Developing a coevolutionary account of innovation ecosystems

Breslin, Dermot; Kask, Johan; Schlaile, Michael P.; Abatecola, Gianpaolo

doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.07.016

Cited by 27 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Note. That zero-sum situations may exist in our game, but abundant works have verified that innovation and value co-creation activities in innovation ecosystem scenarios generally nurture non-zero-sum outcomes (e.g., Bhargava, 2021;Ranjan & Read, 2021;Visscher et al, 2021), even so in co-evolution of innovation ecosystems (e.g., Benitez et al, 2020;Breslin et al, 2021;Steinbruch et al, 2022). Thus, following their works, we proceed with our analysis under a non-zerosum context.…”

Section: Payoff Of Gffmentioning

confidence: 91%

An Evolutionary Analysis of Relational Governance in an Innovation Ecosystem

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite considerable research highlighting the significance of relational governance in inter-organizational relationships, few have involved the connections between relational governance and innovation ecosystems. This study explores this issue to discover the influential mechanisms of relational governance in innovation ecosystem co-evolution. Building an evolutionary game model, we embody trust and reciprocity (two dominance of relational governance) into co-evolutionary relationships of an innovation ecosystem composed of focal firms, research institutes, customers, and governments, and discuss how relational governance affects innovation strategies of actors. Moreover, the impacts of benefit distribution are also examined. We reveal that (1) focal firms and governments prefer cooperative strategies; (2) reciprocity and trust foster cooperation; increasing benefit distribution drives all actors to collaborate except research institutes; (3) governments finitely encourage cooperation through regulation; and (4) the power of relational governance is restricted due to the below-the-average strategies of customers and research institutes and the neutralizing effects of benefits. Our findings offer a complementary and novel framework for relational governance and extend a deeper understanding of innovation ecosystem studies.

show abstract

Section: Payoff Of Gffmentioning

confidence: 91%

An Evolutionary Analysis of Relational Governance in an Innovation Ecosystem

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the breadth of topics covered in this broad church of innovation ecosystems in industrial marketing, the directions of future research pathways are many and varied. They range from micro-level issues of early-stage spinoff startups (Kriz et al, 2022 This issue) to meso-level dimensions of interdependent relationships and how to organize ecosystem learning and orchestration (de Vasconcelos Gomes et al, 2022 This issue) on to macro-level concerns around wicked problems facing global society (Breslin et al, 2021). The need for contextual diversity is exhorted by Kriz et al (2022 This issue) in calling for future research across different national contexts for such complex ecosystems.…”

Section: Conclusion and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation ecosystems in B2B contexts: Owning the space

Pattinson

Nicholson

Ehret

et al. 2023

Industrial Marketing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Individuals of the same type aggregate into innovation populations, and all innovation populations aggregate together to form innovation communities, which together with the external environment form the entire IE. The specific biological components of IE include core enterprises, partners, consumers, universities and institutes, government departments, financial institutions, intermediaries and a series of additional interactive organizations (Teece, 2007; Breslin et al , 2021). Among them, core and cooperative enterprises form enterprise populations.…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation ecosystem stability and enterprise innovation performance: the mediating effect of knowledge acquisition

Jiang

Yang²,

Li³

2022

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to explore the effect of innovation ecosystem stability (IES) on innovation performance of enterprises through the mediating role of knowledge acquisition (KA), and to study how these effects are moderated by unabsorbed slack. Design/methodology/approach This study draws on data from 327 Chinese enterprises and adopts the multiple linear regression method and bootstrapping method to explore the mediating effect of KA and its moderated mediating effect. Findings The results demonstrate that IES is positively associated with innovation performance of enterprises, and KA plays a partially mediating role. Moreover, unabsorbed slack negatively moderates the relationship between IES and KA as well as the mediating effect of KA. Originality/value This study investigates the relationship between IES and innovation performance, and the mechanism of influence, which has not been previously studied in the field of innovation ecosystem. This study also examines the interaction between unabsorbed slack and IES and further clarifies the mechanism and boundary conditions of the impact of IES on innovation performance.

show abstract

Developing a coevolutionary account of innovation ecosystems

Cited by 27 publications

References 92 publications

An Evolutionary Analysis of Relational Governance in an Innovation Ecosystem

An Evolutionary Analysis of Relational Governance in an Innovation Ecosystem

Innovation ecosystems in B2B contexts: Owning the space

Innovation ecosystem stability and enterprise innovation performance: the mediating effect of knowledge acquisition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About