Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems

For firms at the center of platform-based ecosystems, Teece (2018) argues that dynamic capabilities can enable the firms to create and capture value by building ecosystems and designing appropriate business models. In line with the original Profiting From Innovation (PFI) framework, Teece (2018) also argues that complementary asset providers may be able to capture substantial value. Here we provide a theoretical analysis that explains the ways in which dynamic capabilities underpin not only value creation but also value capture by platform leaders. We propose that three types of dynamic capabilities at a minimum are critical for platform leaders: innovation capabilities, environmental scanning and sensing capabilities, and integrative capabilities for ecosystem orchestration. We further argue that integrative capabilities play a key role in improving the ability of platform leaders to capture value.     

基于组态分析的数字平台生态系统内部治理因素及效果研究

    数字化浪潮推动了企业组织变革和商业模式创新,平台型企业作为其中最典型的组织形态纷纷涌现。以平台核心企业为主导的生态系统在快速发展的同时,由于生态成员种类及其衍生出的业务越来越复杂多样,如何对平台生态系统进行有效的内部治理成为学者和业界共同关注的焦点。本研究采用质性和量化相结合的方法,通过对不同领域的12家平台组织进行深入案例研究及半结构化问卷访谈,运用扎根理论并结合已有文献提炼出影响平台生态系统内部治理的前因变量,并进一步运用fsQCA定性分析技术对这些影响因素进行条件组态分析。研究发现：（1）平台技术投资、生态系统开放度、平台控制机制、平台领导力、成员间竞合程度是影响平台生态系统内部治理的主要前因变量;（2）单一变量对平台内部治理效果解释力弱,不同条件耦合形成的交易驱动型、服务驱动型、内容驱动型、创新驱动型平台生态系统治理模式四种组态均能实现高效治理;（3）非高效平台生态系统治理包括全面滞后型和管理无序型两种组态,在缺乏技术投资及控制机制两个核心条件的情况下,平台内部治理效果受到明显抑制。本文的研究发现对揭示不同情境下数字平台生态系统的高效治理路径具有重要的理论与实践意义。     

Configurations of platform organizations: Implications for complementor engagement

Digital platforms are an organizational form made up of a technological architecture and governance mechanisms for managing autonomous complementors. A platform’s success depends on their engagement in value creation and capture. Prior studies of such engagement have mainly focused on a platform’s governance mechanisms without recognizing their interdependence to its technological architecture. There is therefore a limited understanding of how the interplay between governance and architecture configures platform organizations, and why these configurations produce different levels of complementor engagement. In this paper, our analysis of a 12-year study of a shared platform initiative yields three configurations of platform organizations: vertical, horizontal, and modular. Based on these configurations, we develop propositions that theorize the implications of these organizational forms for complementor engagement. We further propose that these insights, which we derive from a shared platform, are particularly relevant for blockchain-based platforms.     

Selecting an open innovation community as an alliance partner: Looking for healthy communities and ecosystems

Organizations build strategic alliances with other firms with the intent of tapping into partners’ resources and capturing long-term value from these relationships. Such partnerships are typically governed by contractual or equity arrangements with clear mutual obligations. More recently, however, organizations have begun to seek strategic partnerships with open innovation communities, which are novel digitally enabled forms of organizing, and where contractual commitments are not possible. Thus, selecting the right open innovation community as an alliance partner becomes a more complex decision. We follow how the organizational decision makers, in two technology firms that were pioneers of forming strategic alliances with open innovation communities, developed metrics around making such decisions. We build upon Shah and Swaminathan’s (2008) contingency model of alliance partner selection and consider how it applies to the case of partnering with open innovation communities. This framework was useful in to frame our findings, yet our work recognizes and builds upon two key differences: 1) the evaluation metrics used in selecting an open innovation community were more focused on value creation than value capture; and 2) open ecosystem considerations, and not just partner-specific metrics, featured prominently in this type of alliance partner evaluation. We develop the notions of community and ecosystem health to refer to these new metrics.     

A framework and databases for measuring entrepreneurial ecosystems

Scholarly literature on the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems has increased sharply over the past five years. The surge in interest has also heightened the demand for robust empirical measures that capture the complexity of dynamic relationships among ecosystem constituents. We offer a framework for measurement that places collaborative relationships among entrepreneurs, firms, government agencies, and research institutions at the center of the ecosystem concept. We further emphasize the four roles of the federal government as a catalyst, coordinator, certifier, and customer in shaping these relationships. Despite the central importance of these firm-government interactions, there is surprisingly little research on suitable methodologies and appropriate data for systematically and reliably incorporating them into measures of ecosystem health. Our study aims to address this gap in the literature by first developing a conceptual framework for measuring entrepreneurial ecosystems and then describing an array of accompanying databases that provide rich and detailed information on firms and their relationships with government organizations, accelerators, and research institutions. A major advantage of our approach is that all the underlying databases are drawn from non-confidential, publicly available sources that are transparently disclosed and regularly updated. This greatly expands the potential community of scholars, managers, and policymakers that may independently use these databases to test theories, make decisions, and formulate policies related to innovation and entrepreneurship.     

推动以国家公园为主体的自然保护地体系改革的思考

我国已形成类型多样、功能较齐全的自然保护地体系,在保护重要自然生态系统和生物多样性中发挥了重要作用。但长期以来,我国保护地基本上实行的是"抢救式保护"策略,注重保护地数量和面积的扩张,忽视管理质量和能力的提升。保护地的建设与管理,已跟不上新时代加快推进生态文明建设的步伐。党的十九大报告提出要建立以国家公园为主体的自然保护地体系,对推动我国自然保护地体系改革提出了迫切需求。本研究在分析当前我国自然保护地体系面临的缺乏顶层设计、法律体系不健全、多方参与不足、资金短缺、土地权属不清、保护与发展矛盾突出、管理能力薄弱等一系列问题的基础上,提出了推动自然保护地体系的顶层设计、系统规划和立法安排,完善保护地产权制度,建立保护地治理体系,实现多元共治,拓展保护地空间治理范围,促进保护地与周边区域协调发展,建立保护地生态产品价值实现机制等建议。     

平台企业主导型创业生态系统赋能机理研究——基于耦合的视角

基于耦合视角,探讨平台企业主导型创业生态系统对创业企业赋能的机理,实证检验耦合的三个维度对创业企业绩效的影响,以及平台正式治理对耦合与创业绩效关系的调节效应.研究结果表明,平台企业主导型创业生态系统内,创业企业与其他主体间的文化价值耦合、互补性资产耦合、物理系统耦合均对创业企业绩效有积极影响,平台正式治理对耦合与创业绩效的关系具有促进作用.     

创业生态系统演化及其多主体知识治理结构协同研究

【目的/意义】目前越来越多学者聚焦于创业生态系统的研究。为了明晰创业生态系统演化和知识治理之 间的协同效应,构建了创业生态系统演化及其多主体知识治理结构协同模型。【方法/过程】回顾和梳理了创业生态 系统的相关研究,分析了创业生态系统生命周期不同阶段及与之相匹配的知识治理结构,进一步解释了基于不同 创业生态系统类型的多主体知识治理结构的协同机理。【结果/结论】在创业生态系统初创阶段的主要知识治理结 构为分层治理,系统中各参与主体的交互依赖于核心主体主导的单向知识流动,体现出知识协同演化的特点;在成 熟阶段的主要知识治理结构为关系治理,系统中的核心主体不再具有核心地位,各参与主体基于双向知识流动共 同发挥作用,体现出知识协同与竞争的演化特点。【创新/局限】构建了创业生态系统演化及其多主体知识治理结构 协同模型,在未来的研究中,可利用实证方法为创业生态系统研究提供实践指导。     

创业生态系统中的政府治理：新创企业成长视角

政府参与和市场调节相结合是现代经济社会的现实选择，政府参与并因情施策对于创业生态系统的健康发展和新创企业的成长至关重要。本文以杭州梦想小镇为例，运用治理理论，采用叙事分析法研究了政府在加速新创企业成长期间所扮演角色的动态演化和作用机理。研究显示：政府作为创业生态系统的主体之一，通过其代理机构的市场化的运作机制，经历了混合型、渐变式的动态演化过程，具体包括孵化期的科层治理、成长期的网络治理和腾飞期的市场治理，由此形成了“政府引导+市场主导”的双重、渐变治理机制，助力新创企业的成长。同时，政府在加速新创企业成长中所起到的作用呈现了多元性和不可或缺性。     

模块化下企业创新生态系统结构与演化机制——海尔集团2005-2019年的纵向案例研究

制造企业生态化创新战略转型中,枢纽企业为获得长期竞争优势,如何伴随创新生态系统的演化而做出技术、商业决策？依据“情境-结构-机制”的研究框架对海尔集团进行纵向案例研究,从模块化视角探索企业创新生态系统结构、演化机制与路径特征。研究表明：（1）情境主导了技术创新的可实现性,技术标准、用户需求和政策支持3个情境因素驱动企业创新生态系统的交互演进。（2）发现企业创新生态系统结构的3个重要特征,即创新架构模块化、交互界面开放性、网络治理嵌入性。海尔模块化生态圈战略转型历经的开拓布网期、扩展织网期和颠覆融网期3个发展阶段,以 “产品、生产模块化-组织模块化-超模块化”的架构创新驱动了海尔集团创新生态系统 “以内部研发为中心的创新体系-以产业链协同为中心的创新体系-以用户为中心的创新生态系统”的演化路径。（3）企业创新生态系统的创新实现机制突出表现在杠杆、协同和互利机制上,通过揭示系统的结构特征与实现机制的作用逻辑,提出杠杆机制呈现出重用“模块资源-平台资源-场景资源”的演化路径,协同机制使枢纽企业在系统中的角色沿着 “分解者-平台领导者-创新集成商”演化,互利机制呈现出“企业主导-开放市场机制”的演化路径。研究结论丰富和发展了创新生态系统理论,为传统制造企业的创新生态系统战略转型提供方案设计启示。     

数字创新生态系统的治理机制

数字创新生态系统存在创新要素数字化、参与主体虚拟化、主体间关系生态化等鲜明特征,为创新生态系统治理带来挑战。本研究从数字创新生态系统的特征及治理困境入手,构建数字创新生态系统的治理理论框架,从关系机制、激励机制、控制机制三个方面,构建了基于数字平台构建、数字技术应用及数字资源协同的创新生态系统治理机制。     

A Framework and Databases for Measuring Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Scholarly literature on the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems has increased sharply over the past five years. The surge in interest has also heightened the demand for robust empirical measures that capture the complexity of dynamic relationships among ecosystem constituents. We offer a framework for measurement that places collaborative relationships among entrepreneurs, firms, government agencies, and research institutions at the center of the ecosystem concept. We further emphasize the four roles of the federal government as a catalyst, coordinator, certifier, and customer in shaping these relationships. Despite the central importance of these firm-government interactions, there is surprisingly little research on suitable methodologies and appropriate data for systematically and reliably incorporating them into measures of ecosystem health. Our study aims to address this gap in the literature by first developing a conceptual framework for measuring entrepreneurial ecosystems and then describing an array of accompanying databases that provide rich and detailed information on firms and their relationships with government organizations, accelerators, and research institutions. A major advantage of our approach is that all the underlying databases are drawn from non-confidential, publicly available sources that are transparently disclosed and regularly updated. This greatly expands the potential community of scholars, managers, and policymakers that may independently use these databases to test theories, make decisions, and formulate policies related to innovation and entrepreneurship.     

