Search results

The concept of an innovation ecosystem, based on the idea of business ecosystem, has increasingly grown in the literature on strategy, innovation, and entrepreneurship. However, not all innovation ecosystems have the same architectural models or internal collaboration, and existing research rarely deconstructs an ecosystem of innovation and examines its structure. The objective of this article is to systematize the discussion about the structure of an innovation ecosystem and offer a foundation for future research.

Using the Web of Science database as the source for the articles, this paper presents a systematic review of the literature on the structure of the innovation ecosystems. The period of analysis spanned from January 1993 to August 2019. Two methods, bibliometric analysis and content analysis, were used to structure the systematic review.

The results of the content analysis showed that the main classifications related to the structure of an innovation ecosystem are the ecosystem life cycle (birth, expansion, leadership, and self-renewal), the classification according to the ecosystem level (macroscopic, medium, and microscopic), and the layered structure (core–periphery structure, triple-layer structure, triple-layer core–periphery structure, and framework 6C). The results also showed that studies in the field are concentrated around a small group of authors, and few studies have discussed the structure of an ecosystem.

This study includes only peer-reviewed articles from the Web of Science database.

This article contributes to innovation ecosystem theory by exploring the characteristics that influence ecosystem structure. In addition to the theoretical contribution, the triple-layer core–periphery framework and the 6C framework set a benchmark for future research on innovation ecosystems.

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.

This metasynthesis aims to build a theory on the concept of innovation ecosystem from the state of the art of qualitative case studies available in indexed scientific production using interpretive synthesis (Hoon, 2013).

This research was conducted by the postulates of the metasynthesis method (Hoon, 2013) to generate theory from qualitative case studies. The authors retrieved 77 research papers from databases, of which 6 were used for synthesis purposes. Each selected research paper reported one or more cases, which were analyzed separately. At the final stage, a data synthesis was structured and the cases were crossed, which allowed the development of a schematic representation and a theoretical construction of the innovation ecosystem concept. The approach used in this research is a metatheoretical assumption from economics and management and ecology to explore the theoretical gap in the concept of innovation ecosystems.

There is not yet a conceptual consensus on the term, which sometimes leads researchers to address partial or complementary concepts. The analysis identified constitutive elements of an innovation ecosystem that lead to structuring a framework of organic and dynamic interrelationships that a given organization has with various external organizations, allowing the creation of innovative products in a faster way.

This paper helps scholars and researchers consider a new metatheoretical perspective to analyze dynamics, constitutive elements and multilevels of an innovation ecosystem.

For practitioners, this paper sheds lights on the importance of recognizing a systemic consideration of innovation ecosystems that falls in global relationships, industry dynamics and identification of main global–local actors/enablers to produce innovations internally at a given organization.

The novelty of this paper lies in a more delineated definition and a schematic representation of an innovation ecosystem based on a global–local perspective of product creation and manufacturing and interactions that a given company has, regardless of the geographical location of its dispersed strategic partners.

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.

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine empirically China’s determined thrust to attain a high level of technological innovation and the factors affecting moving towards a smart and sophisticated manufacturing ecosystem in conjunction with the Belt and Road Initiative (OBOR).

This research provides empirical determination of the factors affecting moving towards smart manufacturing ecosystems in China. The method is based on combining two approaches: semi-structured interview and questionnaire-based with academics, experts and managers in various Chinese industrial sectors. The results are based on the multivariate analysis of the collected data. A case study of the current manufacturing ecosystem was also analyzed, in order to understand the present state as well as the potential for China’s competitive edge in the developed OBOR countries.

The results illustrate the importance of the infrastructure dimension comprising variables related to ecosystems, industrial clusters and Internet of Things IoT and other advanced technologies. A case study of the city of Shenzhen’s transformation into a smart cluster for innovative manufacturing points out how China’s OBOR initiative for regional collaboration will further transform the regional smart clusters into an ultra-large innovation based smart ecosystem.

