Business ecosystems: a structure to commercialize value chain of rural economies in developing areas

Abstract

Firms in rural economies of developing countries like Tanzania have limited abilities to create value and appropriate a sizable share of value from their business ecosystems. This study aimed at analysing the existing business ecosystem of the beekeeping industry and proposing a structure to commercialize the industry. The study adopted the qualitative design, descriptive action research approach. Unstructured interview and participant as observer techniques were used to collect data from 12 purposively selected actors in the beekeeping industry. Through interpretative data analysis, the existing business ecosystem was described and prescriptive business ecosystems were suggested. To commercialize the value chain of rural economies in developing areas, two business ecosystems are suggested: the enterprise-centred business ecosystem and the hybrid business ecosystem. Also, the value should be appropriated among actors in a fairly and truthful way. The role of an enterprise, which is an ecosystem orchestrator, is to ensure those ecosystem actors, particularly beekeepers, join and stay in the ecosystem. The study technique for data collection provides a valuable empirical ground through which management and business research can rely on the methodology. The study informs policymakers, researchers, and organization in the sector on the important steps and measures to take to build and manage a viable and commercial beekeeping ecosystem. And we provide a theoretical contribution to the business ecosystems and value chain theories as well as the empirical evidence for the theories.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40497-022-00328-y
RESEARCH
Business ecosystems: astructure tocommercialize value chain ofrural
economies indeveloping areas
NicholausBhikolimanaTutuba1 · WimVanhaverbeke2
Received: 4 May 2021 / Accepted: 24 August 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran 2022
Abstract
Firms in rural economies of developing countries like Tanzania have limited abilities to create value and appropriate a siz-
able share of value from their business ecosystems. This study aimed at analysing the existing business ecosystem of the
beekeeping industry and proposing a structure to commercialize the industry. The study adopted the qualitative design,
descriptive action research approach. Unstructured interview and participant as observer techniques were used to collect data
from 12 purposively selected actors in the beekeeping industry. Through interpretative data analysis, the existing business
ecosystem was described and prescriptive business ecosystems were suggested. To commercialize the value chain of rural
economies in developing areas, two business ecosystems are suggested: the enterprise-centred business ecosystem and the
hybrid business ecosystem. Also, the value should be appropriated among actors in a fairly and truthful way. The role of an
enterprise, which is an ecosystem orchestrator, is to ensure those ecosystem actors, particularly beekeepers, join and stay
in the ecosystem. The study technique for data collection provides a valuable empirical ground through which management
and business research can rely on the methodology. The study informs policymakers, researchers, and organization in the
sector on the important steps and measures to take to build and manage a viable and commercial beekeeping ecosystem. And
we provide a theoretical contribution to the business ecosystems and value chain theories as well as the empirical evidence
for the theories.
Keywords Beekeeping· Business ecosystem· Governance· Tanzania
Introduction
In most developing areas, about 80% of people live in rural
areas, depending on agriculture and natural forest resources
(International Food and Agriculture Development [IFAD],
2016; Tutuba, 2022). Most rural areas are endowed with
fertile land and natural vegetation which supports different
economic activities like agriculture, fishing, beekeeping and
forest value chain activities. But, poverty is more prevalent
in rural areas, especially among female-headed households
that depend on livestock and food-crop production (IFAD,
2016). The existing value chains of rural economies, agri-
culture and forest resources in particular, have not yet fully
contributed to the wellbeing of society because they are
not well organised and commercialized (Msamula etal.,
2018; Tutuba etal., 2019; Tutuba, 2022). Therefore, pro-
moting value chains of rural economies, creating employ-
ment opportunities and improving livelihood in rural areas
should be a priority (Food and Agricultural Organisation
[FAO], 2014; IFAD, 2016; United Republic of Tanzania
[URT], 2016). To achieve this, commercialization of value
chain of rural economies should become a key driver of the
transformation process: changing core economic activities
from substance to commercial. To understand such strategic
dynamics, we need to understand how the existing value
chain is structured and consequently how the business eco-
systems are structured (Adner, 2013; Adner, 2017; Furr &
Shipilov, 2018). Therefore, this study which is limited to the
beekeeping sector, sets to answer the question of how the
beekeeping ecosystems can be structured to commercialize
the beekeeping value chain in Tanzania.
Following this introduction, this study is organized as
follows: first, we present the theoretical understanding of
* Nicholaus Bhikolimana Tutuba
ntutuba@mzumbe.ac.tz
1 School ofBusiness, Mzumbe University, Morogoro,
Tanzania
2 Surrey Business School, University ofSurrey, Guildford, UK

Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research
1 3
study concepts. Thereafter, we present the methodology and
approach, followed by the findings of the study. Next, we
offer an interpretation of the findings. Finally, we summa-
rize the main findings, the limitations of the study, and we
explore different directions for future studies.
The beekeeping industry inTanzania
The beekeeping sector in Tanzania is still a promising indus-
try for rewarding investment as it is endowed with a favour-
able environment and multi-flora vegetation which are ideal
for beekeeping. This has made Tanzania to be the second-
largest honey producer in Africa, after Ethiopia (Nyatsande
etal., 2014; Tutuba etal., 2019). Moreover, rural markets of
developing areas, also called low-income markets (Sanchez
& Ricart, 2010; Prahalad, 2012), have unique character-
istics like market size, competitiveness and opportunities
for innovation (Majumder, 2012; Chikweche, 2013) which
present an excellent opportunity for commercialization
(Tutuba, 2021). Disappointingly, this opportunity has not
been fully utilized because the sector lacks a well-structured
and governed value chain: There is no organized marketing
system for both local and foreign markets to encourage the
development and expansion of the industry (Tutuba etal.,
2019, 2020). Also, unlike other rural economic activities
like agriculture and livestock, beekeeping is typically given
little attention when it comes to resource allocation (Tutuba
& Vanhaverbeke, 2018; Tutuba etal., 2019). It is then prac-
ticed through local means by those with limited beekeeping
knowledge and skills. Therefore, productivity is low, api-
aries are poorly managed, and access to potential markets
becomes the most critical challenge in its commercialization.
Furthermore, different business models and governance
structures have been piloted to foster access to different mar-
kets. But little has been achieved: Most beekeeping associa-
tions remained fragmented, weak (Sizya, 2001; Tutuba &
Vanhaverbeke, 2018), with limited capacity and resources
to create value and capture a sizable value for beekeepers
(Tutuba & Msamula, 2020; Tutuba etal., 2019). Therefore,
it is difficult to identify what may be termed as best practice
in governing the industry and linking beekeepers to markets
(BTC Tanzania, 2013; Tutuba & Msamula, 2020). In this
regard, it is important to analyse different models through
which potential actors in the beekeeping business ecosystem
can organised to commercialize the sector.
Business ecosystem
The term ecosystem and consequently business ecosys-
tem has been used differently by different scholars (Adner,
2017; Kapoor, 2018; Moore, 1993; Tsujimoto etal., 2018)
in diverse formulations. We adopt the definition by Adner,
(2017: 40) who argued that ecosystem is “the alignment
structure of the multilateral set of partners that need to inter-
act in order for a focal value proposition to materialize” and
the ecosystem-as-structure approach as a unit of analysis.
In this approach, the orchestrator (Vanhaverbeke & Cloodt,
2006; Tutuba, 2022) interacts, engages and defines the bor-
ders with other ecosystem actors to collaboratively deliver
the value proposition. In this approach, Adner, (2017) pro-
poses four basic elements; activities, actors, positions and
links which characterize the configuration of activities and
actors to materialize a value proposition. Therefore, this
study analyses the boundaries of the business ecosystem
and its value chain structure within four pillars: activities
(what should be done?), actors (who needs to be included?),
positions (who does what and hands off to whom?) and links
(how are the actors interrelated?). Structuring the beekeep-
ing ecosystem through these elements can efficiently pro-
mote the beekeeping value chain and hence commercialize
the beekeeping industry.
The value chain
The term ‘value chain’ represents a series of activities that
provide value to customers in the form of a product. It is a
full range of activities required to present a value propo-
sition to consumers and dispose of the product after use
(Walsh, 2011; Msamula etal., 2018; Tutuba etal., 2020;
Tutuba, 2021). Also, Collins etal. (2015) and Tutuba and
Msamula, (2020) defined value chain as a strategic network
between independent business organizations, i.e. linking
different actors within a value creating system operating to
deliver value to target customers. Actors with different skills,
scope and capabilities are strategically interlinked to per-
form specific activities to present a common or focal value
proposition.
Additionally, Porter (1985) argues that the value chain
consists of several activities in a business that are involved
in creating and making products available to the market
and the value chain analysis as a model for identifying and
measuring those activities comprising a firm’s value chain.
In the value system, every single firm occupies a particular
position within the value chain structure and adds value to
the ‘inputs’ before passing them to the next actor (Jaligot
etal., 2016; Msamula etal., 2018; Tutuba 2021). What is
important here is not only the position that the firm holds in
the value chain but also the capabilities (Teece, 2010, 2018;
Tidd & Bessant, 2018) to perform some activities which
add value to the product before passing it to the next actor.
In the value creating system, different actors with different
skills, scope and capabilities interact or interlink to perform
different activities which add value to materials for a focal
value proposition to materialize. Some firms can perform
more than one activity while others can offer complemen-
tary skills and assets to make sure that a value proposition

Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research
1 3
is realised. Therefore, commercial value chain is structured
on five pillars: actors (who should be in the value chain?),
activities (who does what to create value?), capabilities
(what complementary assets are necessary?), position (who
hands over to whom in the value creating system?) and links
(interrelationship of actors in the value creating system).
Based on this understanding of the value chain, and given
the fact that no single firm which has all the scope and skills
to perform all value adding activities, commercialization of
the particular economic value chain depends on how the
ecosystem is structured.
Methodology andapproach
This qualitative action research (Altrichter etal., 2002; McGrath
& O’Toole, 2012) focuses on action and promotes change within
the study area. This approach is grounded on the strengths of
an action research as its focus on change, the recognition that
time needs to be devoted to diagnosing, planning, acting and
evaluating and the involvement of other core actors throughout
the process (Earl-Slater, 2002; Greenbank, 2011). The study
was conducted in five regions of Kigoma, Singida, Dodoma,
Iringa and Morogoro which were purposively selected. The
area has considerable beekeeping potential because of the avail-
able diverse vegetation and ecological zones (Msamula etal.,
2018; Tutuba & Vanhaverbeke, 2018). The study population
contained different organizations in the beekeeping industry
in Tanzania from which 12 firms were purposively selected.
Using unstructured interview and observation techniques, data
were collected until saturation (Hair etal., 2007; Yin, 2014) in
four regions of Kigoma, Singida, Dodoma and Iringa. Saunders
etal., (2009) argue that participant observation has been used
much less in management and business research. Therefore, by
using this technique, we provide a valuable empirical ground
through which management and business research can rely on
the methodology.
After interviews and observations were recorded, the
obtained data were interpretatively analysed, and different busi-
ness ecosystems and value chain models were developed and
piloted. The piloting of the business ecosystems and organi-
sation of the value chain was carried out in Turiani ward of
Mvomero district in Morogoro region. We organised different
set of actors, shared different activities which are necessary for
a focal value proposition of a beekeeping industry to materi-
alize, and we provided the necessary skills and capabilities to
make sure that every actor performs the desired activities as
planned. Interactions among actors and between actors in the
same activity level were observed, recorded and managed. After
organising and reorganising of several possibilities of beekeep-
ing value chain and business ecosystems, an ecosystem which
commercializes the beekeeping value chain was developed. The
findings of the study are presented in the next section.
Study findings
In this section, we present the findings of the study based on
the four important elements to structure a business ecosystem
(Adner, 2017). First, we present the existing business ecosystem
of the beekeeping industry in Tanzania, defining both the actors
and the structure of the ecosystem. Secondly, we present the
proposed hybrid ecosystem model to commercialize value chain
of rural economies, the beekeeping value chain in particular.
The existing beekeeping value chain andbusiness
ecosystem
The ecosystem begins with the configuration of activities and
actors, the alignment structure of partners that need to interact
to present a ‘focal’ value proposition. In the ecosystem-as-struc-
ture, the orchestrator sets the stage for these actors. We found
that the beekeeping ecosystem is organized by two sets of actors:
core or primary actors and supporting or secondary actors. The
organisation of the existing business ecosystem of the beekeep-
ing value chain is presented in Fig.1.
The existing business ecosystem performs all important
actions to be undertaken in order for the value proposition
to materialize. The activities include production, processing,
bulking or aggregation, refining and packaging, distribution
and trading. Also, we found that core actors in the beekeeping
ecosystem include suppliers of beekeeping tools and equip-
ment, honey producers like beekeepers and honey hunters,
processors, traders and customers. The supporting actors are
organizations like business supporting organisation (BSOs),
non-government organisations and research institutions in an
ecosystem that do not directly participate in the value creation
and value capture activities.
Regarding positions, we found that the existing business
ecosystem of the beekeeping value chain is not specialized;
hence, the positions are not well defined. Actors perform most
functions and activities in the value chain: Beekeepers produce,
collect and aggregate honey; they refine, pack and sell direct to
customers. Similarly, cooperatives and processors participate
in the production, processing, packaging and trading. In case
of business relationships — who hands over to whom? — the
ecosystem poses the transaction relationship.
Regarding the links and structures, we found that beekeepers
are coordinated and interlinked through cooperative: the cooper-
ative orchestrates the beekeeping ecosystem in a particular area.
We observed that most cooperatives are limited to the district
level and have at least 200 members. In this type of ecosystem,
the cooperative is in the middle of the structure linking the pro-
duction side (beekeeper) and the market through the collection
centre. We also found that all the collection centres (CCs) are
owned and operated/run by the cooperatives. Furthermore, the
cooperatives manage the aggregation, refining and packaging
and channel management as they present value delivery to the

Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research
1 3
target customers. We also found that most cooperatives are not
efficiently operating their CC because (1) they have continu-
ous stockouts of honey because either member is not depositing
honey or there is not enough honey to bring to the collection
house. Also, beekeepers were selling honey to local traders
instead of depositing it to the collection house. (2) They do not
have enough funds to run the facility, and (3) they delay to make
decisions because most cooperatives are not organizing annual
meetings. Therefore, a different governance model is necessary
to improve efficiency and value creation in the sector.
Discussion ofthendings
In this section, we discuss the governance structure of the
ecosystem in the beekeeping industry in Tanzania.
