Understanding Business Ecosystems
Thus, the main purpose of this book is twofold. On the one hand, the
objective is to identify the epistemological and theoretical fundamentals of
business ecosystems, and on the other hand, the purpose is to analyse the
various managerial challenges. This volume analyses in particular the issues
of knowledge management, coopetition strategies, platforms, governance,
etc.
Understanding Business Ecosystems: How Firms Succeed in the New World of
Convergence? is finally a key reference book that innovates by integrating
for the first time well known French speaking scholars’ contributions from the
strategy and innovation management fields.
Soumaya Ben Letaifa
is an associate Professor of Strategy at the Management School of Université
du Québec à Montréal. Her research and teaching focus on new paradigms
in marketing and strategy and on connecting the macro, the mezzo and the
micro levels of business relationships in global and local contexts. More specifically,
she explores B2B relationships far beyond the traditional buyer-seller dyad to grasp the
complexity of interactions and networks of actors.
Anne Gratacap
studied at the École Normale Supérieure. She is Professor of strategic
management in University of Paris 1 Pantheon – Sorbonne. She co-manages
M2 Commercial Strategy and the Negotiation Policy unit. Her research into
corporate strategy concerns the role played by Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) in the reconfiguration of organizations and corporate strategies.
Soumaya BEN LETAIFA, Anne GRATACAP, Thierry ISCKIA (éd.)
Understanding Business Ecosystems: How Firms Succeed in the New World
of Convergence? builds on strategic management and innovation
management academic contributions to better understand theoretical
and empirical challenges of business ecosystems. Even if the concept of
business ecosystem was coined in 1993, it will lie fallow during more than ten
years before gaining scholars’ interest. Managers will however recognize the
relevance of this concept as it grasps the complexity of their business reality
in terms of new collaborative and innovative strategies.
Understanding Business Ecosystems
How Firms Succeed in the New World of Convergence?
MANAGEMENT
Soumaya BEN LETAIFA, Anne GRATACAP,
Thierry ISCKIA (éd.)
Understanding
Business
Ecosystems
How Firms Succeed in the New World
of Convergence?
Foreword by Yvon Pesqueux
Thierry Isckia
is full-time Professor of strategic management in Telecom école de
Management (Institut Mines-Telecom), Director of the Master in Strategic
Management. His research interests are in strategic management, innovation
management and knowledge management. His current research investigates business
ecosystems and/or network-centric innovation, knowledge-based inter-organizational
collaborations and platform-based innovation management.
We thank the authors who contributed to the writing of this book:
Marie Carpenter, Nabyla Daidj, Valérie Fautrero, Mickael Géraudel, Gaël Gueguen,
Gérard Koenig, Denis Lescop, Elena Lescop, Thomas Loilier, Magali Malherbe, Xavier Parisot
et David Salvetat.
BUSECO
ISBN978-2-8041-7676-1
ISSN
1781-4944
BUSECO-cov.indd 1-3
www.deboeck.com
5/09/13 09:55
Understanding
Business
Ecosystems
How Firms Succeed in the New World
of Convergence?
BUSECO-pgtitre.indd 1
5/09/13 09:51
This series follows a dual objective:
• T o present complete states of art on contemporary researches themes
but also practical, of interest and with international level.
• T o bring together authors and readers from various disciplines (economists, managers, psychologists and sociologists ...) and help them
communicate with each others.
Christophe Assens, Le management des réseaux. Tisser du lien social pour le bien-être
économique
Rémi Barré, Bastiaan de Laat, Jacques Theys (sous la direction de), Management de la
recherche. Enjeux et perspectives
Nicole Barthe, Jean-Jacques Rosé (sous la direction de), RSE. Entre globalisation et
développement durable
Emmanuel Bayle, Jean-Claude Dupuis (sous la direction de), Management des entreprises de l’économie sociale et solidaire. Identités plurielles et spécificités
Maxime Bellego, Patrick Légeron, Hubert Ribéreau-Gayon (sous la direction de),
Les risques psychosociaux au travail. Les difficultés des entreprises à mettre en place
des actions de prévention
Soumaya Ben Letaifa, Anne Gratacap, Thierry Isckia (Éd.), Understanding Business
Ecosystems. How Firms Succeed in the New World of Convergence?
Michelle Bergadaà, Marine Le Gall-Ely, Bertrand Urien (sous la direction de),
Don et pratiques caritatives
Jean-Pierre Bouchez, L’économie du savoir. Construction, enjeux et perspectives
Denis Cristol, Catherine Laizé, Miruna Radu Lefebvre (sous la direction de),
Leadership et management. être leader, ça s’apprend !
Nathalie Delobbe, Olivier Herrbach, Delphine Lacaze, Karim Mignonac
(sous la direction de), Comportement organisationnel - Vol. 1. Contrat
psychologique, émotions au travail, socialisation organisationnelle
Xavier Deroy (sous la direction de), Formes de l'agir stratégique
Michel Dion (sous la direction de), La criminalité financière. Prévention, gouvernance et
influences culturelles
Assâad El Akremi, Sylvie Guerrero, Jean-Pierre Neveu (sous la direction de),
Comportement organisationnel - Vol. 2. Justice organisationnelle, enjeux
de carrière et épuisement professionnel
Alain Finet (sous la direction de), Gouvernance d’entreprise. Nouveaux défis financiers
et non financiers
Anne Gratacap, Alice Le Flanchec (sous la direction de), La confiance en gestion.
Un regard pluridisciplinaire
Denis Guiot, Bertrand Urien (sous la direction de), Comprendre le consommateur âgé.
Nouveaux enjeux et perspectives
Alain Maes, Le management intégrateur. Fondements, méthodes et applications
Denis Monneuse, Le surprésentéisme. Travailler malgré la maladie
Jean-Jacques Rosé (sous la direction de), Responsabilité sociale de l'entreprise.
Pour un nouveau contrat social
Jacques Rojot, Patrice Roussel, Christian Vandenberghe (sous la direction de),
Comportement organisationnel - Vol. 3. Théories des organisations, motivation au
travail, engagement organisationnel
Patrice Roussel, Frédéric Wacheux (sous la direction de), Management des ressources
humaines. Méthodes de recherche en sciences humaines et sociales
Sylvie Saint-Onge, Victor Haines (sous la direction de), Gestion des performances au
travail. Bilan des connaissances
Laurent Taskin et Matthieu de Nanteuil (sous la direction de), Perspectives critiques en
management. Pour une gestion citoyenne
Sylvie Trosa, La crise du management public. Comment conduire le changement ?
Bénédicte Vidaillet, Véronique d'Estaintot, Philippe Abecassis (sous la direction de),
La décision. Une approche pluridisciplinaire des processus de choix
Saïd Yami, Frédéric Le Roy (sous la direction de), Stratégies de coopétition. Rivaliser
et coopérer simultanément
BUSECO-pgtitre.indd 2
5/09/13 09:51
Soumaya BEN LETAIFA, Anne GRATACAP,
Thierry ISCKIA (éd.)
Understanding
Business
Ecosystems
How Firms Succeed in the New World
of Convergence?
Foreword by Yvon Pesqueux
BUSECO-pgtitre.indd 3
5/09/13 09:51
For further information about our catalogue and new titles in your field, visit
our website: www.deboeck.com
©De Boeck Supérieur s.a., 2013
Rue des Minimes 39, B-1000 Bruxelles
1th édition
All rights reserved for all countries. The reproduction, storage or communication, in
any form or on any medium, of all or parts of this book is forbidden unless prior written consent of the publisher.
Printed in Belgium
National Library, Paris, september 2013
Royal Belgian Library, Brussels: 2013/0074/044
BUSECO-pgtitre.indd 4
ISSN 1781-4944
ISBN 978-2-8041-7676-1
5/09/13 09:51
Biographies
Soumaya BEN LETAIFA is an associate professor of Strategy at
the Management School of Université du Québec À Montréal.
Her research and teaching focus on new paradigms in marketing and strategy (open innovation, coopetition, business ecosystems, service-dominant logic) and on connecting the macro,
the meso and the micro levels of business relationships in global and local contexts.
More specifically, she explores B2B relationships far beyond the traditional buyerseller dyad to grasp the complexity of interactions and networks of actors (including Governments, citizens, universities and all stakeholders involved in the value
co-creation process). She is an expert of ecosystem theory and is regularly invited
as a key speaker.
Anne GRATACAP studied at the Ecole Normale Supérieure. She
is Professor of strategic management in University of Paris 1
Pantheon — Sorbonne. She co-manages M2 Commercial Strategy and the Negotiation Policy unit. Her research into corporate strategy concerns the role played by Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the reconfiguration of
organizations and corporate strategies.
Thierry ISCKIA is full-time Professor of strategic management in
Telecom Ecole de Management (Institut Mines-Telecom), Director of the Master in Strategic Management. Before joining Telecom Ecole de Management, he spent several years at the National
Center for Telecommunication Studies (CNET, now Orange Labs)
as a researcher in the Department of Economics & TechnicoEconomics Research. His research interests are in strategic management, innovation
management and knowledge management. His current research investigates business
ecosystems and/or network-centric innovation, knowledge-based inter-organizational
collaborations and platform-based innovation management.
Xavier PARISOT. After graduating in Human Molecular Genetic in 1995 from
the University of Clermont-Ferrand (France), Xavier obtained a MSc in Biological and
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 5
04/09/2013 11:09:52
6
Understanding Business Ecosystems
Medical Engineering in 1996. Between 1997 and 2000, he prepared a transversal PhD
in Paleo-biochemistry (Ancient DNA extraction, purification and sequencing) applied
to Human population genetic study in insular Melanesia at the National Museum of
Natural History in Paris. His research focuses on the development of business ecosystems in the French Bioindustries.
Gerard KŒNIG, PhD, HEC, is full-time Professor of Strategic Management and
the Director of the MSc in Management Research of the University of Paris Est. He
has authored four books, including Strategic Management — Projects, interactions
& contexts. (Dunod, 2004). Currently, he is pursuing a collaborative research on the
transformation of the French Military Health Service, which explores strategizing as
a mullti-level activity with a special interest on planning and change.
Denis LESCOP is Dean of Research at TELECOM Business School (Institut
Mines-TELECOM). His research is focused on new forms of competition (open innovation, platforms) as well as creation of efficient methods to identify and analyze
it intended to be used by managers and public policies. His focus is mainly on the
digital and network industries. His current research object is the phenomenon of
“platformatization” of markets and its influence on industrial organization, markets
design and market dynamics.
Elena LESCOP is a PhD student at TELECOM Business School (Institut MinesTELECOM). She works on the impacts of firms on market architecture and studies
paltform-based ecosystems. Her current research focusses on the concept of firm/
market equivalency and on pricing issues in the mobile gaming sector.
Marie CARPENTER is a strategy Lecturer at Telecom Ecole de Management
(Institut Mines-Telecom). She has a PhD of Dublin City University. Her book, La
Bataille des Télécoms. Vers une France numérique (The Battle to Build a Digital France),
published in 2011, examines the organizational and institutional dynamics that propelled France to the forefront of innovation in the telecommunications sector in the
last decades of the 20th century. She is currently researching the impact of financialization on the dynamics of innovation in the global telecommunications equipment
sector over the past twenty years.
