Content uploaded by Anna Wulf
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anna Wulf on Jul 03, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Characteristics and actions of Keystone and Niche players in collaborative
relationships of business ecosystems
Abstract
In this work, Keystones and Niche players in collaborative relationships are investigated to get
a deeper understanding of their characteristics and strategic actions. Business ecosystem theory
is used to outline first characteristic encountered in research. Building on that, further
characteristics as well as actions leading to strategic action in the network or business ecosystem
are researched and outlined.
Keystones and Niche players are investigated by a qualitative case study approach in order to
further explore their characteristics and actions. Besides having used a multiple case study
analysis a multilevel analysis of different agents in the system has been conducted. This ensures
a triangulation of the extracted findings.
Results show that Keystone and Niche player characteristics and actions can are very complex
and aligned to each other and other agents of the system. Research outcome highlights that
Keystones and Niche player not only align their strategic action to the environment and use
their specific characteristics to do so, they also influence their environment. This is possible
due to the alignment of action between the company and the individual acting in the
collaborative relationship by following an open or collaborative strategy.
Keywords: keystone, niche player, business ecosystem, network, strategy action, role
characteristics
2
1. Introduction
Companies need to align their strategies to an ever-changing environment (Adner and Kapoor,
2010) in order to adapt to future developments (Ahuja, 2000). They collaborate in arrangements
of relationships on different levels of interaction (Wulf and Butel, 2017) forming systems of
interactions such as business ecosystems or networks (Iansiti and Levien, 2004a). Here, they
not only share resources but also can gain competitive advantage (Barney, 1991) by innovative
strategy development (Van de Ven, 1986; Martín‐de Castro et al., 2011; Dyer, 1996). Strategic
action by using resources obtained can lead to the development of new capabilities using the
strategy as practise perspective (Jarzabkowski, 2005; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). How
certain companies with particular characteristics align their strategy within these environments
investigating strategic action has not been subject of in depth investigation so far.
Business ecosystem theory makes a first attempt to explain how certain organisation types
interact in a system of collaborative relationships such as networks or business ecosystems.
Iansiti and Levien (2004a) developed the concept of ecosystem roles (named agents in this
work) and already pre-defined certain characteristics to these agents. Nevertheless, a detailed
empirical investigation of them, their interaction as well as their strategies within different kind
of collaborative relationships, such as business ecosystems or networks, is still missing.
In this work, two of the ecosystem roles, Keystones and Niche players are investigated in depth
in order to understand their agent characteristics and their strategy making actions to react and
adapt to their collaborative relationships. A strategy as practice perspective is taken to
understand micro-phenomena within a greater context (Schatzki, 2011).
So far, research has not addressed Keystone and Niche player characteristics and actions. Even
though, these characteristics and actions enable them to follow their company strategy in
network and business ecosystem. A multilevel perspective is chosen by investigating the
Keystone and Niche Player individual and company on different levels of interaction, being the
company, network and business ecosystem level. By using the strategy as practice approach as
3
well as current research in network and business ecosystem theory, this research contributes to
the further development of additional knowledge on Keystone and Niche player characteristics
and action.
2. Theoretical insights
In this section theoretical insights introduce the current research in the field as well as the
understanding of the topic. Business ecosystem theory is used to outline Keystone and Niche
players as well as organisation strategies in collaborative relationships.
2.1 Strategies in collaborative relationships
Collaborative relationships can be allocated to different platforms of interaction such as
networks or business ecosystems (Wulf, 2017; Wulf, 2019). They are used to reduce the
uncertainty of developments in the company environment (Stead and Stead, 2013; Moore, 1996;
Mäkinen and Dedehayir, 2012).
Gaining competitive advantage for the firm is a major motive for collaboration. To face future
challenges, companies share resources with different partners (Hamel, Doz and Prahalad, 1989;
Gulati, 1995; Mc Evily and Zaheer, 1999; De Wit and Meyer, 2010) and try to obtain knowledge
for innovation (Grant, 1996; Quintane et al., 2011). Using the resources, companies can build
up capabilities (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Sorenson, Folker and Bringham, 2008) and used
them for strategic decision making (Hernandez et al., 2014). Capabilities are shaped by certain
strategic actions therefore actions of managers in the organisation as well as strategic action of
the company are essential to enable strategy making (Tidström and Rajala, 2016; Eisenhardt
and Santos, 2000; Jarzabkowski, 2002; Jarzabkowski and Spee, 2009, De Wit and Meyer,
2010). Individual action of managers within their organisation can greatly influence the
execution if strategy in the company environment of collaborative relationships (Wulf, 2021).
The action of the agents in the system is again influenced to a great extend by agents
characteristics (Wulf, 2021).
4
Agents in collaborative relationships build their interaction on resource transfers (Adner, 2017;
Butel, 2014) and business ecosystem theory is built on the resource-based view (Barney, 1991),
social network theory (Scott, 2007; Batistella et al., 2013) and business network understanding
(Jarillo, 1988; Lorenzoni and Baden-Fuller, 2004; Leviäkangas, Öörni, 2020). Figure 1
displays the importance of characteristics and actions for agent role fulfilment in the business
ecosystem.
Figure 1: Importance of characteristics and actions to fulfil ecosystem role
Business ecosystem theory already gives a first insight on how certain agents act in
collaborative relationships (Williamson and DeMeyer, 2012; Heikkilä and Kuivaniemi, 2012;
Wulf, 2017; Wulf, 2019; Wulf, 2021; Rong and Shi, 2015) and try to influence their
environment (Rong et al., 2010; Adner, Oxley and Silverman, 2013). They are single
components in a bigger system (Butel, 2014). The system itself varies greatly by its architecture
as well as the positioning if the company and its strategy followed as outlined again in Figure
1. In the research the focus shall be laid in the characteristic and the actions of the agents only
to ensure a realistic scope and focus of research.
Current knowledge about these agents is outlined below.
5
2.2 Agents in business ecosystems
Business ecosystem theory introduces the understanding of different roles played in
collaborative relationships (Wulf, 2019). A well-known distinction was introduced by Iansiti
and Levien (2002, 2004a) being Keystones, Dominators, Hub-Landlords and Niche players.
