Conference Agenda

Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).

 
Session Overview
Session
20-PM2-04: ST4.2 - Orchestrating Platforms Ecosystems
Time:
Thursday, 20/Jun/2019:
2:45pm - 4:15pm

Session Chair: Mark DE REUVER, Delft University of Technology (Netherlands)
Session Chair: Thierry ISCKIA, Institut Mines-Telecom Business School (France)
Location: Amphi Poisson

Session Abstract

Creating a digital platform to access and leverage the potential of an ecosystem is recognized as an effective strategy to achieve market success. Platforms help ecosystems reach new potential and create the conditions for the development of catalytic reactions between various partners that, because they interact with each other, affect the value a platform can create for each of them. The more innovative these partners are, the more vibrant the ecosystem will be, subject to facilitating the transformation of new ideas into new products or services that can be brought to market. Platform ecosystems are characterized by a flexible and scalable architecture of cooperation designed to leverage collective intelligence (Nambisan & Sawhney, 2007; Prandelli et al, 2008), illustrating the ability to reach objectives that go beyond what could be possibly achieved by a single company. This network-centric innovation approach (Nambisan & Sawhney, 2011) focuses on cultivating innovation and creativity, on making, connecting and experimenting with the aim of turning shared knowledge into new products and/or services. In the recent years, platform-based ecosystems (Ceccagnoli et al, 2012; Isckia & Lescop, 2013; Cennamo & Santaló, 2013; Isckia, 2011, Isckia & Lescop, 2015, Tiwana, 2014, Choudary et al, 2016; McIntyre & Srinivasan, 2017) which are a subset of business ecosystems (Koenig, 2013) became a « recurrent pattern of behaviour » (Allen, 1983) in terms of innovation.

These architectures of collaboration rely on an original approach of value creation which is based on multiple processes sequentially and/or simultaneously involving different actors, communities, activities and resources. As such, platform ecosystems implement a set of rules and governance mechanisms designed to facilitate the enrollment of independent actors in the pursuit of distributed, collaborative, and cumulative innovation. These institutional mechanisms (Sharapov, Thomas & Autio 2013, Thomas & Autio, 2014) are critical to the understanding of how platform-based ecosystems coordinate innovation efforts. The aim of this track is to go a step further in platform ecosystems analysis, focusing on orchestration processes i.e. how the keystone organization or platform leader ensures everyone's contribution throughout the platform's life cycle.


Show help for 'Increase or decrease the abstract text size'
Presentations

When do startups survive? Interactions among internal resources matter

Nicola Del Sarto, Alberto Di Minin, Giulio Ferrigno, Andrea Piccaluga

Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Italy

Context

Startups survival, Resourse Based View, QCA methodology

Literature

By analyzing the empirical literature that uses the RBV to study the influence of internal factors on start-up survival (Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo 2008) we noted that scholars have emphasized the importance of the following five internal resources: 1) R&D activity (Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo 2008; Yang et al. 2017); 2) advertising activity (Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo 2008); 3) export activity (Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo 2008); 4) human capital (Geroski et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2017); and 5) financial resources (Coleman et al. 2013; Yang et al. 2017

Literature Gap

The literature has underestimated whether synergistic interactions among these internal resources have an influence on startups survival (Yang et al. 2017). Several scholars building on RBV perspectives (Barney 1991; Wernerfelt 1984) argue that firms’ internal resources contribute to start-ups’ survival especially when they can be used in combinations.

Research Questions

Which interactions among which firms’ internal resources affect start-up survival?

Methodology

To address our research question we use a specific QCA technique named fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). First, this methodology allows us to analyze causal relationships between configurations or combinations of resources (internal resources) and an outcome of interest (i.e. survival of start-ups) (Ragin 2008; Schneider and Wagemann 2012). Second, QCA is receiving increasing attention from management (Kan et al. 2016; Rey-Martí et al. 2016) and innovation scholars (Kraus et al. 2018).

Empirical Material

We gathered information from all the Italian accelerators that accelerated a start-up cohort in 2013: B-Ventures, Luiss Enlabs, Nanabianca, Seedlab and iStarter. In September 2017 we developed an ad hoc questionnaire for this study, in which we asked several questions about the internal resources of the start-ups, including data on R&D activity, advertising activity, export activity, and human capital. Before sending the questionnaire, we contacted two accelerator managers in order to obtain useful feedback for our research and to validate our questionnaire. Subsequently, we revised the questionnaire and presented it to the 5 Italian accelerators active since 2013. In November 2017 we collected, through SurveyMonkey, answers to our questionnaire from the CEOs of 30 start-ups accelerated in 2013. We received 8 missing answers by telephone in December 2017.

