Managing Actors, Resources, and Activities in Innovation Ecosystems – A Design Science Approach

Abstract

Through a design science approach, the paper explores how actors in a network create and sustain competitive advantage independently and through participation in a system of actors (i.e., a collaborative network) who are not hierarchically managed but, rather, act toward their own goals within the innovation ecosystem. In accordance with design studies, the relevance of research and its quality are evaluated against practice. The two cases discussed in the paper highlight that, in practice, innovation ecosystem actors must manage activities and relationships at the level of both individual and organisation. This finding has interesting research implications, as innovation ecosystems have been studied mostly at either macro or interpersonal (micro) level while the organisation (meso) level is seldom discussed. Furthermore, the findings should help managers to strive for and utilise innovation ecosystems better and to evaluate their ability and potential to survive via internal and external collaboration aimed at innovation.

Orchestrating Innovation Ecosystems: A Qualitative Analysis of Ecosystem Positioning Strategies

“…Still, studies of innovation ecosystems as well as entrepreneurial ecosystems have often neglected this global dimension and focused on actors that are regional or geographically proximate (Valkokari, 2015) or have examined national innovation systems (Suominen et al, 2016). Thus, the borders of innovation ecosystem are even fuzzier than the borders of business ecosystem given that they are more dynamic, with actors, roles, and interlinkages changing constantly (Valkokari et al, 2016). Hence, the most recent innovation studies point out that discussions about closed national innovation systems are rather factitious: new innovations are actually generated in global settings (Viitanen, 2016;Oksanen & Hautamäki, 2015).…”

Joint Offering Evaluation Framework for Assessing the Feasibility and Business Value of a Digital Twin Use Case

“…Our research on the evaluation of JOs is challenge‐driven, which means that scientific methods are used to find solutions to practical industrial challenges. The applied method is therefore in line with the principles of design science, 70 the ideas of design thinking innovation ecosystems 71 and business networks that address problem‐solving as a source of innovation 72 . Figure 1 shows the development process and the methods used in this study, which follow the six steps of the DSRM: problem identification and motivation, the definition of the objectives for a solution, design and development, demonstration, evaluation and communication 73 …”

“…The proposed JOEF was developed in the design and development phase (Figure 1) to illustrate the advantages of a JO. The design science approach emphasizes that the applicability of the developed solution should be validated and tested and its theoretical connections and research contribution examined and illustrated 71 . Four hypothetical DT implementation approaches for a pulp and paper production plant were identified—greenfield plant design, retrofit process design, optimizations of on‐line measurable objectives and optimization of off‐line measurable objectives 8 —and a JOEF was piloted using the on‐line measurement approach.…”

Orchestrating Platform Ecosystems: The Interplay of Innovation and Business Development Subsystems

“…Indeed, platform ecosystems can hardly be managed in a goal-oriented fashion since the number of actors, communities, transactions, and interactions increases beyond the ability of what the platform owner can handle (Fjeldstad et al, 2012;Smedlun et al, 2018). This is what makes their management so challenging (Valkokari et al, 2016). Instead, platform ecosystems can be orchestrated by designing processes taking place among and between communities.…”