Iansiti and Levien (2002) for example introduced the four key roles being Keystone, Niche,
Dominator and Hub landlord. These roles are interchangeably also named positions or strategies
followed in business ecosystems. Keystones are seen as being the central player of the business
ecosystem that ensure interaction and co-evolution (Iansiti and Levien, 2004a; Moore, 1993;
Moore, 1996; Sawhney and Nambisan, 2007; Zahra and Nambisan, 2012). Niche players are
seen to be located at the edge of the system bringing in new ideas and innovations (Iansiti and
Levien, 2002; 2004a; Isckia, 2009; Zahra and Nambisan, 2012). Due to the scope of this work
Dominators and Hub-Landlords will not be investigated but will only be listed for
comprehensibility. Other researchers also introduced other roles or agents that can all be
summarised back to the three main roles of the Dominator, the Keystone and the Niche player
(Iansiti and Levien, 2004a; Iyer, Lee and Venkatraman, 2006; Adner and Kapoor, 2010; Rong
and Shi, 2015; Wulf, 2019; Wulf 2021). Figure 2 displays the roles introduced by Iansiti and
Levien (2004a). Here they are called strategies that follow a certain value creation and value
capturing aim. Iansiti and Levien (2004a) mention characteristics, action and strategies
simultaneously and also the terms of roles and strategy are used interchangeably. Nevertheless,
their work gives an important insight to the understanding of Keystones, Niche players,
Dominators and Hub-Landlords as agents in the system. Many researchers have so far added to
the understanding of the agents in the system (Wulf, 2019; Hileman et. Al., 2020) but a
structured approach to their strategic contribution by differing and outlining characteristics,
actions and strategies is still missing.
6
Figure 2: Iansiti and Levien’s (2004a) strategies and roles
Taxonomy of Network Strategies
Strategy
Definition
Presence
Value
Creation
Value Capture
Focus and Challenges
Keystone
Actively
improves
the overall
health of
the
ecosystem
and, in
doing so,
benefits the
sustained
performanc
e of the firm
General low
physical
presence for its
impact;
occupies
relatively few
nodes
Leaves vast
majority of
value creation
to network;
what value it
creates
internally it
shares widely
Share value
widely
throughout
network;
balances this
with capture
in selective
areas
Focused on creating
platform and sharing
solutions to problems
throughout the network.
A significant challenge
is sustain value
extraction and sharing.
Deciding which areas to
selectively dominate is
another challenge.
Dominator
Integrates
vertically or
horizontally
to manage
and control
a large part
of its
network
High physical
presence;
occupies most
Responsible
for most value
creation itself
Captures most
value itself
Primary focus is on
control and ownership-
defining, owning, and
directing most of what
the network does.
Hub
Landlord
Extracts as
much value
as possible
from its
network
without
directly
controlling
it.
Low physical
presence;
occupies very
view
Creates little
if any value;
relies on the
rest of the
network for
value creation
Captures most
value for
itself
A fundamentally
inconsistent strategy.
Though landlord refuse
to contrail their
networks while relying
on them as their only
source of value, they
simultaneously extract
so much value from
those networks that they
put their existence at
risk.
Niche
Player
Develops
specialized
capabilities
that
differentiate
from other
firms in the
network
Very low
physical
presence
individually,
but constitute
the bulk of
ecosystems
where they are
allowed to
thrive
Collectively
create much
of the value in
a healthy
ecosystem
Capture much
of the value
they create
Focused on specializing
in areas where they have
or can develop
capabilities, while
leveraging the services
provided by the
keystones in their
ecosystem.
7
2.3 Distinction characteristic, actions, strategies, roles and agents
In order to enable a distinction between the terms characteristic, actions, strategies, roles and
agents, their understanding is outlined in this section.
Characteristics and actions are seen in this work as contributing to an understanding of the
Keystone and Niche player role. Keystones and Niche players are agents that try to follow a
certain strategy by occupying a role. They act accordingly as strategizing’ refers to the ‘doing
of strategy’ (Jarzabkowski, Balogun and Seidl, 2007, p.584). Actions need to be strategically
relevant (Jarzabkowski and Spee, 2009) and can be undertaken by the individual or the
company (Grant, 1996a; Gulati, Lavie and Madhavan, 2011; Schatzki, 2011; Lane, Salk and
Lyles, 2001, Wulf, 2021). Action is then characterised by certain characteristics following a
specific strategy (Zahra and Nambisan, 2012; Rong and Shi, 2015; Isckia, 2009). These bundles
of action and characteristics shape the agent or role followed in the system. Tian et al. (2008,
p.105) states that a role is “a set of connected activities and decisions”.
In this work, the major agent roles (Scaringella and Radziwon, 2017) will be characterised by
their characteristics and actions to follow their strategy.
2.4 The Keystone agent in collaborative relationships
The Keystone is described by scholars to be one of the key roles in collaborative relationships
such as business ecosystems. They act to keep the system healthy by aligning interests,
influencing strategic aims, by developing platforms of interactions and by setting rules and
connections to enable co-evolution (Iansiti and Levien, 2002; Iansiti and Levien, 2004a; Moore,
1993; Moore, 1996; Sawhney and Nambisan, 2007; Zahra and Nambisan, 2012; Stead and
Stead, 2013; Ma et al., 2018; Hileman et al., 2020). Keystones are often called central players
or hubs, referring to their possible position in the system (Adner and Kapoor, 2010; Battistella
et al., 2013; Mäkinen and Dedehayir, 2012). Due to their influence they seem to be able to
8
enhance trust among agents and seem to trigger knowledge and innovative idea development
(Brass et al., 2004; Zheng, Zhang and Du, 2011; Leonard-Barton, 1995; Dyer and Nobeoka,
2000; Ahuja, 2000; Kodama, 2007; Lorenzoni and Baden-Fuller, 1995; Radziwon and Bogers,
2019; Hileman et al., 2020). Therefore, they are often seen as orchestrator (Nambisan and
Sawhney, 2011), platform leader (Cusumano and Gawer, 2002), ecosystem leader (Moore,
1993), or ecosystem regulator (Mäkinen and Dedehayir, 2012) even though they do not
necessarily occupy a central network position (Wulf, 2019).
Even though business ecosystem literature gives ideas of Keystone actions and characteristics
there is research missing on how these terms are interlinked and how they can contribute to
strategy making.
2.5 Niche player agent in business ecosystems
Current research shows that Niche player are important agents in system as they offer the
highest number of agents (Lee, 2020), they can support value creation (Isckia, 2009), enhance
innovation through niche specialisation (Mäkinen and Dedehayir, 2012) and can bring in new
ideas (Iansiti and Levien, 2004a) as well as expertise and integration skills (Teece, 2007;
Galateanu, Avasilcai, 2016).
They are often called complementor (Iansiti and Levien, 2004a; Iyer, Lee and Venkatraman,
2006; Adner and Kapoor, 2010) adapter (Sawhney and Nambisan, 2007; Den Hartigh and
Asseldonk, 2007), bridge (Iyer, Lee and Venkatraman, 2006) or Niche player (Iansiti and
Levien, 2004a; Mäkinen, Dedehayir 2012). When Niche players become more established, they
might change their strategic direction and become a Keystone (Garnsey and Leong, 2008).
Niche players seem to be loosely coupled (Iansiti and Levien, 2004a) among agents to distribute
their dependencies (Tiwana, Konsynski and Bush, 2010). They provide innovative ideas and
are dependent on the success of the innovation provided (Adner and Kapoor, 2010). Figure 3
shows a consolidation of major Keystone and Niche player actions that have been outlined by
current research. Figure 3 is not a comprehensive display but a guideline to support the
selection of the agents in field research.
9
Figure 3: Keystone and Niche player actions (build on characteristics) consolidated from
sources mentioned in the theoretical insight section
Keystone
Niche Players
• Critical regulators of ecosystem
health
• Not dominating the system
(physical size often small)
• Value distribution
• Enhances interaction
• Does not control the system
• Regulating connections
• creates stable and predictable
platforms on which other network
members can rely on (forming
rules)
• Value creation
• Brings in addtional value
• Bringing in innovative ideas
• Flexibility and negotiating power
• Located at the edge of the ecosystem,
in connection with other systems
• Often many Niche players in one
business ecosystem
• Often specialised knowledge
contribution
2.6 The importance of the individual manager for strategy
Summarising the above, characteristics and actions of the individual and the company agent
acting in collaborative relationships give valuable insights into the agent role fulfilment and its
strategy. Earlier research showed that agent individuals can directly influence agent companies
with their characteristics and actions (Wulf, 2021). To add to the strategy as practise perspective
understanding the individual processes and mechanisms fostered by the Keystone agent at the
company and at the individual level are important (Berghman et al., 2013; Wulf, 2019). Agent
individuals can do so by being closely connected by a social network within the agent company
acting across hierarchies (Kilduff and Brass, 2010) closely communication with relevant
company staff (Wulf, 2021). They create their own community of practise (Nonaka, 1994; Goh,
2002; Brown and Duguid, 1991) to reach their aims by maintaining direct connections to
relevant actors (Brass, 1984). By using this understanding, the research undertaken in this paper
will consolidate agent individual and agent company characteristics and actions as long as they
are part of strategy fulfilment (Tidström and Rajala, 2016; Eisenhardt and Santos, 2000;
Jarzabkowski and Spee, 2009).
10
3. Research question and research methodology
3.1 Research questions
As the theoretical insights above outlined, Keystones and Niche players can be depicted by
certain actions and characteristics as well as strategies followed in a business ecosystem. Still,
there is no in-depth analysis of the interconnection between characteristics and actions that lead
to their strategy. Additionally, terms are used interchangeably. Research does not distinguish
between characteristics, actions and strategy in detail. So far, there is a missing understanding
of manager and company interaction to fulfil strategy. Consequently, the subsequent research
questions were developed in Table 1.
Table 1: Research questions
Central research question: How do agents follow their strategy in business ecosystems?
- Sub question I: What are Keystone and Niche player key characteristics in
business ecosystems to enable strategy alignment?
- Sub question II: What are Keystone and Niche player key actions in business
ecosystems to enable strategy alignment?
- Sub question III: How to Keystones and Niche Players interact in business
ecosystems to enable strategy alignment?
Figure 4 additionally displays the theories used for the development of the central research
question. In this paper the focus is laid on Business ecosystem theory, the scope of work being
the limiting factor. The central research question is developed on the basis of data collection
for a lager study. Sub question I-III were developed for this paper only. Therefore, the study
focusses on studying Keystones and Niche Players in Business ecosystems solely.
11
Figure 4: Theoretical background for the development of the central research question
3.2 Research methodology
As this work research is shaped by complex patterns of behavior (Schatzki, 2011) of the
Keystone and the Niche Player agent an exploratory research (Yin, 2014) is chosen. Therefore,
qualitative data collection and data analysis methods were selected (Bell, Bryman, Harley,
2018) to address the complex phenomenon (Jarzabkowski, Balogun and Seidl, 2007). Data
collection and analysis were part of a larger study and consisted of several data collection
methods. Figure 5 displays the data collection strategy of the larger study which consisted of
several data collection methods such as secondary data analysis, expert interviews and a case
study analysis including interviews, field notes and observations. Figure 5 also included the
research aim of the selected methods and the aim of the investigation.
12
Figure 5: Data collection strategy
As Figure 5 shows, the variety of methods enabled a triangulation of findings (Easterby-Smith
et al., 2015; Bryman and Bell, 2011, Flick, 2018) as the phenomenon could be addressed by
different viewpoints (Mayring, 2007; Wilson, 2014). Besides method triangulation within the
case study by using semi structured interviews, open interviews and direct observation, expert
interviews and archival records of secondary data were added to data triangulation.
In this work, data of the larger study was analysed to answer the central question and sub
questions I-III only.
3.3 Unit of analysis
Keystone and Niche Player agents need to be investigated on an individual and a company level
to understand characteristics and actions to reach strategic aims. Strategy development and
execution is highly dependent on the individual as well as on organisational requirements (De
Wit and Meyer, 2010) but there is still a need to understand how both levels of action overlap
(Wulf, 2021). Therefore, the investigation needed to take place on distinct levels of interaction
13
where resources can be shared (Zander and Kogut, 1995). Consequently, the unit of analysis is
the Keystone and Niche Player individual as well as the company the individual acts in. The
company is considered the frame giving institution behind the individual as the company is seen
to have an impact on the actions of the individual person to further develop strategy (Wulf,
2021). The different data collection methods displayed in Figure 5 ensured the access to the
unit of analysis.
3.4 Data access
Data access was hampered by the selection of Business ecosystem structures the agents acted
in. Collaborative relationships needed to be discovered that were fitting to the understanding of
a business ecosystem being a complex system of co-evolvement (Zahra and Nambisan, 2012).
Research was therefore placed in a system of interrelated and interdependent firms, connected
by a shared aim or strategic vision (Iansiti and Levien, 2004a). After having explored
collaborative relationships having used a comprehensive secondary data research agent actions
and characteristics were visible by observing interactions in the system.
3.4 Data collection and processing
As presented in Figure 5, data collection began with a comprehensive secondary data collection
to identify business ecosystems for investigation and to understand Keystone and Niche Player
characteristics and actions in the system. After that expert interviews were conducted to further
develop characteristics and actions of the agents of investigation. This also enabled the
identification of the agents in the systems as a more comprehensive understanding of their
features developed. Following that, case study data collection started and agents were
investigated by observations and interviews. A non-participating, direct observation method
was chosen (Bryman and Bell, 2011) to not influence agent behaviour in the field. An
investigation frame was set to ensure the allocation of relevant data for agent examination.
