No file available
To read the file of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Ecosystems – Die Zukunft kollaborativer und kompetitiver Beziehungen
Abstract
Globalisierung, Urbanisierung und Digitalisierung sind Megatrends, die das aktuelle Zeitalter charakterisieren und den Arbeitsalltag beeinflussen. Sie werden als Externalitäten wahr-genommen, die in den Vorstellungen der Menschen auf die Menschen wirken. Bei genauerer Betrachtung kann allerdings festgestellt werden, dass die Konzepte von Menschen entwickelt wurden, durch Menschen geprägt und durch sie verarbeitet, interpretiert und bewertet werden. Es sind Erscheinungen, die auf das Engste mit den Menschen verknüpft sind. In Diskussionen, die darauf abzielen, den genannten Megatrends proaktiv und mit Mitgestaltungswille zu begegnen, taucht immer öfters der Begriff Ecosystem auf. Er impliziert ein Zusammenspannen von Individuen und Organisationen in einem globalen, oftmals urbanen und nicht selten digitalen Umfeld über Organisationsgrenzen hinweg mit dem Ziel, mit vereinten Ressourcen ein gewünschtes Ergebnis zu erzielen. Vorliegendes White Papier beabsichtig, das Thema Ecosystems zu erschliessen. Es werden Schlüsselbegriffe definiert, zentrale Punkte ausgeführt sowie Relevanz und Implikationen dargelegt.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
In recent years, we have seen increasing interest in new service concepts that take advantage of the capabilities of business ecosystems instead of single companies. In this article, we describe how a business ecosystem begins to develop around a service business idea proposed by an entrepreneur. We aim to recognize the different domains of players that are or should be involved in the ecosystem while it is under construction. The article concludes with an ecosystem model consisting of six sub-ecosystems having different change drivers and clockspeeds.
This paper examines the specific impacts of market-oriented coopetition on product commercial performance. Indeed, most contributions have focused on technology-driven coopetition with cooperation on activities that are far from the market (e.g., production, R&D), whereas most coopetitive agreements involve market-oriented coopetition in which the cooperation arises in activities that are close to the market (e.g., marketing, distribution). We first present the specificities of market-oriented coopetition and distinguish horizontal and vertical market-oriented coopetition. We then focus on the performance implications of market-oriented coopetition. Building on social network exchange theory, we elaborate a theoretical framework detailing the mechanisms through which market-oriented coopetition affects product commercial performance. Using a database from the real estate brokerage industry, we validate our hypotheses that horizontal market-oriented coopetition enhances product commercial performance compared to competition, whereas vertical market-oriented coopetition does not. Furthermore, we highlight the existence of a learning effect for horizontal market-oriented coopetition. This research contributes to coopetition theory by defining market-oriented coopetition and studying its performance implications.
Most articles studying coopetition focus on horizontal relationships between homogenous actors using a single level of analysis. However, several recent theoretical contributions have emphasized that coopetition is a more complex phenomenon and could imply vertical relations or heterogeneous actors. We contribute to this debate on the nature of coopetition by constructing a typology of coopetition. This typology is the result of an abductive process in which we mobilize the concept of “level.” Using the airline industry, we combine activity levels and organizational levels to identify seven forms of coopetition. Finally, we discuss the implications of a multilevel analysis to gain a better understanding of coopetition.
Coined by Tansley in 1935 to designate a basic ecological unit composed of both the environment and the organisms that inhabit it, the term ecosystem was taken up again by Moore (1993) to designate the systems of actors maintaining relationships of coopetition: business ecosystems. Moore's definition is regularly employed in academic literature today, without having been the object of in-depth discussion. With critical intention, the first section of this research note sets out to show the weakness of this ecological metaphor, a metaphor which, without a doubt, contributed to the success of the concept, but which, today, needs to be put aside. It will then be demonstrated that Moore's efforts to define the business ecosystem led to contradictions and, in order to circumvent these contradictions, the second section will distinguish among different types of business ecosystems. Apart from avoiding the wholesale attribution of characteristics to all business ecosystems, when, in fact, they rightly belong to only certain among them, this typology brings our attention to business ecosystems whose composition is more heterogeneous. The last part of this note suggests that a study of these systems should use theories that may shed light on the way in which actors come to agreement even while belonging to different worlds.
