Skip to main content
Log in

From Knowledge Ecosystems to Capabilities Ecosystems: When Open Innovation Digital Platforms Lead to Value Co-creation

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

Abstract

The paper investigates which types of capabilities open innovation digital platforms develop for supporting co-creation in open innovation processes, by enabling the shift from knowledge ecosystems to capabilities ecosystems. By examining the literature on the open innovation digital platforms, the paper develops a theoretical framework and advances propositions by underlining the specific required dynamic capabilities—sensing, seizing, scanning, integrating, and transformative—needed to facilitate and support the interactive coupled open innovation processes essential for firm co-creation activities. Research propositions are provided to address scholars toward new research paths on digital platforms, open innovation, and dynamic capabilities. Implications for practitioners involved in open innovation processes by using digital platforms are provided in the conclusion.

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

Access this article

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

References

  • Abbate, T., Codini, A., & Aquilani, B. (2019). Knowledge co-creation in open innovation digital platforms: processes, tools and services. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(7), 1434–1447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agogué, M., Yström, A., & Le Masson, P. (2013). Rethinking the role of intermediaries as an architect of collective exploration and creation of knowledge in open innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(02), 1350007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreeva, T., & Kianto, A. (2012). Does knowledge management really matter? Linking knowledge management practices, competitiveness and economic performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(4), 617–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aquilani, B. (2016). La co-Creazione di Valore Nei Processi di Innovazione Aperta: verso un Modello di Analisi. Roma: CEDAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aquilani, B., Abbate, T., & Dominici, G. (2016). Choosing open innovation intermediaries through their web-based platforms. The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 16, 35–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baptista, R., & Swann, P. (1998). Do firms in clusters innovate more? Research Policy, 27(5), 525–540.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Caputo, F., Garcia-Perez, A., Cillo, V., & Giacosa, E. (2019). A knowledge-based view of people and technology: directions for a value co-creation-based learning organization. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(7), 1314–1334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E., Giudice, M. D., & Peruta, M. R. D. (2014). Managing the intellectual capital within government-university-industry R&D partnerships: a framework for the engineering research centers. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(4), 611–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Del Giudice, M., Della Peruta, M. R., & Sindakis, S. (2017). An exploration of contemporary organizational artifacts and routines in a sustainable excellence context. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(1), 35–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Campbell, D. F., Meissner, D., & Stamati, D. (2018). The ecosystem as helix: an exploratory theory-building study of regional coopetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as quadruple/quintuple helix innovation models. R&D Management, 48(1), 148–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

  • Chesbrough, H. (2011). Open services innovation: rethinking your business to grow and compete in a new era. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Chesbrough, H., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36(3), 229–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.) (2006). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J., & Mahajan, A. (2014). Creating value in ecosystems: crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy, 43(7), 1164–1176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569–596.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, G., Dell’Era, C., & Frattini, F. (2014). Exploring the contribution of innovation intermediaries to the new product development (NPD) process: a typology and an empirical study. R&D Management, 45(2), 126–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalziel, M. (2010). Why do innovation intermediaries exist. In Proceedings of DRUID Summer Conference, London (pp. 16-18).

  • Davis, J. P. (2016). The group dynamics of inter-organizational relationships: collaborating with multiple partners in innovation ecosystems. Administration Science Quarterly, 61(4), 621–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2011). Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation: recombination processes in symbiotic relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2), 159–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Silva, M., Howells, J., & Meyer, M. (2018). Innovation intermediaries and collaboration: knowledge–based practices and internal value creation. Research Policy, 47(1), 70–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Giudice, M., & Della Peruta, M. R. (2016). The impact of IT-based knowledge management systems on internal venturing and innovation: a structural equation modeling approach to corporate performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(3), 484–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, K., & Piller, F. (2013). The market for open innovation-the 2013 RWTH open innovation accelerator survey. RWTH University.

  • Dobusch, L., & Schoeneborn, D. (2015). Fluidity, identity, and organizationality: the communicative constitution of anonymous. Journal of Management Studies, 52(8), 1005–1035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, L., & Gubbins, C. (2019). Inter-organisational knowledge networks: synthesising dialectic tensions of university-industry knowledge discovery. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(10), 2113–2134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D., & Dunne, D. D. (2011). Organizing ecologies of complex innovation. Organization Science, 22(5), 1214–1223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubina, I. N., Campbell, D. F., Carayannis, E. G., Chub, A. A., Grigoroudis, E., & Kozhevina, O. V. (2017). The balanced development of the spatial innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem based on principles of the systems compromise: a conceptual framework. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 8(2), 438–455.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Economides, N., & Katsamakas, E. (2006). Two-sided competition of proprietary vs. open source technology platforms and the implications for the software industry. Management Science, 52(7), 1057–1071.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenmann, T. R., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2006). Strategies for two sided markets. Harvard Business Review, 84(10), 92–101.

  • Esposito De Falco, S., Renzi, A., Orlando, B., & Cucari, N. (2017). Open collaborative innovation and digital platforms. Production Planning & Control, 28(16), 1344–1353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzoni, C., & Sauermann, H. (2014). Crowd science: the organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Research Policy, 43(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garud, R., Jain, S., & Tuertscher, P. (2008). Incomplete by design and designing for incompleteness. Organization Studies, 29(3), 351–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2002). Platform leadership: how Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco drive industry innovation (Vol. 5, pp. 29–30). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, V., & Thomas, A. (2019). Fostering tacit knowledge sharing and innovative work behaviour: an integrated theoretical view. International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting, 11(3/4), 320–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagiu, A. (2009). Two-sided platforms: product variety and pricing structures. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(4), 1011–1043.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Campo-Rembado, M. A. (2016). Integrative capabilities, vertical integration, and innovation over successive technology lifecycles. Organization Science, 27(2), 249–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2018). Dynamic and integrative capabilities for profiting from innovation in digital platform-based ecosystems. Research Policy, 47(8), 1391–1399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossain, M., & Lassen, A. H. (2017). How do digital platforms for ideas, technologies, and knowledge transfer act as enablers for digital transformation? Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(9), 55–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

  • Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Järvi, K., Almpanopoulou, A., & Ritala, P. (2018). Organization of knowledge ecosystems: prefigurative and partial forms. Research Policy, 47(8), 1523–1537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, K. R. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koening, G. (2012). Business ecosystems revisited. M@n@gement, 15(2), 208–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. M., Olson, D. L., & Trimi, S. (2012). Co-innovation: convergenomics, collaboration, and co-creation for organizational values. Management Decision, 50(5), 817–831.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, J., & Franco, M. (2019). Review about regional development networks: an ecosystem model proposal. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 10(1), 275–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Vega, H. (2009). How demand-driven technological systems of innovation work? The role of intermediary organizations. In Proceedings of the DRUID-DIME Academy Winter 2009 Conference.

  • Manfredi Latilla, V., Frattini, F., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Berner, M. (2018). Knowledge management, knowledge transfer and organizational performance in the arts and crafts industry: a literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(6), 1310–1331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mariano, S., & Awazu, Y. (2017). The role of collaborative knowledge building in the cocreation of artifacts: influencing factors and propositions. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(4), 779–795.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Virtual customer environments: testing a model of voluntary participation in value co-creation activities. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 388–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overholm, H. (2015). Collectively created opportunities in emerging ecosystems: the case of solar service ventures. Technovation, 39, 14–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papa, A., Dezi, L., Gregori, G. L., Mueller, J., & Miglietta, N. (2018). Improving innovation performance through knowledge acquisition: the moderating role of employee retention and human resource management practices. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(3), 589–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piller, F., & West, J. (2014). Firms, users, and innovation. An interactive model of coupled open innovation. In W. H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), New frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W.W., Packalen, K., & Whittington, K. (2010). Organizational and institutional genesis: the emergence of high-tech clusters in the life sciences. Queen’s School of Business Research Paper no. 03-10.

  • Quartey, S. H. (2019). Geographies of knowledge and sustainable development: towards a conceptual model with research propositions. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 10, 878–897.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P., & Finkelstein, S. (1998). Harvard business review on knowledge management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F.J. (2010). The power of co-creation: build it with them to boost growth, productivity, and profits. New York: Simon and Schuster Free Press.

  • Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. (2012). Building a co-creative performance management system. Balanced Scorecard Report, 23(2), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2014). The co-creation paradigm. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Randhawa, K., Josserand, E., Schweitzer, J., & Logue, D. (2017). Knowledge collaboration between organizations and online communities: the role of open innovation intermediaries. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(6), 1293–1318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & Gudergan, S. (2018). Open service innovation: the role of intermediary capabilities. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(5), 808–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990–1029.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, M., Festa, G., Fiano, F., & Giacobbe, R. (2019). To invest or to harvest?: corporate venture capital ambidexterity for exploiting/exploring innovation in technological business. Business Process Management Journal, 26, 1157–1181. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-05-2019-0204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, M., Festa, G., Papa, A., & Scorrano, P. (forthcoming, 2020). Corporate venture capitalists' ambidexterity: myth or truth? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2903984.

  • Roth, J. (2003). Enabling knowledge creation: learning from an R&D organization. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 32–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, G., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Dezi, L. (2018). The internet of things: building a knowledge management system for open innovation and knowledge management capacity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 347–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M., Bresciani, S., & Meissner, D. (2017). Knowledge-driven preferences in informal inbound open innovation modes. An explorative view on small to medium enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(3), 640–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieg, J. H., Wallin, M. W., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Managerial challenges in open innovation: a study of innovation intermediation in the chemical industry. R&D Management, 40(3), 281–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soto-Acosta, P., & Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. (2016). New ICTs for knowledge management in organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(3), 417–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Still, K., Huhtamäki, J., Russell, M. G., & Rubens, N. (2014). Insights for orchestrating innovation ecosystems: the case of EIT ICT labs and data-driven network visualisations. International Journal of Technology Management, 66, 243–265.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valkokari, K. (2015). Business, innovation, and knowledge ecosystems: how they differ and how to survive and thrive within them. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(8), 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Borgh, M., Cloodt, M., & Romme, A. G. L. (2012). Value creation by knowledge-based ecosystems: evidence from a field study. R&D Management, 42(2), 150–169.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: a review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814–831.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, A. J. (1997). The ecosystem: an evolving concept viewed historically. Functional Ecology , 11(2), 268–271.

  • Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991–995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). The net-enabled business innovation cycle and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 147–150.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tindara Abbate.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abbate, T., Codini, A., Aquilani, B. et al. From Knowledge Ecosystems to Capabilities Ecosystems: When Open Innovation Digital Platforms Lead to Value Co-creation. J Knowl Econ 13, 290–304 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00720-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00720-1

Keywords

Navigation