Conceptualizing ecosystem management capabilities: Managing the ecosystem-organization interface

Manufacturers are facing increased competitive pressure to strengthen their business ecosystems in order to adapt to ongoing twin transitions toward digitalization and sustainability and their associated trends. Yet, managing such ecosystems in complex inter-and intra-organizational settings requires a profound, yet little understood, shift in the role and capabilities of internal organizational functions. This study aims to investigate the composition of ecosystem management capabilities. We employ an in-depth single case study of a leading global solution provider in the automotive and transport industry, based on 51 interviews across the ecosystem management function, various organizational functions, and ecosystem actors. Our analysis, rooted in the dynamic capabilities perspective, highlights three sets of crucial ecosystem management capabilities: ecosystem foresight, ecosystem integration, and ecosystem governance. We further detail the underlying routines and micro-foundational activities enabling these capabilities. By illuminating the key capabilities, routines, and activities of ecosystem management in a dynamic context, this study makes significant contributions to management and strategy research on ecosystems and ecosystem management in rapidly evolving business landscapes.


Introduction
"We are transforming the transportation ecosystem towards electromobility, automation, and connectivity solutions… and we have an explicit target of reaching 50% profits from services… of course, this is a major organizational transformation for us as a transport vehicle manufacturer.We need innovative partnerships with cuttingedge technology providers extending beyond traditional supplier relationships.The key question is how do we need to change the way we procure to realize this vision?"(Senior manager, Truckcorp) Industrial manufacturers are facing unprecedented challenges from change and disruption, in the face of the rapid development of enabling technologies, that are putting their future viability at risk (Tongur and Engwall, 2014).For example, incumbent truck manufacturers are simultaneously investing in technology shifts relating to electromobility (electrified vs. combustion engines), autonomy (e.g., self-driving vehicles), and digitalization (e.g., AI, connectivity).At the same time, the very logic of business is changing with a heightened need for business model innovation toward sustainability, circularity, and a shift from products to services and even digital solutions (Konietzko et al., 2020;Frishammar and Parida, 2019;Sjödin et al., 2020).The adoption of these advanced technologies often requires significant investment in R&D, specialized expertise, and complementary products and services.What is increasingly clear is that incumbent manufacturers cannot tackle these transformations alone, necessitating increased ecosystem collaboration with complementors and partners to catalyze technological innovation and business model transformation (Sjödin et al., 2022;Sklyar et al., 2019;Kolagar et al., 2022).
The challenge facing incumbent manufacturers is finding ways to manage rapidly expanding, uncertain, and dynamic portfolios of ecosystem partnerships (Gomes et al., 2022;Sjödin et al., 2022).The challenges are amplified by the need to identify, formalize, and govern ecosystem collaborations, with a variety of novel complementary partners, ranging from larger digital infrastructure providers, software providers, and connectivity providers to more specialized SMEs and startups in areas such as, automation, electrification, and AI (Sjödin et al., 2022).For example, transport equipment manufacturers attempting to develop smart e-mobility solutions are required to build business relationships with complementary providers of charging infrastructure, payment services, and vehicle fleet management systems (Lütjen et al., 2019).This means that obtaining a competitive advantage currently demands that companies transcend their organizational boundaries and be capable of coordinating assets and capabilities throughout the ecosystem (Teece, 2020), which requires constant management and reconfiguration of complementarities (Pitelis and Teece, 2018).A key area of uncertainty relates to the capabilities and roles of different organizational functions in managing ecosystem collaboration as rapid technological and business model transformations blur functional and organizational boundaries as well as change role distribution (see e.g., Geissbauer et al., 2016;Sklyar et al., 2019).
We contend that there exists a pressing need for a deeper understanding of the capabilities and underlying routines essential for effective ecosystem management (Gomes et al., 2022).Presently, the literature connecting ecosystems and capabilities remains limited and fragmented.Notably, within the realm of business ecosystems (e.g., Jacobides et al., 2018;Möller et al., 2020), there is a surprising lack of attention to the internal capabilities and processes crucial for ecosystem management (Gomes et al., 2022;Sjödin et al., 2022).Recent studies highlight severe internal barriers faced by traditional firms, such as hindrance by legacy processes, slow approval and onboarding of new relationships, and a lack of focus on factors contributing to ecosystem success (Jacobides, 2022;Sjödin et al., 2022), indicating a critical gap in the literature and practice.
In particular, we target the capabilities, routines, and underlying activities necessary for a focal manufacturer to proficiently manage a diverse portfolio of ecosystem partnerships with pace, agility, and innovation (Sjödin et al., 2022).This endeavor requires firms to develop novel capabilities for identifying, facilitating, incentivizing, and coordinating collaboration among internal and external actors (Kamalaldin et al., 2021;Jacobides et al., 2018).To address the dynamic and uncertain context of ecosystem management, we propose adopting the dynamic capabilities perspective (Linde et al., 2021;Ellström et al., 2021).This perspective, defined as "the firm's ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address a rapidly changing environment" (Teece et al., 1997, p. 516), provides a relevant lens for understanding the capabilities and micro-level routines required to sense, seize, and reconfigure extended portfolios of ecosystem partnerships.However, the nature of dynamic capabilities specific to ecosystem management remains inadequately understood.For instance, there may be a need for novel routines in developing ecosystem relationships, selecting, and integrating partners, governing evolution, and learning and monitoring performance (Jacobides et al., 2018;Kolagar et al., 2022).Specifically, the existing literature on ecosystems has predominantly focused on aligning external ecosystem partners (Gomes et al., 2022;Linde et al., 2021), neglecting the firm-centric internal perspective of aligning collaboration objectives, integrating complementors, and coordinating partnerships and roles among internal functions (Sjödin et al., 2021).
Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to explore dynamic capabilities for ecosystem management in industrial manufacturers.To address this purpose, this study makes use of an exploratory single case study of a procurement organization assuming the role of ecosystem management in a leading global manufacturing firm actively engaged in the ecosystem.We draw on 51 interviews across the ecosystem management function, various organizational functions, and associated ecosystem actors.
By building on the dynamic capabilities perspective, the findings reveal three sets of ecosystem management capabilities: ecosystem foresight capabilities, ecosystem integration capabilities, and ecosystem governance capabilities.We further detail nine foundational routines and corresponding sub-activities underlying these capabilities ranging from ecosystem scouting to ecosystem monitoring and learning.We combine our insights into a framework underscoring the need for both capability development and underlying routines for catalyzing organizational transformation.
Our study carries broad implications for management and strategy research relating to dynamic capabilities (see e.g., Teece, 2007), orchestrating (see e.g., Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006;Linde et al., 2021), business and innovation ecosystems (e.g., Adner, 2017;Jacobides et al., 2018), and digital servitization (Gebauer et al., 2021;Kohtamäki et al., 2020;Sjödin et al., 2020).On an overall level, gaining greater knowledge of the capabilities for ecosystem management is a crucial step in understanding how firms create and manage ecosystems, consistent with a small, but growing, research stream (e.g., Helfat and Raubitschek, 2018;Teece, 2020).We argue that opening the black box of ecosystem management capabilities and delving into a firm's underlying routines and activities are crucial for explaining how firms manage ecosystems and evolving managerial practice.

Ecosystems
Why are ecosystems gaining in importance?Although deployed in strategy research over two decades ago, the term "ecosystem" has gained increased interest in academia and industry in recent years (Adner, 2017;Iansiti and Levien, 2004;Jacobides et al., 2018;Moore, 1993).Indeed, the importance of ecosystem collaboration has been amplified by recent technology and business transformations within industrial manufacturers.Emerging technologies relating to autonomous solutions (Thomson et al., 2022;Kohtamäki et al., 2022), digitalization (Parida et al., 2019), and electrification (Cleary, 2019) are incorporated to create radically transformed products, services, and solutions.At the same time, manufacturers are transforming their business models in line with servitization (Kamal et al., 2020), digital servitization (Kohtamäki et al., 2022) and circular business models (Kanda et al., 2021;Sjödin et al., 2023).A brief definition of these trends and literature streams is provided in Table 1.A common theme in all this literature is the rising importance of ecosystem collaboration.For example, in their recent paper, Kolagar et al. (2022) identify three triggers for manufacturers to engage in ecosystem transformation.First, the fast-paced market changes force manufacturers to set up ecosystem partnerships to maintain competitiveness.Second, customers make novel demands for increasingly sophisticated offerings that are difficult to develop solely in-house, including autonomous solutions and advanced analytics, such as predictive maintenance.Third, ecosystems collaborations allow manufacturers to fill their internal technology competence and capability gaps (Kolagar et al., 2022).Indeed, many recent scholars emphasize the vital role of ecosystem collaboration in business and technology transformations (Chirumalla et al., 2022;Frishammar and Parida, 2019;Kohtamäki et al., 2022;Kolagar et al., 2022;Sklyar et al., 2019).Moreover, as only a few firms possess all the resources and capabilities for breakthrough innovation, the collaboration of multiple stakeholders is deemed essential to attract customers by providing complementary components or services (Kapoor et al., 2021;Kowalkowski et al., 2013;Kindström et al., 2013;Kohtamäki et al., 2020;Sklyar et al., 2019).
What is a business ecosystem?Derived from the initial formulations of Moore (1993) and Iansiti and Levien (2004), business ecosystems comprise the broad environment that a focal firm must monitor and react to (Thomas and Autio, 2020).The business ecosystem can be defined as a system in which "… companies co-evolve capabilities around a new innovation: they work cooperatively and competitively to support new products, satisfy customer needs, and eventually incorporate the next round of innovations" (Moore, 1993, p. 76).Thus, business ecosystems focus on a focal firm and its environment and describe how this firm can collaborate across industry borders (Jacobides et al., 2018;Moore, 1993).Essentially, the business ecosystems approach adopts a firm-centric viewwhere business ecosystems are constellations of partners for focal firms (Möller et al., 2020).In business ecosystems, different players compete for scarce resources by establishing partnerships with other organizations.As technology progression is shaped by the activities of the heterogeneous participants composing the ecosystem, individual firms tend to rely on independent collaborators or complementors to enhance the value of their innovations.Therefore, the ecosystem perspective considers the actor network of loosely connected independent actors over which the focal firm has no direct control.For this reason, an innovating firm needs to consider how to attract and align those actors toward an integrated customer-facing solution.Thus, managing business ecosystems is centered on the relationships, partner selection, governance, evolution, structure, and performance of a business ecosystem (Jacobides et al., 2018).Understanding these issues is especially important because business ecosystems tend to be characterized by fluidity, emergence, and co-creation in the form of co-created, yet emergent, system outputs.

Understanding the role and requirements of ecosystem management
Ecosystem management is fundamentally a new phenomenon and a functional role within organizations (Gomes et al., 2022).Shifting toward ecosystem management and a portfolio of complementor relationships brings about notable distinctions from traditional management approaches to external suppliers (e.g., Van Weele, 2005) in two key aspects.Firstly, the relationship dynamic differs because traditional methods often involve transactional exchanges, while ecosystem complementors inherently collaborate, adding value to the core offering (Jacobides, 2022).Secondly, the focus diverges, with traditional approaches centering on securing favorable terms in price, quality, and delivery, while ecosystem management emphasizes collaboration and joint innovation to identify enhancements that bring added value to the company's offerings (Jacobides et al., 2018;Sjödin et al., 2021).Thus, significant change in organizations, processes, and capabilities are required (Sklyar et al., 2019;Kolagar et al., 2022).There is a need for more direct ecosystem management encompassing the planning, organization, and execution of tasks aimed at shaping and overseeing evolving sets of ecosystem partnerships (Gomes et al., 2021;Jacobides et al., 2018).We draw on recent research (e.g., Jacobides et al., 2018;Gomes et al., 2022;Kolagar et al., 2022) to conceptualize business ecosystem management as a structured approach for managing the relationships, partner selection, governance, evolution, structure, and performance of the extended set of partners involved with the focal firm.This conceptualization stresses that ecosystem management is a unique and intricate approach, potentially necessitating organizations to establish dedicated functions and novel routines to carry out the various tasks involved in the ecosystem-organization interface.For manufacturers, this means challenging outmoded functional ways of working with supply chains and actively revising its internal processes and capabilities for engaging with the extended business ecosystems of complementors and partners to ensure their valuable contribution to the firm (Sjödin et al., 2021).Thus, ecosystem management focuses on identifying, forming, and governing relationships with the evolving business ecosystem of partners and complementors.
Looking into the current body of literature on ecosystems, academics describe various facets related to ecosystem management and orchestration, such as identifying new actors (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al., 2022), leading actors to new opportunities (Linde et al., 2021), ensuring commitment by driving fair value sharing (Iansiti and Levien, 2004;Moore, 1996), aligning goals and interests (e.g., Hullova et al., 2019), coordinating resources, formulating rules, distributing roles and responsibilities (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen et al., 2022), and establishing governance structures (Adner, 2017).Although current research in this stream is quite extensive, there is a need to further understand ecosystem management from the perspective of managing relationships between internal functions and external complementors and partners within the extended ecosystem.For example, there is a need to align internal processes with key internal functions to obtain critical insights from R&D (e.g., technological roadmaps), IT (e.g., digital infrastructure), and business development (e.g., customer requirements) to proficiently align with complementors.Ultimately, this enables the coordination of internal cross-functional needs, goals, and strategies, ensuring the creation and capture of value for all the actors involved (Hughes and Ertel, 2016;Sjödin et al., 2021).For example, Hughes and Ertel (2016) suggest the need for a greater degree of understanding of the actors involved and for competencies in both inter-firm (ecosystem) and intra-firm (organizational) relationship building, management, leadership, negotiation, influence, and alignment.In this domain, Sjödin et al. (2021) outlined the need to optimize flexibility, pace, efficiency, agility, and innovation processes between various internal functions and ecosystems.Together, these studies add to the intricate puzzle of ecosystem management but do not offer a complete framework of the underlying routines and processes.There is a need for an empirical conceptualization of the set of capabilities underpinning ecosystem management.Indeed, prior research indicates the need to understand the distinct configurations of capabilities required to successfully leverage dynamic conditions and manage diverse ecosystem actors (see e.g., Jacobides et al., 2018;Kapoor et al., 2021;Parida et al., 2019).

