Leveraging Embedded Factors of Business Ecosystems. A Potential Driver for Business Model Innovations

Table of content

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENT

LISTOF FIGURES

LISTOF TABLES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

I. INTRODUCTION
I.1 Motivation and problem definition
I.2 Research question and objective
I.3 Thesisstructure

II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
II.1 Methodology for the literature research
II.2 The business ecosystem concept
II.2.1 Emergence and evolution of the ecosystem concept
II.2.2 Roles in an ecosystem
II.2.3 Characteristics of the ecosystem concept
II.2.4 Clarifying the innovation ecosystem concept
II.3 Business Model Innovation
II.3.1 Business Model
II.3.2 BMI status quo
II.3.3 Drivers of the Level of BMI
II.3.4 Business model innovation in business ecosystems

III. ANALYSIS OF ECOSYSTEM'S EMBEDDED FACTORS THAT DRIVE BUSINESS MODEL INNOVATIONS
III.l Methodology
III.1.1 Feasibility of the desired object of investigation
III.1.2 Research Design
III.1.3 Data collection
III.1.4 Analysis and interpretation
III.1.5 Reliability, validity, and limitations of the study
III.2 Discussionoftheresults
III.2.1 Results of the individual case analysis
1. Case 1: Case Alpha
2. Case 2: Case Beta
3. Case 3: Case Delta
4. Case 4: Case Gamma
5. Case 5: Case Epsilon
III.2.2 Results of the cross-case case analysis
III.3 Evaluationoftheresults
III.3.1 Theoretical contributions
III.3.2 Practical contributions

IV. FINAL EVALUATION
IV. l Summary
IV. 2 Limitations
IV. 3 Further research and outlook

V. REFERENCES

APPENDIX LIST

Abstract

Innovations within the value chain of a single company can no longer fully satisfy new and dynamic customer needs. It Is, therefore, appropriate to Intensify the network of relationships outside the company. This Is remedied by the value contribution result­ing from the companies' ecosystems, which Is higher than that of Individual companies. However, In the ecosystem's environment, the success of a company Is strongly depend­ent on the success of Its diverse and changing collaborations with other companies of different sizes and types. Due to the embedding In different ecosystems, the under­standing of a company as an Independent strategic actor Is no longer appropriate In every case.

This thesis aimed to Identify business ecosystem's embedded factors as potential drivers for business model Innovations, and thus to contribute to an expansion of Inno­vation opportunities. In the context of the consideration of different ecosystem con­cepts, first, their characteristics and roles were presented, to make a precise distinction related and traditional structures (e.g. value network, supply chain). Innovation ecosys­tems, business ecosystems, and platform ecosystems were considered In the study and empirically examined employing a multiple case study. To ensure the value of the study, only companies that have Implemented a business model Innovation within one of the defined ecosystems were Included.

Findings of the study could prove that the business model Innovations could not have been Implemented without the surrounding ecosystem. However, the factors re­sponsible for this varied with regard to the ecosystem role and their resource depend­ence on other actors In the ecosystem. If the situation of the BMI and the ecosystem concerned were similar, the factors overlapped and thus, the study could make a scien­tific contribution. Furthermore, the considered cases revealed different strategic ap­proaches for different roles to place the business model Innovation In the ecosystem. In that matter, the thesis Identified multl-homlng, ¡.e. the placement of a BMI In several ecosystems, and the targeted development of Innovations that Increase the ecosystem­output, as potential strategies. In this way, the results of the study can promote both the development of new as well as expanding the possibilities of Innovating a business model.

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Frequency ofsearch terms I BMI AND Ecosystem concepts

Figure 1-2 Structure of the thesis

Figure ll-l Frequency of the terms business and innovation ecosystems

Figure 11-2 Archetypal Business Model

Figure 11-3 Business ecosystem J. Moore (1996)

Figure lll-l Alpha as actor in the mobility ecosystem

Figure III-2 Beta's subsidiary extends Beta's ecosystem

Figure III-3 Traditional value preposition and emerging Delta ecosystem

Figure III-4 The platform ecosystem of Gamma positioned in Gamma's large enterprise structure

Figure III-5 The platform ecosystem embedded in Epsilon's enterprise structure

List ofTables

Table ll-l Search criteria for BE and BMI in the literature

Table 11-2 Selected definitions of ecosystems

Table 11-3 Conceptualizations of ecosystem roles

Table 11-4 Differences between value chains, supply chains and ecosystem concepts...

Table 11-5 Ecosystem compositions of different ecosystems

Table 11-6 Selected definitions ofbusiness model innovations

Table 11-7 BMI in BE: Identified issues by Rachinger et al. (2019)

Table ill-1 Relevantsituationsfor different research methods

Table 111-2 Types of interview

Table ill-3 Overview of cases and sources

Table ill-4 Relevant ecosystem roles for the BMI ofAlpha

Table 111-5 Ecosystem roles relevant to Beta's subsidiary (BMI)

Table 111-6 Ecosystem roles relevant to the Start-up Delta (BMI)

Table 111-7 Individual ecosystem roles relevant to the Gamma platform (BMI)

Table 111-8 Individualecosystem roles relevant for the Epsilon Platform (BMI)

List ofAbbreviations

BE Business Ecosystem

BMI Business Model Innovation

BM Business Model

Fig. Figure

e.g. Forexample

B2C Businessto customer

B2B Customer to customer

C2C Customer to customer

i.e. This means

CEO Chief executive officer

RQ Research question

I. Introduction

"In a world of ecosystems, as industry boundaries blur, strategy will require a much broader frame of reference. In other words, CEOs will need to use a wider lens when assessing would-be competitors—and would-be partners. Indeed, in an ecosystem envi­ronment, today's competitor may turn out to be tomorrow's partner or "frenemy". Fail­ure to grasp this may cause you to miss opportunities and underestimate threats.” (Hirt, 2018)

In recent years, there has been an increase in market participants within an ecosys­tem¹ radically changing BMs of industries. The analysis of these new BMs, and especially the role of ecosystems, are the focus of this master's thesis.

1.1 Motivation and problem definition

The factors required for the economic success of a company have changed signifi­cantly with the transition to digitization and the age of acceleration, which reflects the general understanding of how technology has transformed both society and economy (Xiang, 2018, p. 147). The triumphal procession of the internet and the rapidly increasing networking of the most diverse IT systems today enable access to information independ­ent of location, time, and device, as well as the rapid dissemination of new technologies and innovations. The resulting market transparency, the increasing expectations of cus­tomers, and blurring between products and services are forcing companies to constantly adapt their own business model and react to these complex challenges. BMI could be either adapted to its existing core business model, or a new business model adjacent to the core business (SCHNEIDER & Spieth, 2013, p. 4). In both cases, BMI requires compa­nies to adapt, renew, acquire, or develop new and (re)combined resources and skills in novel ways (Saebi et al., 2017; Zott & Amit, 2007).

Understanding the role of the products, services, and innovations in their ecosystem is crucial for organizations that want to make the most of their BMI. Innovation ecosystems concentrate on the convergence of new offerings and services from other companies that together create cohesive consumer solutions (Adner, 2006, p. 99). To­day, according to BCG Global (2020), dlsruptors are often orchestrating ecosystems that bring together the strengths of multiple actors In a new network or service offering. One prominent example Is automotive Industry's shift towards autonomous driving and a mobility model, as exemplified by automotive companies such as Tesla, Volkswagen, and Bosch. For Instance, In contrast to traditional automakers that simply produce cars, Tesla controls Its ecosystem by producing Its car, the Powerwall home charger, and su­percharger refueling stations. As a consequence, Tesla Is the world's most valuable car company based on Its $373 billion market capitalization (Adeslna, 2020), almost the combined value of BMW and VW. These numbers Illustrate the size and Importance that BEs have now reached for new BMs.

In the scientific literature, an Increased Interest In BMI viewed through the lens of different ecosystems as a niche field has become apparent In the last three years, as Illustrated In Fig. 1-1.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 1-1 Frequency of search terms / BMIAND Ecosystem concepts Source: EBSCO database; search criteria see table ii-1; own representation

The literature suggests that the concept of a BM Is primarily focused on the concep­tion of BMs from a "focal company" perspective and therefore, the BM of multi-actor activities cannot be explicitly explained. For Instance, systematic Innovation requires the coordination of different actors and Interrelated changes In product design, supplier management, and so on (Chesbrough, 2003). A number of contemporary systemic Inno­vations are too large and complicated to be governed by just one company, even forthe largest enterprises (Markku V.J. Maula et al., 2006). As a consequence, existing BM literature focusing mainly on a focal company - marginally related partners - does not supply lenses or explanations that are adapted to such multi-actor contexts. While busi­ness networks are based on people-to-people relationships, the ecosystem Is centered on the goods, services and technologies that companies sell on the market, and how other models can be complemented to provide consumers with the Integrated solutions they want and need. Obtaining a holistic view of the ecosystem will help to recognize unexpected risks and delays, Identify Innovative risk reduction strategies, and eventually contribute to the Integration of Innovations Into the ecosystem (Adner, 2006). A more recent scientific contribution from Rong et al. (2018, p. 238), suggests that the structure of BEs Influences the scalability, flexibility, and extensibility of BMs. The Investigation of ecosystem factors and their contribution to BMIs can lead to new Insights for this re­search area as well as support practitioners In exploiting new ecosystem potentials.

1.2 Research question and objective

The literature In BMI Is still In Its Infancy and continues to develop. Most early BMI publications are conceptual or case-based studies focusing on the meaning, distinction or relationship between BMI and related concepts and the BMI method (Chesbrough, 2007; David Teece, 2010). Further research on BMI emphasized the Importance of causal analysis of BMI antecedents and effects (Bouncken & Fredrlch, 2016; Guo et al., 2015) and crucial success factors such as creativity, Innovation, networks, and the ecosystems (Chesbrough & Bogers, 2014; Neumeyer & Santos, 2018) In which they function are be­ginning to be highlighted. Despite many emerging BMI studies, the field Is still young, abstruse, and Incomprehensible (Bocken et al., 2014; DaSilva &Trkman, 2014). BMI lacks theoretical and empirical support, leaving basic unanswered questions about back­ground conditions and BMI outcomes that are non-trivlal, complicated and not well known In the literature (Foss & Saebl, 2016; Zott & Amlt, 2007).

A field of research In connection with BMI that has barely been considered to date is the analysis of how an Innovation ecosystem might enable transformations of BMs. Therefore, there Is a lack of Investigations that conduct a structured analysis focused on ecosystem-influenced BMIs and enable an Initial Insight Into ecosystem's embedded fac­tors as drivers for BMIs. An Investigation Into this topic, could support firms In recognizing and capturing resources2 on the ecosystem level (Jacobides et al., 2018, p. 2270), and, more importantly, how to attain advantage by using ecosystem resources for their BMIs. Therefore, this thesis uses real cases to answer the following research questions.

Research question 1 (RQ1): How does an innovation, business, or platform ecosys­tem enable business model innovation?
Research question 2 (RQ2): Which ecosystem roles had an influence on the investi­gated business model innovation?

The focus is on the consideration of real BMI cases embedded or surrounded by an ecosystem. On the one hand, real cases have a significant practical benefit, as they rep­resent the real world and support managers of BMIs in extending possibilities at the ecosystem level. On the other hand, it is essential for companies to find out if resources and capabilities that are beyond their control could help to innovate their business model with assistance of ecosystem interdependencies. In addition, the investigation enables a comparative analysis of different cases embedded in defined ecosystems, thus expands the scientific knowledge and to gain ab better understanding in this young field of research.

1.3 Thesis structure

The structure of the present work consists of four parts, as outlined in Fig. 1-2. In this introductory part, the background and motivation for the choice of topics for this thesis were presented and the research questions and objectives explained. In the following section, an overview of the structure of the thesis is provided.

The following main part of the thesis is divided into two main topics. In the second part, the scientific literature on business models and their innovations in general and ecosystems in particular is reviewed, with a focus on the latter. Section 11.2 introduces the concept of the ecosystems, roles, explains its origin and evolution, and presents var­ious approaches to its definition and demarcation. Subsequently, the applied ecosystem characteristics, roles, and structure are explained. Building on this, section 11.3 presents the theoretical foundations of BMs and their innovations and reveals linkages to the developed ecosystem concepts. To bridge the gap between BMIs and ecosystems, the external environment as a driver of BMI is summarized in the same chapter. In the sec­ond step (section III), the research questions are investigated through expert interviews and real cases to verify the scientific and practical application. Section lll.l first describes the procedure for conducting the expert interviews and for data evaluation within the multiple case studies. Subsequently, an analysis of the BMIs of five selected companies is presented to elaborate ecosystem's embedded factors as driver for BMIs. Within the framework of the study, ecosystem factors were assigned to ecosystem roles in order to be able to draw conclusions about possible dependency relationships. Finally, the results were critically evaluated, summarized and their contribution to theory and practice clas­sified.