Nabyla DAIDJ is Associate Professor in Strategy at Telecom Ecole de Management (Institut Mines-Telecom). Her teaching and research interests are corporate
strategy, inter-organizational relationships (business ecosystems, strategic alliances,
networks, keiretsu) and conglomerates’ performance and corporate governance in a
context of coopetition. She has published in 2008 a book about cooperation, games
theory and strategic management. Currently, she is studying the sources of value
creation for ICT groups in a context of convergence.
Thomas LOILIER is full-time Professor of Strategic Management at the University of Caen Basse-Normandie. Thomas LOILIER teaches strategy, project management
and organization theory. His research at Caen Graduates Business School (Institut
d’Administration des Entreprises de Caen) and at the NIMEC Lab (Normandie Innovation, Marché, Entreprise, Consommation) focuses on project management and collaborative innovation.
Magali MALHERBE is Faculty Lecturer at the University of Caen BasseNormandie, Caen Graduates Business School (Institut d’Administration des Entreprises
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 6
04/09/2013 11:09:52
Biographies
7
de Caen). PhD student, member of the NIMEC Lab, her research focuses on innovation management. She is studying the role of experimentations in collaborative
innovation in ICT industry.
Valérie FAUTRERO is an Assistant Professor of Management at the University of Toulouse 2. She is affiliated at TELECOM ParisTech, and member of the LTCIECOGE, Institut Telecom. Her research focuses on the strategic management of ICT,
through the analysis of the rolling out of telecommunications infrastructures, the
market dynamics and the adoption of ICT.
Gaël GUEGUEN is a Professor of strategy and entrepreneurship at Toulouse
Business School. He is in charge of the “Entrepreneurship and growth strategies”
track. His work focuses on the dynamics of business ecosystems especially in the
field of ICTs.
Mickael GÉRAUDEL is Professor of Strategic Management at Groupe Sup de
Co Montpellier Business School. His research focuses on entrepreneurship and SME
management, social networks, coopetition and business ecosystem.
David SALVETAT is Professor of Strategy at La Rochelle Business School and is
affiliated at CEREGE (IAE de Poitiers). He holds an “Habilitation à Diriger les Recherches” (HDR). His research works are related to strategies of firms and information
system. His research subjects are related to strategic alliances, competitive intelligence, knowledge management and social networks.
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 7
04/09/2013 11:09:52
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 8
04/09/2013 11:09:52
Table of Contents
BIOGRAPHIES .................................................................................
FOREWORD ...................................................................................
INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................
CHAPTER 1
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES
5
13
17
ON THE BUSINESS ECOSYSTEM ECOLOGICAL METAPHOR .....
21
Introduction ...............................................................................
1. Metaphor use in organizational yheorizing ...............................
2. The BE ecological metaphor according to James Moore ..............
Conclusion ..................................................................................
22
Xavier Parisot
CHAPTER 2
A CRITICAL THEORIZATION
OF BUSINESS
Xavier Parisot and Thierry Isckia
ECOSYSTEMS ..............................
Introduction ...............................................................................
1. Definitions of epistemological reference objects ........................
2. Theorization process ..............................................................
3. Business ecosystem: A substantive theory? ...............................
Conclusion, contributions and limitations .......................................
CHAPTER 3
BUSINESS ECOSYSTEMS REVISITED .........................................................
23
28
38
45
46
47
51
57
62
69
Gérard Koenig
Introduction ...............................................................................
1. A critical analysis of Moore’s concept of business ecosystems .....
2. The diversity of business ecosystems: proposal for a typology ......
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 9
70
70
74
04/09/2013 11:09:52
10
Understanding Business Ecosystems
3. Shedding light on how actors agree ........................................
Conclusion ..................................................................................
CHAPTER 4
A METHODOLOGY
79
80
FOR ECOYSTEM CREATION: HOW ORGANIZATIONS
....................................
85
Introduction ...............................................................................
1. Theoretical Framework ...........................................................
2. Methodology .........................................................................
3. Results .................................................................................
4. Discussion ............................................................................
Conclusion ..................................................................................
86
CAN SHIFT FROM SUPPLY CHAINS TO ECOSYSTEMS
Soumaya Ben Letaïfa
CHAPTER 5
PLATFORM-BASED ECOSYSTEMS: LEVERAGING NETWORK-CENTRIC
INNOVATION .................................................................................
87
88
89
92
93
97
Thierry Isckia and Denis Lescop
Introduction ...............................................................................
1. Platform-based ecosystems: coordination matters ......................
2. Platform rules: Shaping the battleground .................................
3. Strategizing in platform-based ecosystems ...............................
Conclusion ..................................................................................
CHAPTER 6
PLATFORM-BASED ECOSYSTEM AND FIRM/MARKET EQUIVALENCY:
THE CASE OF APPLE IPHONE ..............................................................
98
98
103
107
111
119
Denis Lescop and Elena Lescop
Introduction ...............................................................................
1. Market failure and market creation ..........................................
2. Firm/Market equivalency and its determinants ..........................
3. Assessment of determinants through interactions ......................
4. Effects of Firm/Market equivalency on industry dynamics:
the iPhone Case ....................................................................
Concluding comments ..................................................................
CHAPITRE 7
MINITEL, I-MODE
120
120
122
126
128
131
AND IPHONE:
THREE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ECOSYSTEMS
....................................................................
133
Introduction ...............................................................................
134
OVER THREE DECADES
Marie Carpenter
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 10
04/09/2013 11:09:52
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
Minitel: A French precursor to the Internet ...............................
I-Mode: A Japanese pioneer in mobile Internet .........................
I-Phone: A telecommunications ecosystem from outside
the telecommunications sector .................................................
Conclusion ..................................................................................
CHAPTER 8
THE EVOLUTION
11
136
144
152
159
OF NEW ENTRANTS’ STRATEGIES IN THE MEDIA SECTOR
IN A CONTEXT OF CONVERGENCE.
AND
THE CASE OF APPLE, GOOGLE
MICROSOFT ...........................................................................
165
Nabyla Daidj
Introduction ...............................................................................
1. From inter-organizational networks to business ecosystems ........
2. Analysis and findings ............................................................
Conclusion ..................................................................................
CHAPTER 9
EXPERIMENTATION
166
167
176
187
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECO-SYSTEMIC COMPETENCIES
.......................................
193
Introduction ...............................................................................
1. Conceptual framework ............................................................
2. Empirical analysis: the case of NFC technology .........................
3. Discussion: lessons learned from the case study ........................
Conclusion ..................................................................................
194
IN THE FIELD OF CONTACTLESS MOBILE SERVICES
Thomas Loilier and Magali Malherbe
CHAPTER 10
THE DUAL DOMINANCE
ANDROID
195
199
204
207
...................
211
Introduction ...............................................................................
1. Business ecosystem and leadership ..........................................
2. The Android case study ..........................................................
3. Discussion: dual leadership as a source of major conflicts? ........
Conclusion ..................................................................................
212
OF THE
BUSINESS ECOSYSTEM
Valérie Fautrero and Gaël Gueguen
CHAPTER 11
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND SMES: THE CASE OF ASTRIUM’S BUSINESS
ECOSYSTEM ..................................................................................
213
217
224
227
231
Mickaël Géraudel and David Salvetat
Introduction ...............................................................................
1. The business ecosystem and the space industry ........................
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 11
232
233
04/09/2013 11:09:52
12
Understanding Business Ecosystems
2.
3.
The space industry: A catalyst for learning and knowledge .........
Astrium: Differences in relationships within the same business
ecosystem ............................................................................
Conclusion ..................................................................................
CONCLUSION ................................................................................
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 12
236
239
242
247
04/09/2013 11:09:52
Foreword
Yvon Pesqueux
Yvon PESQUEUX is Professeur at CNAM (Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers),
Head of the Chair « Développement des Systèmes d’Organisation »,
Management, Innovation and Prospective Department
The very concept of business ecosystems refers to a naturalistic metaphor
of Darwinian inspiration and this is the basis for the research presented in this
book. In order to understand this approach, it is useful to go back to the basics of
Lamarckian transmutation1.
Jean-Baptiste de Monet de Lamarck (1744-1829) is often considered the
founder of biology. He was a precursor of Charles Darwin in addressing the question
of the evolution of the species and investigated what laws determine how living
things function on a day-to-day basis and what differentiates them from inanimate
objects. Lamarck proposed a genealogical classification of living things, progressing
from the simplest species that appearing spontaneously and that generate more and
more complex species, up to and including humans. Biology — the science of living
things — is an autonomous science that designates the radical difference between
living beings and inanimate objects as well as the specific physical laws that regulate different species. Living things have a particular organization that means that
these laws generate life instead of inertia. Philosophie zoologique is a classic book in
the history of science as it represents the genesis of the concept of transmutation.
In this respect, Lamarck is a reference of note for researchers into business ecosystems as his work outlines the evolution of “simpler” systems into more complex ones
that are comparable to business ecosystems.
Lamarckian transmutation was followed by Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory and Darwin’s major contribution, The Origin of the Species By Means of Natural Selection, published in 1859, is situated at the crossroads of the natural and
social sciences. His work to construct a theory of biology was explicitly inspired by
Malthus and his concept of natural selection went on to enrich anthropological and
1
J.-B. Lamarck, Philosophie zoologique, Garnier Flammarion, Paris, 1994
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 13
04/09/2013 11:09:52
14
Understanding Business Ecosystems
sociological research. His work in the social sciences, however, is based on a different conception of evolution and is more closely linked to that of Lamarck. Throughout his research, Darwin investigated the origin and evolution of animal species and
the key factors that influenced them, yet without ever speaking of human beings.
The “revolutionary” nature of such an approach has led some commentators to classify Darwin’s seminal book as one of the most fundamental works of our time.
Until the middle of the 19th century, the notion of inheritance was a purely
legal notion concerning the transmission of physical property to descendants. Darwin
transposed the concept to the natural sciences to develop the principle of the inheritance of acquired traits, underlying the importance of such a mechanism in the phenomena of evolution.
In the theory of evolution, the rarity of resources means that, in addition to
a certain balance among vegetal and animal species, certain mutations appear in
each species that enhance the survival chances of certain varieties. This happens
slowly and haphazardly in a process of natural selection. Geographic idiosyncrasies
also mean that ecological niches may emerge where varieties of certain species are
preserved from such selection. It is not a teleological theory and Darwin did not
see evolution as having an objective. A given species may be adapted to its environment at one point in time, only to perish if its environment changes without
it having mutated in time to inherit the qualities it needs to survive in the new
context. Certain theories of organizational science have sought inspiration from
this explanation of the evolution of the species in terms of selection and variation. Charles Darwin sought to explain how immeasurable numbers of species have
modified themselves to acquire that “perfection of structure and coadaptation which
most justly excites our admiration”1. The concept of business ecosystem relates more
closely to the environmentalist aspect of Darwinian thought than that of the theory of change underlying his work and conclusions. For naturalists, the only possible causes of variations are external conditions, such as climate or food. Darwin
did not agree. In his view of natural selection, the variability that conditioned the
existence of every species was confronted in successive generations with two types
of change-generating factors. The nature of the organism was the more important
of the two, followed by the nature of environmental conditions. It is difficult,
however, to determine exactly what role is played respectively by natural selection
and external conditions in a process of modification. Darwin posits that heredity
is modified by variation and natural selection, by which he means the progressive
improvement of the most complex organs and instincts through the accumulation of
vast numbers of slight changes, all bringing advantages to the individual organism
in which they develop. Natural selection produces neither major nor sudden modifications and can only develop in small, slow steps. The hereditary effects from
the use or non-use of parts or organs then provide a powerful support to natural
selection. Finally, the direct action of environmental conditions and variations play
a significant role by influencing the conformations of adaptation, i.e. how different parts of an organism are arranged both in the past and in the present. A question then arises: does the Darwinian theory of evolution enrich our understanding
of business ecosystems?
1
C. Darwin, The Origin of the Species, 1859, p. 56.
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 14
04/09/2013 11:09:52
Foreword
15
In asking how this fundamental theory helps us understand business ecosystems, we must firstly be clear that the comparison is only metaphorical. Charles
Darwin’s work, however, focused on a part of the living world in which specific
aspects of human societies are not represented. These include the creation and use
of complex tools and sophisticated languages such as reversible language in which
messages are interpreted in different ways depending on the level of awareness of
the facts. Darwin’s work has nonetheless been used as an analytical framework for
research on human societies whose foundations are largely based on such characteristics as these and who are, therefore, quite distinct from Darwinian interpretation schemes. Powerful affective projections of Darwin’s work on animals have thus
been made to analyze societal phenomena giving birth to Social-Darwinism. This ideological movement integrates his finalist attitude, having transformed it into teleology, in which the survival of the fittest and their dominance are central beliefs.
Although Social-Darwinism does not adhere completely to Darwin’s theory; it does
share with it the notion that all forms of social reflection are grounded in categories
of natural selection. Social-Darwinism is an ideological transposition of the conclusions of Darwin’s work to the human societies, assuming that human characteristics
are completely determined at conception by hereditary factors passed from parent to
offspring during reproduction. This ideology is deeply rooted in a vision of “moral
winners” that promotes a racially-based social order and distinguishes, for example, between the dominant and the dominated. Lamarck’s conception of the evolution of the species is that what should be studied are the simplest life forms as this
is where life appears in its most “naked” form. The need to go back to life in its
simplest form is illustrative of transformism’s desire to have biology adhere to the
laws of physics. By focusing on simple entities, we can more easily understand the
organization of living things in physical terms. We can also portray a purely physical process of growing complexity and establish hereditary links from complex living beings to simpler ones which, in turn, brings us back to the laws of physics. It
is this crucial question that differentiates Lamarckian theory from that of Darwin,
which was focused on the question of adaptation and natural selection. For Lamarck,
the transformation of species and the adaptation to the external environment have
the same driving force — a tendency towards greater complexity. For Darwin, who
was opposed the concept of a tendency towards greater complexity, it is the necessity for adaptation (passive rather than active) that drives the transformation of species. This duality often implicitly underlies the theories of organizational change.
For this reason, it is important to recall the parameters of the original theoretical
approaches, enabling readers to capture the mechanisms that underly the metaphor
when studying business ecosystems.
Yvon Pesqueux
e-mail : [email protected]
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 15
04/09/2013 11:09:52
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 16
04/09/2013 11:09:52
Introduction
The purpose of this book is to consolidate the current fragmented literature
on business ecosystems and to provide an up-to-date reflection on current theoretical and managerial ecosystemic issues. The idea of this project emerged and evolved
thanks to three annual roundtables on ecosystems, respectively at AIMS (International Association of Strategic Management) in 2010 and 2012, and at ASAC (Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Conference) in 2011. The goal of this work
is to develop an integrative synthesis of the various issues identified in the course
of these academic events.
The first roundtable raised questions of the theoretical coherence and relevance of business ecosystems by identifying the limits of the biological metaphor
and by recognizing the contributions of the work achieved on platforms, innovation,
and coopetition, while the 2011 symposium addressed the positioning of business
ecosystems with respect to other concepts, focusing on the practices of deciders in
Quebecois and French ecosystems. In the last roundtable, in 2012 (AIMS 2012), the
committees of these two events wished to contrast their complementary research
in order to achieve a better apprehension and understanding of the business ecosystem phenomenon. The success of these roundtables and the growing interest
of researchers and practitioners convinced the event organizers of the importance
of producing a book of current findings that brings together senior business ecosystem researchers for a better understanding of ecosystem management. This book
was thus born spontaneously out of the recognition that documentation pertaining to business ecosystems needed to be updated and consolidated to foster further advancement of education, research, and management. Various BE experts were
invited to collaborate and co-innovate in order to share their expertise in this work.
This book is organized in two parts (one conceptual and the other empirical), each
just as important as the other.
The first and more conceptual part lays the groundwork on a theoretical, epistemological, and methodological level. In the first chapter, Xavier Parisot discusses
the epistemological fundamentals of the ecosystemic metaphor and opens up the
debate on the relevance of using metaphors in general to advance organizational
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 17
04/09/2013 11:09:52
18
Understanding Business Ecosystems
theories and strategic management. The second and third chapters build on the
first to suggest some critical perspectives on ecosystems. In the second chapter
Xavier Parisot and Thierry Isckia extend the analysis of business ecosystems and
question the relevance of business ecosystems as an analytical framework for strategic management. This second chapter provides an opportunity to enter the theorizing process underlying Moore’s reasoning. The third chapter written by Gérard
Koenig underlines the multifaceted character of business ecosystems and demonstrates that its efforts to define business ecosystems led to contradictions. In order
to circumvent these contradictions this chapter distinguishes various types of business ecosystems arguing that there is not one type of business ecosystem, but several. The typology elaborated by Gérard Koenig in chapter 3 brings our attention to
business ecosystems whose composition is more heterogeneous advocating that the
study of these organizational structures should use theories that may shed light on
the way in which actors come to agreement. The fourth chapter adopts an organizational perspective stating that most studies on business ecosystems focus on interorganizational levels without paying attention to prerequisite intra-organizational
processes that allow organizations to open up to their network of customers, partners, and competitors. In this chapter Soumaya Ben Letaïfa identifies the critical
steps needed to build a sustainable keystone position in business ecosystems, illustrating how some large organizations succeeded in shifting from supply chains to
business ecosystems.
In chapter five Isckia & Lescop provide a comprehensive view of platformbased ecosystem, architecture and governance, illustrating the range of the technological, organizational and strategic challenges that platform leaders have to face
in order to leverage network-centric innovation. Lescop & Lescop extend this analysis in chapter 6 arguing that firms leveraging platforms do not only facilitate market activity by providing participants with basic resources, but also play an active
role in the regulation of all of its creation’s activities. This chapter addresses regulatory issues and explores the phenomenon of concurrent double function of firm:
market creation and market support through the concept of firm/market equivalency.
The second part of this book bring together fives original case studies that
further illustrate various dimensions of business ecosystems. In chapter seven, Marie
Carpenter provides a retrospective analysis of three platform-based ecosystems in
order to identify key success factors in various phases of the platforms’ development. A comparative analysis of the emergence of these three ecosystems highlights
the pioneering role played by the keystone organization in each case: the French
telecommunications administration, NTT Docomo and Apple. In her analysis, Marie
Carpenter outlines the motivations, competencies and choices of the focal players
in the development phase of each of the three platform-based ecosystems. In chapter eight Nabyla Daidj explores inter-organizational relationships in business ecosystems and analyzes the degree of coopetitive links within and outside specific
networks. This case study provides an in-depth analysis of how large firms such as
Apple, Google and Microsoft develop coopetitive strategies in the context of business ecosystems. As for chapter nine written by Thomas Loilier and Magali Malherbe,
it focuses on the network level of analysis to highlight the role of experimentation
and ecosystemic competencies in the emergence of business ecosystem. The findings outlined in this chapter allow for a better understanding of the question of
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 18
04/09/2013 11:09:52
Introduction
19
coordination and governance. In chapter ten, Gael Gueguen and Valérie Fautréro
complement these results by analyzing the role of leadership in platform-based ecosystems. The authors postulate that the ecosystem’s success depends on the strategy
of its leader, particularly when the business ecosystem is based on pervasive technological platforms. This case study sheds light on leadership mechanisms underlying
their role in business ecosystems development. In chapter eleven, Mickael Géraudel
and David Salvetat further explore the micro processes of knowledge management
and organizational learning providing a better understanding of how new relationships impact business ecosystem expansion and how knowledge exchange relationships transform ecosystems and firms.
This book offers an opportunity to better understand the emergence and
development of business ecosystems and related issues. A far as we know, this collective work is the first attempt to synthesize knowledge in the field of business
ecosystems. We hope that it will provide useful insights for researchers and students and serve as a basis for fruitful exchanges among academics. At the end of
this exciting journey, we would like once again to express our gratitude to all the
authors who have joined us in this very rewarding adventure. A special thought goes
to our colleague Mary Carpenter for her availability, her kindness, and for the time
she has devoted to the revision of this book. We would also like to thank Professor
Yvon Pesqueux for writing such a stimulating foreword while attending an international conference in Brazil.
Soumaya Ben Letaïfa and Thierry Isckia
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 19
04/09/2013 11:09:52
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 20
04/09/2013 11:09:52
Chapter 1
Critical Perspectives
On the Business Ecosystem
Ecological Metaphor
Xavier Parisot
[Keywords: Business Ecosystem, Metaphor, Analogy,
Paradigm, Epistemology]
Contents
Introduction
22
1 Metaphor use in organization theorizing
23
2 The BE ecological metaphor according to James Moore
28
Conclusion
38
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 21
04/09/2013 11:09:52
22
Critical Perspectives On the Business Ecosystem Ecological Metaphor
Introduction
Metaphor is commonly used in organizational sciences to explain concepts
and theories (Cornelissen, 2005). In this context, ideas, concepts and even theories are often imported from other scientific fields (Inns, 2002; Oswick et al., 2002)
and it is as these elements are being transferred from one discipline to another that
the metaphorical process is applied. Because this importation may transform the
meaning of the objects involved, it poses some problems (Gerring, 1999). Indeed,
in the absence of a uniform methodology of metaphor, this transfer may take various forms and lead to variable results, which generate significant debates about
their relev;ance. If there were no question of metaphor, these transfers would have
quickly been invalidated because they generate epistemological biases. Yet, despite
its fragility, metaphor is inevitable and essential because it provides an understanding whose scope implies its acceptance (Morgan, 1980).
As a result, in order to overcome the difficulties generated by the use of metaphor in organizational theorization, a new field of study emerged in the 1980s (Morgan, 1980) that has continued to develop (Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010). Researchers in
this field analyze in particular the role of metaphor in the theorization of organizations (Tsoukas, 1991; Indurkhya 1991; Cornelissen, 2005; Kafouros & Cornelissen, 2008).
BE conceptualization exploits a biological metaphor (Moore, 1993, 1996) and
therefore involves the field of biology. When James Moore (1993) presented the BE
for the first time in his 1993 article, “Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition,” he borrowed the notion of ecosystem defined by Tansley (1935) for ecology
and applied it to the business environment. What Moore calls an ecological metaphor relies primarily on “on-the-ground accounts” (Moore, 1996, p. 17) and his discussions with ecologists studying the ecosystem concept in biology (Moore, 1996).
The transfer of the needed objects from ecology did not exploit the results of
metaphor use in the theorizing of organizations that was occurring contemporaneously
(Morgan, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988a, 1988b, 1989; Tsoukas, 1991, 1993; Indurkhya, 1991).