The structuralist approach tothebusiness
ecosystem
In a business ecosystem, different firms choose to work
together to efficiently co-create value for the targeted
consumer(s) in a target market segment. This does not hap-
pen automatically but through an appropriate organisation
of four proposed elements to reorganise the value chain and
business structure.
Changing the relationship models changes both the way value
is created and captured by changing the roles and the number
of actors. In the value chain, value is created when a particular
actor performs a specific activity. This will improve the per-
formance of the business ecosystem by reducing the number
of actors in the value chain and sharing complementary skills
and assets. This approach will increase the size of the pie by
reducing costs, increasing efficiency and improving the quality
of honey. For example, specializing in value-adding activities
and defining the position in the beekeeping value chain suggest
that the business model of beekeepers will change because they
have to align their business model to that of the orchestrator. The
value proposition of a beekeeper contributes to the focal value of
the ecosystem; all actors create value together. The orchestrator
becomes the new customer of the beekeepers, and the customer
relationship changes from transaction-based to a collaborative
relationship. The revenue stream comes from selling refined
Fig. 1 The interconnectivity of
ecosystem actors in the existing
beekeeping industry in Tanzania
Inputs Supply &
Business Support
Input suppliers: Local Artisans (Carpenters,
Tailors), NGOs, SMEs/Businesses, Development
Partners, Projects, and Government entities.
Production
Comb honey
Bulking/Aggregation
Comb honey
Semi-refined honey
Processing stage I
(semi-refined honey)
Processing II
(Refined honey brand)
Trading
Wholesaling.
Retailing.
Markets
(Sales/Revenue)
Producers and their
Associations/ Groups
Beekeepers, hunters.
Collection Centre
Consumers: Rural & Urban (district, regional
and cit
y
towns
)
Traders & Outlets:
Supermarket, Hotel,
Kiosk/Shops, Restaurant,
Trade fair, Exhibition.
COOPERATIVE
Honey
Processing.
Honey Refining.
Honey blending
and classification.
Packaging and
Branding
Packaging, Branding.
Promotion.
Channel management.
After sale service and
management
Transportation.
Bulkingand Storage.
Record keeping.
Traceability & Quality
control.
Payment of the deposit
Capacity building
Production & productivity
enhancement.
Linkages to BSP/BDOs,
NGOs, FIs
Key:
Comb honeyRefined honeySuppliesMoney/payment
Capacity building to local
artisans.
Ensure inputs availability.
Linkages: input suppliers
and producer groups.
Activities & Outputs Ecosystem Actorsand Position Actions

Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research
1 3
honey: Beekeepers are paid for the amount of refined honey
extracted from their deposit at the agreed price.
In the cooperative centric governance, the CC is owned and
operated by the beekeeping cooperative. The structure pre-
sents some advantages to beekeepers in the ecosystem. But,
this governance structure has failed to promote the value chain
and bring about successful commercialization. The model has
some challenges in orchestrating the beekeeping ecosystem:
Most beekeeping cooperatives are not efficient, and beekeepers
are therefore reluctant to join the cooperatives. Therefore, for
the structure to foster commercialization, the ecosystem should
be organised such that beekeepers can bulk their produce and
transact honestly, effectively with other actors and service pro-
viders. The cooperative should have scope and means to improve
productivity and efficiently reach potential markets in the region.
The second option is to govern the ecosystem through a com-
mercial enterprise. In this governance structure, the enterprise
orchestrates the ecosystem by supporting beekeepers: provid-
ing bee suits, beehives and training in exchange for high-quality
honey. The enterprise buys honey at a relatively higher price
than the market price. The enterprise does all these activities to
get a steady supply of high-quality honey which it could sell at a
higher price: It increases the pie to take a part of it that is larger
in volume than in a purely competitive setting. This finding is
grounded in the Ruaha Farm in Iringa (Vanhaverbeke etal.,
2021) and the Central Park Company in Dodoma. However,
when the enterprise plays the ecosystem competitive, the eco-
system becomes purely a trader-based business model, and the
business relationships can take different forms like a tripartite
model and contract farming model (Tutuba etal., 2019). This
poses a risk to compete mainly by sharing the pie instead of
focusing on how to increase the size of the pie. Trust and com-
mitment of the producer group, beekeepers, in this case is key
to the success of this model. The role of the orchestrator should
be to enhance access to production inputs, quality management
and effective management of channels in the markets.
The third suggestion is the hybrid model: The business eco-
system model where beekeepers is organised in a cooperative
to produce honey and sell to the business enterprise which is the
orchestrator. Figure2 shows the architecture of the beekeeping
ecosystem showing the innovative value chain structure.
The hybrid ecosystem model is composed of beekeepers,
cooperative, corporation (orchestrator), retailers and consumers
as primary actors. The ecosystem starts with the supply of inputs
and the establishment of business support activities. The input
supply activities are performed by different actors interested in
the development of the beekeeping industry.
The second activity is honey production. This activity is
performed by the producer group, most beekeepers. Their
main roles include producing/collecting honey from bee col-
onies, bulking and depositing honey to the collection centre.
In the ecosystem, beekeepers have three major links: the
link to suppliers, to the CC, and the cooperative. The link
to suppliers helps them acquire beekeeping inputs, and the
link to the collection centre provides reliable access to the
market, and the link to the cooperative guarantees the protec-
tion of the beekeeper’s interest in the beekeeping industry.
The beekeeping cooperative is the third actor in the
hybrid ecosystem governance model. The major role of the
cooperative is to facilitate linkages between beekeepers, sup-
pliers and business support organizations and the orches-
trator. The cooperative protects the interest of beekeepers
in the ecosystem and deals with legal/regulatory issues for
the benefit of beekeepers. Also, it ensures that beekeepers
are fairly/smoothly paid. The cooperative gets revenue from
three sources: rent of the CC, monthly subscription fee of
members and commission from honey sales. All charges
should be decided by the cooperative board and approved
by members in the annual general meeting. Furthermore,
the cooperative link with the orchestrator. In this model, the
CC is owned by the cooperative, and machines and working
tools are owned by the orchestrator who also manages the
operational activities of the CC. So, beekeepers, the coop-
erative and the orchestrator interlink at the CC. The role of
the cooperative is (1) to make sure that the building and its
infrastructure are in good condition to enhance the smooth
operation. (2) To make sure that all beekeeper members sell
their honey through the CC and there is no any side sell-
ing. Beekeepers deposit honey which is checked by both the
cooperative representative and the orchestrator employee.
Then, they record/document and sign the documents: the
document is customized depending on the information
that they want to capture. However, some basic informa-
tion like the identity of the depositor, type/category (comb
or semi-refined), grade, quantity and value/price should be
captured. After signing, every partner should take a copy of
the document for further references. This documentation is
important as it clears all doubts, complaints and fraud that
may arise concerning quality, quantity and later payments.
In this regard, the role of a beekeeper and a cooperative in
handling honey ends at this point. Thereafter, the coopera-
tive has the role to claim or follow-up for payments from the
orchestrator and make sure that the depositor (beekeeper) is
paid: The orchestrator pays the respective amount of money
to the cooperative which pays the beekeeper accordingly.
The orchestrator is the next important link in the ecosystem.
This is an enterprise, the commercial company, which oversees
all commercial operations of the ecosystem. The orchestrator
has two important links: the link to the production side through
the CC and the link to the market. In the CC, the orchestrator is
linked to both the cooperative and beekeepers: the orchestrator is
the buyer of all honey deposited by beekeepers, and it manages
all activities in the CC. The efficiency of the beekeeping eco-
system is improved as the orchestrator owns the machines and
working tools as well as managing the operational activities of
the CC. The next link in the channel is where the orchestrator is

Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research
1 3
linked with traders in the honey market. The orchestrator decides
on the communication mix and the distribution channels to reach
customers in the region. Therefore, the market is served with few
strong brands, competition is managed and the collaboration
model increasing the size of the pie: creating value together and
sharing revenue fairly.
The last but equally important actor in the ecosystem is the
customer. All the activities, arrangements or positioning and
interlinkage of actors aim to present the value proposition to
target customers in the market. In the beekeeping industry in
Tanzania, potential customers are individual households, tour-
ists and hotels and restaurants in the urban market. The honey
products should be delivered to target customers in urban mar-
kets, and revenues should be captured. So, the orchestrator is
linked with customers through both direct and indirect channels
of value delivery, and he should decide on the model how cus-
tomers will pay. In the beekeeping industry in Tanzania, most
customers prefer cash on delivery, and they pay via digital sys-
tems or M-Money like M-Pesa and Tigo-Pesa.
Following this discussion and re-arrangement of the
beekeeping industry structure, the ecosystem and its
governance model are structured around the CC to per-
form the aggregation, commercialization, and linkage
roles. Depending on how the CC is owned and managed,
honey is received from depositors (beekeepers), employ-
ees check for quality, traceability, and they do the grading.
The centre manages deposits, keeps records, maintains
safety and finds markets. Also, it is a link between pro-
ducers (beekeepers) and buyers or private sector organiza-
tions. A well-structured CC creates a good link such that
products are easily sold and at a good price. However,
developing an appropriate commercial structure is a chal-
lenge. It is quite evident that few actors, mostly traders,
set the rules of the game to promote and protect their
interests. Given the weak organisation at the producer
level presumably, beekeepers are not much involved in
managing the value chain. The policy and guidelines are
not yet enforced by the government which leaves the sec-
tor at the mercy of some greedy actors. With well-defined
activities of the centre, value proposition, customer seg-
ments, channels and relationships can also be well man-
aged. To achieve this, a well-structured partnership
Fig. 2 The hybrid business
ecosystem of the beekeeping
industry in Tanzania
Inputs Supply &
Business Support
Input suppliers: Local Artisans (Carpenters,
Tailors), SMEs/Businesses, NGOs, Development
Partners, Projects, and Government entities.
Production
Comb honey
Bulking/Aggregation
Comb honey
Semi-refined honey
Processing stage I
(semi-refined honey)
Processing II
(Refined honey)
Trading
Wholesaling.
Retailing.
Markets
(Sales/Revenue)
Producer
Groups
(Beekeepers)
Collection Centre
Customers: Rural & Urban (district, regional
and cit
y
towns
)
Consumers
Middlemen
& Outlets
Orchestrator
(Private
company)
Honey Processing.
Honey Refining.
Honey blending
and classification.
Packaging and
Branding
Branding and Promo.
Channel management.
Customer service and
Sales management.
Transportation.
Bulkingand Storage.
Record keeping.
Traceability &
Quality control.
Payment of the
deposit
Capacity building
Production &
productivity
enhancement.
Linkages: BSP/BDOs,
NGOs, FIs, Suppliers,
government, etc.
Key:
Comb honeyRefined honeySuppliesMoney/payment
Activities & Outputs Ecosystem Actors and Position Actions/Activities
Cooperative

Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research
1 3
model, also called the ‘hybrid model’, between a coop-
erative and commercial company is necessary.
Conclusion, limitation andimplication
Commercialization of value chain of rural economies requires
changing the business structure from transactional-based to
a collaborative business model. Unlike the natural ecosys-
tem, business ecosystems do not happen spontaneously; it
requires a purposeful rethinking and shaping of the business
model and value chain (Chesbrough etal., 2006). In the busi-
ness ecosystem, actors with different assets and competen-
cies have to be tied together into a focal value proposition
(Adner, 2017). We therefore argue that the beekeeping value
chain should be organised in a hybrid business model where
beekeepers, cooperatives and enterprises become core actors.
Value adding activities remain the same but with special-
ized division of activities: beekeepers focus on production;
cooperatives manage aggregation and interlinkages and the
enterprise focuses on processing, packaging and trading.
Fig. 3 Value addition issues
in the beekeeping cooperative
(a). Price list of different bee
products at UKI cooperative in
Kibondo, Kigoma (b). Some
products from honey processing
centre, Mwakila Cooperative,
Ilagala, Kigoma (c). Some
honey processing machines at
UKI cooperative in Kibondo,
Kigoma
(a) Price list of different bee products at UKI cooperative in Kibondo, Kigoma
(b) Some products from honey processing center, Mwakila Cooperative, Ilagala, Kigoma
(c) Some honey processing machines at UKI cooperative in Kibondo, Kigoma

Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research
1 3
This study contributes to the literature about ecosystems,
arguing that the performance of the ecosystem is determined
by the interaction between actors (Adner & Kapoor, 2016),
by the governance of the ecosystem around a focal value
proposition (Adner, 2017; Teece, 2016) and by building an
adaptive ecosystem rather a centralized ecosystem (Furr &
Shipilov, 2018). To govern an ecosystem, the orchestrator has
to structure and manage the ecosystem so that the potential of
the ecosystem to create joint value is maximized. Also, there
should be trust and mutual agreements with other participants
to share this jointly created value equitably (Fig.3).
Author contribution All the authors participated in data collection and
setting the pilot governance structures. Since this was an action-based
research, data collection and implementation of the proposed models
were necessary. NBT managed the data, analysed the data and prepared
an interpretative data sheet from the analysis. Also, NBT prepared the
first draft of the manuscript. WV organised, analysed and interpreted
the data regarding the strategic governance and organisation of the
business ecosystems while NBT came up with the hybrid governance
structure, WV came up with the inclusion of the firm-level govern-
ance structure of the firm-orchestrator ecosystem model. WV read the
first draft and made the adjustments and inputs possible to make the
manuscript viable for publication. All the authors read and approved
the final manuscript.
Funding This study is funded by the Mzumbe University through
VLIR UOS Project. The project aims at promoting rural entrepreneur-
ship through community engagement. This study focuses at improving
the beekeeping industry which is rural based by promoting the bee-
keeping value chain through business ecosystem approach. The project
supported the piloting of the developed business ecosystem model in
Mvomero district of Morogoro region.
Data availability The datasets used and/or analysed during the cur-
rent study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable
request.
Declarations
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Adner, R. (2013). The wide lens: What successful innovators see that oth-
ers miss. Penguin/Portfolio.
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for
strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 01492 06316 678451
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems:
How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm per-
formance in new technology generation. Strategic Management Jour-
nal, 31(3), 306–333.
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016). Innovation ecosystems and the pace of
substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 37(4), 625–648. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2363
Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002).
The concept of action research. The Learning Organisation, 9(3),
125–131.
Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). “Value creation in e-business. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 22(6–7), 493–520.
