Conceptualization of research themes and directions in business ecosystem strategies: a systematic literature review

Krome, Maximilian Julius; Pidun, Ulrich Article — Published Version Conceptualization of research themes and directions in business ecosystem strategies: a systematic literature review Management Review Quarterly Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Krome, Maximilian Julius; Pidun, Ulrich (2022) : Conceptualization of research themes and directions in business ecosystem strategies: a systematic literature review, Management Review Quarterly, ISSN 2198-1639, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Vol. 73, Iss. 2, pp. 873-920, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00306-4 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/309863 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) Management Review Quarterly (2023) 73:873–920 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00306-4 1 3 Conceptualization ofresearch themes anddirections inbusiness ecosystem strategies: asystematic literature review MaximilianJuliusKrome1 · UlrichPidun1,2 Received: 24 May 2022 / Accepted: 1 November 2022 / Published online: 6 December 2022 © The Author(s) 2022, corrected publication 2023 Abstract Motivated by the rapid advancements in the field of business ecosystems (BEs), this paper presents a holistic overview of existing research in the field of business ecosystem strategy. As scholars have noted, BE strategy poses new challenges and diverges from traditional thinking in multiple ways. Researchers have investigated parts of strategy in that regard; however, a holistic approach to BE strategy does not exist. To this end, this study relies on a systematic literature review approach and analyzes contributions from across disciplines in an attempt to derive a holistic ecosystem strategy framework. The study identifies six main elements that reflect strategic considerations along subsequent stages of decision-making. It then discusses the fifteen sub-streams identified in the literature, placing them in their strategic context. Based on this analysis, gaps in the literature and future research opportunities are identified. This study is motivated by the aspiration to make the topic of ecosystem strategies more accessible for scholars and practitioners, while enabling a broader discussion based on the current state of research. Keywords Business ecosystem strategy· Platform strategy· Ecosystem competition· Competitive dynamics· Competitive strategy· Systematic literature review· Strategic framework· Research directions JEL Classification M100· L100· L210· L220 * Maximilian Julius Krome [email protected]; [email protected]lin.de Ulrich Pidun [email protected] 1 Fakultät VII Wirtschaft und Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623Berlin, Germany 2 The Boston Consulting Group, Bockenheimer Landstraße 47, 60325FrankfurtamMain, Germany 874 M.J.Krome, U.Pidun 1 3 Abbreviations BE Business ecosystem FE Framework element 1 Introduction Over the past few decades, the concept of business ecosystems (BEs) has increased in prominence from both practical and theoretical perspectives. BEs have recently permeated the global economy, with their services and products affecting billions of people directly (Evans and Schmalensee 2016). As more than half of the world’s leading companies are operating an ecosystem model to some extent (Pidun etal. 2022), understanding the strategy dynamics of this ecosystem economy has become imperative for businesses. Introduced by Hawley (1986) in a social science context, the term ‘ecosystem’ was first applied by Moore (1993) in the field of business strategy, suggesting that firms should be most suitably seen as members of an ecosystem spanning beyond industry borders. Although many synonyms1 and definitions emphasize different aspects of ecosystems, authors generally describe them as communities of actors congregating around a common value proposition (Adner 2017). The collaborative aspect enables value creation exceeding each participant’s individual capacity (Boudreau 2012; Jacobides etal. 2018; Kapoor 2018). Defining an ecosystem around a particular value proposition differentiates BEs from related approaches: an ecosystem may overlap with but stretch beyond the traditional organizational network (Ghoshal and Bartlett 1990) of a single firm or a regional cluster of firms (Porter 1990). Equally, ecosystems diverge from traditional organizational models, as they are neither integrated hierarchies nor fit into classical firm-supplier relationships, such as Porter’s (1980) value system of traditional strategic management. In contrast, the differing characteristics of ecosystems require viewing them through different lenses. Birkinshaw (2019) suggests that the essence of competitive advantage has changed resulting in profound implications for business strategy. With business ecosystems permeating the global economy, ecosystem strategy considers how actors partaking in BEs can navigate this novel environment and develop their competitive strategy effectively. Competitive strategy in its purest form describes how a firm competes within its environment, defining how it creates and sustains its competitive advantage (Bertelè and Chiesa 2001). Porter (2001) suggests that business ecosystem competition relies on the proven principles of effective strategy, but Cennamo (2019) argues that 1 Multiple synonyms exist and include: two-sided markets, e.g., Armstrong (2006); Rochet and Tirole (2003), multi-sided markets, e.g., Eisenmann etal. (2006), meta-organizations, e.g., Kretschmer etal. (2022), digital & software platforms, e.g., Boudreau (2010), or business, innovation or transaction ecosystems, e.g., Adner and Kapoor (2010); Gawer (2021). 875 1 3 Conceptualization ofresearch themes anddirections inbusiness… ecosystem competition may have altered the vital assumptions on which these principles were based. When firms used to compete based on their internal competitive advantage, business strategy determined the actions for individual businesses or units, and corporate strategy combined individual business strategies setting the overarching course of action for the whole firm. Conversely, ecosystem strategy stretches beyond the firm and relates to all actors partaking in a particular ecosystem. Not only is it essential to investigate this type of strategy as competition is now occurring on the ecosystem level (Cennamo 2019), but multiple factors suggest that ecosystem strategies also diverge from traditional approaches. First, competing in the context of ecosystems poses new challenges; BEs must bring together two or more distinct participant groups (McIntyre etal. 2021a) and manage the process of co-creation of value, including inherent risks such as the dependency on others and their ability to match innovation quality and speed (Adner 2006). Eisenmann etal. (2006) visualize these new challenges by comparing ecosystem strategy to playing ‘three-dimensional chess’. Additionally, Reeves etal. (2019) observe that the long-term success rate of ecosystem businesses is estimated to be below 15%, implying that firms fundamentally differ in implementing successful strategies. With new challenges evident, many questions remain open in the field of ecosystem strategy. Second, bound by neither hierarchical structures nor arm’s-length relationships (Rietveld et al. 2019), actors voluntarily cooperate to enable a value proposition while simultaneously pursuing their economic self-interest by capturing value. When Moore (1993) called for an extension of the systematic approach to strategy, he underlined that the process of co-evolution observed in BEs provides a complex interplay between competitive and cooperative business strategies. This setting, in which firms collaborate and compete simultaneously, was dubbed coopetition (Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996) and bears the potential to erode much of the rationale from traditional decision-making processes. Third, BEs must extend the unit of analysis beyond a single firm or market to the entire ecosystem (Teece 2014). In traditional contexts, firms compete in given and defined markets, with strategies aimed at capturing a larger share of the total value available in the market by acting and re-acting toward rival firms (Cennamo 2019). However, BEs focus on value creation by enabling a particular value proposition; as such, BEs may influence the size of their market in an attempt to increase value creation for participants (Panico and Cennamo 2015). Ecosystems may thus exhibit strategic patterns that have not been previously seen and may contradict the behavior typically observed in traditional settings. The ecosystem label has been used in various contexts because of its usefulness for describing the complex and interconnected set of actors for which strategy is formulated. Where Gawer (2021) emphasizes platforms2 as main enablers for a broader ecosystem and a ground on which to base complementary products or services, 2 For a discussion of the development of the platform concept, see Gawer and Cusumano (2014). 876 M.J.Krome, U.Pidun 1 3 Daymond et al. (2022) discuss a continuum of different ecosystem types.3 The authors agree that strategy is formulated in an empirical context where “different types of ecosystems […] overlap, intersect, and interpenetrate one another to varying degrees” (Daymond etal. 2022, p.3). Assuming that insights drawn from one ecosystem type may provide transferable insights for another, we take into account different ecosystem types in this study. Driven by contributions across academic areas, the explosive growth in research has led to different clusters of topic interest that yet lack a coherent framework. Authors have described and analyzed phenomena from different perspectives, ranging from particular mechanisms in price setting to meta-level analyses of how competition between platforms unfolds. Similarly, varying use of nomenclature across research efforts has hindered the bridging of different perspectives. With existing strategic decision-making frameworks stretched to their limits, there is currently no alternative in the literature covering ecosystem strategy in its entirety. Existing reviews in the field have been published in renowned journals (Jullien and Sand- Zantman 2021; McIntyre and Srinivasan 2017; Rietveld and Schilling 2021). But while some have addressed particular elements of strategy or mentioned how different schools of disciplines view platform competition and strategy, none have explored the field of ecosystem strategy holistically. This presents ample space for further exploration. Consequently, this study aims to conduct a systematic literature review across disciplines, providing three contributions. First, the broad ecosystem strategy literature will be sorted alongside conceptual themes to make it more accessible. Second, a framework will be developed to provide a holistic overview and classify all ecosystem strategy elements from an individual actor’s perspective. Finally, the identification and discussion of future research directions will provide a sound basis for expanding the field. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section2 outlines the review methodology and gives an overview of existing research. Section 3 presents the main results and leads to Sect.4 that discusses future research directions. Section5 concludes the paper. 2 Literature review 2.1 Methodology This study relies on a systematic literature review approach to gain deep and comprehensive insights into the current state of ecosystem strategy research. The 3 Daymond etal. (2022) describe (i) entrepreneurial ecosystems as sector and technology-agnostic systems co-locating to support the creation and growth of ventures. In contrast, the output of products or services can be achieved through (ii) business ecosystems, focusing on a focal firm and its environment, (iii) innovation ecosystems, addressing the constellation of actors around novel technologies and value propositions, or (iv) platform ecosystems focusing on how actors congregate around a ‘platform’ technology. 877 1 3 Conceptualization ofresearch themes anddirections inbusiness… insights were gathered and presented using an explicit and reproducible method, relying on the five-stage process (Fig.4, Appendix) of Denyer and Tranfield (2009) and Webster and Watson (2002). This review is motivated by two research questions: RQ1: How can actors in BEs develop their ecosystem strategy? RQ2: What are the main themes in the extant ecosystem strategy literature, and how can they be organized in a holistic business ecosystem strategy framework? Consistent with previous reviews in the field (Rietveld and Schilling 2021), we conducted a Boolean search query relying on multiple criteria to guarantee a structured and systematic approach for identifying relevant articles. We captured further articles through forward and backward snowballing as a subsequent step. The study location (Table2) and process steps (Table3) are presented in the Appendix. By searching three online databases, a total of 4,053 articles was retrieved, of which 2,338 remained after excluding duplicates. With the terms ‘platform’ and ‘ecosystem’ being homonyms,4 we encountered noise in the results and accordingly manually screened all articles for relevance in a stepwise fashion. We screened each article’s title, abstract, and introduction, such that studies outside of the subject area were excluded in each iteration. This process left 433 contributions as a basis for deeper content analysis and the development of a holistic ecosystem strategy framework. Four articles were added through backward and forward snowball sampling. The articles were analyzed by applying the grounded theory approach initially suggested by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and later advanced for application (Corbin and Strauss 1990; Goulding 2002). The approach aims to allow “key concepts to surface instead of being deductively derived beforehand” (Wolfswinkel etal. 2013, p.46), which is especially suitable when the researched field is still developing and no conventionally used terms have been established, such as in the field of BEs. Without deductively deriving strategic buckets beforehand, this approach allowed us to observe which strategic questions had been addressed in the literature and to recombine them along common themes. We applied open, axial, and selective coding (Wolfswinkel etal. 2013) to identify all concepts and conceptualize a framework that presents evident themes within the ecosystem strategy literature. Accordingly, a sample of 437 papers was coded systematically. Using an iterative approach, we identified 151 concepts in the first coding step, ranging from “product pricing”, “pricing strategies” and “subsidization pricing” over “network effects”, “platform value” and “market dominance” to “control”, “openness”, “governance” and “generativity”. We then developed axial codes across these concepts by grouping them under strategic questions that each of these concepts addressed and arrived at 30 axial codes. Examples include questions such as “how do you discover ecosystem opportunities?”, “how do you compete based on pricing?”, or “how do you evolve your ecosystem over time?”. In the last step of selective coding, we reconceptualized the data based on two aspects: Firstly, we addressed these questions from an individual actor’s point of view, attributing perspective to the axial codes. Secondly, we noticed a temporal aspect within the questions and thus arranged the topics in the logical order of subsequent decision-making stages that an actor encountering 878 M.J.Krome, U.Pidun 1 3 BEs would pass through. In doing so, we were able to aggregate axial codes further and arrived at the final six selective codes representing the first layer of the deduced framework presented in Fig.1. The strategic framework deviates from commonly known forms as it provides an overview of the literature and additionally reflects the processual view of a particular actor engaging in BEs; depicting the actor’s holistic process allows us to identify gaps in the literature. For the content discussion in this review, we further prioritized articles with a focus on relevance. Relevance was decided based on each contribution’s decisiveness and novelty and was guided by the journal quality criteria. To verify our selection, we applied a four-eye principle. All results were captured in a concept-mapping matrix that assigned relevant themes to each article (Table4, Appendix). 