The fourth and final part of the work includes a final summary the thesis, starting points for future research and an outlook. Fig. 1-2 provides a graphical illustration of the structure of the work.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 1-2 Structure of the thesis Source: Own representation

II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Research on the business ecosystem and Its contribution to business model Innova­tion is an emerging but vibrant field. However, attempts to combine linkages between BMI In BEs are ambiguous (Rachlnger et al., 2019, p. 2). In this chapter, finding a balance between providing general theoretical principles Is discussed and those aspects that are relevant for the remaining sections of the thesis are examined. In doing so, this chapter provides the methodology for the literature research (ll.l), the evolution, characteristics and demarcation of business ecosystems (11.2), as well as an Introduction to business model Innovation (11.3) and Its link to the ecosystem concept.

ll.l Methodology for the literature research

To present the theoretical foundations of the ecosystem concept and business model Innovation, a comprehensive literature research was conducted. First, suitable articles were searched for In various literature search engines and databases using a keyword search. Since Järvi and Kortelalnen's (2017) review provided search terms for business ecosystems and search criteria for BMI were extracted by Foss and Saebl (2016), I had a foundation to build on. The expansion of search terms can be attributed to new Insights In the literature and to the slightly different research area of this thesis. Table ll-l lists all the terms applied In the Web of Science search template to collect articles and reviews with foci on BMIs and BEs. Subsequently, the sources cited In the found articles were checked for relevant articles In a reverse search with Google Scholar. In general, journals with a rating of A+, A, B and C were considered In the VHB ranking. However, the research on BEs also Includes discussion papers not published In trade journals, such as working papers and conference papers. This was considered appropri­ate since the research In this area Is still In Its Infancy.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table II-1 Search criteria for BE and BMI in the literature.

The search terms used listed In table ll-l, separated according to the respective search context. The list of search terms was continuously updated during the processing and the search process was therefore repeated In several Iterations.

11.2 The business ecosystem concept

11.2.1 Emergence and evolution of the ecosystem concept

Before elaborating on business ecosystems, It Is worthwhile to gain an understand­ing of the ecosystem concept Itself.^{2 3} The ecosystem, as a concept In research, emerged as analogous to biology and generally relates to a group of Interacting enterprises that depend on each other's activities (lansiti & Levlen, 2004; Moore, 1993). Since then, It has been "Increasingly used In management and business to describe collectives of het­erogeneous, yet complementary organizations who jointly create some kind of system- level output" (Thomas & Autlo, 2020, p. 1). Adner (2006, 106), also strengthened the Importance of building an ecosystem for the strategy and practice of organizations.

The pioneer of the term "business ecosystem" Is Moore (1993, p. 76), who revealed that In a business ecosystem, companies co-evolve capabilities around an Innovation. Moore (1993, p. 76) further suggests that businesses "work cooperatively and competi­tively to support new products, satisfy customer needs, and eventually Incorporate the next round of Innovations." Another well-known contribution to the literature was com­piled by lansiti and Levlen (2004, 5), who also applied the biological ecosystem analogy to characterize "the large number of loosely Interconnected participants who depend on each other for their mutual effectiveness and survival." Thus, lansiti and Levlen (2004) broaden the understanding of a business ecosystem by stressing that actors within this environment share a common destiny. This approach met with broad ap­proval but also some criticism. A counter argument released by Phillips et al. (2016, p. 4), stated that while Moore was clear In extending the concept of the ecological system to Industry, he did not create strict rules of Interaction between natural and company en­vironments. Phillips et al. (2016, p. 4) further Indicated that Moore's (1993) work was a generalized but persuasive metaphor. Nonetheless, It did not stop researchers from ap­plying the ecosystem concept to explain strategic Issues such as firm behavior, value creation, and value capture. While the business ecosystem concept helps to break down traditional Industry boundaries, this view provides Insights on a macro level by describ­ing a certain level of Interdependencies between ecosystem members. Conslderthe Chi­nese tech giant Alibaba, which created a set of connected ecosystems to span multiple Industry sectors such as a C2C marketplace, a flntech firm, and a marketing platform (Jacobldes, 2019).

Moore (1993), and lansiti and Levlen's (2004) contributions to the literature were later extended to Innovation management (Adner, 2006) and some scholars reflect upon the business ecosystem as a synonym for an Innovation ecosystem (Gawer & Cusumano, 2014; Igwe, 2016; Overholm, 2015). Although the concept of business ecosystems first appeared at the beginning of the 1990s, It was not until 2012 that the concepts gained In Importance, resulting In a sharp Increase In publications on the topics of business and Innovation ecosystems. Fig. 11-1, Illustrates this development by means of a graphic representation of the number of annual publications containing the terms business and Innovation ecosystems.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure II-1 Frequency of the terms business and innovation ecosystems Source: Web of Science

Jacobldes et al. (2018, pp. 2256-2257) distinguish between three types of ecosys­tems presented as units: a business ecosystem unit, which centers a firm and Its envi­ronment; an Innovation ecosystem unit, focalized around a significant Innovation or new value proposition and the configuration of actors that support It; and a platform ecosys­tem unit, which describes how actors organize around a platform. Additional literature reviews, published In this research area, broadly echoed Jacobldes et al.'s (2018) classi­fication by using almost the same terminology. For Instance, Scarlngella and Radzlwon (2017, p. 3), examined four different types of ecosystems (business, Innovation, entre­preneurial, and knowledge ecosystems). In a slmllarveln, Katri Valkokarl (2015, pp. 20­21) describes three different concepts of ecosystems, namely business, Innovation, and knowledge ecosystem.

However, regardless of focus, all scholars fundamentally agree on four components and describe an ecosystem as "an Interdependent network of self-interested actors jointly creating value" (Bogers et al., 2019, p. 2).⁴ Table 11-2 presents a selection of fun­damental definitions of ecosystems that have contributed to this research area. In gen­eral, most of these definitions follow the four components discussed above.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 11-2 Selected definitions of ecosystems

Taken together, these definitions represent the view that the value proposition for the end-user is the focus of attention rather than a central actor. Consequently, the cus­tomer benefits from the consumption of the final product and/or service. Conversely, the value proposition derived for the end customer governs the composition of the nec­essary actors, whose joint interactions and structures will bring the proposition to frui­tion. In other words, the boundaries of the ecosystem are determined by the value prop­osition and contain only those elements that are necessary to fulfill the promise. One of these elements is the composition of different companies, which by their very nature create interdependencies. These can only be studied if one understands the different roles in ecosystems. Therefore, the next section deals with the roles in ecosystems that appear literature.

11.2.2 Roles in an ecosystem

Dedehayir et al. (2016), define an ecosystem role as "a characteristic set of behaviors and activities undertaken by ecosystem actors [...]" (p.l). This definition allows Im­portant conclusions to be drawn that can be helpful In answering the research ques­tions. In particular, the role In an ecosystem can be clearly distinguished from the eco­system actors. In every ecosystem there are certain roles, whereas actors In an ecosys­tem are constantly changing and therefore actors are not suitable as comparison factors for scientific research. Furthermore, the definition also Implies that an ecosystem role is underpinned by a certain set of activities and behaviors. Activities express the discrete actions that an actor undertakes In relation to the value proposition that forms the basis of the ecosystem (Adner, 2017), while behaviors refer to the tactics and strategies of ecosystem actors (Jacobldes et al., 2018). In this study, no distinction Is made between activities and behavior. Rather, both are considered as factors If they have contributed to the business model Innovation considered In one of the multiple case studies.

Many scientists have contributed to a better understanding by conceptualizing eco­system roles. Table 11-3 lists the most Important roles and their characteristics, which provided further support In guiding my study. The role of the leader (Dedehayir et al., 2016), or often called the keystone (lansltl & Levlen, 2004), Is undisputed among scien­tists. Other contributors use the terms "hub" or "platform leader" to refer to the eco­system leader. Regardless of the name, they all describe a role that Is located at the core of the ecosystem and Is best connected among all the other actors. Activities and be­haviors that consist of ecosystem governance, platform management, value manage­ment, or forging partnerships are often assigned to this critical position. In this context, Bosch-Sljtsema and Bosch; lansltl and Levlen (2015; 2004), explicitly refer to the provi­sion of a platform as the critical factor of an ecosystem leader.

Other ecosystem roles described In the literature are more fragmented and defined more diversely. Besides the leader ofthe ecosystem, researchers often refer to a group of positions as "complementors" (Bosch-Sljtsema & Bosch, 2015)or as "niche actors" (lansltl & Levlen, 2004). "Complementors" Include the supply, production, or addition of components that characterize the ecosystem (Adner & Kapoor, 2010). They adhere to the rules laid down by the ecosystem leader (Adner, 2017). The literary analysis of ecosystem roles, conducted by Dedehaylr et al. (2016), provides an overview of the roles that actors can play In an ecosystem. Following this execution, an ecosystem can be sketched on the basis of the roles as follows: (1) the leader, (2) direct value creators, (3) value creation supporters and (4) entrepreneurs.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 11-3 Conceptualizations ofecosystem roles

Behavior and activities that directly contribute to the value proposition are often performed by suppliers, assemblers, complementors and consumers and are therefore assigned to role of the direct value creator. Examples Include the distribution of key ecosystem components, the processing of knowledge provided by others, and the spec­ification of needs and requirements. In contrast, activities and behaviors that Indirectly provide added value by supporting the primary value creators are classified as value creator supporters. Experts, champions, and niche players with special skills are often classified In this context. The final division of roles Includes all actors, such as regulators and sponsors, who help to keep the ecosystem alive and running. The so-called entre­preneurs provide supporting elements to encourage ecosystem growth, such as finan­cial support and the easing of regulatory constraints.

Depending on the chosen ecosystem leader, the assigned positions In the ecosystem will be different as this depends on the concept of the explicit ecosystem. However, to better understand the Interdependencies In the ecosystem, this approach can be used from the perspective of a specific role. The consideration of cases makes clear that Dedehaylr et al.'s (2016) classification Is a useful way to characterize different ecosys­tems and their functions. In addition, this approach can also serve as a powerful tool for structuring scientific analyses that consider Interdependencies between the different roles In an ecosystem, and therefore contributes In answering one of my research ques­tions. Once the roles within an ecosystem provide Information about certain activities and behaviors, the ecosystem concept needs to be better differentiated from other con­cepts, such as value networks and supply chains. For this reason, the following two sec­tions contain characteristics of ecosystems and their delimitation with respect to my research focus.

11.2.3 Characteristics of the ecosystem concept

Although the concept of the ecosystem generally lacks In providing precise terminol­ogy and consistent scope of application, Its describing characteristics has led to contours that make the ecosystem concept Itself distinguishable. The four distinct commonalities of different ecosystem concepts are a system-level output, the nature of Interdepend­ence among ecosystem actors, heterogeneity, and the nature of ecosystem governance challenge.⁵ Thus, these features are quite similar to the four components described by Bogers et al. (2019) In their review. A detailed elaboration of those elements In the fol­lowing section will further Increase the demarcation level of the ecosystem concept.

While digitization has revolutionized how firms can serve customers, the blurring of separation between services and products has Increased customer needs fundamen­tally. As a result, a single firm Is not capable of offering all the elements a customer requires. An ecosystem is specially designed to create, a so-called system-level output, facilitated by a heterogeneous group of firms that jointly create output more significant than any single actor could deliver alone. One factor that adds value Is the compatibility of products and services by enabling a modular product composition across multiple Industries to fulfill a complex customer desire. Consider, for Instance, Google's Nest, which Initially produced a remotely controlled thermostat. By teaming up with LI FX and Fitbit, they designed a system whereby a red light flashes If smoke Is detected and the Fitbit tracker recognizes If someone Is awake.⁶ This new ecosystem offers a higher value proposition than Nest could have offered on Its own. Scholars also emphasize the mod­ularity and compatibility of products and services where actors "Interact In order for a focal value proposition to materialize" (Adner, 2017; Jacobldes et al., 2018). Supply chains also create a system-level output only limited by the diversified extent of output offered through ecosystems. For example, value chains cannot provide the tens of thou­sands of applications hosted by the open-source android network. According to Järvi et al. (2018), another contribution to this characteristic Is the collaborative exploration of new knowledge to facilitate generic knowledge production. This ecosystem output Is generated by distinctive Innovation activities from ecosystem participants and possibly leads to new products, services, or even business model Innovations. The latter can be an ecosystem-output on Its own, where companies seek to build new ventures by pur­suing entrepreneurial opportunities through consultation (Autlo et al., 2019).

One of the most frequently mentioned traits of all ecosystem types Is the presup­posed high levels of participant heterogeneity. Again, ecosystems aim to span multiple Industries to fulfill complex customer needs; hence, It Is most feasible through the col­laboration of firms with a diverse focus and Industry. This heterogeneity has already been described by Moore (1993) and was further specified by lansiti and Levlen (2004), as the loose networks "of suppliers, distributors, outsourcing firms, makers of related products or services, technology providers, and a host of other organizations - affect, and are affected by, the creation and delivery of a company's own offerings." As a result, and In contrast to supply chains, roles In ecosystems are not defined by formal supplier contracts. Jacobides et al. (2018, p. 2255) stress that contracts are obsolete because ecosystem members face the same rules and are bound together through their collec­tive Investment rather than through managed hierarchies or contracts.⁷ Yet another sci­entist emphasizes that ecosystems consist of a multilateral set of partners (Adner, 2017), while others such as Frankort (2013) and Järvi et al. (2018), Include competitors and public-sector participants In their ecosystem concept. These extensions to and more participants, fall back to the different thematic foci In the ecosystem literature and pro­vide a foundation for comprehensive ecosystem analysis.

Participant interdependence is possibly the most widely employed ecosystem com­ponent. In the literature, scientists examined Interdependencies between heterogene­ous ecosystem actors from three different angles: cognitive, technological, and eco­nomic. The first perspective Is evident as diverse ecosystem actors are equipped with different knowledge, skills, and levels of motivation that results, In consideration of more heterogeneous actors Involved, In a higher cognitive distance among participants (Wareham et al., 2013). Conversely, Gawer and Phillips (2013) argue that ecosystem participants are bound together through a collective Identity that encourages collabo­ration rather than fostering the negative effect of cognitive distance. This makes sense as In the matter of economic perspective, ecosystem Interdependence advantages each actor without exceptions only, If the embedded ecosystem resources are generally ac­cessible for each participant. Thus, In the deliberate act of Increasing the cognitive dis­tance, firms could contribute to their detriment.

Most recently, Jacobides et al. (2018) observed the emergence of economic Interde­pendencies In relation to ecosystems that enable economies of scope and scale. Another perspective of participant Interdependence Is defined as technological, In that hetero­geneous actors co-speclallze within the ecosystem. Co-speclallzatlon occurs when co­dependence between entitles arises, which emanates from the need to provide mutu­ally compatible Inputs Into the ecosystem and can thus provide for a consistent, but customizable, system-level output (Jacobides et al., 2018; D. Teece, 1986).

Distinctive governance is the component that allows both scientists and practition­ers to differentiate ecosystems from other constructs. As mentioned earlier, the char­acteristics built a foundation to describe ecosystems, and they are also applied In other concepts such as open markets, supply and value chains, and open Innovations. As a result, distinctive governance In ecosystems, In that participant relationships and Inter­dependencies are not entirely defined by contracts or hierarchies, Is the complete dif­ferentiation criterion (Gulati et al., 2012; Jacobldes, M. G., Sundararajan, A., & Van Alstyne, M. W., 2019). Conversely, Adner (2017) argues that the governance rules are set by an ecosystem leader "to whose vision of structure and roles others defer." Adner's (2017) view Implies some kind of hierarchy and matches Jacobldes et al.'s (2018) state­ment that there Is a lack of knowledge In the sense of how ecosystems are structured and governed. Nonetheless, both researchers follow the prevailing view In the literature of distinctive, governed ecosystems, where an ecosystem participant co-alignment structure enables ecosystem actors to specialize In specific roles, preferably through re­lation-specific contracts that define each relation In the community uniquely. For In­stance, Järvi et al. (2018) stress the Importance of economic or cognitive co-alignment structure within ecosystems that nurture the existence of an ecosystem collective Iden­tity mentioned by Gawer and Phillips (2013).

This mutual Identification of ecosystem actors shifts the perspective from Individual to collective. Thus, ecosystem participants face challenges and address risks of mutual Interdependence, which go beyond their Immediate responsibilities, together. Although both the power relations between actors and the Interdependencies are factored by the ecosystem co-alignment structure, managing these tensions Is difficult and often de­pends on the participation of much larger firms (West & Wood, 2013). In addition to community size dependence, ecosystem management could Involve a number or com­bination of mechanisms that provide for a balance of control and coordination, such as employing self-regulation, social governance, contract, standards, and markets Imply­ing, to a greater or lesser extent, openness across ecosystems (Jacobldes et al., 2018).

As these four characteristics of the ecosystem concept provide guidance In distin­guishing It from other concepts, Table 11-4 presents an overview presented by Gomes et al.'s (2016) overview of differences between value chains, supply chains and the ecosystem concept. The great demarcation level Is achieved through the emergence of dynamic dependencies between ecosystem actors and the absence of hierarchies and formal contracts In determining these dependencies.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 11-4 Differences between value chains, supply chains and ecosystem concepts Source: Gomes et al. (2016)

11.2.4 Clarifying the innovation ecosystem concept

Systematic processing revealed two Issues that affect the clarity of the Innovation ecosystem concept: (1) Its ^comparability given the range of different ecosystem out­puts and settings; and (2) Its Inconsistent use of terminology. In this thesis, a further differentiation within the ecosystem concept Is necessary to prevent flawed results In answering the research question. The presented characteristics of participant heteroge­neity, system-level outputs, participant Interdependence, and distinctive governance as­sists researchers as well as practitioners In distinguishing the ecosystem from other con­cepts but fall to provide a limited research focus that makes results comparable. In this section, these Issues will be addressed by excluding ecosystem concepts that are differ­ent In structure and outcome to arrive at a clearer picture of the Innovation view.

According to Autlo et al. (2018), BMI Instantiated In new ventures Is the outcome of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Entrepreneurship ecosystems are also distinguishable by their operating agents, such as new ventures, established Incumbents, and business ac­celerators. Besides, entrepreneurial ecosystems exist, for the purpose to reveal BMIs. Therefore, the concept Is fundamentally different to business and Innovation ecosystems, both in strategy in desired outcome. Another ecosystem concept that has a distinguishable structure and aims to achieve an outcome other than the concept of the business or innovation ecosystem, is the knowledge ecosystem. Knowledge ecosys­tems consist of research institutions, entrepreneurs, and universities; hence, according to Katri Valkokari (2015), the main objective is co-exploration of new knowledge in de­centralized networks. Furthermore, the dynamics between ecosystem actors is different in knowledge ecosystems as there is no direct competition within, which leads to a linear process of knowledge flow moving from upstream to downstream (Clarysse et al., 2014). An analysis of BMI insights for innovation ecosystems while using entrepreneurial and knowledge ecosystem logics will lead to significantly flawed results. As a consequence, both the entrepreneurial and the knowledge ecosystem concepts are excluded in this thesis while the ecosystem characteristics remain the same.

Delimitation of the knowledge and entrepreneurial ecosystem concepts compared to the business or innovation ecosystem concept is common practice (Katri Valkokari, 2015; Scaringella & Radziwon, 2017). In contrast, there is widespread disagreement in the application of the concepts of business, innovation, and platform-based ecosystems. The business ecosystem (lansiti & Levien, 2004; Moore, 1993, 1996) as a fundamental basis evolved overtime to become the distinguishable concept of the innovation eco­system (Adner, 2017; Adner & Kapoor, 2010). Due to technological progress, the plat­form-based ecosystem has arisen, to some degree an extended version of the business ecosystem. Researchers such as Katri Valkokari (2015) and Scaringella and Radziwon (2017) refer to the platform-based ecosystem as one of several traits of the business ecosystem, whereas the most recent contributions from Jacobides et al. (2018) and Ceccagnoli et al. (2012) recognize the platform-based ecosystem as an independent con­cept. I follow the latter view in this paper since the most successful ecosystems, such as Apple's app store or Alibaba's ecosystem, are platform-based and have evolved from technological progress and a shared set of technological infrastructure. Apart from four common characteristics and value offering as desired ecosystem output, the three eco­system concepts are different in the composition of involved actors, resource availabil­ity, interdependencies, geographical proximity, and type of value offering. The interac­tion between the types of ecosystems and their relationships varies depending on each individual player's point of view. Therefore, leaders, platform owners or direct value creators are examples of actors enhancing Interactions between the different ecosys­tem types'. Conversely, an Interconnecting element between ecosystems may be a plat­form, an organization of Items such as technologies and complementary properties. All of these channels and actors of Interconnected ecosystems communicate, and so evolve and emerge side by side. Thus, these three types of ecosystems are, to some extent coherent, and are therefore, all relevant In this study.

