structuralist approach to ecosystems

structuralist approach to ecosystems

During the past decade there has been a surge of scientific and management interest in ecosystems expressed by the exponential increase in the number of publications studying this phenomenon. The literature review is written for a postgraduate thesis on the topic of «The value propositions of ecosystems in the Russian market». The aim of this literature review is to present an overview of recent research on ecosystem value propositions and to identify some areas where new research is needed. This literature review does not explore the features of value propositions in other organizational forms. It contains articles published in respected scientific journals over the last few years. This literature review is organized chronologically by publication.

Adner (2017) presents a structuralist approach to ecosystems. The author points out that ecosystems are the main change driver for business models. The article distinguishes two perspectives of ecosystem emergence: the affiliated, which views ecosystems as communities of associated actors defined by their networks and platform affiliations, and the structural, which sees ecosystems as configurations of activities defined by value propositions. It is noted that the second perspective is less studied. The article contains little information about the management of partners.

Jacobides, Cennamo & Gawer (2018) introduce complementarities as a mechanism for ecosystem emergence. They show how ecosystems address multilateral dependences based on various types of complementarities. It is noted that ecosystems are based on modularity. This principle allows the interdependent components of a system to be produced by different companies, with limited coordination required. Using qualitative data derived from interviews, the authors identify strategies to succeed in nascent ecosystems. The article illustrates how ecosystems differ in terms of structure when compared to market-based and hierarchically-based systems. However, authors do not provide any information about how firms achieve complementarity at the ecosystem level and how participation in several ecosystems affects the type and intensity of such relationships.

Kuznetsova & Markov (2018) argue that ecosystems need to balance the preferences of multiple stakeholders. The authors notice that members of one ecosystem may also be participants of other competing ecosystems. However, the article does not discuss the role of relationships between stakeholders in value creation. Moreover, the study is conducted on the example of one technology company, which may limit the extent to which the findings can be generalized. It is noted that most studies of ecosystems are based on empirical data obtained in the USA and China.

Talmar, Walrave, Podoynitsyna, Holmström & Romme (2018) integrate the views and implications arising from recent scholarly works on ecosystems (e.g., Adner, 2017; Jacobides et al., 2018) and develop a strategic tool to map, analyze, and design ecosystems. They determine key constructs and relationships in value creation and embed them into the Ecosystem Pie Model (EPM). This model allows companies to apply a comprehensive approach to building ecosystems. The model is accompanied by application guidelines. Despite having notable positive sides, this model is not appropriated for modeling platform-based ecosystems. Moreover, the way the EPM is designed may limit the number of complementors that can be modeled.

Thomas & Autio (2018) argue that ecosystems offer a new way to think about value creation, co-specialihttps://studygroom.com/the-meaning-of-resource-resource-systems/zation, and co-evolution among firms. The authors describe how four characteristics of ecosystem management (joint specialization, power structure, logic, and ecosystem coordination) form ecosystem value potential. One of the drawbacks of this paper is that it fails to provide any information about the specific mechanisms that drive these characteristics. Integrating these insights with the dynamics of value co-creation and value appropriation is the next step for scholars.

Dattee, Alexy & Autio (2018) consider what makes ecosystems different from markets and alliances. The authors argue that organizations must control the process of ecosystem creation dynamically using roadmapping and preempting. However, they focus on actors that have market power and significant resources. Therefore, the results are poorly applicable to small and medium-sized companies. The authors point out the need to develop a classification of ecosystems.

Boger & Lingens (2019) draw on previous studies (e.g., Adner, 2017; Dattee et al., 2018; Jacobides et al., 2018) to determine how companies create value propositions and select relevant ecosystem partners. The authors argue that ecosystems are often formed around one key organization that provides a wide set of resources. Based on a qualitative multi-case study, the authors identify different approaches to selecting partners. However, it remains unclear what criteria are used for selecting ecosystem participants.

Schlecht & Schneider (2019) provide insights into the components of ecosystem value propositions. The authors rely on studies conducted by Adner (2017) and Dattee et al. (2018). They argue that companies participating in ecosystems create attractive value propositions for their consumers by leveraging the ecosystem network. Thereby, the authors establish a linkage between ecosystems and consumers. The article does not provide any information concerning how customers decide to participate in a particular ecosystem. The authors notice that academic literature lacks insights into the components of joint value propositions.

Wieninger, Götzen, Gudergan & Wenning (2019) define the boundaries of ecosystems and develop a new approach to ecosystem analysis. A case study is used to validate the proposed approach in the telecommunications industry. This approach includes cooperation and competition of ecosystem actors that are interconnected and dependent on each other. It implies that, on the one hand, individual companies depend on the success of the entire business ecosystem, while, on the other hand, they compete for customers and resources. The authors posit that ecosystems typically embrace many kinds of suppliers, distributors, and other ecosystems. Therefore, ecosystem boundaries are blurred. The study is conducted for one involved ecosystem member, which may limit the applicability of this approach.

Overall, the analyzed papers make significant contributions to the development of ecosystem value propositions. The authors devote much attention to ecosystem building, intra-ecosystem relationships, and the complementarity of participants. Nevertheless, current literature lacks the understanding of ecosystem value components and an integrated approach to value creation. Moreover, a classification of ecosystems based on value should be developed. Thus, these issues require a more detailed study.