The static and dynamic boundaries of
ecosystems: a systematic literature review
Jin Han1, Sandor Lowik2 and Petra de Weerd-Nederhof3
1
University of Twente, [email protected]
University of Twente, [email protected]
3
University of Twente, [email protected]
2
1 Research problems
Since the concept of “business ecosystems” coined by Moore (1993), followed with seminal works of Iansiti
and Levien (2004a, 2004b), the “ecosystems” has swiftly acquired lots of academic considerations especially
with the introduction of “innovation ecosystems” (Adner, 2006). Based on these works, numerous
researchers applied these concepts into different domains encompassing supply ecosystems, start-ups
ecosystems, software ecosystems, platform-based ecosystems etc. However, the findings these studies
produced have led to disparate definitions, widely-dispersed characterizations and a few metrics of
“ecosystems”. Further, distinctions between ecosystems and related concepts, such as alliances, networks
and communities is still ambiguous. Additionally, owing to unclear definitions and conceptualizations of
“ecosystems”, it is still difficult to develop practical guidelines to develop and maintain ecosystems. More
specifically, ambiguities about the concept’s boundaries give rise to the following problems.
Problem 1: Ecosystems, communities, supply chains and networks are four different interorganizational collaboration paradigms (Autio & Thomas, 2014). However, some researchers seem to use
this concepts interchangeably which makes it difficult to empirically evaluate an ecosystems’ performance.
This leads to our first research question.
Research question 1: What are the static boundaries between ecosystems and relevant concepts such as
communities and networks?
1
Problem 2: An ecosystem has its lifecycle from birth, expansion, leadership and renewal/dearth
(Moore, 1993). However, it can also emerge from an existing inter-organizational network. We need a clear
understanding of ecosystems’ boundaries to explain how this processes take place.
Problem 3: In practices, not all roles as defined by Iansiti & Levien (2004a), need to be present for a
successful ecosystem. Then, which role(s) is necessary for this success, and which one(s) is surplus?
Problem 4: In literature, there are different opinions or uses of business and innovation ecosystems.
Some studies regard these as the same, while others argue they are different. Above three problems leads to
the second research question.
Research question 2: What are the conceptual boundaries between business ecosystems and innovation
ecosystems?
Problem 5: Most studies put more focus on the role of large firms such as the initiators or focal firms in
an ecosystem (Adner, 2006). However, it is still unclear how non-focal firms especially SMEs and outsiders
leverage ecosystems to co-create value and co-capture value. Naturally, This leads to the third research
question.
Research question 3: What are the dynamic features of boundaries of ecosystems?
2 Literature review and research gaps
Previous literature reviews on the topic of “ecosystems” could be listed as follows. Oh et al. (2016) analysed
innovation ecosystems literature on its benefits and limitations critically and concluded that ecosystem was a
unclearly-defined concept. Another review by de Vasconcelos Gomes et al. (2016) resonated this by
differentiating between innovation and business ecosystems, which stimulated thoughts on exploring internal
boundaries of ecosystems to enhance research applicability. Autio and Thomas (2014) gave comprehensive
hints in explicating behavioural logics of ecosystems with which ecosystems’ dynamism was more
theoretically evident. Afterwards, Graça and Camarinha-Matos (2016) listed systematic indicators to
measure outcomes of the ecosystems’ dynamic processes.
In addition, Dedehayir et al. (2016) focused on the roles problems in an ecosystem at its genesis stage;
Manikas and Hansen (2013) and Manikas (2016) systematically focused on architectural problems within
software ecosystem framework. Additionally, based on above frameworks, Axelsson and Skoglund (2016)
2
offered a review for quality assurance strategies for sustaining software ecosystems.
Taken all together, these reviews have not addressed the problems of “boundaries of ecosystems”,
which provides an avenue for continued investigations.
3 Methodology
To answer our three research questions, we conducted a systematic literature review following suggestions
by Tranfield et al. (2003). This review adopted descriptive statistics and content analysis based on 128
papers. Figure 1 illustrates the stages of the review. We used the research strings of “innovate* ecosystem*”
and “business ecosystem*” as well as their synonymies to collect initial data. Then, we applied six exclusion
criteria concerning their topic, relevance and importantly citations belonging to one of three streams of
seminal works by Moore’s, Iansiti’s or Adner’s to refine the data set. Further, we added 12 papers which
were found relevant, but were not included in the initial searching results.
116 studies
Read the
articles
completely
YES
Select database
From Web of
science, Scopus
and Science direct
3498 studies
193 studies
Remove
duplicates
Apply 6 exclusion criteria
by reading titles, abstracts,
introduction and findings
Apply “content scope=titles, abstracts or keywords”,
“type=papers and reviews”, “time=1993-present” and
“discipline=business, management and social science”
Does the
article
match with
central
research
theme?
