The innovation ecosystem construct has emerged as a promising approach in the literature on strategy, innovation and entrepreneurship. It draws upon former business ecosystem literature. However, the ...term innovation ecosystem has been employed in very polysemic and sometimes competing ways. Many adjectives used with reference to innovation ecosystems render the consolidation of the construct more difficult - which its characteristics, boundaries and relation with other, to some extent competing, constructs, such as supply chain and value chain are. To clarify concepts, to identify trends and research opportunities, we conducted a systematic literature review from 1993 to 2016, with a hybrid methodology including bibliometric and content analysis. Besides highlighting the most influential papers and exhaustively discussing the innovation ecosystem concept and its variations, we identify a turning point in the literature, the transition from business ecosystem to innovation ecosystem. Business ecosystem relates mainly to value capture, while innovation ecosystem relates mainly to value creation. We conclude by describing six research streams in innovation ecosystem: industry platform × innovation ecosystem; innovation ecosystem strategy, strategic management, value creation and business model; innovation management; managing partners; the innovation ecosystem lifecycle; innovation ecosystem and new venture creation. These streams lead us to propose opportunities for further research to solidify the innovation ecosystem concept.
Radically innovative products and services are frequently developed and commercialized by new ventures. In this context, entrepreneurs may face the challenge of coordinating a complex network of ...actors in the presence of individual and collective uncertainties. Previous literature on entrepreneurship has focused on how entrepreneurs manage individual uncertainties (those that affect a single firm) rather than collective uncertainties that also affect members of the innovation ecosystem, which in turn may fundamentally affect the survival and growth of new ventures. Drawing on five longitudinal, inductive, in-depth case studies of start-ups and their innovation ecosystems, we find that current approaches for coping with individual uncertainties do not consider the impacts of uncertainties and actions on the innovation ecosystem partners. In that sense, entrepreneurs themselves may contribute to the propagation of uncertainties in the innovation ecosystem. We also identify processes by which entrepreneurs manage collective uncertainties in the innovation ecosystem, i.e., perceiving collective uncertainties, bridging uncertainties, conducting collective learning experiments and building a common template. This study improves understanding of how entrepreneurs act in uncertain environments.
•How do entrepreneurs manage collective uncertainties in the innovation ecosystem?•Collective uncertainties affect a group of firms or other types of organizations.•We researched five innovation ecosystems created by start-ups.•We identified processes by which entrepreneurs manage collective uncertainties.•Entrepreneurs may contribute to the propagation of uncertainties.
PurposeAlthough there is a growing research stream on Performance Measurement and Management Systems (PMMS) in Ecosystems literature, current research offers limited theoretical insights into how ...PMMS deal with two types of strategies in uncertain ecosystems: ecosystem-based strategy – EBS (at the focal firm level) and ecosystem strategy – ES (at the ecosystem level). This study aims at identifying how PMMS are employed to deal with different types of strategies in uncertain ecosystems.Design/methodology/approachThe authors employed an inductive, rich multiple case approach in five focal firms with platform ecosystems. Data collection involved multiple sources of information (primary and secondary data), combing retrospective and longitudinal perspectives. Data analysis combined replication and comparison logic with coding.FindingsThis study identifies four major distinctive dimensions of Ecosystem PMMS under uncertainty: (1) Integrative Performance (considering the different ecosystem actors’ performance), (2) Interdependence Performance (mutual, yet not necessarily convergent amongst ecosystem partners), (3) Regulative Performance (paradoxical in nature, having to cope with both flexibility and stability) and finally (4) Phased Learning Performance (non-linear).Research limitations/implicationsOur primary contribution is a new framework for PMMS literature: a performance measurement and management system for dealing with strategies in ecosystems. This framework enables managing performance regarding both types of strategies (EBS and ES) and their interplay in uncertain ecosystems.Practical implicationsThe ecosystem management requires focal firms to measure and manage the overall ecosystem’s performance, and it varies according to the type of strategy adopted in each case. Our framework provides dimensions that guide firms to build and implement PMMS for an ecosystem consistent with the ES. Therefore, it may improve performance, especially in uncertain business contexts.Originality/valueThe findings enrich PMMS literature in an ecosystem context related to the ES in uncertain environments.
Setting the right approach for new product development (NPD) in the presence of uncertainty remains an ongoing debate in innovation management. Stage‐gate systems (SGS) and agile methodology (AM) are ...the dominant approaches. Recently, hybrid approaches (combining SGS and AM) have been proposed. Although these hybrid approaches represent a significant development in NPD, combining them without considering their design principles might lead to contradictory and competing conceptual formulations, thus increasing the difficulty of comparison among studies. Moreover, scholars and practitioners may struggle to understand when, why and how a certain configuration of the NPD process provides the right response to different manifestations of uncertainty. The current literature faces problems regarding the clarity of design principles (e.g. flexibility and adaptability), and this has led to research gaps concerning the uncertainty contingency and outcomes of hybrid approaches. This study combines bibliometric and content analyses to identify four design parameters and principles of NPD hybrid approaches: flexibility, adaptability, velocity and integration. Our findings might help advance the development and comparison of different hybrid approaches.