In the wake of Moore’s reflections, other authors proposed several definitions (TorresBlay, 2000; Iansiti & Levien, 2004a, 2004b; Gueguen et al., 2004, 2006, Teece, 2007;
Pierce, 2009), none of which have so far led to consensus (Gueguen & Passebois-Ducros,
2011). Several complementary theoretical foundations (Guegen & Torres, 2004; PellegrinBoucher & Gueguen, 2005; Teece, 2007; Pierce, 2009) have also been considered, but
again, their relevance is debatable. The question of limits of the BE metaphor has also
been studied, notably by French-speaking authors (Maitre & Aladjidi, 1999; Torres Blay
& Gueguen, 2003; Isckia, 2010; Daidj, 2011). However, the authors’willingness to find a
strict correspondence between the elements structuring biological ecosystems and those
structuring business ecosystems shows a lack of consideration of the metaphorical process effectively used by Moore. In this context, most of the objects chosen to specify the
BE’s theoretical limits (such as reproduction, time scale, territory and intentionality) do
not correspond to the categorical referents that Moore exploited (such as interdependence, loosely coupled systems, co-evolution and community).
To assess the relevance of the BE notion by specifying its defining traits and
the limits of its application, one should, as Ricoeur (1975) suggested, return to its
origin and the logic of its development. Only the identification of sources and the
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 22
04/09/2013 11:09:52
Metaphor use in organization theorizing
23
metaphorical process chosen by Moore provides a basis for an adapted epistemological analysis of the BE’s limits that takes into account the nature of transpositions
actually made. To that end, our theoretical study specifies the nature of the objects
imported by Moore, as well as the source paradigms that he exploited in ecology.
The nature of the metaphorical process is then studied under the two dominant
models of metaphor developed to study the theorization of organizations: Tsoukas’s
(1991) transformational model and Cornelissen’s (2005) domains-interaction model.
Analysis of the metaphorical transposition process applied by Moore reveals
that 1) the source objects are taken from three different paradigms in ecology, 2)
not all objects defining the notion of ecosystem in the various paradigms in ecology are exploited, 3) therefore, the logical structure linking these objects together is
not transposed, and 4) the metaphorical meaning of objects in the target domain is
clearly distinct from their literal meaning in the source domain. These results demonstrate that Moore is not looking for a paradigmatic identity by comparison as proposed by Tsoukas (1991). They also prohibit the establishment of an analogy such
as the one that Tsoukas suggested (1991). It appears that Moore, rather, takes an
interactional approach because he brings out his notion as a result of interactions
between different paradigms – which is consistent with the domains-interaction
model proposed by Cornelissen (2005).
Consequently, any analysis of the limits of the BE biological metaphor must
take into account 1) the nature of the objects actually transposed by Moore, which
constitute the defining parameters, 2) the metaphorical meaning of these parameters as defined by Moore and not the literal meaning of objects in the source
domains. However, the works analyzing these limits (Master & Aladjidi 1999; Harte,
2001; Torres, Blay & Gueguen, 2003; Fréry, 2010; Isckia, 2010; Daidj, 2011) explore
objects that are not, in the majority of cases, the categorical referents that Moore
exploited. In the absence of an analogy or of an identity in Tsoukas’s (1991) sense,
only the categorical referents selected by Moore can be considered, and this can be
done only by taking into account the metaphorical meaning that he assigned them.
This study shows that specific inference logics are associated with each model
of metaphorical theorization – and each inference logic induces a particular theorization process. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the inference logic involved in BE
theorization in order to specify James Moore’s epistemological posture. Indeed this
perspective affects the establishment of the definitional parameters and the definition of the BE. Finally, it provides information on the stance to be taken in order
to establish the BE’s epistemological limits.
1.
Metaphor use in organization theorizing
In recent decades, research on the development of figurative language (Winner,
1995) and cognitive psychology (Gentner, 1981) has shifted the status of metaphor
from mere figure of speech to main or even sole mode of cognition (Lakoff & Johnson,
1980). This research has implications in all areas of science (Gentner, 1982). Notably,
it explains how theories are built through the use of metaphors and analogies that
induce or exploit similarities among different scientific fields (Indurkhya, 1991). These
studies also indicate differences among metaphor, comparison, analogy and similarity.
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 23
04/09/2013 11:09:52
24
Critical Perspectives On the Business Ecosystem Ecological Metaphor
1.1 METAPHOR, ANALOGY
AND
COMPARISON
Beyond the definitions, the cognitive processes underlying comparative, analogical and metaphorical transpositions are the same. They all involve a “structural
alignment, inference projection, a progressive abstraction and re-representation”
(Gentner et al., 2001). What distinguishes these phenomena is the nature of what
is being transposed (Tsoukas, 1991).
In Gentner’s (1982) view, “Metaphors are based on an underlying similarity
between the source – also referred to as the vehicle or the secondary domain – and
the target – also referred to as the topic or the primary domain” (p. 107). Nevertheless, the existence of similarities generating the relationship between source
and target is not a hard-and-fast rule (Indurkhya, 1991). In some cases, there are
no pre-existing similarities between the source and the target, and it is the metaphor itself that generates them (Black, 1979; Schön, 1979; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).
This ability to link source and target in the absence of any pre-established similarities clearly distinguishes metaphor from comparison and analogy (Indurkhya, 1991).
Indeed, in both comparison and analogy, the similarities between source and
target are the starting point for transposition. Comparison and analogy therefore
merely explain existing similarities. However, although both comparison and analogy transpose objects from one domain to another, analogy also transposes all or
part of the logical structure – that is, the logical connections between the meanings of objects in the same domain (Tsoukas, 1991). That is why analogy is considered an operationalization of metaphor (Bunge, 1973; Sanford, 1987; Vosniadou &
Ortony, 1989). Thus, in the view of Simpson and Weiner (1989), analogy is “a name
for the fact that the relation borne to any object some attribute or circumstance
corresponds to the relation existing between another object and some attribute or
circumstance pertaining to it” (p. 432).
Exporting results from cognitive sciences to organizational theories provides
an interpretive framework for the many metaphors that the latter uses from areas
as distant as ecology (Moore, 1993), neurology (Garud & Kotha, 1994) human ecology (Hannan & Freeman, 1977), evolutionary theories (Nelson & Winter, 1982), military strategy (Le Roy, 1997, 1999, 2001), chaos theory (Thietart & Forgues, 1995),
jazz (e.g., Zack, 2000), organizational identity (Gioia et al., 2000) and organizational
spirit (Weick & Roberts, 1993). But despite this new framework, the role of metaphors
in theorizing remains a controversial and significant issue in organizational sciences.
1.2 TOWARD
A METHODOLOGY OF METAPHOR IN ORGANIZATIONAL SCIENCES
In a constructivist perspective, Morgan (1980, 1983, 1986, 1988a, 1988b,
1989) argues that metaphor promotes the emergence of different angles of reflection that help explain complex organizational phenomena. On the contrary, Pinder
and Bourgeois (1982, 1983) suggest that organizational theories must be developed
without any metaphor and recommend that independently existing phenomena be
taken into account. They argue that the vagueness and low conceptual content of
metaphors make them inadequate for the development of formal organizational theories. These two approaches share the common assumption that literal speech and
figurative speech are mutually exclusive. However, in the former view, the use of
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 24
04/09/2013 11:09:52
Metaphor use in organization theorizing
25
metaphor is encouraged, whereas in the latter, it is not recommended. Moreover,
neither of these perspectives has a clear methodology for the use of metaphor in
organizational sciences.
1.3 THE
COMPARISON MODEL IN ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY
Tsoukas (1991) tries to reconcile these contradictions by developing a transformational vision of metaphor. In his view, the meaning of a metaphor evolves with
the degree of assimilation into literal language. Thus, a metaphor starts out being
“live” (Ricoeur, 1975): the metaphorical meaning is still distinguished from the literal meaning. Then, after assimilation and recurring use, the metaphorical sense is
gradually forgotten and makes way for a new meaning, which has become literal.
The metaphor as such is then dead: “The original sentence meaning is bypassed and
the sentence acquires a new literal meaning identical with the former metaphorical utterance meaning” (Searle, 1979, p. 122). To clarify the mechanisms leading to
the transformation of a live metaphor to a dead metaphor in the theorizing process, Tsoukas (1991) proposes an analysis based on Beer’s (1984) scientific modeling
methodology, consisting of three levels:
1. Live metaphors transpose objects from the source domain to the target
domain.
2. The transition to analogy makes it possible to transpose the same objects but
also the logical structure linking these objects.
3. The transition to identity implies that the transposition of objects and their
logical structure is based on a complete concordance between the source and the
target. If the match seems perfect from a theoretical point of view, it must be verified empirically.
It is therefore possible to increase the accuracy of a transposition by going
from metaphor to analogy – that is, by associating the transfer of objects from
the source domain to the target domain with the logical structure that links
them. However, this operation is insufficient to allow us to conclude the extent
to which the categorical referents of the source were captured by the target
(Tsoukas, 1991). Empirical identity between the source and target is the final
stage of transposition.
Like his predecessors (Morgan, 1980; Gentner, 1982; Tinker, 1986), Tsoukas
(1991) developed a comparative view of metaphor that aims to identify similarities between the source and the target through a process of deductive inference at
each level of reasoning. This analysis is complemented by Oswick et al. (2002), who
point out that a deductive inference process focuses on the similarities or overlaps
between the source and the target and removes the dissimilarities. Therefore, the
comparison model highlights correlations – that is, almost exclusively pre-existing
knowledge of similarities (Cornelissen, 2005). Thus, in the perspective developed by
Tsoukas (1991) on the use of metaphor in theorizing, the question is no longer the
extent to which the objects and structures of the source can be transferred to the
target, but how source and target can be conceptualized to reveal the deep correlation of their identities: “In other words, how can the invariance between X and Y
be discovered?” (Tsoukas, 1991, p. 573).
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 25
04/09/2013 11:09:53
26
Critical Perspectives On the Business Ecosystem Ecological Metaphor
The transformation of metaphorical ideas into concepts, then into a scientific
model, is enacted through a reflection favoring back-and-forth movement between
source objects and target objects (Tsoukas, 1991). In short, the comparative model
is based on the transposition of the similarities existing between the source and target domains. It specifies what objects and logical structures are taken into account
in the source domain and transposed into the target domain. On this basis, three
degrees of transposition are distinguished: metaphor, analogy and identity. Transformational vision helps reasoning go from the stage of comparative deduction to
that of induction, including back-and-forth movement between the source and target domains, which may lead, if necessary, to a reconceptualization of the source
and target objects until an identity is obtained.
1.4 THE
DOMAINS-INTERACTIONAL MODEL
Despite this progress, the comparison model has some limitations that warranted
the subsequent emergence of another model of metaphor in theorizing of organizations.
In fact, in most cases, it is the metaphor itself that generates similarity between the
source domain and the target domain where there was none before (Indurkhya 1991):
“Metaphors generate inferences beyond the similarities required for their comprehension”
(Cornelissen, 2005, p. 754). However, because the comparison model works by deductive inference, all other things being equal, it does not include all of the basic mechanisms involved in the production and understanding of metaphors.
Moreover, Tourangeau and Rips (1991) show that the context is also involved
in determining the nature of the transposition activated by a specific metaphor. Outside of this context, the nature of the transposition cannot be anticipated. In addition, they suggest the existence of a mechanism that allows the recipient of the
metaphor to assign properties to it that do not result from a process of deductive
inference between the source and the target.
