Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences | 2017

Innovation Ecosystems vs. Innovation Systems in Terms of Collaboration and

Co-creation of Value

Nataliya Smorodinskaya Martha G. Russell Daniel Katukov Kaisa Still

Inst of Economics, RAS Stanford University Inst of Economics, RAS VTT of Finland
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract innovation discussion, appending “eco-” to “innovation

In this paper, we explore the relevance of the term systems” adds nothing of substance. Rather, “innovation
“innovation ecosystem” to describe dynamic ecosystem” is a faulty analogy to natural ecosystems
collaborative networks of people and organizations [10]. A discussion on this problem of a better
formed around projects with an innovation objective. We terminology opened in the literature quite recently.
present a survey of literature reviews on ecosystems Against this background our paper is an attempt to
studies to clarify typical features and interpretations of make a contribution to such discussion. With the updated
innovation ecosystems, and we highlight differences in thinking of innovation (for example by the World
terms of collaboration and value co-creation. We Economic Forum) [1], we conduct a review of literature
explore ecosystem thinking and illustrate patterns of published from 2005 to 2016 on ecosystems,
innovation ecosystems by describing the structure of concentrating on innovation ecosystems and
regional clusters, global value chains and platforms. We acknowledging the related terms of business ecosystem,
offer policy insights on the role of governments in software ecosystem, industrial ecosystem, digital
stimulating innovation ecosystems and innovation- business ecosystem, entrepreneurship ecosystem, and
conducive environments. knowledge ecosystem. We aim to clarify typical features
of innovation ecosystems as compared to systems and to
highlight the advantages of an ecosystemic mode of
1. Introduction producing innovations, while picking up interpretations
and definitions both from economic and business
The concept of innovation ecosystems has emerged literature.
in early 2000s to meet the demands of emerging
knowledge-based economies, in which the production of
innovations and the associated development processes 2. On the definition and the variety of
are increasingly non-linear and network-based [1]. This ecosystems in literature
concept has remarkably enriched the idea of innovation
systems, coined in the industrial era in the research In the updated version of the Global
streams of Freeman, Lundvall, Nelson, and their Competitiveness index (GCI), the World Economic
followers [2–6]. In the 1990s, national or regional Forum draws from findings in the literature, and argues
innovation systems were seen as static structures in GCI that innovation now means not only
regulated by government bodies, with successful technological innovation but, in a broader notion, an
performance depending on a critical mass of involved “ecosystem” (environment) conducive to the generation
actors and intentional infrastructure [1]. As a departure, of ideas and their implementation in the form of new
innovation ecosystems of the 2000s are considered products, services, and processes in the global
dynamic and agile collaborative structures that enjoy marketplace [1]. This approach can be further described
self-governance as a necessary prerequisite for with three important details: the wider-scope of
interactive innovation [7, 8]. This approach is now innovation, the innovation-conducive environment, and
applied in innovation policies of many developed and various studies on ecosystems.
developing nations [9]. Firstly, regarding the scope of innovation, new ideas
Meanwhile, some scholars and experts still seriously can be generated by formal scientific R&D; they can
doubt whether the introduction of the term ‘ecosystem’, also result from non-R&D activities that do not require
adding “eco-“ to “system”, is justified. In particular, fixed research costs yet increase the efficiency with
some papers argue that though writers on “innovation which a good or service is produced (such as
ecosystems” have added some valuable ideas to the innovations in managerial and organizational

URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/41798
ISBN: 978-0-9981331-0-2
CC-BY-NC-ND 5245
techniques, personnel, accounting, work practices, etc.) and non-commercial (the latter often treated as “softer”
The implementation of such ideas may be commercial innovation.)

Table 1. Literature reviews on the variety of ecosystems, 2005-2016

Review Review source Review result

(Peltoniemi, 2005) [11] Literature review and conceptual Dynamics of conscious choice and limited
analysis of business ecosystem as knowledge of an individual organization and
an organizational population model from the interconnected-ness and feedback
(Peltoniemi, 2006) [12] loops of an organization’s population;
differences in cluster and value networks
(Manikas & Hansen, 2013) 90 papers relevant to software The software industry is moving towards
[13] ecosystem(s) software ecosystems with platforms like
Google Android and Apple iOS
(Pilinkienė & Mačiulis, Literature review of ecosystem Ecosystem analogies have various scopes
2014) [14] analogies: industrial ecosystem, and objectives having an impact on micro-
innovation ecosystem, business level, associated with actions of internal
ecosystem, digital business actors; (eco)system can be a significant
ecosystem, entrepreneurship determinant of sustainable economic
ecosystem development
(Gawer, 2014) [15] Review of management research on Platforms operate along an organizational
technological platforms: industrial continuum, including firms, supply chains,
economics and engineering design and industry ecosystems
(Gawer & Cusumano, Platform-based ecosystem A critical issue for managers is to learn to
2014) [16] innovation; review of research on manage the evolution of their industry
internal and external platforms platforms and accompanying ecosystems
and make interrelated technological and
business decisions
(Thomas, Autio, & Gann, 183 publications of platforms in Four streams of platform research identified:
2014) [17] management context organizational capability, product family,
market intermediary and technology system
(Kortelainen & Järvi, 72 empirical articles on ecosystems Research on ecosystems is still a long way
2014) [18] in a business context from the stage of theory testing (i.e., using
multivariate statistical methods) or of
replication studies across ecosystems
(Valkokari, 2015) [19] Review of types of business, In order to survive and thrive in an
innovation and knowledge ecosystem, a variety of forms of interaction
ecosystems and the relationships are required; the interaction between various
between them types of ecosystems is an unexplored area
(Suominen, Seppänen, & 4681 publications to look at The literature on national, regional and
Dedehayir, 2016) [20] innovation systems literature, 427 technological innovation systems, as well as
ecosystem research articles literature on corporate competitiveness and
the ecosystem approach, has both shared and
divergent intellectual roots
(Aarikka-Stenroos, Peltola, Systematic content analysis of 157 Multidisciplinary perspectives exist on
Rikkiev, & Saari, 2016) articles of innovation and business ecosystem phenomenon; research gaps exist,
[21] ecosystems including a gap in policy-making; the
business ecosystem stream is dominant
Source: Authors’ elaboration

Secondly, an innovation-conducive environment, connectivity, critical and creative thinking, diversity,

comprised of ecosystems and networks, can increase and confrontation across different visions and angles.
the likelihood that “softer” innovation takes place. By bringing new products and services to market,
This environment encourages collaboration,

5246
such ecosystems and networks foster productivity of inter-firm or inter-organizational networks, this
though embedded technology, with efficiency gains. definition implies innovation ecosystems are oriented
Thirdly, to achieve a complete picture of an either to the direct co-creation of innovations or to
innovation-conducive environment one needs to the formation of innovation-supportive milieu [23].
consider both economic literature (which focuses As our literature review shows, innovation
more on system incentives to spur idea generation at ecosystems may be treated both as business networks
the aggregate level) and business literature (which and as communities meant for innovation. They may
identifies important factors that generate innovative assume different scale and design, functioning as
companies and/or motivate them to innovate). regional innovation hubs, nation-wide innovation
To this end, and particularly to explore the communities, local inter-firm networks, very small
contemporary perception of innovation ecosystems, network-based ad-hoc groups of individuals, or
we examined relevant scholarly literature in the field global wide networks [7].
of management and economics. We found eleven However, neither geography nor industry sector
(11) literature reviews, identified through previous expose the essence of innovation ecosystems as
literature reviews themselves. For example, compared to systems. Noticeably, in management
Kortelainen and Järvi [18] acknowledge seven studies, one of the primary motivations for
primary reviews, while Valkokari [19] draws from addressing the ecosystem concept has been the desire
the review by Thomas, Autio and Gann [17]. In to explore self-organizing properties of natural
addition, participation in scientific conferences ecosystems [24]. In studies on innovation dealing
allowed us to include other very recent reviews. The with generation and implementation of new ideas,
range of primary sources covered by reviews during ecosystems are usually considered a means for co-
the 2005 to 2016 period is diverse, as some are based creation and market introduction of inventions [1].
on tens of scholarly articles, others are based on 100+ Literature on economic competitiveness incorporates
articles, and one even considers close to 5000 the idea of ecosystems in the context of the broad
publications, as shown in Table 1. impact of digital technologies (IT, ICT) on the
Our overarching survey has highlighted a broad changing nature of innovation process, especially
variety of related terms, used simultaneously in regarding implications of non-linear innovation for
literature to describe organizational continua or alternative organizational designs. Such thinking is
network interactions. Particularly, there are business reflected in modern production systems at all levels
ecosystems, software ecosystems, platforms, (firms, clusters, regions, national economies, global
industrial ecosystems, digital business ecosystems, economy).
entrepreneurship ecosystems and knowledge Summarizing the relevant points in literature, as
ecosystems; in addition, start-up ecosystem is they highlight the origin and properties of innovation
mentioned [21]. Overall, these entities are seen as ecosystems, we come to the following conclusion. In
vital in sustainable economic development [14]. the age of non-linear innovation and digital
Our findings confirm that the ecosystem idea is technologies, innovation can be better nurtured
often applied without clear definitions [19] and that within a special, innovation-conducive environment.
there is increased conceptual ambiguity of the Such an environment may be seen as an ecosystem
terminology [20]. Terms denoting different types of meant for co-creation of value through collaboration.
ecosystems are often used interchangeably [21], The concept of value co-creation is basically
although some differences between biological and associated with a business strategy focusing on
business ecosystems are articulated [11, 12, 14]. It interactive relationships between producers and
has been noted that research on ecosystems is still a consumers (the latter are becoming productive
long way from the stage of theory testing [18]. workers, or prosumers, who are granted authority by
companies to articulate their specific requirements
3. Synthesis for interpreting innovation and at times contribute to design considerations).
Initially elaborated by the business and market
ecosystems literature, this concept started to gain momentum in
the post-2000 period, expanding further in its two
In previous writings, we viewed innovation dimensions, as both the idea of value co-production
ecosystems as networks of sustainable linkages and the idea of value-in-use [25].
between individuals and organizations, which emerge According to an updated definition, as introduced
from a shared vision of desired transformations and in management studies, particularly by LSE
provide an economic context (milieu) to catalyze Enterprise [26], co-creation of value is an active,
innovation and growth [22]. As applied to the variety creative and social process, based on collaboration