The innovation process has traditionally been understood as a predefined sequence of phases: idea generation, selection, development, and launch/diffusion/sales. Drawing upon contingency theory, we ...argue that innovation process may follow a number of different paths. Our research focuses on a clear theoretical and managerial question, i.e., how does a firm organize and plan resource allocation for those innovation processes that do not easily fit into traditional models. This question, in turn, leads to our research question: Which configuration of innovation processes and resource allocation should be employed in a given situation, and what is the rationale behind the choice? Based on a large-scale study analyzing 132 innovation projects in 72 companies, we propose a taxonomy of eight different innovation processes with specific rationales that depend on a project׳s contingencies.
•Not all innovation projects fit in the traditional linear process from-idea-to-launch.•Which configuration and rationale of the innovation process for which situation?•We researched 132 cases of innovation projects in 72 companies.•We propose eight types of innovation processes according to specific contingencies.•Uncertainties shape the structure and the content of the innovation process.
...we provide a framework (roadmap) for data analysis, which might facilitate research to build new theories. Since paradigms are also a result of conflicts and disputes, for many decades, different ...paradigm wars have been in place (Denzin, 2010). (2018), unfortunately, a diversity of methodological authors can be found in the same reviewed paper, disregarding their differing assumptions. ...the knowledge and use of templates might help researchers maintain the internal coherence of their qualitative research design. ...Langley (1999) describes the grounded theory strategy for analysing process data (Glaser & Strauss, 1999). ...the researcher needs to identify the best theory fit for the focus of her/his study.
Managers of exploratory projects might face uncertainties over long timeframes at different levels (e.g., project, portfolio, organization, and network). Although literature offers some guidance on ...how to deal with uncertainties (mainly at the project level), there is a need for more empirical ground and theoretical development of a systemic approach to the management of uncertainties. To fill this gap, this article employs a multiple case approach in two established firms, investigating six exploratory projects. As main contributions, we identified new categories of uncertainties (primitive, structural, and elementary) and aspects related to managing these uncertainties.
The circular economy (CE) aims to minimize the environmental impact caused throughout the entire production chain, which can be achieved by implementing circular strategies in collaboration with ...different actors within a business ecosystem. Although the close relationship between CE and business ecosystem concepts, which originated the term “circular ecosystem”, research about this subject is necessary, given the scarcity of empirical studies addressing the phenomenon. Therefore, this study aims to contribute by investigating a Brazilian circular ecosystem specialized in the manufacture of ecological tiles through recycled carton packages. The exploratory case study method was selected to characterize the ecosystem and identify 27 drivers and 17 barriers that enhance and hinder the ecosystem’s existence and functioning. Our findings, summarized by a framework, demonstrate the need for integration among the ecosystem’s actors so that its value proposition can be delivered. This issue is crucial for collecting post-consumer packaging for recycling and manufacturing ecological tiles. However, actors within the circular ecosystem face some obstacles to collecting the amount of packaging post-consumer material, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, this work generates discussions and future studies on circular ecosystems, especially in the Brazilian context, where there is little evidence in this research field.
Resumo A visão baseada em capacidades é central ao entendimento de como ecossistemas podem ser gerenciados. No entanto, apesar da relevância deste tema, ainda existe uma lacuna na literatura sobre as ...capacidades necessárias à gestão de ecossistemas. O objetivo desse artigo é identificar e mapear as capacidades aplicadas à gestão de ecossistemas de negócios. A metodologia consistiu em uma revisão sistemática da literatura considerando duas bases de dados: Web of Science e Scopus. No total, foram analisados 789 trabalhos; destes 89 fizeram a ponte entre capacidades e ecossistemas. A análise de conteúdo foi realizada por meio de codificação, resultando em um agrupamento de 11 capacidades - uma foi dinâmica e as outras dez foram operacionais. Os resultados obtidos incluem identificação, mapeamento e estruturação das capacidades dinâmicas e operacionais para a gestão do ecossistema, bem como para sua dispersão entre seus atores: firma focal, fornecedores e complementadores. Desenvolvemos um framework de gestão das capacidades do ecossistema, o qual apresenta a capacidade dinâmica como elo central e impulsionador do conjunto das capacidades do ecossistema, que incluem as capacidades para: o seu alinhamento, a sua sustentação, o seu crescimento e sustentação das empresas nele. Contribuímos com a literatura e prática gerencial ao apresentar uma estruturação de capacidades para gestão do ecossistema, agrupadas em um framework que mostra as implicações da presença das diferentes capacidades no ecossistema. Também contribuímos ao apresentar sugestões de pesquisas futuras para cada agrupamento de capacidades.
