101 results found
Thomas LDW, Autio E, Gann DM, 2022, Processes of ecosystem emergence, Technovation, Vol: 115, Pages: 1-16, ISSN: 0166-4972
We investigate patterns in platform ecosystem emergence. We find that the processes of ecosystem emergence—value discovery (designing and establishing an ecosystem value proposition and individual value offerings), collective governance (regulation of participation), platform resourcing (resource acquisition for set-up and scale-up), and contextual embedding (legitimation of the ecosystem in the wider societal and competitive context)—exhibit characteristic patterns as an ecosystem establishes itself. We also find that collective governance patterns vary considerably across cases and argue that early governance decisions significantly influence subsequent evolution of an ecosystem. Furthermore, we show that although there are similarities in ecosystem emergence at the macro level (during launch, expansion, and establishment), at the micro level these processes coevolve giving rise to idiosyncratic patterns of coevolution.
Symeonidou N, Leiponen A, Autio E, et al., 2022, The origins of capabilities: resource allocation strategies, capability development, and the performance of new firms, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol: 37, Pages: 106208-106208, ISSN: 0883-9026
Resource-constrained new ventures need to decide how to allocate their scarce resources to develop internal functional capabilities in order to survive and grow. Drawing on the longitudinal Kauffman Firm Survey of U.S. start-ups, we explore the performance implications of broad versus narrow scope in new firms' functional capability development and show that focus rather than breadth in capability development is conducive to higher revenue performance, although financial and knowledge resource availability moderate this relationship. Studying capability development in entrepreneurial firms informs our understanding of capability development in any firm competing under time and resource constraints.
Autio E, Thomas LDW, 2022, Researching ecosystems in innovation contexts, Innovation and Management Review, Vol: 19, Pages: 12-25
Purpose: The rapid adoption of the ecosystem concept in innovation contexts has led to a proliferation of differing uses. Scholars need to be crystal clear which concept of the ecosystem they are using to facilitate communication between scholars and allow for cumulativeness and creativity. This paper aims to introduce some clarity into the conceptual mist that surrounds the notion of “ecosystems” in innovation contexts. Design/methodology/approach: A review of the extant literature on ecosystems in innovation contexts to derive an integrated approach to understanding the variety of constructs in use. Findings: This paper introduces clarity into the conceptual mist that surrounds the term “innovation ecosystem”, showing there are three basic types of ecosystems, all of which have a common focus on the collective production of a coherent system-level output. Originality/value: Contributes through a comprehensive overview of the differing ecosystem types in innovation contexts and with a heuristic to disambiguate types of innovation ecosystems.
Legenvre H, Autio E, Hameri A-P, 2022, How to Harness Open Technologies for Digital Platform Advantage, MIS QUARTERLY EXECUTIVE, Vol: 21, Pages: 31-53, ISSN: 1540-1960
Smith C, Autio E, 2022, How counter-fate relational practices mitigate resource acquisition challenges during project nascence, Organization Studies, ISSN: 0170-8406
Research shows that embedded relations can facilitate the resource acquisition process in entrepreneurship. Yet, as relations are dynamic and subject to change, it remains unclear how entrepreneurs can acquire necessary resources when pre-existing ties may not yet or no longer be relevant, sufficient or accessible. Under these circumstances, acquiring necessary resources is a challenge and one that novice entrepreneurs in project-based enterprises face repeatedly as they seek to sustain their businesses. Evidence from 123 projects developed by six newly formed independent television production companies in the United Kingdom shows that new entrepreneurs can manoeuvre around constraints by engaging in one of four counter-fate relational practices: posturing (i.e. exaggerating interest from key ties), status sequencing (i.e. developing key relations in sequence based on status), geographic sequencing (i.e. attaining key ties in sequence based on location), and opportunistic manoeuvring (i.e. manipulating the opportunism of potential resource holders). We contribute to entrepreneurship research by showing how resources can be acquired despite a lack of key embedded ties, and highlight enabling conditions; and to project studies by illustrating how projects progress past nascence to launch and acquire new clients or repeat commissions.
