What Is an Ecosystem? Incorporating 25 Years of Ecosystem Research

Bogers, Marcel; Sims, Jonathan; West, Joel

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3437014

Cited by 45 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Current trends in IM point to a continued interest in networked, platform‐based, or open forms of organizing innovation work (Bogers et al, 2019); thus, future research should encompass multiple levels of analysis in studying new organizing forms, future managerial and governance structures, and the implications for individuals working in such contexts (Elmquist et al, 2009; Bogers et al, 2017). We encourage future studies to adopt action research to bring unique possibilities in accessing and uncovering social processes and worlds.…”

Section: Conclusion Limitations and Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Action research for innovation management: three benefits, three challenges, and three spaces

Ollila

Yström

2020

R & D Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given that the innovation landscape is changing, and new forms of organization and management are emerging, this study discusses the potential benefits of action research for innovation management (IM) as it provides closeness to living emergent systems, generates rich insights as well as knowledge for both rigorous theory development and change in practice. Drawing from a large-scale action research study involving a complex collaborative organizational construct, we outline three challenges from employing action research: the process is both reflexive and progressive, the researcher is both an outsider and an insider, and the outcome is both general and specific. A model of three social spaces (the action research space, the academic space, and the practitioner space) is proposed to address the challenges and assist in navigating the multitude of processes, roles, and outcomes associated with action research. The study argues that action research for IM is well suited to exploring tacit aspects of practices and processes in the emergent or shifting study contexts to transform practices through interventions. Thus, if implemented carefully by experienced researchers, it can provide valuable data that are indispensable for theory development in the field of IM.Action research for innovation management R&D Management 50, 3, 2020 397 Susanne Ollila is Professor in Organizational

show abstract

Section: Conclusion Limitations and Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Action research for innovation management: three benefits, three challenges, and three spaces

Ollila

Yström

2020

R & D Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the contributions by Jacobides and Adner are by many considered to be the most momentous in recent history, Bogers et al [ 9 ] suggest that, instead of narrowing the concept down, there is a prevailing need for a definition that is much broader and integrates all of the BE streams into a truly comprehensive framework. Thus, in their Academy of Management Proceedings paper, the authors oppose Adner [ 21 ] by arguing that both memberships and structure of BEs should be considered.…”

Section: Fragmented Understanding Of Business Ecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As described at the beginning of this article, the most comprehensive, pragmatic and state-of-the-art understanding of BEs can be bounded into nine words: “interdependent networks of self-interested actors jointly creating value” [ 9 ]. This definition is certainly not dogmatic; nonetheless, it overarchingly comprises all of the important elements that BEs embody so far.…”

Section: Towards Conceptual Consensus In Iot-driven Digital Businementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, as the value creation and capture opportunities migrate towards the philosophy coopetition, a new cornerstone of gaining increased competitive advantage is being set in the form of finding new ways to collaborate without the necessity of hierarchical governance. Consequently, companies increasingly form interdependent networks of self-interested actors jointly creating value, i.e., business ecosystems (BE) [ 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Addressing Conceptual Randomness in IoT-Driven Business Ecosystem Research

Rezac

2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the almost 27 years of its existence, the business ecosystem research has developed a substantial level of ambiguity and multifacetedness. Because to the technological advancements that promote interconnectedness and value co-creation, the field has consequently spun off into more domain-specific branches, such as the arena of digital business ecosystems that are driven by Internet of Things (IoT). Nonetheless, despite the efforts to mend the theoretical foundations and to close the gap between academia and empirical practice, the absolute majority of IoT-driven digital business ecosystem literature follows the trend of conceptual randomness while expanding the volume of publications exponentially. Therefore, in order to address this unfavourable increase in random adoption of distinct concepts that ultimately refer to the same subject matter, the author encourages other scholars involved in the research field of IoT-driven digital business ecosystems to make extended efforts and support the external validity of their research (as well as the relevance of the research stream as a whole) by bounding the IoT-driven digital business ecosystems on a rigorous basis through deploying the extant theory in a careful and appropriate manner. Via a thorough examination of the theoretical fundaments that underpin the concept of IoT-driven digital business ecosystem, and based on a concise thematic review of corresponding literature published until September 2020, this article articulates logic for viewing the conceptual hierarchy within the business ecosystem research and proposes six literature-based recommendations for developing further IoT-driven digital business ecosystem (DBE) research in a rigorous way.

show abstract

“…During the past two decades, a great deal of interest in ecosystem research in management and economic fields has developed [1][2][3]. A growing number of scientific studies have popularized the concept of the innovation ecosystem as a new framework for academia, policy-makers, and practitioners [4][5][6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward an Evolutionary and Sustainability Perspective of the Innovation Ecosystem: Revisiting the Panarchy Model

Boyer

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes an evolutionary and sustainability perspective of the innovation ecosystem. This study revisits the Panarchy model in order to generate new perspectives on the innovation ecosystem. The Panarchy model describes the evolutionary nature of complex adaptive systems relying on four phases, without, however, being deterministic: exploitation, conservation, decline, and reorganization. When ecosystems face important shocks, adaptive mechanisms and properties within the ecosystem lead the ecosystem to a new reorganization phase, which gives birth to another exploitation phase. In this perspective, the innovation ecosystem allows the avoidance of technology lock-ins and structural and organizational rigidity by providing mechanisms to enhance both resilience and competitiveness. Innovation ecosystem sustainability relies on two major dual forces: the exploitative function and the generative or autopoiesis function. Therefore, evolutionary and sustainability perspectives remain the "natural home" for developing works and models about the innovation ecosystem, and instrumental for policy-makers and practitioners involved in innovation management. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3232 2 of 17The approach that developing innovation processes and competitive advantage relies on a business-friendly environment with complex relationships between actors is not new. The Marshallian hypothesis on "industrial districts" have already described the importance of geographic and relational proximity characterized by complementarities and interdependences between a diversity of economic actors regarding the competitiveness of a given territory [11]. Becattini, in the 1980s, expanded the concept of Industrial districts to characterize Italian districts' competitiveness [12]. Porter delved deeper into this concept and popularized, in the 1990s, the cluster concept, which is defined as a concentration of small, medium, or large firms, organizations, and institutions, which are in synergy in a particular technological field within a geographic area [13]. At the same time, evolutionary economists have developed the concept of the "innovation system" as incorporating the role of institutions in the structuring (at different scales: sector, territorial, or topological) of this strategic and interactionist environment favoring the development of innovation processes [14][15][16][17].Given such an abundant theoretical corpus, many are critical of and skeptical about the potential contribution of the innovation ecosystem concept. According to Oh et al., the added value this concept generates is so low that its mobilization exposes the researcher much more to questionable scientific rigor and invalid knowledge production. Its use can even lead to harmful and dangerous political and strategic choices [18]. Faced with these criticisms, the ecosystem concept has become a more and more contested concept, calling for more robust conceptual and theoretical foundations. In addition, these criticisms highlight the need for concrete operational...

show abstract

What Is an Ecosystem? Incorporating 25 Years of Ecosystem Research

Cited by 45 publications

References 0 publications

Action research for innovation management: three benefits, three challenges, and three spaces

Action research for innovation management: three benefits, three challenges, and three spaces

Addressing Conceptual Randomness in IoT-Driven Business Ecosystem Research

Toward an Evolutionary and Sustainability Perspective of the Innovation Ecosystem: Revisiting the Panarchy Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About