Resumen La visión basada en capacidades es fundamental para comprender cómo se pueden gestionar los ecosistemas. Sin embargo, a pesar de la relevancia de este tema, aún existe un vacío en la literatura acerca de cuáles son las capacidades para gestionar los ecosistemas. El propósito de este artículo es identificar y mapear las capacidades aplicadas a la gestión de ecosistemas empresariales. La metodología consistió en una revisión sistemática de la literatura considerando dos bases de datos: Web of Science y Scopus. En total se analizaron 789 obras, de las cuales 89 hicieron el puente entre capacidades y ecosistemas. El análisis de contenido se realizó a través de la codificación, lo que resultó en una agrupación de 11 capacidades ‒ una dinámica y diez operativas‒. Los resultados obtenidos incluyen la identificación, mapeo y estructuración de capacidades dinámicas y operativas para la gestión del ecosistema y su dispersión entre los actores del ecosistema: empresa focal, proveedores y complementadores. Hemos desarrollado un marco de capacidades de gestión de ecosistemas, que presenta las capacidades dinámicas como el vínculo central e impulsor del conjunto de capacidades de los ecosistemas, que incluyen las capacidades para la alineación de los ecosistemas, las capacidades para sostener el ecosistema, las capacidades para el crecimiento del ecosistema y las capacidades para el sostenimiento de las empresas en el ecosistema. Contribuimos a la literatura y la práctica de gestión al presentar una estructuración de capacidades para la gestión de ecosistemas, agrupadas en un marco que muestra las implicaciones de la presencia de diferentes capacidades en el ecosistema. También contribuimos presentando sugerencias para futuras investigaciones para cada grupo de capacidades.
Abstract The capabilities-based view is central to understanding ecosystems management. However, there is still a gap in the literature about the capabilities to manage ecosystems. This article aims to identify and map the capabilities applied to business ecosystems management. The methodology consisted of a systematic literature review gathering studies from Web of Science and Scopus databases. From 789 works analyzed, 89 connected capabilities and ecosystems. Content analysis was performed through coding, resulting in a cluster of 11 capabilities, one of which is dynamic and the other ten are operational. The results obtained include the identification, mapping and structuring of dynamic and operational capabilities for ecosystem management and their dispersion among ecosystem actors: focal firm, suppliers, and complementors. We have developed an ecosystem management capability framework, which presents dynamic capabilities as the central link and driver of the set of ecosystem capabilities, which include the capabilities for ecosystem alignment, the capabilities for sustaining the ecosystem, the capabilities for the growth of the ecosystem and the capabilities for sustaining companies in the ecosystem. The findings contribute to the management literature and practice by offering a structure of capabilities for ecosystem management, gathered in a framework that shows the implications of different capabilities in the ecosystem. In addition, the study presents suggestions for future research addressing each capability cluster.
•We investigated the phenomenon of firm heterogeneity among small farmers who were settlers of an agrarian reform project.•The profit-oriented small farmers have operated farms with better economic ...performances.•Off-farm income, access to rural credit, and access to marketing policy also affected farms’ performance.•Our results are relevant to the theoretical debate on heterogeneity, as well as to the design of land reform policies.
The main objective of this paper is to investigate the phenomenon of firm heterogeneity among entrepreneurs who started their business with a similar initial endowment. The information collected for analysis came from a unique sample of 105 small farmers, who were settlers of an agrarian reform project in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. These farmers were granted similar resources (plot of land, housing, and capital) in the 1980s. About thirty years later, they were observed to have different performances in terms of production value. This article provides a test of explanatory variables for their differing performance, under the lens of strategic orientation. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) was used to obtain economic efficiency scores as proxies for performance. These scores were used in a second-stage Tobit regression model, in which the effects of three strategic orientations (profit orientation, social network orientation, and innovation orientation) on farms’ efficiency were tested. The results revealed that efficiency scores ranged from 0.02 and to 1, with a mean of 0.646 and standard deviation of 0.29, showing that the economic performance among beneficiaries is heterogeneous. In the Tobit model, the parameter for “profit orientation” was significant to explain performance differentials, while the parameters for the other strategic orientations were not. Parameters for control variables “off-farm income”, “access to rural credit”, and “access to government price policy” were also significant. These results are relevant to the theoretical debate on heterogeneity, as well as to the design of land reform policies.
PDF