A summary of summarizes the differences between the three types of ecosystems Is presented In table 11-5. The examination results are classified and Interconnections between and differences In the structure of ecosystems are highlighted.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 11-5 Ecosystem compositions of different ecosystems

Business ecosystem communities also take the form of co-created but still evolving and unpredictable value offers and are characterized by greater fluidity, growth, and co­creation. As players' positions are often less defined than for other Innovation ecosys­tems, there Is also generous room for Innovation, which may alter the positions and connections between the ecosystem actors. In this type of ecosystem, Interactions be­tween participants are non-linear and not limited to geographical boundaries, and therefore, comprise a broad scope. Contrary to the scope of Innovation ecosystems con­sisting of focus firms and neighboring suppliers and complementary companies In the Immediate vicinity, business ecosystems are comparatively restricted.

The principal building blocks of Innovation ecosystems are actors and their Interde­pendencies, activities, positions and linkages (Adner, 2017). Furthermore, the focal firm does not necessarily have privileged access to resources compared to complementors. Participants' Interdependencies, as depicted In the characteristics of an ecosystem con­cept, are more Important. Platform ecosystems organize their Internal Interactions by co-alignment of a common architecture with Interfaces that allow the platform's eco­system to be divided Into a relatively stable framework and a complementary collection of modules generated by participants of the ecosystem (Tlwana et al., 2010). This eco­system structure ensures a network of locational complements can provide Improve­ments to the platform's ecosystem-level value, particularly when there Is a platform owner who can also act as an adjudicator of platform-based Interactions without having to resort to formal contracts (Ceccagnoll et al., 2012). The technological Interdependen­cies, connectivity Interfaces and the shared set of technological architectures within platform ecosystems are most Important.

In this study, all ecosystems with the value of proposition-based, system-level out­put, are called as Innovation ecosystems.9 This follows the typology of Jacobldes et al. (2018), who suggest the three types of Innovation ecosystems described In Table 4. De­spite the fact that the three ecosystems have different actors and structure, they have role dependencies that can be analyzed and compared due to similarities In the system- level output. This representation of Innovation ecosystems and the exclusion of the en­trepreneurial and knowledge-based ecosystems leads to consistent terminology and In­creases the comparability.

11.3 Business Model Innovation

11.3.1 Business Model

It is vital to develop a fundamental understanding of the business model Itself before Implementing Innovation. Historically, the business model originated In the late 1990s and has Increased In Importance for both academics and practitioners. In Its most basic 9 While labelling value proposition-based, output-focused innovation ecosystems is perhaps confusing, I believe I am following the current trend in labelling all such ecosystems in this way..

form, the business model elucidates howthe business of a firm works using specific units of analysis. This phenomenon was formulated by Magretta (2002), who states that "business models describe, as a system, how the pieces of a business fit together." Alt­hough this definition leads to the assumption of a uniform understanding, studies sug­gest the contrary: the lack of a standardized explanation of terms (David Teece, 2010; Zott et al., 2011, p. 1034). Regardless of definition, business models are characterized by a high degree of complexity, often caused by the application of different perspectives, namely economic, strategic, and operational (Morris et al., 2005, p. 726). Thus, It Is not surprising that the business model, as an extensive theory, has been used across many academic disciplines and across multiple strategic Issues, and thus, has not yet agreed on a common terminology.

Despite the lack of literature on the topic of business models, the highly Influential literature review by Foss and Saebl (2016) reveal that the latest elaborations are close to or In accordance with David Teece's (2010, p. 172) definition of a business model: the "design or architecture of the value creation, delivery, and capture mechanisms" of a firm. According to Foss and Saebl (2016, p. 202), scientists agree on the components that form a business model, In particular, "the firm's value proposition and market seg­ments, the structure of the value chain required for realizing the value proposition, the mechanisms of value capture that the firm deploys, and how these elements are linked together In an architecture." Business models offer an Insight Into and a framework tool for businesses to recognize and resolve new-tech problems, Identify key strengths, and shift existing operations to achieve the economic benefit they want to gain. In this con­text, as a significant benefit, the business model enables the consideration of factors that lie Inside and outside the company, and therefore takes a holistic view of the firm (Zott et al., 2011). Both Morris et al.; David Teece (2010) describe the business model as a concept spanning Industry boundaries, which explains how the focal firm Interacts with and Is embedded In Its surrounding ecosystem.⁸ Another convergence between the business model and the ecosystem concept Is the fact that both aim to capture the reasons for value capture and creation of the focal firm and Its various stakeholders.

The BM literature has not yet agreed on a common opinion with regards to which components form a business model. Given the diverse approaches to business models, It is evident that certain repetitive elements remain but are labeled differently (Frankenberger et al., 2013; Magretta, 2002). Components of BMs that are used as a conceptualization In this thesis, consist of four central dimensions (fig. 11-2): The "who” answers the question about the served customer group, the “what” Is commonly re­ferred to as the customer value proposition, the “how” discusses the value chain neces­sary to achieve the value proposition , and the “why" clarifies the revenue model and Its economic efficiency.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure ll-2Archetypal Business Model Source: Gassmann et al. (2014)

While this model Is simple to use, It Is sufficiently comprehensive to provide a clear picture of the business model architecture due to the reduction In four dimensions. The main virtue of the business model Is that It gives a holistic Image of the organization through a combination of factors Inside and outside the firm (David Teece, 2010; Zott et al., 2011), which Figure 4 Illustrates. Given the vast scope of applications, It Is clear that, In practice, a company's BM Is a complex system with Interdependencies and spin-offs. The Intention to reinvent the business model, or to Innovate It, may thus be thought of as an Immense operation that can become rapidly more complicated than a process or product Innovation.

