Understanding Business Ecosystems MANAGEMENT … · Understanding Business Ecosystems Understanding...

Und

ers

tand

ing

Bus

ine

ss E

co

syst

em

sSo

uma

ya B

EN L

ETA

IFA

, Ann

e G

RATA

CA

P, T

hie

rry

ISC

KIA

(é

d.)

Understanding Business EcosystemsHow Firms Succeed in the New World of Convergence?

Understanding Business Ecosystems: How Firms Succeed in the New World of Convergence? builds on strategic management and innovation management academic contributions to better understand theoretical and empirical challenges of business ecosystems. Even if the concept of business ecosystem was coined in 1993, it will lie fallow during more than ten years before gaining scholars’ interest. Managers will however recognize the relevance of this concept as it grasps the complexity of their business reality in terms of new collaborative and innovative strategies.

Thus, the main purpose of this book is twofold. On the one hand, the objective is to identify the epistemological and theoretical fundamentals of business ecosystems, and on the other hand, the purpose is to analyse the various managerial challenges. This volume analyses in particular the issues of knowledge management, coopetition strategies, platforms, governance, etc.

Understanding Business Ecosystems: How Firms Succeed in the New World of Convergence? is finally a key reference book that innovates by integrating for the first time well known French speaking scholars’ contributions from the strategy and innovation management fields.

Soumaya Ben LetaiFa is an associate Professor of Strategy at the Management School of Université du Québec à Montréal. Her research and teaching focus on new paradigms in marketing and strategy and on connecting the macro, the mezzo and the

micro levels of business relationships in global and local contexts. More specifically, she explores B2B relationships far beyond the traditional buyer-seller dyad to grasp the complexity of interactions and networks of actors.

Anne GrATAcAp studied at the École Normale Supérieure. She is Professor of strategic management in University of Paris 1 Pantheon – Sorbonne. She co-manages M2 Commercial Strategy and the Negotiation Policy unit. Her research into

corporate strategy concerns the role played by Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the reconfiguration of organizations and corporate strategies.

Thierry ISckIA is full-time Professor of strategic management in Telecom École de Management (Institut Mines-Telecom), Director of the Master in Strategic Management. His research interests are in strategic management, innovation

management and knowledge management. His current research investigates business ecosystems and/or network-centric innovation, knowledge-based inter-organizational collaborations and platform-based innovation management.

We thank the authors who contributed to the writing of this book:Marie Carpenter, nabyla Daidj, Valérie Fautrero, Mickael Géraudel, Gaël Gueguen, Gérard koenig, Denis Lescop, Elena Lescop, Thomas Loilier, Magali Malherbe, Xavier parisot et David Salvetat.

ISBN 978-2-8041-7676-1BUSECO

ISSN 1781-4944 www.deboeck.com

Soumaya BEN LETAIFA, Anne GRATACAP, Thierry ISCKIA (éd.)

M A N A G E M E N T

Understanding Business

EcosystemsHow Firms Succeed in the New World

of Convergence?

Foreword by Yvon Pesqueux

BUSECO-cov.indd 1-3 5/09/13 09:55



of Convergence?

BUSECO-pgtitre.indd 1 5/09/13 09:51

This series follows a dual objective:

• To present complete states of art on contemporary researches themes but also practical, of interest and with international level.

• To bring together authors and readers from various disciplines (eco-nomists, managers, psychologists and sociologists ...) and help them communicate with each others.

Christophe Assens, Le management des réseaux. Tisser du lien social pour le bien-être économique

Rémi Barré, Bastiaan de Laat, Jacques Theys (sous la direction de), Management de la recherche. Enjeux et perspectives

Nicole Barthe, Jean-Jacques Rosé (sous la direction de), RSE. Entre globalisation et développement durable

Emmanuel Bayle, Jean-Claude Dupuis (sous la direction de), Management des entre-prises de l’économie sociale et solidaire. Identités plurielles et spécificités

Maxime Bellego, Patrick Légeron, Hubert Ribéreau-Gayon (sous la direction de), Les risques psychosociaux au travail. Les difficultés des entreprises à mettre en place des actions de prévention

Soumaya Ben Letaifa, Anne Gratacap, Thierry Isckia (Éd.), Understanding Business Ecosystems. How Firms Succeed in the New World of Convergence?

