Technology Ecosystem Governance

Wareham, Jonathan; Fox, Paul B.; Giner, Josep Lluís Cano

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2201688

Cited by 154 publications

(312 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

296

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although previous studies have emphasized the importance of paradox in stimulating innovation, the studies have mainly been in the context of a single firm (see Seo et al 2004;Smith et al 2010) or governance of the ecosystem (Smith and Lewis 2011;Wareham et al 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We apply these three tensions to knowledge management capabilities in order to develop propositions to increase the rate of innovation of the ecosystem. In doing so, we build on the work of Wareham et al (2014) that highlights the need to manage tensions in ecosystem governance, along with the study by Gebert et al (2010) that argues for harnessing the opposing forces inherent in team based innovation. We build on these extant studies by explicating the knowledge capabilities of the lead firm in the innovation ecosystem.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We build on the work of Wareham et al (2014) that discusses how to manage tensions in ecosystem governance, along with the study by Gebert et al (2010) that articulates how to manage the opposing forces inherent in team based innovation. In particular, we bring together the concept of tensions in ecosystem governance with team-based innovation and apply it to knowledge management capabilities of the lead firm in innovation ecosystems in order to develop our propositions.…”

Section: Knowledge and Innovation Ecosystemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies have examined the role of such lead firms in stimulating and shaping the ecosystem 4 (Adner and Kapoor 2010; Williamson and de Meyer 2012), as well as governance of the ecosystem (Smith and Lewis 2011;Wareham et al 2014). However, additional lead firm capabilities are required in order for such ecosystems to sense market shifts, create new knowledge, and respond to fast-changing environments (Prahalad and Krishnan 2008;Sanchez and Mahoney 1996;Tiwana 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We highlight how these three tensions need to be managed across the knowledge management capabilities in order to increase the rate of innovation of the ecosystem. In particular, we build on the work of Wareham et al (2014) that highlights the need to manage tensions in ecosystem governance, along with the study by Gebert et al (2010) that argues for harnessing the opposing forces inherent in team based innovation. We propose the use of open and 1 Leverage refers to the means by which firms generate an impact that is disproportionately larger than the input required in order to create value and, hence, competitive advantage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Knowledge management capabilities of lead firms in innovation ecosystems

Velu

2015

AMS Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge management is a key capability for innovation. Prior research has typically conceptualized and examined knowledge management capabilities as a property of an individual firm or business unit. More recently, however, the locus of competition and innovation has started to shift from the individual firm to firms working together as an ecosystem. In light of these changing realities, we explicate a set of capabilities that are built, maintained, and exercised by the lead firm in order to enhance innovation within ecosystems. We highlight three knowledge management capabilities: (1) knowledge acquisition, (2) knowledge sharing, and (3) knowledge utilization. Drawing on open and closed action strategies firms use to foster team-based innovation, we develop propositions for the knowledge management capabilities of the lead firm. Our approach highlights three salient tensions that arise from team based innovation: autonomy-control, dissent-consent and uncertainty-certainty. We highlight how the three tensions need to be managed across knowledge management capabilities in order to increase the rate of innovation of the ecosystem. In doing so, we contribute to the evolving marketing literature on sensing and responding in ecosystems in order to provide customers with superior value. We discuss the implications for both managers and theory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Knowledge and Innovation Ecosystemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Knowledge management capabilities of lead firms in innovation ecosystems

Velu

2015

AMS Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Strategic Entrepreneurial Internationalization: A Normative Framework

Autio

2017

Strat. Entrepreneurship J.

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research summary Much of the literature on international new ventures (INVs) focuses on early internationalization and views it as an expression of firm‐specific advantages that existed prior to internationalization. This article presents a normative framework that articulates how INVs can leverage internationalization to drive de novo competitive advantage. Drawing on the organizational capability and business model design literatures, the framework of strategic entrepreneurial internationalization (SEI) argues that INVs that adopt an active learning orientation, harness digital infrastructures for cross‐border business model experimentation, encapsulate cross‐border asymmetries in their activity system, and adopt a niche orientation are more likely to succeed in building sustainable competitive advantage. Managerial summary Internationalization can be used strategically to build competitive advantage in the firm and its business model. This is because internationalization exposes the firm to different markets and different competitive environments, therefore providing a potentially rich source of learning and capability development. However, competitive advantage does not automatically follow internationalization: managers of internationalizing new ventures must actively experiment with different business models in different markets to discover ones that work best. The firm also has to make an effort to distill the lessons learned from foreign markets and adjust its business model accordingly. Learning is more effective in narrow niches. Long‐term advantage can be ensured by cementing cross‐border advantages into the cross‐border operation. Copyright © 2017 Strategic Management Society

show abstract