In this study, we apply a paradox perspective on coopetition to investigate the effects of coopetition paradox on managers' experience and perception of coopetitive tensions, and the role of coopetition capability in managing such tensions. We propose a theoretical model to posit that the intensity of coopetition paradox positively associates with managers' experience of external tension, which in turn lead them to perceive internal tension. Further, coopetition capability plays a dual role—moderates the relation between coopetition paradox and external tension, and reduces internal tension. We tested hypotheses on a representative multi-industry sample of 1532 firms in Sweden and the results confirm them. Our study contributes to understanding the critical role of coopetition capability that enables firms to maintain a moderate level of tension regardless of the intensity of coopetition paradox.
The paradoxical nature of coopetition is determined by a combination of collaboration and competition. Coopetition is a relational mode frequently applied by information and communications technologty (ICT) firms. Using a qualitative approach, this study investigates the evolution of inter-firms coopetitive agreements in the enterprise resource planning (ERP) industry, and on the basis of this data, attempts to discuss coopetition typology and stability in this specific market context. The findings indicate the existence of two main types of coopetitive agreements, coopetitive projects with (i) vertical or (ii) horizontal cooperation between the competing partners. These two coopetition types have different characteristics in terms of purpose, dynamics and stability, presenting a specific balance between competitive tensions and collaboration benefits. The study concludes with a summary of the main findings and with practical propositions directed towards alliance managers.
We investigate why and how co-opetition (simultaneous pursuit of collaboration and competition) between large firms occurs, evolves, and impacts the participating firms and the industry. We develop a multi-level conceptual framework by combining literature-based conceptual arguments and insights from an in-depth study of an exemplar case of co-opetition between Samsung Electronics and Sony Corporation. Our study demonstrates that co-opetition is challenging yet very helpful for firms to address major technological challenges, to create benefits for partnering firms, and to advance technological innovation. We also show that co-opetition between giants causes subsequent co-opetition among other firms and results in advanced technological development. Moreover, co-opetition capabilities of firms play an important role in enhancing common benefits as well as in gaining proportionately larger share of the benefits.
This research presents a proposed model which addresses the drivers of innovation in channel integration in supply chain management. A total of 317 Taiwan qualified high-tech manufacturers were mailed questionnaires and 84 valid samples (response rate of 26%) were analyzed by AMOS analysis. The results indicate that a significant relationship has been established between market orientation and supply chain performance. The findings reveal that market orientation is significantly related to embedding operant resources and resource integration, and that resource orientation is significantly related to value co-creation, embedding operant resources and resource integration. The findings also confirm that value co-creation and the value constellations as the drivers of innovation in channel integration are positively associated with supply chain performance.
Why do firms in high technology industries cluster at particular locations? Do firms grow faster at such locations and are disproportionately more new firms created in clusters? The contributors to this volume establish that new firms in computing and biotechnology have been attracted to particular sites by the presence of opportunities not taken up by incumbent firms. These opportunities arise when the cluster is strong in a mix of industrial sectors and in its science base. By contrast, incumbent firms benefit from locating in clusters that are strong in their own industrial sector, but tend to miss out on opportunities that arise too far from their immediate sphere. This book compares the clustering process in the UK and the US in both computing and biotechnology. There are surprisingly similar tendencies towards clustering in both industries, though different structures and scale of the industries contribute to slower growth rates in the UK. There are other conditions co-operation, critical mass in, networking across disciplines that are lacking in the UK, and these hinder cluster formation and growth. Policy needs to focus on infrastructure in particular regions, building on existing resources and specialisms, and it needs to support those features of a cluster that attract new resources to a region.