Michelle Bergadaà, Marine Le Gall-Ely, Bertrand Urien (sous la direction de), Don et pratiques caritatives

Jean-Pierre Bouchez, L’économie du savoir. Construction, enjeux et perspectivesDenis Cristol, Catherine Laizé, Miruna Radu Lefebvre (sous la direction de),

Leadership et management. être leader, ça s’apprend !Nathalie Delobbe, Olivier Herrbach, Delphine Lacaze, Karim Mignonac

(sous la direction de), Comportement organisationnel - Vol. 1. Contrat psychologique, émotions au travail, socialisation organisationnelle

Xavier Deroy (sous la direction de), Formes de l'agir stratégiqueMichel Dion (sous la direction de), La criminalité financière. Prévention, gouvernance et

influences culturellesAssâad El Akremi, Sylvie Guerrero, Jean-Pierre Neveu (sous la direction de),

Comportement organisationnel - Vol. 2. Justice organisationnelle, enjeux de carrière et épuisement professionnel

Alain Finet (sous la direction de), Gouvernance d’entreprise. Nouveaux défis financiers et non financiers

Anne Gratacap, Alice Le Flanchec (sous la direction de), La confiance en gestion. Un regard pluridisciplinaire

Denis Guiot, Bertrand Urien (sous la direction de), Comprendre le consommateur âgé. Nouveaux enjeux et perspectives

Alain Maes, Le management intégrateur. Fondements, méthodes et applicationsDenis Monneuse, Le surprésentéisme. Travailler malgré la maladieJean-Jacques Rosé (sous la direction de), Responsabilité sociale de l'entreprise.

Pour un nouveau contrat socialJacques Rojot, Patrice Roussel, Christian Vandenberghe (sous la direction de),

Comportement organisationnel - Vol. 3. Théories des organisations, motivation au travail, engagement organisationnel

Patrice Roussel, Frédéric Wacheux (sous la direction de), Management des ressources humaines. Méthodes de recherche en sciences humaines et sociales

Sylvie Saint-Onge, Victor Haines (sous la direction de), Gestion des performances au travail. Bilan des connaissances

Laurent Taskin et Matthieu de Nanteuil (sous la direction de), Perspectives critiques en management. Pour une gestion citoyenne

Sylvie Trosa, La crise du management public. Comment conduire le changement ?Bénédicte Vidaillet, Véronique d'Estaintot, Philippe Abecassis (sous la direction de),

La décision. Une approche pluridisciplinaire des processus de choixSaïd Yami, Frédéric Le Roy (sous la direction de), Stratégies de coopétition. Rivaliser

et coopérer simultanément






of Convergence?


© De Boeck Supérieur s.a., 2013 1th édition Rue des Minimes 39, B-1000 Bruxelles

All rights reserved for all countries. The reproduction, storage or communication, in any form or on any medium, of all or parts of this book is forbidden unless prior writ-ten consent of the publisher.

Printed in Belgium

National Library, Paris, september 2013 ISSN 1781-4944 Royal Belgian Library, Brussels: 2013/0074/044 ISBN 978-2-8041-7676-1

For further information about our catalogue and new titles in your field, visit our website: www.deboeck.com


Biographies

Soumaya BEN LETAIFA is an associate professor of Strategy at the Management School of Université du Québec À Montréal. Her research and teaching focus on new paradigms in market-ing and strategy (open innovation, coopetition, business eco-systems, service- dominant logic) and on connecting the macro,

the meso and the micro levels of business relationships in global and local contexts. More specifically, she explores B2B relationships far beyond the traditional buyer- seller dyad to grasp the complexity of interactions and networks of actors (includ-ing Governments, citizens, universities and all stakeholders involved in the value co- creation process). She is an expert of ecosystem theory and is regularly invited as a key speaker.

Anne GRATACAP studied at the Ecole Normale Supérieure. She is Professor of strategic management in University of Paris 1 Pantheon — Sorbonne. She co- manages M2 Commercial Strat-egy and the Negotiation Policy unit. Her research into corpo-rate strategy concerns the role played by Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the reconfiguration of organizations and corporate strategies.

Thierry ISCKIA is full- time Professor of strategic management in Telecom Ecole de Management (Institut Mines- Telecom), Direc-tor of the Master in Strategic Management. Before joining Tele-com Ecole de Management, he spent several years at the National Center for Telecommunication Studies (CNET, now Orange Labs) as a researcher in the Department of Economics & Technico-

Economics Research. His research interests are in strategic management, innovation management and knowledge management. His current research investigates business ecosystems and/or network- centric innovation, knowledge- based inter- organizational collaborations and platform- based innovation management.