2.2 Overview ofexisting research Ecosystem strategy research has seen an equal growth dynamic compared to the overall field of BEs – the number of articles has consistently increased in recent years, with more than half (~ 51%) of the contributions published in or after 2019. The width of the journals (~ 209) reflects that ecosystems have become a relevant topic across academic areas. The literature body is dominated by the field of business (~ 36%), followed by economics/econometrics (~ 12%), computer science (~ 13%), and the decision sciences (~ 12%). Additionally, new subject areas, such as energy, environmental science, and engineering have appeared more consistently over time. Although this shows that BEs are genuinely seen as an interdisciplinary E cosystem strategy Join an ecosystem Create an ecosystem (1) Are business ecosystems a relevant strategic topic for me? If relevant: engage If irrelevant: Ignore (2) Where can I act & how do I engage? (3) How do I design & build an ecosystem? (6) How do I developmy strategy over time? (1.1) Implications (1.2) Benefits (2.1) Where & Why (2.2) Engagement models (2.3) Capabilities (3.1) Design (3.2) Launch & Growth (6.1) Strategy adjustment (6.2) Ecosystem expansion "Steady-state competition" (4) How do I compete within an ecosystem? (4.2) Contributor-orchestrator (4.3) Inter-contributor (4.1) Orchestrator-contributor (5) How do I compete with other ecosystems? (5.1) Competitive dynamics (5.2) Strategic positioning (5.3) Competitive patterns Fig. 1 Ecosysystem strategy framework 879 1 3 Conceptualization ofresearch themes anddirections inbusiness… topic, approaching the same field from various angles suggests that existing research has emphasized different aspects and questions regarding ecosystems.4 Regarding the methodologies applied, the field constitutes empirical (~ 35%) and theoretical (~ 28%) approaches, with the remainder including verbal conceptualization (~ 18%). Empirical research is driven by single case studies (~ 24%), multiple case studies (~ 37%), and regression analyses (~ 9%). Theoretical research mainly constitutes formal models (~ 94%) and theoretical simulations (~ 6%), mainly from the field of economics. The high share of case studies suggests that the research area is still emergent; using Ridder’s (2017) denotation, concepts are developing and tentative theories are being tested. Approximately 46% of the research was conducted without industry focus, driven by theoretical models, with the remaining contributions focusing on one or more particular industries.5 The main emphasis was on technology-based industries,6 with the IT sector, media, and telecommunications making up combined contributions 1343568 12 16 17 16 15 26 30 52 58 65 67 2011 2009 2007 1996 2003 2008 2006 2010 2012 2013 35* 2014 2015 2021 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2022 Publications per year 12.2% 12.8% 12.4% 35.9% 8.7% 9.7% 8.3% Contributions by subject area Computer Science Economics, Econometrics & Finance Business, Management & Accounting Decision Sciences Social Sciences Engineering Other 100.0% 12.8% 14.5% 45.1% Industries analyzed in contributions 7.2% 7.2% 7.6% Retail Media 5.6% IT Telecom Financials Industrials Other 100.0% saeratcejbuSsetadnoitacilbuP ~ 51% of total Industries analyzed *Note: Publications until August 2022 Fig. 2 Descriptive statistics of the literature body 4 As such, certain fields show a clear focus on particular formulations of research questions; the economics literature, for example, despite its considerable share in overall contributions (e.g., Bakos and Halaburda 2020; Halaburda etal. 2018; Jeitschko and Tremblay 2020), has focused on the very specific topics around solving competitive equilibria in the ecosystem context. 5 Based on Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS). 6 The heavy focus on tech-based industries is likely driven by firstly the connection to the information science field of networks that has partially influenced ecosystem literature, and secondly by the tendency of technology settings to provide relatively high ease of scalability, realization of network effects and data availability. 880 M.J.Krome, U.Pidun 1 3 of ~ 67%. However, more recent research has expanded to include other industries, such as retail, finance, and industrials (Fig.2). The combination of an interdisciplinary research effort and a high share of exploratory research designs implies that the field of ecosystem strategy is emergent and not yet at the point where researchers can test comparable hypotheses on a broader basis. Additionally, the spread of contributions across multiple industries, or without a clear industry focus, exacerbates the effort to make the results comparable. 3 Results The strategic framework was derived based on the last iteration of the discussed coding technique (Fig.1). While the grounded theory approach allowed us to identify the questions addressed in the literature, we took the perspective of an actor encountering BEs to arrange the questions along the key stages of strategic decisionmaking. The resulting process-related framework is suited to summarize existing research and to build first hypotheses on possible research gaps, which are further validated in the discussion of future research directions (see Sect.4). First, an actor confronted with BEs must decide whether they are a relevant strategic topic for the firm (FE-1), based on potential implications and benefits. If the actor concludes that BEs are relevant, it must identify opportunities and ways to engage (FE-2). It can either join an existing ecosystem as a contributor or create and orchestrate its own ecosystem. As a contributor, the actor needs to develop strategies for competing within the ecosystem, with other contributors and with the orchestrator (FE-4). As an orchestrator, the actor needs to design and successfully launch its ecosystem (FE-3) and develop strategies for within-ecosystem competition (FE-4) as well as between-ecosystem competition (FE-5). Finally, the orchestrator must adjust its ecosystem strategy over time and identify opportunities for ecosystem expansion (FE-6). This framework captures all relevant themes in the literature. However, some terms and concepts from the literature are relevant at multiple stages of decision making, and they will be discussed in the context of the respective elements of the framework. A glossary mapping in the Appendix (Table5) classifies all concepts to allow easier access to the reader. 3.1 Framework element (FE) (1): Are business ecosystems arelevant strategic topic forme? Cennamo (2019) suggests that competition as a whole has moved from company to platform level, indicating the relevance of BEs to all entities participating in competition. With the opening of the business environment to a global scale, asset ownership may no longer drive sustainable competitive advantage (Teece 2007) such that traditional competition logic seems invalid. Rather, organizations will be challenged in their institutional logic (Altman and Tushman 2017) and must learn to transform their resources and capabilities and adjust organizational processes correspondingly 887 1 3 Conceptualization ofresearch themes anddirections inbusiness… dimensions of strategic positioning of ecosystems are discussed in the literature: (a) ecosystem scope, (b) customer value, and (c) partner value (Fig.3). Ecosystem scope, as the first dimension of competitive differentiation, defines which market to target and whether to aim for a mass market solution or focus on smaller niche segments (Eisenmann etal. 2011). It determines the market footprint, including whether the ecosystem targets specific customer groups, specializes in the market or bundles different services to span multiple markets (Cennamo 2019). Conventional wisdom suggests that network effects and the potential for WTA dynamics favor the largest ecosystem (Gawer and Cusumano 2008; Rietveld etal. 2019). However, size may not necessarily be a winning strategy. Several contributions show that later entrants can overtake first-movers despite their size advantages (Casadesus-Masanell and Campbell 2019) and that even dominant platforms can be frequently displaced (Rietveld and Schilling 2021). Moreover, there is evidence that increasing network size may even negatively impact platform success and that a