11.3.2 BMIstatusquo

Although the business model concept continues to evolve, the Innovation attached to the BM has recently attracted considerable Interest as a new and growing field. As business models typically deal with the creation and capture of company values, Innovation raises additional complex and challenging questions. Evaluated Inter alia by Schallmo (2014), the concept attempts to deepen the understanding of transformations from one business model to another and facilitates analysis and planning them. Further­more, the ability to Innovate regular and effective business models will Improve the re­silience of a company to environmental changes and their ability to present a sustaina­ble competitive advantage (Chesbrough, 2010; Lecocq & Demll, 2010). The research sub­ject has been revised and augmented by two comprehensive literature reviews by Foss and Saebl; Schallmo (2016; 2014). Table 11-6 presents an overview of selected definitions of business model Innovation. In general, these definitions refer to the developments of the business model as a shift In the structure of either the entire business model or Its components, whether as a reaction to opportunities or as an Instrument for diversifica­tion and Improvement In the organization's environment.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 11-6 Selected definitions ofbusiness model innovations

More specifically, the contributions outlined In table 11-6 Imply different conceptu­alizations of business model Innovation.⁹ On the one hand, scientists highlight the active exploitation of combinations of resource capacity that Increase competitiveness and outermost profitability, defined as a resource-based view (Markldes, 2006; Sorescu, 2017). On the other hand, researchers address the Importance of entrepreneurial op­portunity-seeking and strategic benefit-seeking from the unique viewpoint of a focal firm, recognized as a strategic entrepreneurship perspective (Cucculelll & Bettlnelll, 2015). Consequently, the uncertainty that occurs regularly In the last perspective could potentially lead to opportunities for firms to explore and exploit effectively within their environments (Hitt et al., 2001).¹⁰ In addition, Cucculelll and Bettlnelll (2015) and Zott and Amit (2010) emphasize the need for businesses to respond to volatility by reorient­ing conventional and emerging business strategies to adjust to changing Innovative value sources. Spleth et al. (2014) capture both views by describing the resource-based view as the companies use of existing resources and skills to gain competitive advantage and profits while specifying the other view as the firms' exploitation and exploration of potential environmental opportunities.

In the literature, researchers present different approaches to measure BMI compo­nents. One contribution to this topic from Santos et al. (2009), regards BMI architectural change as a BMI predictor. In their review, Foss and Saebl (2016) suggest that BMI liter­ature gives two separate views of BMI, one on BM architecture changes and the other on BMs In one or more components. Therefore, two dimensions of BMI are proposed: novelty and scope. The novelty dimension defines BM as unique for a company or In­dustry, while architectural and structural adjustments by BM describe the scope dimen­sion. Another useful conceptualization by Clauss (2017) provides a validated scale for BMI. He presents ten multi-item scales that represent an Innovation In the business model for relevant substructures. Each of these sub-constructs comprises three higher dimensions of the Innovation business model, namely value creation Innovation, value proposition Innovation, and value capture Innovation. These dimensions are quite simi­lar to the value propositions of ecosystems that aim to capture and create value for their participants (Khademl, 2020).

In this thesis, Innovation Is construed as an Improvement In, or an Innovative shift within, at least one component of the BM to Incorporate and maximize opportunities In Its strategic entrepreneurial context. This Is because the already well-established mar­ket's traditional business model operates seamlessly with the complex shifts In Its envi­ronments. Therefore, businesses need to Identify potential opportunities In their Indus­try as well as emerging risks, early to make themselves more competitive and more able to foresee possible future changes.

11.3.3 Drivers of the Level of BMI

Researchers have widely acknowledged the primary source of competitive ad­vantage In business model Innovation (Chesbrough, 2007; David Teece, 2010), and therefore, as a promising solution for businesses In times of volatility to react and adjust to changing value creation sources. With a sense of the value of business model Innova­tion with companies and the rapid market change In today's fast-paced business climate, several Investigators have Investigated how businesses can effectively evolve their busi­ness models. It Is particularly Important to Identify the drivers for BMIs.

Many contributions have been made In the Investigation BMI drivers with a particu­lar Interest In areas such as technology Innovation, sustainability, external stakeholders, or Internationalization. However, according to Foss and Saebl (2016), this research Is still In Its Infancy. To date, the research Is typically a post-analysis rather than a theoretic and predictive approach. In a similar vein, Zott et al. (2011) and Spleth et al. (2014) re­quested large-scale Investigations and analyses of antecedents and effects of business models that should result In more generallzablllty. There Is agreement, however, that drivers affecting BMI can be diverse In nature, at various rates, and can be external or Internal to the organization (Dasplt, 2017; Foss & Saebl, 2016).

Since this study deals with factors located In the sphere of ecosystems, the external environment Is of special significance. For Instance, according to Ferreira et al. (2013), a critical factor Is shifts In the demand of stakeholders. In the context of Innovation ecosystems, stakeholders can appear In different ways and Interdependences; hence, a more In-depth analysis of the Impact of each Individual stakeholder would enlarge this research field. In addition to stakeholders, Voelpel + et al. (2004) and Reuveret al. (2009) reveal that competitive environment changes are an additional driver for BMI. Baldwin (2012) also highlights the competition - In this case within an ecosystem - as an Im­portant factor that can result In the opening of countless opportunities for recombina­tion. This Insight serves as another supporting starting point for the purpose of this the­sis In examining BMI within an ecosystem setting. The third external driver for BMI to the organization Is the opportunities presented by new communication technologies and new Information (Bouwman et al., 2018; Wlrtz et al., 2010).

Nevertheless, despite the fact that the hypothesis regarding the positive Influence of the business environment on the BMI has been confirmed by Puclhar et al. (2019), further In-depth research Is still required. Scientific efforts to enrich the literature with a focus on factors embedded In Innovation ecosystems and their Influence on the BMI, and also dependence of the actors, could lead to new theoretical and practical Implica­tions for this highly relevant research topic. In doing so, It Is necessary to find (1) linkages between Innovation ecosystems and BMI; and (2), Identify and collect Issues referring to those linkages. Thus, the next section provides a linkage between the ecosystem con­cept and business model Innovations and discusses a literary contribution which, In a broader sense, Is In the Intended direction of this research.

11.3.4 Business model innovation in business ecosystems

To conclude the theoretical background of BMI and to make¹¹ progress associated with business ecosystems, It could be useful to Investigate current literature contribu­tions that combine both concepts. Although both concepts have failed to agree upon a standardized terminology, scientists Imply the existence of a direct link between busi­ness ecosystems and business model Innovation.

In his contribution, Clauss (2017) stresses that BMI Involves elements that lie outside a firm, such as partnerships and customer segments. Hence, the business ecosystem, as Illustrated In fig. 11-3, Is a theoretical lens to be used In the analysis of Interactions be­tween business models and external actors (Moore, 1996).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 11-3 Business ecosystem J. Moore (1996)

Moore (1996) suggests that the business ecosystem can be listed when considering the relationship between suppliers and customers and aspects such as regulators and standardization bodies. This Is particularly Important as players In an enterprise jointly develop their abilities and roles. Until now, only one literature review that provides a detailed review of BMI In the context of business ecosystems has been published. In this review, Rachlnger et al. (2019) analyzed 94 articles on the subject and Identified Issues that combined the topics of BMI and BE. This contribution Indicated the potential of taking a holistic approach that considers the embedded resources of the business eco­system for a business model Innovation.14 Although only one contribution exists, an ex­amination of this review provides Insights that serve as secondary source material that is supplementary to the results of the multiple case study presented In section II 1.2.