- Identification of Keystone and Niche player individual and company by using
characteristics and actions (as displayed in Figure 3)
- Personal characteristics of the agent individuals
14
- Company characteristics of the agent company
- Strategic action of the agent individuals
- the agent individuals of the agent company
The selection of agents was confirmed by selection triangulation with other system agents.
3.5 Data processing
Data collected was processed by using content analysis (Mayring, 2015; Kuckart, 2014). A
comprehensive coding scheme was developed to ensure the exploration of repeating patterns.
Codes were developed inductively and deductively and coding categories were derived.
Literature was the foundation for deductive codes and data for the induction (Miles and
Huberman, 1994; Saldaña, 2016). Figure 6 shows the process of coding towards generalisation
and abstraction.
Figure 6: Coding scheme from real to abstract
Coding loops (Mayring, 2015; Kuckartz, 2014; Neuendorf, 2018) ensured the correctness of
generalisation. Three stages of coding were used to link data to existing knowledge about the
agents. This led to data sickness in all relevant categories (Saldaña, 2016, Low, 2019). Data
15
was consolidated to the data displayed presented in the result section. Strategic characteristics
and actions were allocated to the structural, processual, content and context dimension of De
Wit and Meyer (2010).
4. Results
The results section presents main findings in a table display highlighting consolidated findings
of the content analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Mayring, 2007; Mayring, 2015). A detailed
discussion of the results is provided in the discussion section. Research was conducted get a
better understanding on Keystone and Niche Player characteristics, actions and strategy in
collaborative relationships of business ecosystems. Additionally, the interaction between
Keystones and Niche Players was investigated being presented in Table 4. By using De Wit’s
and Meyer’s (2010) strategy dimensions to cluster the characteristics and actions the strategic
aim orientation on different aspects of strategy development could be displayed clearer.
Overall, this section provides an overview how Keystones and Niche Players can be
characterised from a strategy perspective and how the interact in a context of collaborative
relationships in order to reach their strategic aims.
4.1 Keystone and Niche player characteristics, action and strategy
Below all characteristics and actions on individual and company level mentioned in interviews
and observed in field observations were allocated major characteristics and actions. This has
been done as outlined above by a structured content analysis and by the development of codes
and major categories to allow a certain degree of abstraction. Individual and company
characteristics and actions were then matched and allocated to similar major categories. These
are displayed in Table 2 and 3. As already mentioned, characteristics and actions were then
structured by the strategy dimensions process, content, context and structure, following De Wit
and Meyer’s (2010) approach to strategy. The first column presents the dimensions the
characteristics and actions are related to. The following column shows the described
16
characteristics per strategy dimension. The next two columns concentrate on actions. All actions
in one dimension are summarised to a strategic aim.
17
Table 2: Keystone characteristics, action and strategy in the context of collaborative
relationships
related to
strategy
dimensions
Keystone key
characteristics
Keystone key actions
Strategic aim followed
Relational
collaborative
open to collaboration
Builds relations to
overcome dependency in
business ecosystem and
industry. Remains close
to big player to monitor
developments
connective
connects agents
interactive
enhances interaction,
influences interaction
structure
flexible
uses structures to react to
changes
uses and changes
collaborative relationship
structures to adapt to
future developments
adaptable
develops structures
regulative
regulates accessibility to
relations or knowledge
content
innovator
triggers innovation
tries to create innovation
for business
diversification and by
following an innovation
or open strategy
aim creator
Pushes aim development
on all levels of interaction
context
awareness
Actively uses system for
own development
is aware of changes and
developments in
collaborative
relationships, tries to
influence them and
position company in
business ecosystem to
fulfil company strategy
adaptable
adapts company to
developments within the
system
change enabler
enables change in order to
reach company strategy
18
Table 3: Niche Player characteristics, action and strategy in the context of collaborative
relationships
related to
strategic
dimension
Niche Player key
characteristics
Niche Player key actions
Strategic aim followed
Relational
collaborative
open to collaboration (if needed)
Follows the aim on
further specialisation.
Concentrates on relations
that enables
specialisation. Wants to
keep independency in
collaborative
relationships.
competitive
Competes on level of
specialisation
Low interaction/
connectivity
Interaction only on the basis of
mutual exchange
structure
stable
uses structures to reach stability
for resource sharing
uses collaborative
relations for steady
connections in order to
stabilise specialisation
adaptable
Adaptable to exogenous changes
reliable
Uses same partners in
collaborative relationships
content
Idea giver
Brings in specialisation to enable
idea development when needed
Follows specialisation
strategy and uses ideas
and aims within
collaborative
relationships
aim user
Uses strategic aims developed in
collaborative relationships for
own development
context
awareness
Actively uses system for own
development
is aware of changes and
developments, tries to
influence them and
position company in
business ecosystem to
fulfil company strategy
adaptable
adapts company to developments
within the system
Bridge to other
systems
If necessary, connects agents of
distinct systems
19
Table 2 and 3 give a comprehensive overview of characteristics and action leading to strategic
aim reach. The list of these characteristics and actions will not be outlined below again. Here,
major results will be outlined by reflecting in front of strategic considerations.
Table 2 and 3 show on a relational level that both agents use the building of relations to follow
their strategy. Niche players and Keystones differ in their characteristics and actions but they
use relationships consciously. While Keystones tend to concentrate on collaboration, Niche
players protect their specialisation strategy by competing rather than collaborating. Keystones
want to diversify their business to overcome dependency and Niche players keep independency
by keeping their specialisation.
On a structural level Keystones follow their strategic aim by constantly adapting to changes and
by fostering developments whereas Niche players prefer a stable environment they can follow
specialisation and only adapt to necessary changes. Keystones seek for new connections to
enhance diversification while Niche players stick to main reliable contacts. Keystones follow
their collaborative strategy by continuously building up relations.
The content dimension of strategy revealed that Keystones create new areas of interest. They
want to actively influence developments in the system and not only adapt to it. They need to
reach a competitive advantage through innovation. In doing so they can be complemented by
the Niche player but the latter is restrained in giving away knowledge for new ideas in its field
of specialisation. Niche players will only act as idea givers if they can further develop their own
specialisation.
On context level the Niche player shows one of his major characteristics enables him to actively
influence the system. As already described by other researchers the Niche player acts as a bridge
to other systems (McEvily and Zaheer, 1999). Findings of this research extend that knowledge
by showing that they only act as bridges if this can enable them to specialise even further.
Keystones on the other hand want to act as change enablers as they need additional resource
20
flows to follow their own strategic developments. Both agents try this way to position
themselves in the system.
Summarising the above, Table 2 and Table 3 revealed Keystone and Niche player
characteristics and action as being similar and distinct at the same time by following a
completely different aim set. Table 4 summarised how similar and how opposed Keystone and
Niche player characteristics and actions can be.
Table 4: Keystone and Niche Player interaction
strate
gic
dimen
sion
Keystone key
characteristics
Keystone key
actions
Niche Player
key
characteristi
cs
Niche Player key
actions
Opposed
characteri
stics and
actions
Similar
charact
eristics
and
actions
Interaction
among agents
Relatio
nal
collaborative
open to
collaboration
collaborative
open to
collaboration (if
needed)
X
jointly enable
collaboration
in system
connective
connects
agents
competitive
Competes on
level of
specialisation
X
Niche player
only connects
if no
competition at
hand
interactive
enhances
interaction,
influences
interaction
Low
interaction/
connectivity
Interaction only
on the basis of
mutual exchange
X
Keystone
enhances
interaction to
ensure
resource
exchange.
Niche player
might hinder it
if no mutual
exchange
Struct
ure
flexible
uses
structures to
react to
changes
stable
uses structures
to reach stability
for resource
sharing
X
Keystones
want a
flexible, Niche
player a stable
system
structure
adaptable
develops
structures
adaptable
Adaptable to
exogenous
changes
X
Niche players
are adaptable
if they have to.
Keystones
seek for
adaption.
regulative
regulates
accessibility
to relations
or knowledge
reliable
Uses same
partners in
collaborative
relationships
X
Niche player
need some
reliable
partners in the
system,
Keystones are
constantly
seeking for
21
new contacts
for further
development
Conte
nt
innovator
triggers
innovation
Idea giver
Brings in
specialisation to
enable idea
development
X
Can jointly
push
innovation in
the system
aim creator
pushes aim
development
on all levels
of interaction
aim user
Uses strategic
aims developed
in collaborative
relationships for
own
development
X
Niche player
no interst in
joint aim
developments
in the system.
They are set in
their own
specialisation
strategy.
Contex
t
awareness
aware of
industry and
company
strategy
requirements
awareness
Actively uses
system for own
development
X
Aware of
system
developments
influencing
their strategy
adaptable
adapts
company and
network
strategy to
development
s
adaptable
adapts company
to developments
within the
system
X
adaptability to
changes
change enabler
enables
change in
order to
reach
company
strategy
Bridge to
other
systems
If necessary,
connects agents
of distinct
systems
X
Both enabling
change. Niche
player only
when
necessary.
Keystones
pushing
strategy.
22
5. Discussion
Summarising the findings above, it can be said that research confirms known Keystone and
Niche Player features to some extent. Nevertheless, a structural display of characteristics and
actions was possible as well as the presentation of their relevance to follow agents' strategic
aims. Therefore, the findings add on the one hand to current knowledge in the field but on the
other hand also show up new aspects that shall be consolidated even further in this section
below. Findings also added to the understanding of the strategy as practise approach as the
importance of individual action for strategy development (Jarzabkowski, 2002; Eisenhardt and
Graebner, 2007; Butel, 2014, Kohtamäki et al, 2021) as well as the alignment of personal and
company interests (Wulf, 2019; Wulf 2021).
The central research question “How do agents follow their strategy in business ecosystems?”
can be answered by approaching Table 2 and 3 in the result section again. Agent individuals
need to adjust their personal and company interests to each other by showing up joint
characteristics and actions in the business ecosystem of collaborative relationships in order to
reach their strategy aims. Analysed data using multiple data sources confirmed that alignment
of characteristics and actions towards a strategic aim.
Research sub-question I-III can be answered by the findings below. Sub-question I asked “What
are Keystone and Niche player key characteristics in business ecosystems to enable strategy
alignment?” and sub-question II asked “What are Keystone and Niche player key actions in
business ecosystems to enable strategy alignment?” and sub-question III: “How to Keystones
and Niche Players interact in business ecosystems to enable strategy alignment?” can be
answered by listing the following findings building on the result Tables 2, 3 and 4 above.
Keystone and Niche Player characteristics and actions
Research results displayed in Table 2 and 3 confirm major Keystone characteristics found in
literature. Keystone try to keep the system alive and developing to enable co-evolution (Iansiti
23
and Levien, 2002; Iansiti and Levien, 2004a; Moore, 1993; Moore, 1996; Sawhney and
Nambisan, 2007; Zahra and Nambisan, 2012; Stead and Stead, 2013; Ma et al., 2018; Hileman
et al., 2020) and enhance their strategic aim reach. Results show additionally how the Keystone
aligns his strategic actions in order to reach its strategic aims on different levels strategy being
relation, context, content and structure (De Wit and Meyer, 2010). Table 2 and 3 also offer a
clear display on the dependency of the Keystone on idea development from other agents of the
system.
One very important agent to bring in new ideas is the Niche player agent. Results show not only
how the Niche player aligns his strategic actions in order to reach its strategic aims on different
levels strategy being relation, context, content and structure (De Wit and Meyer, 2010) it also
revealed new characteristics and actions. Niche players ought to have a certain flexibility and
negotiating power, they seem to be loosely coupled to devide dependencies and they bring in
new ideas for innovation (Iansiti and Levien, 2004a; Tiwana, Konsynski and Bush, 2010; Adner
and Kapoor, 2010). While the importance of new ideas and innovation could be confirmed by
research results the flexibility of Niche players seems to be restricted to certain contexts. Niche
players tend to build on stable structures and reliable partners to enable their further
specialisation rather than changing relations to create independency. These actions are again
taken to follow their strategy of specialisation further. Figure 7 graphically displays the
alignment of interests in collaborative relationship structures. Keystones and Niche players use
relations and structures in the system to follow their own strategic aim set. They actively align
characteristics and actions to all levels of interaction.
24
Figure 7: Keystones and Niche players alignment of characteristics and actions for
strategic aim reach
Differences in Keystone and Niche Player strategy aim reach
Keystones follow an open and collaborative strategy (Wulf, 2021) by balancing competition
and collaboration between agents to enable value sharing (Iansiti and Levien, 2002; Iansiti and
Levien, 2004a; Li and Garnsey, 2014). Results confirms how much they need the Niche player
for additional resource input and for acting as a bridge to other systems but need to enhance the
added value for them as Niche players to rather compete then collaborate. Keystones want to
overcome economic dependency by the exchange of resources to enable diversification and
enhance flexibility and adaptability (Matusik and Fitza, 2012; Inkpen, Tsang, 2005; Wulf,
2021) while Niche players want to keep their independency in the system enabled by their
specialisation. Both act for reaching and keeping their competitive advantage (Dyer, 1996) This
leads to the paradox of an opposed but dependent aim reach of both agents.
25
Dependency of Keystone and Niche player aim reach
Results highlight the dependency among the Keystone and the Niche player agent in order to
reach their strategic aim. By following the dependency and interacting with each other they can
increase ecosystem health, increase value sharing and creation (Fox, 2013; Iansiti and Levien,
2004a; Den Hartigh, Tol and Visscher, 2006). But as earlier research suggested the value
creation and distribution is not done for purely altruistic reasons (Iansiti and Levien, 2004;
Moore, 1993; Cusumano and Gawer, 2002; Tiwana, Konsynski and Bush, 2010; Mäkinen and
Dedehayir, 2012; Wulf 2021) but to enhance agents own aim reach. Interestingly, Niche player
only react to Keystone pressure in the system. Research shows that they only adapt flexible to
changes and bring in new ideas if the need to do so for system development. This ensures the
reciprocal development (Mäkinen and Dedehayir, 2012) among agents. Very important for the
mutual development of the agents is also the positioning in the system. This is ensured by
holding and developing relationships. Keystones tend to constantly grow their contacts ensuring
their central function in the system while Niche players position themselves at the edge of the
system (Lansiti and Levien, 2002; 2004a; Isckia, 2009; Zahra and Nambisan, 2012). Table 2
and 3 outline the characteristics and actions taken to ensure this positioning. Figure 8 builds
on the result display and shows how Keystone and Niche player agents position themselves in
the system to follow their strategic interests. They use different relations on different levels of
interaction always keeping their strategic aim reach in mind. The strategic aim reach is outline
in Table 2 and 3 in the right column.
26
Figure 8: Keystone and Niche player positioning for aim reach
Interaction of Keystones and Niche players
Results show that due to their mutual dependency on strategic aim reach Keystones and Niche
players constantly need to align their actions in the system by interaction. By doing so they
jointly enable collaboration in system. Nevertheless, Niche player agents only connect if no
competition among agents is at hand while the Keystone enhances interaction by following a
collaborative or open strategy (Wulf and Butel, 2016) to ensure resource exchange. Contrasting
this Niche players can hinder resource exchange if it is not based on mutual exchange.
While Keystones are constantly seeking for new contacts for further development, Niche player
need some reliable partners in the system they can rely their specialisation on. This also supports
the understanding that Niche players bridge to other systems (McEvily and Zaheer, 1999) to
27
scatter their expertise. Still, both agents can jointly push innovation in the system when they
need it for their own strategy fulfilment.
Summarizing the discussion of major results above, this study supports current research on
Business ecosystem theory as well as adds further understanding on the characteristics, actions
and strategy of agents in the system. This study found several additional insights to Keystone
and Niche player strategy as well as the interdependencies among the agents. The central
research question could be answered as well as sub-question I-III. The following implications
of the research can be concluded in the next section.
Conclusion
Summarizing the above, it can be concluded that Keystones and Niche players need interaction
in the system to further develop it. They consciously influence each other by using different,
sometimes opposed actions to fulfil their strategy in the system of collaborative relationships.
Keystones follow their strategy of diversification and Niche players follow their specialisation
strategy. Both agents act to position themselves in the system in order to fulfil their strategy in
the best possible way. Individual agents as well as the agent company follow a similar interest
that then leads to strategic aim reach.
Furthermore, this work enabled the structured display of Keystone and Niche player
characteristics and actions that were used in the system to reach the strategic aim followed.
Even though Keystones and Niche players sometimes follow opposed strategic aims they are
dependent on each other when it comes to strategy fulfilment.
Additional to that, this work contributes to an understanding of the influence of single agents
in the system by showing how individual and company characteristcs and actions can help to
follow a consistent strategy.
28
References
Adner, R., 2017. Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of
Management, 43(1), pp.39–58.
Adner, R. and Kapoor, R., 2010. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of
technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations.
Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), pp.306–333.
Adner, R., Oxley, J.E. and Silverman, B.S. eds., 2013. Collaboration and Competition in
Business Ecosystems. Bingley: Emerald.
Ahuja, G., 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes and innovation a longitudinal study.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), pp.425–455.
Argote, L. and Kane, A.A., 2009. Superordinate identity and knowledge creation and transfer
in organizations. In: N.J. Foss and S. Michailova, eds. 2009. Knowledge governance. Processes
and perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.166–190.
Ansoff, H.I., 1967. Corporate strategy. An analytic approach to business policy for growth and
expansion. 15th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Barney, J., 1991. Firms resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), pp.99–120.
Battistella, C., et al., 2013. Methodology of business ecosystems network analysis: A case study
in Telecom Italia Future Centre. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80, pp.1194–
1210.
Berghman, L., et al., 2013. Deliberate Learning Mechanisms for Stimulating Strategic
Innovation Capacity. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2), pp.39–71.
Bea, F.X., Haas, J. and Han, P., 2009. Strategisches Management, Grundwissen der Ökonomik
Betriebswirtschaftslehre // Soziologie der Migration. Erklärungsmodelle, Fakten, politische
Konsequenzen, Perspektiven. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.
Brass, D.J., et al., 2004. Taking Stock of Networks and Organisations: A multilevel perspective.
Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), pp.795–817.
Borgh, M., Cloodt, M. and Romme, A. Georges L., 2012. Value creation by knowledge-based
ecosystems: Evidence from a field study. R&D Management, 42(2), pp.150–169.
Borgatti, S.P. and Halgin, D.S., 2011. On network theory. Organization Science, 22(5),
pp.1168–1181.
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P., 1991. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice:
Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), pp.40–
57.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E., 2015. Business research methods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bell, E., Bryman, A., Harley, B., 2018. Business research methods. Oxford university press.
Butel, L., 2014. Exploring the Impact of a Business’s Ecosystem on its Strategic Decision
Making. In: EURAM, ed. Waves and Winds of Strategic Leadership for Sustainable
Competitiveness, 4 - 7 June, 2014.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive Capacity: A new perspective on learning
and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp.128–152.
29
Cusumano, M.A. and Gawer, A., 2002. The elements of platform leadership. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 43(3), pp.51–58.
Den Hartigh, E., Tol, M. and Visscher, W., 2006. The health measurement of a business
ecosystem. In: ECCON 2006 Annual meeting, ed. Organisations as Chaordic Panarchies, 20-
21 October 2006, pp.1–39.
Dokko, G., Kane, A.A. and Tortoriello, M., 2013. One of Us or One of My Friends: How Social
Identity and Tie Strength Shape the Creative Generativity of Boundary-Spanning Ties.
Organization Studies, 35(5), pp.703–726.
Dyer, J.H., 1996. Specialized Supplier Networks as a Source of Competitive
Advantage: Evidence from the Auto Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp.271–291.
Dyer, J.H. and Nobeoka, K., 2000. Creating and Managing a High-Performance Knowledge-
Sharing Network: the Toyota Case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), pp.345–367.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P.R., 2015. Management and business research.
5th ed. London: Sage Publications.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989b. Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments.
Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), pp.543–576.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A., 2000. Dynamic Capabilities: What are they? Strategic
Management Journal, 21(10/11), pp.1105–1121.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E., 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), pp.25–37.
Flick, Uwe, 2018. Triangulation in data collection. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data
collection.
Fox, P.B., 2013. Creation and Control in Business Ecosystems. Thesis: Universitat Ramon
Llull.
Galateanu, E., Avasilcai, S., 2016. Framing the competitive behaviors of niche players: The
electric vehicle business ecosystem perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Garnsey, E. and Leong, Y.Y., 2008. Combining resource‐based and evolutionary theory to
explain the genesis of bio‐networks. Industry and Innovation, 15(6), pp.669–686.
Grant, R.M., 1996a. Prospering in Dynamically-competitive Environments: Organizational
Capability a Knowledge Integration. Organisation Science, 7(4), pp.375–387.
Grant, R.M., 1996b. Towards a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 17, pp.109–122.
Grant, R.M. and Baden-Fuller, C., 2004. A Knowledge Accessing Theory of Strategic
Alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), pp.61–79.
Goh, S.C., 2002. Managing effective knowledge transfer: an integrative framework and some
practice implications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), pp.23–30.
Gulati, R., 1995. Does Familiarity breed Trust? The Implication of Repeated Ties for
Contractual Choice in Alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), pp.85–112.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N. and Zaheer, A., 2000. Strategic Networks. Strategic Management
Journal, 21(3), pp.23–215.
Hamel, G., Doz, Y.I. and Prahalad, C.K., 1989. Collaborate with your competitors. Harvard
Business Review, 67(1), pp.133–139.
30
Hernández, J.E., et al., 2014. Enhancing Collaborative Decision-Making Processes Using a
Web-Based Application. A Case Study of a UK Precision Engineering SME. In: P. Zaraté, G.E.
Kersten, and J.E. Hernández, eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp.11–19.
Heikkilä, M. and Kuivaniemi, L., 2012. Ecosystem under construction: an action research study
on entrepreneurship in a business ecosystem. Technology Innovation Management Review,
2(6), pp.18–24.
Hileman, J., Kallstenius, I., Häyhä, T., Palm, C., Cornell, S., 2020. Keystone actors do not act
alone: A business ecosystem perspective on sustainability in the global clothing industry. Plos
one.
Iansiti, M. and Levien, R., 2002. The New Operational Dynamics of Business Ecosystems:
Implications for Policy, Operations and Technology Strategy: Division of Research, Harvard
Business School.
Iansiti, M. and Levien, R., 2004a. The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of
Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability. Boston: Harvard
Business Review Press; Harvard Business School Press.
Iansiti, M. and Levien, R., 2004b. Keystones and dominators: Framing operating and
technology strategy in a business ecosystem. Harvard Business School Press.
Iansiti, M. and Levien, R., 2004c. Strategy as Ecology. Harvard Business Review, 3(82), pp.68–
81.
Isckia, T., 2009. Amazon's evolving ecosystem: A cyber‐bookstore and Application Service
Provider. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 26(4), pp.332–343.
Inkpen, A.C. and Tsang, E.W.K., 2005. Social Capital, Networks and Knowledge Transfer.
Academy of Management Review, 30(1), pp.146–165.
Jarillo, J.C., 1988. On Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 9(1), pp.31–41.
Jarzabkowski, P., 2002. Strategy as practise: Recursiveness, Adaption and Strategic Practises-
in-use. Birmingham: Aston Business School
Jarzabkowski, P., 2005. Strategy as practice: An activity based approach. London: Sage
Publications.
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J. and Seidl, D., 2007. Strategizing: The challenges of a practice
perspective. Human Relations, 60(1), pp.5–27.
Jarzabkowski, P. and Spee, A.P., 2009. Strategy‐as‐practice: A review and future directions for
the field. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), pp.69–95.
Jong, J.P.J. de and Hulsink, W., 2012. Patterns of innovating networking in small firms.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(3), pp.280–297.
Kane, A.A., 2010. Unlocking Knowledge Transfer Potential: Knowledge Demonstrability and
Superordinate Social Identity. Organization Science, 21(3), pp.643–660.
Kilduff, M. and Brass, D.J., 2010. Organizational Social Network Research: Core Ideas and
Key Debates. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), pp.317–357.
Kirman, A. (2011). Complex Economics, Individual and collective rationality, The Graz
Schumpeter Lectures.
Kodama, M., 2007. Innovation and knowledge creation through leadership-based strategic
community: Case study on high-tech company in Japan. Technovation, 27(3), pp.115–132.
31
Kohtamäki, M., Whittington, R., Vaara, E., & Rabetino, R. 2021. Making connections:
Harnessing the diversity of strategy‐as‐practice research. International Journal of Management
Reviews.
Kuckartz, U., 2007. Einführung in die computergestützte Analyse qualitativer Daten. 2nd ed.
Wiesbaden: Springer.
Lane, P.J., Salk, J.E. and Lyles, M.A., 2001. Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in
international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(12), pp.1139–1161.
Leonard-Barton, D., 1995. Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the sources of
innovation. Harvard Business School Press.
Lee, Y. W., Moon, H. C., & Yin, W. 2020. Innovation process in the business ecosystem: the
four cooperations practices in the media platform. Business Process Management Journal.
Leviäkangas, P., & Öörni, R.2020. From business models to value networks and business
ecosystems–What does it mean for the economics and governance of the transport system?
Utilities Policy.
Li, J.F. and Garnsey, E., 2014. Building joint value: Ecosystem support for global health
innovations. In: 2014. Collaboration and Competition in Business Ecosystems: Emerald,
pp.69–96.
Lorenzoni, G. and Baden-Fuller, C., 1995. Creating a Strategic Center to Manage a Web of
Partners. California Management Review, 37(3), pp.146–163.
Low, Jacqueline, 2019. A pragmatic definition of the concept of theoretical saturation.
Sociological Focus.
Ma, Y., Rong, K., Mangalagiu, D., Thornton, T. F., & Zhu, D. 2018. Co-evolution between
urban sustainability and business ecosystem innovation: Evidence from the sharing mobility
sector in Shanghai. Journal of Cleaner Production.
March, J.G., 1991. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization
Science, 2(1), pp.71–87.
Mäkinen, S.J. and Dedehayir, O., 2012. Business Ecosystem Evolution and Strategic
Considerations: A Literature Review. In: B. Katzy, et al., eds. 18th International ICE
Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE), 18 - 20 June 2012. Piscataway,
NJ: IEEE, pp.1–10.