Autio E, 2021, Orchestrating ecosystems: a multi-layered framework, Innovation, Vol: 24, Pages: 1-14, ISSN: 1447-9338
Ecosystems are distinguished from other structural arrangements for value co-production by the nature of their governance and coordination challenges. As ecosystems are marked by their relative non-reliance upon formal, 1–1 supplier contracts to govern and coordinate productive activities, they need to find non-hierarchical ways of orchestrating ecosystem constituents such that a coherent system-level value offering is enabled and targeted at a defined user audience. Importantly, ecosystems cannot rely on ‘command-and-control’ governance to coordinate inputs from different participants, as would be the case of conventional supply chains. Instead, ecosystem leaders need to persuade others to make voluntary inputs that are consistent with the ecosystem’s overarching value offering. I call this task ‘ecosystem orchestration’. In this essay I suggest an ecosystem orchestration framework that distinguishes between technological, economic, institutional, and behavioural layers of ecosystem orchestration. I begin by highlighting distinctive governance challenges of ecosystems. I then provide a brief overview of the ecosystem orchestration literature. Then I introduce the different domains in which orchestration can be exercised. I conclude with a framework for orchestrating innovation ecosystems from birth to maturity. In addition to distinguishing between and describing technological, economic, institutional, and behavioural layers of ecosystem orchestration, the model also distinguishes between three stages of ecosystem momentum creation: initiation, scaling, and control. This framework has been designed to help practitioners to design strategies for ecosystem momentum creation.
Autio E, Mudambi R, Yoo Y, 2021, Digitalization and globalization in a turbulent world: Centrifugal and centripetal forces, GLOBAL STRATEGY JOURNAL, Vol: 11, Pages: 3-16, ISSN: 2042-5791
Autio E, Thomas LDW, 2020, Value co-creation in ecosystems: Insights and research promise from three disciplinary perspectives, Handbook of Digital Innovation, Pages: 107-132, ISBN: 9781788119979
This chapter explores value co-creation in ecosystems from three broad disciplinary perspectives: those of strategic management, service marketing, and information systems. These perspectives offer complementary insights into what is a complex phenomenon. The authors consider the premises, underlying theoretical considerations, insights, and contributions of each, identify commonalities and complementarities, and suggest directions for future research agenda.
Thomas LDW, Autio E, 2020, Innovation Ecosystems in Management: An Organizing Typology, Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Business and Management, Editors: Aldag, Publisher: Oxford University Press
The concept of an “ecosystem” is increasingly used in management and business to describe collectives of heterogeneous, yet complementary organizations who jointly create some kind of system-level output, analogous to an “ecosystem service” delivered by natural ecosystems, which extends beyond the outputs and activities of any individual participant of the ecosystem. Due to its attractiveness and elasticity, the ecosystem concept has been applied to a wide range of phenomena by a variety of scholarly perspectives and under varying monikers such as “innovation ecosystems,” “business ecosystems,” “technology ecosystems,” “platform ecosystems,” “entrepreneurial ecosystems,” and “knowledge ecosystems.” This conceptual and application heterogeneity has contributed to conceptual and terminological confusion, which threatens to undermine the utility of the concept in supporting cumulative insight.In this article, we seek to reintroduce some order into this conceptual heterogeneity by reviewing how the ecosystem concept has been applied to variably overlapping phenomena and by highlighting key terminological and conceptual inconsistencies and their sources. We find that conceptual inconsistency in the ecosystem terminology relates to two key dimensions: the “unit” of analysis and the type of “ecosystem service”—that is the ecosystem output collectively generated. We then argue that although there is considerable heterogeneity in application, the concept nevertheless offers promise in its potential to support insights that are distinctive relative to other concepts describing collectives of organizations, such as those of “industry,” “supply chain,” “cluster,” and “network.” We also find that despite such proliferation, the concept nevertheless describes collectives that are distinctive in that they uniq
