41 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.
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.
Snihur Y, Thomas L, Garud R, et 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.
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.
Clements Z, Parmar R, Thomas LDW, 2022, Measuring platform return on participation, BUSINESS HORIZONS, Vol: 65, Pages: 193-204, ISSN: 0007-6813
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
Bogers MLAM, Garud R, Thomas LDW, et al., 2021, Digital innovation: transforming research and practice, INNOVATION-ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT, Vol: 24, Pages: 4-12, ISSN: 1447-9338
Thomas LDW, Tee R, 2021, Generativity: A systematic review and conceptual framework, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, Vol: 24, Pages: 255-278, ISSN: 1460-8545
Leiponen A, Thomas LDW, Wang Q, 2021, The dApp economy: a new platform for distributed innovation?, INNOVATION-ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT, Vol: 24, Pages: 125-143, ISSN: 1447-9338
Burgelman RA, Snihur Y, Thomas LDW, 2021, Why Multibusiness Corporations Split: CEO Strategizing as the Ecosystem Evolves, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, Vol: 48, Pages: 2108-2151, ISSN: 0149-2063
Thomas LDW, Ritala P, 2021, Ecosystem Legitimacy Emergence: A Collective Action View, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, Vol: 48, Pages: 515-541, ISSN: 0149-2063
Parmar R, Leiponen A, Thomas LDW, 2020, Building an organizational digital twin, BUSINESS HORIZONS, Vol: 63, Pages: 725-736, ISSN: 0007-6813
Koutroumpis P, Leiponen A, Thomas LDW, 2020, Markets for data, INDUSTRIAL AND CORPORATE CHANGE, Vol: 29, Pages: 645-660, ISSN: 0960-6491
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
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
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
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.
Thomas LDW, Autio E, 2018, Ecosystem value potential: An organizational field perspective, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol: 2018, Pages: 17112-17112, ISSN: 0065-0668
Autio E, Thomas LDW, 2018, Ecosystem value co-creation, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol: 2018, Pages: 15913-15913, ISSN: 0065-0668
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
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.
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.
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
Glass RL, 2017, Computational Thinking Is Not Necessarily Computational, COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, Vol: 60, Pages: 8-8, ISSN: 0001-0782
Koutroumpis P, Leiponen A, Thomas LDW, 2017, Computational Thinking Is Not Necessarily Computational Respond, COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, Vol: 60, Pages: 9-9, ISSN: 0001-0782
Koutroumpis P, Leiponen A, Thomas LDW, 2017, How Important Is IT?, COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, Vol: 60, Pages: 62-68, ISSN: 0001-0782
Snihur Y, Thomas LDW, Burgelman RA, 2017, The disruptor’s gambit: How business model disruptors use framing for strategic advantage
Through a longitudinal case study we identify the “disruptor’s gambit,” where effective framing by the disruptor constrains the incumbent’s response through a desire not to legitimate the challenger until it is too late. We suggest that framing constitutes a strategic process enabling disruptors to dislodge incumbents and shape new ecosystems.
Thomas LDW, Leiponen A, 2016, Big data commercialization, IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol: 44, Pages: 74-90, ISSN: 0360-8581
We consider the emerging trade in big data through commercial transactions. Through a wide ranging systematic literature review that covers both academic and practitioner perspectives, we first demonstrate that there is increasing interest in big data commercialization, which mostly consists of exploratory theoretical development and managerial prescriptions to date. We outline the new types of businesses that seek to create and appropriate value, including the data supplier, data manager, data custodian, data aggregator, application developer and service provider. Building upon this typology, we discuss the processes of business model emergence, and the importance of data ecosystems, reviewing both ecosystem structure and dynamics. We also highlight the challenges for the trade in big data, including IP protection, regulatory complexity, pricing, the development of data agreements and privacy concerns. We conclude with an outline for future research.
Abonamah A, Korayim S, Thomas LDW, 2016, Delivering an entrepreneurship-focused MBA in the UAE, Advances in Digital Education and Lifelong Learning, Pages: 169-193
Purpose - This chapter presents through a case study detailed concrete experiences of the implementation of an entrepreneurship-focused MBA within the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Methodology/approach - Review of the UAE context, the formation of Abu Dhabi School of Management, the development of its MBA program and components, and the impact to date of the MBA program. An analysis of the challenges associated with the design and delivery of the MBA program is also presented. Findings - Launching an entrepreneurship-specific MBA in an emerging market based upon an existing world-class entrepreneurship MBA program is feasible and desirable. Specific cultural norms and practices need to be taken into account to ensure that the program and its delivery are fit for the local country. Originality/value - Provides insight into specific MBA program attributes that need to be customized for the UAE, including assessment, case study use, and delivery format. Furthermore, it also emphasizes the importance of having local faculty for effective program delivery and the risks of, and approaches to, using international faculty who are not based in the country of delivery.
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.