The overview of the determining subjects of business model Innovation In a business ecosystem and Insights regarding the frequency of each subject presented In Table 11-7, are particularly relevant In this thesis. Co-evolutlon of the BE and BM, the role of BE resources and capabilities for BMI, the role of BE actors for BMI, the role of technologies As a source for this review, the authors had access to the WoS (Web of Science). The same source was available for this thesis. The WoS supports better comparability and helps to extend the literature.

In the BE and BMI, and role of BE governance for BMI, account for more than 50% of all occurrences.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 11-7 BMI in BE: Identified issues by Rachinger et al. (2019)

As Rachinger et al. (2019) only addressed the five Identified Issues with the highest frequency rate In detail, this section only deals with those mentioned. Other elabora­tions that could enrich the results of the multiple case study but have not been men­tioned In this section, are discussed and added In the discussion later In this thesis. The following description consists of the five Issues that were mentioned most In the litera­ture that combined the topics of BEs and BMI (compare Table 11-7).

Co-evolution of the business ecosystem and business model. Researchers broadly agree that BMI Is transcending company limits and connecting the actors In a multidi­mensional, contextual and bidirectional way (D. Dellyana et al., 2018; Velu, 2015). Ac­cording to Glesen et al. (2007), a successful Innovation of a BM, must be, In line with the 15 Sources have been used if they are qualified for more subjects. Essential to remember, constructs out­side the boundaries of the business ecosystems, e.g. value networks, are specified as part of the BE term in their study. Individual actors (e.g. partners or stakeholders,) in a BE were addressed as BE actors.

company's BE and It can be further Improved by Involving business ecosystem actors In the process (Rong et al., 2018). In addition, Simmons et al.; Yderfält and Roxenhall (2013; 2017) state that Innovation of a business model Is highly dependent on the collaboration among business ecosystem actors. In the various phases of the Innovation process, busi­ness model Innovation may promote collaboration among business ecosystem actors, facilitating the Integration of resources, and Innovation of value (Nardelll & Rajala, 2018) . According to Burton et al. (2016), tensions In the BE, can prevent the joint crea­tion of value and also the capture of value activities. To conclude, joint business model Innovation In business ecosystem alliances will benefit from cost, risk and knowledge sharing between companies (Spleth & Meissner, 2018) and requires, as a prerequisite, stakeholder Involvement (Nardelll & Rajala, 2018).

Influence of business ecosystem resources and capabilities on business model in­novation. In general, the literature states that the BMI In BEs often requires the Inter­action of BE actors as Its resources and capacities are necessary (D. Dellyana et al., 2018; Llndgren et al., 2010). Consequently, teaming up to gain easy access to resources for an Innovation of a BM Is commonly seen as a key-driver for BMI In the BEs and therefore, enables firms to bear down constraints In resources (Ayala et al., 2017; Calla et al., 2007; Karlsson et al., 2017). For example, Shelton (2009) emphasizes that the Innovation of a BM requires complementary BE stakeholder support while Matthyssens et al. (2006) highlight the position of business ecosystem stakeholders outsourcing. Moreover, the development of complex products, made possible by shared business ecosystem capa­bilities, facilitate the Innovation of business models.

Role of business ecosystem actors for business model innovation. Scientists em­phasize the critical role of business ecosystem actors, such as customers, suppliers, and distributers, for an Innovation of a business model. Spleth and Meissner (2018) found that BMI frequently expands the core business boundaries, allowing businesses to com­plement Individual business ecosystem actors' capabilities. As a result, firms have the potential to offer products that satisfy the continuously rising demands of customers. To do so, Nardelll and Rajala (2018) presuppose BE actors Involvement that leads ac­cording to Ayala et al. (2017), to an Increased business model Innovation velocity or to a growth In the versatility of business models (Mason & Mouzas, 2012). By Implication, the right choice of appropriate business ecosystem partners Is critical for the success of the business Innovation model network (Karlsson et al., 2017) and therefore, they sug­gest, to the establishment of long-term relationships. D. Dellyana et al. (2018) reveal that If Innovations of BMs link BE actors with a variety of expertise, low BMI rates could lead to high value formation, value supply, and value selection.

Role of technologies in the business ecosystem and for business model innovation.

Technology used In BMIs can be drivers and enablers In business ecosystems (Chapman, 2006). For Instance, Mason and Mouzas (2012) argued that BEs encourage new devel­opment Interventions that result In value and the creation of BMI. Furthermore, actor players may take advantage of technical opportunities through revolutionary Innova­tions of their business models, based on their particular business ecosystem (Autlo et al., 2018). Similarly, Shelton (2009) states that Innovation In technology and BMs will also be collectively embraced and sponsored by capital and strong BE collaborations. By creating a novel technology, new actors can be attracted to the BE and must Involve those that provide Initiatives that complement and compete. Wadln et al. (2017) stress that companies that work together In BMI partnerships are more able to deploy tech­nologies than companies that act Independently. Overall, business ecosystems facilitate the development of new technology Initiatives resulting In value and business model Innovation migration.

[...]

---

¹ I am only referring to those ecosystems that were explained and delimited in section 11.2.4, namely business ecosystem, innovation ecosystem, and platform ecosystem.

² As is usual in the Web of Science, I applied deviations between singular and plural forms and, consid­ered the notation of British and American English, as well as hyphenated forms that were used in the literature. In addition, at the beginning the papers were restricted to the core collection of the Web of Science.

³ I intentionally refer to the term "ecosystem" as a concept for emphasizing the as-yet early stage of theoretical development in the area of business and management.

⁴ The inconsistent use of divergent ecosystem concepts has led to terminological and conceptual confu­sion between Gomes et al. (2016, p. 1) and Thomas and Autio (2019, p. 2). To prevent incorrect utili­zation of the ecosystem concept, I only take into account those that include all four components and fulfil the characteristics of an ecosystem that will be presented in the next section.

⁵ The reduction to four components, makes it easy to use but, at the same time, cocooning enough to give a precise picture ofthe ecosystem concept.

⁶ Fitbit is a wearable fitness tracker and LIFX produces smart light for homes. LIFX builds a system com­patible with the Nest thermostat.

⁷ Ecosystem partners are dependent on each other to collectively generate a system-level output. Par­ticipants must be interested in the joint success, quite similar to the intrinsic motivation of employees.

⁸ (2005, p. 202) did not directly refer to ecosystems. In their contribution, they described a value net­work that includes most ofthe elements necessary to be considered as an ecosystem.

⁹ Another classification was made by Foss and Saebi (2016), who distinguish between the outcome (BMI), and the (re)configuration process of existing business models. Although both approaches are useful, I follow the presented conceptualization due to its greater proximity to the firm environment (e.g. ecosystems).

¹⁰ The environment here also includes the perspective of ecosystems and therefore provides a direct link to the ecosystem concept.

¹¹ Rachinger et al. (2019) did not distinguish between different types of ecosystem. The term business ecosystem is equated with the innovation ecosystem concept as described earlier in this thesis.