5247
between producers and users, which is initiated by continual “creative destruction” and predicted their
the firm to generate value for customers and compete future global domination.
to pass others in the category (i.e., the Nike approach Later, a more exact term of ‘collaborative
constitutes a full spectrum of customer involvement innovation networks’ appeared in literature to denote
and competition). While consumers benefit from typical organizational forms of production in the age
greater personalization and value, companies build of digital technologies. This term was popularized by
competitive advantage by turning just-in-time Gloor in 2006 [30] and further explored conceptually
knowledge from customers into just-in-time learning [31] and empirically [32] by other authors. Such
for their organizations. Relationships for co-creation networks may be local, national, transnational or
may also be established between and among global; they may have different configuration and
businesses and service organizations. Such patterns of collaboration [31]. Their growing
collaboration might include global introduction, proliferation implies that in the 21st century,
competitive analytics and tolerance for inefficiency. innovative goods, technologies and values will be
The co-creation concept highlights not only the typically co-created through collaborations of
frequency of interaction, but also the quality of networked entities that form relatively sustainable
relationships between companies and their customers, ecosystems of actors, linkages and assets [33].
or among companies, to determine how knowledge is Since innovativeness of networks can be revealed
created, shared and transferred [27]. In terms of only through their collaboration activities, we can
modern economics literature, this concept can be consider them innovation ecosystems and use this
applied to the architecture of the innovation-led term as a metaphor for denoting their specific
economy based on customized products. In this organizational and functional features, as compared
sense, the co-creation process may imply the to systems. Ecosystems are tailored to interactive co-
possibility of collaboration between different types of creation of values, while systems are not.
actors across the economy, enabling them to co- Taken as a metaphor of collaborative networks,
produce new goods and values, i.e., innovations. the term ‘innovation ecosystem’ provides a highly
In turn, collaboration, taken in a broad sense, useful image to draw a difference between the rigid
denotes various forms of interactive communication hierarchical design of economic systems in the age of
between networked actors. For example, some linear development and their dynamic network-based
experts argue [27] that collaboration is important for architecture in the 21st century. Hence, this term helps
both R&D and non-R&D innovation but each type to highlight the newly emerging economic milieu, in
uses different networks. In a more exact definition, which innovative goods and values are created at the
collaboration is seen as the most developed form of level of networks capable of shaping an effective
interactive cooperation. It implies that in order to co- ecosystem. “Eco” stands to emphasize the non-linear
create innovations, networked actors must rely on a nature of innovation and the crucial role of
common vision, strategy, common identity, and joint collaboration in producing innovations to achieve
obligations [28]. sustainable development in non-linear environments.
To further explain the term of innovation The ability of collaborative networks to adapt
ecosystems and its implications, we have developed themselves to a non-linear environment implies they
additional perspectives. assume certain features of complex adaptive systems -
agility, self-organization, self-governance, and
3.1 ‘Innovation ecosystem’ as a metaphor synergy effects [34]. When it comes to such
for collaborative innovation networks ecosystems as innovation clusters, cluster literature
(originated by Porter and followers) directly
Ecosystems can’t be deliberately established as interprets them as complex dynamic systems, noting
system-like organizations. Rather they emerge as their unique synergy effects [35–37].
innovation-conducive environments in the course of Also important, collaborative networks that form
collaboration among networked actors. Meanwhile, an ecosystem of actors and linkages to co-create
collaborative networks themselves, tailored to co- innovations are designed as temporary projects,
creation of value in various forms and ways, can and around a common project idea. For this reason, the
should be treated as modern agile organizations emanating network economy is also called a project
typical of the 21st century. One of the first economy [38], as an alternative to a traditional
descriptions of such dynamic and innovative entities economy, in which interactions are not necessarily
appeared in early 1990s in the “New Society of collaborative and long-term systems are intended.
Organizations” by P. Drucker [29], in which he Collaborative networks and their ecosystems are
underlined the ability of such organizations for distinguished by different design, functional purpose