The outcome of this procedure allowed us to gather information on 38 start-ups accelerated by the 5 accelerators. Information about these start-ups refer to 2013. To corroborate the accuracy of this information we also searched qualitative information from the Internet, such as news, data from corporate websites and specialized magazines and journals.

Results

From the results obtained from fsQCA we can state that the answer to our research question "Which interactions among which firms’ internal resources affect start-up survival?" is the combined interaction between export activity and human capital. On one hand, the interaction between these two resources amplifies the effect of the learning by exporting on start-up survival. In fact, highly qualified workers are able to process new knowledge accessed by the start-up through the export activity (Kotha et al. 2013). On the other hand, export activity provides the knowledge necessary to exploit the potential of qualified human capital

Contribution to Scholarship

First, we contributed to the RBV (Barney 1991; Wernerfelt 1984) by highlighting the importance of the combined use of internal resources for start-up survival (Newbert 2007).

Second, we also contributed to the literature on international trade (Eliasson et al. 2012; Esteve-Pérez and Mañez-Castillejo 2008). The presence of a high level of human capital temporally accelerates the positive effect of the learning by exporting mechanism on firm survival, thereby contributing to previous research that claimed longer periods of time (Esteve-Pérez et al. 2008; Greenaway and Kneller 2007).

Third, we contributed to the literature on human capital (Arribas and Vila 2007; Kungwansupaphan and Siengthai 2014) by showing that the presence of export activity amplifies the impact of human capital on start-up survival.

Contribution to Practice

Not yet provided

Fitness

This paper explores startups survival, which is one of the challenges of innovation. Moreover we explore such topic in the context of business accelerators, which are considered as by scholars (Puwels et al. 2016; Battistella et al. 2017) as an Open environment.

Bibliography

Acs, Z. J., & Szerb, L. (2007). Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy. Small Business Economics, 28(2-3), 109–122.

Agarwal, R., & Audretsch, D. B. (2001). Does entry size matter? The impact of the life cycle and technology on firm survival. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 49(1), 21–43.

Albornoz, F., Fanelli, S., & Hallak, J. C. (2016). Survival in export markets. Journal of International Economics, 102, 262–281.

Albort-Morant, G., & Oghazi, P. (2016). How useful are incubators for new entrepreneurs? Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2125–2129.

Audretsch, D. B. (2002). The Dynamic Role of Small Firms: Evidence from the US. Small Business Economics, 18(1-3), 13–40.

Audretsch, D. B., Segarra, A., & Teruel, M. (2014). Why don't all young firms invest in R&D? Small Business Economics, 43(4), 751–766.

Aversa, P., Furnari, S., & Haefliger, S. (2015). Business model configurations and performance: A qualitative comparative analysis in Formula One racing, 2005–2013. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(3), 655–676.

Baptista, R., Karaöz, M., & Mendonça, J. (2014). The impact of human capital on the early success of necessity versus opportunity-based entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 42(4), 831–847.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

Bates, T. (1990). Entrepreneur human capital inputs and small business longevity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 72(4), 551–559.

Beckman, C.M., Eisenhardt, K., Kotha, S., Meyer, A. & Rajagopalan, N. (2012). The role of the entrepreneur in technology entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(3), 203–206.

Belso-Martinez, J. A., Molina-Morales, F. X., & Mas-Verdu, F. (2013). Combining effects of internal resources, entrepreneur characteristics and KIS on new firms. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2079–2089.

Bernard, A. B., Eaton, J., Jensen, J. B., & Kortum, S. (2003). Plants and productivity in international trade. American Economic Review, 93(4), 1268–1290.

Block, J. H., Colombo, M. G., Cumming, D. J., & Vismara, S. (2018). New players in entrepreneurial finance and why they are there. Small Business Economics, 50(2), 239–250.

Boyer, T., & Blazy, R. (2014). Born to be alive? The survival of innovative and non-innovative French micro-start-ups. Small Business Economics, 42(4), 669–683.

Burton, M.D., & Beckman, C.M. (2007). Leaving a legacy: position imprints and successor turnover in young firms. American Sociological Review 72(2), 239–266.

Cabrer-Borrás, B., & Belda, P. R. (2018). Survival of entrepreneurship in Spain. Small Business Economics, 51(1), 265–278.

Cavusgil, S. T., & Knight, G. (2015). The born global firm: An entrepreneurial and capabilities perspective on early and rapid internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1), 3–16.

Clarysse, B., & Yusubova, A. (2014). Success factors of business accelerators. In Technology Business Incubation Mechanisms and Sustainable Regional Development, Proceedings.

Cohen, S., & Hochberg, Y.V. (2014). Accelerating startups: The Seed Accelerator Phenomenon. Available at SSRN.

Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

Coleman, S., Cotei, C., & Farhat, J. (2013). A resource-based view of new firm survival: new perspectives on the role of industry and exit route. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 18(1), 1350002.

Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., & Vivarelli, M. (2016). To be born is not enough: the key role of innovative start-ups. Small Business Economics, 47(2), 277–291.

Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2001). Technology-based entrepreneurs: does internet make a difference? Small Business Economics, 16(3), 177–190.

Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, F. J., & Woo, C. Y. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 371–395.

Criscuolo, P., Nicolaou, N., & Salter, A. (2012). The elixir (or burden) of youth? Exploring differences in innovation between start-ups and established firms. Research Policy, 41(2), 319–333.

Czarnitzki, D., & Toole, A. A. (2013). The R&D investment–uncertainty relationship: do strategic rivalry and firm size matter? Managerial and Decision Economics, 34(1), 15–28.

Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.

Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. G. (2003). The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 977-–990.

Devece, C., Peris-Ortiz, M., & Rueda-Armengot, C. (2016). Entrepreneurship during economic crisis: Success factors and paths to failure. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5366–5370.

D'souza, D. E., & McDougall, P. P. (1989). Third world joint venturing: a strategic option for the smaller firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(4), 19–34.

Ebert, T., Brenner, T., & Brixy, U. (2018). New firm survival: The interdependence between regional externalities and innovativeness. Small Business Economics, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0026-4.

Eklund, J., Levratto, N., & Ramello, G. B. (2018). Entrepreneurship and failure: two sides of the same coin? Small Business Economics, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0039-z.

Eliasson, K., Hansson, P., & Lindvert, M. (2012). Do firms learn by exporting or learn to export? Evidence from small and medium-sized enterprises. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 453–472.

Ericson, R., & Pakes, A. (1995). Markov-perfect industry dynamics: A framework for empirical work. The Review of Economic Studies, 62(1), 53–82.

Esteve-Pérez, S., & Mañez-Castillejo, J. A. (2008). The resource-based theory of the firm and firm survival. Small Business Economics, 30(3), 231–249.

Esteve-Pérez, S., Mañez-Castillejo, J. A., & Sanchis-Llopis, J. A. (2008). Does a “survival-by-exporting” effect for SMEs exist? Empirica, 35(1), 81–104.

Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180–1198.

Fiss, P. C., Sharapov, D., & Cronqvist, L. (2013) Opposites attract? Opportunities and challenges for integrating large-N QCA and econometric analysis. Political Research Quarterly 66(1),191–198.

Fornell, C., Mithas, S., Morgeson III, F. V., & Krishnan, M. S. (2006). Customer satisfaction and stock prices: High returns, low risk. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 3–14.

Galbreath, J. (2005). Which resources matter the most to firm success? An exploratory study of resource-based theory. Technovation, 25(9), 979–987.

Ganotakis, P. (2012). Founders’ human capital and the performance of UK new technology based firms. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 495–515.

Gartner, W. B., Frid, C. J., & Alexander, J. C. (2012). Financing the emerging firm. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 745–761.

Geroski, P. A. (1995). What do we know about entry? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(4), 421–440.

Geroski, P. A., Mata, J., & Portugal, P. (2010). Founding conditions and the survival of new firms. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 510–529.

Greenaway, D., & Kneller, R. (2007). Industry differences in the effect of export market entry: learning by exporting? Review of World Economics, 143(3), 416–432.

Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991). Trade, knowledge spillovers, and growth. European Economic Review, 35(2-3), 517–526.

Grossman, G.M., & Helpman E. (1993). Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Highfield, R., & Smiley, R. (1987). New business starts and economic activity: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 5(1), 51–66.

Hormiga, E., Batista‐Canino, R. M., & Sánchez‐Medina, A. (2011). The Impact of Relational Capital on the Success of New Business Start‐Ups. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(4), 617–638.

Hot Topics (2015). https://www.hottopics.ht/17202/100-leaders-of-top-tech-accelerators/ Accessed 01.05.2017.

Huggins, R., Prokop, D., & Thompson, P. (2017). Entrepreneurship and the determinants of firm survival within regions: human capital, growth motivation and locational conditions. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 29(3-4), 357–389.

Hult, G. T. M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). Does market orientation matter?: A test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 899–906.

Jindal, N., & McAlister, L. (2015). The impacts of advertising assets and R&D assets on reducing bankruptcy risk. Marketing Science, 34(4), 555–572.

Joshi, A., & Hanssens, D. M. (2004). Advertising spending and market capitalization. MSI Report, (04-110).

Kan, A. K. S., Adegbite, E., El Omari, S., & Abdellatif, M. (2016). On the use of qualitative comparative analysis in management. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1458–1463.

Kato, M., Okamuro, H., & Honjo, Y. (2015). Does Founders' Human Capital Matter for Innovation? Evidence from Japanese Start‐ups. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 114–128.

Kotha, R., George, G., & Srikanth, K. (2013). Bridging the mutual knowledge gap: Coordination and the commercialization of university science. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 498–524.

Kraus, S., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Schüssler, M. (2018). Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in entrepreneurship and innovation research–the rise of a method. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(1), 15–33.

Lee, S. Y., Florida, R., & Acs, Z. (2004). Creativity and entrepreneurship: A regional analysis of new firm formation. Regional Studies, 38(8), 879–891.

Lin, P. C., & Huang, D. S. (2008). Technological regimes and firm survival: Evidence across sectors and over time. Small Business Economics, 30(2), 175–186.

Mas-Verdú, F., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2015). Firm survival: The role of incubators and business characteristics. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 793–796.

Mata, J., & Portugal, P. (2002). The survival of new domestic and foreign‐owned firms. Strategic Management Journal, 23(4), 323-343.

Mian, S., Lamine, W., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Technology business incubation: An overview of the state of knowledge. Technovation, 50, 1–12.

Mudambi, R., & Zahra, S. A. (2007). The survival of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(2), 333–352.

Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource‐based view of the firm: an assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28(2), 121–146.

Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van Hove, J. (2016). Understanding a new generation incubation model: The accelerator. Technovation, 50, 13–24.

Pennings, J. M., Lee, K., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (1998). Human capital, social capital, and firm dissolution. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 425–440.

Picken, J. C. (2017). From startup to scalable enterprise: Laying the foundation. Business Horizons, 60(5), 587–595.

Porter, M. E. (1980). Industry structure and competitive strategy: Keys to profitability. Financial Analysts Journal, 36(4), 30–41.

Ragin, C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative methods. Berkeley: University of California.

Ragin, C. (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Ragin, C. C. (2006). How to lure analytic social science out of the doldrums: Some lessons from comparative research. International Sociology, 21(5), 633–646.

Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ramaswami, S. N., Srivastava, R. K., & Bhargava, M. (2009). Market-based capabilities and financial performance of firms: insights into marketing’s contribution to firm value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 97–116.

Salomon, R. M., & Shaver, J. M. (2005). Learning by exporting: new insights from examining firm innovation. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 14(2), 431–460.

Sapienza, H. J., Autio, E., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). A capabilities perspective on the effects of early internationalization on firm survival and growth. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 914–933.

Sarasvathy, S. D., Menon, A. R., & Kuechle, G. (2013). Failing firms and successful entrepreneurs: Serial entrepreneurship as a temporal portfolio. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 417–434.

Schäfer, D., & Talavera, O. (2009). Small business survival and inheritance: evidence from Germany. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 95–109.

Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2010). Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 397–418.

Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schwartz, M. (2013). A control group study of incubators’ impact to promote firm survival. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(3), 302–331.

Semrau, T., & Hopp, C. (2016). Complementary or compensatory? A contingency perspective on how entrepreneurs’ human and social capital interact in shaping start-up progress. Small Business Economics, 46(3), 407–423.

Sperber, S., & Linder, C. (2018). Gender-specifics in start-up strategies and the role of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-9999-2.

Stearns, T. M., Carter, N. M., Reynolds, P. D., & Williams, M. L. (1995). New firm survival: industry, strategy, and location. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 23–42.

Strotmann, H. (2007). Entrepreneurial survival. Small Business Economics, 28(1), 87–104.

Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463.

Sui, S., & Baum, M. (2014). Internationalization strategy, firm resources and the survival of SMEs in the export market. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(7), 821–841.

Tavassoli, S., & Carbonara, N. (2014). The role of knowledge variety and intensity for regional innovation. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 493–509.

Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review, 40(3), 55–79.

Thornhill, S., & Amit, R. (2003). Learning about failure: Bankruptcy, firm age, and the resource-based view. Organization Science, 14(5), 497–509.

Ugur, M., Trushin, E., Solomon, E., & Guidi, F. (2016). R&D and productivity in OECD firms and industries: A hierarchical meta-regression analysis. Research Policy, 45(10), 2069–2086.

Van Praag, C. M. (2003). Business survival and success of young small business owners. Small Business Economics, 21(1), 1–17.

Wagner, S., & Cockburn, I. (2010). Patents and the survival of Internet-related IPOs. Research Policy, 39(2), 214–228.

Weiblen, T., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2015). Engaging with startups to enhance corporate innovation. California Management Review, 57(2), 66–90.

Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., DeTienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. S. (2010). Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial exit: Divergent exit routes and their drivers. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(4), 361–375.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

Westhead, P., Wright, M., & Ucbasaran, D. (2001). The internationalization of new and small firms: A resource-based view. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(4), 333–358.

Yang, C., Bossink, B., & Peverelli, P. (2017). High-tech start-up firm survival originating from a combined use of internal resources. Small Business Economics, 49(4), 799–824.



Cross-Company Interdependencies: The Effects of Business Model Innovation in IIoT-based Platform Ecosystems

Tobias Pauli1, Erwin Fielt2, Martin Matzner1

1FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany; 2Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Context

The Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) is transforming the business models of manufacturing companies. Additionally, IIoT innovations often serve as platforms for other actors to develop complementary solutions. This creates the necessity for a consideration of business model innovation transcending the firm level and including other actors in the ecosystem.

Literature

The paper follows the business ecosystem perspective of Adner and Kapoor (2010) where an ecosystem is described to consist of a focal firm, suppliers, customers and complementors all interacting with each other to generate a focal value proposition (Adner, 2017). A specific form of ecosystem is the platform-ecosystem. Gawer & Cusumano (2014, p. 418) state that platforms are “products, services, or technologies that […] provide the foundation upon which outside firms (organized as a “business ecosystem”) can develop their own complementary products, technologies, or services”. Business models consist of several interdependent elements (Zott et al., 2011). As the platform definition already suggests, there are certain non-generic complementarities in ecosystems, which lead to interdependencies between the actors involved (Jacobides et al., 2018). In ecosystems, as a conclusion, interdependencies are not confined to elements of a single firm’s business model but spread to the other actors’ business models.

Literature Gap

An ecosystem view is not considerably reflected in research on business models so far (Mason and Spring, 2011). Thus it seems necessary to extend the business model concept with regard to the interdependencies in ecosystems, especially from the perspective of business model innovation and the effects of co-evolving business models.

Research Questions

Which interdependencies are there between the business models of actors in an IIoT-based platform ecosystem?

How should business models in such an ecosystem be arranged in order to achieve fit while innovating and how does this evolve over time?

Methodology

Our work follows a conceptual approach, drawing on literature in the areas of business models, business model innovation, ecosystems, networks and platforms to derive new insights and theoretical as well as practical contributions.

Empirical Material

Not relevant.

Results

We develop and present a framework of business model interdependencies that enables researchers as well as practitioners to systematically consider the effects of a focal IIoT-based innovation not only on a firm level but on an ecosystem level. To this end, we identify the generic structure of IIoT platform ecosystems. Furthermore, we show how the business models of actors in such ecosystems are connected and thus influence each other in the context of business model innovation.

Contribution to Scholarship

Although research on both business models and ecosystems has gained significant traction in the last several years, there is still a lack of research and understanding at the intersection of the two topics (Benkenstein et al., 2017; Zott and Amit, 2013). Due to the increasing relevance of ecosystems and the various opportunities for innovative business models offered by the capabilities of the IIoT, our research aims to narrow this research gap. By providing a framework for the analysis of business model interdependencies on different levels, we integrate the two concepts of business models and ecosystems in an IIoT-context. Thus, we broaden the notion of interdependencies of business model elements by expanding the scope from a single business model to multiple business models across interacting firms. Our approach can offer guidance for other researchers to grasp the current shifts in value creation and value capture in ecosystems in a holistic way.

Contribution to Practice

Our framework enables firms which are currently developing new market offerings based on the capabilities of the IIoT to anticipate the effects of their innovation activities on other actors and thus to approach and align them well in advance or reconceptualize the planned innovation. Moreover, it offers practitioners a tool to systematically consider these effects not only on a firm level but on an ecosystem level. Therefore, we are enabling managers to anticipate emerging opportunities for new business models and thus to react at an early point in time to capture a bigger piece of the growing “value-pie”.

Fitness

Research and development is increasingly moving away from just product development towards designing business models. As reflected in 4 tracks related to the topic, ecosystems are gaining significant traction in research and practice. Combining business models and ecosystems in a platform context, the paper fits especially track 4.2 very well.

Bibliography

Adner, R. (2017). “Ecosystem as Structure: An Actionable Construct for Strategy.” Journal of Management 43 (1), 39–58.

Adner, R. and R. Kapoor (2010). “Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations.” Strategic Management Journal 31 (3), 306–333.

Benkenstein, M., M. Bruhn, M. Büttgen, C. Hipp, M. Matzner, and F. W. Nerdinger (2017). “Topics for Service Management Research – A European Perspective.” Journal of Service Management Research 1 (1), 4–21.

Gawer, A. and M. A. Cusumano (2014). “Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 31 (3), 417–433.

Jacobides, M. G., C. Cennamo and A. Gawer (2018). “Towards a theory of ecosystems.” Strategic Management Journal 39 (8), 2255–2276.

Mason, K., and M. Spring (2011). “The sites and practices of business models.” Industrial Marketing Management 40 (6), 1032–1041.

Zott, C., R. Amit, and L. Massa (2011). “The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Re-search.” Journal of Management 37 (4), 1019–1042.

Zott, C., and R. Amit (2013). “The business model: A theoretically anchored robust construct for stra-tegic analysis.” Strategic Organization 11 (4), 403–411.



Ecosystems: A systematic literature review on challenges in innovation ecosystems

Yovin SADASING

Toulouse School of Management (TSM), Université Toulouse Capitole, France

Context

In the contemporary business environment, where innovation is increasingly viewed as a collective process, there is a growing interest from both practitioners and scholars in ecosystems as a model for value co-creation, achieving innovation and value appropriation.

Literature

Ecosystems are networks of autonomous interacting firms contributing to the deliverance of value propositions. Members, interactions based on interdependency and complementarity, are engaged in coopetition for value co-creation and appropriation (Iansiti & Levien; 2004; Moore; 1993).

Even though ecosystem construct faces critics relative to existing concepts, there is a growing number of contributions from different research streams exploring themes such as interdependency, platform design and management, knowledge generation, inception and growth of ecosystems, entrepreneurship, disruptive technologies or linking open-innovation and ecosystems (Adner & Kapoor; 2010; Cusumano & Gawer, 2002; Isckia, 2009; Tiwana, Konsynski & Bush, 2010).

However, this literature is fragmented with overlapping constructs, “quasi-similar” definitions, different units of analysis and somehow “vague” boundaries. While the lack of consensus and divergence can appear as signs of richness, it leads to confusion and efforts dissipation of research. The may prevent knowledge accumulation and progress for a nascent research field like ecosystem.

Literature Gap

Ecosystem literature requires consolidation and integration to advance understanding of the phenomena. While there are some attempts to critically organize it (platforms, ecosystems emergence, business to innovation ecosystems, entrepreneurial ecosystems, innovation ecosystems and systems innovation), these reviews are conducted by researchers who may be influenced by their background and affinities.

Research Questions

This multiplication of reviews creates fragmentation, hampering the understanding of the phenomena, its complexities and complementarities. These multiple efforts remain silent regarding an important issue: the ecosystem challenges and their management.

Hence, this paper addresses the research question: What do we know about challenges in innovation ecosystems and their management?

Methodology

For the systematic literature review process (1993-2018), keywords “ecosystem*” and “eco-system*” were used to extract articles from Web of Science database. The result is 3331 articles belonging to business, economics and management categories. Articles classified in Harzing’s 2018 list from related articles category, which were relevant and studying in depth the ecosystem concept, were considered. There were two levels of analysis: understanding the overarching concept of ecosystem and distinguishing among the various constructs and the challenges and their management. The screening process resulted in 74 relevant papers specifically dedicated to innovation ecosystems and to the analysis of the related challenges.

Empirical Material

Systematic literature review Web of Science 1993-2018

Results

The business ecosystem (Iansiti & Levien; 2004; Moore, 1993) has been classified as an umbrella construct to entrepreneurial (Acs, Stam, Audretsch & O’Connor, 2017), knowledge (Cayannis & Campbell, 2009) and innovation ecosystems’ sub-concepts. I distinguish between the different types, their objectives and boundaries. Different ecosystems definitions utilised by different scholars are highlighted

The innovation ecosystem was further differentiated as either firm-centric or value-centric. The unit of analysis of the latter is the value proposition or innovation (Adner & Kapoor, 2010). The firm centric is distinguished as platform-based (Cennamo & Santalo, 2013; Isckia, 2009) or non-platform-based (Ansari, Garud & Kurasawmy, 2016; Pierce 2009) where the unit of analysis is respectively the platform and focal firm. The majority of the articles have adopted a firm-centric approach and most of the studies are in the high-tech and ICT sectors.

