Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems

Abstract

Research Summary: Entrepreneurial ecosystems command increasing attention from policy makers, academics, and practitioners, yet the phenomenon itself remains under‐theorized. Specifically, the conceptual similarities and differences of entrepreneurial ecosystems relative to, for instance, clusters, “knowledge clusters,” regional systems of innovation, and “innovative milieus” remain unclear. Drawing on research on industrial districts and agglomerations, clusters, and systems of innovation, we suggest that entrepreneurial ecosystems differ from traditional clusters by their emphasis on the exploitation of digital affordances; by their organization around entrepreneurial opportunity discovery and pursuit; by their emphasis on business model innovation; by voluntary horizontal knowledge spillovers; and by cluster‐external locus of entrepreneurial opportunities. We highlight how these distinctive characteristics set entrepreneurial ecosystems apart from other cluster types, propose a structural model of entrepreneurial ecosystems, summarize the articles in this special issue, and suggest promising avenues for future research. Managerial Summary: Entrepreneurial ecosystems command increasing attention from policy makers, academics, and practitioners. We suggest that entrepreneurial ecosystems differ from traditional clusters by their emphasis on the exploitation of digital affordances; by their organization around entrepreneurial opportunity discovery and pursuit; by their emphasis on business model innovation; by voluntary horizontal knowledge spillovers; and by cluster‐external locus of entrepreneurial opportunities. We highlight how these distinctive characteristics set entrepreneurial ecosystems apart from regional cluster phenomena discussed in received economic geography and innovation literatures. We suggest policy makers need to adopt novel approaches to stimulate entrepreneurial ecosystems that differ from those in place to develop industrial clusters or support already established small‐ and medium‐sized companies.

Re‐storying the Business, Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Concepts: The Model‐Narrative Review Method

“…We found supportive evidence of a widespread metaphorical use of the ecosystem term (Kuckertz 2019). Despite ongoing attempts to clarify the basic concepts related to ecosystems (Adner 2017;Anggraeni et al 2007;Autio and Thomas 2014;Autio et al 2018;Jacobides et al 2018;Peltoniemi 2006;Pilinkienė and Mačiulis 2014;Spigel 2017;Tsujimoto et al 2015;Valkokari 2015), our analysis reveals several new insights that help advance the conceptual clarity of the term. Despite ongoing attempts to clarify the basic concepts related to ecosystems (Adner 2017;Anggraeni et al 2007;Autio and Thomas 2014;Autio et al 2018;Jacobides et al 2018;Peltoniemi 2006;Pilinkienė and Mačiulis 2014;Spigel 2017;Tsujimoto et al 2015;Valkokari 2015), our analysis reveals several new insights that help advance the conceptual clarity of the term.…”

Context, time, and change: Historical approaches to entrepreneurship research

“…Third, researchers interested in entrepreneurs' choice of organizational form could use socio-economic history to study changes and national variations in the law of association and how these have shaped both entrepreneurial activity and risk bearing over time (Lamoreaux, 2004). Finally, strategic entrepreneurship researchers interested in geographical clustering could capitalize on the availability of considerable historical data on the location of firms over time to consider the long-term causes and consequences of entrepreneurial agglomeration (Autio, Nambisan, Thomas, & Wright, 2018).…”

Leveraging innovation spaces to foster collaborative innovation

“…As a consequence, despite the possibility of suggesting affordances by design, not all designed affordances might be perceived by users as originally intended by the designer (Faraj & Azad, 2012;Jarzabkowski & Pinch, 2013). From reviewing the literature, the following four types of affordances of boundary objects appear to be especially relevant to studying collaborative innovation: convergence (Seidel & O'Mahony, 2014;Yoo, Boland, Lyytinen, & Majchrzak, 2012), generativity (Autio, Nambisan, Thomas, & Wright, 2018;Zittrain, 2006), socialization (Swan, Bresnen, Newell, & Robertson, 2007) and collaborative learning (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011) (Table 1).…”

“…Convergence Fully leverage individual expertise on shared products and solutions that reflect the multiple sources of expertise Individual knowledge and skills are combined; External feedback improves solutions under development at each process iteration Barrett & Oborn, 2010;Doganova & Eyquem-Renault, 2009;Scarbrough et al, 2015;Seidel & O'Mahony, 2014;Star & Griesemer, 1989Tuertscher et al, 2014Yoo et al, 2012 Generativity Objects are open-ended and they can be acted upon by actors who have not participated in their production in first place Knowledge exchange, and project cross-pollination are enabled Austin et al, 2012;Autio et al, 2018;Yoo et al, 2012;Zittrain, 2006 Socialization Form multidisciplinary teams that have defined ways of working, and their own culture Socialized teams can work effectively in multiple projects Bartel & Garud, 2009;Cook & Brown, 1999;Koskinen, 2005;Pratt & Rafaeli, 2005;Pratt et al, 2006;Swan et al, 2007;Thompson, 2005 Collaborative learning members as they engage with specific tools and face similar problems (Schmidt & Brinks, 2017). By pooling individual talents and skillsets, fab labs further their members' ability to work across boundaries, and they unlock greater potential in the available equipment.…”