Autio E, Cao Z, 2019, Fostering Digital Start-ups: Structural Model of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, 52ndHawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Publisher: HICSS, Pages: 5429-5438
Thomas LDW, Sharapov D, Autio E, 2018, Linking entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems: The case of AppCampus, Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and the Diffusion of Startups, Pages: 35-64, ISBN: 9781784710057
Bruneel J, Clarysse B, Autio E, 2018, The role of prior domestic experience and prior shared experience in young firm internationalization, INTERNATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS JOURNAL-RESEARCHING ENTREPRENEURSHIP, Vol: 36, Pages: 265-284, ISSN: 0266-2426
Autio E, Thomas L, 2018, Tilting the playing field: Towards an endogenous strategic action theory of ecosystem creation, Open Innovation, Ecosystems and Entrepreneurship: Issues and Perspectives, Editors: Nambisan, Publisher: World Scientific Publishing, Pages: 111-140
Ecosystem creation is a form of endogenous strategic action: it creates and shapes new activity systems that exploit new ways of creating value. To be successful, this action requires that future ecosystem stakeholders agree to a shared vision of the ecosystem value proposition. In this chapter, we develop an institutional approach to understanding how firms can facilitate ecosystem creation by manipulating perceptions of value concerning the shared technology platform around which the ecosystem is organized. We discuss four arenas of endogenous strategic action: manipulating cognitive legitimacy, manipulating perceptions of technological instrumentality, manipulating perceptions of economic instrumentality, and manipulating normative legitimacy. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our model for theory and practice.
Dattee B, Alexy O, Autio ET, 2018, Maneuvering in poor visibility: how firms play the ecosystem game when uncertainty is high, Academy of Management Journal, Vol: 61, Pages: 466-498, ISSN: 0001-4273
Innovation ecosystems are increasingly regarded as important vehicles to create and capture value from complex value propositions. While current literature assumes these value propositions can be known ex-ante and an appropriate ecosystem design derived from them, we focus instead on generative technological innovations that enable an unbounded range of potential value propositions, hence offering no clear guidance to firms. To illustrate our arguments, we inductively study two organizations, each attempting to create two novel ecosystems around new technological enablers deep in their industry architecture. We highlight how ecosystem creation in such conditions is a systemic process driven by coupled feedback loops, which organizations must try to control dynamically: firms first make the switch to creating the ecosystem following an external pull to narrow down the range of potential applications; then need to learn to keep up with ecosystem dynamics by roadmapping and preempting, while simultaneously enacting resonance. Dynamic control further entails counteracting the drifting away of the nascent ecosystem from the firm's idea of future value creation and the sliding of its intended control points for value capture. Our findings shed new light on strategy and control in emerging ecosystems, and provide guidance to managers on playing the ecosystem game.
Autio E, Thomas LDW, 2018, Tilting the playing field: Towards an endogenous strategic action theory of ecosystem creation, World Scientific Reference On Innovation, Pages: 111-140, ISBN: 9789813147027
Ecosystem creation is a form of endogenous strategic action: It creates and shapes new activity systems that exploit new ways of creating value. To be successful, this action requires that future ecosystem stakeholders agree to a shared vision of the ecosystem value proposition. In this chapter, we develop an institution al approach to understanding how firms can facilitate ecosystem creation by manipulating perceptions of value concerning the shared technology platform around which the ecosystem is organized. We discuss four arenas of endogenous strategic action: Manipulating cognitive legitimacy, manipulating perceptions of technological instrumentality, manipulating perceptions of economic instrumen tality, and manipulating normative legitimacy. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our model for theory and practice.
