Search results

The ecosystem perspective on innovation and business has emerged as the secret sauce of innovative organizations. While its theoretical foundations are premised on innovation system literature, the broad adoption of the ecosystem concept has resulted in conceptual ambiguity. The purpose of this paper is to tackle the ambiguous use of innovation ecosystem terminology and structure a conceptual frame for the field, identifying definitions of an innovation ecosystem and how the concept has been established in previous literature.

This paper examines the ambiguous use of terminology by reviewing the literature with bibliometric coupling and co-citation analysis by which thematic differences in ecosystem literature were identified. The study gathered the scientific publications from Thomson Reuters Web of Sciences Core Collection (n=4,681) from 1990 to 2015.

Six major bibliometrically coupled clusters were identified, of which the three largest clusters are innovation system studies, regional innovation studies and technological innovation studies. In addition, further analysis shows an emerging cluster that is focused on ecosystems, having its roots in eight seminal papers. This ecosystem research cluster includes seven sub-clusters, such as innovation ecosystem studies, business ecosystem studies and studies focusing on ecosystem development.

The authors’ approach highlights how a lot of recent ecosystem studies actually belong to previous, well-developed research streams. However, there is also a separate, emergent research stream that includes the innovation and ecosystem studies. As a research implication, the paper concludes by suggesting the research agenda for further studies.

Even though literature on innovation systems and ecosystems is extensive literature, no studies have captured the emergence of the ecosystems approach and its relation with the systems of innovation literature.

There are indications that trust is essential in innovation ecosystems relations. However, studies have not yet focused on deeply exploring such connection. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the influence of trust among actors in the context of innovation ecosystems.

This study developed a conceptual framework and a set of propositions. We raised a discussion based on the intertwining of three widely known dimensions of trust (ability, benevolence and integrity) and four dimensions of innovation ecosystems (network collaboration, interdependency, value co-creation and innovation objectives).

This paper suggests that trust contributes to the development of innovation ecosystems’ dimensions. In addition, it sheds light on the need to consider all three dimensions of trust together and simultaneously, because, by itself, none of them is sufficient to build trust in innovation ecosystems. Also, we argue that the different connections between the dimensions of trust and those of innovation ecosystems lead to the development of such ecosystems.

Through the approach of an underexplored area of research, this paper contributes to a broad understanding of the role of trust in innovation ecosystems toward the pursuit of creating innovation. It also proposes a novelty to the field, by suggesting four dimensions of innovation ecosystems to help managers analyze ecosystems through a more practical perspective.

Entrepreneurial ecosystems have quickly become one of the most popular topics in entrepreneurship research. Ecosystems are the characteristics and factors of a place that support high-growth entrepreneurship. This provides the ability for the field to provide important policy insights about how to aid the development of high growth, innovative ventures, as well as generate new insights into the relationship between the entrepreneurship phenomenon and the contexts it takes place within. However, work in the field remains undertheorized, with a little understanding of how the entrepreneur benefits from being in a strong ecosystem. This chapter argues that it is helpful to return to Ed Malecki’s work in a previous volume of this series, which explored the importance of networks. His work has contributed to a very broad stream of work on entrepreneurial environment. Using this as a starting point, this chapter distinguishes between “top-down” approaches to study ecosystems, which focus on the actors and factors that make up an ecosystem, and a “bottom-up” approach, which instead examines the ways in which entrepreneurs use their ecosystem to get the resources, knowledge, and support they need. The chapter concludes by suggesting how a research agenda for a bottom-up study of ecosystems can be informed by Malecki’s work.

Sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem research is an emerging trend within the entrepreneurship domain. Drawing from resource dependency theory, this study examines the interdependent nature of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem factors and the mediating role of local culture as it relates to entrepreneurial action. The authors collected data from 12 entrepreneurial ecosystems in Australia and developed a model of the interdependencies of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem factors.

The data were collected through an e-survey of Small and Medium Entreprise (SME) owners in New South Wales, Australia. The authors applied partial least squares structural equation methodology to assess the structural models, validate the outer models and examine the inner model.

The findings reinforce empirical support for sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. The environment where sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems are evolved influences their functionality. Further, entrepreneurial culture mediates the relationship with other ecosystem factors. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

This study focuses on understanding the interdependent nature of sustainable ecosystem factors. The authors identified entrepreneurial culture as a mediator to business support services, educational institutional support and financial capital availability with business and social networks.

In the contemporary business environment, companies must constantly consider methods to enhance their competitive advantage and create value for their customers. The purpose of this paper is to develop a research model based on a business ecosystem view. Within a business ecosystem, the authors identified the key factors of co-development and the manner in which these factors affect a company’s innovation performance.

The theoretical hypotheses are confirmed by partial least squares analysis of survey responses collected from information and communication technology (ICT) and hotel industries in Taiwan.

In both industries, the results suggest that a firm’s co-development within its own ecosystem has positive effects on innovation performance. For companies in the ICT industry, collaborative networks and partner selection have significant impacts on the firms’ co-development, but their information technology (IT) capability does not; in contrast, in the hotel industry, partner selection and IT capability have significant impacts on firm co-development, but their collaborative network does not.

This study contributes to the literature of business ecosystem and co-development by offering a co-development model. As both conceptual and empirical research on this topic is still underdeveloped, this study provides fresh insights into collaboration management and offers significant theoretical and managerial implications from a business ecosystem perspective.

This research bridges disparate research on servitization, namely product–service systems (PSS) and integrated solutions (IS), to provide valuable insights for the progression of the field. It acts as a reconciliation of these research streams and offers a reconceptualised agenda incorporating recent research on platforms, ecosystems, modularity, risk and governance as key conceptual themes to synthesise and build theory.

This is a conceptual, theory development article focused on advancing thinking on servitization by identifying systematic and theoretically informed research themes. It also proposes future research opportunities to advance theoretical contributions and practical implications for servitization research.

By reviewing and synthesising extant PSS and IS research, this article identified five core themes – namely modularity, platforms, ecosystems, risks and governance. The importance of these five themes and their linkages to PSS and IS are examined and a theoretical framework with a future research agenda to advance servitization is proposed.

This paper considers the similarities and differences between PSS and IS in order to develop a theory and to reconcile formerly disparate research efforts by establishing linkages between core themes and identifying valuable synergies for scholars. The importance of the core themes and current gaps within and across these themes are shown, and a mid-range theory for servitization is positioned to bridge the servitization-related PSS and IS communities.

The objective of this research is to methodically categorize the various types of Open Government Data (OGD) stakeholders, and to elucidate the intricate network relationships among OGD stakeholders, along with the underlying mechanisms that shape their formation.

To comprehend the collaboration mechanism of stakeholders in the OGD ecosystem, the authors constructed an OGD multi-stakeholder relationship network by using data from the Shandong Province Data Application Innovation and Entrepreneurship Competition. Based on the structural social capital theory and exponential random graph model (ERGM), an analytical framework was established to explore the formation mechanism of the collaborative network of OGD multi-stakeholder.

The results indicate that multi-stakeholder collaboration among government, enterprises and the public is crucial for achieving OGD goals. Organizing OGD competitions serves as an effective mechanism for solidifying and maintaining relationships among OGD stakeholder groups. Degree centrality and structural parameters reveal a Matthew effect within the connection process of the OGD ecosystem's collaborative network. Additionally, there is evidence of agglomeration and transferability within the network's structure.

This study contributes to the understanding regarding the formation mechanism of OGD stakeholders. The findings have implications for developing multi-stakeholder relationship networks of OGD and driving OGD initiatives.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-06-2023-0284

This paper aims to explore the contextual role of social-cultural capital in youth entrepreneurship between Malaysia and Lao PDR/Laos, comparing two different entrepreneurial ecosystems designed to identify emergent factors that stimulate and/or stifle the genesis of youth entrepreneurship while identifying similar and divergent entrepreneurial identities and traits among young people from these two sovereign contexts.

Utilizing qualitative-based case study design approach, data collections were garnered from 30 informants through in-depth personal interviews, focus group studies coupled with personal observation conducted via purposive cum snowball sampling.

Thematic analysis reveals a pattern-based outcome that discloses a variety of inter-related factors within the social network ecosystem that stimulate and sometimes stifle youth entrepreneurship, primarily through the active agency of social-cultural capital.

Entrepreneurial ecosystem contextual differences between Malaysia and Laos demonstrate the unifying factor of social-cultural capital through social network in stimulating youth entrepreneurship and unveiling practical similarities and differences that can be used to promote youth entrepreneurial endeavors among varying sovereign socio-economic contexts in ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Countries).

This study specifically focuses on the unambiguous contextual differences of two sovereign entrepreneurship ecosystems. Contextual differences may not necessarily demarcate further the gulf of differences within and between two sovereign entrepreneurship ecosystems but, on the contrary, may close the gap through the dynamic role of social-cultural capital via social network ties in youth entrepreneurship.

This study aims to define orchestrator roles and related orchestration capabilities in the entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) to understand how companies (especially small and medium-sized enterprises and startups) could benefit from the surrounding ecosystem to develop their business.

A qualitative case study of the regional ecosystem built around health technology is researched to get an in-depth understanding of the orchestration roles taken by actors in the ecosystem and, likewise, related bundles of orchestrator role-specific capabilities.

Altogether, eight roles and related orchestration capabilities are defined. First, “opinion leaders,” “business facilitators” and “regulation informants” provide resources for participants. Second, “relationship promoters,” “coordinators” and “commanders” create prerequisites for collaboration. Finally, “integrators” and “complementors” help to create concrete offerings. The roles taken can be simultaneous, and they are in constant change as positions and resources of actors change.

Theoretically, this study contributes to the existing EE and orchestration capability research by studying orchestrator roles and related capabilities in the context of an entrepreneurial health tech ecosystem, a phenomenon that has not received sufficient research attention yet.

Managers will be able to use the lessons learned from this study in understanding, using and developing their capabilities, positions and activities in the network. For policymakers, understanding EE reality and dynamics is useful when developing policies for regional growth, likewise in constructing and developing industrial ecosystems to support entrepreneurship in the region.

The study provides novel in-depth knowledge of orchestration in regional, EEs. It complements the currently dominating conceptual research and brings a micro-level perspective that has mostly been lacking in EE studies.

To understand why the penetration of handset-based mobile payment in most countries is still low has been an important research topic for the last 15 years, and it has been analyzed from different perspectives. However, the analysis of a single aspect cannot provide a sophisticated answer to the complicated underlying question. The purpose of this paper is to understand how a relatively successful m-payment ecosystem is created and sustained through the coopetition of various actors.

To that end, the authors analyze the case of Alipay wallet, the m-payment service provider with the largest market share in China, and focus on understanding the motivations and subsequent actions of the organizations cooperating in the Alipay wallet core ecosystem.

The results show that actors with heterogeneous and complementary resources can forge sustainable collaboration. Within an ecosystem, although always constrained by resources and capabilities, the actions that the core actors take and the resulting power imbalances are dynamically changing, reflecting actors’ aim of reducing uncertainty.

The main limitation of this case is that it was conducted in a Chinese context, which has specific features that may not apply to other cases. In addition, this study is based on a single case study in a single country, without comparing the results to any other cases or countries. Therefore, some modifications may have to be made when applying the framework and generalizing the results.

With regards to the practical perspective, the Alipay case may serve as an example that other providers follow, taking similar actions to increase the dependency of others and reduce their own dependency on others. It is helpful to take a keystone strategy to create value within the ecosystem and share this value with other participants. Moreover, Alipay acts as the platform provider, in addition to managing value creation within the ecosystem and sharing that value with the other participants. Alipay focuses on the business and strategic needs of the core actors, without threatening their main business, for example, Alipay focuses on micro-payments, which does not pose a direct competition to banks, who mainly rely on macro-payments to generate profit. Micro-payments are often related to high transaction costs for banks. In addition, although it is difficult to define the boundaries of actors in the ecosystem, the core business of every actor is the key competitive or even survival condition. This notion should be taken into consideration by actors whose actions affect the business of other ecosystem partners. For instance, Alipay will not aim to become a bank, as they know that if they do so, they cannot connect any other bank to their platform. In other words, the scope and boundary of the actors are clearly identified so that the core business will not be threatened. Sords, we can learn from Alipay that it pays off to focus on one area, and not to let your competitors challenge you.

The authors proposed the StReS framework for analyzing a business ecosystem by combining resource-based review, resource dependency theories and network analysis for investigating the motivations of the organizations cooperating in the core ecosystem and the actions they have taken to reduce dependency and uncertainty.