Platforms, Communities, and Business Ecosystems: Lessons Learned about Technology Entrepreneurship in an Interconnected World

A game theory perspective on product development project charters: the project manager - project sponsor relationship as an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma

“…Field data is needed to estimate effect sizes; measurement of effect sizes would enable rankings of which factors and best practices matter most. Second, we could enrich our model, sharpen our propositions, and expand the scope of our propositions by enfolding other ideas and refinements from game theory, and from the extensive literature on trust, cooperation, and voluntary contribution outside of game theory, such as commons governance (Ostrom, 1990(Ostrom, , 2009) and peer production of community-developed assets (Benkler, 2011;Muegge, 2011Muegge, , 2013. Third, we could expand our model into a more sophisticated treatment of project management governance and stakeholder relationships.…”

Building new business model from multiple case study research in the Internet of Me

“…Therefore, the author claims the socioeconomic system such as an adaptive complex system, where population creates a self-organization of emergence, adapting to the environment. The literature on business ecosystems requires a much deeper view of interrelated system of the business models (Carbone, 2009;Muegge, 2013).…”

Business ecosystems and new venture business models: an exploratory study of participation in the Lead To Win job-creation engine

“…Ecosystem discourse is particularly evident around information and communication technology platforms, but is also observed in sectors as diverse as health care, transportation subsystems, and semiconductor lithography equipment (e.g., Kapoor and Adner, 2007;Gawer, 2009;Adner, 2012). Business ecosystems often coexist with communities, platforms, and other non-traditional settings for innovation (Muegge, 2013), all bound together by what Moore (2006) calls the 'shared fate' of interconnected actions and outcomes.…”

“…The first representation employs the MSP framework to specify the platform and its sides, and the semantic framework to specify the boundaries of the field setting. The second representation employs the platform architecture, community design, and semantic frameworks to specify and link multiple levels of analysis suggested by the codependent subsystems perspective and by prior work on architecture (Baldwin and Clark, 2000) and on reconciling the multiple frameworks (Muegge, 2013). We also explored a third representation of Lead To Win as a system of codependent subsystems linked by institutional arrangements and resource flows, but data from phase 1 was insufficient to produce a full specification comparable to prior studies such as the Muegge (2011b) and Muegge and Grant (2013) depiction of open source software production within the Eclipse Foundation; further development of a fully-mapped codependent subsystems perspective of Lead To Win remains a promising avenue for future work.…”

“…For example, organisers added new elements in response to stakeholder needs and reconfigured existing elements to create new specialised variants such as Lead To Win For Women (Singer and Dexter, 2011), Carleton Entrepreneurs and Global Start. The Lead To Win community is the "voluntary group of people with common interests and a shared sense of identity" (Muegge, 2013) that maintains and extends the platform through contributions of time, expertise, funds, and resources. Decisions are made by the organisers, especially the Lead To Win Council (Bailetti and Bot, 2013), which plans events and invites members of the community to participate.…”