Toward dynamic capabilities for ecosystem management
We posit that a dynamic capabilities perspective would help understand the required capabilities and micro-foundational routines and activities required for ecosystem management.Teece et al. (1997) defined the concept as: "the firm's ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments."(p.516).Teece (2007) identified the three clusters of dynamic capabilities: sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring.In short, dynamic capabilities can be viewed as a firm's ability to identify threats or opportunities (sensing), formulate a response accordingly (seizing), and adaptively execute a course of action (reconfiguring) (Helfat et al., 2009;Teece, 2007).In line with previous scholars, we adopt the established conceptualization of capabilities as a bundle of interrelated yet distinct routines and/or underlying activities (e.g., Sjödin et al., 2021;Ellström et al., 2021;Linde et al., 2021).Thus, the dynamic capabilities perspective can provide a lens to understand how the ecosystem management functions can adapt and implement change, addressing in particular how they build, integrate, and reconfigure their business ecosystems.
However, there is a lack of studies investigating the capabilities and roles of specific organizational functions for ecosystem management.For instance, while the recent paper by Linde et al. (2021) explores dynamic capabilities in the ecosystem orchestration context, their study places sole emphasis on the external ecosystem point of view, omitting the perspective of internal organizational functions.Furthermore, according to our current understanding, no existing paper has embraced the capabilities perspective in conjunction with ecosystem management.Therefore, there is a pressing need to delve deeper into comprehending how firms can effectively develop capabilities to sense, seize, and reconfigure their ecosystem partnerships.
Sensing focuses on identifying opportunities and threats through continuous exploration and filtering of technologies and markets (Lütjen et al., 2019;Teece, 2007) in response to environmental changes (Linde et al., 2021).For instance, Hughes and Ertel (2016) and Sjödin et al. (2021) stress the responsibility of identifying partnership opportunities by seeking to integrate internal functions and external ecosystems and encouraging exchanges.Sensing activities could involve scouting, scanning, interpreting, learning, and creating activities (Linde et al., 2021).This applies to current or new potential markets, segments, customers, competitors, technologies, and ecosystem actors (Linde et al., 2021).Ellström et al. (2021) pinpoint the need to enable creativity, foresight, intuition, alertness, and deliberate inter-firm learning practices.Moreover, it is critical to successfully engage in ecosystems by finding complementarities among actors in terms of resources and capabilities required in (see e.g., Kolagar et al., 2022).For example, sensing capabilities in this context could involve identifying and mapping the collaborations in which to engage, based on long-term value potential rather than immediate or short-term benefits.
Seizing ecosystem opportunities represents a critical step in realizing the potential of ecosystem partnerships.Seizing refers to ways of exploiting the business opportunities (Linde et al., 2021;Teece, 2007) for example, through the development of new products, services, and processes (Teece, 2007) or collaborative arrangements.Firms frequently sense opportunities but often fail at the realization step because they lack internal goal alignment, flexibility, and the commitment to integrate potential partners (Ellström et al., 2021).Seizing collaboration opportunities with diverse actors requires new knowledge and capabilities for the onboarding of actors (Sjödin et al., 2022), establishing and organizing rules, roles, and responsibilities (Linde et al., 2021), aligning goals and incentives (Jovanovic et al., 2021), and coordinating activities and resources (Helfat and Raubitschek, 2018).In addition, emphasis must be placed on considering legal, time, resource, and formalization aspects (Lütjen et al., 2019) when seizing collaborative opportunities.Thus, seizing capabilities in this context could arguably involve new routines to formalize, commercialize, and scale collaboration opportunities with internal functions and their associated ecosystems.This could, for instance, involve routines to evaluate the actors involved (Sjödin et al., 2021) or, indeed, new and more agile routines to arrange contractual agreements, focusing on mutually beneficial relationships through different risk-reward mechanisms.
Reconfiguring is the ability to continuously transform according to changing conditions.As the market and business environment changeas when technology or business models transform or the ecosystem evolvesreconfiguring capabilities is essential in order to remain competitive and profitable over time (Teece, 2007).Indeed, it is vital that firms improve routines, strengthen their leadership, and ensure flexible and adaptive strategies to successfully sense and seize opportunities continuously (Teece, 2007).In the ecosystem context, this can specifically relate to realigning interests, incentives, and goals among the actors involved (Linde et al., 2021).In addition, since ecosystems involve more complex connections in terms of diversity and interdependence (e.g., Adner, 2017;Jacobides et al., 2018), reconfiguring requires consideration of the entire ecosystem (Kindström et al., 2013;Linde et al., 2021;Teece, 2007).For instance, the failure or withdrawal of a single actor can lead to major complications, highlighting the vital need to ensure alignment remains, and commitment is retained and secured, in order to continuously incentivize collaboration (Frishammar and Parida, 2019).We argue that, in the present context, reconfiguring capabilities involves new routines to assess internal and external collaborations including the fit or relevance of the actors involved.Furthermore, it should entail routines for optimizing, renewing, or dissolving collaborations accordingly (Linde et al., 2021).Additionally, the ability to reorganize the overall organization in terms of its structures and strategic directions should be present.
In summarizing our literature review, it is evident that the increasing significance of business ecosystems compels traditional industrial manufacturers to shift toward innovative approaches in ecosystem management.This transformation is essential to effectively coordinate collaboration among diverse ecosystem actors and internal functions.Consequently, a critical need arises for a deeper understanding of the capabilities required for successful ecosystem management.The dynamic capabilities theoretical perspective emerges as a promising framework for further exploration, providing valuable insights into the capabilities, underlying routines, and micro-foundational activities integral to effective ecosystem management.Specifically, our focus is on unraveling the sensing, seizing, and reconfiguration capabilities that serve as the foundation for both intra-and inter-organizational aspects of ecosystem management.

Research approach
This study adopted an explorative qualitative research method to arrive at an understanding of how ecosystem management in technology and business transformations are configured.To address the complexity of the study, qualitative case studies were used to explore and make sense of complex socio-economic phenomena.In addition, they are particularly useful in developing inductive theory and insights into a theoretically unique phenomenon (Edmondson and Mcmanus, 2007) for example, how a firm can develop intra-firm and inter-firm capabilities adapted to address future opportunities and challenges due to transformative changes.Hence, we have utilized a single case study to obtain an in-depth understanding of complex empirical phenomena in their contexts (Yin, 2003).