Based on these findings, Cornelissen (2005) proposes an alternative model
built on Black’s (1962, 1979) work on the interactional nature of the metaphorical process. This model underlines the fact that the characteristics of the source
can rarely be applied directly to the target, as the similarities shared by the two
domains are often only metaphorical. The identity approach developed by Tsoukas
(1991) is therefore valid only in very rare cases. Black (1962) also contends that a
connection between the characteristics of the components of source and target is
insufficient because metaphors imply that complete semantic domains are assembled
by examining all the similarities and differences between the correlated areas. Cornelissen (2005) uses some results from cognitive psychology (Gentner, 1983; Fauconnier & Turner, 1998) to demonstrate the existence of similar inherent structures
between correlated domains. In metaphors, the objects of source and target domains
have equivalent structural positions and similar characteristics in their respective
representations. This finding is related to the phenomenon that when a metaphor
is implemented, higher-order cognitive schemas are activated in source and target
domains. A higher-order cognitive schema governs the assembly of semantic objects
in a single field, such as ecology or organizational theory. It constitutes a network connecting objects associated with the same theme; for instance, the semantic field of ecology includes objects such as biotope (habitat), biocenosis (biotic
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 26
04/09/2013 11:09:53
Metaphor use in organization theorizing
27
community), population and environment. Once higher-order cognitive schemas have
been activated, they guide all subsequent treatments connected to a specific metaphor. For every theory or concept there is a representation included in a higherorder cognitive schema. Because each schema represents a specific network, the
nature of the projection made from the source schema to the corresponding target
schema (Gentner, 1983) is influenced by their specific cross-links. The metaphorical process therefore takes structural connections into account – the circumstances
and the nature of the existing structures in each area – when establishing each
new relationship between two domains. Not only is a correspondence established
between the source and target domains, but a new metaphorical space is created
that feeds on a back-and-forth process between two higher-order cognitive schemas.
In this space, a new meaning is assigned to transposed objects, making it possible to establish correspondences between the source and the target where apparently there was none to begin with. When all the stages of the cognitive process
of the metaphor are integrated, it appears that they exceed those of the analogy
process by deductive inference because they can move from abduction to deduction
and from deduction to induction. It is this phenomenon that, according to Cornelissen (2005), makes metaphor a more powerful cognitive process than analogy. His
domains-interaction model falls into three main steps:
1. Development of a generic structure: “First, on encountering a metaphor, its
terms are encoded, the relevant domains are inferred, the structures to be seen as parallel are found, and the correspondences between these structures are mapped. These
cognitive activities correspond to the first phase of metaphor comprehension, which I
label here the development of a generic structure.” (Cornelissen, 2005, p. 758).
2. Development and elaboration of the blend: “After a generic structure is
constructed, further instance-specific information is transferred from the target and
source concepts and is elaborated upon. This process of blending composes elements from the target and source concepts, and, furthermore, leads the comprehender (i.e., the theorist) to complete and elaborate on the composition made. I term
this second phase of metaphor comprehension the development and elaboration of
the blend.” (Cornelissen, 2005, p. 758).
3. Emergent meaning: “Then, finally, the meaning (ideas and conjectures) that
emerges from the blend is linked and translated back to the input target concept.
There is new meaning in the blend that is not simply a composition of meanings
that can be found in either the target or source concepts. Nonetheless, as mentioned, such blended meaning can be referred back to them. I therefore label the final
phase of metaphor the emergent meaning, which is linked back to the input target and source concepts and, in particular, forces us to see a target subject such
as organization in a new light.” (Cornelissen, 2005, p. 758).
In short, the metaphorical and analogical processes are two different systems of analysis from a cognitive point of view. The information-processing stages
are respectively specific and do not lead to the same results. Analogy proceeds by
deductive inference. It is based on the similarities and dissimilarities between the
objects of source and target domains and translates them in terms of similarities of
meaning and logical structure. Metaphor, on the other hand, generates a new space
in which interaction between the source and target domains develops on the basis
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 27
04/09/2013 11:09:53
28
Critical Perspectives On the Business Ecosystem Ecological Metaphor
of the meaning of the metaphorical objects. This interaction can then generate similarities between objects of source and target domains where initially they did not
appear. Metaphor is therefore a creative process involving abduction, deduction and
induction, whereas analogy is a comparative process based primarily on a process of
deductive inference and inductive connection.
2.
The BE ecological metaphor according
to James Moore
When one returns to the logic behind the development of the BE concept, it
is easy to determine the nature of James Moore’s metaphor from the point of view
of the two models presented. Indeed, in the comparison approach, the process of
deductive inference by comparing two fields implies the existence of a single source,
whereas in the interactional approach, several source paradigms can be correlated
to cause a metaphor to emerge.
2.1 BIBLIOGRAPHIC
SOURCES USED BY
JAMES MOORE
In his 1996 book The Death of Competition, Moore bases the construction of
his metaphor on references culled from various domains. Ecology is obviously very
present, drawn from the publications of a number of authors (Janzen, 1983; Wilson,
1990, 1992; Wetterer, 1994), some of whom are not scientists (Abercrombie, 1992;
Royte, 1995; Heacox, 1995). In this framework, Moore does not hesitate to use paradigms presenting different visions of the notion of ecosystem in ecology, as he
cites not only evolutionary ecologists such as Daniel Hunt Janzen (1983) and James
Wetterer (1994), but also Edward Osborne Wilson – an entomologist who studies
sociobiology and biodiversity in ants (Wilson, 1990) – by exploiting the paradigm
of community ecology (Wilson, 1992), and Henry Lowe – who upholds the ecology
of ecosystems and communities (Howe & Westley, 1988).
Complex systems theory is also an important source of inspiration for Moore,
who often refers to the works of Gregory Bateson (1972, 1979) in order to illustrate
the notions of co-evolution (Moore, 1996, p. 11) and coopetition (Moore, 1996,
p. 12) or to demonstrate the importance of collective representations (Moore, 1996,
p. 19). However, when Moore specifies the construction stages of his ecological metaphor (Moore, 1996, chapter 2), he quotes only works by biologists, naturalists and
ecologists. In the 1990s, three paradigms defining the notion of ecosystem coexisted: community ecology, ecosystems ecology and evolutionary ecology. Although
each paradigm relies on specific objects, some of these objects are shared by two
or three paradigms. The notions of biotope (habitat), biocenosis (biotic community)
and population, for example, are common elements whose literal meaning remains
constant from one theory to another. However, certain objects, although they are
present in several paradigms, do not present the same meaning because their paradigmatic context causes them to rest on different premises. As a result, before
conducting a correlation analysis between the literal and metaphorical meanings of
objects transposed by Moore, the precise meaning of these objects in their source
paradigms must be specified.
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 28
04/09/2013 11:09:53
The BE ecological metaphor according to James Moore
2.2 DEFINITION
29
AND DEFINITIONAL PARAMETERS
In 1996, Moore defined the BE as “an economic community supported by a
foundation of interacting organizations and individuals – the organisms of the business world. This economic community produces goods and services of value to customers, who are themselves members of the ecosystem. The member organisms also
include suppliers, lead producers, competitors, and other stakeholders. Over time,
they co-evolve their capabilities and roles, and tend to align themselves with the
directions set by one or more central companies. Those companies holding leadership roles may change over time, but the function of ecosystem leader is valued by
the community because it enables members to move toward shared visions to align
their investments, and to find mutually supportive roles” (Moore, 1996, p. 26). He
then presented the BE as an alternative to competitive strategies. In his view, the
BE provides a new framework for analysis, including cooperation logic, which was
then thriving in the business world.
Moore (1993) also provides a first description of the stages of the BE lifecycle based on the tension between cooperative and competitive issues. In this
context, he emphasizes the role of the leader (keystone organization) within
the BE and defines the challenges that it faces at each stage of the lifecycle.
This first approach integrates the logics of cooperative and collective action
that characterize new modes of interaction among organizations in a wider environment (Nalebuff & Brandenburger, 1996). It highlights the growing interdependence among companies involved in a common innovation process and the
resulting co-evolution for collaborating actors. Moore (1996) considers that his
ecological metaphor goes beyond a mere interpretive framework because it makes
it possible to analyze the evolution process of businesses and sectors of activity,
taking into account environmental changes. Thus, the competition mechanism
is presented from a systemic point of view, taking into account the dynamic
equilibrium existing 1) among actors and 2) between actors and their environment (Moore, 1996).
Although a few studies did subsequently analyze the organizational logic
of the BE (Torres-Blay, 2000; Iansiti & Levien, 2004a), the institutional framework underlying the interactions between the actors is discussed only by Moore
(2006). However, he presents the BE as an ideal-type that cannot provide an adequate account of the diversity of existing forms. In addition, the hybrid nature of
the organization of exchanges represented by the BE remains unclear, because for
each new proposed definition (Moore, 1993, 1996, 1998, 2006, Torres-Blay, 2000;
Iansiti & Levien, 2004a, 2004b, Gueguen et al., 2004, Gueguen et al., 2006; Teece,
2007; Pierce, 2009) there is a different organizational logic (such as network, community or coalition) and a specific institutional framework (Josserand, 2007). Moreover, although the ecological metaphor is a constructive interpretive framework, it
adds to the difficulties of defining the boundaries of BE.
Indeed, it seems a priori difficult to specify the scope of a concept based
on dynamic equilibrium, intrinsic and extrinsic selective retroactive effects, or an
evolving nature. As a result, the epistemological limits of the BE remain unclear
and need to be specified.
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 29
04/09/2013 11:09:53
30
Critical Perspectives On the Business Ecosystem Ecological Metaphor
2.3 SOURCES
OF THE
TRANSPOSED OBJECTS
Beyond these findings, in his various publications Moore always presents
the same notions of community, cooperation, interdependence, co-evolution, ecosystemic functions, loose coupling, fluctuation and porosity of boundaries, and
resilience as the definitional parameters of his ecological metaphor. And these
objects are all actually present in the various paradigms explicating the notion of
ecosystem in ecology. A comparison between the literal sense of these objects in
their source paradigm and the metaphorical sense that Moore assigns them will
help to specify the evolution and the premises (Table 1).
TABLE 1. — Nature of transposed objects and common premises between source
and target domains.
Paradigm
in ecology
Community
ecology
(Wilson, 1990,
1992)
Ecosystem
ecology
(Howe & Westley,
1988)
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 30
Object
in ecology
Object in the BE
concept
Common premise
Community
of populations
Strategic destiny/
shared community
The community includes
subunits of a different
nature in relation with
each other within the
system
Intra- and interspecific relations
Relations among
actors within the
BE
Relations exist between
subunits of either
identical or different
nature within the
system
Interdependence of Interdependence
populations within of actors within
the ecosystem
the BE
Subunit behaviors are
interdependent within
the system
Adaptation
to the variations
of environmental
conditions
Resilience,
flexibility,
resistance
The system can adapt
to the variations
of environmental
conditions through its
subunits
Ecosystemic
functions
Ecosystemic skills
Characteristics
developed by the
subunits in view of
context allowing
optimization of system
equilibrium
Porosity of
ecosystem
boundaries
Porosity of BE
boundaries
Porosity of system
boundaries
Interdependence of Interdependence
populations within of actors within
the BE
the ecosystem
Subunit behaviors are
interdependent within
the system
Interactions
between biological
ecosystems
Interactions between
the systems and
subunits of various
systems
Interactions
among BEs
04/09/2013 11:09:53
The BE ecological metaphor according to James Moore
Evolutionary
ecology
(Janzen, 1983;
Wetterer, 1994)
31
Mobility
of populations
Mobility of actors
Subunits are mobile
within the system
and between systems
Populations
look for
the environment
best suited to
their needs
Loose coupling
of actors
to the BE
Subunits may leave
a system to enter
another one where
their development can
be more efficient
Co-evolution
of populations
within
the ecosystem
Co-evolution
of actors within
the BE
Subunits evolve jointly
within the system
Biological coupling
Positive
externalities
between actors
Subunits generate
favorable elements
for the development
of other subunits
within the system
Fluctuation
of ecosystem area
boundaries
Fluctuation of BE
boundaries
System boundaries
evolve as time goes by
A quick glance confirms that objects are taken from the three paradigms
presenting different visions of the ecosystem notion in ecology. A further,
deeper analysis of correlations specifying the meaning of definitional parameters of the ecosystem notion in ecology in each source paradigm (Table 2)
reveals that: 1) some objects have been transposed identically and both the
vocabulary and the meaning have been retained, 2) some objects have been
transposed and the vocabulary has been retained but it no longer covers the
same reality, 3) some objects have been renamed in the transposition and the
meaning is not preserved.
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 31
04/09/2013 11:09:53
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 32
Community
Ecosystem
Object
Metaphorical meaning according to
James Moore
“An economic community supported by a
“Community of organisms, interacting with one
foundation of interacting organizations
another, plus the environment in which they live and individuals – the organisms of
and with which they also interact […]. Such a
the business world. This economic
system includes all abiotic components [and]
community produces goods and
biotic components.”2 (Moore, 1996, p. 26, after services of value to customers, who are
themselves members of the ecosystem.”
Wilson, 1992)
(Moore, 1996, p. 26)
“[…] two extreme possibilities: One is that the
community of organisms […] is in total disorder. “[The community] is made up of
customers, market intermediaries
The species come and go as free spirits. Their
(including agents and channels,
colonization and extinction are not determined
by the presence or the absence of other species. and those who sell complementary
products and services), suppliers […].
[…] The second extreme possibility is extreme
order. The species are so closely interdependent, These might be thought of as the
primary species of the ecosystem.
the food webs so rigid, the symbiosis so tightly
bound, that the community is virtually one great [The community] also includes the
organism, a superorganism. […] Ecologists […] owners and other stakeholders of these
primary species, as well as powerful
envision an intermediate form of community
species who may be relevant in a given
organization, something like this: whether a
situation, including government agencies
particular species occurs in a given suitable
and regulators, and associations and
habitat is largely due to chance, but for most
standards bodies representing customers
organisms the chance is strongly affected-the
or suppliers.” (Moore, 1996, p. 27)
dice are loaded- by the identity of the species
already present.” (Wilson, 1992, p. 163 – 64)
Literal meaning according to Edward Wilson
Literal sense
≠
metaphorical
sense
Literal sense
≠
metaphorical
sense
Correlation
2 “Such a system includes all abiotic components such as mineral ions, organic compounds, and the climatic regime (temperature, rainfall, and other physical
factors). The biotic components generally include representatives from several trophic levels; primary producers (mainly green plants); macro consumers (mainly
animals), which ingest other organisms or particulate organic matter; micro consumers (mainly bacteria and fungi), which break down complex organic compounds upon the death of the above organisms” (Moore, 1996, p. 26 inspired by Wilson, 1992).
(Wilson, 1990,
1992)
COMMUNITY
ECOLOGY
Paradigm
in ecology
TABLE 2. — Correlation between literal sense and metaphorical sense of the BE definitional.
32
Critical Perspectives On the Business Ecosystem Ecological Metaphor
04/09/2013 11:09:53
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 33
(Wilson, 1990,
1992)
COMMUNITY
ECOLOGY
Literal sense
≠
metaphorical
sense
Literal
sense
≠
metaphorical
sense
“[The member organisms] co-evolve
their capabilities and roles, and tend
to align themselves with the directions
set by one or more central companies.”
(Moore, 1996, p. 26)
Trophic interdependence between populations
= food chain (Wilson, 1992, p. 180)
“The evolution of two or more species due to
mutual influence” (Wilson, 1992, p. 163 – 64,
394)
“Synergistic competencies: […] you
must not only have a plan for your
“If an individual’s fitness is significantly
own product or service, but a plan to
determined by its interactions with other
help out the entire ecosystem […]”
members of the community, then these
“[…] capabilities and relationships
interactions can properly be referred to as
ecosystem functions.” (Wilson, 1992 quoted by and the choices about how and when
to establish them […]” (Moore, 1996,
Hagen 1992, p. 195)
p. 67)
Co-evolution
Ecosystemic
function
Interdependence
Literal sense
≠
metaphorical
sense
“[The executives] will have to invest
in new skills, new assets, new
directions. But they cannot make these
decisions unilaterally because they are
interdependent with at least some of
the other members of the community.”
(Moore, 1996, p. 61)
Relations
Literal sense
≠
metaphorical
sense
“[The member organisms] tend to align
themselves with the directions set
by one or more central companies.”
(Moore, 1996, p. 26)
“Those companies holding leadership
roles may change over time, but the
function of ecosystem leader is valued
by the community because it enables
members to move toward shared visions
to align their investments, and to find
mutually supportive roles.” (Moore,
1996, p. 26)
“Think of the community as a food web, a
connection of species that prey on other
species.” (Wilson, 1992, p. 180)
“In such loosely organized communities,
there are little players, and big players and
the biggest players of all are the keystone
species. As the name implies, the removal of
a keystone species causes a substantial part of
the community to change drastically.” (Wilson,
1992, p. 164)
The BE ecological metaphor according to James Moore
33
04/09/2013 11:09:53
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 34
(Howe &
Westley,
1988)
ECOSYSTEM
ECOLOGY
Paradigm in
ecology
Literal sense
≠
metaphorical
sense
Literal sense
≠
metaphorical
sense
“In the new economy, stable ecosystems are
open ecosystems, ripe for new entrants. The
very stability of the basic business model makes
it a sitting target for enterprising companies
that are willing to work a little harder, or
accept smaller returns, than the members of
the establishment.” (Moore, 1996, p. 97)
“The ecosystem [is] not so much a
concrete geographical entity as a flexible
abstraction. […] Although, its boundaries
might be poorly marked, the investigator
could still perceive it as a “system” for
the purpose of ecological study. Energy,
chemical substances or organisms, might
regularly move in and out of the system.”
(Hagen, 1992, p. 127).
“The idea of a group of interdependent
“[…] a mutualistic, self-reinforcing set of
organisms, what Stephen Forbes referred
relationships […] a set of interdependent
to as a community, became a central
relationships […]” (Moore, 1996, p. 109)
concept in ecology.” (Hagen, 1992, p. 15)
“Landscape pattern influences the
transfer of materials among ecosystems.
In managed and unmanaged landscapes,
ecosystems interact with one another
along topographic sequences.” (Chapin et
al., 2003, p. 8)
Porosity of
boundaries
Interdependence
Interactions
among
ecosystems
Ecosystemic
function
“Alliance-to-alliance rivalries often emerge
when businesses have alternative visions for
the future of any given community.” (Moore,
1998, p. 169)
Literal sense
≠
metaphorical
sense
“Synergistic competencies: […] you must
not only have a plan for your own product
or service, but a plan to help out the entire
ecosystem […]” “[…] capabilities and
relationships and the choices about how and
when to establish them […]” (Moore, 1996,
p. 67)
“The collective intraspecific and
interspecific interactions of the biota,
such as primary and secondary production
and mutualistic
relationships.” (Hagen, 1992)
Literal sense
=
metaphorical
Sense
Correlation
Metaphorical sense according to James
Moore
Object
Literal sense
in ecology
Table 2. — (continued) Correlation between literal sense and metaphorical sense of the BE definitional parameters.
34
Critical Perspectives On the Business Ecosystem Ecological Metaphor
04/09/2013 11:09:53
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 35
(Janzen,
1983;
Wetterer,
1994)
EVOLUTIONARY
ECOLOGY
Literal sense
≠
metaphorical
sense
Literal sense
=
metaphorical
sense
“[The member organisms] co-evolve their
capabilities and roles, and tend to align
themselves with the directions set by one or
more central companies.” (Moore, 1996, p. 26)
“In the new economy, stable ecosystems are
open ecosystems, ripe for new entrants. The
very stability of the basic business model makes
it a sitting target for enterprising companies
that are willing to work a little harder, or
accept smaller returns, than the members of the
establishment.” (Moore, 1996, p. 97)
“Co-evolution is the process of reciprocal
evolutionary change between interacting
species, driven by natural selection.”
(Thompson, 2001, p. 1)
“Multi-species co-evolution affects
emergent community structure or
ecosystem functioning.” (Caldarelli et al.,
1998).
Fluctuation of boundaries of ecosystem
area (Wetterer, 1994)
Co-evolution
Fluctuation of
boundaries
Literal sense
≠
metaphorical
sense
“[…] sometimes intense struggles take place
for territory among alternative ecosystems that
provide more or less substitutable products and
services.” (Moore, 1998, p. 169)
Loose coupling
“[…] joint evolutionary and dispersal
dynamics can shape the species
composition and diversity of natural
communities.” (Urban et al., 2008,
p. 311)
The BE ecological metaphor according to James Moore
35
04/09/2013 11:09:53
36
Critical Perspectives On the Business Ecosystem Ecological Metaphor
2.4 LOGICAL
STRUCTURE ASSOCIATING DEFINITIONAL PARAMETERS
No transposition of all the definitional parameters associated with a single source paradigm has been carried out. Indeed, because metaphor modifies the
meaning of objects, the logical structure linking these objects cannot be transposed. Thus Moore not only adjusts the meaning of the objects that he transposes, but he also connects these objects to each other in order to link them in
a new logical structure.
2.5 NATURE
OF
JAMES MOORE’S
TRANSPOSITION PROCESS
Beyond the clear expression of his position – “In one significant respect,
a strictly biological metaphor does not apply to business. Unlike biological communities of coevolving organisms, business communities are social systems. And
social systems are composed of real people who make decisions” (Moore, 1996,
p. 18) – these findings confirm that Moore does not search for paradigmatic
identity by deductive inference, as Tsoukas (1991) proposes. They also show
that establishing an analogy in Tsoukas’s (1991) sense is impossible because
the multiplicity of source paradigms prevents transposition of the logical structure linking objects from a single domain. Moore makes the BE emerge by interactions between various paradigms. To identify the inference logics associated
with this approach, each stage in the process described by Cornelissen (2005)
must be analyzed:
1. Development of a generic structure: The alignment of the source domain
(involving three different paradigms in ecology) and the target domain (strategic
management) corresponds to an undercoded abduction as presented by Carontini
(1990) – the exploitation of the ecological notion of ecosystem in strategic management allows Moore (1993, 1996) to set up an explanatory hypothesis about his
field observations.
2. Development and elaboration of the blend: Moore (1996) goes on to explore
the consequences of his hypothesis. To that end, he arranges for the objects defining the notion of ecosystem in various paradigms in ecology to interact with his
hypothesis of the existence of an ecosystemic form of organization and connects
the concepts of community, interdependence, co-evolution, and others. Thus, all
the definitional parameters of the BE are selected by deductive interaction among
the various domains.
3. Emergence of a new meaning: Out of the interaction among domains,
a new meaning emerges for each object transposed. This meaning is not that
of the source objects anymore and does not exist in the target domain. However, it connects all the objects transposed to the target domain. Thus, based on
his hypothesis (existence of a form of an ecosystemic form of organization) and
its consequences (parameters defining how it functions), Moore (1996) works by
induction to determine the general rules governing the BE (such as definition,
life cycle or stakes).