Anin, E. K., Essuman, D. & Sarpong, K. O. (2016). The influence of
governance mechanism on supply chain performance in developing
economies: insights from Ghana. International Journal of Business
and Management, 11(No. 4):252–264; Published by Canadian Cen-
tre of Science and Education. ISSN 1833–3850. E-ISSN 1833–8119.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 5539/ ijbm. v11n4 p252
Arkadie, B. (1995). Economic strategy and structural adjustment in Tan-
zania. Frischtak, L., & Atiyas, I. (eds.), Governance, Leadership and
Communication Building Constituencies for Economic Reform, The
World Bank. Private Sector Development Department.
BTC Tanzania. (2013). Beekeeping Support Project in Kigoma. Unpub-
lished project report. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation:
Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press.
Chikweche, T. (2013). Marketing at the bottom of pyramid: market attrac-
tiveness and strategic requirements. Journal of Marketing intelligence
and Planning, 31(7), 764–787.
Collins, R. C., Dent, B., & Bonney, L. B. (2015). A guide to value-chain
analysis and development for Overseas Development Assistance
projects. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research:
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia.
Colombo, G. M., Dagnino, B. G., Lehmann, E. E., & Salmador, M. (2019).
The governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Eco-
nomics., 52, 419–428. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11187- 017- 9952-9
Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & Wirsching, K. (2017). Entrepreneurial
ecosystem governance: A principal investigator-cantered govern-
ance framework. Small Business Economics. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11187- 017- 9959-2
Earl-Slater, A. (2002). Critical appraisal of clinical trials: The superiority
of action research? British Journal of Clinical Governance., 7(2),
132–135.
FAO. (2014). Youth and agriculture: key challenges and concrete solutions,
E-ISBN 978–92–5–108476–2
Figueiredo, J. M., & Teece, D. J. (1996). Mitigating procurement hazards
in the context of innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change., 5(2),
537–559. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ icc/5. 2. 537
Furr, N. & Shipilov, A. (2018). Building the right ecosystem for innova-
tion; as companies grapple with uncertainty and change, they must
collaborate in new ways with unlikely partners. MIT Sloan Manage-
ment Review. Summer 2018, 59–64
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem
innovation. Journal of Production Innovation Management, 31(3),
417–433. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jpim. 12105
Greenbank, P. (2011). Improving the process of career decision making:
An action research approach. Education and Training, 53(4), 252–
266. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 00400 91111 11384 33
Hair Jr, J. F., Money, A. H., Samouel, P. & Page, M. (2007). Research
methods for business, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, United States
IFAD. (2016). United Republic of Tanzania: country strategic opportu-
nities programme, Executive Board —117th Session, Rome 13–14
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C. & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory
of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 1–22 https:// doi. org/
10. 1002/ smj. 2904
Jaligot, R., David, C. W., Christopher, R. C., Berti, S., & Joachim, S.
(2016). Applying value chain analysis to informal sector recycling:
A case study of the Zabaleen. Resources, Conservation and Recy-
cling, 114, 80–91.
Kapoor, R. (2018). Ecosystems: Broadening the locus of value creation.
Journal of Organization Design, 7(12), 1–18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/
s41469- 018- 0035-4

Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research
1 3
Ketonen-Oksi, S. K., & Valkokarins, K. (2019). Innovation ecosystems as
structures for value co-creation. Technology Innovation Management
Review, 9(2), 25–35.
Majumder, M. (2012). A critical approach in understanding bottom of the
pyramid propositions. Journal of Management and Public Policy,
3(2), 18–25.
McGrath, H., & O’Toole, T. (2012). Critical issues in research design in
action research in an SME development context. European Journal of
Training and Development, 36(5), 508–526. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/
03090 59121 12320 75
Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: The new ecology of competition.
Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–83.
Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in
the age of business ecosystems. HarperCollins.
Msamula, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Tutuba, N. (2018). Influence of institu-
tions on value creation activities of micro and small enterprises in
rural Tanzania. Afrika Focus., 31(1), 187–211.
Ntenga, G. (1976). Beekeeping development programmes in Tanzania.
Proceedings of the Workshop on Apiculture in the Tropical Climates.
IBRA, London, 207,147–154.
Nyatsande, S., Andrew, C., & Innocent, S. (2014). Beekeeping in Zimba-
bwe. a Paper presented at the API EXPO Africa 2014 conference,
Harare, Zimbabwe, 6th – 11th October 2014.
Osterwalder, A. & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: a hand-
book for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. John Wiley
and Sons. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Pisano, G. P., & Teece, D. J. (2007). How to capture value from innovation:
Shaping intellectual property and industry architecture. California Man-
agement Review, 50(1), 278–296.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Technology and competitive advantage. Journal of
Business Strategy, 5(3), 60–78.
Prahalad, C. K. (2012). Bottom of the pyramid as a source of breakthrough
innovations. Journal of Production Innovation Management, 29(1),
6–12.