Study context and case selection
This study was conducted in the setting of an incumbent automotive trucks manufacturer.The truck automotive industry is undergoing significant changes driven by several trends, including the shift toward D. Sjödin et al. electric connected and autonomous vehicles, the increasing focus on sustainability, and the need for improved logistics efficiency.These changes are leading to the development of new technologies, business models, and collaborations between manufacturers and expanding business ecosystems.Moreover, the adoption of digital technologies and data analytics is transforming the industry, enabling greater transparency and collaboration throughout the supply chain.
This study focuses on a globally active Swedish manufacturing firm in the automotive and transportation industry segment, which we refer to as "Truckcorp".Specifically, the study looks at novel sub-functions responsible for ecosystem management within the internal procurement function of Truckcorp and how it can effectively manage ecosystem collaboration across the organization.We argue that procurement, positioned at the intersection of a manufacturing firm's internal functions and its external business ecosystem, represents an ideal function in taking on the ecosystem management role because of its key strategic know-how of the market, suppliers, and emerging technologies (Geissbauer et al., 2016;Tunisini and Sebastiani, 2015;Sjödin et al., 2021).We chose to study Truckcorp for several reasons.First, it is considered a market leader in its industry segment, with a focus on premium offerings.Second, it is currently undergoing several technology and business model transformations, investing heavily in developing sustainable transport solutions, such as autonomous and electric trucks, and digital connectivity solutions.Third, it is actively seeking to expand its ecosystem partnerships, establishing venture incubators, technology hubs, and partnership exploration arenas globally.Lastly, and most importantly, Truckcorp's internal procurement organization is undergoing a strategic transition to focus more on managing emerging ecosystem complementors and partners.The company has been working with ecosystem actors for some time to develop organizational structures, routines, and processes.By studying its experiences, we hope to gain a better understanding of how a transition can be achieved in an ecosystem-organizational context.Table 2 below presents the studied case and the associated data collection discussed in the following section.

Data collection
Data were gathered primarily through individual, in-depth, semistructured interviews with participants from Truckcorp who were active in ongoing ecosystem collaboration.The interviewees were gathered with the assistance of the supervising group at Truckcorp and through the authors establishing contact via email and phone.Observations were used to gather more data on Truckcorp to obtain a holistic view of its current work methods and activities.In total, 51 interviews were conducted.The interviewees were selected according to the relevance of their roles and responsibilities concerning ecosystem management.Furthermore, we made use of snowball sampling, where the interviewees were asked to recommend people who had related experience and insight into the research domain.This delivered a selection of participants with various organizational functions, which allowed us to capture a holistic view of capabilities and roles.The roles of the interviewees included senior project buyer, lead project manager, and innovation development manager, as well as heads of various functions, such as autonomous solutions.In addition, nine interviews were conducted with ecosystem partners of Truckcorp.These partner firms were selected based on their experience in collaborating with Truckcorp, and they provided validation and contextual details for the primary data collection with Truckcorp employees.
During the interviews, the informants were instructed to reflect on the capabilities required to orchestrate ecosystem-organization partnerships.We used the dynamic capabilities perspective of sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring as a guide to broader questioning themes.For example, informants were asked to consider questions relating to broad themes such as: How do you sense new opportunities for ecosystemorganization collaboration?What are the challenges?How do you incentivize involved actors to seize the opportunity?Every interview was recorded and transcribed.These transcripts provided the basis for the data analysis.
To validate interview findings and gain a better understanding of the firm and their organizational environment, observations were conducted and secondary data were collected.Observations consisted of informal discussions, participation in workshops and internal meetings, and site visits.Secondary data were obtained from various sources, including internal documents (e.g., contracts, presentations, emails, process descriptions, and reports) and external documents (e.g., news articles and industry reports).The combination of primary and secondary sources allowed us to triangulate the collected information by crosschecking facts to avoid potential interpretation biases.Thus, observational and secondary data provided context and validation for the interpretation of qualitative interview statements employing triangulation.

Data analysis
To analyze the collected data, we relied on the thematic analysis method, which identifies, analyzes, and reports patterns in a dataset (Braun and Clarke, 2006).This method is suitable for qualitative studies because it facilitates a flexible approach to analysis and offers a means of effectively and accurately identifying links within analytical themes.
Accordingly, we followed a three-step process similar to that described in the literature (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
The first step in our data analysis was an in-depth analysis of the raw data (i.e., the interview transcripts).This analysis consisted of reading every interview several times, highlighting phrases and passages related to the overarching research purpose of understanding the capabilities and routines of ecosystem management.By coding the common words, phrases, terms, and mentioned by informants, we identified firstorder categories of codes that reflect the views of the informants in their own words.
The second step of the analysis was to further examine the first-order categories to detect links and patterns among them.This iterative process yielded second-order themes that represent theoretically distinct concepts created by combining first-order categories.These themes relate to key routines required for ecosystem management.In accordance with validity considerations raised in the literature, the themes were further refined using insights from the literature and data from interviews and secondary sources, such as internal documents, presentations, and observations.The final step involved the generation of aggregate dimensions that represented a higher level of abstraction in the coding.Here, we used insights from the literature to form theoretically sound dimensions of dynamic capabilities relating to sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring (Teece, 2007) ecosystem partnerships.Thus, the aggregate dimensions are built on the first-order categories and second-order themes to present a theoretically and practically grounded categorization.Fig. 1 shows the entire data structure that resulted from the data analysis.

Findings: ecosystem management capabilities
Our findings demonstrated a rapidly changing approach to ecosystem management at Truckcorp in line with revitalizing the company portfolio and realizing novel sustainable solutions to keep them competitive in the future.Indeed, informants described rapid internal change as enabling technologies such as AI, autonomy, connectivity, and electromobility develop at a faster pace than ever before.Combined in new ways, they offer innovative solutions in almost all parts of the transport ecosystem.Informants argued that keeping up with the latest developments is vital to stay successful, and impossible to achieve without ecosystem partnerships.Thus, there is a strong need to develop new routines and capabilities for managing evolving ecosystem collaboration.In this section, we present our analysis of the capabilities and underlying routines required for ecosystem management (see Fig. 1 data structure).We present our findings in three parts, each corresponding to one of the three capabilities that emerged from the analysis: ecosystem foresight capabilities, ecosystem integration capabilities, and ecosystem governance capabilities.

Ecosystem foresight capabilities
Our findings identified how the firm was investing in ecosystem foresight capabilities to sense opportunities for ecosystem collaboration.The objective is to gain market awareness and alertness by systematically collecting competitive ecosystem intelligence and nurturing new partnerships.These capabilities are composed of three foundational routines: ecosystem scouting, partnership cultivation, and ecosystem catalyzation.

