Imperial College London

Dr Llewellyn D W Thomas

Business School

Visiting Professor
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

llewellyn.thomas

 
 
//

Location

 

Business School BuildingSouth Kensington Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Publication Type
Year
to

49 results found

Thomas LDW, Ritala P, Karhu K, Heiskala Met al., 2024, Vertical and horizontal complementarities in platform ecosystems, Innovation: Organization and Management, ISSN: 1447-9338

We develop a framework of vertical and horizontal complementarities in platform ecosystems. Complementarity is a key theoretical construct for scholars investigating digital platforms and ecosystems, often mentioned in the context of complements, components, modularity, interdependence, and synergies. We shortly review the literature on complementarities in general strategy literature and then conceptualise complementarities in platform ecosystems. We distinguish between ‘vertical complementarity’ which signifies how complements (e.g., apps) increase the value of a platform (e.g., Android) and ‘horizontal complementarity’ which relates to the value creating complementarities between complements on a platform (e.g., an email and a calendar app). This distinction helps to clarify the notion of complementarities in platform ecosystems and has implications for our understanding of network effects, interdependence, generativity, platform governance, and platform strategy.

Journal article

Gradillas M, Thomas LDW, 2023, Distinguishing digitization and digitalization: A systematic review and conceptual framework, JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, ISSN: 0737-6782

Journal article

Thomas LDW, Leiponen A, Koutroumpis P, 2023, Profiting from data products, Research Handbook on Digital Strategy, Pages: 255-272, ISBN: 9781800378896

Book chapter

Snihur Y, Thomas LDW, Burgelman RAA, 2023, Strategically Managing the Business Model Portfolio Trajectory, CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW, Vol: 65, Pages: 156-176, ISSN: 0008-1256

Journal article

Burgelman RA, Snihur Y, Thomas LDW, 2022, Why Multibusiness Corporations Split: CEO Strategizing as the Ecosystem Evolves, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, Vol: 48, Pages: 2108-2151, ISSN: 0149-2063

Journal article

Hirtenkauf AG, Gurses K, Thomas LDW, 2022, On the naming of innovation districts, Journal of Evolutionary Studies in Business, Vol: 7, Pages: 268-297

Name plays a fundamental role in defining and differentiating a company within a category. In this paper we identify how the leaders of 7 innovation districts (22@Barcelona, Ann Arbor Spark, EECi, Porto Digital, Ruta N – Medellín, SK-Skolkovo and TusPark) understand the construction of the names of their innovation districts. We take an inductive approach utilizing two types of data: exploring the innovation district directors' understanding through direct semi-structured interviews and analyzing secondary data consisting of website and brochures. We show how innovation district leaders use more than one classification name for their organization and that these names either tend towards a more strategic or institutional posture. We contribute by extending existing naming theory to include innovation districts, a complex organization composed by actors of the Triple Helix. We also contribute by providing managerial guidance to assist in understanding the importance of the role of their organization's name in long-term positioning.

Journal article

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.

Journal article

Snihur Y, Thomas L, Garud R, Phillips Net al., 2022, Entrepreneurial framing: a literature review and future research directions, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol: 46, Pages: 578-606, ISSN: 1042-2587

There is increasing recognition among scholars that entrepreneurs use framing to legitimize their ventures and the broader fields within which they operate. Yet, there is no unifying framework to bring together existing theoretical perspectives on entrepreneurial framing and to make sense of their underlying mechanisms. Based on an integrative review of prior studies, we propose a conceptual framework for organizing this important literature. Our review also suggests directions for future research on entrepreneurial framing.

Journal article

Thomas LDW, Tee R, 2022, Generativity: A systematic review and conceptual framework, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, Vol: 24, Pages: 255-278, ISSN: 1460-8545

Journal article

Autio E, Thomas LDW, 2022, Researching ecosystems in innovation contexts, INNOVATION & MANAGEMENT REVIEW, Vol: 19, Pages: 12-25, ISSN: 2515-8961

Journal article

Clements Z, Parmar R, Thomas LDW, 2022, Measuring platform return on participation, BUSINESS HORIZONS, Vol: 65, Pages: 193-204, ISSN: 0007-6813

Journal article

Thomas LDW, Ritala P, 2022, Ecosystem Legitimacy Emergence: A Collective Action View, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, Vol: 48, Pages: 515-541, ISSN: 0149-2063

Journal article

Bogers MLAM, Garud R, Thomas LDW, Tuertscher P, Yoo Yet al., 2022, Digital innovation: transforming research and practice, INNOVATION-ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT, Vol: 24, Pages: 4-12, ISSN: 1447-9338

Journal article

Phillips N, Thomas LDW, 2022, Where to from here? A note from the new editorial team, INNOVATION-ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT, Vol: 24, Pages: 1-3, ISSN: 1447-9338

Journal article

Leiponen A, Thomas LDW, Wang Q, 2022, The dApp economy: a new platform for distributed innovation?, INNOVATION-ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT, Vol: 24, Pages: 125-143, ISSN: 1447-9338

Journal article

Aarikka-Stenroos L, Ritala P, Thomas LDW, 2021, Circular economy ecosystems: A typology, definitions, and implications, Research Handbook of Sustainability Agency, Pages: 260-276, ISBN: 9781789906028

In management literature, “ecosystems” are increasingly invoked for improvement of environmental sustainability and the circular economy (CE), but there is conceptual as well as empirical ambiguity regarding their role, composition, and nature. This chapter reviews existing ecosystem conceptualizations, distinguishes the main applications and implications of these constructs for the CE, and identifies empirical examples. We argue there are three categories of CE ecosystems each with a distinct analytical focus-the flow of material and energy, the flow of knowledge, and the flow of economic value. We position these three categories to existing ecosystem literature, propose a set of definitions for diverse CE ecosystem types, discuss the composition, agency, and outcomes of each CE ecosystem type, and provide a heuristic to assist scholars and practitioners. We also suggest implications of this typology for future research and practitioners’ efforts to improve environmental sustainability in our society. We believe that improved structured knowledge of CE ecosystems can guide practitioners, companies, and public actors (such as cities and municipalities) on organizing and reorganizing their activities, when pursuing environmental sustainability through collaboration in ecosystem settings.

Book chapter

Koutroumpis P, Leiponen A, Thomas LDW, 2021, Digital Instruments as Invention Machines, COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, Vol: 64, Pages: 70-78, ISSN: 0001-0782

Journal article

Parmar R, Leiponen A, Thomas LDW, 2020, Building an organizational digital twin, BUSINESS HORIZONS, Vol: 63, Pages: 725-736, ISSN: 0007-6813

Journal article

Koutroumpis P, Leiponen A, Thomas LDW, 2020, Markets for data, INDUSTRIAL AND CORPORATE CHANGE, Vol: 29, Pages: 645-660, ISSN: 0960-6491

Journal article

Koutroumpis P, Leiponen A, Thomas LDW, 2020, Small is big in ICT: The impact of R&D on productivity, TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY, Vol: 44, ISSN: 0308-5961

Journal article

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.

Book chapter

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

Book chapter

Snihur Y, Thomas LDW, Burgelman RA, 2018, Chapter 2 The Performative Power of Words: How Business Model Innovators use Framing for Strategic Advantage, New Horizons in Managerial and Organizational Cognition, Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited, Pages: 13-44, ISBN: 9781787694323

Book chapter

Snihur Y, Thomas LDW, Burgelman RA, 2018, An ecosystem-level process model of business model disruption: The disruptor's gambit, Journal of Management Studies, Vol: 55, Pages: 1278-1316, ISSN: 0022-2380

Based on a longitudinal case study, this paper presents an ecosystem‐level process model of the interlocking key activities of the business model disruptor, other ecosystem participants (customers, partners, media, analysts), and the incumbent. Together these constitute a strategic process of ecosystem evolution from incumbent‐centered to disruptor‐centered. We identify the phenomenon of a “disruptor's gambit,” where the disruptor reveals its intentions early on through effective framing, followed by rapid adaptation of its business model to satisfy ecosystem needs. These processes generate a virtuous framing‐adaptation cycle, where feed‐forward and feedback enable rapid response to customers and partners, while engaging them as force multipliers during new ecosystem creation. Our findings suggest that framing constitutes a dynamic strategic process enabling disruptors to reduce uncertainty, dislodge powerful incumbents, and shape new ecosystems through business model innovation.

Journal article

Thomas LDW, Autio E, 2018, Ecosystem value potential: An organizational field perspective, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol: 2018, Pages: 17112-17112, ISSN: 0065-0668

Journal article

Autio E, Thomas LDW, 2018, Ecosystem value co-creation, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol: 2018, Pages: 15913-15913, ISSN: 0065-0668

Journal article

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.

Book chapter

Snihur Y, Thomas LDW, Burgleman RA, 2018, The performative power of words: How business model innovators use framing for strategic advantage, Innovation and Cognition, Editors: Brusoni, Sund, Galavan, Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Despite increasing interest in business model innovation, there is only limited scholarship that examines how business model innovators present and explain their innovations to various stakeholders. As business model innovation often involves the creation of a new ecosystem, understanding how innovators can gain support of future ecosystem members is important. Based on a longitudinal case study of Salesforce, a pioneer in cloud computing, we show how the innovator’s skillful framing to different audiences fosters the emergence of an ecosystem around the new business model. Our findings suggest that effective framing constitutes an important strategic process that enables business model innovators to shape new ecosystems due to the performative power of words.

Book chapter

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.

Book chapter

Autio ET, Nambisan S, Thomas L, Wright Met 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

Journal article

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.

Request URL: http://wlsprd.imperial.ac.uk:80/respub/WEB-INF/jsp/search-html.jsp Request URI: /respub/WEB-INF/jsp/search-html.jsp Query String: respub-action=search.html&id=00384024&limit=30&person=true