Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Knowledge management capabilities of lead firms in innovation ecosystems

  • Theory/Conceptual
  • Published:
AMS Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Knowledge management is a key capability for innovation. Prior research has typically conceptualized and examined knowledge management capabilities as a property of an individual firm or business unit. More recently, however, the locus of competition and innovation has started to shift from the individual firm to firms working together as an ecosystem. In light of these changing realities, we explicate a set of capabilities that are built, maintained, and exercised by the lead firm in order to enhance innovation within ecosystems. We highlight three knowledge management capabilities: (1) knowledge acquisition, (2) knowledge sharing, and (3) knowledge utilization. Drawing on open and closed action strategies firms use to foster team-based innovation, we develop propositions for the knowledge management capabilities of the lead firm. Our approach highlights three salient tensions that arise from team based innovation: autonomy–control, dissent–consent and uncertainty–certainty. We highlight how the three tensions need to be managed across knowledge management capabilities in order to increase the rate of innovation of the ecosystem. In doing so, we contribute to the evolving marketing literature on sensing and responding in ecosystems in order to provide customers with superior value. We discuss the implications for both managers and theory.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Leverage refers to the means by which firms generate an impact that is disproportionately larger than the input required in order to create value and, hence, competitive advantage. Leverage could imply production leverage to achieve economies of scale and scope, transaction leverage to achieve transaction efficiency through pricing and market access, or innovation leverage to achieve the economics of innovation to facilitate the creation of new goods/services or business models (Thomas et al. 2014). The focus of this paper is on innovation leverage.

  2. The term platform has been used in a variety of contexts. For example, the organizational context views a platform as organizational capabilities that enable superior performance; the product family context views a platform as a stable centre of family of products to enable derivative products; the market intermediary context views a platform as an intermediary between parties to a market based exchange; and, finally, the platform ecosystems context views a platform as a system that supports a collection of complementary assets (Thomas, Autio and Gann 2014, p. 200). Our use for the purposes of this paper is similar to the platform ecosystems context.

  3. Some studies extend the notion of a platform to include network effects where there are demand side network externalities (Gawer and Cusumano 2014). Demand side network externalities imply that as more users adopt the platform, the platform becomes more valuable to other users. Demand side network externalities are not key to our use of the term in this paper.

  4. The literature has used various terms such as lead firm, hub firm, network orchestrator, and keystone firm, among others. We use “lead firm” to denote leadership in the ecosystem.

  5. This case vignette is based on author’s own interviews with ARM Holdings PLC.

References

  • Achrol, R. S. (1991). Evolution of the marketing organization: New forms for turbulent environments. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achrol, R. S. (1997). Changes in the theory of inter-organizational relations in marketing: toward a network paradigm. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(1), 56–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achrol, R. S., Kotler, P. (1999). Marketing in the network economy. Journal of Marketing, 146–163.

  • Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 98–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 306–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, K. (2008). Facebook leads MySpace in unique visitors. Financial Times, June, 23 edition.

  • Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, 625–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: external activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ancori, B., Bureth, A., & Cohendet, P. (2000). The economics of knowledge: the debate about codification and tacit knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(2), 255–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (1995). An exploratory analysis of the impact of market orientation on new product performance: a contingency approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12(4), 275–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avadikyan, A., Llerena, P., Matt, M., Rozan, A., & Wolff, S. (2001). Organisational rules, codification and knowledge creation in inter-organisation cooperative agreements. Research Policy, 30, 1443–1458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K. (2010). Open platform strategies and innovation: granting access vs. Devolving control. Management Science, 56(10), 1849–1872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1997). Co-opetition: a revolution mindset that combines competition and cooperation: the game theory strategy That’s changing the game of business. New York: Currency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresman, H. (2010). External learning activities and team performance: a multimethod field study. Organization Science, 21(1), 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. The Academy of Management Journal, 45, 875–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2010). From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 195–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, M. M., Fleury, A., & Lopes, A. P. (2013). An overview of the literature on technology roadmapping (TRM): contributions and trends. Technology Forecasting Social Change, 80, 1418–1437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caetano, M., & Amaral, D. C. (2011). Roadmapping for technology push and partnership: a contribution for open innovation environments. Technovation, 31(7), 320–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet feeling similar: the influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 749–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: the New imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crumley, C. L. (1995). Heterarchy and the analysis of complex societies. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 6(1), 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlquist, S. H., & Griffith, D. A. (2015). A framework for the formation of governance portfolios in international interfirm marketing collaborations. AMS Review, 5(1–2), 45–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J., & Eisenhardt, K. (2011). Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation: recombination processes and in symbiotic relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 159–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (2011). Closing the marketing capabilities gap. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2004). Driving through the fog: managing at the edge. Long Range Planning, 37(2), 127–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: the importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(3), 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Rond, M. (2008). Teams: lessons from the oxford and Cambridge boat race. Harvard Business Review, 86(9), 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. G. (2003). The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 977–990. October.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson, M., Gann, D., & Salter, A. (2006). The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case of Procter & gamble. R&D Management, 36(3) (6), 333–346. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00429.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (2006). Organizing innovation in the 21st century. In Clegg, Hardy, Lawrence, & Nord (Eds.), The sage handbook of organization studies (pp. 598–617). London: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y., & Kosonen, M. (2010). Embedding strategic agility. Long Range Planning, 43, 370–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. E. (1997). Reading the wind: How middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 407–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 716–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Hatch, N. W. (2006). Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: creating advantage through network relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), 701–719. doi:10.1002/smj.543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of inter-organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. A., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2008). Inter-organizational knowledge transfer: current themes and future prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 677–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2008). How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization Science, 21(3), 593–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., Puranam, P., Tushman, M. (2012). Meta-organization design: rethinking design in organization in interorganizational and community context, 33,571–586.

  • Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. K. (1998). Market orientation and organizational performance: is innovation a missing link? Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 30–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedlund, G. (1986). The hypermodern MNC-a heterarchy? Human Resource Management, 25(1), 9–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heide, J. B. (1994). Interorganizational governance in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing, 58, 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heide, J., & Wathne, K. H. (2006). Friends, businesspeople, and relationship roles: a conceptual framework and a research agenda. Journal of Marketing, 70(July), 90–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heiman, B. A., & Nickerson, J. A. (2004). Empirical evidence regarding the tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge expropriation in collaboration. Managerial and Decision Economics, 25(6–7), 401–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons - from theory to practice. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M. (2011). Toward a theory of the boundary-spanning marketing organization and insights from 31 organization theories. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 509–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Itami, H., & Nishino, K. (2010). Killing two birds with one stone. Long Range Planning, 43, 364–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29, 801–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review, 86(12), 50–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Science, 19(5), 729–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1183–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, R. T. (1994). Technology-information processing fit and the performance of R&D project groups: a test of contingency theory. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 167–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leten, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Roijakkers, N., Clerix, A., & Van Helleputte, J. (2013). IP models to orchestrate innovation ecosystems: IMEC a public research institute in nano electronics. California Management Review, 4, 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. W., Welsh, M. A., Dehler, G. E., & Green, S. G. (2002). Product development tensions: exploring contrasting styles of project management. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 546–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open innovation: past research, current debates, and future directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 75–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luca, L. M. D., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2007). Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional collaboration: examining the different routes to product innovation performance. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, R., Vargo, S. L., & Tanniru, M. (2010). Service, value networks and learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(1), 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33(11), 1404–1418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J., Goodwin, G., Heffner, T., Salas, E., & Canon-Bowers, A. (2000). The influence of mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Phycology, 85, 273–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martins, L, Rindova, V. Greenbaum, B. (2015). Unlocking the hidden value of concepts: A cognitive approach to business model innovation, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, forthcoming.

  • McCulloh, W. S. (1945). A heterarchy of values determined by a topology of nervous nets, Bull Math. Biophysics, 7, 89–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R. G. (2010). Business models: a discovery driven approach. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 247–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., Sahwney, M. (2011). Orchestration processes in network centric innovation. Academy of Management Perspectives, (August), 40–57.

  • Norman, P. M. (2002). Protecting knowledge in strategic alliances: resource and relational characteristics. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13(2), 177–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 100–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1), 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olstrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100, 641–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Krishnan, M. S. (2008). The new age of innovation: driving co-created value through global networks. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richard, P. J., & Devinney, T. M. (2005). Modular strategies: B2B technologies and architectural knowledge. California Management Review, 47(4), 86–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbeck, R. (2010). Harnessing a network of experts for competitive advantage: technology scouting in the ICT industry. Research Technology Management, 40(2), 169–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different at all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. (1996). Modularity, flexibility and knowledge management in product and organizational design. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seo, M. G., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change. In M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheremata, W. A. (2002). Finding and solving problems in software new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 144–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T., Pelled, L., & Smith, K. (1999). Making use of difference: diversity, debate and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 662–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinkula, J. M. (1994). Market information processing and organizational learning. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slowinski, G., Hummel, E., Gupta, A., & Gilmont, E. R. (2009). Effective practices for sourcing innovation. Research Technology Management, 52(1), 27–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models: managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 448–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. C., Fjeldstad, Ø. D., Lettl, C., & Miles, R. E. (2011). Organizing continuous product development and commercialization: the collaborative community of firms model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sosna, M., Trevinyo-Rodriguez, R. N., & Velamuri, S. M. (2010). Business model innovation through trial and error learning. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 383–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stabell, C., & Fjeldstad, O. (1998). Configuring value for competitive advantage: on chains, shops and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 413–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 172–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, L., Autio, E., & Gann, D. (2014). Architectural leverage: putting platform in context. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 198–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiwana, T. (2002). The knowledge management toolkit: orchestrating It. Prentice Hall: Strategy and Knowledge Platforms.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2011). It’s all B2B…and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 181–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velu, C., & Stiles, P. (2013). Managing decision-making and cannibalization for parallel business models. Long Range Planning, 43, 443–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velu, C. (2015). Business model innovation and third-party alliance on the survival of new firms. Technovation, 35, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E., & Krogh, G. V. (2003). Open source software and the private collective innovation model: issues for organization science, organization science. Organization Science, 14(2), 208–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wareham, J., Fox, P., & Giner, J. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4), 1195–1215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wathne, K. H., & Heide, J. (2004). Relationship governance in a supply chain network. Journal of Marketing, 68, 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, P. J., & de Meyer, A. (2012). Ecosystem advantage: How to successfully harness the power of partners? California Management Review, 55(1), 24–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, M. S. (2010). The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge development. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S., & Nambisan, S. (2011). Entrepreneurship in global innovation systems. AMS Review, 1, 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Jan Heide and Sriya Iyer for helpful discussions. The author would also like to thank the Editor and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Manufacturing, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, 17 Charles Babbage Road, Cambridge, CB3 0FS, UK

    Chander Velu

Authors
  1. Chander Velu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chander Velu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Velu, C. Knowledge management capabilities of lead firms in innovation ecosystems. AMS Rev 5, 123–141 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-015-0068-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-015-0068-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation