Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore how Chinese enterprises overcome their lack of resource and capabilities and eventually fulfill global resource accumulation, fast innovative commercialization and significant technological breakthrough by establishing and coordinating innovation ecosystem at firm level.

This paper first reviewed the literature on the structure and coordinating mechanism of enterprise innovation ecosystem and identified two important gaps on the characteristics of ecosystem actors and the logic of innovative coordination. Then, the paper adopted grounded analysis about the construction and evolution of Haier’s innovation ecosystem based on longitudinal case data. On the basis of the case study, the construct of firm-level innovation ecosystem and new logic of coordination are formed.

This paper found the emerging phenomenon of sub-organizational ecosystem actors and depicted that the establishing process of firm-level innovation ecosystem went through three majors stages, and the corresponding coordinating logic changed from proactive intervention to reactive self-evolution.

This paper tried to make contributions to the studies of structure and coordinating mechanism of enterprise innovation ecosystem, and proposed the enterprise itself could build firm-level ecosystem within its organizational boundary and interact with external ecosystem. The findings enlightened the nested structure of ecosystem, opened the black box of organizational boundary and broke the limitation that existing researches only analyse innovation ecosystem at system level and regard firms as basic analytical unit. Besides, this paper proposed that the coordination of innovation ecosystem can be passively fulfilled by network effect and ecological evolution, where previous studies mainly focused on proactive institutional intervention and resource investment. This point could provide Chinese enterprises with good references.

This study aims to provide insights into ecosystem builder futurists’ work and their orientations toward creating more connected communities of the future.

Anticipation of and relationship with the future are not straightforward. How we approach the future and our relationship with it has underlying ontological and epistemological assumptions (Poli, 2010, 2017). Forecasting (Makridakis et al., 2008), foresight (Bishop and Hines, 2012; Hines and Bishop, 2013; Popper, 2008), futures studies (Bell, 2009; Gidley, 2017) and anticipatory logics (Miller and Poli, 2010; Miller et al., 2017; Nadin, 2010; Poli, 2017) inform this research study of a select group of futurists’ relationships with the future. This research explores ecosystem builder futurists’ work and their orientations toward creating more connected communities of the future. A primary driver of this research aims to understand how futurists with emergentist understandings think about and work with their clients to better understand how to facilitate individual and community transformations through anticipatory future perspectives.

This qualitative study was designed to explore the why, where and how of the ecosystem builder futurists. The “why” question of their work focused on capacity building, disruption and community for evolving systems revealing an emergentist orientation to the future. The “where” question, focusing on where their passions and ideas for futures work came from, revealed a commitment to forge new territories and support communities through the change process. Finally, the “how” questions revealed using both/and methods of traditional and innovative approaches with a special focus on changing the hearts and minds of those who participated in their community change initiatives.

A total of 15 ecosystem futurists participated in this study. Their perspectives were strongly affiliated and aligned with ecosystem building and communities of the future ideas. The narrow focus, however, is important to represent this particular population of the futurists.

There is a great need for ecosystem futurists who can work with communities for social and community transformations. This paper introduces ecosystem builder futurists as a unique population of futurists with specific drivers for and perspectives of change.

Especially in post-normal, mid-pandemic times, there will be more opportunities and need for ecosystem builder futurists to engage groups of individuals in transformative and community building processes. This study focuses on ecosystem futurists and how they work toward fundamental, community change.

Futurists work across many areas and emerging fields. A search of futurist activities reveals some of these areas including Marketing, Team Building, Coaching, Strategic Planning, Partner Management, Marketing Strategy, Ecosystem Building and Sustainable Community Development, to name a few. The purpose of this study is to describe the perspectives and underlying drivers of a particular group of futurists who have been working in large and small communities, organizations, governments and with clients with an underlying focus on creating communities of the future.

Impact investing, a type of values-based investing that combines financial investment with philanthropic goals, is receiving heightened scholarly and practitioner attention. The geography of impact investing, however, is largely unexamined, and it is not clear why some regional impact-investing communities are more vibrant than other communities. Regional differences in entrepreneurial activities are increasingly explained by differences in the vitality of entrepreneurial ecosystems, the set of interconnected forces that promote and sustain regional entrepreneurship. The purpose of this paper is to leverage insights from entrepreneurial ecosystems studies to understand the dynamics of communities that encourage and support impact investing.

To explain inter-regional differences in the prevalence and intensity of impact investing, this conceptual paper draws from research on entrepreneurial ecosystems and impact investment to theorize about the ecosystem attributes and components that drive vibrant impact investing communities.

It is theorized that vibrant impact investing ecosystems have three system-level attributes – diversity, cohesion and coordination – that are influenced by the core components of the ecosystems, including the characteristics of investors, the presence of social impact support organizations and cultural values that promote blending logics.

The theoretical model contributes to research on impact investing and hybrid organizing, produces concrete implications for ecosystem builders and sets an agenda for future research.

The concept of innovation ecosystems has raised the interest of researchers, policymakers and entrepreneurs in recent years. This book review article describes key parts of Admired Disorder in the context of innovation ecosystems with a view to give an indication of its conceptual tools for innovation ecosystem builders. Specifically, it describes complex adaptive systems, alescence and an example from defense R&D.

The aim of this article states that in each stage of the industrial revolution, only a few initiatives have been real game changers. In Industry 3.0, “Internet of Information” has transformed the business landscape via connectivity and communications. Enterprises could come together to spur innovation in a cooperative or competitive manner. In Industry 4.0, the “Internet of Value” has shown considerable benefits; and, blockchain technology is expected to touch all layers of a business ecosystem, and the construction industry is not an exception.

This study aims to answer the “How do enterprise blockchain solutions contribute to the vibrancy of the construction ecosystem from social, economic, and environmental aspects?” Following a comprehensive literature review, the Grey Ordinal Priority Approach (OPA-G) is employed in multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). OPA-G can select functionally rich enterprise blockchain solutions that meet the needs of the future construction industry, while there is uncertainty in the input data.

The results from the case study show that organization under observation welcomes an enterprise blockchain solution that delivers services related to “renewable energy certificates” in the context of “smart cities and built environment”. Employing high-ranked blockchain solutions brings vibracy and sustainability to construction ecosystem in terms of “C₆. decentralized finance and investment,” “C₃. multi-party and cross-industry collaboration,” and “C₈. data-driven value creation”.

At the micro level, blockchain solutions automate processes, streamline operations, and build new capacities on a new business model. At the macro level, blockchain creates a vibrant ecosystem based on transparency, decentralization, consensus-based democracy, interoperability, etc. Indeed, the capability of blockchain solutions at an enterprise scale (enterprise blockchain solutions) can shape a new construction ecosystem. The practical implications of current research are preparing executives for a fundamentally different next normal in construction.

This work aims to explore the relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystems' (EEs) inputs and outcomes within a digital-technology-driven EE. Specifically, it focuses on how being part of an EE enhances digital technology adoption (DTA) and consequently facilitates EE outcomes.

This paper employs a single-case study approach, focusing on Italian EE. The data analysis is based on the researchers' direct observations and semi-structured interviews with the EE founders' teams and the top management of the small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) operating therein. Given the novelty of the topic and the lack of a clear research framework of analysis, a qualitative method is well suited for studying digital-technology-driven EE, thus gaining rich data about the phenomenon in a real-life context.

The findings of the study reveal that when specific eco-inputs (financial, knowledge, social and institutional assets) are correctly exploited to enhance DTA, important outcomes, namely, SME competitiveness and new technology-based venture creation and development, are generated.

The paper contributes to a relatively unexplored topic in the existing literature on EEs and digital technology. Specifically, through the proposition of a conceptual model, it sheds light on the relationship among EE inputs, DTA and EE outcomes.

Entrepreneurial ecosystems – the inter-related forces that promote and sustain regional entrepreneurship – are receiving intense academic, policymaker and practitioner attention. Prior research primarily focuses on mature entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) in large, urban areas. Scholars are slow to examine the functioning of EEs in small towns, which face unique challenges in spurring entrepreneurial activity. Most notably, small town EEs are dependent on a key stakeholder group – local customers – which receives almost no attention in prior research on ecosystems. The purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretical framework for understanding the role of customers in EEs.

This paper integrates work on the service-dominant logic and service ecosystems with entrepreneurship research to theorize about the influence of customers in small town EEs.

The proposed theory draws attention to the role of customers in evaluating the services provided by entrepreneurs and co-creating value in small town EEs. Theory is developed about the influence of three sets of customer characteristics on entrepreneurial activities: the local market potential (based on the number of local and transient customers), customers’ abilities to access the ecosystem (based on income levels) and customers’ preferences for services provided by the ecosystem’s entrepreneurs (based on preferences for innovativeness, local versus global brands and in- versus out-shopping).

Entrepreneurial ecosystems research has implicitly adopted a producer-dominant logic focusing on entrepreneurs and their ventures as the primary creators of value. The proposed theoretical framework applies the service-dominant logic to EEs and conceptualizes EEs as a unique type of service ecosystem. The theorizing generates implications for scholars and practitioners and suggests that more work is needed at the interface of entrepreneurship, marketing and regional economic development.

Vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystems, systems of inter-related forces that promote and sustain regional entrepreneurship, are increasingly viewed as sources of innovation, economic development and community revitalization. Regions with emerging, underdeveloped or depressed economies are attempting to develop their nascent entrepreneurial ecosystems in the hopes of experiencing the positive benefits of entrepreneurial activity. For nascent entrepreneurial ecosystems to grow requires resources. However, how nascent entrepreneurial ecosystems manage their resource dependencies and the tensions that exist between creating and attracting resources are not clear. The purpose of this paper is to propose a theory of nascent entrepreneurial ecosystem resource dependence.

This conceptual paper analyzes entrepreneurial ecosystems as meta-organizations and builds on resource dependence theory to explain how nascent ecosystems respond to environmental dependencies and their resource needs through internal and external strategies.

Two specific strategies used by nascent entrepreneurial ecosystems to manage resource dependence – bridging and buffer – are explored. It is proposed that there is a positive relationship between the resource dependence of a nascent entrepreneurial ecosystem and its use of bridging and buffering activities. Two ecosystem characteristics that influence the pursuit of bridging and buffering – ecosystem size and the presence of collaborative values – are also identified. In addition, it is theorized that resource dependence strategies influence a key, system-level characteristic of entrepreneurial ecosystems: resilience, the ecosystem’s ability to respond and adapt to internal and external disruptions.

The theory presented generates insights into how nascent entrepreneurial ecosystems create and obtain resources when ecosystems are unmunificent, resource-constrained or underdeveloped. The theorizing addresses which resource dependence strategy – buffering or bridging – has a stronger link to resource dependence (and resilience) and under what conditions these linkages occur. The theoretical model generates insights for research on entrepreneurship in emerging and developed economies and produces practical implications for ecosystem participants, policymakers and economic development organizations.

Startup ecosystems and traditional economic development models have historically excluded non-traditional, alternative, and diverse entrepreneurs. These ecosystems often ignore the authentic groups of entrepreneurs and businesses that make a community unique and instead try to encourage only high-impact, high-growth tech startups. By only focusing on this narrower scope of a defined startup ecosystem versus an entrepreneurial ecosystem, smaller cities (and alternative marketplaces) face extreme challenges and miss opportunities for enhanced economic development. This chapter includes a case study of Tucson’s entrepreneurial ecosystem and the evolution of the entrepreneurial support organization Startup Tucson from one focused only on startups to a now industry-agnostic driver of inclusive ecosystem building. An account of this transition is provided for review, including the community-based feedback process used by the organization to redefine its goals. By adopting a broader definition of entrepreneurship and supporting entrepreneurs truly rooted in Tucson’s strengths, Startup Tucson has seen more diverse businesses (and ventures of all types) and founders opting-in to the ecosystem, thereby increasing the Tucson’s economic development. This case study will provide those interested in ecosystem development with ideas on how to implement ecosystems within alternative markets.

Business accelerators have recently received increasing attention as important cogs in business ecosystem development. However, their exact role in the ecosystem is not yet well known, especially outside the IT sector. The purpose of this study is, therefore, twofold: to determine the position of life science accelerators in the business ecosystem and the attributes of support for companies and to identify key features of the life science accelerators that contribute to the change in business ecosystems.

The authors offer an exploratory case study of five life science business accelerators and analyze the main factors affecting the companies and the whole business ecosystem. The authors build upon the scarce literature on business accelerators and consider a new type of accelerator that specializes in life science projects and study its role in the transformation and evolution of the life science industry.

The authors have defined the role and key parameters of life science accelerators that influence the existing business ecosystems: (1) cooperation with other regions and countries, (2) development of entrepreneurial skills among participants of the business accelerators program and (3) a project on demand-based approach.

The key parameters of the life science accelerators allow to concentrate these efforts on the activities that are most demanded by the market. Business accelerators can increase the created value for other program participants.