Cluster Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 827–835 | Cite as

Research from the perspective of resource orchestration on digital ecosystem

  • Zhengyan Cui
  • Taohua-OuyangEmail author


Since digital technologies have brought opportunities for marginal enterprises to rise, it deserves attentions from the academia about how marginal enterprises reconfigure ecosystems. This thesis has a case study of Duch Group (Duch) in 3D printing from the perspective of resource orchestration. It deeply investigates the dynamic process of how marginal enterprises reconfigure the ecosystem by digital technologies and attain the core position. It is found that the marginal enterprises, adhering to the “point-line-surface” principle, successively reconfigure the manufacturing process, industry chain and ecosystem by implementing actions of structuring, bundling and leveraging on the key resources such as digital technologies to attain the core position. This research benefits both academics and practitioners by contributing to cumulative theoretical developments and by offering practical insights.


Digital ecosystem Resource orchestration Marginal enterprise Reconfigure 3D printing 



The authors would like to thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71172176, 71472012, 71529001, 71632003), the Ministry of Education of Humanities and Social Science Project (14YJA630045), the Planning Project of Beijing Philosophy and Social Sciences (15JGB119) for supporting this work.


  1. 1.
    Luo, M., Li, L.: The age of the internet business model innovation: value creation perspective. China Ind. Econ. 57(1), 95–107 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adner, R., Kapoor, R.: Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: re-examining technology S-curves. Strateg. Manag. J. 3, 1–24 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Selander, L., Henfridsson, O., Svahn, F.: Capability search and redeem across digital ecosystems. J. Inf. Technol. 28(3), 183–197 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christensen, C.M., Bower, J.L.: Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strateg. Manag. J. 17, 197–218 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu, L., Tan, C., Jiang, S., Lei, H.: Li Feng’s process of platform leadership achievement: a resource dependence perspective. China Ind. Econ. 1, 134–146 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wareham, J., Fox, P.B., Cano Giner, J.: Technology ecosystem governance. Organ. Sci. 25(4), 1195–1215 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., Lyytinen, K.: Research commentary—the new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Inf. Syst. Res. 21(4), 724–735 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thomas, L.D.W., Autio, E.: Modeling the Ecosystem: A Meta-synthesis of Ecosystem and Related Literatures. DRUID, Copenhagen (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Teece, D.J.: Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 28(13), 1319–1350 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Perrigot, R., Pénard, T.: Determinants of E-commerce strategy in franchising: a resource-based view. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 17(3), 109–130 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., et al.: Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. J. Manag. 37(5), 1390–1412 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Adner, R., Kapoor, R.: Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strateg. Manag. J. 31(3), 306–333 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gawer, A., Cusumano, M.A.: Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moore, J.F.: Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 71(3), 75–83 (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tan, B., Pan, S.L., Lu, X., Huang, L.: Leveraging digital business ecosystems for enterprise agility: the tri-logic development strategy of In: ICIS 2009 Proceedings, 171 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yamakami, T.: 2010 13th International Conference on a Mobile Digital Ecosystem Framework: Lessons from the Evolution of Mobile Data Services, pp. 516–520. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koshutanski, H., Ion, M., Telesca, L.: The International Conference on Distributed Identity Management Model for Digital Ecosystems, pp. 132–138. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iansiti, M., Levien, R.: The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Pers. Psychol. 20(2), 88–90 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iansiti, M., Levien, R.: Strategy as ecology. Harv. Bus. Rev. 82(3), 68–81 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., Bush, A.A.: Research commentary—platform evolution: coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Inf. Syst. Res. 21(4), 675–687 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ghazawneh, A., Henfridsson, O.: Balancing platform control and external contribution in third-party development: the boundary resources model. Inf. Syst. J. 23(2), 173–192 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wright, M., Marlow, S.: Entrepreneurial activity in the venture creation and development process. Int. Small Bus. J. 30(2), 107–114 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kor, Y.Y., Mahoney, J.T., Michael, S.C.: Resources, capabilities and entrepreneurial perceptions. J. Manag. Stud. 44(7), 1187–1212 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cui, M., Pan, S.L.: Developing focal capabilities for E-commerce adoption: a resource orchestration perspective. Inf. Manag. 52(2), 200–209 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bridoux, F., Smith, K.G., Grimm, C.M.: The management of resources temporal effects of different types of actions on performance. J. Manag. 39(4), 928–957 (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sirmon, D.G., Gove, S., Hitt, M.A.: Resource management in dyadic competitive rivalry: the effects of resource bundling and deployment. Acad. Manag. J. 51(5), 919–935 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, London (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ouyang, T.: Case study method in the field of business administration. Nankai Bus. Rev.: Tianjin, China 7(2), 100–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Patton, M.Q.: How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Sage, Newbury Park (1987)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Transaction Publishers, Chicago (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Evered, R., Louis, M.R.: Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: “inquiry from the inside” and “inquiry from the outside”. Acad. Manag. Rev. 6(3), 385–395 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M.: Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: toward a shared craft. Educ. Res. 13(5), 20–30 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eisenhardt, K.M.: Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14(4), 532–550 (1989)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Walsham, G.: Doing interpretive research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15(3), 320–330 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2014)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E.: Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 50(1), 25 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pan, S.L., Tan, B.: Demystifying case research: a structured-pragmatic-situational (SPS) approach to conducting case studies. Inf. Organ. 21(3), 161–176 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eamonn, K.: Blurring Boundaries, Uncharted Frontiers, pp. 17–28. Deloitte University Press (2015)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nambisan, S., Baron, R.A.: Interactions in virtual customer environments: implications for product support and customer relationship management. J. Interact. Mark. 21(2), 42–62 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jawahar, I.M., McLaughlin, G.L.: Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: an organizational life cycle approach. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26, 397–414 (2001)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., Arregle, J.-L., Campbell, J.T.: Capability strengths and weaknesses in dynamic markets: investigating the bases of temporary competitive advantage. Strateg. Manag. J. 31(13), 1386–1409 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Agarwal, R., Gort, M.: Products and firm life cycles and firm survival. Am. Econ. Rev. 92, 184–190 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Smith, K.G., Mitchell, T.R., Summer, C.E.: Top level management priorities in different stages of the organizational life cycle. Acad. Manag. J. 28, 799–820 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementBeihang UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations