Towards a Theory of Ecosystems

Abstract

Research Summary: The recent surge of interest in “ecosystems” in strategy research and practice has mainly focused on what ecosystems are and how they operate. We complement this literature by considering when and why ecosystems emerge, and what makes them distinct from other governance forms. We argue that modularity enables ecosystem emergence as it allows a set of distinct yet interdependent organizations to coordinate without full hierarchical fiat. We show how ecosystems address multilateral dependences based on various types of complementarities—supermodular or unique, unidirectional or bidirectional—which determine the ecosystem's value‐add. We argue that at the core of ecosystems lie nongeneric complementarities, and the creation of sets of roles that face similar rules. We conclude with implications for mainstream strategy and suggestions for future research. Managerial Summary: We consider what makes ecosystems different from other business constellations, including markets, alliances, or hierarchically managed supply chains. Ecosystems, we posit, are interacting organizations, enabled by modularity, not hierarchically managed, bound together by the nonredeployability of their collective investment elsewhere. Ecosystems add value as they allow managers to coordinate their multilateral dependence through sets of roles that face similar rules, thus obviating the need to enter into customized contractual agreements with each partner. We explain how different types of complementarities (unique or supermodular, generic or specific, uni‐ or bi‐directional) shape ecosystems and offer a “theory of ecosystems” that can explain what they are, when they emerge, and why alignment occurs. Finally, we outline the critical factors affecting ecosystem emergence, evolution, and success—or failure.

Re‐storying the Business, Innovation and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Concepts: The Model‐Narrative Review Method

“…We found supportive evidence of a widespread metaphorical use of the ecosystem term (Kuckertz 2019). Despite ongoing attempts to clarify the basic concepts related to ecosystems (Adner 2017;Anggraeni et al 2007;Autio and Thomas 2014;Autio et al 2018;Jacobides et al 2018;Peltoniemi 2006;Pilinkienė and Mačiulis 2014;Spigel 2017;Tsujimoto et al 2015;Valkokari 2015), our analysis reveals several new insights that help advance the conceptual clarity of the term. Despite ongoing attempts to clarify the basic concepts related to ecosystems (Adner 2017;Anggraeni et al 2007;Autio and Thomas 2014;Autio et al 2018;Jacobides et al 2018;Peltoniemi 2006;Pilinkienė and Mačiulis 2014;Spigel 2017;Tsujimoto et al 2015;Valkokari 2015), our analysis reveals several new insights that help advance the conceptual clarity of the term.…”

“…As Wright (2014) has stated, the business ecosystem plot also introduces key characters in the form of demand side, customers, consumers and end-users, which will largely be absent when we look at the plots seen in, for example, innovation ecosystem model-narratives. The plot remains silent on the content of the complex interactions in such co-opetition and the conflicts of interest involved (Jacobides et al 2018), and the fact that they depend on each other for their success and survival (Peltoniemi 2006). Leading the development of an ecosystem is a valuable thing, and a crucial aspect thereof is to acquire the leadership of the ecosystem through co-opetition (collaboration and competition) -to utilize outside resources beyond 'the boundaries and exclusive control of traditional business firms' (Muegge 2011, p. 4).…”

“…All streams are interested in the dilemmas of organizing collaboration, and even the most recent articles suggest that an ecosystem is a structure that can be managed, albeit not fully hierarchically controlled Jacobides et al 2018). The former two look at how (larger) firms can adapt to changes in the environment (business ecosystem) and lead the collaborative process to maintain a healthy ecosystem (innovation ecosystem).…”

“…While the quest for understanding the relationships and interactions within a (social) system is not unique to the ecosystem literature, ecosystem narratives have focused mainly on actors and the context in which actors operate (cf. Jacobides et al (2018Jacobides et al ( , p. 2259 note that 'few have specifically looked at the rules governing membership and relationships', and Mason and Brown (2014, p. 11) mention that 'entrepreneurial ecosystems are highly variegated, multi-actor and multi-scalar phenomenon which therefore requires bespoke policy interventions'. The importance of contexts has become a subject of increasing discussion, for example in the external enablers of entrepreneurship (e.g.…”

Entrepreneurship and the city

“…A prime example of productive collaborations or partnerships is the “triple helix” model for innovation, in which research facilities (such as universities), large firms, and the local state align toward creating business opportunities, particularly out of technological externalities (see Chinta & Sussan, ; Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, ; Saxenian, ). Besides the triple helix, a more general concept for such kind of capital‐based partnerships are “ecosystems” (Ács, Stam, Audretsch, & O'Connor, ; Jacobides, Cennamo, & Gawer, ), and also, there are project “ecologies” (Grabher, ; Grabher & Ibert, ). Regardless of the term used to define these productive collaborative contexts, all of them allude to institutional platforms for leveraging enterprise creation.…”