Developing a new value proposition requires that a set of partners align their interests. The challenge is to define an ecosystem strategy and agree on its constitutive features. Drawing on a “structuralist approach,” we provide insights into the conditions that constrain the alignment of partners. We conducted a longitudinal process study of the ecosystem of mobile contactless services in France that failed to reach alignment among partners. A comprehensive 12-year picture of the ecosystem is created using a double-analytical design that reinforces the accuracy of the analysis. Our results highlight the factors that hinder the alignment of partners and lead to the development of an ecosystem based on a very different blueprint at the expense of its initial contributors. We reveal three sources of nonalignment: an overly ambitious and loosely defined value proposition, a value distribution risk, and inconsistencies in the multiscale institutional context.
AdnerR (2012) The Wide Lens: A New Strategy for Innovation. London: Penguin (2nd edition 2013).
2.
AdnerR (2017) Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management43(1): 39–58.
3.
AdnerR (2021) Winning the Right Game: How to Disrupt, Defend, and Deliver in a Changing World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
AdnerRKapoorR (2010) Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal31(3): 306–333.
5.
AdnerRKapoorR (2016) Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves. Strategic Management Journal37(4): 625–648.
6.
AstleyWGFombrunCJ (1983) Collective strategy: Social ecology of organizational environments. Academy of Management Review8(4): 576–587.
7.
BizziLLangleyA (2012) Studying processes in and around networks. Industrial Marketing Management41(2): 224–234.
8.
BownCP (2020) How the United States marched the semiconductor industry into its trade war with China. East Asian Economic Review24(4): 349–388.
9.
CloutierCRavasiD (2021) Using tables to enhance trustworthiness in qualitative research. Strategic Organization19(1): 113–133.
10.
CusumanoMAGawerAYoffieDB (2019) The Business of Platforms: Strategy in the Age of Digital Competition, Innovation, and Power. New York: Harper Business.
11.
DhanarajCParkheA (2006) Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review31(3): 659–669.
12.
Di MaggioPJPowellW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48: 147–160.
13.
FligsteinN (1990) The Transformation of Corporate Control. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
ForgeSVuK (2020) Forming a 5G strategy for developing countries: A note for policy makers. Telecommunications Policy44(7): 101975.
15.
GawerACusumanoMA (2014) Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management31(3): 417–433.
16.
GawerAPhillipsN (2013) Institutional work as logics shift: The case of Intel’s transformation to platform leader. Organization Studies34(8): 1035–1071.
17.
GreenwoodRSuddabyRHiningsCR (2002) Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal45(1): 58–80.
18.
GriffinLJ (1993) Narrative, event-structure analysis, and causal interpretation in historical sociology. American Journal of Sociology98(5): 1094–1133.
19.
GriffinLJ (2007) Historical sociology, narrative and event-structure analysis: Fifteen years later. Sociologica1(3): 1–17.
20.
HeiseDR (1989) Modeling event structures. Journal of Mathematical Sociology14(2–3): 139–169.
IansitiMLevienR (2004) The Keystone Advantage. What the New Dynamics of Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
23.
JacobidesMGCennamoCGawerA (2018) Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal39(8): 2255–2276.
24.
KapoorR (2018) Ecosystems: Broadening the locus of value creation. Journal of Organization Design7(1): 1–16.
25.
KapoorRAgarwalS (2017) Sustaining superior performance in ecosystems: Evidence from application software developers in the iOS and Android smartphone ecosystems. Organization Science28(3): 531–551.
26.
KretschmerTLeiponenASchillingM, et al. (2022) Platform ecosystems as meta-organizations: Implications for platform strategies. Strategic Management Journal43: 405–424.
27.
LangleyASmallmanCTsoukasH, et al. (2013) Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal56(1): 1–13.
28.
MooreJF (1996) The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Ecosystems. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
29.
MooreJF (2006) Business ecosystems and the view from the firm. The Antitrust Bulletin51(1): 31–75.
OzcanPSantosFM (2015) The market that never was: Turf wars and failed alliances in mobile payments. Strategic Management Journal36(10): 1486–1512.
32.
PrattMGKaplanSWhittingtonR (2020) Editorial essay: The tumult over transparency: Decoupling transparency from replication in establishing trustworthy qualitative research. Administrative Science Quarterly65(1): 1–19.
33.
ShipilovAGawerA (2020) Integrating research on interorganizational networks and ecosystems. Academy of Management Annals14(1): 92–121.
34.
StevensonWZinzowHSridharanS (2003) Using event structure analysis to understand planned social change. International Journal of Qualitative Methods2(2): 43–52.
35.
StevensonWBGreenbergDN (1998) The formal analysis of narratives of organizational change. Journal of Management24(6): 741–762.
36.
SydowJSchreyöggGKochJ (2009) Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review34(4): 689–709.
37.
TeeceDJ (2018) Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Research Policy47(8): 1367–1387.
38.
Van de VenAH (1992) Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic Management Journal13(5): 169–188.
39.
Van de VenAHPooleMS (1995) Methods for studying innovation development in the Minnesota Innovation Research Programme. In: HuberGPVan de VenAH (eds) Longitudinal Field Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 155–185.
40.
WestJWoodD (2013) Evolving an open ecosystem: The rise and fall of the Symbian platform. In: AdnerROxleyJESilvermanBS (eds) Collaboration and Competition in Ecosystems (Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 30). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 27–67.
41.
WoolleyJL (2017) Infrastructure for entrepreneurship. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.33.
42.
WoolleyJL (2021) Processes of emergence and change in industry and ecosystem infrastructure. In: PooleSMVan de VenAH (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 639–670.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