Autio ET, Nambisan S, Thomas L, et al., 2018, Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol: 12, Pages: 72-95, ISSN: 1932-443X
Research Summary: Entrepreneurial ecosystems command increasing attention from policy makers, academics, and practitioners, yet the phenomenon itself remains under‐theorized. Specifically, the conceptual similarities and differences of entrepreneurial ecosystems relative to, for instance, clusters, “knowledge clusters,” regional systems of innovation, and “innovative milieus” remain unclear. Drawing on research on industrial districts and agglomerations, clusters, and systems of innovation, we suggest that entrepreneurial ecosystems differ from traditional clusters by their emphasis on the exploitation of digital affordances; by their organization around entrepreneurial opportunity discovery and pursuit; by their emphasis on business model innovation; by voluntary horizontal knowledge spillovers; and by cluster‐external locus of entrepreneurial opportunities. We highlight how these distinctive characteristics set entrepreneurial ecosystems apart from other cluster types, propose a structural model of entrepreneurial ecosystems, summarize the articles in this special issue, and suggest promising avenues for future research.Managerial Summary: Entrepreneurial ecosystems command increasing attention from policy makers, academics, and practitioners. We suggest that entrepreneurial ecosystems differ from traditional clusters by their emphasis on the exploitation of digital affordances; by their organization around entrepreneurial opportunity discovery and pursuit; by their emphasis on business model innovation; by voluntary horizontal knowledge spillovers; and by cluster‐external locus of entrepreneurial opportunities. We highlight how these distinctive characteristics set entrepreneurial ecosystems apart from regional cluster phenomena discussed in received economic geography and innovation literatures. We suggest policy makers need to adopt novel approaches to stimulate entrepreneurial ecosystems that differ from those in place to develop indust
Autio ET, 2017, Strategic entrepreneurial internationalization: a normative framework, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol: 11, Pages: 211-227, ISSN: 1932-443X
Much of the literature on international new ventures (INVs) tends to focus on early internationalization and view it as the expression of firm-specific advantages that existed prior to internationalization. This paper presents a normative framework that articulates how INVs can leverage internationalization to drive de novo competitive advantage. Drawing on organizational capability and business model literatures, the framework of Strategic Entrepreneurial Internationalization (SEI) argues that INVs that adopt an active learning orientation (LO); a niche orientation (NO); encapsulate cross-border asymmetries in their activity system (AE); and adopt a business model experimentation approach (BME) are more likely to succeed in building sustainable competitive advantage.
Symeonidou N, Bruneel J, Autio E, 2017, Commercialization strategy and internationalization outcomes in technology-based new ventures, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol: 32, Pages: 302-317, ISSN: 0883-9026
Advances in business process outsourcing and open innovation practices have made the choice of techno logy commercialization strategy increasingly relevant for technology-based new ventures. We investigate effects of intellectual property (IP)-based, product-based, and hybrid (both product and IP) commercialization strategies on internationalization propensity and intensity in technology-based new ventures. We find that new ventures adopting a product-based commercialization strategy are less likely to internationalize than those with hybrid or IP-based strategies. In addition, new ventures using IP-based commercialization strategies exhibit higher international intensity after foreign market entry than those with hybrid and product-based strategies. These findings provide novel insights into the dependence on external resources associated with different types of commercialization strategy.
Autio E, Levie J, 2017, Management of entrepreneurial ecosystems, The Wiley Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Pages: 423-449, ISBN: 9781118970836
There is an increasing policy interest toward entrepreneurial ecosystems. Yet, little is actually known about how an entrepreneurial ecosystem works and what the related policy challenges are. Drawing on research on ecological economics and community governance, this chapter develops a theoretical framework for entrepreneurial ecosystem management. Using a Scottish entrepreneurial ecosystem initiative as an example, the authors conclude that policy approaches that emphasize deep stakeholder engagement are likely to give rise to better informed, targeted, and more effectively implemented policy initiatives in entrepreneurial ecosystems than will market failure and structural failure approaches.
Autio ET, Rannikko H, 2016, Retaining winners: Can policy boost high-growth entrepreneurship?, Research Policy, Vol: 45, Pages: 42-55, ISSN: 0048-7333
We analysed the growth impact delivered by a high-growth entrepreneurship policy initiative over a six-year period. Using an eight-year panel that started two years before the initiative was launched and propensity score matching to control selection bias, we found that the initiative had more than doubled the growth rates of treated firms. The initiative had delivered a strong impact also on value-for-money basis. In addition to producing the first robust evidence on the growth impact delivered by a high-growth entrepreneurship initiative, we contribute to public sponsorship theory with the notion of capacity-boosting activities to complement previously discussed buffering and bridging activities.
Autio E, Zander I, 2016, Lean internationalization, Pages: 1754-1758
We use transaction cost theory and foreign entry mode literature to explore the effect of digitalization on new venture internationalization. We argue that digitalization attenuates location specificity, vertical and horizontal asset specificity, and cross-border information asymmetries, giving rise to a resource-lean, proactive, and iterative form of 'lean internationalization'.
Autio E, Fu K, 2015, Economic and political institutions and entry into formal and informal entrepreneurship, ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, Vol: 32, Pages: 67-94, ISSN: 0217-4561
Kazlauskaite R, Autio E, Gelbuda M, et al., 2015, The Resource-based View and SME Internationalisation: An Emerging Economy Perspective, ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS REVIEW, Vol: 3, Pages: 53-64, ISSN: 2353-883X
Kazlauskaite R, Autio E, Sarapovas T, et al., 2015, The Speed and Extent of New Venture Internationalisation in the Emerging Economy Context, ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS REVIEW, Vol: 3, Pages: 41-52, ISSN: 2353-883X
Autio E, Kenney M, Mustar P, et al., 2014, Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context, Research Policy, Vol: 43, Pages: 1097-1108, ISSN: 0048-7333
The purpose of this article and the special issue is to improve our understanding of the theoretical, managerial, and policy implications of entrepreneurial innovation. We accomplish this objective by examining the role of context in stimulating such activity, as well as its impact on the outcomes of entrepreneurial innovation. Our analysis begins by outlining an overarching framework for entrepreneurial innovation and context. With reference to this framework we then compare the attributes of national innovation systems, entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial innovation, and categorize contextual influences on entrepreneurial innovation. We then situate the papers presented in this special issue within this framework. We conclude by outlining an agenda for additional research on this topic, focusing on the relationships between contexts and entrepreneurial innovation and then discuss policy implications, focusing on how public and private actors can meet these challenges.
Thomas LDW, Autio E, Gann DM, 2014, Architectural leverage: putting platforms in context, The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol: 28, Pages: 198-219, ISSN: 1079-5545
The use of the term platform has proliferated in management research. However, theoretical work on the concept has lagged behind. We present a systematic review of the platform literature, identifying four distinct streams: organizational platforms, product family platforms, market intermediary platforms, and platform ecosystems. Each of these streams is characterized by a distinctive, although usually implied, theoretical logic. We elaborate on the theoretical logics of leverage and architectural openness, both of which underpin all four streams of platform research. We further discuss three distinctive leverage rationales exhibited in different platform variants—production, innovation, and transaction—and illustrate how platform ecosystems combine aspects of all three. We explain the meta-logic of architectural leverage to facilitate the purposive manipulation of platforms, providing a link between platform design features and sources of leverage. This provides a model that allows the different platform types to be placed into context with others. Finally, we outline how the concept of architectural leverage can be used to understand platform evolution.
Antonakis J, Autio E, 2014, Entrepreneurship and leadership, The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, Pages: 189-207, ISBN: 9780805850628
Acs ZJ, Autio E, Szerb L, 2014, National Systems of Entrepreneurship: Measurement Issues and Policy Implications, Publisher: Elsevier BV
Acs ZJ, Autio E, Szerb L, 2014, National Systems of Entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications, Research Policy, Vol: 43, Pages: 476-494, ISSN: 0048-7333
We introduce a novel concept of National Systems of Entrepreneurship and provide an approach to characterizing them. National Systems of Entrepreneurship are fundamentally resource allocation systems that are driven by individual-level opportunity pursuit, through the creation of new ventures, with this activity and its outcomes regulated by country-specific institutional characteristics. In contrast with the institutional emphasis of the National Systems of Innovation frameworks, where institutions engender and regulate action, National Systems of Entrepreneurship are driven by individuals, with institutions regulating who acts and the outcomes of individual action. Building on these principles, we also introduce a novel index methodology to characterize National Systems of Entrepreneurship. The distinctive features of the methodology are: (1) systemic approach, which allows interactions between components of National Systems of Entrepreneurship; (2) the Penalty for Bottleneck feature, which identifies bottleneck factors that hold back system performance; (3) contextualization, which recognizes that national entrepreneurship processes are always embedded in a given country's institutional framework.
Acs Z, Szerb L, Autio ET, 2014, Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index 2014, London, Publisher: Amazon Books
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.