Value creation by knowledge‐based ecosystems: evidence from a field study

Abstract

A growing number of research and development‐driven companies are located in knowledge‐based ecosystems. Value creation by these ecosystems draws on the dynamics of single firms (interacting and partnering) as well as the ecosystem at large. Drawing on a field study of a Dutch high‐tech campus, two key sources of value creation are identified: (1) facilitation of the innovation process for individual companies and (2) creation of an innovation community. Furthermore, the coevolution of the ecosystem's business model with firm‐level business models explains why technology‐based firms join, stay in, or leave the ecosystem at a certain point in time. A remarkable finding is that ecosystem managers have to deliberately facilitate exit routes for companies that no longer fit the ecosystem in order to enhance and reinforce its business model. As such, this study suggests a dynamic capability perspective on knowledge‐based ecosystems that need to develop a business model at the ecosystem level to create sufficient innovative capacity and entrepreneurial fitness.

Beyond the water cooler: using socialization to understand use and impact of networking services on collaboration in a business incubator

“……it's very difficult to network in that kind of situation” (p. 372). In contrast, Van der Borgh et al () report the benefits of informal activities or services, “I like networking via the Business Lounge. It's easy to get into contact with other people and companies, so that one can identify with the high tech campus” (p. 160).…”

SMEs' Preference for Innovation Networks: A Choice Experimental Approach

“…In particular, they should not seek to follow ‘one‐size‐fits‐all recipes’ (Ebbekink & Lagendijk, ), but rather should try to assure the fit between the network's strategy and design – in terms of, for example, type of members, appropriability regimes and supports provided – with the type of firms, and in particular the innovation objectives and actual networking behaviour. In line with the findings of van der Borgh, Cloodt and Romme () to assure such a fit, policy makers and network managers are advised to engage in a close and continual dialogue not only with the potential but also the current network participants as their needs will most likely change over time.…”

“…We believe that these resource requirements are the driving force behind firms' choice both to join innovation networks in general and certain specific innovation networks in particular. Past research has shown that firms join innovation networks in order to learn and share experience, to gain novel ideas and information, to find potential partners for exchange and innovation, and to gain access to shared resources and facilities (Bessant et al., ; Paquin & Howard‐Grenville, ; Perry, ; van der Borgh, Cloodt & Romme, ). Still, to our knowledge, no studies has sought to explore the relation between the firm's decision to join a particular innovation network and its own profile.…”

“…The potential benefits that firms can retrieve from innovation networks do not only depend on the type of actors present in these networks but also on the type of support they provide. Similar to the role played by incubators and other intermediary organizations (e.g., Soetanto & Jack, ; Vanderstraeten & Matthyssens, ), innovation networks can create value for their members by offering access to facilities and services, stimulating new ways of interaction and creating new partnerships (van der Borgh, Cloodt & Romme, ).…”

“…Scholars suggest that the success of these policy approaches and innovation networks lies in the understanding of the local context, in particular the needs and expectations of the direct beneficiaries, i.e. the SMEs (Ebbekink & Lagendijk, , van der Borgh, Cloodt & Romme, ). It is assumed that innovation networks that meet SMEs' needs and expectations about benefits will survive longer than networks that fail to do so (Miller, Besser & Malshe, ).…”