Search results

The purpose of the study is to identify and develop a framework to clarify facilitating orchestrator hub-team roles; their interactions, linked capabilities and activities; and the hub-team concept. This framework is illustrated by a case study of an orchestrator hub-team facilitating cross-country and network co-creation in Northern Sweden, Norway and Finland.

The following two approaches are used: a conceptual approach that combines various source materials and concepts related to the “bricolage approach”; and an empirical approach that illustrates the conceptual framework using a longitudinal, qualitative, single-case study and the action research method.

By combining research related to three differing yet somewhat overlapping research perspectives, three facilitating orchestrator hub-team roles are identified, linked to orchestrator capabilities and activities relevant to innovative value creation in extensive networks including both private and public actors highlighting the role of people in networks. An orchestrator hub-team framework and five related activity categories are developed and introduced.

This study contributes to research on the orchestration of innovative co-creation in extensive networks and network management by clarifying the facilitating orchestrator hub-team roles and their related capabilities and activities, and thereby describing the role of a centrally positioned hub-team.

The hub-team framework may bring structure and understanding to hub-teams, thus easing and enabling orchestration and value co-creation.

This study offers a further developed, integrated framework for intermediating the facilitating roles of a hub-team orchestrating extensive network and public/private co-creation.

This paper investigates the roles and activities of the orchestrators of innovation networks constituted within cities. In this sense, the authors expected to contribute for research related to the roles and activities of the orchestrators of innovation networks constituted in the scope of cities given the large number and diversity of complex and multiple dimensions social actors (Castells & Borja, 1996; Reypens, Lievens & Blazevic, 2019).

The authors conducted an exploratory research with a single case study in depth. The case chosen for the paper is the case of Pacto Alegre. The case selection criterion was the relevance of the Pacto Alegre Case in the construction of an innovation network in the city of Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The Pacto Alegre network was proposed by the Alliance for Innovation (composed of the three main Universities in the city: UFRGS, PUCRS and UNISINOS) and by the Municipality of Porto Alegre. In addition to these actors, the network counts on financial and development institutions as sponsors, with media partners, with design partners, with an advisory board (composed of five professionals considered references in different themes) and composed by more than 100 companies, associations and institutions from different areas (Pacto Alegre, 2019). Data were collected from 09/20/2020 to 11/30/2020 through in-depth interviews, documentary research and non-participant observation.

In this research, the authors highlighted the city as a community that involves and integrates various actors, such as citizens and companies, to collaborative innovation activities. For this, they proposed a framework on innovation networks and network orchestration. In this direction, seven dimensions of the “orchestration of innovation networks” were assumed as a result of the combination of previous studies by Dhanaraj and Parke (2006), Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al. (2011) and da Silva and Bitencourt (2019). In the sequence, different roles of orchestrators associated with the literature were adopted based on the work by Pikkarainen et al. (2017) and Nielsen and Gausdal (2017).

The authors’ results advance in relation to other fields by promoting the expansion of the “orchestration of innovation networks” model with the combination of distinct elements from the literature in a coherent whole (agenda setting, mobilization, network stabilization, creation and transfer of knowledge, innovation appropriability, coordination and co-creation) and in the validation of its applicability in the context of the innovation network studied. In addition, when relating different roles of orchestrators to the seven dimensions studied, it was realized that there is no linear and objective relationship between the dimensions and roles of the orchestrator, as in each dimension there may be more than one role being played in the orchestration.

Therefore, the findings suggest two theoretical contributions. First, the authors identified a role not discussed in the literature, here called the communicator. In the case analysis, the authors observed the communicator role through functions performed by a media partner of the innovation network and by a group of civil society engaged in the city's causes. Second, the authors indicated a new dimension of orchestration related to the management of communication in the innovation network and its externalities such as p. ex. civil and organized society, characteristic of an innovation network set up within a city.

Although several studies have proposed advances in the understanding of the orchestration of innovation networks (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006; Ritala, Armila & Blomqvist, 2009; Nambisan & Sawhney, 2011; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al., 2011), the discussion on the topic is still a black box (Nilsen & Gausdal, 2017). More specifically, the authors identified a gap in the literature about the role and activities of actors in the city level. Few studies connected the regional dimension with the roles and activities of the orchestrators (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al., 2011; Pikkarainen et al., 2017), raising several challenges and opportunities to be considered by academics and managers.

The aim of this paper is to uncover the main capabilities that a luxury hotel needs to develop when functioning as the orchestrator of a local gastronomic business ecosystem.

Given the limited attention previous literature has placed on the role of luxury hotels as orchestrators in luxury gastronomic business ecosystems, this paper adopts a qualitative approach, i.e. the exploratory analysis of a single case study: the Italian high-end hotel Borgo Egnazia.

The paper highlights the main capabilities developed by the orchestrator: relational, combinative and promotional capabilities.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is among the first studies to explore what capabilities are needed by a company to orchestrate a destination that builds its product and service offerings upon the local food culture.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), typically with limited resources, strive hard to obtain the trust of ecosystem participants as an orchestrator. Accordingly, the firms do not have sufficient legitimacy to persuade other parties to join their networks. This study aims to investigate how an SME operating in the publishing industry orchestrates ecosystem participants. In particular, the study analyzes how the orchestrating firm stimulates interactions among ecosystem participants.

Case study research with a qualitative approach has been documented as a well-accepted method for investigating complex phenomena and for theory building. Collected data from various informants and different collection techniques are triangulated to ensure validity. Cross-case analysis to identify common patterns is undertaken as the basis for developing a sound conclusion.

The study demonstrated what orchestrating firms should do to foster innovations and how they benefit from other participants in the ecosystem. The analysis identified the orchestrator's four roles: entrepreneurship networks, knowledge activation, innovation intermediary and network leadership. Among the four roles, there are interrelationships, and to some degree, these overlap. The orchestrating firm must emerge into the ecosystem and work together with all members of the ecosystem. Managers of the orchestrating firm and network members should collaborate to find the most beneficial configuration for all ecosystem participants.

This research is limited to the knowledge-intensive publishing industry. The use of specific industries closely related to innovation provides an advantage in the way that enables researchers to conduct depth analysis, but at the expense of generalizability, and therefore, future research can analyze different industries.

This study focuses on networks as the unit of analysis. Previous studies assumed individual firms as the unit of analysis and ignored the fact that companies interact with other companies when pursuing open innovation. The study focuses on the interactions between actors as the unit of analysis and on the role of orchestrators undertaken by an SME.

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.

Rapid advancements in blockchain technology transform various sectors, attracting the attention of industrialists, practitioners, policymakers and academics, and profoundly affect construction businesses through smart contracts and crypto-economics. This paper explores the blockchain innovation ecosystem in construction.

Through a qualitative study of 23 diverse interviewees, the study explores how open or closed the blockchain innovation ecosystem in construction is and who its emerging orchestrators are.

The data showed that construction aims towards an open innovation blockchain ecosystem, although there are elements of hybridisation and closedness, each system pointing out to different orchestrators.

The study has implications for governments and large companies in construction, showing that open innovation initiatives need to be encouraged by policymakers through rules, regulations and government-sponsored demonstrator projects.

The data showed that there is lack of readiness for business model change to support open innovation blockchain ecosystems in construction.

This is the first study applying the open innovation theory in the construction industry and sheds light into the phenomenon of blockchain, suggesting routes for further democratisation of the technology for policymakers and practitioners.

Drawing on the experience of the Observatories, a set of interconnected research centers in Italy, this chapter explains why academics are in one of the best positions to orchestrate interorganizational initiatives of change and development, and highlights two prerequisites that appear necessary to render salient this orchestrator role of academics: (i) the extensive use of multiple approaches of collaborative research and (ii) the creation and maintenance of a platform allowing the management and diffusion of the network-based learning mechanisms underlying each change and development effort. The contributions extend existing knowledge on organization development and collaborative research.

This paper explores how hub-firms in a regional industrial cluster orchestrate resources to enhance the innovation capabilities of member firms and how this role changes as innovation projects develop. The work advances our understanding of how innovation-oriented clusters can drive the collaboration process, support the development of member capabilities and achieve desired outcomes.

The research utilises exploratory case studies within an innovation cluster, where a hub-firm brings together different players for specific innovation projects. Using resource orchestration theory, the paper analyses six project cases to reveal the shifting roles and activities related to structuring, bundling and leveraging different resources for innovation capabilities particularly associated with improved quality and reputation for the firms and region.

The study reveals the important role played by the cluster hub-firm in structuring, bundling and leveraging resources to create and fund project teams. After project formation, a team member takes the role of an orchestrator to bundle further and then leverage the resources to achieve desired outcomes for the team and the region.

This work focuses on a wine industry but has implications for the success orchestration of other regional industrial clusters. Also, the lack of hub-firm interaction during the project process provides an opportunity to consider mechanisms for better guidance of the project team.

There are implications for practitioners for participating in and further improving the collaborative innovative process.

Policymakers can benefit from the study as the required practices for stimulating innovation capabilities and economic development in a region are discussed.

This research enhances understanding of the hub-firm's role in a regional cluster not only in orchestrating resources to create collaborative innovation projects but how the role shifts over time.

The purpose of this paper is to synthesize a manufacturing value network for digital multinationals that combines the global reach of multinationals, the power of platform business models and digitalization. Toward this, the authors assess the critical roles platform ecosystems, and Industry 4.0 play in resolving the key challenges associated with asset specificity, location specificity and information asymmetry, inherent in the conventional business models of manufacturing multinationals.

The authors take an exploratory approach in reviewing industry literature and analyzing implementations of digital technologies in manufacturing and supply chain processes at four large manufacturing multinationals from diverse industry sectors, from electronics to packaged food production. The authors also identify how value-creation activities are relocated, and how players collaborate to create and capture value. Consequently, the authors abstract a framework for global value network of manufacturing multinationals.

With changing definitions of industry, competition and organizations, the authors’ framework for manufacturing value network establishes the ways digitalization can be integrated in the global businesses of manufacturing multinationals, realizing the combinatorial effect of Industry 4.0 and platform ecosystems. The transformation redefines the ways multinationals have been leveraging their ownership-location-internalization (OLI) advantages. The authors recognize that the multinational orchestrator plays a critical role in creating shared goals for platform participants and governing the dynamics. In addition, the participants' propensity to trust the platform and the perceived trustworthiness of the orchestrator shape the scope and boundaries of the platform.

The authors raise critical questions about the role of multinational orchestrator and trust dimensions. In addition, the OLI-platform paradigm that incorporates the combinatorial effect of platform ecosystem and Industry 4.0 explains how multinationals create and capture value in new ways.

This paper aims to seek answers to the question: What are the relevant factors that allow not-for-profit innovation networks to successfully transition new technologies from proof-of-concept to commercialisation?

This question is examined using the knowledge-based view and network orchestration theory. Data are collected from 35 interviews with managers and engineers working within seven centres that comprise the High Value Manufacturing Catapult (HVMC). These centres constitute a not-for-profit innovation network where suppliers, customers and competitors collaborate to help transition new technologies across the “Valley of Death” (the gap between establishing a proof of concept and commercialisation).

Network orchestration theory suggests that a hub firm facilitates the exchange of knowledge amongst network members (knowledge mobility), to enable these members to profit from innovation (innovation appropriability). The hub firm ensures positive network growth, and also allows for the entry and exit of network members (network stability). This study of not-for-profit innovation networks suggests the role of a network orchestrator is to help ensure that intellectual property becomes a public resource that enhances the productivity of the domestic economy. The authors observed how network stability was achieved by the HVMC's seven centres employing a loosely-coupled hybrid network configuration. This configuration however ensured that new technology development teams, comprised of suppliers, customers and competitors, remained tightly-coupled to enable co-development of innovative technologies. Matching internal technical and sectoral expertise with complementary experience from network members allowed knowledge to flow across organisational boundaries and throughout the network. Matrix organisational structures and distributed decision-making authority created opportunities for knowledge integration to occur. Actively moving individuals and teams between centres also helped to diffuse knowledge to network members, while regular meetings between senior management ensured network coordination and removed resource redundancies.

The study contributes to knowledge-based theory by moving beyond existing understanding of knowledge integration in firms, and identified how knowledge is exchanged and aggregated within not-for-profit innovation networks. The findings contribute to network orchestration theory by challenging the notion that network orchestrators should enact and enforce appropriability regimes (patents, licences, copyrights) to allow members to profit from innovations. Instead, the authors find that not-for-profit innovation networks can overcome the frictions that appropriability regimes often create when exchanging knowledge during new technology development. This is achieved by pre-defining the terms of network membership/partnership and setting out clear pathways for innovation scaling, which embodies newly generated intellectual property as a public resource. The findings inform a framework that is useful for policy makers, academics and managers interested in using not-for-profit networks to transition new technologies across the Valley of Death.