Further, I highlight the different challenges encountered in the value-centric and firm-centric innovation ecosystems’ approaches. The managerial approach adopted by firms, whenever available, has been reviewed. Some challenges are distinctive to some specific innovation ecosystem type(s), whereas some of the challenges are common. This review provides consolidation and integration of the value-centric and firm-centric challenges and their management to enhance ecosystem’s management.

Contribution to Scholarship

The research offers an organizing framework to navigate the ecosystem’s landscape and particularly on innovation ecosystems to understand the various related challenges and their management for innovative firms. The innovation ecosystems were distinguished as being either firm-centric (platform-based and non-platform-based) and value centric relative to the unit of analysis. This research identifies the limitations of the existing works and suggests opportunities for future research.

Contribution to Practice

This article explains the different challenges related to innovating in an ecosystem’s era and offer an organizing framework that helps their identification and management. The organizing framework suggested aims to inform manager's about the challenges and the managerial decisions for innovation within ecosystems.

Fitness

This paper contributes to this year’s theme as the systematic literature review provides clarity on the different ecosystem constructs and synthetizes the different challenges within innovation ecosystems and their management. Furthermore, it may complement other articles within the special track (Theme 4: Ecosystems), namely Track 4.2 (Orchestrating platform ecosystems).

Bibliography

Acs, Z. J., Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Szerb, L. (2018). Entrepreneurship, institutional economics, and economic growth: an ecosystem perspective. Small Business Economics, 51(2), 501–514.

Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 303–333.

Ansari, S., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2016). The disruptor’s dilemma: TiVo and the US television ecosystem. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9), 1829–1853.

Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201.

Cennamo, C., & Santalo, J. (2013). Platform competition: Strategic trade‐offs in platform markets. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11), 1331–1350.

Cusumano, & Gawer. (2002). Platform leadership. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 51–59.

Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as Ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68–81.

Isckia, T. (2009). Amazon’s evolving ecosystem: A cyber-bookstore and application service provider. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 26(4), 332–343.

Moore. (1993). Predators and Prey: A new ecology fo competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.

Tiwana, Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. . (2010). Research commentary—Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 675–687.

Acs, Z. J., Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Szerb, L. (2018). Entrepreneurship, institutional economics, and economic growth: an ecosystem perspective. Small Business Economics, 51(2), 501–514.

Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 303–333.

Ansari, S., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2016). The disruptor’s dilemma: TiVo and the US television ecosystem. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9), 1829–1853.

Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201.

Cennamo, C., & Santalo, J. (2013). Platform competition: Strategic trade‐offs in platform markets. Strategic Management Journal, 34(11), 1331–1350.

Cusumano, & Gawer. (2002). Platform leadership. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 51–59.

Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as Ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68–81.

Isckia, T. (2009). Amazon’s evolving ecosystem: A cyber-bookstore and application service provider. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 26(4), 332–343.

Moore. (1993). Predators and Prey: A new ecology fo competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.

Tiwana, Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. . (2010). Research commentary—Platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 675–687.



Intellectual property rights as tools for managing openness and appropriation strategies within platform-based ecosystems

Cécile Ayerbe, Amel Attour

Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS, GREDEG, France

Context

This article deals with the increasing development of innovations within platform-based ecosystems (Teece, 2018). Innovation platforms are at the cornerstone of the digital economy and reinforce challenging issues related to common creation and value capture. Among these issues the management of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) appears as a key element.

Literature

In this paper, two main bodies of literature are investigated to deal with the management of IPRs within platform-based ecosystems.

The first one is clearly related to the ecosystem literature and the way it addresses IPRs related questions. This body of research is mostly based on the « tade-off » approach which refers to the openness versus control dilemma by the platform-owning firm. The main references are the following : Boudreau (2010), Gawer and Cusumano (2002), Cegganoli et al. (2012), Gawer (2014), Evans and Gawer (2016), Holgersson (2017), Einsenmann et al. (2011).

The second is a broader one referring to the management of IPRs within Open Innovation contexts. In the line of Chesbrough’s seminal works, this literature specifically deals with IPRs as an instrument for knowledge sharing and value capture. The main references here are the following : Chesbrough (2003), Chesbrough and Bogers (2014), Teece (2018).

Literature Gap

The literature does not clearly outline how IPRs play an orchestration role both for the creation and value capture. Most of the works have focused on the appropriablity dimension and miss to develop a comprehensive approach of IP as orchestration tool in these specific ecosystems.