5248
and pattern of collaboration. These differences can be value chains (GVCs). The latter are the result of
easily seen when comparing regional innovation globalization, when traded goods and services are no
clusters, global value chains and digital platforms. longer produced or consumed within a single country
but instead, through dispersion of the production
3.1.1. Innovation clusters as formalized processes and marketing, across several countries.
innovation ecosystems. Innovation clusters are GVCs are now horizontally crossing countries and
geographically localized agglomerations of territories, with value added flows circulating
collaborating firms and organizations, which enjoy a between their cluster nodes. Meanwhile, GVCs
highly developed pattern of collaboration, associated themselves constitute a special kind of collaborative
with a triple-helix model, i.e. an interactive pairwise networks, and therefore, a kind of ecosystem to co-
collaboration between three types of networked create value.
institutional actors, namely companies, research GVCs emerged in the late industrial era due to
centers and authorities [39]. As follows from cluster outsourcing business practices. Initially, they were
literature [37], innovation clusters constitute a special governed by hierarchic multinationals that were
variety of innovation ecosystems, in which triple- building vertical systems of actors under their
helix interactions enable unique economic effects of control, while looking for expansion in size at local,
innovation synergy, or co-creation of innovative not yet globalized markets. Nowadays, multinationals
goods and services on a continual basis. According tend to become more horizontally dispersed and
to this literature, among the various kinds of network-based [47].
collaborative networks only innovation clusters can One can see a GVC as a horizontally dispersed
provide a sustainable rise in productivity based on a ecosystem for value co-creation, formed by a
continual innovation [40]. Initial systemic findings network of legally independent and functionally
[41] confirm that successful innovation clusters can interdependent actors that are collaborating across
function as poles of growth for a given region. countries and territories within a common project.
Open innovation clusters are considered the The participating actors create initial and
most convenient ecosystem model both for intermediary products (knowledge, technologies,
continuous co-creation of innovations and for goods, services) that move along the chain in an
disseminating them across an economy. These upstream way, generating flows of a consecutively
ecosystems are shaped by collaborative partners of added value, until the final product is co-created and
various profiles, who are free to join and leave the delivered to external customers, embedding
open cluster network [40]. According to observations productivity into a dynamic cluster ecosystem.
[42–44], mature clusters have a sophisticated
ecosystem of functional linkages, formed both by 3.1.3. Platforms as ecosystems for value co-
deeply embedded actors and by flagship firms that creation. Digital platforms are oftentimes regarded
have already expanded beyond the cluster’s bounds as technological systems, as a technical artifact, “as
and are reinvesting money in their business projects the extensible code-based system that provides core
By virtue of the coordinating work of cluster functionality shaped by the modules that interoperate
organizations, a co-located group of companies is with it, and the interfaces through which they
able to transform itself into a self-governed and self- interoperate” [48, p. 677]. Increasingly they are also
sustainable network that can achieve innovation seen as management and economic concepts, creating
synergy. Due to their relationships developed as value by providing products and services that enable
ecosystems, entities in agile innovation clusters can two or more different types of customers to find each
combine and rapidly recombine their shared assets in other and exchange value [49]. Importantly, the
varied and novel configurations and, in this way, can overall value of platform requires players, such as
flexibly start new venture business projects to meet developers who build tools, to operationalize the
the rapidly changing market demands. Their “design” exchange [50]. Conceptualization of platforms has
is evolved through a combination of market forces, been developed separately by two streams of
organizational efforts of triple helix actors [45], and academic literature – industrial economics and
value transactions [46]. engineering design.
The industrial economics perspective associates
3.1.2. Global value chains as innovation platforms with a new, network type of markets (two-
ecosystems of cross-cluster collaboration. Regional sided or multi-sided), focusing on how platforms
innovation clusters are seeking to develop their create value by coordinating transactions between
specializations in ways that enable them to become two or more groups of consumers who would not
geographically localized network nodes of global have been able to connect without the platform. This

5249
literature highlights that platforms generate a virtuous exchange their knowledge, transfer value and
cycle of indirect, or cross-group network effects (the reshuffle their resources for the purpose of direct co-
value that consumers and the platform owner can production of innovations [45].
capture increases with increasing customer bases), Overall, digital platforms are redesigning
which dynamically reinforces incumbents’ early- traditional industrial landscapes towards ecosystemic
gained advantages. perspective. Literatures on platforms and ecosystems
The engineering design perspective views have started to merge and have introduced the term
platforms as purposefully designed modular ‘platform ecosystem’ (for example Basole & Karla
architectures organized around a ‘core’ (the platform 54). Scholars are examining platform roles in
leader) and a ‘periphery of users’ (which complement ecosystems that generate large populations of
the platform leader), providing a respective networked users, who carry different functions and
technological interface between these two sides. This interact in a wide variety of ways to co-create value.
literature posits that platforms can network and This makes it reasonable to associate platforms with
coordinate users not just in the role of consumers but innovation ecosystems rather than with technological
first of all in the role of suppliers and innovators, thus systems. And as studies on platforms suggest
helping firms to achieve the economy of scope (McKinsey Global Institute, 2015 55), the digital
effects and facilitate innovation [51]. sector provides several widely recognized examples
The literature on platforms distinguishes three of platforms and their associated platform leaders,
broad types of platforms, namely platforms within such as Apple, Facebook, or Google (which became
firms (like Sony Walkman’s platform servicing Alphabet) with each of these leaders playing an
constituent sub-units of one firm in consumer orchestrating role within a network of firms and
electronics), platforms across supply chains, individual innovators that have come to be
including GVCs (like Boeing’s platform for the GVC collectively referred to as the platform’s “innovation
in aerospace manufacturing, or Renault-Nissan’s ecosystem” [56].
platform for the GVC in automotive manufacturing),
and industry-wide platforms (like Facebook’s 3.2 Transition of economies to ecosystem
platform across the sector of social networking) [52]. organizational design
Industry-wide platforms are considered as generators
of the most open ecosystems. They are defined as Although the word ‘ecosystem’ derives
technological building blocks (technologies, linguistically from biological ecology, the use of this
products, or services), which act as a foundation for term in the context of innovation is not about
organized array of interdependent firms (sometimes connotations with Darwin’s natural order. Rather it
called an industry ‘‘ecosystem’’) to develop a set of reflects the growing organizational complexity of
inter-related products, technologies and services [15]. economic systems, which denotes the formation of a
On top of this, there exists a special class of new, more sophisticated social order, based on
platforms for joint action, tailored to overcome network coordination [27].
coordination problems and to directly support The shift of the technological paradigm [57]
collaboration in the process of the project realization associated with non-linear innovation and
[52]. These platforms enable cluster participants to proliferation of digital technologies is occurring hand
better exploit potential linkages among existing in hand with a concomitant shift in the paradigm of
capabilities and to make better decisions on investing social interactions. While industrial economies of
into new capabilities, taking into account the mass production rested on a combination of market
externalities of such actions across the cluster [53]. and hierarchic patterns of coordination, the emerging
These platforms aim to provide innovation synergy innovation-intensive economies (also called post-
effects that lead to individual and aggregate industrial systems, or knowledge-based economies)
‘competitiveness upgrading’ across the cluster [37]. rely on a more sophisticated, network pattern of
Insights from different research streams move us social coordination, constituting a functional hybrid
closer to understanding platforms from the between rigid hierarchies and atomistic markets [58,
perspective of value co-creation. Platforms can form 59]. As applied to these changes, the term
or promote the emergence of ecosystems enabling the ‘innovation ecosystem’ can be used to denote the
co-production of innovations [25]. Much of this ongoing organizational transformation of economies
ability concerns the value-in-use dimension of the into network-based production systems. This change
value co-creation concept, i.e., using and transferring is accompanied by a deconstruction of hierarchies
value. Cluster platforms for joint action enable both at micro- and macro-levels of social activity. In
networked actors (producers, suppliers, customers) to a growing number of countries private firms and

