Search results

Ecosystem partnerships are driving a dramatic change in the nature of business as industries as diverse as banking, automotive and retail are converging in unprecedented ways–and at an unprecedented rate. To learn how leading companies are embracing innovation in ecosystems to drive both value creation and competitiveness, the IBM Institute for Business Value in collaboration with Oxford Economics surveyed 1000 top executives in 19 industries and 29 countries between August and January 2019.

The survey cohort included 250 Chief Executive Officers, 150 Chief Financial Officers, 150 Chief Innovation Officers, 150 Chief Marketing Officers, 150 Chief Operations Officer and 150 Chief Alliance/Partnership Officers.

Analysis revealed that organizations with high engagement in ecosystems generate greater revenues from innovation initiatives. Specifically, revenues tied to innovation were more than 14 percent higher for ecosystem-engaged businesses than their less ecosystem-oriented peers.

The analysis showed that organizations differentiated on four innovation-enabling dimensions are more successful than others in ecosystem innovation. Their winning practices: 10;•9;They lead with platforms for innovating in ecosystems. 10;•9;They create the structures that enable the transformation of ideas into desired customer experiences in ecosystems 10;•9;They establish effective, meaningful measurements for successful innovation in ecosystems. 10;•9;They approach innovation with a collaborative mindset and create an environment of openness that shapes innovative behavior. 10;

The study identified the best practices of the most successful companies, ecosystem innovators. They excel across four innovation dimensions. They build platforms and employ ecosystems to better orchestrate customer experiences. They establish processes to effectively measure innovation within ecosystems in which they operate. They form organizational structures that institutionalize innovation. And they create and promote environments of openness and collaboration

This paper identifies exigent factors that enable and constrain trust building in a science-based innovation ecosystem.

Set in the Northeast England, this study adopts a processual sensemaking approach to thematically analyse interviews with a diverse range of participants in six science-based SMEs.

The findings provide a unique exposition of trust building in an innovation ecosystem across geographic and platform relationships. In doing so, the findings highlight factors outside of contractual agreements that enable or constrain trust building in an innovation ecosystem.

Limitations centred on subjectivity in the use of thematic analysis, sample bias and size. Sampling limitations were mitigated through the research design and analysis.

The findings provide unique insights into understanding the exigent factors that enable or constrain trust building in a science-based innovation ecosystem.

The study identifies five exigent factors that constrain or enable trust building in science-based SMEs' innovation ecosystem at a micro-level – building network relationships, degree of novelty, protection of innovations, propensity for adding value, propensity for risk.

Innovation ecosystems face many environmental challenges. The literature review shows that innovation ecosystems accelerate innovation activity, but empirical studies have not provided enough case studies focusing on the minimum-waste business strategy as one aspect of the circular economy. Various forms of interaction between members occur in the innovation ecosystems, which determines the level of cooperation. This paper aims to show the structure and forms of cooperation in an innovation ecosystem using the Czech Hemp Cluster (CHC) and its surroundings and suggest research directions in the field of interaction between members in an innovation ecosystem. Although hemp is associated with the production and distribution of narcotics, it is a versatile plant supporting the minimum-waste business strategy.

The research is based on a theoretical part of a literature review of major scientific articles on innovation ecosystems from 2016 to 2021. The case study of the CHC and the hemp ecosystem is based on qualitative research in the form of a content analysis of the mission of the cluster members. In addition to content analysis, the classic multidimensional scaling method and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to reveal ecological guilds.

The case study highlighted the specific relationship between the cluster and the ecosystem. The cluster does not determine the ecosystem boundaries, but the ecosystem is a much broader system of cooperation and interaction between organisations. Clusters emerge after an ecosystem has existed for a particular time to coordinate collaboration and information between organisations and stakeholders. The analysis of the CHC revealed the specific role of non-profit organisations (NPOs) in the innovation ecosystem. NPOs are not engaged in primary functions in the value chain, but they provide supporting activities through coordinated networking, disseminating information on innovation, awareness-raising and stakeholder education. Compared to natural ecosystems, innovation ecosystems are typically characterised by higher forms of collaboration between members.

An exciting opportunity for research on innovation ecosystems is the ecological guilds taken from natural ecosystems and whose identification can help define the boundaries of innovation ecosystems. An opportunity for further research is the comparison of NPO-based and government-based clusters playing a central role in developing innovation ecosystems. Regarding the problematic generalisability of the case study to the entire agricultural production, a challenge is a search for minimum-waste business models in agriculture characterised by the biological nature of production.

Theoretical and empirical studies have not yet considered innovation ecosystems in the minimum-waste context to a sufficient extent. The paper builds on previous scholarly studies focusing on innovation ecosystems and, for the first time, discusses the role of NPOs in the innovation ecosystem. The CHC case study adds a suitable minimum-waste business model to the still very scarce literature on sustainable innovation ecosystems. The article discusses the purpose and forms of cooperation in an innovation ecosystem, identifies a complementarity of roles in the innovation cluster and describes the interrelationship between the cluster and the ecosystem. Discussion of the ecosystem leader in the cluster-based innovation ecosystem shows the differences between Czech, Polish and German life science ecosystems.

Platform, open/user innovation, and ecosystem strategies embrace and enable interactions with external entities. Firms pursuing these approaches conduct business and interact with environments differently than those pursuing traditional closed strategies. This chapter considers these strategies together highlighting similarities and differences between platform, open/user innovation, and ecosystem strategies. We focus on managerial and organizational challenges for organizations pursuing these strategies and identify four institutional logic shifts associated with these strategic transitions: (1) increasing external focus, (2) moving to greater openness, (3) focusing on enabling interactions, and (4) adopting interaction-centric metrics. As mature incumbent organizations adopt these strategies, there may be tensions and multiple conflicting institutional logics. Additionally, we consider four strategic leadership topics and how they relate to platform, open/user innovation, and ecosystem strategies: (1) executive orientation and experience, (2) top management teams, (3) board-management relations, and (4) executive compensation. We discuss theoretical implications, and consider future directions and research opportunities.

This chapter adopts a problem-solving perspective to analyze the competitive dynamics of innovation ecosystems. We argue that features such as uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, entail different knowledge requirements which explain the varying abilities of focal firms to coordinate the ecosystem and benefit from the activities of their suppliers, complementors, and users. We develop an analytical framework to interpret various instances of coupling patterns and identify four archetypical types of innovation ecosystems.

The megaproject is a vital innovation ecosystem for participants engaging in technological adoption and integration to achieve project goals. The purpose of this paper is to examine how ecosystem captains build and operate a megaproject innovation ecosystem (MIE). To be more specific, we conducted an in-depth case study to identify the roles played by ecosystem captains in establishing and managing a megaproject innovation ecosystem.

Based on the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge project, the data we collected range from 2010 to 2019 and include semi-structured interviews, informal conversations, and archival documents. We employed an inductive theory building approach to address our research question and analyzed our data using the coding process and Atlas.ti software.

We find that the ecosystem captains themselves are client organizations that have evolved with the ecosystem during four distinct yet inter-related phases. In addition, we find that the captains’ roles of the client organizations include two typical activities: ecosystem establishment and ecosystem collaboration. The ecosystem captains first frame problems, plan innovative activities, set rules, and select participants for the establishment of the ecosystem, and then orchestrate resources, buffer conflicts, incorporate innovative networks, and cultivate an innovation culture to create a collaborative ecosystem.

This study proposes a theoretical framework showing how ecosystem captains engage in MIE to manage innovative activities during different stages. It highlights the importance of captainship roles in client organizations in a megaproject.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate, through the example of the Springfield Armory and its role in the development of interchangeable parts, the critical role of government in establishing a cluster of organizations that evolved into an innovation ecosystem primarily located in the Connecticut River Valley in the 1800s. Using the Springfield Armory example, we use the related but largely unjoined concepts of ecosystem and networks to show that these organizational forms are effective in driving innovation.

The design uses an in-depth analysis of the role of the Springfield Armory to explicate the joining of network and ecosystem theory as an early example of the importance of governmental funding and support for innovation.

The development of interchangeable parts in the American arms industry in the 19th century transformed manufacturing worldwide. At the heart of this transformation was the network of arms makers that developed in the Connecticut River Valley as a direct result of US Government investment and support. This network of arms makers evolved into an ecosystem of mutually reinforcing relationships as machine tool manufacturers benefited from an environment of free-flowing intellectual property, information and growing governmental demand for arms. The Armory illustrates the government’s role in initiating and sustaining clusters of innovation that otherwise might not have developed as quickly.

Much of the research on the role of government in creating innovation ecosystems and organizational networks is based on modern organizations. This use of the Springfield Armory in the early 1800s broadens the knowledge on how innovation ecosystems in conjunction with networked organizations can be created by governments serving the public good.

Disruptive technologies in the global logistics industry are often regarded as a threat to the existing business models of incumbents’ companies. Existing research, however, focuses mainly on whether technologies have disruptive potential, thereby neglecting when such disruptive transitions occur. To understand the timing of potential disruptive technological change, this paper aims to investigate the elements of the underlying ecosystem shaping these transitions.

Building on the established ecosystem framework from Adner and Kapoor (2016a), this paper constructs four categories of technology substitution to assess how quickly disruptive change may occur in the global logistics industry and defines key technology substitution determinants in logistics to emphasize the role of ecosystems for further consideration into disruptive innovation theory.

Based on the key determinants, this paper proposes first definitions of distinctive ecosystems elements linked to the three types of innovations, namely, sustaining innovations, low-end disruptions and new-market disruptions, thereby integrating ecosystems into Christensen’s (1997) disruptive innovation theory.

By developing a framework that conceptualizes the pace of technology substitution, this paper contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how logistics managers and academics can better predict disruptive transitions and develop strategies to allocate resources.

Innovation ecosystems have not been defined univocally. The authors compare the different approaches to innovation ecosystems in the literature, the link with open innovation, the value creating and value capturing processes in innovation ecosystems, and the need to orchestrate them properly. In this way, the purpose of this paper is to provide a highly needed, concise overview of the state of the art in innovation ecosystem thinking.

A systematic screening of the literature searching for publications focusing on innovation ecosystems is carried out in the paper. The authors found 30 publications and compared the different approaches to innovation ecosystems: the authors classify them according to industries, the level of analysis, their central focus on innovation ecosystems, whether frameworks are developed in the publications, the main actors, focus on SMEs or large companies, the success of innovation ecosystems and the role of the orchestrator.

The authors found different approaches to innovation ecosystems in the literature. Some papers look at the link with open innovation, and others at the value creating and value capturing processes in innovation ecosystems, the role of orchestrators, etc. The authors also provide an overview about the industries, the level of analysis, the central focus of the research, the main actors in the networks and the success factors. The authors observe that most publications have been written in Europe and apply to European ecosystems. The approach in Europe is, to some extent, also different from the main focus of leading American scholars.

The authors compare different approaches to innovation ecosystems. This provides a highly needed understanding of the state of the art in innovation ecosystem thinking. There are some limitations as well: the paper only does a literature review, and the authors are not developing a new framework to study innovation ecosystems.

The literature overview is not primarily focused on practitioners, but the tables in the paper provide a quick overview of good management practices for setting up and managing innovation ecosystems.

Innovations ecosystems are, in some cases, established to solve major societal problems such as changes in healthcare, energy systems, etc. Therefore, they require the interaction between different types of partners including universities, research institutes and governmental agencies. Studying innovation ecosystems is crucial to facilitate social or societal changes.

The paper presents a highly needed overview of the literature about innovation ecosystems and a concise examination of the different aspects that are studied so far.

Over recent years, few industries have seen such dramatic changes as the healthcare industry. The potential connectivity of digital technologies is completely transforming the healthcare ecosystem. This has resulted in companies increasingly investing in digital transformations to exploit data across channels, operations and patient outreach, by building on a practice approach and actor-network theory and being informed by service-dominant logic, this study aims to contribute by advancing the agential role of third-party actors to prompt innovation and shape service ecosystems.

This research is grounded in an epistemological contextualism. To gain situated knowledge and address the role of context in knowledge, understanding and meaning the authors adopted a qualitative methodology to study actors in their different contexts. The empirical research was based on case theory. The authors also took guidance from practice scholars about how to investigate actors’ practices. The unit of analysis moves from dyadic relationships to focus on practices across different networks of actors.

This study expands on the conceptualization of triad as proposed by Siltaloppi and Vargo (2017) by moving from the form of triadic relationships – brokerage, mediation and coalition – to the agency of e-health third-parties; and their practices to innovate in the healthcare ecosystem. This study focuses on the actors and the performativity of actions and grounding the conceptual view on an empirical base.

Third-party actors bring about innovative ways of doing business in the healthcare ecosystem. Their actions challenge the status quo and run counter to long-time practices. Third-parties support the complex set of interconnections between different healthcare actors for the provision of new service co-creation opportunities. Considering how these e-health third-parties performs has implications for health managers, patients and other actors.

This study focuses on the actors and the performativity of actions and grounding the conceptual view on an empirical base. The agency of third-party actors is their ability to act among others and to connect multiple social and material structures to boost innovation. They prompt innovation and shape service ecosystems by brokering, mediating and coalescing among a great variety of resources, practices and institutions.