Thus the BE theorization implies the implementation of a recursive loop
(abduction/deduction/induction) in Pierce’s ([1931 – 35]) sense.
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 36
04/09/2013 11:09:53
The BE ecological metaphor according to James Moore
2.6 CONSEQUENCES
OF THE ANALYSIS OF
BE
37
LIMITS
In view of the metaphorical process used by Moore (1993; 1996), any analysis
of theoretical BE limits must take into account: 1) the literal meaning of objects in
their source domain, 2) the nature of objects actually transposed by Moore and which
represent as many definitional parameters, 3) the metaphorical sense of these parameters as Moore defines it, as opposed to the literal sense of objects in their source
paradigms, and 4) the inference logic used by Moore to generate the metaphorical
sense of objects by interaction between their literal sense and the target domain.
The research papers analyzing these theoretical BE limits are written essentially by French-speaking scholars (Maitre & Aladjidi, 1999; Harte, 2001; Torrès-Blay
& Guéguen, 2003; Daidj, 2011; Fréry, 2010; Isckia, 2010). They bear mainly on the
impossibility of transposing to the business environment some of the objects characterizing the notion of ecosystem in ecology. They exploit an analogical perspective
or even an identity perspective. This tends to demonstrate the inadequacy between
the sense of objects characterizing the notion of ecosystem in ecology and that in
strategic management. Such studies fail to take into account the nature of Moore’s
metaphorical process and the inference logics that are derived from it. As a result,
his epistemological perspective must be specified beforehand. Moreover, in the vast
majority of cases, the objects considered do not correspond to the categorical referents that Moore exploited (Table 3).
In these criticisms, the paradigmatic origin of objects chosen is not taken
into account and therefore the literal sense of each object in its original theoretical
framework is not specified. However, certain objects in ecology such as the notion of
co-evolution come in different flavors depending on the premises on which the theoretical construction rests, even within the same paradigm (Urban et al., 2008). Thus
the literal sense of objects from ecology which were used to define the theoretical
BE limits in an analogical and identity approach (Maitre & Aladjidi, 1999; Torrès-Blay
& Gueguen, 2003; Isckia, 2010; Daidj, 2011) was not really taken into account. The
sense that is presented for these objects is, rather, a representation that the authors
themselves assign to it, which undermines the validity of the reasoning applied.
TABLE 3. — Ecological metaphor theoretical limits: synthesis of the works of Maître
& Aladjidi, 1999; Harte, 2001; Torrès-Blay & Guéguen, 2003; Fréry, 2010; Isckia,
2010; Daidj, 2011 (adapted from Daidj, 2011)
Definitional
parameters
according
to Moore
Maitre
& Aladjidi,
1999
Reproduction
NO
✓
Time scale,
evolution, extinction
NO
✓
Area, environment,
biotope (habitat)
NO
✓
Object
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 37
Harte,
2001
Torrès-Blay
& Gueguen,
2003
Fréry,
2010
✓
✓
Isckia,
2010
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
04/09/2013 11:09:53
38
Critical Perspectives On the Business Ecosystem Ecological Metaphor
Definitional
parameters
according
to Moore
Maitre
& Aladjidi,
1999
Awareness,
will, intention
NO
✓
Endogenous
structure
YES
✓
Endo-exogenous
relations
NO
✓
Competition
between ecosystems
YES
Predation, stability
YES
Food chains
NO
Object
Harte,
2001
Torrès-Blay
& Gueguen,
2003
Fréry,
2010
Isckia,
2010
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Conclusion
The use of comparative models (Tsoukas, 1991) and interactional models (Cornelissen, 2005) of the metaphorical theorization of organizations as an interpretation framework makes it possible to specify the nature of the metaphorical process
actually implemented by Moore to construct his ecological metaphor. The analysis
shows that the transposition process applied is not analogical but a construction by
interaction among several domains. In this context, in the absence of an analogy
or an identity in the sense of Tsoukas (1991), only the categorical referents chosen
by Moore can be considered, and the metaphorical sense that he has assigned them
must be taken into account. This reflection shows the impact of the nature of the
metaphorical theorization process on the construction of the meaning of the definitional parameters determining the boundaries of BEs.
The nature of the metaphorical BE’s theorization process also provides information on the stance to be taken to define its limits. The inability to identify the
premises determining the literal sense of source objects in their original paradigm,
to distinguish between the literal and metaphorical senses of the objects transposed as so many definitional parameters, and to analyze the metaphorical process
actually implemented, show that previous researchers aiming to specify theoretical
limits of BEs (Maitre & Aladjidi, 1999; Torrès-Blay & Gueguen, 2003; Isckia, 2010;
Daidj, 2011) were not able to take into account the epistemological stance adopted
by its founder. Researchers were also unable to analyze the theoretical limits of
the BE itself, but instead analyzed the theoretical limits of the ecological metaphor
in an inadequate analogical perspective. The analogical approach (Tsoukas, 1991)
looks for similarities by applying deductive inference in order to check the existence of an identity between the objects defining the notion of ecosystem in ecology and the objects defining this same notion in strategic management. However,
Moore draws on the interaction among several paradigms, revealing new meaning
for each object that he transposes, beyond pre-existing similarities. It is therefore
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 38
04/09/2013 11:09:53
Conclusion
39
necessary to identify the inference logic that governs each of these operations in
order to define not the theoretical limits of ecological metaphor, but the epistemological limits of the BE.
This study shows that theorization of the BE implies the implementation of
recursive loop (abduction/deduction/induction) in the sense of Pierce ([1931-35]).
This situation makes qualifying James Moore’s epistemological stance more complicated in view of the main theoretical currents in organizational sciences. From an
epistemological point of view, this stance does not correspond to a specific current of thought (such as positivism, constructivism or realism) but its relevance is
defended by a growing number of studies in organizational sciences (such as David
et al, 2000; Robert-Demontrond, 2005; Martinet & Pesqueux, 2013). This recent perspective considers the generation of scientific knowledge more globally and tends
to go beyond the opposition between an inductive approach and a hypotheticaldeductive approach. It considers the question of theorization by demonstrating the
importance of importing concepts in the development of organizational sciences.
While it is not easy to liken Moore’s epistemological stance to a specific current of
thought, the inference logic that he uses must be taken into account in the study
of the limits of BE and be corroborated by the theoretical exploratory path in order
to check the coherence of the reasoning. Moreover, a second empirical validation
is necessary to show how well the BE matches the multiple realities of the field.
This link between observable reality and descriptive model will vary depending on
the objectives and the epistemological approach chosen by the researcher. Consequently, it is essential to specify these elements, which will, in turn, determine: 1)
the logic of construction of the BE’s definition 2) the framework in which the theoretical grounding of the BE is to be found and 3) the logic that must prevail in
order to determine the BE’s epistemological limits.
Moreover, the attempts to determine the theoretical limits of the BE clearly
show the difficulty generated by the use of metaphor. Indeed, this polysemous
notion includes various transposition processes that correspond to different inference logics and epistemological stances. To verify the epistemological relevance of
the use of metaphor in the theorization of organizations, the inference processes
involved must be defined clearly. The epistemic stance adopted by the author of this
theorization can thus be taken into account in subsequent analyses of hypotheses,
of the general rule or of ensuing consequences. If determination of the transposition process is critical to checking the consistency of logical inferences associated
with the theoretical exploration mode applied, it also allows the analysis of the scientific validity of the theorization. In view of the many importations of concepts
and theories applied in organizational sciences, our methodology could be useful. Finally, our approach confirms the fundamental conceptual nature of metaphor
(Lakoff & Ortony, 1993) and reconnects the phenomena of scientific conceptualization and linguistic figuration.
Furthermore, following the elaboration of the BE notion, a new, unifying paradigm emerged in ecology: the biodiversity ecosystem function paradigm,
or BEFP (Naeem, 2002). By feeding on previous theories, the BEFP incorporates
genetics (evolutionary ecology), communities (community ecology) and ecosystemic functions (ecosystem ecology) into a single holistic vision that integrates
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 39
04/09/2013 11:09:53
40
Critical Perspectives On the Business Ecosystem Ecological Metaphor
all trophic levels to be found in an environment. By giving an active role to habitat in the governance of environmental conditions, this paradigm opposes conventional thinking. This recent holistic paradigm in ecology became emancipated after
publication of Moore’s first work. Indeed, since it integrates the previous perspectives while providing a more complete vision of the ecosystem concept, this paradigm would represent an ideal reference for updating the BE metaphor by making
it possible to refocus on all the transpositions carried out by Moore on a single
reference paradigm. Moreover, the analysis of causality links between the diversity
of actors and the stability of ecosystemic processes could be integrated into the
metaphor. Although Moore expresses this link intuitively, he scarcely justifies it.
Finally, this new vision of the notion of ecosystem in ecology makes the transposition of the logical structure linking the objects exploited by Moore possible, and
therefore makes it possible to go from an interactional process (Cornelissen, 2005)
to an analogical process (Tsoukas, 1991). Such a construction would shed new light
on the existing links between the definitional parameters of the BE notion and
would make the analysis of its limits easier.
References
Abercrombie M. — The New Penguin Dictionary of Biology, London, Penguin Books,
1992.
Bateson G. — Steps to an Ecology of the Mind, New York, Ballantine Books, 1972.
Bateson G. — Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human Sciences), New York, E.P. Dutton, 1979.
Beer S. — The Viable System Model: its Provenance, Development, Methodology and
Pathology, Journal of Operational Research Society, 1984, 35, p. 7-25.
Black M. — Models and metaphor, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, 1962.
Black M. — More about metaphor, in: Metaphor and thought, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, & Ortony A., 1979, p. 19-43.
Bourgeois W.V., Pinder, C.C. — Contrasting philosophical perspectives in administrative science: A reply to Morgan. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983, 28,
p. 608-613.
Bunge M. — Method, model and matter, 1973, Dordrecht, Reidel D.
Caldarelli G., Higgs P.G., McKane A.J. — Modelling coevolution in multispecies communities, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1998, 193, p. 345 — 358.
Carontini E. — Le rôle de l’abduction dans le processus d’interprétation, in: Technologies et symboliques de la communication, PUF & Sfez L., Coutlée G., 1990.
Chapin F.S., Matson P.A., Mooney H.A. — Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology,
New York, Springer-Verlag, 2002.
Cornelissen J.P. — Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory, Academy of
Management Review, 2005, 30, p. 751 — 764.
Cornelissen J.P., Kafouros M. — Metaphors and Theory Building in Organization Theory: What Determines the Impact of a Metaphor on Theory?, British Journal of Management, 2008, 19, p. 365 — 379.
Cornelissen J.P., Clarke J.S. — Imagining and rationalizing opportunities: inductive
reasoning and the creation and justification of new ventures, Academy of Management Review, 2010, 35, p. 539 — 557.
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 40
04/09/2013 11:09:53
References
41
Daidj N. — Les écosystèmes d’affaires: une nouvelle forme d’organisation en réseau?,
Management & Avenir, 2011, 6, p. 105-130.
David A., Hatchuel A., Laufer R. — Les Nouvelles Fondations des sciences de gestion:
éléments d’épistémologie de la recherche en management, Paris, Vuibert, 2000.
Edouard S., Gratacap A. — Dictature de l’innovation et prime à la nouveauté dans le
champ académique; Positionnement de l’approche par les écosystèmes d’affaires au
sein du management stratégique, Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 2011, 5,
p. 131-154.