5250
public bodies are meeting the challenge of the private sector, which was associated with a
restructuring, transforming themselves from classical model of industrial policy. During times
vertically built entities into more flexible and when modernization in many developing economies
horizontally oriented [47, 60]. had been driven by their market-oriented transition,
The newly emerging design of economies can be direct state interventions into industrial structures
called ecosystemic, to emphasize the crucial role of have been replaced by mild indirect initiatives aimed
networking and dynamic connectivity between actors at building a better institutional environment.
(including interpersonal linkages) to work within the The situation has changed in recent years, when
dispersed non-linear space. As a result, an all types of economies (developed, developing and
innovation-conducive context is emerging. This those in transition) have been faced with a common
context implies an inclusive institutional environment need to accelerate their transition to knowledge-based
in the terms of Acemoglu and Robinson [61], or the systems and adapt themselves to the non-linear
idea of building ‘commons’ in terms of Ostrom [62], world. At the organizational level, this challenge is
or simpler, the culture of win-win games in economic concerned with promotion of a network-based and
and political markets to meet challenges of the global ecosystem-oriented transformation. As a result, since
competition. 2010s, a new model of industrial policy has emerged
As rigid vertical hierarchies, typical of the in many developed and developing countries, one
industrial era, are being replaced by agile horizontal which seeks to upgrade their industrial structure and
networks, the traditional patterns of governance are enhance competitiveness through a collaborative
giving way to collective decision-making, in which organizational environment for a continual
investment priorities, lines of business activity and innovation [65].
conventions are defined through interactive The new industrial policy is not limited to
consensus-building among networked actors. This manufacturing or to material goods. Rather it's about
non-hierarchic model of governance, associated with acceleration of the ecosystem-oriented restructuring
proliferation of platform-based communication, is in the whole industrial (economic) landscape,
often called collaborative governance [63]. implying that under this new design the market forces
Collaborative governance in its various patterns will self-discover the most innovative business
is now emerging for region-wide or national-wide projects and re-direct resources into those projects
innovation ecosystems that are gradually evolving and industries [66]. Under this policy, national
within countries and territories under government governments don't seek to build specialized
support. Collaboratively governed ecosystems innovation clusters in "priority" industries, but
provide an alternative to the former, “linear” instead help localities create platforms and
innovation systems of regional or national scale, infrastructures for networking and collaboration.
which governments have tried to develop not through Though modern industrial policy is aimed at
promoting collaboration and connectivity but through generating macro-level structural shifts, it is based on
initiatives that concentrated on the individual roles of removing barriers at the micro-level, in order to
actors, or the establishment of innovative cultivate organizational and social transformations
infrastructure or structures as such [64]. through inter-firm and inter-organizational
networking. The ecosystem approach implies that
3.3 The new mission of governments in the network linkages interconnect the micro- and macro
age of ecosystems. Policy implications. levels of economies, corresponding to the core idea
of Porter’s Diamond model of competitiveness [40].
The global trend in the transformation of the
hierarchical systems of the past into network-based 4. Concluding findings
and self-supportive ecosystems of the post-industrial
era doesn’t mean that the governments are becoming The term “innovation ecosystem” symbolizes the
less active. On the contrary, governments’ best newly emerging, network mode of arranging business
interests require being even more proactive now than activity and economic governance, which enables
in the late industrial epoch, associated with companies and territories to master innovation-led
liberalization of markets. However, the functional growth and benefit from rapid technological changes.
purpose and the manner of government interventions This mode requires horizontal and inclusive
into markets are drastically changing. economic thinking, as well as enabling certain
In the industrial age, various national organizational continua, relevant for interactive
governments, especially in developing economies, innovation and dispersed patterns of production.
took the upper hand in defining strategic priorities for

5251
 Innovation ecosystems can’t be referred to as Plainly speaking, networks and their ecosystems
subjects of decision and action. Rather they are shape the modern mode of production, making
special organizational spaces, tailored to co-creation economies both more cohesive to meet the challenges
of values through collaboration. More exactly, they of high uncertainty, and more innovative to become
constitute a sophisticated milieu of actors, assets and globally competitive and self-sustainable. Overall,
linkages, generated by collaborative activities of innovation ecosystems concern the social,
networks. Such networks of various forms, sizes and organizational and cultural shifts that facilitate the
profiles can play the role of modern-type formation of the knowledge-based economy.
organizations meant for a collective decision-making Social and economic ecosystems are surely not
and collective action, and innovation ecosystems the same as natural ones. But both types are
should be seen as the native environment of such populations able to self-organize and self-develop in
networks. However, since collaborative networks and a similar, agile manner of complex adaptive systems,
their ecosystems are functionally inseparable (in associated with inter-relationship of elements, as well
terms of interactive co-creation of value), both terms as with the ability to adapt in and evolve with a
may be perceived and used interchangeably. This changing environment [66], with mutual respect. In
admission corresponds to findings in literature on particular, the ecosystems can obtain new sources for
complexity, viewing collaborative networks as growth and achieve dynamic sustainability through
complex adaptive systems that are inseparable from internal, self-correcting structural changes – rather
their changing environment by definition [66]. than through top-down intervention of any
A multifaceted variety of ecosystem models, centralized bodies, or from an external intervention,
meant for various functional purposes, is now as typical for traditional systems.
emerging and developing. Irrespective of their All this supports the rationale for using the term
dispersed titles in different research streams, most of ‘ecosystem’ far beyond a mere metaphor to systems,
them can be referred to the class of innovation to highlight both the network-based organizational
ecosystems, since the modern non-linear pattern of design and the collaborative organizational culture
economic activity and economic growth is inherently of the emerging innovation-led economies. Because
connected with innovation. Our exploration of this of its relevance for the contemporary reality, it is no
variety through comparison of three different cases surprise that this term is widely popular in
(platforms, clusters and value chains) suggests that management studies and economics communities, as
all ecosystem models are complementary and shown in our literature review.
predetermine each other in terms of design, pattern of Nevertheless, returning to publications that argue
collaboration and functionality. in favor of the classical term 'innovation systems', we
Digital platforms, while coordinating broad admit that this option may still be regarded as a
groups of networked actors that interact in different problem of academic taste in introducing
functional combinations (consumers-consumers, contemporary realities. Some researchers may find it
consumers-producers, producers-producers), can be convenient to consider ecosystems as a new
easily seen as universal tools to generate various generation of systems and may respond by describing
kinds of ecosystems at various levels of social and their growing complexity and ever changing features
economic activity. Platform-generated or platform- in the era of non-linear innovation. Others may prefer
enhanced ecosystems have their own platforms to call them ecosystems from the outset and underline
tailored either to co-usage or to co-production of the key role of collaborative interactions and value
innovations, or both. Regional clusters of triple-helix co-creation, including the historically new enabling
design can form advanced and convenient role of government interventions.
ecosystems to co-create innovations continuously, In our view, the idea of ecosystems provides a
allowing clusters to serve as multi-faceted tools for much better image for effective policymaking across
upgrading industrial structures of modern economies. countries. It offers instructive insights on the framing
Meanwhile, collaboration between clusters of and implementation of further research on
different geographical locations leads to the innovation. Additionally, it acquires an especially
evolvement of GVCs and global production networks important practical notion for the post-Soviet and
that can shape more powerful ecosystems, able to co- other transition economies (in contrast to the situation
create innovations continuously across the world. in US and other technologically advanced nations), in
Collaborative networks and hence innovation which innovation systems are often perceived as
ecosystems may evolve and proliferate in the future special infrastructure projects realized by
across all sectors and levels of modern economies, be governments, and not as the result of networking and
they region-wide, country-wide, or global-wide. collaborative dialogue developed across the society.

