Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Capability search and redeem across digital ecosystems

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Information Technology

Abstract

Prior research on digital ecosystems focuses on the focal firm (e.g., a platform owner) and its ecosystem governance. However, there is a dearth of literature examining the non-focal actor, that is, an ecosystem participant who is at the periphery of a digital ecosystem. This paper proposes a theoretical perspective of the non-focal firm's participation across digital ecosystems for cultivating its innovation habitat through capability search and redeem. Capability search involves the location of external capability deemed valuable for extending the firm's innovation habitat. Capability redeem refers to the firm's use of external capability to develop, distribute, and/or monetize its products and services. We generate and sensitize the proposed perspective in the context of Sony Ericsson's innovation habitat by interpreting the mobile device manufacturer's participation across four digital ecosystems (Visual Basic, Java, Digital Music, and Android). Our findings suggest that the non-focal actor cannot rely on a single ecosystem for addressing all relevant layers of innovation. It benefits from pursuing a pluralistic strategy, operating across digital ecosystems to avoid investing all efforts in the same ecosystem. The model of ecosystem capability search and redeem, which is a result of ideographic research explanation, extends current perspectives on digital ecosystems and contributes to the emerging literature in the digital age.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Throughout this paper, we use the notion of participation as an umbrella term for any type of engagement in an ecosystem. Participation is thus a continuum ranging from arm's-length relationships to day-to-day activity intended to develop and cultivate a digital ecosystem.

  2. In other words, ‘non-focal’ should be understood as a role. Throughout this paper we recognize this characteristic of the term.

  3. We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out.

References

  • Adner, R. (2006). Match your Innovation Strategy to Your Innovation Ecosystem, Harvard Business Review 84 (4): 98–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, M., Lindgren, R. and Henfridsson, O. (2008). Architectural Knowledge in Inter-Organizational IT Innovation, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 17 (1): 19–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C.Y. and Woodard, C.J. (2009). The Architecture of Platforms: A unified view, Harvard Business School Working Paper Series (09-034).

  • Basole, R.C. (2009). Visualization of Interfirm Relations in a Converging Mobile Ecosystem, Journal of information Technology 24 (2): 144–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K.J. (2012). Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom? An Early Look at Large Numbers of Software App Developers and Patterns of Innovation, Organization Science 23 (5): 1409–1427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K.J. and Lakhani, K.R. (2009). How to Manage Outside Innovation, Sloan Management Review 50 (4): 69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni, S. (2005). The Limits to Specialization: Problem solving and coordination in ‘modular networks’, Organization Studies 26 (12): 1885–1907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S.-H. (2004). Taiwanese IT Firms’ Offshore R&D in China and the Connection with the Global Innovation Network, Research Policy 33 (2): 337–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (eds.) (2006). Open Innovation: Researching a new paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1): 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demil, B. and Lecoq, X. (2006). Neither Market nor Hierarchy nor Network: The emergence of bazaar governance, Organization Studies 27 (10): 1447–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. and Dunne, D.D. (2011). Organizing Ecologies of Complex Innovation, Organization Science 22 (5): 1214–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, B., Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Sørensen, C. and Yoo, Y. (2011). Structures of Control and Generativity in Digital Ecosystem Service Innovation: The cases of the Apple and Google mobile app stores, Working paper series of the Department of Management, London School of Economics and Political Science (183).

  • El Sawy, O.A., Malhotra, A., Park, Y. and Pavlou, P.A. (2010). Seeking the Configurations of Digital Ecodynamics: It takes three to tango, Information Systems Research 21 (4): 835–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D.S., Hagiu, A. and Schmalensee, R. (2006). Invisible Engines, How Software Platforms Drive Innovation and Transform Industries, Cambridge, MA; London, UK: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleetwood, S. (2009). The Ontology of Things, Properties and Powers, Journal of Critical Realism 8 (3): 343–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galunic, D.C. and Rodan, S. (1998). Resource Re-combinations in the Firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation, Strategic Management Journal 19 (12): 1193–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghazawneh, A. and Henfridsson, O. (2013). Balancing Platform Control and External Contribution in Third-Party Development: The boundary resources model, Information Systems Journal 23 (2): 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., Puranam, P. and Tushman, M. (2012). Meta-Organization Design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts, Strategic Management Journal 33 (6): 571–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanseth, O. and Lyytinen, K. (2010). Design Theory for Dynamic Complexity in Information Infrastructures: The case of building internet, Journal of Information Technology 25 (1): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A.B. and Douglas, Y. (2001). When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light, Administrative Science Quarterly 46 (3): 476–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C.E. and Peteraf, M.A. (2003). The Dynamic Resource-Based View: Capability lifecycles, Strategic Management Journal 24 (10): 997–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henfridsson, O. and Bygstad, B. (2013). The Generative Mechanisms of Digital Infrastructure, MIS Quarterly 37 (3), forthcoming.