market strategy focusing on distinct segments may be superior (Cennamo and Santaló 2019). For example, Dushnitsky etal. (2022) find in their analysis of transaction platforms that ecosystems implement differentiated strategies and benefit from segmenting potential markets by targeting only specific user groups. Pricing has been recognized as one of the main tools for influencing ecosystem scope. Specifically, subsidization or product bundling successfully attracts users and increases market share (Amelio and Jullien 2012; Lin etal. 2020). Similarly, exclusivity deals that prohibit contributors from offering the same product to a competing ecosystem present an effective means to influence the particular realm in which a BE is perceived as active (Cennamo and Santaló 2013). Ecosystems can also differentiate themselves based on their customer value proposition. A trade-off exists between offering a varied, broad product portfolio and focusing on a highly curated offering that neatly addresses the users’ preferred quality level. With the general idea that higher ecosystem generativity increases user satisfaction (Cennamo and Santaló 2013), initial research showed that offering (b) Customer value proposition (a) Scope a) Scope: Defining geographical as well as market (mass market vs. niche) b) Customer value: Defining coherent solution considering variety and quality requirements c) Partner value: Attracting partners by offering relatively more attractive terms for pricing, value capture and innovation Fig. 3 Strategic positioning dimensions 888 M.J.Krome, U.Pidun 1 3 a broader complement portfolio leads to higher platform performance (Zhou and Song 2018). Cennamo (2018) specifies that it is the variety and respective quality rather than the sheer number of complements that form two distinct but interrelated sources of user value. Variety describes the complement portfolio’s functional width, which Karaer and Erhun (2015) have identified as an effective entry deterrent. A more varied complement portfolio seems attractive for addressing a wider range of potential users; however, it also increases the effort to communicate a coherent and unified product offering to the user base. Thus, the ecosystem must carefully consider how openly it will invite participants to contribute or how closely it will monitor the contributions (Karhu etal. 2020). In addition to the question of how heterogeneous the complement base can be (Rietveld and Schilling 2021), the quality aspect has become more pronounced in recent research. Contributions revealed that ecosystems can charge higher prices despite offering lower choices to users if their quality preferences are matched (Halaburda etal. 2018). Mantena etal. (2010) find that the differentiating power of quality further increases the longer competition endures. This idea finds support as Rietveld etal. (2019) show that when an ecosystem actively promotes particular complements, it likely promotes those with the highest quality and development potential rather than the best performing. While platforms balance the mix of how many and how varied complements to offer, and to what extent to ensure their quality, the trade-off is driven by the respective user base addressed and may change over time (Dushnitsky etal. 2022). In particular, the aspect of quality cannot be seen as static and the ecosystem must constantly adjust its strategic positioning and quality offering accordingly (Panico and Cennamo 2020; Rietveld etal. 2019). In summary, the variety and quality of complements form a part of the ecosystem’s identity and contribute to the differentiated customer value proposition that drives platform performance (Cennamo 2018, 2019). Chellappa and Mukherjee (2021) underline the importance of conveying differentiated customer value and find that even the perception of future product strength, communicated by strategically placing information about future products, can differentiate an ecosystem from its competitors. A third source of competitive differentiation that is specific to business ecosystems relates to the partner value proposition and corresponding strategies to attract and retain sufficient and right partners to contribute. The orchestrator can use its architectural choices to create innovation opportunities and capacity for contributors (Cennamo 2019) and to ensure that the ecosystem is relatively more attractive for contributors than the next-best competitor. The literature expresses this through the ‘governance mechanisms’ (Rietveld and Schilling 2021) that firms employ to attract contributors to their ecosystem and, more importantly, to manage whom they partner with (Hilbolling etal. 2020). The choice lies between open governance, inviting partners freely to contribute, and closed governance, in which the orchestrator maintains close control of the relationships within its ecosystem (Kazan etal. 2018; Rong etal. 2020). However, while an open governance approach may help to grow the ecosystem initially by allowing 889 1 3 Conceptualization ofresearch themes anddirections inbusiness… many contributors to join, it poses the risk that contributors will switch to a dominant platform later on, underlining that governance must also be actively managed (Ruutu etal. 2017). Governance has received extensive research attention (Autio 2022; Boudreau 2010, 2012) and is often mentioned in the open innovation literature as a means to incentivize and coordinate innovation activities (Hilbolling etal. 2020; Masucci etal. 2020). The third stream of between-ecosystem competition literature investigates observable competitive patterns (FE-5.3) and highlights specific strategic actions, in particular (a) cooperation and (b) opportunistic attacks. Some authors have focused on the conditions under which cooperation can aid in between-ecosystem competition. They highlight that the overall strategy may benefit from collaboration by creating compatibility between products (Adner etal. 2020), or that incumbents may cooperate with opponents in one segment and compete in another (Cozzolino etal. 2021). Others have focused on opportunistic attacks. Karhu and Ritala (2021) describe platform exploitation or platform forking as the competitive risk that an ecosystem contributor exploits the ecosystem’s resources to enter direct competition. Similarly, a newly emerging ecosystem can copy an existing competitor’s technical architecture (platform pacing), or enter the competitor’s domain and occupy a niche (platform injection), effectively placing itself as a new competitor (Karhu and Ritala 2021). Thomas etal. (2021) suggest that the primary source of risk during such competitive actions and overthrow attempts lies with the ecosystem’s management of interfaces and boundaries (i.e., their governance parameters), stressing the importance of a holistic value proposition, as even efficient ecosystems can fail. 3.6 FE (6): How doI develop my strategy overtime? Even ecosystems that have succeeded in establishing themselves in the market need to continuously develop their strategies to be successful. Only few studies have addressed this challenge and investigated the topics of strategy adjustment (FE-6.1) and ecosystem expansion (FE-6.2). Research on BE strategy adjustment (FE-6.1) often relates to the concept of ecosystem life cycles initially introduced by Moore (1993). Initial discourses have drawn strong hypothetical parallels to the field of biology; forming in the birth stage, the ecosystem grows thereafter (expansion), turns to win outright competition (leadership), and then re-defines itself by innovating a new value proposition (self-renewal) (Moore 1993). Recent empirical studies have confirmed that life cycle stages can be observed for BEs (Chen etal. 2016), albeit more flexibly and in less predetermined ways than for their biological counterparts (Boyer 2020). Rong et al. (2013a) found that firms exhibit different strategic patterns along their life cycles, with an open strategy model shown in the early and uncertain stages moving to more dominating and rigid models once the ecosystem matures and uncertainty declines. An orchestrator may foster behavioral conformity to preserve customer satisfaction when the focus moves away from rapid growth (Kyprianou 2018). Similarly, Rietveld etal. (2020) suggest that more selective governance 