Three possible sources of inconsistency in an innovation ecosystem

One of the success factors of an innovation ecosystem is the willingness of its actors to cooperate, which depends on a number of factors. As usual, cooperation needs a common language among the concerned parties and opposite sides, the identification of serious differences of actors might contribute to preparingand managinga collaborative culture. In the present analysis, the authors approach the topic from an operational management perspective and examine the actors of an ecosystem through the elements of a general service management framework model. Based on this, it is possible to point out differences through various factors to determine possible conflict sources. The aim of the study is to show a method for the identification ofpotential points of inconsistency along the four groups of aspects as potential sources of barriers to collaboration. After literature review, the value system, the operational-business phi-losophy, the methods and the objectives of a research and technology center are analyzed. The presented approach can serve as a general method for identifying inconsistencies in innovation ecosystems. The current methodology is based on a two-dimension one-by-one analysis, further research can extend the approach to a multi-player inconsistency evaluation tool.
- Autio, Erkko, & Thomas, Llewellyn D.W. (2014) Innovation Ecosystems: Implications for Innovation Management? The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management, edited by Mark Dodgson, David Gann, and Nelson Phillips, Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 204-288.
- Chesbrough, Henry, Kim, Sabrina, & Alice, Alexandra. (2014). Chez Panisse: Building an Open Innovation Ecosystem. California Management Review, vol. 56, no. 4, 2014, pp. 144-171. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.4.144.
- Duncan, Robert B. (1972). Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 3, 1972.
- Fuchs, Christian. (2002). Concepts of Social Self-Organization. INTAS Project 'Human Strategies in Complexity', Research Paper 4, 2002. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=385185.
- Jucevicius, Giedrius, & Grumadaite, Kristina. (2014). Smart Development of Innovation Ecosystem. 19th International Scientific Conference; Economics and Management, ICEM 2014, 23-25 April 2014, Riga, Latvia.
- Hagiu, Andrei, & Wright, Julian. (2015). Multi-Sided Platforms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, vol. 43, 2015, pp. 162–174.
- Kerr, William R., & Moloney, Emer. (2018). Vodafone: Managing Advanced Technologies and Artificial Intelligence. Harvard Business School, 9-318-109, February 20, 2018.
- Liker, Jeffrey K. (2004). The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer. McGraw-Hill, 2004.
- Mason, Roger B. (2007). The External Environment's Effect on Management and Strategy: A Complexity Theory Approach. Management Decision, vol. 45, 2007, pp. 10-28.
- Murthy, V. K., & Krishnamurthy, E. V. (2003). Entropy and Smart Systems. International Journal of Smart Engineering System Design, vol. 5, 2003, pp. 481-490.
- Powell, Walter W. (2003). Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization. The Sociology of Organizations: Classic, Contemporary and Critical Readings, edited by Michael J. Handel, Sage Publications, 2003, pp. 104-117.
- Teece, David J. (2018). Profiting from Innovation in the Digital Economy: Standards, Complementary Assets, and Business Models in the Wireless World. Research Policy, 2018.
- Toth, Csaba & Háry, Andrea. (2021). Evaluation Method for Actors in an Innovation Ecosystem. Hungarian Quality, vol. XXX, no. 1, 2021, pp. 5-12.
- West, Joel & Wood, David. (2008). Creating and Evolving an Open Innovation Ecosystem: Lessons from Symbian Ltd. SSRN, 2008. Available at SSRN 1532926.
- Xiquin, Liu, Gagliardi, Dimitri, & Miles, Ian. (2018). Innovation in R&D Firms: Evidence from the UK. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2018.