Research Questions

« How do IPRs enable the orchestration of innovation within platform-based ecosystems ? ».

The objective is to put the emphasis on how the literature has considered IP as orchestration mechanisms among the various actors (and not only the platform-owner which is the focus of attention in the dedicated trade-off literature).

Methodology

This paper is a theoretical one. The objective is to provide an overview of the relevant literature and bring together the platform-based boby of research with the Open Innovation one in order to deal with orchestration through IPRs issues.

Empirical Material

No relevant

Results

No relevant

Contribution to Scholarship

This paper is a comprehensive theoretical analysis of the existing literature which has poorly put in perspective two main bodies of research. Thanks to this complementary theoretical analysis, the main contribution of this paper is to highlight that IPRs’ are a key tool of orchestration in platform-based ecosystems at various stages. Indeed, IPRs are studied in extistent literature as a tool securizing or impacting innovation result. By considering their roles through the life cycle of the ecosystem, the paper aims to show that IPR aren’t only a mechanism to appropriate or secure the returns from innovation but a knowledge process facilitating the ecosystem’s innovation trajectory. The paper also outlines that the intensity of IPRs’ role varies according to the type of platform : transactionnal or innovation platform.

Contribution to Practice

This article is a theoretical one but has potential implications for managers of innovation within open contexts. It outlines the importance of IP as a management tool for openness. It also sheds light on specifc mechanisms to deal with background, foreground and sideground knowledge related to plateform-ecosystems innovation.

Fitness

This paper is linked to the track « orchestrating platform ecosystem ». The presentation of this track notabiy mentions that « the aim of this track is to go a step further in platform ecosystems analysis, focusing on orchestration processes ». This paper focuses on IPRs as orchestration tool.

Bibliography

Boudreau K. (2010), “Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control”, Management Science, Vol. 56, n°10, p.1849-1872.

Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D. J. (2012). Cocreation of Value in a Platform Ecosystem: The Case of Enterprise Software. MIS quarterly, 263-290.

Chesbrough H. (2003), Open Innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology, Harvard Business School Press.

Chesbrough H., Bogers M. (2014), “Explicating open innovation: clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation”, in: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke,W., West, J. (Eds.), New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Einsenmann T.R., Parker G., Van Alystyne M.W. (2011), “Platform envelopment”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.32, n°12, p.1270-1285.

Evans P.C., Gawer A., (2016), The rise of platform enterprise, The Center for Global Enterprise.

Gawer A., Cusumano M.A. (2012), “Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation”, DRUID 2012. CBS, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Gawer A., Henderson. R. (2007), “Platform Owner Entry and Innovation in Complementary Markets: Evidence from Intel”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16, n° 1, p. 1-34.

Gawer A., (2014), Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework, Research Policy, Vol. 43, Issue 7, Sep. P. 1239-1249

Holgersson M., Granstrand O., Bogers M., (2017), « The evolution of intellectual property strategy in innovation ecosystems: Uncovering complementary and substitute appropriability regimes », Long Range Planning, XXX, 1-17, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.08.0 07


Isckia T., Lescop D. (2013), “Platform-based Ecosystems: Leveraging Network Centric Innovation”, in Understanding Business Ecosystems: How Firms Succeed in the New World of Convergence, S. Ben Letaïfa, A. Gratacap and T. Isckia (eds),De Boeck, p.97-111.

Jacobides M.G., Cennamo C., Gawer A., (2018), Towards a theory of ecosystems, Strategic Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904

Leten B., Vanhaverbeke W., Roijakkers N., Clerix A., Van Helleputte J. (2013), “IP models to orechestrate innovation ecosystems: IMEC, a public research institute in nano-electronics”, California management review, Vol.55, n°4, summer 2013, p.51-64.

Rayna T., Striukova L., (2010), “ Large-Scale Open Innovation: Open Source vs. Patent Pools”, International Journal of Technology Management, N.3-4, p.477-496

Teece, D., (2018), « Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world », Research Policy, Vol. 47, Issue 8, 1367-1387

West J. (2003), “How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies”, Research policy, Vol.32, n°7, p.1259-1285.

Zobel, A.-K., Lokshin, B., Hagedoorn, J., 2017. “Formal and informal appropriation mechanisms: the role of openness and innovativeness”. Technovation. 59, 44-54.



 
Contact and Legal Notice · Contact Address:
Privacy Statement · Conference: R&D Management Conference 2019
Conference Software - ConfTool Pro 2.6.128+TC
© 2001 - 2019 by Dr. H. Weinreich, Hamburg, Germany