The promise of synergy is the prime rationale for the existence of the multi-business corporation. Yet for most corporations, the 1 + 1 = 3 arithmetic of cross-business synergies doesn't add up. Companies that do achieve synergistic success use a corporate strategic process called coevolving; they routinely change the web of collaborative links among businesses to exploit fresh opportunities for synergies and drop deteriorating ones. The term coevolution originated in biology. It refers to the way two or more ecologically interdependent species become intertwined over time. As these species adapt to their environment, they also adapt to one another. Today's multibusiness companies need to take their cue from biology to survive: They should assume that links among businesses are temporary and that the number of connections - not just their content - matters. Rather than plan collaborative strategy from the top, as traditional companies do, corporate executives In coevolving companies should simply set the context and then let collaboration (and competition) emerge from business units. Incentives, too, are different than they are in traditional companies. Coevolving companies reward business units for individual performance, not for collaboration. So collaboration occurs only when two business-unit managers both believe that a link makes sense for their respective businesses, not because collaboration per se is useful. Managers in coevolving companies also need to recognize the importance of business systems that support the process: frequent data-focused meetings among business-unit leaders, external metrics to gauge Individual business performance, and incentives that favor self-interest.
Policy makers take initiatives to stimulate knowledge ecosystems in technology hotspots. It is implicitly assumed that these ecosystems will lead to value networks through which the participating companies can realize a competitive advantage. Value networks refer to business ecosystems where the value proposition is offered by a group of companies which are mutually complementary. The strategy literature suggests that business ecosystems lead to competitive advantages for each of the partners in the ecosystem. Based on a unique hand-collected database of 138 innovative start-ups in the region of Flanders, we analyze the knowledge and business ecosystem and the financial support network. We find that the knowledge ecosystem is well structured and concentrated around a number of central actors while the business ecosystem is almost non-existent at the local level. Further, we find that the financial support network is almost 100% publicly backed and fails to bridge the knowledge and business ecosystem. The implications for policy makers who tend to focus on the development of local ecosystems are discussed.
This (revised) study seeks to examine the rise, expansion, and ultimate decline of the Italian wool-based textile industries over a period of six centuries (from ca. 1100 to ca. 1730). An international trade model combining transaction costs and comparative advantage is employed to explain the changing fortunes of the Italian cloth industries over these six centuries, in competition with their major northern rivals, in the Low Countries and England, who fought for market dominance both within Europe and abroad, in the Islamic world, in particular the Mamlūk and then Ottoman domains in the Levant (eastern Mediterranean). The transaction costs model is used to explain in particular which branches of this textile industry fared better and which fared worse during the Commercial Revolution era (ca. 1100-ca.1320), the so-called Great Depression era (ca. 1320-ca. 1460), the ensuing economic recovery and Price Revolution era (ca. 1460-ca. 1620), the General Crisis of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries (ca. 1620-ca.1740), to the eve of the Industrial Revolution era. One of the major errors in the literature is the failure to distinguish between the two main branches of the wool-based cloth industries, the technology of their industrial production, their relative prices, and markets, and the impact of transaction costs in international trade. For much of this era, the leading branch was the luxury-oriented woollens industry (Old Draperies), based on very fine, short-stapled English and then Spanish merino wools, producing fulled, heavy-weight, and generally high priced cloths. In the earlier and later periods, the other branch prevailed (New Draperies): the lighter-weight (unfulled), generally coarser and cheaper fabrics that were either full worsteds (cheap, coarse, long-stapled wools) or serges (hybrids with worsted warps and woollen wefts). The transition from a predominance of the lighter, worsted-style fabrics to the heavy-weight woollens, throughout western Europe, took place from the 1290s, with a rapid rise in transaction costs that were the direct and indirect result of a spreading stain of international warfare, especially injurious to overland trade routes, combined with a drastic fall in population, that engulfed most of Europe and the Mediterranean basin until the 1460s. That rise in transportation and transaction costs (determined by market scale economies) set a cost-price floor below which international trade in cheaper textiles became unprofitable: so much so that most West European wool-based industries re-oriented their production towards luxury markets, with far higher prices sustained by price-making monopolistic competition better able to withstand the rise of such costs, an impossible solution for those marketing cheap textiles as price-takers in Mediterranean markets. Such problems