Sanchez, P., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). Business model innovation and sources
of value creation in low-income markets. European Management
Review, 7(3), 138–154.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for
business students (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
Sizya, M. J. (2001). The role co-operatives play in poverty reduction in
Tanzania. (eds) The United Nations In Observance Of The Interna-
tional Day For The Eradication Of Poverty. Cooperative College,
Moshi, Tanzania. 17 October 2001
Tee, R., & Gawer, A. (2009). Industry architecture as a determinant of
successful platform strategies: A case study of the i-mode mobile
Internet service. European Management Review, 6, 217–232.
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications
for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research
Policy, 15(6), 285–305.
Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation.
Long Range Planning, 43, 172–194. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lrp.
2009. 07. 003
Teece, D. J. (2016). Governance. In Augier, M. and Teece, D.J. (eds.) The
Palgrave Encyclopaedia of Strategic Management. https:// doi. org/
10. 1057/ 978-1- 349- 94848-2_ 737-1
Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long
Range Planning, 51, 40–49. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lrp. 2017. 06. 007
The Arusha Declaration. (1967). The Arusha Declaration and TANU’s
Policy on Socialism and Self-Reliance. Arusha, Tanzania. As declared
on 5 February 1967. Accessed: June 12, 2019, at https:// www. marxi
sts. org/ subje ct/ africa/ nyere re/ 1967/ arusha- decla ration. htm
The United Republic of Tanzania. (1998), National Beekeeping Policy.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam
The United Republic of Tanzania. (2016). Ministry Of Agriculture Live-
stock And Fisheries, National Strategy For Youth Involvement In
Agriculture (Nsyia) 2016–2021, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2018). Managing innovation. Integrating Techno-
logical, Market and Organizational Change. 6th Edition, TJ Interna-
tional Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall, UK
Tsujimoto, M., Kajikawa, Y., Tomita, J., & Matsumoto, Y. (2018). A
review of the ecosystem concept — towards coherent ecosystem
design. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 49–58.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2017. 06. 032
Turton, A. R., Hattingh, J., Claassen, M., Roux, D. J., & Ashton, P. J.
(2007). .Governance as a trialogue: Government-society-science in
transition. Water Resources Development and Management Series,
ISBN-10 3–540-46265-1. Springer-Verlag.
Tutuba, N. B. (2021). Promoting Forest Value Chain in Emerging Markets:
The Value Creation and Value Appropriation Context. African Jour-
nal of Accounting and Social Science Studies, 3(1), 19–38.
Tutuba, N. B. (2022). Business ecosystems, governance structures: How
can value chain of economy in rural areas be commercialized?
Oradea Journal of Business and Economics 7(1), 19–29. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 47535/ 1991o jbe135
Tutuba, N. B. & Msamula, J. S. (2018). Ufugaji nyuki kibiashara: Nad-
haria na vitendo, Mzumbe University, School of Business. Vilex
enterprises. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. ISBN 978–9987–9916–1–7
Tutuba, N. B., & Msamula, J. S. (2020). Industry architecture: a model
to create value and appropriate value in the value system of rural
economies in Tanzania. Journal of Academic Research in Econom-
ics, 12(No. 3):509–531. https:// www. jare- sh. com/ curre nt_ issue. html
Tutuba, N. B., Msamula, J. S., & Tundui, H. P. (2019) Business model
innovation for sustainable beekeeping in Tanzania: a content analy-
sis approach. American Journal of Management, 19(No. 1):74–88.
ISSN: 2165–7998 https:// doi. org/ 10. 33423/ ajm. v19i1. 1340
Tutuba, B. N., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2018). Beekeeping in Tanzania: Why
is beekeeping not commercially viable in Mvomero? Afrika Focus,
31(1), 213–239.
Tutuba, N. B., Tundui, H. P., & Msamula, J. S. (2020). Governance of
the business ecosystems to commercialize beekeeping activities in
emerging markets. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability,
15(5), 103–115. https:// doi. org/ 10. 33423/ jsis. v15i5. 3590
Uludag, O., Hefele, S., & Matthes, F. (2016). Platform and ecosystem
governance, TUM Living Lab Connected Mobility State of the Art
Report, Technical University of Munich, Munich, German
Vanhaverbeke, W. & Cloodt, M. (2006). Open innovation in value net-
works. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (eds.) Open
Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm(pp 258–281). Oxford
University Press.
Vanhaverbeke, W., Tutuba, N., Msamula, J., Pascoe, P., Kilumile, J., &
Tundui, H, P. (2021). Ruaha Farm (T) Ltd: Engaging Local Beekeep-
ing Communities in Tanzania, Ivey Publishing, https:// www. iveyc
ases. com/ Produ ctView. aspx? id= 113320
Walsh, P. R. (2011). Creating a “values” chain for sustainable development
in developing nations: Where Maslow meets Porter. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 13(4), 789–805.
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust
implications, a study in the economics of internal organization. Free
Press.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms,
markets, relational contracting. Free Press.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.).
Sage Publications.
Yoffie, D. B., & Kwak, M. (2006). With friends like these: The art of
managing complementors. Harvard Business Review, 84(9), 89–98.
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s);
author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
applicable law.