Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Knowledge Processes in a Business Ecosystem’s Lifecycle

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we investigate the development of a business ecosystem by focusing on the knowledge processes associated with the various phases of its lifecycle. Specifically, we ask: What knowledge processes are involved in the birth, expansion, leadership, and renewal phases of a business ecosystem, and how are these processes linked together to shape its lifecycle? To address this research question, we build on a case study of a near-field communication (NFC) platform ecosystem, which is considered to be an innovative network-centric organizational form. The findings reveal three knowledge processes: generation, application, and valorization. Together, these knowledge processes enable the performance of a variety of tasks and activities associated with the distinctive phases of a business ecosystem’s lifecycle.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. CHEMIN: Chemins de l’Histoire E-guidés par Mobiles Intégrants le NFC

  2. MBDS: mobiquité, base de données et intégration de systèmes

  3. An API is an application programming interface, which is a plug-in that enables applications to exchange data.

  4. Transports Public Genevois is an iPhone application developed by GFI for Geneva public transportation that provides bus timetables and traffic information in real time.

  5. Our own translation.

  6. Reich et al. (2014, p. 597) for example, investigating project management in IT demonstrated that the process consisting in aligning knowledge within project teams had a larger impact on project value than the production of knowledge.

  7. Our translation.

References

  • Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Sandberg, B., & Lehtimäki, T. (2014). Networks for the commercialization of innovations: a review of how divergent network actors contribute. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 365–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin, A., & Cohendet, P. (2004). Architecture of knowledge. Firms, capabilities and communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, M., Lindgren, R., & Henfridsson, O. (2008). Architectural knowledge in organizational IT innovation. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(1), 19–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W. B. (2007). The structure of invention. Research Policy, 36, 274–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attour, A., & Ayerbe, C. (2012). Connaissances et innovation au sein des écosystèmes d’affaires. Le cas des services mobiles. Revue Française de Gestion, 221, 77–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attour, A., & Ayerbe, C. (2015). Le management amont et aval des droits de propriété intellectuelle au sein des écosystèmes-plateformes naissants. Système d’Information et Management, 20(3), 47–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attour, A., & Barbaroux, P. (2016). Architectural knowledge and the birth of a platform ecosystem. Innovations Journal of Innovation Economics and Management, 2016/1(19), 11–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attour, A. & Della Peruta, M. (2014). Architectural knowledge: key flows and processes in designing an inter-organizational technological platform. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. Advance online publication 4 August 2014; doi:10.1057/kmrp.2014.21

  • Ayerbe, C., & Missonier, A. (2007). Validité interne et validité externe de l’étude de cas: principes et mise en œuvre pour un renforcement mutuel. Finance Contrôle Stratégie, 10(2), 37–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbaroux, P. (2014). Rupture technologique et naissance d’un écosystème: voyage aux origines de l’internet. Revue d’Économie Industrielle, 146(2), 27–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbaroux, P., & Attour, A. (2016). Interactive approaches to innovation and kowledge management. Innovations Journal of Innovation Economics and Management, 2016/1(19), 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., Maidique, M., & Wheelright, S. (2004). Strategic management of technology and innovation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cepeda, G., & Vera, D. (2007). Dynamic capabilities and operational capabilities: a knowledge management perspective. Journal of Business Research, 60, 426–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Wrigt, M., Bruneel, J., & Mahajan, A. (2014). Creating value in ecosystems: crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy, 43, 1164–1176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbel, P., & Simoni, G. (2012). Innovation et partage des connaissances. Revue Française de Gestion, 221, 71–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, A. (2000). Logique, épistémologie et méthodologie en sciences de gestion: Trois hypothèses revisitées. In A. David, A. Hatchuel, & R. Laufer (Eds.), Les nouvelles fondations des sciences de gestion – Eléments d’épistémologie de la recherche en management (pp. 83–110). Paris: Vuibert.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, A. (2004). Etudes de cas et généralisation scientifique en sciences de gestion. Le Havre: Actes de la XIIIème Conférence de l’Association Internationale de Management Scientifique.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fidel, P., Schlesinger, W., & Cervera, A. (2015). Collaborating to innovate: effects on customer knowledge management and performance. Journal of Business Research, 68, 1426–1428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O., & Bader, M. A. (2006). Intellectual property management in inter-firm R&D collaborations. Taiwan Academy of Management Journal, 6(2), 217–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: toward an integrative framework. Research Policy, 43, 1239–1249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebauer, H., Worch, H., & Truffer, B. (2012). Absorptive capacity, learning processes, and combinative capabilities as determinants of strategic innovation. European Management Journal, 31(1), 57–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: toward an interpretative theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3–30). New-York: Bas Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competiting paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin et Y.S. Lincoln (Eds). On the Book of Qualitative Research, Sage, 105-117.

