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 research intends to analyze the innovation ecosystem factors that play a vital role in firm performance. As a result, large-scale empirical studies on the innovation ecosystem are rare, and fewer efforts have been made to determine if and how different factors affect the ecosystem models of firms. There has yet to be a substantial empirical study on the innovation ecosystem.

Data were acquired from Pakistani IT companies. The results show that factors of the innovation ecosystem significantly contribute to business performance. The essential assumption is that resource endowment, organizational culture, knowledge and competence, and technology capability are allied to the innovation ecosystem.

The findings are crucial from a managerial view because firms must focus on changing their innovation ecosystem factors model to achieve greater performance. Radical changes in the firms will only be worthwhile if they value their resource endowments. To attain superior firm performance via influential factors of the innovation ecosystem, IT administrators need to build organizational cultural capacities to adapt to changes brought on by digitization quickly and effectively. However, this must be supplemented by improving organizational knowledge, competencies and technological capabilities to enable organizations to modify their ecosystems.

Eventually, firms can better respond to changes in their settings if they combine these variables by implementing an effective innovation ecosystem model, which leads to greater sector and superior financial performance.

This study aims to map and assess the conceptual development of the innovation ecosystem literature.

A bibliometric analysis was performed using the VOSviewer, RStudio software, Bibliometrix and Biblioshiny packages. To accomplish this, 367 publications published between 2006 and 2020 and indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases were assessed.

The results demonstrate a rise in research during 2016, with almost 30% of publications concentrated in only six journals. The co-citation analysis presented four clusters: case studies, business and innovation ecosystems (platform approach), open innovation and national and regional innovation systems (territorial approach). We proposed a theoretical framework based on two approaches in the innovation ecosystem literature based on co-citation analysis: platform, which has its roots in the literature on strategy, and territory, grounded in research on economic geography literature.

One of the limitations of the study is that only articles published in journals were analyzed, leaving out of the sample those published in congresses, books and other sources.

This paper contributes to the literature by presenting and clarifying the different conceptual trajectories of research in innovation ecosystems. We also proposed an analytical framework based on the two main approaches to innovation ecosystems – platform and territory. This framework presents the critical elements of managing innovation ecosystems from both perspectives.

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.

This article aims to understand the dynamics between disruptive innovations and innovation ecosystems, using disruption business models as a catalyst.

This study presents an integrative literature review and a theoretical framework in order to integrate the theories of disruptions and ecosystems.

The dynamics of disruptive innovation, within an ecosystem, as an essential driver of creating new markets. The effect of creative destruction from a disruption influences business models in a coopetitive dynamic that drives the ecosystem as a whole.

Limited to theoretical research and suggested the application of the proposed model in an empirical study.

Understand the formation of new ecosystems based on the occurrence of a disruption as a way for organisations to prepare for the arrival of this new market.

The contribution of this study is based on joining the literature of disruptive innovation and innovation ecosystem, pointing to a theoretical framework and a flow of Evolution and Adaptation to the Disruptive Ecosystem that integrates this complex dynamic.

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.

Science parks are business clusters situated in a particular geographical location, originally conceptualized by local universities, local government and businesses. In recent times, science park stakeholders and tenants are starting to pursue social value and even how to manage. This study aims to clarify the understanding of social value in an innovation ecosystem.

This study combines existing literature studies and concepts, observations in a real-life innovation ecosystem – a Bioscience Park – and interviews of key personnel managing the science park.

Science Park Social Value (SPSV) is a value resulting from interaction among groups and not just the pursuit of a single firm-level goal. SPSV emanates from the firms within the science park in reaction to the demands of the actors or entities within and outside the innovation ecosystem of the science park: internal operations, external stakeholders and infexternal or broader societal impact. In addition to this, the author has conceptualized a framework for social value of an innovation ecosystem, which will require further research.

This paper creates a link between concepts about social value, innovation ecosystem (e.g. science park) and stakeholder theory.

SPSV will be useful for science park orchestrators or managers to manage expectations of social and non-social actors.

Social value of a science park will bring a new light on the stigma that science parks are only money-making ventures and are not in touch with social issues.

This study theorized and researched previously unrelated concepts.

Despite the abundance of research in open innovation, few contributions explore it at inter-organizational level, and particularly with a focus on healthcare ecosystem, characterized by a dense network of relationships among public and private organizations (hospitals, companies and universities) as well as other actors that can be labeled as “untraditional” player, i.e. doctors, nurses and patients. The purpose of this paper is to cover this gap and explore how knowledge is transferred and flows among all the healthcare ecosystems’ players in order to support open innovation processes.

The paper is conceptual in nature and adopts a narrative literature review approach. In particular, insights gathered from open innovation literature at the inter-organizational network level, with a particular attention to healthcare ecosystems, and from the knowledge transfer processes, are analyzed in order to propose an interpretative framework for the understanding of knowledge transfer in open innovation with a focus on healthcare ecosystem.

The paper proposes an original interpretative framework for knowledge transfer to support open innovation in healthcare ecosystems, composed of four main components: healthcare ecosystem’s players’ categories; knowledge flows among different categories of players along the exploration and exploitation stages of innovation development; players’ motivations for open innovation; and players’ positions in the innovation process. In addition, assuming the intermediary network as the suitable organizational model for healthcare ecosystem, four classification scenarios are identified on the basis of the main players’ influence degree and motivations for open innovation.

The paper offers interpretative lenses for managers and policy makers in understanding the most suitable organizational models able to encourage open innovation in healthcare ecosystems, taking into consideration the players’ motivation and the knowledge transfer processes on the basis of the innovation results.

The paper introduces a novel framework that fills a gap in the innovation management literature, by pointing out the key role of external not R&D players, like patients, involved in knowledge transfer for open innovation processes in healthcare ecosystems.