NO
Articles to
exclude
77 studies
Apply 2 inclusion
criteria: 1. papers
with frequent and
2. key citations about
theoretical bases
Final database
128 studies
Analyse and
identify
descriptive
features and
content features
Results and
conclusions
Implications
Figure 1. review stages
4 Findings
Static boundaries. This review tends to a) define the boundaries of an ecosystem as roles, referring to
consistent recognition and emotional coherence of participants. This intangible identification centres to the
extent that the quantity and magnitude of actors in an ecosystem are involved into the related activities; b)
define boundaries of an ecosystem as structures, referring to the origins, configuration and deployment of
governance. This endogenous view emphasizes which actors play which roles, how far the influence exerted
by participants on the ecosystem and how the governance is organized; c) define the boundaries of an
3
ecosystem as processes, referring to co-evolutionary trajectories of an ecosystem. Holistically, the
interactions among roles, structures and processes can depict the boundaries of ecosystems (See table 1).
Processes
Structures
Roles
Table 1. Prominent tags of ecosystems (simplified)
Factors
Ecosystems
Networks
Communities
Supply
chains
Incubators
Alliances
Focal firm(s)/platform
√
√
√
√
√
√
Interdependency
√
×
×
×
×
√
Co-specialization
√
×
×
√
×
√
Flexible modularity
√
×
×
×
×
×
Orchestration-alignment
fit
√
×
×
√
×
×
Value process
√
×
×
√
√
√
Shared vision
√
×
×
×
√
√
Co-evolution
√
×
×
×
×
×
Besides, we are likely to argue that conceptual boundaries between business and innovation ecosystems
have converged in their applicability with foundations of robust literature evidence.
Market
Performance
Relatively closed
Open
Open
Aligned value proposition
High value co-creation
Low value co-capture
Value proposition
Low value co-creation
Low value co-capture
Aligned value proposition
Highest value co-creation
High value co-capture
Aligned value proposition
Low value co-creation
Highest value co-capture
Birth
Expansion
Leadership
Renewal/death
Figure 2. Boundaries as roles, structures and processes
Dynamic features. The dynamism of ecosystems highlights the strategies adopted by an ecosystem’s actors
to face inside and(or) outside ambiguity. We also contend the dynamic features of ecosystems consist of a)
focal/initiated firms’ orchestration capabilities to construct and maintain an ecosystem, as well as b)
alignment capabilities of non-focal firms and new actors participating into, collaborating with and even exit
to an ecosystem. Thus, orchestration capabilities and alignment capabilities are determinants of boundaries
4
changings of an ecosystem in the processes. To highlight, in perspectives of wannabes, key members and
general actors, these dynamic features are more remarkable in early stages of an ecosystem. These are
presented by figure 2.
5 Implications
Our findings produce a set of factors related to roles, structures and processes to differentiate ecosystems
from other concepts (For problem 1, 2, 3). For empirical benefits, metric confusions to some extent can be
diminished by treating roles, structures and processes as three dominant measurement indicators (For
problem 1).
Besides, converging business ecosystems and innovation ecosystems into one will enhance theoretical
adaptability in different researching contexts (For problem 4).
As for industrial analysts, it would be performative if they consider the boundaries when constructing
and maintaining an ecosystem—the quantity and scope of the roles, internal governance structures and
evolving processes. The dynamic features of the boundaries at different stages present selective strategies for
SMEs to search for, join in, collaborate into and exit to an ecosystem (For problem 5).
6 References
ADNER, R. 2006. Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review,
84, 98.
AUTIO, E. & THOMAS, L. 2014. Innovation ecosystems: Implication for Innovation Management. The
Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management, 204-288.
AXELSSON, J. & SKOGLUND, M. 2016. Quality assurance in software ecosystems: A systematic literature
mapping and research agenda. Journal of Systems and Software, 114, 69-81.
DE VASCONCELOS GOMES, L. A., FACIN, A. L. F., SALERNO, M. S. & IKENAMI, R. K. 2016.
Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 1-19.
DEDEHAYIR, O., MäKINEN, S. J. & ORTT, J. R. 2016. Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: A
literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1-11.
GRAçA, P. & CAMARINHA-MATOS, L. M. 2016. Performance indicators for collaborative business
ecosystems—Literature review and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1-19.
IANSITI, M. & LEVIEN, R. 2004a. Creating value in your business ecosystem. Harvard Business Review,
3.
IANSITI, M. & LEVIEN, R. 2004b. Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82, 68-81.
5
MANIKAS, K. 2016. Revisiting software ecosystems research: a longitudinal literature study. Journal of
Systems and Software, 117, 84-103.
MANIKAS, K. & HANSEN, K. M. 2013. Software ecosystems–a systematic literature review. Journal of
Systems and Software, 86, 1294-1306.
MOORE, J. F. 1993. Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71, 7583.
OH, D.-S., PHILLIPS, F., PARK, S. & LEE, E. 2016. Innovation ecosystems: A critical examination.
Technovation, 54, 1-6.
6