Fauconnier G., Turner M. — Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 1998,
22, p. 133 — 187.
Frery F. — Les Ecosystèmes d’affaires: un malentendu fertile, Communication a la Table
Ronde sur les Ecosystèmes d’affaires: intérêts et limites dans le champ du management stratégique, 2010, XIXe Conference de I’AIMS, Luxembourg, 2-4 juin.
Garud R., Kotha S. — Using the Brain as a Metaphor to Model Flexible Production Systems, Academy of Management Review, 1994, 19, p. 671-698.
Gentner D. — Generative analogies as mental models, Proceedings of the Third Annual
Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1981, p. 97-100.
Gentner D. — Are scientific analogies metaphors? in: Metaphor: Problems and perspectives, Brighton, Harvester & Mwi D.S., 1982, p. 106-132.
Gentner D. — Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy, Cognitive Science, 1983, 7, p. 155 — 170.
Gentner D., Bowdle B., Wolff P., Boronat C. — Metaphor is like analogy, in: The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science, Cambridge, MIT Press & Gentner D.,
Holyoak K.J., Kokinov B.N., 2001, p. 199-253.
Gerring J. — What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding
concept formation in the social sciences, Polity, 1999, 31, p. 357-393.
Gioia D.A., Schultz M., Corley K.G. — Organizational identity, image, and adaptive
instability, Academy of Management Review, 2000, 25, p. 63 — 81.
Grant D. Oswick C. — Metaphor and organizations, London, Sage Publication, 1996.
Gueguen G., Torres O. — La dynamique concurrentielle des écosystèmes d’affaires.
Linux contre Microsoft, Revue française de gestion, 2004, 1, p. 227-248.
Guéguen G., Pellegrin-Boucher E., Torrès O. — Des stratégies collectives aux écosystèmes d’affaires: le secteur des logiciels comme illustration, Atelier de Recherche AIMS
« Stratégies collectives: vers de nouvelles formes de concurrence », Montpellier, 2004.
Gueguen G., Pellegrin-Boucher E., Torrès O. — Between cooperation and competition: the
benefits of collective strategies within business ecosystems. The example of the software
industry, EIASM, 2nd Workshop on coopetition strategy, Milan, September 14-15, 2006.
Guéguen G., Passebois-Ducros J. — Les écosystèmes d’affaires: entre communauté et
réseau, Management & Avenir, 2011, 46, p. 131-156.
Hagen J.B. — An Entangled Bank: The origins of ecosystem ecology, New Brunswick,
Rutgers University Press, 1992.
Hannan M.T., Freeman J. — The Population Ecology of Organization, American Journal of Sociology, 1977, 82, p. 929-964.
Harte J. — Business as a living System: the Value of Industrial Ecology, California
Management Review, 2001, 43, p. 16-25.
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 41
04/09/2013 11:09:53
42
Critical Perspectives On the Business Ecosystem Ecological Metaphor
Heacox K. — The Smithsonian Guides to Natural America, The Pacific: Hawaii and
Alaska, New-York, Random House Publishing Group, 1995.
Howe H.F., Westley L.C. — Ecological Relationships of Plants and Animals, New York,
Oxford University Press, 1988.
Iansiti M., Levien R. — The Keystone Advantage, Boston, Harvard Business School
Press, 2004a.
Iansiti M., Levien R. — Strategy as Ecology, Harvard Business Review, 2004b, 82,
p. 68-78.
Indurkya B. — Modes of metaphor, Metaphor and symbolic activity, 1991, 6, p 1-27.
Inns D. — Metaphor in the literature of organizational analysis: A preliminary taxonomy and a glimpse at a humanities-based perspective, Organization, 2002, 9,
p. 305 — 330.
Isckia T. — Note de synthèse des travaux de recherche en vue de l’obtention de
l’habilitation à diriger des recherches en science de gestion. Paris, INT, 2010.
Janzen D.H. — Costa Rican Natural History, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1983.
Lakoff G., Johnson M. — Metaphors we live by, Chicago, University of Chicago Press,
1980.
Le Roy F. — La stratégie militaire comme métaphore de la rivalité concurrentielle, Sixième Conférence de l’AIMS, Ecole des HEC de Montréal, Canada, 1997.
Le Roy F. — Les conditions de l’application de la stratégie militaire au management,
RFG, 1999, 122, p. 6-16.
Le Roy F. — Le transfert de concepts en sciences de gestion: métaphores, analogies et modélisations analytiques, Economies et Sociétés, Série Sciences de Gestion,
2001, 29, p. 153-174.
Lecerf A., Richardson J.S., — Biodiversity-ecosystem function research: insights
gained from streams, River. Res. Applic., 2010, 26, p. 45 — 54.
Maitre B., Aladjidi G. — Les Business Modèles de la Nouvelle Economie, Paris, Dunod,
1999.
Martinet A.C., Pesqueux Y. — Epistémologie des sciences de gestion, Paris, Vuivert,
2013.
Mayhew P. — Discovering Evolutionary Ecology: Bringing together ecology and evolution, New-York, Oxford University Press, 2006.
Moore J.F. — Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition, Harvard Business
Review, 1993, 71, p. 75-86.
Moore J.F. — The Death of Competition. Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems, New York, Harper Business, 1996.
Moore J.F. — The rise of a new corporate form, Washington Quarterly, 1998, 21,
p. 167-181.
Moore J.F. — Business ecosystems and the view of the firm, Antitrust Bulletin, 2006,
51, p. 31-75.
Morgan G. — Paradigm, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1980, 25, p. 605-622.
Morgan G. — More on metaphor: why we cannot control tropes in administrative science, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983, 28, p. 601-607.
Morgan G. — Images of organization, Beverly Hills, Sage, 1986.
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 42
04/09/2013 11:09:53
References
43
Morgan G. — Accounting as reality construction: Towards a new epistemology for
accounting practice, Organizations and Society, 1988a, 13, p. 477-485.
Morgan G. — Riding the waves of change, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1988b.
Morgan G. — Creative organization theory, Newbury Park, Sage, 1989.
Naeem S. — Ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss: the evolution of a paradigm, Ecology, 2002, 83, p. 1537-1552.
Nalebuff B., Brandenburger A. — La Co-opetition: une Revolution dans la Manière de
Jouer Concurrence et Cooperation, Paris, Village Mondial, 1996.
Nelson R., Winter S. — An evolutionary theory of economic change, Cambridge, Belknap,
1982.
Oswick C., Keenoy T., Grant D. — Metaphor and analogical reasoning in organization theory: Beyond orthodoxy, Academy of Management Review, 2002, 27,
p. 294 — 303.
Pellegrin-Boucher E., Gueguen G. — Stratégies de « coopétition » au sein d’un écosystème d’affaires: une illustration à travers le cas de SAP, Finance Contrôle Stratégie,
2005, 8, p. 109-130.
Peirce C.S. — Collected Papers, Vol. 1-6, Cambridge, Harvard University Press,
[1931-1935].
Pierce L. — Big Losses in Ecosystem Niches: How Core Firm Decisions Drive Complementary Product Shakeouts, Strategic Management Journal, 2009, 30, p. 323-47.
Pinder C., Bourgeois V.W. — Controlling tropes in administrative science, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1982, 27, p. 641 — 652.
Ricoeur P. — La métaphore vive, Paris, Le Seuil, 1975.
Royte E. — On the brink: Hawaii’s vanishing species, National Geographic, 1995, 188,
p. 2-37.
Sanford A.I. — The mind of man, Brighton, Harvester Press, 1987.
Shön D.A. — Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy, in: Metaphor and thought, New York, Cambridge University Press & Ortony A.,
p. 154-283, 1979.
Searle J.R. — Metaphor, in: Metaphor and thought, New York, Cambridge University
Press & Ortony A., p. 92-123, 1979.
Simpson J.A., Weiner E.S.C. — The Oxford English dictionary, Oxford, Clarendon Press,
1989.
Tansley A.G. — The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms, Ecology,
1935, 16, p. 284-307.
Teece D.J. — Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance, Strategic Management Journal, 2007, 28,
p. 1319-1350.
Thiétart R.A., Forgues B. — Chaos theory and organizations, Organization Science,
1995, 6, p. 19 — 42.
Thiétart R.A. — Méthodes de recherche en management, Paris, Dunod, 1999.
Thompson J.R. — Coevolution, Wiley Online Library, 2001.
Tinker T. — Metaphor or reification: Are radical humanists really libertarian anarchists?, Journal of Management Studies, 1986, 23, p. 363 — 385.
203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 43
04/09/2013 11:09:53
Understanding Business Ecosystems
Thus, the main purpose of this book is twofold. On the one hand, the
objective is to identify the epistemological and theoretical fundamentals of
business ecosystems, and on the other hand, the purpose is to analyse the
various managerial challenges. This volume analyses in particular the issues
of knowledge management, coopetition strategies, platforms, governance,
etc.
Understanding Business Ecosystems: How Firms Succeed in the New World of
Convergence? is finally a key reference book that innovates by integrating
for the first time well known French speaking scholars’ contributions from the
strategy and innovation management fields.
Soumaya Ben Letaifa
is an associate Professor of Strategy at the Management School of Université
du Québec à Montréal. Her research and teaching focus on new paradigms
in marketing and strategy and on connecting the macro, the mezzo and the
micro levels of business relationships in global and local contexts. More specifically,
she explores B2B relationships far beyond the traditional buyer-seller dyad to grasp the
complexity of interactions and networks of actors.
Anne Gratacap
studied at the École Normale Supérieure. She is Professor of strategic
management in University of Paris 1 Pantheon – Sorbonne. She co-manages
M2 Commercial Strategy and the Negotiation Policy unit. Her research into
corporate strategy concerns the role played by Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) in the reconfiguration of organizations and corporate strategies.
Soumaya BEN LETAIFA, Anne GRATACAP, Thierry ISCKIA (éd.)
Understanding Business Ecosystems: How Firms Succeed in the New World
of Convergence? builds on strategic management and innovation
management academic contributions to better understand theoretical
and empirical challenges of business ecosystems. Even if the concept of
business ecosystem was coined in 1993, it will lie fallow during more than ten
years before gaining scholars’ interest. Managers will however recognize the
relevance of this concept as it grasps the complexity of their business reality
in terms of new collaborative and innovative strategies.
Understanding Business Ecosystems
How Firms Succeed in the New World of Convergence?
MANAGEMENT
Soumaya BEN LETAIFA, Anne GRATACAP,
Thierry ISCKIA (éd.)
Understanding
Business
Ecosystems
How Firms Succeed in the New World
of Convergence?
Foreword by Yvon Pesqueux
Thierry Isckia
is full-time Professor of strategic management in Telecom école de
Management (Institut Mines-Telecom), Director of the Master in Strategic
Management. His research interests are in strategic management, innovation
management and knowledge management. His current research investigates business
ecosystems and/or network-centric innovation, knowledge-based inter-organizational
collaborations and platform-based innovation management.
We thank the authors who contributed to the writing of this book:
Marie Carpenter, Nabyla Daidj, Valérie Fautrero, Mickael Géraudel, Gaël Gueguen,
Gérard Koenig, Denis Lescop, Elena Lescop, Thomas Loilier, Magali Malherbe, Xavier Parisot
et David Salvetat.
BUSECO
ISBN978-2-8041-7676-1
ISSN
1781-4944
BUSECO-cov.indd 1-3
www.deboeck.com
5/09/13 09:55