were less severe for the Italian industries, whose markets were chiefly in the Mediterranean; and thus the transition to luxury production was far less complete than in the north. The comparative advantage model is based on the price that woollen-cloth producers in both the Low Countries and Italy had to pay in that luxury re-orientation: a total dependence on the finest English wools as the prime component of luxury quality. From the late 1330s, English monarchs took advantage of that dependence by imposing exorbitant taxes on wool-exports, with even higher taxes imposed on Italian merchants, ultimately depriving them of almost all such wools by the early fifteenth century. At the same time, English clothiers were able to weave luxury-quality cloths from the very same wools, but free of any such taxes, giving them an almost insuperable cost advantage over all foreign woollen manufacturers. But England's comparative advantage in its wool supply, though finally giving them mastery of northern markets for luxury woollens, was undermined, during the later fifteenth, early sixteenth century, by the development of fine but much cheaper merino wools in Spain, which Italians could acquire with lower transport costs. The other change undermining the supremacy of English and other woollens industry was the sharp fall in transaction costs by the late fifteenth, early sixteenth centuries: with the decline in warfare, the recovery and growth of population, and with technological advances in both ocean and land transport, especially the latter with a major transition in long-distance trade from maritime to overland continental routes. Along with that decline in costs came a revival and expansion of the lighter, cheaper textile industries, though chiefly in the Low Countries and England, more so than in Italy, despite the continued predominance of Mediterranean markets. For woollens, the Italian industries, especially the Venetian, gained the comparative advantage in wools: with much cheaper access to (now more expensive) Spanish merinos. But in the Mediterranean and especially Ottoman markets the English finally gained supremacy over both the Florentine and Venetian woollens industries, by the later seventeenth century, from a new comparative advantage, in capital formation: from superior business organization (the new joint stock companies) and naval power (large, heavily gunned, swift carracks). The so-called General Crisis era of the later seventeenth century had again favoured maritime routes, and thus sea-power, over land routes. At the same time the Tudor-Stuart enclosure movements, in transforming English sheep -- from small sheep with fine short-stapled to larger (meatier) sheep with coarser, long-stapled fleeces, gave England's worsted-style New Draperies a comparative advantage in wool supplies over all its continental rivals, including the Italian; and by the 1730s, both branches of the Italian wool-based textile industries had succumbed to foreign competition, and become moribund.
By drawing on the tensions-based view to depict the components of the dark side of relationships, this study presents a conceptual model explaining how the dark side of relationships can moderate the positive relationship between relationship quality and relationship function. The authors test the hypotheses via a mail survey involving 136 manufacturing firms. The results support the hypotheses, which posit that relationship quality is positively associated with relationship function. Moreover, the empirical results partially support the argument of the author that the influence of relationship quality on relationship function is strengthened or weakened when three relationship tensions (namely, behavioral, structural, and psychological tension) are balanced or imbalanced. Theoretical and managerial implications are extracted from this study, and potential future research directions.
This article provides conceptual foundations for analyzing organizations comprising multiple legally autonomous entities, which we call meta-organizations. We assess the antecedents of the emergence of such collectives and the design choices they entail. The article identifies key parameters on which such meta-organizations' designs differ from each other. It also presents a taxonomy that elucidates how such forms of collective action vary and the constraints they must address to be successful. We conclude with implications for research on meta-organizational design. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companies have historically invested in large research and development departments to drive innovation and provide sustainable growth. This model, however, is eroding due to a number of factors. What is emerging is a more open model, where companies recognize that not all good ideas will come from inside the organization and not all good ideas created within the organization can be successfully marketed internally. To date, Open Innovation concepts have been regarded as relevant primarily to ‘high-technology’ industries, with examples that include Lucent, 3Com, IBM, Intel and Millenium Pharmaceuticals. In this article, we identify organizations in industries outside ‘high technology’ that are early adopters of the concept. Our findings demonstrate that many Open Innovation concepts are already in use in a wide range of industries. We document practices that appear to assist organizations adopting these concepts, and discover that Open Innovation is not ipso facto a recipe for outsourcing R&D. We conclude that Open Innovation has utility as a paradigm for industrial innovation beyond high tech to more traditional and mature industries.