Ecosystem scouting
A key part of our findings is related to creating routines for targeted ecosystem scouting.This required systematic efforts to align needs and objectives internally when searching for potential partners as well as gathering market insights, analyzing emerging trends, and validating potential new products and services from complementary actors.Informants highlighted the importance of having a wider scope when scouting for opportunities and orchestrating proficient search by aligning internal and external visions.This led to the need to find effective methods and new criteria for scouting.For example, informants underlined the importance of considering criteria such as organizational needs, available resources, and incentives to develop potential partnerships in line with strategic objectives.Specifically, in the absence of dedicated resources and incentives, scouting can often be excessive and can lead to a long laundry list of potential partners without a clear direction on where to focus (i.e., information paralysis).One informant identified the need for more targeted ecosystem scouting: "Sometimes, the scouting can be too broad, where we don't have the capacity to move forward with it.[We need to] limit our focus area to reach our future objectives."(R12).Furthermore, excessive scouting can lead to delayed decisions (i.e., decision paralysis) and problems due to the technology becoming irrelevant or outdated at a faster pace.
Creating a strong synergy internally with the R&D unit through, for example, scenario analysis was acknowledged to be a fundamental step in aligning scouting to the future needs of the organization.One informant intimated: "We need to work more closely with our R&D counterpart due to the technology being less mature and changes occurring rapidly.The collaboration was necessary because we quickly understood that if we were to work together, this would work much better" (R3).Another informant contended that knowledge sharing with R&D reduces the risk of missing relevant opportunities and trends during scouting.As an illustration, there is a risk of not comprehending the business rationale behind a given technology or disregarding it due to either perceiving it as a competitor to in-house technology (a "not invented here" mentality) or failing to grasp its value creation potential.However, a project manager described how "not invented here" was no longer an option: "When we go towards autonomous solutions, it's an ecosystem game… A key insight in this autonomous solutions journey is that we can't do everything ourselves.The only way to [beat the competition] is to have partnerships." Informants argued in favor of broadening the perspective of ecosystem management to directly scout the needs and values sought by customers.Indeed, a strong theme among informants stressed the importance of utilizing the firm's broader network to sense opportunities on the demand side (e.g., customer needs) to determine which complementary actors had the greatest potential for driving customer value.This new interaction was motivated not only by a deeper understanding of what customers are doing in particular innovation fields (e.g., what technologies, partners) but also by a desire to contribute to the strategic objectives through identifying new areas for revenue growth.To build further on this, (R26) emphasized the need to engage in direct customer scouting to obtain a better grasp of customers' value drivers: "If you start with a problem to be solved or the customer jobs to be done, you take some time to step away from the solution and try to see what the opportunities look like.That will also help us understand whom to collaborate with because one of the themes underlying all of this is [finding appropriate] partnerships."

Partnership cultivation
Our analysis found that routines for partnership cultivation with new partners, such as novel technology startups and early-stage ventures, were critical.This means engaging in exploratory relationship development with novel actors even before starting more formal partnership discussions.A common starting point was identifying joint business goals to open the possibility of developing a deeper relationship with the partner.As one of the informants highlighted, there is a need to focus on laying the foundations for actual win-win relationships: "I see an unbelievable potential in tying up the soft bits with the business part so we can do business in a completely different way.I believe that it's a big key in how to work in an ecosystem."(R1).Accordingly, proficient business acumen was considered a high priority competence to foster relationship development.The informant noted that, in rapidly evolving and uncertain ecosystems, incumbents who place a high value on relationships and prioritize them will become the preferred partners for new actors, as trust often plays the pivotal role in such decisions.Thus, routines for building relationships with promising potential partners before engaging in formal business validation and selection was a key priority.
Similarly, activities directed toward exploring the connections between partners technology affordances and potential business value for the organization was considered vital to identify innovative solutions.Here, competencies, such as confidence, curiosity, and the ability to connect by having access to a broad network, were highly prioritized.One informant explained: "You might not always have determined what this relationship is going to lead to and, therefore, you need to be there with multiple purposes, and you need to be able to connect with your organization for those purposes" (R14).Informants emphasized the need to establish activities to bridge the gap between partners, R&D, and the business functions for any technology partnership to succeed.For example, an informant highlighted the importance of processes to find the appropriate organizational stakeholders for a partnership: "We need to work as the spider in the web identifying and facilitating collaboration between the right person in procurement and the right person in R&D in a certain innovation domain."(R20).This underscores the importance of cultivating connections and fostering active interactions to nurture relationships, thereby enabling close collaboration between ecosystem management and any internal or external third parties engaged in the process.

Ecosystem catalyzation
Our analysis underscored the importance of building routines for ecosystem catalyzation.This means that ecosystem management needs to consciously act as a change agent, illuminating new collaboration opportunities for the organization and potential partners based on their market insights.For example, a senior manager described the need for, and the radical changes involved in, broad-scale ecosystem collaboration to commercialize electromobility solutions: "We recognize the critical need to work with an array of partners to build a successful ecosystem for electromobility."Informants described the need to direct activities to evangelize future collaboration benefitsboth internally and externally and instigate visionary change in the organization to germinate new collaborations.Essentially, the role of ecosystem management needs to work as a consultative business partner actively engaging business units to find new sources of value that cannot exist without an ecosystem approach.Indeed, opening to the business ecosystem initiates alternative ways to create opportunities.Several informants described actively working by connecting external actors with existing complementors in Truckcorps ecosystem to catalyze innovation opportunities and drive the network effect required to make the business ecosystem valuable for all.A senior manager described a rounded approach for catalyzing ecosystem collaboration: "What we look to do within our team is to look at what are interesting problems to solve, and then we explore collaboration with a startup or another partner to see if we can put a solution together.We are facilitating that process, and, in some sense, we also go down to our business areas and say, 'Look, this seems to be an interesting opportunity and maybe we should do something here.'Then if they're interested, before they dive into it, we help set up a pilot, we run that pilot a little bit to see if the partnership works, the solutions really solve the problems we think are valuable, and then we hand it over to the business areas because they will then scale it up.That's how, in a very broad sense, we work." Another important activity referred to by informants is using the existing ecosystem to scout for market opportunities.For example, conversations could be initiated on internal early ventures (e.g., autonomous solutions) with associated ecosystem partners.Then, the partners could be used to harvest useful market insights (e.g., customer leads) and explore commercialization opportunities.A common theme among informants was that active engagement with the ecosystem provided unprecedented opportunities for sensing where the market is headed and for laying the groundwork for future partnerships.However, a common sentiment, indicating the importance of finding effective ways to create and facilitate opportunities, was expressed: "We lack knowledge of what value dynamic ecosystems bring and how to facilitate for that value to be created."(R35).

Ecosystem integration capabilities
Seizing potential opportunities for ecosystem collaboration requires developing ecosystem integration capabilities.Essentially, this relates to a faster more iterative, experimental, and relational way of forming and integrating novel ecosystem partnerships across the organization.These capabilities require the development of routines relating to cross-functional partner integration, agile partnership formation, and coordinating value co-creation.

