to set strategic guidance thanks to specific indicators.
As an introduction to the special issue topic of value creation, we define value creation in terms of use value and exchange value and discuss some of the key issues related to its study, including the topic of value capture. Although the definition of value creation is common across levels of analysis, the process of value creation will differ based on whether value is created by an individual, an organization, or society. We use the concepts of competition and isolating mechanisms to explain how value can be captured at different levels of analysis.
Success in business ecosystems that include well-established companies and new ventures requires collaboration and competition, a task that demands strategic thinking to leverage a firm's resources and capabilities. Strategic thinking and the entrepreneurial activities in an ecosystem influence one another in a cycle that perpetuates and even sparks innovation. These interactions vary significantly across four types of business ecosystems—Orchestra, Creative Bazaar, Jam Central, and MOD Station—and determine the success and failures of new ventures and established companies. The nature and effect of the dynamic interactions in a business ecosystem can have profound implications for organizational success.
This paper introduces a social network perspective to the study of strategic alliances. It extends prior research, which has primarily considered alliances as dyadic exchanges and paid less attention to the fact that key precursors, processes, and outcomes associated with alliances can be defined and shaped in important ways by the social networks within which most firms are embedded. It identifies five key issues for the study of alliances: (1) the formation of alliances, (2) the choice of governance structure, (3) the dynamic evolution of alliances, (4) the performance of alliances, and (5) the performance consequences for firms entering alliances. For each of these issues, this paper outlines some of the current research and debates at the firm and dyad level and then discusses some of the new and important insights that result from introducing a network perspective. It highlights current network research on alliances and suggests an agenda for future research.© 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This paper draws on the social and behavioral sciences in an endeavor to specify the nature and microfoundations of the capabilities necessary to sustain superior enterprise performance in an open economy with rapid innovation and globally dispersed sources of invention, innovation, and manufacturing capability. Dynamic capabilities enable business enterprises to create, deploy, and protect the intangible assets that support superior long- run business performance. The microfoundations of dynamic capabilities—the distinct skills, processes, procedures, organizational structures, decision rules, and disciplines—which undergird enterprise-level sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring capacities are difficult to develop and deploy. Enterprises with strong dynamic capabilities are intensely entrepreneurial. They not only adapt to business ecosystems, but also shape them through innovation and through collaboration with other enterprises, entities, and institutions. The framework advanced can help scholars understand the foundations of long-run enterprise success while helping managers delineate relevant strategic considerations and the priorities they must adopt to enhance enterprise performance and escape the zero profit tendency associated with operating in markets open to global competition. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
The business model navigator: 55 models that will revolutionise your business
- O Gassmann
- K Frankenberger
- M Csik
Gassmann, O., Frankenberger, K., & Csik, M. (2014). The business model navigator: 55
models that will revolutionise your business. Pearson UK.
Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation
- A Gawer
- M A Cusumano
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2002). Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and
Cisco drive industry innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
- R P Gephart
Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative Research and the Academy of Management Journal.
Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454-462.
Inside Look at Birth of the iPod
- L Kahney
Kahney, L. (2004). Inside Look at Birth of the iPod. Wired July.
Android smartphone ecosystems
Android smartphone ecosystems. Organization Science, 28(3), 531-551. doi:
10.1287/orsc.2017.1122
Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How organizational forms shape new technology investments
- R Kapoor
- J M Lee
Kapoor, R., & Lee, J. M. (2013). Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How
organizational forms shape new technology investments. Strategic Management
Journal, 34(3), 274-296. doi: 10.1002/smj.2010
Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you
- G Parker
- M Van Alstyne
- S P Choudary
Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution: How
networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for
you. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Ecosystem Advantage: How to successfully harness the power of partners. California management review
- P J Williamson
- A Meyer
Williamson, P. J., & De Meyer, A. (2012). Ecosystem Advantage: How to successfully
harness the power of partners. California management review, 55(1), 24-46. doi:
10.1525/cmr.2012.55.1.24