There is currently a broad awareness of open innovation and its relevance to corporate R&D. The implications and trends that underpin open innovation are actively discussed in terms of strategic, organizational, behavioral, knowledge, legal and business perspectives, and its economic implications. This special issue aims to advance the R&D, innovation, and technology management perspective by building on past and present studies in the field and providing future directions. Recent research, including the papers in this special issue, demonstrates an increasing range of situations where the concept is regarded as applicable. Most research to date has followed the outside-in process of open innovation, while the inside-out process remains less explored. A third coupled process of open innovation is also attracting significant research attention. These different processes show why it is necessary to have a full understanding of how and where open innovation can add value in knowledge-intensive processes. There may be a need for a creative interpretation and adaptation of the value propositions, or business models, in each situation. In other words, there are important implications for new and emerging methods of R&D management.
This paper attempts to explain why innovating firms often fail to obtain significant economic returns from an innovation, while customers, imitators and other industry participants benefit Business strategy — particularly as it relates to the firm's decision to integrate and collaborate — is shown to be an important factor. The paper demonstrates that when imitation is easy, markets don't work well, and the profits from innovation may accrue to the owners of certain complementary assets, rather than to the developers of the intellectual property. This speaks to the need, in certain cases, for the innovating firm to establish a prior position in these complementary assets. The paper also indicates that innovators with new products and processes which provide value to consumers may sometimes be so ill positioned in the market that they necessarily will fail. The analysis provides a theoretical foundation for the proposition that manufacturing often matters, particularly to innovating nations. Innovating firms without the requisite manufacturing and related capacities may die, even though they are the best at innovation. Implications for trade policy and domestic economic policy are examined.
It is now generally admitted by plant ecologists, not only that vegetation is constantly undergoing various kinds of change, but that the increasing
habit of concentrating attention on these changes instead of studying plant communities as if they were static entities is leading to a far deeper insight into the nature of vegetation and the parts it plays in the world. A great part of vegetational change is generally known as succession, which has become a recognised technical term in ecology, though there still seems to be some difference of opinion as to the proper limits of its connotation; and it is the study of succession in the widest sense which has contributed and is contributing more than any other single line of investigation to the deeper knowledge alluded to.
It is to Henry Chandler Cowles that we owe, not indeed the first recognition or even the first study of succession, but certainly the first thorough working out of a strikingly complete and beautiful successional series (1899), which together with later more comprehensive studies ('01, '11) brought before the minds of ecologists the reality and the universality of the process in so vivid a manner as to stimulate everywhere-at least in the English speaking world-that interest and enthusiasm for the subject which has led and is leading to such great results. During the first decade of this century indeed Cowles did far more than any one else to create and to increase our knowledge of succession and to deduce its general laws. By acute and thorough observation and by lucid exposition he became the great pioneer in the subject. It is therefore natural and fitting that my contribution to a volume intended to express the honour and affection in which Cowles is held by his
fellow botanists should deal with this subject.
In 1920 and in 1926 I wrote general articles ('20, '29)1 on this and some related topics. My return to the subject to-day is immediately stimulated
by the appearance of Professor John Phillips' three articles in the Journal of Ecology ('34, '35) which seem to me to call rather urgently for comment and criticism. At the same time I shall take the opportunity of trying to clarify some of the logical foundations of modern vegetational theory. If some of my comments are blunt and provocative I am sure my old friend Dr. Clements and my younger friend Professor Phillips will forgive me. Bluntness makes for conciseness and has other advantages, always provided that it is not malicious and does not overstep the line which separates it from rudeness. And at the outset let me express my conviction that Dr. Clements has given us a theory of vegetation which has formed an indispensable foundation for the most fruitful modern work. With some parts of that theory and of its expression, however, I have never agreed, and when it is pushed to its logical limit and perhaps beyond, as by Professor Phillips, the revolt becomes irrepressible. But I am sure nevertheless that Clements is by far the greatest individual creator of the modern science of vegetation and that history will say so. For Phillips' work too, and particularly for his intellectual energy and single-mindedness, I have a great admiration. Phillips' articles remind one irresistibly of the exposition of a creed-of a closed system of religious or philosophical dogma. Clements appears as the major prophet and Phillips as the chief apostle, with the true apostolic fervour in abundant measure. Happily the odium theologicum is entirely absent: indeed the views of opponents are set out most fully and fairly, and the heresiarchs, and even the infidels, are treated with perfect courtesy. But while the survey is very complete and almost every conceivable shade of opinion which is or might be held is considered, there is a remarkable lack of any sustained criticism of opponents' arguments. Only here and there, as for instance in dealing with Gillman's and Michelmore's specific contentions, and in a few other places, does the author present scientific arguments. He is occupied for the most part in giving us the pure milk of the Clementsian word, in expounding and elaborating the organismal theory of vegetation.
