A summary of the conceptions

Table 3 summarizes and compares the boundary, design, and orchestration conceptions of ecosystem architecture in terms of the proposed view on ecosystem architecture, suggested taxonomies, the structural properties of ecosystem architecture, and the processes to design and manage the architecture. It also illustrates the main implications of each conception in terms of value creation and appropriation.

Table3:Conceptionsofecosystemarchitecture BOUNDARYCONCEPTIONDESIGNCONCEPTIONORCHESTRATIONCONCEPTION Viewon ecosystem architecture A template which emerges in a sector and circumscribes the divisionof labour and surplus among a set of co‐specialized firms; architecture is the common framework determining the nested structure of industry organization (Jacobides et al., 2006).

Networks of firms or individuals not bound by authority based on employment relationships, but characterized bya system‐level goal (Gulati et al., 2012); use flexible assemblyof firms with specialized capabilities to achieve economiesofscale and experience (Fljedstad et al., 2012) Instead of formal authority, architects of a meta‐organization maypossess significant informal authority, such as expertise, reputation, status, gatekeeping privileges, and control over key resources.

Sphere of influence; architecture comprises of loosely coupled systems of hub, semi‐peripheral and peripheral firms (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006) Suggested taxonomiesDisintegrated, quasi‐integrated and integrated architecture (Dietl et al., 2009) Closed community, open community, extended enterprise, andmanaged ecosystem (Gulati et al., 2012)

No suggested taxonomies Structural properties of architecture

Complementarity, asset mobility,relative bargaining power, and bottleneck positionPermeability of boundaries, redundancy and stratification Orchestration conception suggeststhat recruitment activities undertaken by hub firms can influence thenetwork membership (size and diversity) and structure (density and autonomy), thus controlling its networkposition, maintaining its centrality and status Processesto designand managethe architecture Emergent processes to respond to exogenous change and chance events; advocating and renegotiating the architecture Engineered processes,led by a triggering entity, that are instrumental inthe initiation and growth of a network

Managing knowledge mobility, innovation appropriability,network stability, innovation leverage and innovation coherence Main implications forvalue creation andcapture

When firms can enhance complementarity and asset mobility in the parts of the value chain where they are not active, they can appropriate a larger proportion of the value created Both formal and informal authority can lead to asymmetric dependence which in turn can lead to bargaining power; the bargaining power can stemfrom the possession of unique resources (brands, reputation, or access to customers) or investment in knowledge advantages Orchestration comprises the deliberate, purposeful actions undertaken by the hub firm as it seeks to create value and extract value from the network

Table 4 summarizes the key takeaways from the boundary and design conception in order to explain the structural properties of ecosystem architecture. It defines the identified structural properties of ecosystem architecture in more detail and highlights the different conceptions and individual publications of part II addressing the structural properties. The boundary conception offers the following exogenous structural properties to the framework: complementarity and mobility. In addition, the following endogenous structural properties arise from the boundary conception, aiding in the development of the ecosystem architecture model: relative bargaining power and bottleneck position. One of the key takeaways from the design conception is the notion of resource‐related strategic consideration for boundary conditions, termed redundancy.

Redundancy refers to the degree to which member organizations possess identical relevant resources or capabilities. This can be linked to the key takeaways from boundary conception with the following logic: when high redundancy is experienced, the lower the interdependence and thus the higher the bargaining power. In addition, the boundary conception and design conception overlap in terms of discussing the knowledge versus production boundaries of the companies.

Table 4: Structural properties of ecosystem architecture STRUCTURAL

Exogenous structural properties Complementarity⁶ Combined returns from the combination of

assets resulting in higher value creation (Teece, 1986; Jacobides et al., 2006).

possess identical relevant resources or capabilities (Gulati et al., 2012).

Design conception

Asset mobility⁷ The plentifulness and replaceability of the complementary factors with another; the number of assets that can potentially enter a combination with negligible switching costs (Jacobides et al., 2006).

The criteria regarding joining the ecosystem shapes the attraction, selection, and retention of members (Gulati et al., 2012).

Design conception Publication I Publication V Stratification The differentiation between the hub and

complementors for example in terms of decision making rights (Boudreau & Lakhani, 2009; Gulati et al., 2012).

Bottleneck Bottlenecks are different parts of the industry which have lower asset mobility and softer competition; bottlenecks decide how power and profits shift along the value chain (Jacobides et al., 2006)

Boundary conception Publication VI

Exogenous structural properties, arising from the inherent characteristics of the ecosystem architecture, are exogenous from the particular actor’s point of view and cannot easily be

6 Complementarity is also addressed in the literature of relational rents. Dyer and Singh (1998) define complementary resource endowments as distinctive resources of alliance partners that collective generate greater rents than the sum of those obtained from the individual endowments of each parts.

7 Also addressed by Lavie (2007): ties with partners that compete with each other improve focal firm performance by enhancing bargaining power vis‐à‐vis these partners.

41

influenced by firms. They are, to a certain extent, taken for granted. To influence them requires more effort than influencing the endogenous structural properties, as they are more related to the architecture of the ecosystem than to the position which a company occupies in the given architecture.

Boundary conception and design conception are the most explicit conceptions in terms of identifying the structural properties of ecosystem architecture. Given its development trajectory, the main implication from boundary conception stems from value creation and capture is that, in order to increase the proportion of value captured (i.e. architectural advantage), the strategy or strategic action emphasized is to modify the boundaries of the hub firm (vertical integration or disintegration). Out of the three conceptions, the orchestration conception is the most explicit in terms of giving advice on how to manage value creation and appropriability regimes. Whereas design and orchestration lack the dynamic perspective, the boundary conception addresses dynamism and the co‐evolution built into the definition of ecosystem, although not problematically. Analogically to the examination of different conceptions of organization boundaries (Santos and Eisenhardt, 2005), the strategic relevance between the aforementioned different three conceptions; while boundary conception touches more upon tactical and transactional issues, the other conceptions offer more relevance when it comes to issues such as growth.

However, based on this synthesis, it is clear that as such, no individual conception can address the issues of value creation and capture on its own. The boundary conception emphasized more value capture due to its path dependency; its ancestors, transaction cost economics and evolutionary economics are first and foremost firm‐level theories and firm‐level traditions have usually tended to emphasize value appropriation more. Design conception on the other hand emphasizes value creation potential more over value capture with its structural focus.

Orchestration conception does not really differentiate between value creation and capture, leaving both of them to lack construct clarity.

Observed already by Kuhn (1962), confusion and contradiction typically are the norm during descriptive theory‐building. This phase is often characterized by a plethora of categorization schemes, because the phenomena generally have many different attributes; often, no model is irrefutably superior and each seems to explain anomalies to other models, but suffers from anomalies of its own (Carlile & Christensen, 2004). The study now turns to examine the contributions of the individual publications in order to arrive at more comprehensive results regarding the structural properties of ecosystem architecture and the processes to design and manage the architecture and implications for value creation and capture.

42