Ecosystem types: A systematic review on boundaries and goals

Cobben, Dieudonnee; Ooms, Ward; Roijakkers, Nadine; Radziwon, Agnieszka

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.046

Cited by 106 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 102 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These contradictions indicate not only how previous studies into knowledge ecosystems have focused only on content-related knowledge at the ecosystem level (Clarysse et al, 2014;Ja ¨rvi et al, 2018;Cobben et al, 2022) but also how crucial it is that ecosystem members develop their capabilities. Co-existing contradictory forces means dealing with paradoxes (Poole and Van de Ven, 1989;Lado et al, 2006;Smith and Lewis, 2011) in knowledge ecosystem organising.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The knowledge-based view has been linked to the development of ideas and described in conjunction with clusters. In a knowledge ecosystem, knowledge would develop, transform and be transferred to, and integrated into, parties (Cobben et al , 2022). Traditional discussions about knowledge ecosystems typically focus on actors rather than activities (Van der Borgh et al , 2012) and do not expand on how knowledge is processed or how the knowledge ecosystems are organised (Cobben et al , 2022).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Knowledge ecosystems have been studied in relation to regional start-ups (Clarysse et al , 2014), quadruple helix initiatives (Miller et al , 2016) and within organisations (Sharma and Bhattacharya, 2013) and related to practices in specified sectors or for specific solutions. Research has focused on the characterising traits and actor composition of knowledge ecosystems and how they transfer into business ecosystems (Clarysse et al , 2014), whereas research on how they should best be organised to accomplish set goals remains limited (Cobben et al , 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mechanisms of knowledge development in a knowledge ecosystem

Öberg

Lundberg²

2022

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Although ecosystems have been researched extensively over the past decade, we know little about how they should be organised. Focusing on a knowledge ecosystem comprising a university and a regional strategic network (RSN), this paper aims to describe and discuss the mechanisms for knowledge development in knowledge ecosystems. Design/methodology/approach This paper studies the integration of a university into a Swedish RSN. Data were collected through interviews with representatives of the university, the RSN and all firms comprising the RSN. A qualitative content analysis helped to detect mechanisms for knowledge development. Findings Two reinforcing mechanisms for knowledge development in the knowledge ecosystem are identified: structure and openness, which relate to insight and outlook, respectively. The findings also indicate a knowledge division, with the university representing the transfer of knowledge capabilities as a linear process, whereas the content-related knowledge is collaborative. Originality/value This paper contributes to research on knowledge ecosystems by describing how their organisation is based on a number of contradictions (structure and openness, insight and outlook, linearity and collaboration) to accomplish the development of knowledge capabilities and content-related knowledge.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mechanisms of knowledge development in a knowledge ecosystem

Öberg

Lundberg²

2022

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The management literature has recognized the importance of ecosystems in which numerous actors interact to collectively define and deliver an ecosystem‐level output that aims at meeting both shared and individual goals (Radziwon et al, 2017; Dattée et al, 2018; Jacobides et al, 2018). Ecosystems offer unique access to diverse resources, including knowledge, expertise, and technologies (Aarikka‐Stenroos and Ritala, 2017; Cobben et al, 2021). Increasingly, digital technologies and interfaces are used to bundle actors’ inputs in ecosystems (Thomas et al, 2014; Cusumano et al, 2019; Gawer, 2020).…”

Section: Four Levels Of Digital Transformationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, more research is needed to understand what the (intentional and unintentional) impacts of digital technology‐driven changes could have on ecosystems. All ecosystems are naturally heterogeneous in their actors, technologies, and institutional environments (Aarikka‐Stenroos and Ritala, 2017, Cobben et al, 2021); the impact of DT will therefore differ for each ecosystem. Some ecosystems, such as Facebook, are fundamentally born digital; they were built on the organizing principles of platform markets (Cennamo et al, 2020).…”

Section: The Multi‐level Research Agendamentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital transformation, for better or worse: a critical multi‐level research agenda

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For better or worse, digital technologies are reshaping everything, from customer behaviors and expectations to organizational and manufacturing systems, business models, markets, and ultimately society. To understand this overarching transformation, this paper extends the previous literature which has focused mostly on the organizational level by developing a multi-level research agenda for digital transformation (DT). In this regard, we propose an extended definition of DT as "a socioeconomic change across individuals, organizations, ecosystems, and societies that are shaped by the adoption and utilization of digital technologies." We suggest four lenses to interpret the DT phenomenon: individuals (utilizing and adopting digital technologies), organizations (strategizing and coordinating both internal and external transformation), ecosystems (harnessing digital technologies in governance and co-producing value propositions), and geopolitical frameworks (regulating the environments in which individuals and organizations are embedded). Based on these lenses, we build a multi-level research agenda at the intersection between the bright and dark sides of DT and introduce the PIAI framework, which captures a process of perception, interpretation, and action that ultimately leads to possible impact. The PIAI framework identifies a critical research agenda consisting of a non-exhaustive list of topics that can assist researchers to deepen their understanding of the DT phenomenon and provide guidance to managers and policymakers when making strategic decisions that seek to shape and guide the DT.

show abstract

Circular e‐waste ecosystems in necessity‐driven contexts: The impact of formal institutional voids

Derks,

Bidmon,

Ciulli

2024

Bus Strat Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies suggest an ecosystem view is most appropriate for understanding the impact of institutional voids on entrepreneurial activities. Expanding the focus to the entrepreneurial ecosystem is crucial for tackling complex low‐ and middle‐income countries' (LMICs) environmental challenges, as the transition to circular e‐waste management, which are heavily impacted by the institutional environment. Moreover, most entrepreneurs in LMICs engage in circular practices out of economic necessity, rather than environmental reasons. However, scholars have overlooked the effects of institutional voids on entrepreneurial ecosystems' potential to grow and realize environmental benefits. This study investigates how formal institutional voids impact the evolution of circular ecosystems in necessity‐driven contexts in LMICs. We study the evolution of a circular e‐waste ecosystem in Kenya and uncover two key phases: emergence and growth. We show that formal institutional voids' impact differs across phases; regulatory and contract enforcement voids create opportunities for informal and private actors to establish e‐waste collection, repair, remanufacture, and recycle businesses, thereby facilitating the emergence of the circular ecosystem. However, labor market, capital market, product market, regulatory, and contract enforcement voids hamper its growth. Specifically, the lack of skills, equipment, guidelines, and financial incentives hinders advanced repairs and remanufactures and limits recycling opportunities, while the lack of formal e‐waste infrastructure increases illegal dumping and negatively impacts human health and the environment. We develop propositions and a phase model to explain the impact of formal institutional voids on the evolution of circular e‐waste ecosystems and the realization of environmental benefits in necessity‐driven contexts.

show abstract

Ecosystem types: A systematic review on boundaries and goals

Cited by 106 publications

References 102 publications

Mechanisms of knowledge development in a knowledge ecosystem

Mechanisms of knowledge development in a knowledge ecosystem

Digital transformation, for better or worse: a critical multi‐level research agenda

Circular e‐waste ecosystems in necessity‐driven contexts: The impact of formal institutional voids

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About