This exposition, with its very full citations and references, is a useful piece of work, but it invites attack at almost every point. The three articles are respectively devoted to " Succession," " Development and the Climax " and " the Complex Organism." The greater part of the third article is mainly concerned with the relation of this last concept to the theory of " holism " as expounded by General Smuts and others, and is really a confession of the holistic faith. As to the repercussions of this faith on biology I shall have something to say in the sequel. But first let me deal with " Succession " and " Development and the Climax."
In today's fast-changing competitive environment, strategy is no longer a matter of positioning a fixed set of activities along that old industrial model, the value chain. Successful companies increasingly do not just add value, they reinvent it. The key strategic task is to reconfigure roles and relationships among a constellation of actors--suppliers, partners, customers--in order to mobilize the creation of value by new combinations of players. What is so different about this new logic of value? It breaks down the distinction between products and services and combines them into activity-based "offerings" from which customers can create value for themselves. But as potential offerings grow more complex, so do the relationships necessary to create them. As a result, a company's strategic task becomes the ongoing reconfiguration and integration of its competencies and customers. The authors provide three illustrations of these new rules of strategy. IKEA has blossomed into the world's largest retailer of home furnishings by redefining the relationships and organizational practices of the furniture business. Danish pharmacies and their national association have used the opportunity of health care reform to reconfigure their relationships with customers, doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers, and with Danish and international health organizations to enlarge their role, competencies, and profits. French public-service concessionaires have mastered the art of conducting a creative dialogue between their customers--local governments in France and around the world--and a perpetually expanding set of infrastructure competencies.
Knowledge innovation
- D M Quellen Amidon
Quellen
Amidon, D. M. (1993). Knowledge innovation. Journal of Technology Studies 19(2), 15-21.
Natural science paradigms
- G Briscoe
- S Sadedin
Briscoe, G., & Sadedin, S. (2007). Natural science paradigms. In F. Nachira, A. Nicolai, P. Dini, L. Rivera Lèon, & M. Louarn
(Eds.), Digital business ecosystems: The results and the perspectives of the digital business ecosystem research and
development activities, FP6, 48-55. Luxembourg: European Commission.
Benefits of ecosystems. Abgerufen am 19
- Enviropol
Enviropol. (2018). Benefits of ecosystems. Abgerufen am 19. Juli 2019 von https://enviropol.com/green/2018/06/18/benefitsof-ecosystems/
Buisness ecosystems. Roland Berger Focus
- S Gackstatter
- A Lemaire
- B Lingens
- M Böger
Gackstatter, S., Lemaire, A., Lingens, B., & Böger, M. (2019). Buisness ecosystems. Roland Berger Focus, Januar 2019, 1-16.
Seize the digital ecosystem opportunity. Abgerufen am 19
- Gartner
Gartner. (2016). Seize the digital ecosystem opportunity. Abgerufen am 19. Juli 2019 von
https://www.gartner.com/imagesrv/cio/pdf/Gartner_CIO_Agenda_2017.pdf
Defining an internet-of-things ecosystem (Lecture Notes in Computer Science)
- O Mazhelis
- E Luoma
- H Warma
Mazhelis, O., Luoma, E., & Warma, H. (2012). Defining an internet-of-things ecosystem (Lecture Notes in Computer Science).
Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
TIM lecture series: A practitioner's guide to ecosystem development. Open Source Business Resource
- M Milinkovich
Milinkovich, M. (2008). TIM lecture series: A practitioner's guide to ecosystem development. Open Source Business Resource,
40-42.
Death of competition
- J F Moore
Moore, J. F. (1996). Death of competition. New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.