Innovation, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and business ecosystems: Old wine in new bottles?

Abstract

Rooted in the territorial approach, this theoretical paper offers a systematic literature review (SLR) of ecosystems based on a selection of 104 articles and books and their archetypes. First, we identify and discuss the four main types of ecosystems-business, innovation, entrepreneurial, and knowledge ecosystems-and indicate the presence of other transversal concepts. Second, we provide an overview of related and well-established theories from the territorial approach that have been largely omitted although they are ecosystem archetypes. Third, we identify the invariants across the four diverging streams from the ecosystem approach and the seven diverging streams from the territorial approach. Finally, we propose a research framework based on the comparison between key invariants from both approaches and discuss their similarities and differences that could serve as a foundation for future empirical research. This study therefore links the ecosystem and territorial approaches under the complex evolutionary system umbrella by creating a theoretical framework that reflects the complex interconnection between models, theories, and emerging concepts. 1 Introduction Only two decades after the introduction of an ecosystem parallel (Moore, 1993) in the management field, researchers have started to use this term more frequently. According to Web of Science (WoS), until 2015, one could only find 39 articles exclusively related to business, management, and economics that responded to the search string 'ecosystem*' AND 'busines*' AND 'innovat*'. In contrast, in 2015 and 2016 alone, one could find 21 and 26 new publications, respectively. This rapid growth justifies the recent emerging discussions, such as by de Vasconcelos

Ecosystem Value Creation and Capture: A Systematic Review of Literature and Potential Research Opportunities

“…Web of Science (WoS) was the preferred database to search the literature for several reasons. First, compared to other databases such as Google Scholar, WoS provides the highest number of high quality journals and articles (as cited in Scaringella & Radziwon, 2017) and reliability (Augillo and Falagas, as cited in Prins et al, 2016). Second, Gavel and Iselid (2008) quantitatively showed that the coverage of WoS in social science and humanities is broader than SCOPUS.…”

Ecosystems for smart cities: tracing the evolution of governance structures in a dutch smart city initiative

“…innovation, knowledge) in many of its characteristics, e.g. : the diversity of actors involved, goals ranging from knowledge-related goals, to economic goals, to social goals, and the territorial scope (Scaringella and Radziwon 2018). Second, the ecosystem literature holds findings on governance, particularly regarding the orchestration (or leadership) of ecosystems, that may be informative to smart cities.…”

“…Second, the ecosystem literature holds findings on governance, particularly regarding the orchestration (or leadership) of ecosystems, that may be informative to smart cities. Third, the literatures share the same challenges when it comes to developing an understanding of what Scaringella and Radziwon (2018) call "life cycle guidelines for practitioners and […] scholars" (p.74), or in other words: What do policy makers and managers in these ecosystems and smart cities need to do in order for their projects to be sustainable in the long run?…”

Q&A. Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research: Where Are We Now and How Do We Move Forward?

“…The use of some system-level theoretical concepts such as emergence, interdependence, and dynamics is rather frequent in current scholarly work (see, e.g., Adner & Kapoor, 2010;Ansari et al, 2016;Stam, 2015). However, a more overarching emphasis on system-level theoretical principles and concepts is much rarer (for exceptions and discussion, see, e.g., Peltoniemi, 2006;Ritala & Almpanopoulou, 2017;Roundy et al, 2018;Scaringella & Radziwon, 2017). Second, network theory and social networks were seen as another promising theoretical foundation.…”