Cross-functional partner integration
Seizing ecosystem partnership opportunities requires multiple parts of the organization to become involved with the partner, which underlines the importance of creating routines for cross-functional partner integration.Indeed, cross-functionality was identified as a key requirement and facilitator of successful ecosystem collaboration by many informants.One informant described their initiatives on developing competencies for coordinating work across units in order to realize the potential of new partnerships: "The major skill that we saw was required was the ability to work cross-functionally and to be able to understand both the internal and the external ecosystem perspective."(R5).For example, there was a recognition that slow activation of internal units could lead to innovative startups siding with competitors.Informants described a need to engage in strategic mapping of partnership requirements from diverse front-end (e.g., sales) and back-end units (e.g., engineering, R&D).Informant (R13) described how the ecosystem management function needed to be at the center of strategic discussion across units: "I get the full picture of what is happening from an engineering and sales perspective.They also understand and learn a lot about the market, suppliers, and other dimensions outside, such as risk management, sustainability resilience, etcetera." Facilitating timely communication and coordination across units is critical in seizing ecosystem partnerships.In response, Truckcorp has been leveraging digital technologies for cross-functional integration to enable timely communication and reduce the workload (e.g., automating tasks).Furthermore, informants contended that such integration resulted in more streamlined processes and expedited partner approval decisions by reducing the number of organizational process steps.This has translated into enhanced communication because informants have recognized the necessity of fostering a more collaborative environment across different disciplines to prevent information and knowledge distortion, which they liken to the "whispering game" (R11).

Agile partnership formation
Informants argued that, to succeed in seizing collaboration opportunities with diverse ecosystem partners, a critical component is to have routines for agile partnership formation in the lower-risk early stages.Thus, early-stage activities could be utilized to pilot, test, and experiment in new ways of working with the partner and taking greater risks to gain valuable knowledge and experience for future collaborations Fundamentally, this requires a mindset shift in partnership formation beyond leveraging the power imbalance to achieve the best deal and actively direct activities in search of the win-win.Informants contended that, to successfully implement rapid partnership formation, a process that enables decentralized decision making and garners trust and support from the organization is essential.For example, an informant affirmed the importance of faster and more decentralized decisions: "If you have a problem traditionally, you bring someone to solve it and a steering committee on top of him or her.This may have worked before but now everything is developing so fast, so you need to apply empowerment and trust the expert."(R10).
Furthermore, empowering the person in charge to take risks in order to lower lead times in the partnership formation process is seen as particularly important when dealing with startups due to their lack of economic endurability.An informant elaborated: "Sometimes I feel that we are treating everyone equally, and that is cumbersome following today's purchase order that you get paid within 90 days, but for a small company that's a disaster."(R33).Moreover, informants stressed the importance of entrusting greater responsibility and extending the procurer's mandate to take risks because it fosters the development of competencies and the capacity to engage with new stakeholders effectively, ultimately facilitating collaboration and the creation of innovative solution offerings.Similarly, a senior manager explained: "Startups would never survive the procurement process that we have when we work with our suppliers, so we have put in a framework… [where] we empower the product and business owners to decide what to do and with whom."One informant explained it thus: "I don't think it's a process question so much.It's more the need to get the mentality for the team to actually dare to bring it up and experiment."(R20).Nonetheless, informants cautioned that maintaining flexibility and taking calculated risks must be a delicate balance to prevent unintended consequences, such as becoming overly accommodating and inviting opportunistic behavior.

Coordinating value co-creation
A critical enabler for seizing ecosystem partnerships is structured routines for coordinating value co-creation.Informants highlighted the importance of coordinating agile co-development through systematic partnership processes, emphasizing that these processes can be instrumental in forging strategic partnerships, fostering innovation, and facilitating rapid adaptation to evolving market dynamics.In essence, they underscored the pivotal role that ecosystem management can play in not only establishing connections but also leveraging them to enable dynamic collaboration and co-development initiatives that respond effectively to changing business landscapes.One informant explained that this is a radical shift from the traditional approach of working with suppliers: "I think we need to be much better at working with competitors, startups, governmental bodies, and creating a common vision of what we want to create because the old way doesn't work."(R11).
Thus, the focus of activities has shifted toward cultivating relationships as the primary approach for encouraging co-creation and codevelopment, moving away from merely transacting deals.According to the informants, aligning business models and visions to share risks and revenue was seen as both challenging and crucial, particularly during the early phases of dealing with advanced technology, where it was essential for partners to jointly bear the risks.Informants described how failure to share risks and align objectives frequently resulted in adverse relationships and, in certain instances, the termination of collaborative efforts.In addition, in novel ecosystem constellations, collaboration challenges often arose when every requirement was predetermined and strictly followed from the outset, instead of adapting to evolving technology and business developments.Accordingly, informants emphasized the need to create more flexible contracts and avoid casting everything in stone from the start (R10).However, achieving this necessitates mutual transparency and a commitment from both parties to foster a culture of open communication and information sharing.One informant intimated: "We ask for transparency and flexibility, we can be better than our partner in that sense since their company culture often gets in their way."(R12).
Furthermore, configuring advanced solutions, such as autonomous solutions, increasingly entails integrating software and technology from many different actors into a more comprehensive solution offering.Incorporating a broader range of participants from different industries into the co-development process creates numerous additional avenues for innovation but can also introduce added complexity due to the growing number of stakeholders involved.One informant described the need of coordinating an extended ecosystem: "It is a big transformation to go from diesel to electric-driven cars.Also, this new perspective of working in ecosystems and seeing a world with more and more integrated solutions.Where even if [Truckcorp] is very big and we have a lot of different products and solutions, we will never be able to run a whole mine, so to say.We will always need partners.In some cases, we can be a lead organization in some of these solutions."One informant described the importance of coordinating collaboration with a broader ecosystem, which required careful deliberation and novel ways of thinking: "We have major core partners that have partnered with IT providers, how can we make use of that for further value creation in our relationships?[We need to] orchestrate value cocreation in the [extended] ecosystem with actors we are not directly involved with today."(R9).

Ecosystem governance capabilities
Our findings uncovered the need to develop ecosystem governance capabilities to manage the evolving ecosystem and ensure reconfiguration of internal and ecosystem collaboration processes.Focusing on ecosystem governance means an expanded role beyond the siloed view of individual actor relationships.Three routines were identified that governed reconfiguration of organizational and ecosystem structures.These are proactive ecosystem management, ecosystem monitoring, and ecosystem learning.