Process reference frameworks as institutional arrangements for digital service innovation

Information systems (IS) service organizations are increasingly more concerned with their ability to co-create digital services with customers in service ecosystems. Practitioners and researchers, however, lack understanding of which organization mechanisms effectively contribute to IS organizations’ innovation practices. Grounded in service-dominant logic, we hypothesized that process reference frameworks (PRFs), such as the IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL), act as institutional arrangements through their norms, rules, and practices, enhancing IS organizations’ ability to innovate digital services. Data collected from 159 IS organizations confirmed our hypotheses, showing that effects on digital service innovation are mediated by an organization’s digital service climate and co-creation practices. This study makes four major contributions. First, our results contribute to the literature on service-dominant logic and the role of institutional arrangements in facilitating service innovation in service ecosystems. Second, our study offers a novel understanding of PRFs’ role in value co-creation and digital service innovation. Third, by introducing the digital service climate from existing theoretical frameworks that might assist in conceptualizing the role of culture and shared meaning, our study contributes to further theorizing on the social factors that influence service ecosystem practices. Finally, our findings can motivate IT managers to consider using PRFs to develop capabilities for creating business value together with customers.     

Unpacking the process of resource allocation within an entrepreneurial ecosystem

While entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) are often regarded as spatially bounded resource allocation systems that allocate and mobilise resources for new venture creation, less is known on the underlying process of resource allocation that sustains the development and prosperity of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Following an inductive approach, we conducted a qualitative study on Shenzhen's entrepreneurial ecosystem. Our findings show that the process of resource allocation in an entrepreneurial ecosystem unfolds in four interconnected themes - resource endowments, resource use, resource dynamics and enabling conditions of resource dynamics. Based on these dimensions, we offer an integrated process model revealing how an entrepreneurial ecosystem mobilises and allocates resources over time. Complementing the “resource-provision” account in extant literature that illuminates the optimal “recipes” of ecosystem resources as sources of competitiveness, we offer a “resource-dynamic” account, which addresses how effective resource allocation, mobilisation and circulation within and outside of the ecosystems may be alternative sources of sustained growth for entrepreneurial ecosystems. We also contribute to the regional entrepreneurship literature by shedding light on the feedback impacts of new venture creation activities on regional resources. Our findings offer implications for governments and entrepreneurs in guiding policy initiatives towards, and measuring the long-term health of, regional entrepreneurial ecosystems.     

创业生态系统研究国外文献回顾与展望

创业生态系统已成为创业研究的重要主题，对建设系统性创业支持环境具有重要意义。不同于以往基于单一要素视角对创业活动的研究，创业生态系统关注主体互动及其所处环境对创业活动的支持，受到学术界与实务界的高度关注。运用编码方法进行文献梳理分析，提炼总结出创业生态系统研究的理论框架，详细论述创业生态系统的当前研究主题：基于创业生态系统概念界定的系统类型划分与测量研究、创业生态系统的运行模式与治理机制研究、创业生态系统的不同层面影响以及创业生态系统的演化过程与演化路径研究。最后，为推动创业生态系统研究，从4个方面提出未来可以进一步关注的研究问题。研究结果对于清晰创业生态系统当前的研究进展与未来研究方向、推动创业生态系统研究发展具有重要意义。     

池塘养殖生态系统服务价值评估——以上海市青浦区常规鱼类养殖为例

生态系统服务价值的评估对于研究人员、政策制定者和公众都有重大意义。但对于水产养殖系统而言,大多关注其食物供给价值,而忽视了其他生态系统服务。本文采用市场价值法、有效成本法、旅行成本法和条件价值评估法分别评估池塘常规鱼类养殖生态系统的食物供给价值、碳固定价值、释放氧气价值、调节气温价值、娱乐休憩价值和文化服务价值(存在价值)。结果表明,常规鱼类池塘养殖生态系统服务总价值为每年47.50万元/hm2,其中食物供给价值占7.2%,碳固定价值占5.4%,释放氧气价值0.7%,气温调节价值占38.4%,娱乐休憩价值占43.2%,文化服务价值占5.2%。池塘养殖生态系统的非市场价值部分远超养殖水产品市场价值,表明池塘养殖的生态服务价值对人类社会的贡献不可忽视。分析表明,由于生态系统服务研究范式的不统一,评估方法的局限性以及水产养殖生态系统中人类影响的复杂性,该研究还有待继续深入。     

创新生态系统:一个情境视角的系统性评述

新兴技术不确定性、组织模式网络化、市场的服务导向和价值共创等趋势下，传统创新生态系统所嵌入的技术情境、组织情境和市场情境发生转变。现有创新生态系统文献缺乏对研究情境全面的、系统的关注。研究以系统性评述为基础，整合应用文献计量分析与内容分析，识别出创新生态系统研究的焦点主题、理论发展、应用方法，以及由文献簇涌现的研究情境（包含技术情境、组织情境、市场情境）。研究从情境视角为创新生态系统理论与实践的发展提供启示。     

数字平台生态系统中的创业企业成长研究：现状、框架与展望

数字时代的创业与以往显著不同在于，数字平台生态系统成为支撑创业的重要基础设施。创业企业如何利用好数字基础设施实现快速成长，成为新的研究课题。本文在回顾研究现状的基础上，为数字平台生态中的创业企业成长构建了一个涵盖“自身战略定位”和“与平台架构的关系”2个维度的战略分析框架。其中“自身战略定位”包括“头牌导向”和“平台导向”；“与平台架构的关系”包括“遵从架构”和“突破架构”。据此，本文得到了数字平台生态中创业企业成长战略的4种类型，即“乖孩子、好伙伴、开拓者和竞合者”。进一步地，本文尝试引入与数字平台生态中创业企业成长相适配的理论分析视角，并在此基础上探讨了值得未来研究重点关注的方向。     

Local entrepreneurial ecosystems as configural narratives: A new way of seeing and evaluating antecedents and outcomes

This paper develops and applies a new evaluative approach to local entrepreneuriale cosystems, as configural narratives. We examine how configurations of local entrepreneurial ecosystem attributes, as evaluated by local experts, support or hinder the emergence of new and innovative firms. Drawing on sociology of place, we present a novel configurational comparative analysis of local experts' evaluation of their ecosystems in Chile. Our proposed approach to entrepreneurial ecosystems helps us uncover two counterintuitive findings and so elaborateon interferences that have not yet been addressed through conventional concepts, methods and data. First, we reveal three distinct ecosystem types explaining different local levels of new firm activity: Active self-propelled, Indulged and Passive self-absorbed. The internal composition of these types change when only innovative and high growth firms are taken into consideration. Second, we show why, when seen as configural narratives, ecosystem attributes that have been assumed necessary play only a peripheral role. Our study demonstrates a split picture against seemingly similar outcomes and homogenous local contexts, contributing to the advancement of entrepreneurial ecosystem theory, observation and assessment.     

新方法、新理论为太湖环境治理和生态修复提供科技支撑

2007年震惊中外的太湖蓝藻危机事件暴发,太湖富营养化及其蓝藻水华治理成为国家和全民关注的重大而紧迫的问题,对危机事件的应急处置、蓝藻水华暴发的科学解释和未来十年太湖水环境的治理及生态恢复等,向科研工作提出了更高的要求。中科院太湖湖泊生态系统研究站(简称"太湖站")自建站以来对太湖进行了全面、长期的监测,开展了浅水湖泊系统研究、环境治理与生态修复技术研发和示范。特别是近十年来,在环保部、国家自然科学基金委和中科院等重大项目支持下,在太湖站野外科学平台的支撑下,联合院内外科研人员进行了多学科交叉研究,取得了一系列研究进展。在学科建设方面逐步创建了湖泊现代过程物理、化学、生物多学科协同的野外原位研究方法,发展了湖泊科学环境要素过程与格局和生态系统结构与功能相结合的研究新局面,揭示了人类活动和气候变化对湖泊关键生态过程的驱动作用,阐明了湖泊生态系统响应环境变化的特征、区域差异和反馈机制,以及生态系统退化的环境作用机理;在技术研发和应用方面提出了富营养化湖泊治理及生态恢复的方法与策略,应用于太湖治理并取得了显著成效。这些科研成果填补了大型浅水湖泊湖沼学研究的空白,不仅使我国的湖泊科学研究在国际湖泊科学研究前沿领域崭露头角,也使得太湖站成为了无可替代的野外科研支撑平台和国际知名的湖泊科学研究基地。