How Firms Navigate Cooperation and Competition in Nascent Ecosystems

Hannah, Douglas; Eisenhardt, Kathleen M.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2808034

Cited by 22 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Ozcan and Eisenhardt () note that some mobile gaming entrepreneurs had a more accurate understanding of the role of complementors and networks than others, and this shaped their ability to form superior strategies. Hannah and Eisenhardt (in press) also find that more successful entrepreneurs in the residential solar industry had more complete and sophisticated strategic insight into the dynamics of ecosystems. Yet, despite the likely importance of an accurate understanding of the economic underpinnings of strategy as a relevant cognitive structure, it is rarely part of the discourse in strategy formation research.…”

Section: Agenda For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 98%

Strategy Formation in Entrepreneurial Settings: Past Insights and Future Directions

Ott

Eisenhardt

Bingham

2017

Strat. Entrepreneurship J.

Self Cite

126

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research summary Examining the strategy formation process is central to understanding why some firms in entrepreneurial settings create competitive advantage and succeed while others do not. The strategy formation process, however, remains unclear. While existing work shows the value of learning from experience or having a holistic understanding of how the pieces fit together, there is limited empirical research that fuses the two streams. We first review the extant literature on strategy formation in entrepreneurial settings by organizing around this fundamental tension between strategizing by “doing” versus “thinking.” We then describe recent work that blends the two and conclude with a future research agenda. Managerial summary An effective strategy can be the difference between becoming the next Google or Netflix or floundering as an also‐ran. But how should executives in entrepreneurial settings form strategy? Are they better off letting strategy emerge incrementally by learning from experience? Or should they create a holistic understanding of the interdependent activities that constitute strategy with cognitive structures like mental models and analogies? Here, we indicate the extant research findings on strategy formation in entrepreneurial settings for each of these approaches. We also discuss the new research on how they can be effectively combined and outline an agenda for future research to help executives improve their strategy formation process. Copyright © 2017 Strategic Management Society

show abstract

Section: Agenda For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 98%

Strategy Formation in Entrepreneurial Settings: Past Insights and Future Directions

Ott

Eisenhardt

Bingham

2017

Strat. Entrepreneurship J.

Self Cite

126

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, how did the alliance of Microsoft and Intel, by shaping Wintel and the nature of this platform ecosystem, affect both the outcome and the nature of the looser alliances between Wintel and PC manufacturers? Furthermore, the analysis of ecosystems and their associated alliances could provide fresh research questions for alliance research since the focus would be neither on the individual alliance nor on the portfolio of alliances of a single firm (Wassmer, 2010), but rather on the alliances pertaining to an ecosystem (Hannah & Eisenhardt, 2016). 34 Research on networks (Powell, 2003) could also benefit ecosystem analysis and vice versa.…”

Section: Back To the Strategy Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…36 Ansari, Garud, and Kumaraswamy (2015) documented how TiVo, a start-up firm that pioneered the digital video recorder in the U.S. television industry, elicited greater acceptance and support for its disruptive technology (even from incumbents) by influencing positioning and relationships among members of the evolving television industry ecosystem. Kapoor and Furr (2015) showed how, in the solar photovoltaic industry, complementarities at both the firm and ecosystem level can explain the diversifying technology choices of firms participating in an ecosystem, while Hannah and Eisenhardt (2016) looked at how different firms within one ecosystem followed diverse strategies in the attempt to strengthen their positions and become the bottleneck. 37 35…”

Section: Back To the Strategy Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a theory of ecosystems

Jacobides

Cennamo

Gawer

2018

Strategic Management Journal

1,866

920

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary: The recent surge of interest in "ecosystems" in strategy research and practice has mainly focused on what ecosystems are and how they operate. We complement this literature by considering when and why ecosystems emerge, and what makes them distinct from other governance forms. We argue that modularity enables ecosystem emergence as it allows a set of distinct yet interdependent organizations to coordinate without full hierarchical fiat. We show how ecosystems address multilateral dependences based on various types of complementarities-supermodular or unique, unidirectional or bidirectional-which determine the ecosystem's value-add. We argue that at the core of ecosystems lie nongeneric complementarities, and the creation of sets of roles that face similar rules. We conclude with implications for mainstream strategy and suggestions for future research. Managerial Summary: We consider what makes ecosystems different from other business constellations, including markets, alliances, or hierarchically managed supply chains. Ecosystems, we posit, are interacting organizations, enabled by modularity, not hierarchically managed, bound together by the nonredeployability of their collective investment elsewhere. Ecosystems add value as they allow managers to coordinate their multilateral dependence through sets of roles that face similar rules, thus obviating the need to enter into customized contractual agreements with each partner. We explain how different types of complementarities (unique or supermodular, generic or specific, uni-or bi-directional) shape ecosystems and offer a "theory of ecosystems" that can explain what they are, when they emerge, and why alignment occurs. Finally, we outline the critical factors affecting ecosystem emergence, evolution, and success-or failure.

show abstract

“…Finally, there remains a significant disconnect between the research on venture boards and the transition of venture boards to public firm boards. IPO is often considered a dependent variable and successful end point in entrepreneurship research (Beckman & Burton, 2008;Certo, Holcomb, & Holmes, 2009;Hannah & Eisenhardt, 2017). But it is also a major inflection point in the longer life of a firm.…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Venture Boards: Past Insights, Future Directions, and Transition to Public Firm Boards

Garg

Furr

2017

Strat. Entrepreneurship J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research summary Venture boards are theoretically important and economically relevant. They are at the apex of a venture's organizational hierarchy and have significant influence on the most important decisions related to venture strategy and personnel. This article reviews the organizational and strategy research on venture boards, clarifying how venture boards differ from venture investors and from public firm boards. It lays out a systematic research agenda to stimulate more research on venture governance, including venture board composition and structure, venture board processes, and venture board transitions to public firm boards. This agenda attempts to illuminate the research opportunities related to the distinctive nature of venture boards and enable theoretical engagement with the broader corporate governance scholarship on public firms. Managerial summary A venture's board of directors is highly consequential for its most important strategic and personnel outcomes. Uber and Theranos are just two recent ventures whose boards have come under public spotlight. This article reviews organizational and strategy research on venture boards, mapping the evolution of the academic literature, summarizing key findings, and identifying the most important limitations. It explains how venture boards are different from venture investors and from public firm boards. Importantly, it lays out a systematic research agenda that draws upon the distinctive nature of venture boards and also creates a bridge to the broader literature on public firm boards. New insights on venture board composition, structure, process, and transition to public firm boards will be relevant to venture executives, investors, and directors. Copyright © 2017 Strategic Management Society.

show abstract

How Firms Navigate Cooperation and Competition in Nascent Ecosystems

Cited by 22 publications

References 38 publications

Strategy Formation in Entrepreneurial Settings: Past Insights and Future Directions

Strategy Formation in Entrepreneurial Settings: Past Insights and Future Directions

Towards a theory of ecosystems

Venture Boards: Past Insights, Future Directions, and Transition to Public Firm Boards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About