企业跨界创新中的价值共创研究：基于生态系统视角

王倩; 柳卸林

PDF(499 KB)

科研管理 ›› 2023, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (4) : 11-18.

论文

企业跨界创新中的价值共创研究：基于生态系统视角

王倩，柳卸林

作者信息 +

Research on value co-creation in cross-border innovation of enterprises: A study based on the perspective of ecosystem

Wang Qian, Liu Xielin

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

数字经济的快速发展改变了组织间合作及创新关系，同时组织边界和价值创造方式也相应发生变化，企业通过编排价值活动向其他行业进行扩展和延伸。借助创新生态系统视角，本文通过识别创新生态系统驱动企业跨界创新的关键要素及要素间互动关系，提炼出基于资源异质性、知识溢出性、直接网络效应、间接网络效应以及数字同构能力的五种跨界价值共创微观机制。研究揭示了生态情境下，企业在跨界创新中价值共创形成的内在机理，为中国企业创新发展及数字化转型提供了有益启发。

Abstract

The rapid development of digital technology has changed the relationship of cooperation and competition among organizations, and the organizational boundary and value creation mode has changed accordingly. Enterprises can use the digital platform to coordinate the innovation activities of different participants, so as to expand and extend the value. Cross-border innovation takes the ecosystem as the carrier, and the product or service innovation carried out by hub firms and different participants around the digital platform is a complex value co-creation process with dynamic characteristics. In this ecosystem structure, hub firms actively cooperate with different participants, engage with shaping a new innovation environment and create and capture of cross-border value through governance to internal and external participants of the organization.By reviewing the existing literature, the innovation ecosystem is an important context for firms to break boundaries and create value with multiple participants. It can be regarded as a coordination structure formed by different participants around a complex value proposition, including suppliers, complementors and users. With the entry of participants in different industries, the innovation ecosystem has expanded into a cross-border ecosystem on the interaction between participants and users. This paper describes different types of cross-border innovation models from the two dimensions of activity focus and control focus and summarizes them into four types: hub firm leading, user demand leading, open innovation leading and ecosystem leading. On this basis, assisted by case analysis, this paper summarizes the micro mechanism and process mechanism of cross-border value co-creation driven by resource heterogeneity effect, knowledge spillover effect, direct network effect, indirect network effect and digital isomorphism effect.The paper points out that: (1) It is emphasized that cross-border innovation is a dynamic process rather than a static one, and enterprises need to control and govern different types of cross-border models; (2) The logic of cross-border innovation is the transition process from single innovation activity to multiple innovation activities, and the interdependence between innovation participants is the key source of building a cross-border ecosystem; (3) This paper puts forward the theoretical framework and future research direction of value co-creation process mechanism in cross-border innovation, which has strong theoretical value. In addition, in the context of the digital economy, a large number of participants such as suppliers, complementors, users and even competitors have joined the innovation activities of enterprises, resulting in the cross-border activities of enterprises breaking through a single ecosystem category and emerging a more complex and dynamic ecosystem.Therefore, the mechanism of the formation of value co-creation reveals the new relationship between resource integration in cross-border innovation and provides useful inspiration for firm innovation development and digital transformation.

导出引用

王倩, 柳卸林. 企业跨界创新中的价值共创研究：基于生态系统视角[J]. 科研管理. 2023, 44(4): 11-18

Wang Qian, Liu Xielin. Research on value co-creation in cross-border innovation of enterprises: A study based on the perspective of ecosystem[J]. Science Research Management. 2023, 44(4): 11-18

参考文献

[ ] G20. 二十国集团数字经济发展与合作倡议[EB/OL].(2016-09-20)[2020-09-09].http://www.g20chn.org/hywj/dncgwj/201609/t20160920_3474.html
[ ] Rogers, D. L. The digital transformation playbook: Rethink your business for the digital age[M]. Columbia University Press, 2016.
[ ]柳卸林,孙海鹰,马雪梅.基于创新生态观的科技管理模式[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2015,36(01):18-27.
[ ]柳卸林,高雨辰,丁雪辰.寻找创新驱动发展的新理论思维——基于新熊彼特增长理论的思考[J].管理世界,2017(12):8-19.
[ ] Fitzgerald, Michael, et al. Embracing digital technology: A new strategic imperative[J]. MIT Sloan Management Review, 2014.
[ ] Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2006, 49(4), 797-818.
[ ] Enkel, E., & Gassmann, O. Creative imitation: exploring the case of cross‐industry innovation[J]. R&D Management, 2010, 40(3), 256-270.
[ ] Schumpeter, J. A. Business cycles (Vol. 1, pp. 161-174)[M]. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939.
[ ] Van der Borgh, M., Cloodt, M., & Romme, A. G. L. Value creation by knowledge‐based ecosystems: evidence from a field study[J]. R&D Management, 2012, 42(2), 150-169.
[ ] Hargadon, A. B. Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation[J]. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2002, 24, 41-86.
[ ] Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997, 716-749.
[ ] Hargadon, A., & Fanelli, A. Action and possibility: Reconciling dual perspectives of knowledge in organizations[J]. Organization Science, 2002, 13(3), 290-302.
[ ] Brunswicker, S., Warschat, J., & Hutschek, U. Crossing horizons: Applying analogies to source technologies in the front-end of the innovation processes[C]. In PICMET 2010 Technology Management for Global Economic Growth (pp. 1-8). IEEE, 2010, July.
[ ] Enkel, E., & Gassmann, O. Creative imitation: exploring the case of cross‐industry innovation[J]. R&D Management, 2010, 40(3), 256-270.
[ ] Teece, D. J., & Linden, G. Business models, value capture, and the digital enterprise[J]. Journal of Organization Design, 2017, 6(1), 1-14.
[ ] Von Hippel, E. Open source software projects as user innovation networks[J]. Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, 2005, 267-278.
[ ] Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. The future of open innovation[J]. R&D Management, 2010, 40(3), 213-221.
[ ] Kalogerakis, K., Lüthje, C., & Herstatt, C. Developing innovations based on analogies: experience from design and engineering consultants[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2010, 27(3), 418-436.
[ ] Gassmann, O., & Zeschky, M. Opening up the solution space: the role of analogical thinking for breakthrough product innovation[J]. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2008, 17(2), 97-106.
[ ] Enkel, E., & Mezger, F. Imitation processes and their application for business model innovation: An explorative study[J]. International Journal of Innovation Management, 2013, 17(01), 1340005.
[ ] Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance[J]. Organization science, 2009, 20(4), 685-695.
[ ] de Vasconcelos Gomes, L. A., Facin, A. L. F., Salerno, M. S., & Ikenami, R. K. Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2018, 136, 30-48.
[ ] Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. Towards a theory of ecosystems[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2018, 39(8), 2255-2276.
[ ] Adner, R. Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy[J]. Journal of Management, 2017, 43(1), 39-58.
[ ] Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. Strategy as ecology[J]. Harvard Business Review, 2004, 82(3), 68-78.
[ ] Bogers, M., Zobel, A. K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L., ... & Hagedoorn, J. The open innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis[J]. Industry and Innovation, 2017, 24(1), 8-40.
[ ] Frankort, H. T. Open innovation norms and knowledge transfer in interfirm technology alliances: Evidence from information technology, 1980-1999[J]. Advances in Strategic Management, 2013, 30, 239-282.
[ ] Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context[J]. Research policy, 2014, 43(7), 1097-1108.
[ ] Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J., & Mahajan, A. Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems[J]. Research policy, 2014, 43(7), 1164-1176.
[ ] J?rvi, K., Almpanopoulou, A., & Ritala, P. Organization of knowledge ecosystems: Prefigurative and partial forms[J]. Research Policy, 2018, 47(8), 1523-153
[ ] Li, J. F., & Garnsey, E. Policy-driven ecosystems for new vaccine development[J]. Technovation, 2014, 34(12), 762-772.
[ ] Moore, J. F. Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1993, 71(3), 75-86.
[ ] Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world[J]. Mis Quarterly, 2017, 41(1).
[ ] Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., & S?rensen, C. Research commentary—Digital infrastructures: The missing IS research agenda[J]. Information Systems Research, 2010, 21(4), 748-759.
[ ] Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. A theory of digital objects[M]. First Monday, 2010.
[ ] Hanseth, O., & Lyytinen, K. Design theory for dynamic complexity in information infrastructures: the case of building internet[C]. In Enacting Research Methods in Information Systems (pp. 104-142). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2016.
[ ] Yoo, Y., Boland Jr, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. Organizing for innovation in the digitized world[J]. Organization Science, 2012, 23(5), 1398-1408.
[ ] Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. Research commentary—the new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research[J]. Information Systems Research, 2010, 21(4), 724-735.
[ ] Adner, R. The wide lens: A new strategy for innovation[M]. Penguin UK, 2012.
[ ] Thomas, L. D., Autio, E., & Gann, D. M. Architectural leverage: Putting platforms in context[J]. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2014, 28(2), 198-219.
[ ] Barua, A., Konana, P., Whinston, A. B., & Yin, F. An empirical investigation of net-enabled business value[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2004, 28(4), 585-620.
[ ] Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. Service innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2015, 39(1), 155-176.
[ ] Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution[J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2008, 36(1), 1-10.
[ ] Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing[J]. Journal of Marketing, 2004, 68(1), 1-17.
[ ] Porter, M. E. From competitive advantage to corporate strategy[M]. In Readings in strategic management (pp. 234-255). Palgrave, London, 1989.
[ ] Porter, M. E. Technology and competitive advantage[J]. The Journal of Business Strategy, 1985, 5(3), 60.
[ ] Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2010, 31(3), 306-333.
[ ] Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing[J]. Journal of Marketing, 2004, 68(1), 1-17.
[ ] Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. Virtual customer environments: testing a model of voluntary participation in value co‐creation activities[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2009, 26(4), 388-406.
[ ] Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. Managing the co-creation of value[J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2008, 36(1), 83-96.
[ ] Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. Network externalities, competition, and compatibility[J]. The American Economic Review, 1985, 75(3), 424-440.