5252
5. References [18] Kortelainen, S. and K. Järvi, Ecosystems: Systematic
Literature Review and Framework Development. XXV
[1] World Economic Forum, The Global Competitiveness ISPIM Innovation Conference. Dublin, Ireland, 9-11
Report 2015–2016, World Economic Forum, Geneva, June 2014.
2015. [19] Valkokari, K., “Business, Innovation, and Knowledge
[2] Lundvall, B.-Å., ed., National Systems of Innovation: Ecosystems: How They Differ and How to Survive
Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive and Thrive within Them”, Technology Innovation
Learning, Pinter, London, 1992. Management Review, 5(8), 2015.
[3] Nelson, R.R., ed., National Innovation Systems: A [20] Suominen, A., M. Seppänen, and O. Dedehayir,
Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press, New Innovation Systems and Ecosystems: A Review and
York, NY, 1993. Synthesis. XXVII ISPIM Innovation Conference.
[4] Edquist, C., ed., Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Porto, Portugal, 19-22 June 2016.
Institutions and Organizations, Pinter, London, 1997. [21] Aarikka-Stenroos, L., T. Peltola, A. Rikkiev, and U.
[5] Braczyk, H.-J., P. Cooke, and M. Heidenreich, eds., Saari, Multiple Facets of Innovation and Business
Regional Innovation Systems: The Role of Ecosystem Research: The Foci, Methods and Future
Governances in a Globalized World, UCL Press, Agenda. XXVII ISPIM Innovation Conference. Porto,
London, 1998. Portugal, 19-22 June 2016.
[6] Malerba, F., ed., Sectoral Systems of Innovation: [22] Russell, M.G., J. Huhtamäki, K. Still, N. Rubens, and
Concepts, Issues and Analyses of Six Major Sectors in R.C. Basole, “Relational Capital for Shared Vision in
Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004. Innovation Ecosystems”, Triple Helix, 2(1), 2015,
[7] Bramwell, A., N. Hepburn, and D.A. Wolfe, Growing p. 1-36.
Innovation Ecosystems: University-Industry [23] Wessner, C.W., “Entrepreneurship and the Innovation
Knowledge Transfer and Regional Economic Ecosystem Policy Lessons from the United States”, in
Development in Canada. Final Report to the Social Local Heroes in the Global Village: Globalization and
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the New Entrepreneurship Policies, D.B. Audretsch,
2012. H. Grimm, and C.W. Wessner, Editors. 2005.
[8] Townsend, A., A.S.-K. Pang, and R. Weddle, Future Springer: New York, NY.
Knowledge Ecosystems: The Next Twenty Years of [24] European Commission, Digital Business Ecosystems,
Technology-Led Economic Development, IFTF Office for Official Publications of the European
Reports(SR-1236), 2009. Communities, Luxembourg, 2007.
[9] Council on Competitiveness, Innovate America: [25] Ranjan, K.R. and S. Read, “Value Co-creation:
Thriving in a World of Challenge and Change, Council Concept and Measurement”, Journal of the Academy
on Competitiveness, Washington, DC, 2005. of Marketing Science, 44(3), 2016, pp. 290–315.
[10] Oh, D.-S., F. Phillips, S. Park, and E. Lee, “Innovation [26] Roser, T., A. Samson, P. Humphreys, and E. Cruz-
Ecosystems: A Critical Examination”, Technovation, Valdivieso, Co-creation: New pathways to Value, LSE
2016. Enterprise – Promise Corporation, London, 2009.
[11] Peltoniemi, M., Business Ecosystem: A Conceptual [27] MacGregor, S.P. and T. Carleton, eds., Sustaining
Model of an Organisation Population from the Innovation: Collaboration Models for a Complex
Perspectives of Complexity and Evolution, Tampere World, Springer, New York, NY, 2012.
University of Technology, Tampere, 2005. [28] Camarinha-Matos, L.M. and H. Afsarmanesh,
[12] Peltoniemi, M., “Preliminary Theoretical Framework “Concept of Collaboration”, in Encyclopedia of
for the Study of Business Ecosystems”, Emergence: Networked and Virtual Organizations, G.D. Putnik and
Complexity and Organization, 8(1), 2006, pp. 10–19. M.M. Cruz-Cunha, Editors. 2008. IGI Global:
[13] Manikas, K. and K.M. Hansen, “Software ecosystems Hershey, PA.
– A systematic literature review”, Journal of Systems [29] Drucker, P.F., Post-Capitalist Society, Butterworth-
and Software, 86(5), 2013, pp. 1294–1306. Heinemann, Oxford, 1993.
[14] Pilinkienė, V. and P. Mačiulis, “Comparison of [30] Gloor, P.A., Swarm Creativity: Competitive
Different Ecosystem Analogies: The Main Economic Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation
Determinants and Levels of Impact”, Procedia - Social Networks, Oxford University Press, New York, NY,
and Behavioral Sciences, 156, 2014, pp. 365–370. 2006.
[15] Gawer, A., “Platform Dynamics and Strategies: From [31] Camarinha-Matos, L.M. and H. Afsarmanesh, “Classes
Products to Services”, in Platforms, Markets and of Collaborative Networks”, in Encyclopedia of
Innovation, A. Gawer, Editor. 2009. Edward Elgar: Networked and Virtual Organizations, G.D. Putnik and
Cheltenham. M.M. Cruz-Cunha, Editors. 2008. IGI Global:
[16] Gawer, A. and M.A. Cusumano, “Industry Platforms Hershey, PA.
and Ecosystem Innovation”, Journal of Product [32] Nieto, M.J. and L. Santamaría, “The Importance of
Innovation Management, 31(3), 2014, pp. 417–433. Diverse Collaborative Networks for the Novelty of
[17] Thomas, L.D.W., E. Autio, and D.M. Gann, Product Innovation”, Technovation, 27(6-7), 2007,
“Architectural Leverage: Putting Platforms in pp. 367–377.
Context”, Academy of Management Perspectives, [33] Russell, M.G., K. Still, J. Huhtamäki, C. Yu, and N.
28(2), 2014, pp. 198–219. Rubens, Transforming Innovation Ecosystems through

5253
 Shared Vision and Network Orchestration. Triple [50] Parker, G.G., M.W. van Alstyne, and S.P. Choudary,
Helix IX International Conference. Stanford, CA, Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets Are
USA, 11–14 July 2011. Transforming the Economy – And How to Make Them
[34] Jucevičius, G. and K. Grumadaitė, “Smart Work for You, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, NY,
Development of Innovation Ecosystem”, Procedia – 2016.
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 156, 2014, pp. 125– [51] Gawer, A., “Bridging Differing Perspectives on
129. Technological Platforms: Toward an Integrative
[35] Martin, R. and P. Sunley, “Complexity thinking and Framework”, Research Policy, 43(7), 2014, pp. 1239–
evolutionary economic geography”, Journal of 1249.
Economic Geography, 7(5), 2007, pp. 573–601. [52] Sölvell, Ö., G. Lindqvist, and C.H.M. Ketels, The
[36] Martin, R. and P. Sunley, “Conceptualizing Cluster Cluster Initiative Greenbook, Ivory Tower, Stockholm,
Evolution: Beyond the Life Cycle Model?”, Regional 2003.
Studies, 45(10), 2011, pp. 1299–1318. [53] Ketels, C.H.M., Clusters, Cluster Policy, and Swedish
[37] Porter, M.E. and C.H.M. Ketels, “Clusters and Competitiveness in the Global Economy, Expert
Industrial Districts: Common Roots, Different Reports to Sweden’s Globalisation Council (30), 2009.
Perspectives”, in A Handbook of Industrial Districts, [54] Basole, R.C. and J. Karla, “On the Evolution of Mobile
G. Becattini, M. Bellandi, and L. De Propis, Editors. Platform Ecosystem Structure and Strategy”, Business
2009. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham. & Information Systems Engineering, 3(5), 2011,
[38] van Winden, W., L. van den Berg, L. Carvalho, and E. pp. 313–322.
van Tuijl, Manufacturing in the New Urban Economy, [55] McKinsey Global Institute, Digital America: A Tale of
Routledge, Abingdon, 2011. the Haves and Have-Mores, McKinsey & Company,
[39] Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff, “The Dynamics of New York, NY, 2015.
Innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a [56] Gawer, A., “The Organization of Technological
Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Platforms”, in Technology and Organization: Essays in
Relations”, Research Policy, 29(2), 2000, pp. 109–123. Honour of Joan Woodward, N. Phillips, G. Sewell, and
[40] Porter, M.E., The Competitive Advantage of Nations, D. Griffiths, Editors. 2010. Emerald Group Publishing.
Free Press, New York, NY, 1990. [57] Ivanova, I.A. and L. Leydesdorff, “Rotational
[41] Delgado, M., M.E. Porter, and S. Stern, “Clusters, Symmetry and the Transformation of Innovation
Convergence, and Economic Performance”, Research Systems in a Triple Helix of University–Industry–
Policy, 43(10), 2014, pp. 1785–1799. Government Relations”, Technological Forecasting
[42] Ffowcs-Williams, I., Cluster Development – The Go- and Social Change, 86, 2014, pp. 143–156.
To Handbook: Building Competitiveness through [58] Powell, W.W. and S. Grodal, “Networks of
Smart Specialisation, Cluster Navigators, Nelson, Innovators”, in The Oxford Handbook of Innovation,
2012. J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery, and R.R. Nelson, Editors.
[43] Lindqvist, G., C.H.M. Ketels, and Ö. Sölvell, The 2005. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Cluster Initiative Greenbook 2.0, Ivory Tower, [59] Williamson, O.E., “The Economics of Governance”,
Stockholm, 2013. American Economic Review, 95(2), 2005, pp. 1–18.
[44] Napier, G. and S. Kethelz, The Welfare Technological [60] Smith-Doerr, L. and W.W. Powell, “Networks and
Ecosystem in the Region of Southern Denmark, REG Economic Life”, in The Handbook of Economic
X – The Danish Cluster Academy, Copenhagen, 2014. Sociology, N.J. Smelser and R. Swedberg, Editors.
[45] Sölvell, Ö., Clusters – Balancing Evolutionary and 2005. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
Constructive Forces, 2nd edn., Ivory Tower, [61] Acemoglu, D. and J.A. Robinson, Why Nations Fail:
Stockholm, 2009. The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, Profile
[46] Huhtamäki, J., M.G. Russell, K. Still, and N. Rubens, Books, London, 2012.
“A Network-Centric Snapshot of Value Co-Creation in [62] Ostrom, E., Governing the Commons: The Evolution
Finnish Innovation Financing”, Open Source Business of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge
Resource, March 2011. University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
[47] Sölvell, Ö., “The Multi-Home-Based Corporation: [63] Ansell, C.K. and A. Gash, “Collaborative Governance
Solving an Insider-Outsider Dilemma”, in Innovation in Theory and Practice”, Journal of Public
and Institutional Embeddedness of Multinational Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 2007,
Companies, M. Heidenreich, Editor. 2012. Edward pp. 543–571.
Elgar: Cheltenham. [64] European Commission, Smart Guide to Cluster Policy,
[48] Tiwana, A., B. Konsynski, and A.A. Bush, “Research European Commission, Brussels, 2016.
Commentary —Platform Evolution: Coevolution of [65] Warwick, K., Beyond Industrial Policy: Emerging
Platform Architecture, Governance, and Issues and New Trends, OECD Science, Technology
Environmental Dynamics”, Information Systems and Industry Policy Papers (2), 2013.
Research, 21(4), 2010, pp. 675–687. [66] Chan, S., Complex Adaptive Systems. ESD.83
[49] Evans, D.S., Platform Economics: Essays on Multi- Research Seminar in Engineering Systems. 31 October
Sided Businesses, Competition Policy International, / 6 November, 2001.
London, 2011.

5254