This research is the first to study China’ policies towards playing a prominent role in the Fourth Industrial Revolution 4IR in the context of the OBOR initiative, through empirically defining the factors affecting moving towards a knowledge-intensive smart manufacturing ecosystem where the added value is mostly innovation based.

This study aims to investigate the impact of an institutionalized market context on platform ecosystem development. It studies how platform ecosystems are set up and evolve in the asset management industry and explores the role of the platform leader and selected core network partners in unleashing value innovation notwithstanding institutional barriers. A problematization lens is used to identify deviations between the management practices in this industry setting and the prescriptions and suggested practices in the extant literature on platform ecosystem development.

The research follows a retrospective longitudinal single-case design focusing on the development of a new platform ecosystem to which several PaaS initiatives are linked. It is based on 13 in-depth interviews over a one-year period triangulated with documentation and member checks. This study identifies the impact of regulations and norms on the early stages of platform ecosystem development.

In this institutionalized market, intensified interactions between carefully selected strategic market players focusing on platform development, lead to growing value innovation initiatives. The collaboration between core actors evolves “under the radar” with select partners and with lots of controls by incumbents. The value innovation process evolves in a non-disruptive way. Initially, the new value initiatives are rather incremental and focus on optimizing the present business models while slowly adding new peripheral services shared as successful signs of value innovation initiatives. This “submerged” direction enables platform actors to gather critical mass and stimulates co-evolution with key players.

This paper outlines one vertical and looks at various principles involved during early stages of platform development. Because the authors have chosen a deep dive into one institutionalized setting, future studies could investigate a broader scope of institutionalized settings/verticals and a broader scope of management stages and related practices to replicate the study and corroborate the findings. The idea raised from hybrid platform ecosystem development also warrants further study.

Practitioners in institutionalized business-to-business markets find suggestions on how to overcome institutional barriers to platform ecosystem development and this study shows which levers can be used by core actors of ecosystems to strengthen established business models and simultaneously unleash value innovation initiatives.

This study contributes to the understanding of the challenges to be faced when setting up and expanding platform ecosystems in a highly institutionalized setting and identifies “levers” to create a smooth flow and snowball effect for platform ecosystem development. It “fine-tunes” the extant literature on platform ecosystem development to institutionalized markets.

Healthcare innovations for bottom-of-pyramid populations face considerable risks and few economic incentives. Can entrepreneurial innovators provide new solutions for global health? This chapter examines how a technology enterprise built a collaborative network and supportive ecosystem making it possible to steer an innovation for TB patients through discovery, development, and delivery. Ecosystem resources were mobilized and upstream and downstream co-innovation risks were mitigated to commercialize a new diagnostic test. Detailed evidence on this innovation for TB care uses ecosystem analysis to clarify core issues in the context of joint value creation. The case study shows how resources from private and public partners can be leveraged and combined by the focal firm to build joint value and to lower execution, co-innovation, and adoption risks in healthcare ecosystems combating diseases of poverty.

The purpose of this study is to discuss how organizations can drive organizational performance through human capital (HC) investment through systematic thinking.

This study analyzes three companies from various industries, adopts systems thinking and uses three leading indicators from the balanced scorecard framework to explore the effects of strategic orientations for HC on innovation ecosystems and organizational performance.

In terms of academic contributions, this study broadly verifies the innovation ecosystem model for organizations and reveals that customer-oriented, internal process-oriented and innovation learning-oriented HC strategies reinforce the pathways in organizational innovation ecosystems, thereby enriching the literature on innovation ecosystems.

In terms of practical contributions, this study provides a novel HC-based perspective on developmental dynamics and details the relationships among each aspect of the innovation ecosystem and HC strategies.

The proposed architecture and strategic frameworks provide a reference for corporations to implement strategic orientations of HC, drive operations in organizational innovation ecosystems and improve organizational performance.