Proactive ecosystem development
To enable effective ecosystem orchestration in dynamic contexts, routines for proactive ecosystem development is crucial.It was emphasized that more proactive approaches and decentralized decisions are particularly critical steer ecosystem development to bolster innovation, facilitate agile co-creation, and gradually secure organizational backing for ecosystem collaboration.Therefore, Truckcorp was actively engaged in fostering a mindset and cultural shift, moving away from hierarchical structures toward more networked organizational frameworks to facilitate faster adaptation to market changes.As an illustration, informants described modifying organizational KPIs to gauge innovation and speed in ecosystem partnerships, thereby incentivizing a proactive approach to ecosystem development instead of relying on slower-paced methods, such as steering committees and governing forums.One informant described the importance of creating and proactively refining new routines for ecosystem management: "I think it's important to not just [use existing processes] but being able to revitalize [routines] and take feedback and challenge what's in place."(R22).
As our informants described, proactive ecosystem development requires giving greater accountability, trust, and empowerment to individual managers to enable them to take the initiative in proactively steering ecosystem evolution.Multiple informants stated that this proactivity requires a bottom-up approach drawing on the drive and enthusiasm of individuals.For example, one informant described the need to empower individuals to cope with a rapidly changing industrial context: "Bottom up is key moving forward.If you don't do it that way, people will not be engaged and not perceived as something that will bring value to them.If you follow a fully top-down approach, it will not happen."(R10).As a result, existing processes that constrained proactive ecosystem development needed to be revamped or eliminated.For example, several informants contended that, despite having managerial support to facilitate new ways of working, the existing processes in place had initially hindered their implementation, thus contradicting the envisioned direction of upper management (R8, R14, R15).

Ecosystem monitoring
A key role in governing ecosystem partnerships is to establish routines for ecosystem monitoring.Since collaborations with ecosystem partners and complementors are ongoing, there is a need for continuous evaluation and reconfiguration of contracts and outcomes.For instance, it was crucial to monitor factors such as software quality, security, and the satisfaction of business units and customers.Informants placed particular emphasis on monitoring customer satisfaction and value to assess partnership performance.
According to informants, it is crucial to evaluate the process interconnections (and potential gaps) among ecosystem actors, business units, and customers to effectively create value within the ecosystem.The thorough assessment and management of these linkages not only foster better collaboration but also improve understanding, enabling better adaptation to customer needs.This process harnesses the diverse capabilities of ecosystem actors and supports the evolution of the ecosystem.Moreover, as new ecosystem actors are introduced and others exit the ecosystem, there is a need for ongoing adjustments, such as role changes and the establishment of new communication channels.This is important to maintain relational satisfaction among ecosystem partners.For example, one informant highlighted the need to actively work with monitoring so that ecosystem partnerships are beneficial for both sides: "The entire ecosystem that is emerging now… there are so many players that need to be a part of that for the value to materialize… I think the companies which people 'want to hang with' will win.It's not about convincing actors through hierarchy or power, it's about being attractive as a company and partner and that you like to engage in collaboration with us over time." An essential task in ecosystem relationship management involves documenting the progression of collaboration, including agreements and collaboration performance.
Maintaining high-quality D. Sjödin et al. documentation was considered vital within an unstructured and rapidly evolving environment, especially when managing a complex and diverse portfolio of ecosystem partnerships.One significant advantage is that clear documentation can assist in determining responsibility allocation and prevent opportunistic behavior when issues or conflicts arise.For example, one informant described the critical role of documentation in ecosystem collaborations: "We need to document in case of an emergency or when things are unstructured, not relying on [the partners] notes since they can turn them against us according to their needs."(R24).

Ecosystem learning
Another key element in proactive ecosystem management is the development of routines for ecosystem learning.Conscious efforts in learning involve using technology and performance data to proactively analyze real-time, relevant insights across the portfolio of ecosystem partners.Informants stressed that reflecting on these insights allowed teams to learn and develop guiding principles to make informed strategic decisions in managing ecosystem evolution.Additionally, a vital component involves the creation of efficient processes for disseminating the knowledge acquired through the analysis of previous collaborations.This requires some integrative efforts by the responsible teams, as one informant explained: "It's not always just to take some initiatives and put them into templates.Even though it's basic and obvious, we need to have the time to implement it as well."(R2).
A key activity in ecosystem learning is prioritizing learning from failure.Informants observed that the uncertain nature of numerous ecosystem partnerships contributes to a high rate of failure in such collaborations.This is particularly true in the initial phases of partnerships with startups, where a testing and proof-of-value phase is initiated before committing to long-term collaboration.Informants suggested that, anticipating a substantial failure rate, they had embraced a more learning-oriented mindset characterized by the motto "fail fast, learn fast."This approach enabled the identification and elimination of unsuitable partnerships while prioritizing swift progress.However, an equally crucial benefit involved proactively gathering and analyzing lessons from these failures to enhance learning, re-configure routines, and lay the foundation for future preparedness.For example, one informant stated: "Sometimes, large organizations, when they fail, they don't analyze why they fail and learn from their mistakes."(R6).Informants argued that, as the number of ecosystem collaborations continue to expand, it is vital to take the time to assess failures in order to build up the knowledge base and reconfigure processes and routines to be better equipped for managing future ecosystem collaborations.

Discussion
Our findings underscore significant technological shifts among incumbent manufacturers, propelled by emerging technologies, such as digitalization, AI, and electrification, concurrent with business transitions toward servitization and more sustainable modelsan alignment known as the twin transition.Informants emphasized the growing importance of partnerships with diverse technology actors within ecosystems to stay competitive.Ecosystem management plays a pivotal role of managing the ecosystem-organization interface in this transformation (Gomes et al., 2022).This role requires the development of new capabilities for managing effective collaboration between evolving business ecosystems and internal units.This study sought to uncover the nature and composition of ecosystem management capabilities.The findings reveal three sets of ecosystem management capabilities: ecosystem foresight capabilities, ecosystem integration capabilities, and ecosystem governance capabilities.We further detail nine foundational routines and corresponding sub-activities underlying these capabilities ranging from ecosystem scouting to ecosystem monitoring and learning.We depict the overall findings in an ecosystem management capabilities framework (see Fig. 2) underscoring the role of these capabilities and routines in managing the collaboration interface between external ecosystem partners and internal functions.
Ecosystem foresight capability enables firms to sense novel partnership opportunities, align these with internal stakeholders, and nurture relationships with potential ecosystem partners.As our informants Fig. 2.An ecosystem management capabilities framework.
D. Sjödin et al. explained, it is critical to leverage the firm's market-facing networks to orient the organization for future transformation.This can be accomplished only by integrating with core functional stakeholder groups and aligning ecosystem actors with their agendas on emerging technology areas through piloting initiatives.
Ecosystem integration capability stimulates the ability to seize such opportunities through the rapid formation of new partnerships in contrast to traditionally inert and time-consuming tendering processes.This requires flexibility in experimenting with appropriate partnership configurations (e.g., payment models) and activating internal functions to seize partnerships rapidly.Accordingly, routines for integrating business units and novel ecosystem actors are critical to align design objectives and go-to-market acceleration.
Ecosystem governance capabilities ensure continuous reconfiguration and that the portfolio of ecosystem partnerships is adapted to changing external and internal conditions.
Thus, ecosystem management assumes a strategic role in directing the emerging portfolio of ecosystem partnerships to attain evolutionary fitness in contexts of rapid environmental change.For example, continuous monitoring and learning of the partner portfolio can help identify unproductive ecosystem partnerships that should be discontinued and locate new partnerships that will make the ecosystem stronger.
When these ecosystem management capabilities are present, we posit that manufacturers are better placed to overcome common ecosystem barriers relating to legacy processes, the slow approval and onboarding of new relationships, and monitoring ecosystem success.(Jacobides, 2022;Sjödin et al., 2022).Thus, our study paves the way for industry managers and researchers to understand the future role and capabilities of ecosystem management in a business environment driven by ecosystems and rapid technological and business change.
Firstly, we contribute by illuminating the critical role of ecosystem management in navigating collaboration between ecosystems and internal business units.Current research on ecosystem management has primarily been externally focused (see e.g., Kamalaldin et al., 2021;Linde et al., 2021;Sjödin et al., 2021), and there has been a lack of indepth research on the internal organization (Gomes et al., 2021), including both inter-and intra-organizational aspects.Indeed, recent studies have identified severe internal barriers to ecosystem collaboration faced by traditional firms, such as hindrance by legacy processes, slow approval and onboarding of new relationships, and a lack of focus on factors contributing to ecosystem success (Jacobides, 2022;Sjödin et al., 2022;Garcia Martin et al., 2023), indicating a critical gap in the literature and practice.Our research addresses this gap by focusing on a dedicated functional initiative toward ecosystem management.As our findings illustrate, ecosystem management can provide a way of addressing these barriers by instilling roles and routines for driving pace, agility, and innovation into ecosystem collaboration.Specifically, this relates to the ability to facilitate and coordinate cooperation between diverse units within the internal organization and external actors within the larger business ecosystem.This role involves developing and maintaining relationships with complementary actors, identifying opportunities for innovation and value co-creation, and negotiating riskreward sharing agreements that benefit all parties involved.Thus, the ecosystem management function acts as a mediator between the internal organization and external ecosystem, ensuring that their goals and objectives are aligned and that they work together effectively to achieve mutual success.This requires the ecosystem management to possess a set of capabilities and routines that enable it to effectively steer these relationships, including the ability to negotiate and experiment with different collaboration models, establish trust and transparency, and devote appropriate attention to governing the evolution.Our results provide further validation of the need for researchers to re-examine the organizational functions and levels of analysis in ecosystem management (Gomes et al., 2022).In particular, our results emphasize the need to consider interdependencies between both external and internal actors, and they advocate a more holistic approach to ecosystem management.
Second, our research makes a significant contribution by conceptualizing dynamic capabilities for ecosystem management.We provide empirically grounded conceptualizations of key capabilities and routines that underpin ecosystem management across the ecosystemorganization interface.To this end, we adopt a dynamic capability perspective (Teece, 2007) to examine ecosystem management.While previous studies have emphasized the need to explore dynamic capabilities in ecosystem contexts (e.g., Lütjen et al., 2019), to the best of our knowledge, there are no papers that combine inter-and intra-firm perspectives, which we refer to as ecosystem management.Specifically, we identify and categorize three foundational capabilities: ecosystem foresight capabilities (sensing), ecosystem integration capabilities (seizing), and ecosystem governance capabilities (reconfiguring) and their underlying routines and activities.This presents novel insights into the foundational capabilities required to thrive in an era of rapid technological change, ecosystems, and open innovation (Holgersson et al., 2022;Sjödin et al., 2022).Specifically, we demonstrate the significance of ecosystem foresight capabilities in integrating internal needs and external partnerships as a catalyst for goal-directed organizational and ecosystem transformation.Furthermore, ecosystem integration capabilities highlight the need for faster, more flexible, and iterative approaches to partnership formation in rapidly evolving business ecosystems (Adner, 2017) as a way of overcoming common barriers (e. g., Jacobides, 2022).Finally, ecosystem governance capabilities highlight routines to steer the ongoing transformational processes of proactive development, monitoring and learning to reconfigure ecosystems dynamically.Thus or findings, revealed the nature of the experiential and interrelated routines characterizing dynamic ecosystem management capabilities in dynamic markets (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000), illustrating the routines involved for the integration of ecosystem complementors and internal business units in co-creation, in response to complex and evolving requirements (Helfat and Winter, 2011).Thus, our study provides a unique contribution to the understanding of dynamic capabilities for ecosystem management, which is crucial for businesses seeking to remain competitive in today's ever-changing business landscape.

Managerial implications
Our research makes a pivotal contribution by emphasizing the indispensable role of ecosystem management in cultivating relationships with complementary actors within the dynamic business ecosystem, particularly amidst the transformative trends of autonomous solutions, electrification, and digitalization.The ecosystem management function emerges as a crucial mediator, bridging the internal organization with the external ecosystem.Its primary function is to ensure the alignment of goals and objectives, fostering effective collaboration for mutual success.
The implications of our findings are profound, offering valuable guidance for managers, especially in industrial manufacturing companies, on navigating the realms of innovation and value co-creation between internal organizational functions and ecosystem actors.To facilitate this, our framework delineates the essential capabilities and D. Sjödin et al. routines required for effective ecosystem management, encompassing ecosystem foresight, ecosystem integration, and ecosystem governance and nine underlying routines or sub-processes.
However, instilling these capabilities is only one facet of the equation.Managers must actively spearhead a shift in the management approach, cultivating a dynamic organizational culture that embraces change.It is imperative that organizational structures and culture support the development of ecosystem management capabilities.Enablers, such as supporting structures, trust, transparency, and dedicated time for management and relationship-building activities, are critical for employees to successfully foster ecosystem management.
Recognizing this transformation as an iterative process is paramount.Top management must acknowledge the vital role of ecosystem management in securing future growth and sustainability.In conclusion, our research underscores the necessity for integrating ecosystem management into internal processes, unlocking the value inherent in complementor relationships.

Limitations and future research directions
A limitation of this study is that we employ an inductive single case in the automotive and transport industry segment to build novel insights into the nascent stream of ecosystem management.Although many findings might be generalizable, there is a need for further investigation involving a larger dataset with multiple companies, and potential crossindustry comparisons.
We also suggest several avenues for further research.First, further research exploring important linkages through a quantitative study would be illuminating.For instance, a study could focus on how ecosystem management capabilities influence firm and ecosystem performance variables, such as financial performance and innovation outcomes.Additionally, our selected case was at an early stage of adopting this new way of working with ecosystem management.A longitudinal study could detail progression and refinement in ecosystem management routines.To extend our findings, an interesting continuation would be to investigate whether the capability requirements for ecosystem management vary at different stages of ecosystem evolution.Third, to further build on our findings on ecosystem management, we suggest investigating in greater depth and analyzing on a cross-actor level the capabilities and enablers that are required to manage ecosystem relationships in different contexts.For example, the specific ecosystem management routines may vary according to what internal functions and diverse ecosystem actors (e.g., OEMs, startups, IT providers,) are involved.Accordingly, it would be useful to undertake an indepth analysis of how these various types of ecosystem relationship impact the overall processes of ecosystem management.

Table 1
Defining key technology and business model transformations necessitating ecosystem collaboration.

Table 2
Case description, data collection, and analysis.