890 M.J.Krome, U.Pidun 1 3 control mechanisms help to better serve end users’ quality requirements as the ecosystem matures. Autio (2022) suggests that a stricter governance model may also be motivated by the need to maximize value appropriation after the peak generativity of the ecosystem is reached. If the ecosystem does not expand its original purpose, the orchestrator may adopt a cash-out strategy as diminishing network effects toward later life cycle stages may decrease incentives for contributors to innovate (Panico and Cennamo 2020). Despite its practical relevance, only little research has been done on ecosystem expansion (FE-6.2) and strategies to grow the ecosystem beyond its initial markets. Existing contributions have recognized both the potential (Jin and Hurd 2018) and challenges (Curchod et al. 2020) of international ecosystem expansion. Network effects seem to remain a decisive factor influencing the choice of timing, market, entry mode, and dynamics of multi-country competition (Stallkamp and Schotter 2021). Similarly, the opportunity to extend ecosystems across industry borders and realize the benefits of economies of scope and creation of entry barriers for newcomers has been recognized, but not strategically explored (McIntyre etal. 2021b). 4 Future research directions Ecosystem strategy is a vibrant field of research that has received increasing attention over the past few years. The explosive growth in contributions has led to clusters of topic interests that lack coherent connections. Our review of the literature conceptualized existing research along strategic questions arising within the context of BEs. After analyzing and synthesizing the literature, this section derives potential areas of future research. First, we discuss the overarching themes visible in the literature body. Second, we identify the specific research questions in the developed ecosystem strategy framework. Third, we highlight the need for additional research methods. 4.1 Future research directions: overarching themes Based on our review of the extant literature, we have identified two overarching opportunities for future research: (i) addressing currently less well-covered elements of our ecosystem strategy framework and (ii) using more differentiated approaches to account for the strategic context in which research is conducted. Our review demonstrates that previous research has strongly focused on ‘between-ecosystem competition’ (FE-5), ‘within-ecosystem competition’ (FE-4), and ecosystem design (FE-3). We identified gaps in the literature related to capabilities required for ecosystem strategy, effective strategies for contributors, and expanding ecosystems beyond their initial domain. The question of ecosystem capabilities becomes more relevant as an increasing number of firms participate in the ecosystem economy. Future research should explore which skills are required to discover and exploit ecosystem 891 1 3 Conceptualization ofresearch themes anddirections inbusiness… opportunities and how incumbent (non-platform) firms can successfully transform into ecosystem players. In this context, strategies for ecosystem contributors should be more deeply investigated since there will be arithmetically more contributors than orchestrators. We know little about the relative attractiveness of orchestrator versus contributor roles and about the different strategic choices that firms have to succeed as contributors to business ecosystems. Finally, as ecosystems mature, they increasingly face the challenge of expanding beyond their initial domain. We need to better understand the strategic options for ecosystem evolution and how ecosystem strategy fits into the broader corporate strategy of diversified firms. Beyond gaps in the coverage of the ecosystem strategy framework, our review showed that prior research largely investigated isolated strategic decisions and strategic tools of ecosystem orchestrators without linking them to specific strategic objectives. Many strategic tools can be applied to different elements of the ecosystem strategy framework but may have different (and perhaps even unwanted) implications. Pricing is a prime example of a strategic tool that ecosystem orchestrators can use to execute their strategic objectives. However, it often remains unclear to what extent the pricing strategy aims to distribute value between ecosystem participants (internal pricing), to attract customers and increase market share vis-à-vis competing platforms (external pricing), or to subsidize one side of the market to foster growth in the early stages of the ecosystem. Similarly, ecosystem governance can be used as a strategic tool to manage the different stakeholders of an ecosystem but also as a source of competitive advantage to attract contributors and users to the ecosystem. While we have provided an overview of these strategic options and tools in the context of the overall ecosystem strategy (Table5, Appendix), future research would benefit from a unanimous use of terminology. This does not require labeling tools differently but calls for a more differentiated and concrete use of terms. Specifically, future research could extend its focus from the immediate impact of using specific strategic tools to include implications within a broader strategic context. The resulting understanding of how different strategic tools are interrelated and how their impact depends on their strategic purpose would increase the granularity in existing research questions and uncover previously unrecognized and potentially necessary connections between research streams. 4.2 Future research directions: specific research questions In the following section, we present specific research questions along our research framework that present significant gaps in the existing literature. We do not claim these to be exhaustive and acknowledge that a wide range of further research could be conducted in the sub-areas of the discussed topics. We are also guided by questions that may arise from a practitioner’s perspective, where an extension to the existing theory may be helpful. Five main directions were identified and translated into specific research questions (Table 1): (1) capabilities, (2) contributor 892 M.J.Krome, U.Pidun 1 3 Table 1 Research questions by direction Research direction Research questions Framework connection (1) Capabilities Which challenges arise during a full shift to an ecosystem/ platform organization? Which challenges arise when incumbents add a platform offering? What are strategic challenges when a business both becomes a platform and also joins another? Which metrics will be indicative for decision-making? Which skill profiles are required for ecosystems and firms turning to ecosystems? Which skills are firms looking for? How do functions have to change when ecosystem strategy changes, e.g., openness? Framework element 2 (2) Contributor competition Which factors guide strategizing as a contributor? How can contributors avoid commoditization of their orchestrator? What are archetypes of contributor strategies? What defense mechanisms can contributors employ against orchestrator entry? How does this differ between powerful/ less powerful orchestrators? How can contributors win competition amongst each other? What role does differentiation play from the viewpoint of a contributor? What role does cooperation play in competition amongst contributors? Can they collectively influence the ecosystem orchestrator? Framework element 4 893 1 3 Conceptualization ofresearch themes anddirections inbusiness… Table 1 (continued) Research direction Research questions Framework connection (3) Between-ecosystem competition How can ecosystems define the best mix of scope, customer value and partner value? How can orchestrators Define the optimal mix of platform participants vs maximizing volume of participants? Set the optimal governance strategy to attract the right complementors? Define their optimal scope given specific contexts? Can either WTA or niche strategies be sustainable in the long term? To what extent do coopetition dynamics impact competitive strategies and require collaboration between competitiors based on overlapping user bases? Framework element 5 (4) Interconnectedness of competition within and between ecosystems How can the process of strategizing look like given that external tools impact internal conditions and vice versa? How can internal and external competition best be balanced? How can the orchestrator find the optimal trade-off when making competitive decisions? How can value capture and value creation be best combined? Could there be alternative tools to incentivize desired behaviour beyond the already known pricing/ subsidization? Connection of framework elements 4 & 5 894 M.J.Krome, U.Pidun 1 3 Table 1 (continued) Research direction Research questions Framework connection (5) Ecosystem expansion Can and/ or should ecosystems be seen from a portfolio view, i.e., should ecosystem engagements become part of corporate portfolio strategy? How can ecosystems effectively expand beyond their domain? How can ecosystems grow without dominating certain markets? How does value creation from mergers and acquisitions between platforms / platform diversification occur? To what degree do these activities differ from those of traditional firms? Framework element 6 895 1 3 Conceptualization ofresearch themes anddirections inbusiness… competition, (3) between-ecosystem competition, (4) interconnectedness of competition within and between ecosystems, and (5) ecosystem expansion. 