From governance to choreography: coordination of innovation ecosystems

Abstract

Purpose Innovation ecosystems can emerge and grow organically, but the process can also be managed through conscious intervention. Therefore, this study observes different motivations and expectations for each group of actors. The lack of alignment between actors could have a negative influence on the development of innovation ecosystems. This study aims to analyze the coordination strategies of the actors throughout the life cycle of innovation ecosystems. Design/methodology/approach This study develops and proposes a model for coordinating innovation ecosystems based on the theoretical backgrounds of the ecosystem life cycle and ecosystem coordination. Findings This study argues that each stage of an innovation ecosystem’s life cycle – inception, launching, growth and maturity – demands different coordination strategies. Initially, networks are simpler and thus the coordination issues are less difficult. However, as the ecosystem evolves and the complexity of the networks increases, a more sophisticated strategy, such as orchestration or choreography, is needed. Research limitations/implications This is a theoretical study that recommends further research to test this model. Practical implications The understanding of coordination and stages of the life cycle of an innovation ecosystem can guide actors in the design of strategies for developing of ecosystems. Social implications The proposed framework could support strategies to engage civil society in actions to develop innovation ecosystems. Originality/value This study presents a framework to understand the coordination strategies better, considering the stages of an innovation ecosystem’s life cycle.

Criação e captura de valor em ecossistemas de inovação

“…This territory includes various ecosystem actors such as companies, research institutes, universities, civil society organizations, and legislators (Scaringella & Radziwon, 2018;Santos, Zen & Bittencourt, 2021). When these actors propose innovations in a geographic context, they create value for reasons other than those examined by the platform approach.…”

“…Another critical component is the understanding of the life cycle concept, which is associated with the ecosystem. An urban district's innovation areas evolve in four stages: initiation, launch, growth, and maturity (Piqué et al, 2019), and different strategies are more effective at engaging and mobilizing actors for joint development actions at each stage of developing an innovation ecosystem (Santos, Zen & Bittencourt, 2021).…”

“…Emphasis on companies and a hub firm (Adner, 2006;Adner & Kapoor, 2010;Nambisan & Baron, 2013) Emphasis on the heterogeneity of actors such as universities, companies, government and civil society (Piqué, et al, 2019;Zen et al, 2021)…”

“…Beginning, launch, growth and maturity (Piqué et al, 2019;Santos et al, 2021) Source: From authors' authority.…”

“…The territorial approach emphasizes innovations in a geographically limited context (Scaringella & Radzivon, 2018;Feldman et al, 2019), whereas the delimitation in the platform approach is determined by the complementarity of actors (Gomes et al, 2021). The platform approach emphasizes companies and hub firms (Adner, 2006;Adner & Kapoor, 2010), whereas the territorial perspective addresses the heterogeneity of actors (Piqué et al, 2019;Zen et al, 2021). These distinctions result in different types of organizational objectives and value perceptions to be created and captured in innovation ecosystems.…”