  • Iskia, T., Lescop, D. Lescop, E. (2014). An evolutionary view of platform-based ecosystems. 7ème Conférence sur le Gestion des Connaissances dans la Société et les Organisations (GeCSO). 4 & 5 juin 2014. Aix-en-Provence, France

  • Jyoti, J., Gupta, P., & Kotwal, S. (2011). Impact of knowledge management practices on innovative capacity: a study of telecommunication sector. Vision, 15(4), 315–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, K., Orlikowski, W., & Yates, J. (2006). Life in the trading zone: structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17(1), 22–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, N., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of the process of innovation. In G. Landau & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), The positive sum strategy: harnessing technology for economic growth (pp. 275–306). National Academies Press: Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, G. (2013). Business ecosystem revisited. In S. Ben Letaifa (Ed.), Understanding business ecosystems (pp. 69–84). Paris: De Boeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lema, R., Quadros, R., & Schmitz, H. (2015). Reorganising global value chains and building innovation capabilities. Research Policy, 44, 1376–1386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loilier, T., & Malherbe, M. (2012). Le développement des compétences éco systémiques. Le cas de l’ESA émergent des services mobiles sans contact. Revue Française de Gestion, 222, 89–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loilier, T., & Malherbe, M. (2013). Experimentation and the development of eco-systemic competencies in the field of contactless mobile services. In S. Ben Letaifa (Ed.), Understanding business ecosystems (pp. 193–207). Paris: De Boeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Nicolas, C., & Merono-Cerdan, A. L. (2011). Strategic knowledge management, innovation and performance. International Journal of Information Management, 31, 502–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michailova, S., & Zhan, W. (2015). Dynamic capabilities and innovation in MNC subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 50, 576–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milesi, D., Petelski, N., & Verre, V. (2013). Innovation and appropriation mechanisms: evidence from Argentine microdata. Technovation, 33, 78–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. (1996). The death of competition—leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. Harper Business. Brownstown: From Motor City Books

  • Moore, J. (2006). Business ecosystems and the view from the firm. The Antitrust Bulletin, 51(1), 31–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2013). Entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: entrepreneurs’ self-regulatory processes and their implications for new venture success. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 37(5), 1071–1097.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noblet, J. P., & Simon, E. (2010). Capacité d’absorption: revue de littérature, opérationnalisation et exploration. Gestion, 27(6), 59–74. 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paillé, P. (1996). De l’analyse qualitative en général et de l’analyse thématique en particulier. Recherches Qualitatives, 15, 179–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmberg, C. (2006). The sources and success of innovations. Determinants of commercialization and break-even times. Technovation, 26, 1253–1267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pénin, J., Burger-Helmchen, T., Dintrich, A., Guittard, C., & Schenk, E. (2013). L’innovation ouverte. Définition, partiques et perspectives, prospectives et entreprise: Eclaireg sur les entreprises dans un monde ouvert. Paris: CCI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, B. H., Gemino, A., & Sauer, C. (2014). How knowledge management impacts performance in projects: an empirical study. International Journal of Project Management, 32, 590–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2006). Two-sided market: a progress report. The Rand Journal of Economics, 3(35), 645–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savall, H., & Zardet, V. (2004). Recherche en sciences de gestion: Approche qualimétrique – Observer l’objet complexe. Paris: Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: a theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternitzke, C. (2010). Knowledge sources, patent protection, and commercialization of pharmaceutical innovations. Research Policy, 39, 810–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and micro-foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy, and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43, 172–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verona, G., & Ravasi, D. (2003). Unbundling dynamic capabilities: an exploratory study of continuous product innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(3), 577–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: a review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: design and methods (Rev.ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nice-Sophia Antipolis – GREDEG, Nice, France

    Amel Attour

  2. French Air Force Research Centre - Ecole de l’air, Salon de Provence, France

    Pierre Barbaroux

Authors
  1. Amel Attour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pierre Barbaroux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amel Attour.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Attour, A., Barbaroux, P. The Role of Knowledge Processes in a Business Ecosystem’s Lifecycle. J Knowl Econ 12, 238–255 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0395-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0395-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation