The paradigm of value co-creation in business markets is now well established in the marketing literature. However, the practices and capabilities for collaborative value co-creation are less understood, particularly in increasingly boundary-less interorganizational, network and ecosystem relationships. This paper describes sets of practices that organizations in business markets adopt to co-create value. We provide a theoretically-grounded, empirically-informed classification of value co-creating practices, identifying the underlying capabilities needed to realize value in B2B systems. We adopt a case study approach utilizing various methods of data collection to explore co-creation practices from four organizations. The analysis reveals that ‘sustained purposeful engagement’ underpins the organizations' ability to co-create and capture value. Implications for organizations willing to develop co-creation capabilities and practices are discussed

In this study, attention is turned to those actors who orchestrate innovation networks; their types, roles and capabilities. We assert that the type of orchestrator and what they (can) do are related. Our starting point is that while orchestration in general comprises a variety of important activities, ranging from ensuring knowledge mobility to coordination, not all of these are accomplished by the same means or are equally emphasized at all times. A conceptual review of existing literature and the related qualitative comparative analysis suggest that orchestrators take different roles by focusing on specific sets of activities at certain times and conducting them in different ways. This implies mastering specific capabilities. Furthermore, sometimes circumstances push orchestrators to adopt roles that are unnatural to them. In those cases, capabilities of a different nature become relevant. Following from this line of thinking, our findings indicate three types of capabilities.First, operational role-implementation capabilities determine the ease and success of executing role-specific activities. Second, we further suggest that role-switching capabilities allow the orchestrator to move between the roles that it can naturally adopt. A third type of capability, role-augmentation, is needed to adopt roles beyond natural limitations related to orchestrator type. The resulting conceptual framework aims to combine the scattered existing literature and provide conceptual tools for future research.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to increase the knowledge of brand building in software SMEs. Design/methodology/approach -The empirical method used is a multi-case study. Data were collected from 20 companies in the software industry through in-depth interviews. The data were analyzed using systematic coding and categorization of qualitative evidence. Findings -The study identified five special characteristics of brand building in software SMEs, relating to goals and perceived benefits of brand building; resources in brand building; external and internal cooperation in brand building; means and communication in brand building; and the process of product brand building and its connection to software product development.Research limitations/implications -The scientific contribution of this empirical study relates to two aspects of brand management: branding in software business and branding in SMEs. A vast amount of literature exists on "brands", "software business" and "SMEs", but there is very little on "branding in software business" or "branding in SMEs". Unarguably, there are two significant knowledge gaps in the literature, and they relate to branding in software and SME industries. Both theoretical and managerial knowledge is needed. This study corresponds to this need by increasing the knowledge of brand building in software SMEs with an empirical study. The present study is characterized by the general limitations of a case study. The results lack statistical reliability, they apply primarily in the case companies examined, and no direct generalizations should be made without further quantitative study. Practical implications -Directors of SMEs often think that branding is just for big companies, but small companies with limited resources can brand their products and services as well. However, the means of branding are often different. The present study encourages SMEs to systematically think of the potential advantages of branding for their business, and develop creative, targeted, and affordable approaches for brand building. Originality/value -The present empirical study makes an original contribution to the literature by increasing the knowledge of branding in the context of both SMEs and software business.

No abstract

PurposeIn this study the authors seek to discuss and empirically analyze coordination mechanisms in innovation‐generating business networks. Their aim is to explore how these coordination mechanisms, as well as the roles of actors, evolve during the development of such networks.Design/methodology/approachThe paper analyses an in‐depth single case study on the development of Finnish Mobile TV in an innovation‐generating business network comprising a heterogeneous range of actors.FindingsThe findings suggest that coordination of innovation‐generating business networks combines “management” and “orchestration”, both of which have their distinct roles throughout the development of the network. The latter is used throughout the case in question to communicate vision and build social capital, and the former to coordinate phases closer to commercialization.Research limitations/implicationsThe study provides novel evidence in explicating how network coordination mechanisms of management and orchestration change as the innovation‐generating business network evolves. However, there is a need to examine the issue further from different methodological standpoints in order to improve the generalizability of the results.Practical implicationsManagers will be able to use the lessons learned in designing different coordination mechanisms to ensure that the network evolves in the desired direction, and in considering the role of their companies in this development.Originality/valueThe paper enhances understanding of how coordination mechanisms evolve in different phases of innovation‐generating business networks.