Martín-de-Castro, Gregorio, et al. "Towards ‘an intellectual capital-based view of the firm’:
origins and nature." Journal of Business Ethics 98.4 (2011): 649-662.
Matusik, S.F. and Fitza, M.A., 2012. Diversification in the venture capital industry: leveraging
knowledge under uncertainty. Strategic Management Journal, 33(4), pp.407–426.
Mayring, P., 2007. Designs in qualitativ orientierter Forschung. Journal für Psychologie, 15(2).
Available from: https://www.journal-fuer-psychologie.de/index.php/jfp/article/view/127.
Mayring, P., 2015. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. 12th ed. Weinheim:
Beltz.
McEvily, B. and Zaheer, A., 1999. Bridging Ties: A Source of Firms Heterogeneity in
Competitive Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20(1), pp.1133–1156.
McEvily, B., Soda, G. and Tortoriello, M., 2014. More formally: Rediscovering the Missing
Link between Formal Organization and Informal Social Structure. The Academy of
Management Annals, 8(1), pp.299–345.
32
Neuendorf, Kimberly A (2018). "Content analysis and thematic analysis." Advanced research
methods for applied psychology. Routledge.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book.
2nd ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Moore, J.F., 1993. Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition. Harvard Business
Review, 71(3), pp.79–86.
Moore, J.F., 2006. Business ecosystems and the view from the firm. Antitrust Bulletin, 51(1),
pp.31.
Nambisan, S. and Sawhney, M., 2011. Orchestration processes in network-centric innovation:
Evidence from the field. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), pp.40–57.
Nonaka, I., 1994. A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization
Science, 5(1), pp.14–37.
Peltoniemi, M., 2006. Preliminary theoretical framework for the study of business ecosystems.
Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 8(1), pp.10–19.
Peltoniemi, M. and Vuori, E., 2004. Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex
adaptive business environments. In: e-Business Research Forum, ed., 20-22 September,
pp.267–281.
Porter, M.E., 1985. Technology and competitive advantage. Journal of Business Strategy, 5(3),
pp.60–78.
Power, M.E., et al., 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. BioScience, 46(8), pp.609–
620.
Radziwon, A., & Bogers, M. 2019. Open innovation in SMEs: Exploring inter-organizational
relationships in an ecosystem. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
Richardson, K.A., 2008. Managing complex organizations: Complexity thinking and the
science and art of management. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 10(2), pp.13–24.
Richardson, K.A. and Tait, A., 2010. The death of the expert? In: K.A. Richardson and A. Tait,
eds. 2010. Complexity and Knowledge Management. Understanding the Role of Knowledge in
the Management of Social Networks. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, pp.23–39.
Roffe, I., 1999. Innovation and creativity in organisations: a review of the implications for
training and development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(4/5), pp.224–241.
Rong, K., et al., 2010. From value chain, supply network, towards business ecosystem (BE):
Evaluating the BE concept's. In: IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management, 7/12/2010 - 10/12/2010. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp.2173–2177.
Rong, K. and Shi, Y., 2015. Business ecosystems. Constructs, configurations, and the nurturing
process. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Saldaña, J., 2016. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage
Publications.
Scaringella, L. and Radziwon, A., 2017. Innovation, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and business
ecosystems: Old wine in new bottles? Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
Scott, J., 2017. Social network analysis. 4th ed. London, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.
Schatzki, T.R., 2011. Where the action is. On Large Social Phenomena Such as Sociotechnical
Regimes [online]. Available from: http://www.sprg.ac.uk/uploads/schatzki-wp1.pdf [Accessed
8 June 2018.].
33
Shafique, M., 2013. Thinking inside the box? Intellectual structure of the knowledge base of
innovation research. Strategic Management Journal, 34(1), pp.62–93.
Stacey, R.D., 1995. The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change
processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), pp.477–495.
Stead, J.G. and Stead, W.E., 2013. The coevolution of sustainable strategic management in the
global marketplace. Organization and Environment, 26(2), pp.162-183.
Suarez, F.F. and Lanzolla, G., 2007. The role of environmental dynamics in building a first
mover advantage theory. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), pp.377–392.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A., 1997. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), pp.509–533.
Tidström, A. and Rajala, A., 2016. Coopetition strategy as interrelated praxis and practices on
multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 58, pp.35–44.
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B. and Bush, A.A., 2010. Research commentary—Platform evolution.
Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information
Systems Research, 21(4), pp.675–687.
Vasconcellos, F. C. and Ramirez, R. (2011). Complexity in business environment. Journal of
Business Research, 64, 236-241.
Van de Ven, Andrew H., 1986. Central Problems in the Management of Innovation.
Management Science, 32(5), pp.590–607.
Wang, X.F., and Chen, G. (2003). Complex networks: small-world, scale-free and beyond.
IEEE Circuit and System Magazine, 3(1), 6-20.
Williamson, J.P. and DeMeyer, A., 2012. Ecosystem Advantage: How to successfully harness
the power of partners. California Management Review, 55(1), pp.24–46.
Wilson, Virginia (2014). Research methods: triangulation. Evidence based library and
information practice.
Wit, B. and Meyer, R., 2010. Strategy: Process, Content, Context. 4th ed. Andover: Cengage
Learning.
Wulf, A. and Butel, L., 2016. Knowledge sharing and innovative corporate strategies in
collaborative relationships: The potential of open strategy in business ecosystems. In: S. Liu,
B. Delibašić, and F.O. Oderanti, eds. 2nd International Conference, ICDSST 2016, 23–25 May
2016. Cham: Springer, pp.165–181.
Wulf, A. and Butel, L., 2017. Knowledge sharing and collaborative relationships in business
ecosystems and networks: A definition and a demarcation. Industrial Management and Data
Systems, 117(7), pp.1407–1425.
Wulf, A., 2019: Knowledge sharing and innovative strategies in organisational collaborative
relationships: The potential of open strategy. Plymouth University.
Wulf, A. 2021: Complexity and Interaction in Collaborative Relationships: the Role of
Keystones in both Networks and the Organisational Environment, EURAM 2021.
Yin, R.K., 2014. Case study research. Design and methods. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
Zahra, S.A. and Nambisan, S., 2012. Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in business
ecosystems. Business Horizons, 55(3), pp.219–229.
Zander, U. and Kogut, B., 1995. Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of
Organizational Capabilities: An Empirical Test. Organisation Science, 6(1), pp.76–92.
34
Zheng, S., Zhang, W. and Du, J., 2011. Knowledge‐based dynamic capabilities and innovation
in networked environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), pp.1035–1051.