  • Hiatt, S.R., Sine, W.D. and Tolbert, P.S. (2009). From Pabst to Pepsi: The de-institutionalization of social practices and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunities, Administrative Science Quarterly 54 (4): 635–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J.A. and Malik, K. (2003). The Sourcing of Technological Knowledge: Distributed innovation processes and dynamic change, R&D Management 33 (4): 395–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M. and Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as Ecology, Harvard Business Review 84 (3): 68–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson, K., Holmström, J. and Lyytinen, K. (2009). Turn to the Material: Remote diagnostics system and new forms of boundary spanning, Information and Organization 19 (4): 233–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, M. and Shapiro, K. (1994). System Competition and Network Effects, Journal of Economic Perspective 8 (2): 93–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieser, A. (1994). Why Organization Theory needs Historical Analyses-and How this Should be Performed, Organization Science 5 (4): 608–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H.K. and Myers, M.D. (1999). A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretative Field Studies in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly 23 (1): 67–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langlois, R.N. (2002). Computers and Semiconductors, in B. Steil, D.G. Victor and R.R. Nelson (eds.) Technological Innovation and Economic Performance, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 265–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G. and Cole, R. (2003). From a Firm-based to a Community-based Model of Knowledge Creation, Organization Science 14 (6): 633–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, L.H., Reddy, N. and Aram, J. (1996). Linking Technology and Institutions: The innovation community framework, Research Policy 25 (1): 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen, K. and Rose, G.M. (2003). The Disruptive Nature of Information Technology Innovations: The case of internet computing in systems development organizations, MIS Quarterly 27 (4): 557–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning, Organization Science 2 (1): 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J.F. (1993). Predators and Prey: A new ecology of competition, Harvard Business Review 71 (3): 75–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, J.V. and zur Muehlen, M. (2006). The Ecology of Standards Processes: Insights from internet standard making, MIS Quarterly 30 (3): 467–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B.T. (1999). Building Process Theory with Narrative: From description to explanation, Academy of Management Review 24 (4): 711–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purser, R.E., Park, C. and Montuori, A. (1995). Limits to Anthropocentrism: Towards an eco-centric organization paradigm?, Academy of Management Review 20 (4): 1053–1089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romano, N.C., Donovan, C., Chen, H. and Nunamaker, J.F. (2003). A Methodology for Analyzing Web-Based Qualitative Data, Journal of Management Information Systems 19 (4): 213–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosemann, M., Lind, M. and Andersson, M. (2011). Digital Complementary Assets, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2011) (Shanghai, China, 4–7 December 2011).

  • Sawhney, M., Prandelli, E. and Verona, G. (2003). The Power of Innomediation, Sloan Management Review 44 (2): 77–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selander, L., Henfridsson, O. and Svahn, F. (2010). Transforming Ecosystem Relationships in Digital Innovation, ICIS 2010 Proceedings. Paper 138.

  • Shah, S.K. (2006). Motivation, Governance, and the Viability of Hybrid Forms in Open Source Software Development, Management Science 52 (7): 1000–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C. and Varian, H.R. (1999). Information Rules – A strategic guide to the network economy, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simard, C. and West, J. (2006). Knowledge Networks and the Geographic Locus of Innovation, in H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke and J. West (eds.) Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svahn, F. (2012). Digital Product Innovation: Building generative capacity through architectural frames, PhD Thesis, Umeå University, Sweden.

  • Svahn, F. and Henfridsson, O. (2012). The Dual Regimes of Digital Innovation Management, 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 45) (Maui, Hawaii).

  • Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K. and Sorensen, C. (2010). Digital Infrastructures: The missing IS research agenda, Information Systems Research 20 (4): 748–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilson, D., Sorensen, C. and Lyytinen, K. (2013). Platform Complexity: Lessons from the music industry, in 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS 46) (Maui, HI).

  • Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B. and Bush, A.A. (2010). Platform Evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics, Information Systems Research 21 (4): 685–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. (1989). The Validity of Idiographic Research Explanations, Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 551–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verganti, R. (2009). Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walley, K. (2007). Coopetition: An introduction to the subject and an agenda for research, International Studies of Management and Organization 37 (2): 11–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and method, European Journal of Information Systems 4 (2): 74–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weddell, B.J. (2002). Conserving Living Natural Resources in the Context of a Changing World, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • West, J. (2003). How Open Is Open Enough? Melding Proprietary and Open Source Platform Strategies, Research Policy 37 (7): 1259–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, J. and Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of Open Innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software, R&D Management 36 (3): 319–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, J. and O’Mahony, S. (2008). The Role of Participation Architecture in Growing Sponsored Open Source Communities, Industry and Innovation 15 (2): 145–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O. and Lyytinen, K. (2010). The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An agenda for information systems research, Information Systems Research 21 (4): 724–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, Y., Lyytinen, K. and Boland, R.J. (2008). Distributed Innovation in Classes of Networks, 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 41) (Waikoloa, Big Island, Hawaii).

  • Zammuto, R.F., Griffith, T.L., Majchrzak, A., Dougherty, D.J. and Faraj, S. (2007). Information Technology and the Changing Fabric of Organization, Organization Science 18 (5): 749–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers and the Senior Editor Karlheinz Kautz for constructive and insightful comments throughout the review process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Lisen Selander

  2. The University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Ola Henfridsson

  3. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Fredrik Svahn

  4. Viktoria Swedish ICT, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Fredrik Svahn

Authors
  1. Lisen Selander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ola Henfridsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fredrik Svahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendix

Appendix

Table A1

Table A1 Trade press sources
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Selander, L., Henfridsson, O. & Svahn, F. Capability search and redeem across digital ecosystems. J Inf Technol 28, 183–197 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2013.14

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2013.14

Keywords

Search

Navigation