4.2.1 Research direction (1): capabilities Scholars have found ample evidence of how ecosystems differ from traditional forms of developing strategies (Adner 2017; Cennamo 2019; Cennamo and Santaló 2019) and have underlined that different skillsets (see Sect.3.3) would be required to compete effectively (Teece 2007). However, research has not yet been advanced to specify how these requirements may change, which specific capabilities will be required, and how they can be acquired. This forms a prominent research gap that practitioners have shown a keen interest in (Evans etal. 2021; Greeven and Yu 2020; van Alstyne and Parker 2021). Only a few initial contributions (e.g., Altman and Tushman 2017) have addressed these questions by explaining which organizational challenges may arise due to the manifestation of the ecosystem economy. Specifically, future research should investigate characteristics of an effective ecosystem organization for both orchestrators and contributors, which organizational capabilities correlate with success, and how the organization needs to adapt when ecosystem strategy parameters (such as openness and control) change. Moreover, managing the transition to an ecosystem organization is a crucial challenge for many incumbents. As participants can join ecosystems in different roles, future research could differentiate between firms (a) transforming their core business into a platform offering, and (b) adding an offering while keeping their core business untouched. 4.2.2 Research direction (2): contributor competition In most existing research, contributors have been mainly seen as exogenous factors (e.g., Karle etal. 2020; Kwark etal. 2017) that respond to orchestrator input rather than actively strategizing as autonomous actors. Although some authors have suggested that contributors can act strategically and exert influence, only a few studies have focused their analyses on contributors. Putting an increased focus on the contributor could help us better understand internal ecosystem relations as a strategic interplay and provide vital guidance to the many firms that find themselves in ecosystem contributor roles. Specifically, future research should investigate how a contributor can effectively compete with the orchestrator of its respective ecosystem, build a sustainable competitive position, avoid commoditization by the orchestrator, and minimize the likelihood and negative impact of orchestrator entry into the contributor’s product space. Research should also address how contributors can win against competing contributors in the same ecosystem and explore the dynamics that define competition between contributors, the strategic tools available to differentiate and create a competitive advantage, and the extent to which (changing) orchestrator choices create boundary conditions for this competition. 4.2.3 Research direction (3): between‑ecosystem competition Although presenting the largest body of existing research (see 3.5), the topic of between-ecosystem competition is still developing. The discussion on the shapes of 896 M.J.Krome, U.Pidun 1 3 competitive and WTA dynamics (e.g. Cennamo and Santaló 2013) and the levers ecosystems can pull to create a competitive advantage is ongoing. Future research should take a holistic perspective on active competitive differentiation along the different dimensions of strategic positioning that we identified in the literature (see Sect.3.5). For example, researchers should investigate how a BE can effectively design its customer value proposition to attract the right mix of users corresponding to its offering and balance the conflicting goals of maximizing user numbers and ensuring a high quality of interactions. Similarly, future research should explore which governance strategy leads to a superior partner value proposition, given specific contexts, and how ecosystems can assess and decide on their optimal scope. The different dimensions of strategic positioning have hitherto been studied mainly in isolation, so future research should also analyze their interactions to uncover unavoidable trade-offs and find dominant positioning choices across dimensions. In addition, future research should look more deeply into the coopetitive dynamics of interactions between ecosystems and uncover when and under which circumstances cooperation may occur between competing ecosystems. This is an exciting avenue for exploring highly practical implications for several reasons. For example, under the assumption that contributors participate in multiple ecosystems, the question arises how compatibility between platforms can create value through synergies and network effects between contributors. Similarly, overlapping user bases may make the same consideration relevant for the customer-facing side, and thus require research into the extent to which cooperation may be a superior strategy compared to direct competition between ecosystems. This may be particularly relevant for nested ecosystems. 4.2.4 Research direction (4): interconnectedness ofcompetition withinandbetweenecosystems Existing research has studied competitive strategies within and between ecosystems largely in isolation. However, as we have outlined above (see Sect.4.1), the two strategic fields are strongly interrelated and the same strategic tools that are applied in one context can have spillover effects on the other. Future research should more carefully differentiate between strategic objectives when assessing strategic tools that can be used for internal and external competition. For example, analyses of ecosystem governance need to specify whether strategic actions aim to change the external (partner) value proposition or the internal distribution of authority and decision rights. Similarly, analyses of pricing strategies should clarify whether the immediate goal is to attract (external) user attention or change the (internal) value distribution within the ecosystem. In addition, future research should explicitly investigate the impact of the strategic actions on the other realm of competition. For example, we need to better understand how changes to the pricing strategy for users to compete with another ecosystem will impact value distribution value capture ability within the ecosystem, and how changes to the governance model to better match the need for internal alignment affect the ecosystem’s attractiveness for external partners in competition with other ecosystems. 903 1 3 Conceptualization ofresearch themes anddirections inbusiness… Table 4 Prioritized literature body (n = 108) mapped to framework elements; ordered alphabetically Authors & publication year (1) Why are business ecosystems a relevant strategic topic? (2) Where can I act & how do I engage? (3) How do I design & build an ecosystem? (4) How do I compete within an ecosystem? (5) How do I compete with other ecosystems? (6) How do I evolve my strategy over time? Adner (2017) ∙ ∙ Adner etal. (2020) ∙ ∙ Altman and Tushman (2017) ∙ ∙ Amelio and Jullien (2012) ∙ ∙ ∙ Autio (2022) ∙ ∙ ∙ Bakos and Halaburda (2020) ∙ ∙ Barlow etal. (2019) ∙ ∙ Belleflamme and Peitz (2019) ∙ ∙ Beverungen etal. (2021) ∙ ∙ ∙ Bhargava etal. (2013) ∙ ∙ Bosch-Sijtsema and Bosch (2015) ∙ ∙ ∙ Boudreau (2010) ∙ ∙ ∙ Boudreau (2012) ∙ ∙ Boyer (2020) ∙ ∙ Brunswicker etal. (2019) ∙ ∙ Casadesus-Masanell and Campbell (2019) ∙ ∙ Cennamo (2018) ∙ ∙ 904 M.J.Krome, U.Pidun 1 3 Table 4 (continued) Authors & publication year (1) Why are business ecosystems a relevant strategic topic? (2) Where can I act & how do I engage? (3) How do I design & build an ecosystem? (4) How do I compete within an ecosystem? (5) How do I compete with other ecosystems? (6) How do I evolve my strategy over time? Cennamo (2019) ∙ ∙ Cennamo etal. (2020) ∙ ∙ ∙ Cennamo and Santaló (2013) ∙ ∙ ∙ Cennamo and Santaló (2019) ∙ Cha (2020) ∙ Chellappa and Mukherjee (2021) ∙ Chen etal. (2019) ∙ Chen etal. (2016) ∙ ∙ Chen etal. (2016) ∙ Cozzolino etal. (2021) ∙ ∙ ∙ Cozzolino and Rothaermel (2018) ∙ ∙ Curchod etal. (2020) ∙ ∙ Cutolo etal. (2021) ∙ ∙ Dushnitsky etal. (2022) ∙ ∙ Eisenmann etal. (2006) ∙ ∙ Gawer and Cusumano (2008) ∙ ∙ 905 1 3 Conceptualization ofresearch themes anddirections inbusiness… Table 4 (continued) Authors & publication year (1) Why are business ecosystems a relevant strategic topic? (2) Where can I act & how do I engage? (3) How do I design & build an ecosystem? (4) How do I compete within an ecosystem? (5) How do I compete with other ecosystems? (6) How do I evolve my strategy over time? Gomes etal. (2018) ∙ Gu and Zhu (2021) ∙ Hagiu (2013) ∙ ∙ Hagiu etal. (2020) ∙ ∙ ∙ Hagiu and Spulber (2013) ∙ ∙ Halaburda etal. (2018) ∙ Halaburda and Yehezkel (2016) ∙ ∙ ∙ Hannah and Eisenhardt (2018) ∙ ∙ ∙ Hilbolling etal. (2020) ∙ ∙ Hossain etal. (2011) ∙ Huotari etal. (2017) ∙ Inoue (2019) ∙ ∙ ∙ Jacobides etal. (2018) ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ Jeitschko and Tremblay (2020) ∙ ∙ Jiang etal. (2011) ∙ ∙ Jin and Hurd (2018) ∙ ∙ ∙ Jullien and Sand- Zantman (2021) ∙ 906 M.J.Krome, U.Pidun 1 3 Table 4 (continued) Authors & publication year (1) Why are business ecosystems a relevant strategic topic? (2) Where can I act & how do I engage? (3) How do I design & build an ecosystem? (4) How do I compete within an ecosystem? (5) How do I compete with other ecosystems? (6) How do I evolve my strategy over time? Kamalaldin etal. (2021) ∙ ∙ ∙ Karaer and Erhun (2015) ∙ ∙ Karhu etal. (2020) ∙ ∙ ∙ Karhu etal. (2014) ∙ ∙ ∙ Karhu etal. (2014) ∙ Karhu etal. (2020) ∙ ∙ Karle etal. (2020) ∙ ∙ Kazan etal. (2018) ∙ Kenney and Pon (2011) ∙ ∙ ∙ Khanagha etal. (2022) ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ Kim (2018) ∙ Kretschmer etal. (2022) ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ Kwak etal. (2018) ∙ ∙ Kwark etal. (2017) ∙ ∙ Kyprianou (2018) ∙ ∙ ∙ Li etal. (2019) ∙ Lin etal. (2020) ∙ ∙ ∙ 907 1 3 Conceptualization ofresearch themes anddirections inbusiness… Table 4 (continued) Authors & publication year (1) Why are business ecosystems a relevant strategic topic? (2) Where can I act & how do I engage? (3) How do I design & build an ecosystem? (4) How do I compete within an ecosystem? (5) How do I compete with other ecosystems? (6) How do I evolve my strategy over time? Ravi Mantena and Saha (2012) ∙ ∙ Ravindra Mantena etal. (2010) ∙ ∙ Mantovani and Ruiz- Aliseda (2016) ∙ Masucci etal. (2020) ∙ ∙ ∙ McIntyre etal. (2021a) ∙ ∙ Panico and Cennamo (2020) ∙ ∙ ∙ Pellizzoni etal. (2018) ∙ ∙ ∙ Rietveld etal. (2019) ∙ ∙ Rietveld etal. (2020) ∙ ∙ ∙ Rietveld and Schilling (2021) ∙ ∙ Rochet and Tirole 2003) ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ Rong etal. (2013a, b) ∙ Rong etal. (2020) ∙ ∙ ∙ Rong etal. (2013a, b) ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ Ruutu etal. (2017) ∙ ∙ Saarikko etal. (2019) ∙ ∙ 908 M.J.Krome, U.Pidun 1 3 Table 4 (continued) Authors & publication year (1) Why are business ecosystems a relevant strategic topic? (2) Where can I act & how do I engage? (3) How do I design & build an ecosystem? (4) How do I compete within an ecosystem? (5) How do I compete with other ecosystems? (6) How do I evolve my strategy over time? Seamans and Zhu (2017) ∙ Stallkamp and Schotter (2021) ∙ ∙ ∙ Staykova and Damsgaard (2015) ∙ ∙ Staykova and Damsgaard (2016) ∙ Steur (2018) ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ Stummer etal. (2018) ∙ ∙ Teece (2007) ∙ Thomas etal. (2021) ∙ ∙ Tiwana (2018) ∙ ∙ Tukiainen etal. (2019) ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ Wallbach etal. (2019) ∙ ∙ Wallin (2012) ∙ Walrave etal. (2018) ∙ ∙ ∙ Wareham etal. (2014) ∙ ∙ Zhao etal. (2020) ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ Zhou and Song (2018) ∙ ∙ Zhu and Liu (2018) ∙ Total 22 16 44 55 73 12 909 1 3 Conceptualization ofresearch themes anddirections inbusiness… Table 5 Glossary mapping of terms (I/II) Term FE-1: Why are business ecosystems a relevant strategic topic? FE-2: Where can I act & how do I engage? FE-3: How do I design & build an ecosystem? FE-4: How do I compete within an ecosystem? FE-5: How do I compete with other ecosystems? FE-6: How do I evolve my strategy over time? Bundling Form of subsidization executed through non-monetary incentives (i.e., bundling of products) Form of subsidization executed through non-monetary incentives (i.e., bundling of products) Form of subsidization executed through non-monetary incentives (i.e., bundling of products) Chicken-or-egg Challenge in early stage growth to attract users to ecosystem before network effects kick off Competitive dynamics Description how the rise of ecosystems impacts existing firms competing Discussion of how the competitive logic has changed and how ecosystems compete Coopetition Setting where participants of the same ecosystem collaborate and compete at the same time Setting in betweenecosystem competition where ecosystems may benefit from cooperation (e.g., oneway compatibility) Coring Activities to design an element making it fundamental to a system or market 910 M.J.Krome, U.Pidun 1 3 Table 5 (continued) Term FE-1: Why are business ecosystems a relevant strategic topic? FE-2: Where can I act & how do I engage? FE-3: How do I design & build an ecosystem? FE-4: How do I compete within an ecosystem? FE-5: How do I compete with other ecosystems? FE-6: How do I evolve my strategy over time? Disinter-mediation Discussion of internal control mechanisms (governance) to avoid contributors building direct user relationship Governance Establishment of initial model aimed at allowing easy access for contributors and incentivize participation Activities to distribute value and manage participant behaviour through pricing schemes and control mechanisms/ rules Foundation for partner value proposition ("competing based on governance") to attract relatively more or better contributors compared vis-a-vis competing ecosystem General context of how governance mechanisms (internal & external) change across life cycle stages of ecosystems Multi-homing Discussion of how internal governance is affected by the risk of contributors/ users participating in multiple ecosystems simultaneously Discussion of how possibility of contributors/ users participating in multiple ecosystems simultaneously affects strategic actions vis-a-vis competing ecosystems 911 1 3 Conceptualization ofresearch themes anddirections inbusiness… Table 5 (continued) Term FE-1: Why are business ecosystems a relevant strategic topic? FE-2: Where can I act & how do I engage? FE-3: How do I design & build an ecosystem? FE-4: How do I compete within an ecosystem? FE-5: How do I compete with other ecosystems? FE-6: How do I evolve my strategy over time? Platform exploitation General process of exploiting competitors’ resources to benefit in competition and avoid development costs Platform injection Placing own technology infrastructure inside existing ecosystem to benefit from incumbent platform and resources (e.g., Adobe Flash in Apple iOS) Platform pacing Copying of competitor’s boundary resources to attract complementors and establish oneself as direct competitor of existing platform Pricing Mostly referring to subsidization in early growth stages Pricing scheme to moderate contributor behaviour, but also business model (agency vs wholesale) and basis for incentivizing participation (subsidization) Product pricing towards users to compete based on price vis-a- vis other ecosystems, but also subsidization to gain market share 912 M.J.Krome, U.Pidun 1 3 Table 5 (continued) Term FE-1: Why are business ecosystems a relevant strategic topic? FE-2: Where can I act & how do I engage? FE-3: How do I design & build an ecosystem? FE-4: How do I compete within an ecosystem? FE-5: How do I compete with other ecosystems? FE-6: How do I evolve my strategy over time? Segmentation Process of segmenting customers to focus on core users first in initial growth phase Description how i) platform features can influence consumer behaviour and conversely the way contributors compete, and ii) how orchestrators can segment contributors when deciding which product spaces to occupy themselves Decision on whether to address the mass market or particular segments and whether to offer uniform or individualized value proposition Staging Process of adding functionalities or market exposures in step-wise fashion to limit risks and costs in growth phase Subsidization Subsidization to attract certain participants to ecosystem and kickstart network effect Subsidization of certain participants to keep ecosystem viable and foster innovation of needed innovation Subsidization to gain market share in users or attract relatively better contributors vis-a-vis competing ecosystem 919 1 3 Conceptualization ofresearch themes anddirections inbusiness… Ridder H-G (2017) The theory contribution of case study research designs. Bus Res 10(2):281–305. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40685- 017- 0045-z Rietveld J, Schilling MA (2021) Platform competition: a systematic and interdisciplinary review of the literature. J Manag 47(6):1528–1563. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06320 969791 Rietveld J, Schilling MA, Bellavitis C (2019) Platform strategy: managing ecosystem value through selective promotion of complements. Organ Sci 30(6):1232–1251. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 2019. 1290 Rietveld J, Ploog JN, Nieborg DB (2020) Coevolution of platform dominance and governance strategies: effects on complementor performance outcomes. AMD. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amd. 2019. 0064 Rochet J-C, Tirole J (2003) Platform competition in two-sided markets. J Europ Econ Assoc 1(4):990– 1029. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1162/ 15424 76033 22493 212 Rong Ke, Lin Y, Shi Y, Yu J (2013a) Linking business ecosystem lifecycle with platform strategy: a triple view of technology, application and organisation. Int J Technol Manag 62(1):75–94 Rong Ke, Shi Y, Yu J (2013b) Nurturing business ecosystems to deal with industry uncertainties. Industr Mngmnt Data Syst 113(3):385–402. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 02635 57131 13126 77 Rong Ke, Lin Y, Yu J, Zhang Y (2020) Manufacturing strategies for the ecosystem-based manufacturing system in the context of 3D printing. Int J Prod Res 58(8):2315–2334. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00207 543. 2019. 16274 36 Ruutu S, Casey T, Kotovirta V (2017) Development and competition of digital service platforms: a system dynamics approach. Technol Forecast Soc Change 117:119–130. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2016. 12. 011 Saarikko T, Jonsson K, Burström T (2019) Software platform establishment: effectuation and entrepreneurial awareness. ITP 32(3):579–602. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ITP- 11- 2016- 0285 Seamans R, Zhu F (2017) Repositioning and cost-cutting: the impact of competition on platform strategies. Strateg Sci 2(2):83–99. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ stsc. 2017. 0027 Stallkamp M, Schotter APJ (2021) Platforms without borders? The international strategies of digital platform firms. Global Strateg J 11(1):58–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ gsj. 1336 Staykova KS, Damsgaard J (2015) The race to dominate the mobile payments platform: entry and expansion strategies. Electron Commer Res Appl 14(5):319–330. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. elerap. 2015. 03. 004 Staykova KS, Damsgaard J (2016) Adoption of mobile payment platforms: managing reach and range. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 11(3):65–84. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4067/ S0718- 18762 01600 03000 06 Steur AJ (2018) When a new platform enters a market, what is the impact on incumbents? TIM Rev 8(10):44–53. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22215/ timre view/ 1192 Stummer C, Kundisch D, Decker R (2018) Platform launch strategies. Bus Inf Syst Eng 60(2):167–173. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12599- 018- 0520-x Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strat Mgmt J 28(13):1319–1350. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 640 Teece DJ (2014) A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. J Int Bus Stud 45(1):8–37. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ jibs. 2013. 54 Thomas M, Masson Le, Pascal; Weil, Benoit; Legrand, Julien, (2021) The future of digital platforms: conditions of platform overthrow. Creat Innov Manag 30(1):80–95. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ caim. 12422 Tilson D, Lyytinen K, Sørensen C (2010) Research commentary —digital infrastructures: the missing IS Research Agenda. Inform Syst Res 21(4):748–759. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ isre. 1100. 0318 Tiwana A (2018) Platform synergy: architectural origins and competitive consequences. Inform Syst Res 29(4):829–848. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ isre. 2017. 0739 Tukiainen T, Burström T, Lindell M (2019) The strategies of technology startups within and between business ecosystems. TIM Rev 9(6):25–41. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22215/ timre view/ 1247 van Alstyne MW, Parker G (2021) Digital Transformation Changes How Companies Create Value. In Harvard business review. Available online at https:// hbr. org/ 2021/ 12/ digit altrans forma tionchang eshow- compa niescreate- value. Wallbach S, Coleman K, Elbert R, Benlian A (2019) Multi-sided platform diffusion in competitive B2B networks: inhibiting factors and their impact on network effects. Electron Market 29(4):693–710. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12525- 019- 00382-7 920 M.J.Krome, U.Pidun 1 3 Wallin J (2012) Enhancing competences in business ecosystems. In: Ron Sanchez, Aimé Heene (Eds.): A focused issue on competence perspectives on new industry dynamics, vol. 6: Emerald Group Publishing Limited (Research in Competence-Based Management), pp.83–116. Wareham J, Fox PB, Cano Giner JL (2014) Technology ecosystem governance. Organ Sci 25(4):1195– 1215. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2139/ ssrn. 22016 88 Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. In MIS Quarterly 26 (2), pp.xiii–xxiii. Available online at http:// www. jstor. org/ stable/ 41323 19. Wen W, Zhu F (2019) Threat of platform-owner entry and complementor responses: evidence from the mobile app market. Strat Mgmt J 40(9):1336–1367. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 3031 Walrave B, Talmar M, Podoynitsyna KS, Romme AGL, Verbong GPJ (2018) A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 136:103–113. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2017. 04. 011 Wolfswinkel JF, Furtmueller E, Wilderom CPM (2013) Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. Europ J Inform Syst 22(1):45–55. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ ejis. 2011. 51 Zhou G, Song P (2018) Third-party apps (TPAs) and software platform performance: the moderating role of competitive entry. Inform Manag 55(7):901–911. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. im. 2018. 04. 004 Zhao Y, von Delft S, Morgan-Thomas A,; Buck T (2020) The evolution of platform business models: Exploring competitive battles in the world of platforms. In Long Range Planning 53(4):101892. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lrp. 2019. 101892 Zhu F, Iansiti M (2019) Why Some Platforms Thrive and Others Don’t. In Harvard business review. Available online at https:// hbr. org/ 2019/ 01/ whysome- platf ormsthrive- andothers- dont. Zhu F, Liu Q (2018) Competing with complementors: an empirical look at Amazon. com. Strateg Manag J 39(10):2618–2642. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2932 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.