Xavier PARISOT. After graduating in Human Molecular Genetic in 1995 from the University of Clermont- Ferrand (France), Xavier obtained a MSc in Biological and

203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 5203853TMR_BUSECO_CS4_PC.indd 5 04/09/2013 11:09:5204/09/2013 11:09:52

6 Understanding Business Ecosystems

Medical Engineering in 1996. Between 1997 and 2000, he prepared a transversal PhD in Paleo- biochemistry (Ancient DNA extraction, purification and sequencing) applied to Human population genetic study in insular Melanesia at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris. His research focuses on the development of business eco-systems in the French Bioindustries.

Gerard KŒNIG, PhD, HEC, is full- time Professor of Strategic Management and the Director of the MSc in Management Research of the University of Paris Est. He has authored four books, including Strategic Management — Projects, interactions & contexts. (Dunod, 2004). Currently, he is pursuing a collaborative research on the transformation of the French Military Health Service, which explores strategizing as a mullti- level activity with a special interest on planning and change.

Denis LESCOP is Dean of Research at TELECOM Business School (Institut Mines- TELECOM). His research is focused on new forms of competition (open inno-vation, platforms) as well as creation of efficient methods to identify and analyze it intended to be used by managers and public policies. His focus is mainly on the digital and network industries. His current research object is the phenomenon of “platformatization” of markets and its influence on industrial organization, markets design and market dynamics.

Elena LESCOP is a PhD student at TELECOM Business School (Institut Mines- TELECOM). She works on the impacts of firms on market architecture and studies paltform- based ecosystems. Her current research focusses on the concept of firm/market equivalency and on pricing issues in the mobile gaming sector.

Marie CARPENTER is a strategy Lecturer at Telecom Ecole de Management (Institut Mines- Telecom). She has a PhD of Dublin City University. Her book, La Bataille des Télécoms. Vers une France numérique (The Battle to Build a Digital France), published in 2011, examines the organizational and institutional dynamics that pro-pelled France to the forefront of innovation in the telecommunications sector in the last decades of the 20th century. She is currently researching the impact of financial-ization on the dynamics of innovation in the global telecommunications equipment sector over the past twenty years.

Nabyla DAIDJ is Associate Professor in Strategy at Telecom Ecole de Man-agement (Institut Mines- Telecom). Her teaching and research interests are corporate strategy, inter- organizational relationships (business ecosystems, strategic alliances, networks, keiretsu) and conglomerates’ performance and corporate governance in a context of coopetition. She has published in 2008 a book about cooperation, games theory and strategic management. Currently, she is studying the sources of value creation for ICT groups in a context of convergence.

Thomas LOILIER is full- time Professor of Strategic Management at the Univer-sity of Caen Basse- Normandie. Thomas LOILIER teaches strategy, project management and organization theory. His research at Caen Graduates Business School (Institut d’Administration des Entreprises de Caen) and at the NIMEC Lab (Normandie Inno-vation, Marché, Entreprise, Consommation) focuses on project management and col-laborative innovation.

Magali MALHERBE is Faculty Lecturer at the University of Caen Basse- Normandie, Caen Graduates Business School (Institut d’Administration des Entreprises


7Biographies

de Caen). PhD student, member of the NIMEC Lab, her research focuses on inno-vation management. She is studying the role of experimentations in collaborative innovation in ICT industry.

Valérie FAUTRERO is an Assistant Professor of Management at the Univer-sity of Toulouse 2. She is affiliated at TELECOM ParisTech, and member of the LTCI- ECOGE, Institut Telecom. Her research focuses on the strategic management of ICT, through the analysis of the rolling out of telecommunications infrastructures, the market dynamics and the adoption of ICT.

Gaël GUEGUEN is a Professor of strategy and entrepreneurship at Toulouse Business School. He is in charge of the “Entrepreneurship and growth strategies” track. His work focuses on the dynamics of business ecosystems especially in the field of ICTs.

Mickael GÉRAUDEL is Professor of Strategic Management at Groupe Sup de Co Montpellier Business School. His research focuses on entrepreneurship and SME management, social networks, coopetition and business ecosystem.

David SALVETAT is Professor of Strategy at La Rochelle Business School and is affiliated at CEREGE (IAE de Poitiers). He holds an “Habilitation à Diriger les Recher-ches” (HDR). His research works are related to strategies of firms and information system. His research subjects are related to strategic alliances, competitive intelli-gence, knowledge management and social networks.


BIOGRAPHIES ................................................................................. 5

FOREWORD ................................................................................... 13

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 17

CHAPTER 1CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE BUSINESS ECOSYSTEM ECOLOGICAL METAPHOR ..... 21Xavier Parisot

Introduction ............................................................................... 22

1. Metaphor use in organizational yheorizing ............................... 23

2. The BE ecological metaphor according to James Moore .............. 28

Conclusion .................................................................................. 38

CHAPTER 2A CRITICAL THEORIZATION OF BUSINESS ECOSYSTEMS .............................. 45Xavier Parisot and Thierry Isckia

Introduction ............................................................................... 46

1. Definitions of epistemological reference objects ........................ 47

2. Theorization process .............................................................. 51

3. Business ecosystem: A substantive theory? ............................... 57

Conclusion, contributions and limitations ....................................... 62

CHAPTER 3BUSINESS ECOSYSTEMS REVISITED ......................................................... 69Gérard Koenig

Introduction ............................................................................... 70

1. A critical analysis of Moore’s concept of business ecosystems ..... 70

2. The diversity of business ecosystems: proposal for a typology ...... 74

Table of Contents



3. Shedding light on how actors agree ........................................ 79

Conclusion .................................................................................. 80

CHAPTER 4A METHODOLOGY FOR ECOYSTEM CREATION: HOW ORGANIZATIONS CAN SHIFT FROM SUPPLY CHAINS TO ECOSYSTEMS .................................... 85Soumaya Ben Letaïfa

Introduction ............................................................................... 86

1. Theoretical Framework ........................................................... 87

2. Methodology ......................................................................... 88

3. Results ................................................................................. 89

4. Discussion ............................................................................ 92

Conclusion .................................................................................. 93

CHAPTER 5PLATFORM- BASED ECOSYSTEMS: LEVERAGING NETWORK- CENTRIC INNOVATION ................................................................................. 97Thierry Isckia and Denis Lescop

Introduction ............................................................................... 98

1. Platform- based ecosystems: coordination matters ...................... 98

2. Platform rules: Shaping the battleground ................................. 103

3. Strategizing in platform- based ecosystems ............................... 107

Conclusion .................................................................................. 111

CHAPTER 6PLATFORM- BASED ECOSYSTEM AND FIRM/MARKET EQUIVALENCY: THE CASE OF APPLE IPHONE .............................................................. 119Denis Lescop and Elena Lescop

Introduction ............................................................................... 120

1. Market failure and market creation .......................................... 120

2. Firm/Market equivalency and its determinants .......................... 122

3. Assessment of determinants through interactions ...................... 126

4. Effects of Firm/Market equivalency on industry dynamics: the iPhone Case .................................................................... 128

Concluding comments .................................................................. 131

CHAPITRE 7MINITEL, I- MODE AND IPHONE: THREE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ECOSYSTEMS OVER THREE DECADES .................................................................... 133Marie Carpenter

Introduction ............................................................................... 134


11Table of Contents

1. Minitel: A French precursor to the Internet ............................... 136

2. I-Mode: A Japanese pioneer in mobile Internet ......................... 144

3. I-Phone: A telecommunications ecosystem from outside the telecommunications sector ................................................. 152

Conclusion .................................................................................. 159

CHAPTER 8THE EVOLUTION OF NEW ENTRANTS’ STRATEGIES IN THE MEDIA SECTOR IN A CONTEXT OF CONVERGENCE. THE CASE OF APPLE, GOOGLE AND MICROSOFT ........................................................................... 165Nabyla Daidj

Introduction ............................................................................... 166

1. From inter- organizational networks to business ecosystems ........ 167

2. Analysis and findings ............................................................ 176

Conclusion .................................................................................. 187

CHAPTER 9EXPERIMENTATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ECO- SYSTEMIC COMPETENCIES IN THE FIELD OF CONTACTLESS MOBILE SERVICES ....................................... 193Thomas Loilier and Magali Malherbe

Introduction ............................................................................... 194

1. Conceptual framework ............................................................ 195

2. Empirical analysis: the case of NFC technology ......................... 199

3. Discussion: lessons learned from the case study ........................ 204

Conclusion .................................................................................. 207

CHAPTER 10THE DUAL DOMINANCE OF THE ANDROID BUSINESS ECOSYSTEM ................... 211Valérie Fautrero and Gaël Gueguen

Introduction ............................................................................... 212

1. Business ecosystem and leadership .......................................... 213

2. The Android case study .......................................................... 217

3. Discussion: dual leadership as a source of major conflicts? ........ 224

Conclusion .................................................................................. 227

CHAPTER 11KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND SMES: THE CASE OF ASTRIUM’S BUSINESS ECOSYSTEM .................................................................................. 231Mickaël Géraudel and David Salvetat

Introduction ............................................................................... 232

1. The business ecosystem and the space industry ........................ 233



2. The space industry: A catalyst for learning and knowledge ......... 236

3. Astrium: Differences in relationships within the same business ecosystem ............................................................................ 239

Conclusion .................................................................................. 242

CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 247


Foreword Yvon Pesqueux

Yvon PESQUEUX is Professeur at CNAM (Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers), Head of the Chair « Développement des Systèmes d’Organisation »,

Management, Innovation and Prospective Department

The very concept of business ecosystems refers to a naturalistic metaphor of Darwinian inspiration and this is the basis for the research presented in this book. In order to understand this approach, it is useful to go back to the basics of Lamarckian transmutation1.

Jean- Baptiste de Monet de Lamarck (1744-1829) is often considered the founder of biology. He was a precursor of Charles Darwin in addressing the question of the evolution of the species and investigated what laws determine how living things function on a day- to- day basis and what differentiates them from inanimate objects. Lamarck proposed a genealogical classification of living things, progressing from the simplest species that appearing spontaneously and that generate more and more complex species, up to and including humans. Biology — the science of living things — is an autonomous science that designates the radical difference between living beings and inanimate objects as well as the specific physical laws that regu-late different species. Living things have a particular organization that means that these laws generate life instead of inertia. Philosophie zoologique is a classic book in the history of science as it represents the genesis of the concept of transmutation. In this respect, Lamarck is a reference of note for researchers into business ecosys-tems as his work outlines the evolution of “simpler” systems into more complex ones that are comparable to business ecosystems.

Lamarckian transmutation was followed by Charles Darwin’s evolutionary the-ory and Darwin’s major contribution, The Origin of the Species By Means of Natu-ral Selection, published in 1859, is situated at the crossroads of the natural and social sciences. His work to construct a theory of biology was explicitly inspired by Malthus and his concept of natural selection went on to enrich anthropological and

1 J.- B. Lamarck, Philosophie zoologique, Garnier Flammarion, Paris, 1994



sociological research. His work in the social sciences, however, is based on a differ-ent conception of evolution and is more closely linked to that of Lamarck. Through-out his research, Darwin investigated the origin and evolution of animal species and the key factors that influenced them, yet without ever speaking of human beings. The “revolutionary” nature of such an approach has led some commentators to clas-sify Darwin’s seminal book as one of the most fundamental works of our time.

Until the middle of the 19th century, the notion of inheritance was a purely legal notion concerning the transmission of physical property to descendants. Darwin transposed the concept to the natural sciences to develop the principle of the inher-itance of acquired traits, underlying the importance of such a mechanism in the phe-nomena of evolution.

In the theory of evolution, the rarity of resources means that, in addition to a certain balance among vegetal and animal species, certain mutations appear in each species that enhance the survival chances of certain varieties. This happens slowly and haphazardly in a process of natural selection. Geographic idiosyncrasies also mean that ecological niches may emerge where varieties of certain species are preserved from such selection. It is not a teleological theory and Darwin did not see evolution as having an objective. A given species may be adapted to its envi-ronment at one point in time, only to perish if its environment changes without it having mutated in time to inherit the qualities it needs to survive in the new context. Certain theories of organizational science have sought inspiration from this explanation of the evolution of the species in terms of selection and varia-tion. Charles Darwin sought to explain how immeasurable numbers of species have modified themselves to acquire that “perfection of structure and coadaptation which most justly excites our admiration”1. The concept of business ecosystem relates more closely to the environmentalist aspect of Darwinian thought than that of the the-ory of change underlying his work and conclusions. For naturalists, the only pos-sible causes of variations are external conditions, such as climate or food. Darwin did not agree. In his view of natural selection, the variability that conditioned the existence of every species was confronted in successive generations with two types of change- generating factors. The nature of the organism was the more important of the two, followed by the nature of environmental conditions. It is difficult, however, to determine exactly what role is played respectively by natural selection and external conditions in a process of modification. Darwin posits that heredity is modified by variation and natural selection, by which he means the progressive improvement of the most complex organs and instincts through the accumulation of vast numbers of slight changes, all bringing advantages to the individual organism in which they develop. Natural selection produces neither major nor sudden mod-ifications and can only develop in small, slow steps. The hereditary effects from the use or non- use of parts or organs then provide a powerful support to natural selection. Finally, the direct action of environmental conditions and variations play a significant role by influencing the conformations of adaptation, i.e. how differ-ent parts of an organism are arranged both in the past and in the present. A ques-tion then arises: does the Darwinian theory of evolution enrich our understanding of business ecosystems?

1 C. Darwin, The Origin of the Species, 1859, p. 56.


15Foreword

In asking how this fundamental theory helps us understand business eco-systems, we must firstly be clear that the comparison is only metaphorical. Charles Darwin’s work, however, focused on a part of the living world in which specific aspects of human societies are not represented. These include the creation and use of complex tools and sophisticated languages such as reversible language in which messages are interpreted in different ways depending on the level of awareness of the facts. Darwin’s work has nonetheless been used as an analytical framework for research on human societies whose foundations are largely based on such charac-teristics as these and who are, therefore, quite distinct from Darwinian interpreta-tion schemes. Powerful affective projections of Darwin’s work on animals have thus been made to analyze societal phenomena giving birth to Social- Darwinism. This ide-ological movement integrates his finalist attitude, having transformed it into tele-ology, in which the survival of the fittest and their dominance are central beliefs. Although Social- Darwinism does not adhere completely to Darwin’s theory; it does share with it the notion that all forms of social reflection are grounded in categories of natural selection. Social- Darwinism is an ideological transposition of the conclu-sions of Darwin’s work to the human societies, assuming that human characteristics are completely determined at conception by hereditary factors passed from parent to offspring during reproduction. This ideology is deeply rooted in a vision of “moral winners” that promotes a racially- based social order and distinguishes, for exam-ple, between the dominant and the dominated. Lamarck’s conception of the evolu-tion of the species is that what should be studied are the simplest life forms as this is where life appears in its most “naked” form. The need to go back to life in its simplest form is illustrative of transformism’s desire to have biology adhere to the laws of physics. By focusing on simple entities, we can more easily understand the organization of living things in physical terms. We can also portray a purely phys-ical process of growing complexity and establish hereditary links from complex liv-ing beings to simpler ones which, in turn, brings us back to the laws of physics. It is this crucial question that differentiates Lamarckian theory from that of Darwin, which was focused on the question of adaptation and natural selection. For Lamarck, the transformation of species and the adaptation to the external environment have the same driving force — a tendency towards greater complexity. For Darwin, who was opposed the concept of a tendency towards greater complexity, it is the neces-sity for adaptation (passive rather than active) that drives the transformation of spe-cies. This duality often implicitly underlies the theories of organizational change. For this reason, it is important to recall the parameters of the original theoretical approaches, enabling readers to capture the mechanisms that underly the metaphor when studying business ecosystems.

Yvon Pesqueux e-mail : [email protected]


Introduction

The purpose of this book is to consolidate the current fragmented literature on business ecosystems and to provide an up- to- date reflection on current theoreti-cal and managerial ecosystemic issues. The idea of this project emerged and evolved thanks to three annual roundtables on ecosystems, respectively at AIMS (Interna-tional Association of Strategic Management) in 2010 and 2012, and at ASAC (Admin-istrative Sciences Association of Canada Conference) in 2011. The goal of this work is to develop an integrative synthesis of the various issues identified in the course of these academic events.

The first roundtable raised questions of the theoretical coherence and rele-vance of business ecosystems by identifying the limits of the biological metaphor and by recognizing the contributions of the work achieved on platforms, innovation, and coopetition, while the 2011 symposium addressed the positioning of business ecosystems with respect to other concepts, focusing on the practices of deciders in Quebecois and French ecosystems. In the last roundtable, in 2012 (AIMS 2012), the committees of these two events wished to contrast their complementary research in order to achieve a better apprehension and understanding of the business eco-system phenomenon. The success of these roundtables and the growing interest of researchers and practitioners convinced the event organizers of the importance of producing a book of current findings that brings together senior business eco-system researchers for a better understanding of ecosystem management. This book was thus born spontaneously out of the recognition that documentation pertain-ing to business ecosystems needed to be updated and consolidated to foster fur-ther advancement of education, research, and management. Various BE experts were invited to collaborate and co- innovate in order to share their expertise in this work. This book is organized in two parts (one conceptual and the other empirical), each just as important as the other.

The first and more conceptual part lays the groundwork on a theoretical, epis-temological, and methodological level. In the first chapter, Xavier Parisot discusses the epistemological fundamentals of the ecosystemic metaphor and opens up the debate on the relevance of using metaphors in general to advance organizational



theories and strategic management. The second and third chapters build on the first to suggest some critical perspectives on ecosystems. In the second chapter Xavier Parisot and Thierry Isckia extend the analysis of business ecosystems and question the relevance of business ecosystems as an analytical framework for stra-tegic management. This second chapter provides an opportunity to enter the the-orizing process underlying Moore’s reasoning. The third chapter written by Gérard Koenig underlines the multifaceted character of business ecosystems and demon-strates that its efforts to define business ecosystems led to contradictions. In order to circumvent these contradictions this chapter distinguishes various types of busi-ness ecosystems arguing that there is not one type of business ecosystem, but sev-eral. The typology elaborated by Gérard Koenig in chapter 3 brings our attention to business ecosystems whose composition is more heterogeneous advocating that the study of these organizational structures should use theories that may shed light on the way in which actors come to agreement. The fourth chapter adopts an organiza-tional perspective stating that most studies on business ecosystems focus on inter- organizational levels without paying attention to prerequisite intra- organizational processes that allow organizations to open up to their network of customers, part-ners, and competitors. In this chapter Soumaya Ben Letaïfa identifies the critical steps needed to build a sustainable keystone position in business ecosystems, illus-trating how some large organizations succeeded in shifting from supply chains to business ecosystems.

In chapter five Isckia & Lescop provide a comprehensive view of platform- based ecosystem, architecture and governance, illustrating the range of the techno-logical, organizational and strategic challenges that platform leaders have to face in order to leverage network- centric innovation. Lescop & Lescop extend this anal-ysis in chapter 6 arguing that firms leveraging platforms do not only facilitate mar-ket activity by providing participants with basic resources, but also play an active role in the regulation of all of its creation’s activities. This chapter addresses reg-ulatory issues and explores the phenomenon of concurrent double function of firm: market creation and market support through the concept of firm/market equivalency.

The second part of this book bring together fives original case studies that further illustrate various dimensions of business ecosystems. In chapter seven, Marie Carpenter provides a retrospective analysis of three platform- based ecosystems in order to identify key success factors in various phases of the platforms’ develop-ment. A comparative analysis of the emergence of these three ecosystems highlights the pioneering role played by the keystone organization in each case: the French telecommunications administration, NTT Docomo and Apple. In her analysis, Marie Carpenter outlines the motivations, competencies and choices of the focal players in the development phase of each of the three platform- based ecosystems. In chap-ter eight Nabyla Daidj explores inter- organizational relationships in business eco-systems and analyzes the degree of coopetitive links within and outside specific networks. This case study provides an in- depth analysis of how large firms such as Apple, Google and Microsoft develop coopetitive strategies in the context of busi-ness ecosystems. As for chapter nine written by Thomas Loilier and Magali Malherbe, it focuses on the network level of analysis to highlight the role of experimentation and ecosystemic competencies in the emergence of business ecosystem. The find-ings outlined in this chapter allow for a better understanding of the question of


19Introduction

coordination and governance. In chapter ten, Gael Gueguen and Valérie Fautréro complement these results by analyzing the role of leadership in platform- based eco-systems. The authors postulate that the ecosystem’s success depends on the strategy of its leader, particularly when the business ecosystem is based on pervasive techno-logical platforms. This case study sheds light on leadership mechanisms underlying their role in business ecosystems development. In chapter eleven, Mickael Géraudel and David Salvetat further explore the micro processes of knowledge management and organizational learning providing a better understanding of how new relation-ships impact business ecosystem expansion and how knowledge exchange relation-ships transform ecosystems and firms.

This book offers an opportunity to better understand the emergence and development of business ecosystems and related issues. A far as we know, this col-lective work is the first attempt to synthesize knowledge in the field of business ecosystems. We hope that it will provide useful insights for researchers and stu-dents and serve as a basis for fruitful exchanges among academics. At the end of this exciting journey, we would like once again to express our gratitude to all the authors who have joined us in this very rewarding adventure. A special thought goes to our colleague Mary Carpenter for her availability, her kindness, and for the time she has devoted to the revision of this book. We would also like to thank Professor Yvon Pesqueux for writing such a stimulating foreword while attending an interna-tional conference in Brazil.

Soumaya Ben Letaïfa and Thierry Isckia


[Keywords: Business Ecosystem, Metaphor, Analogy, Paradigm, Epistemology]

Contents

Introduction 22

1 Metaphor use in organization theorizing 23

2 The BE ecological metaphor according to James Moore 28

Conclusion 38

Chapter 1

Critical Perspectives On the Business Ecosystem

Ecological MetaphorXavier Parisot


Critical Perspectives On the Business Ecosystem Ecological Metaphor22

Introduction

Metaphor is commonly used in organizational sciences to explain concepts and theories (Cornelissen, 2005). In this context, ideas, concepts and even theo-ries are often imported from other scientific fields (Inns, 2002; Oswick et al., 2002) and it is as these elements are being transferred from one discipline to another that the metaphorical process is applied. Because this importation may transform the meaning of the objects involved, it poses some problems (Gerring, 1999). Indeed, in the absence of a uniform methodology of metaphor, this transfer may take var-ious forms and lead to variable results, which generate significant debates about their relev;ance. If there were no question of metaphor, these transfers would have quickly been invalidated because they generate epistemological biases. Yet, despite its fragility, metaphor is inevitable and essential because it provides an understand-ing whose scope implies its acceptance (Morgan, 1980).

As a result, in order to overcome the difficulties generated by the use of met-aphor in organizational theorization, a new field of study emerged in the 1980s (Mor-gan, 1980) that has continued to develop (Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010). Researchers in this field analyze in particular the role of metaphor in the theorization of organiza-tions (Tsoukas, 1991; Indurkhya 1991; Cornelissen, 2005; Kafouros & Cornelissen, 2008).

BE conceptualization exploits a biological metaphor (Moore, 1993, 1996) and therefore involves the field of biology. When James Moore (1993) presented the BE for the first time in his 1993 article, “Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Compe-tition,” he borrowed the notion of ecosystem defined by Tansley (1935) for ecology and applied it to the business environment. What Moore calls an ecological meta-phor relies primarily on “on- the- ground accounts” (Moore, 1996, p. 17) and his dis-cussions with ecologists studying the ecosystem concept in biology (Moore, 1996).

The transfer of the needed objects from ecology did not exploit the results of metaphor use in the theorizing of organizations that was occurring contemporaneously (Morgan, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988a, 1988b, 1989; Tsoukas, 1991, 1993; Indurkhya, 1991). In the wake of Moore’s reflections, other authors proposed several definitions (Torres- Blay, 2000; Iansiti & Levien, 2004a, 2004b; Gueguen et al., 2004, 2006, Teece, 2007; Pierce, 2009), none of which have so far led to consensus (Gueguen & Passebois- Ducros, 2011). Several complementary theoretical foundations (Guegen & Torres, 2004; Pellegrin- Boucher & Gueguen, 2005; Teece, 2007; Pierce, 2009) have also been considered, but again, their relevance is debatable. The question of limits of the BE metaphor has also been studied, notably by French- speaking authors (Maitre & Aladjidi, 1999; Torres Blay & Gueguen, 2003; Isckia, 2010; Daidj, 2011). However, the authors’willingness to find a strict correspondence between the elements structuring biological ecosystems and those structuring business ecosystems shows a lack of consideration of the metaphorical proc-ess effectively used by Moore. In this context, most of the objects chosen to specify the BE’s theoretical limits (such as reproduction, time scale, territory and intentionality) do not correspond to the categorical referents that Moore exploited (such as interdepend-ence, loosely coupled systems, coevolution and community).

To assess the relevance of the BE notion by specifying its defining traits and the limits of its application, one should, as Ricoeur (1975) suggested, return to its origin and the logic of its development. Only the identification of sources and the


Metaphor use in organization theorizing 23

metaphorical process chosen by Moore provides a basis for an adapted epistemolog-ical analysis of the BE’s limits that takes into account the nature of transpositions actually made. To that end, our theoretical study specifies the nature of the objects imported by Moore, as well as the source paradigms that he exploited in ecology. The nature of the metaphorical process is then studied under the two dominant models of metaphor developed to study the theorization of organizations: Tsoukas’s (1991) transformational model and Cornelissen’s (2005) domains- interaction model.

Analysis of the metaphorical transposition process applied by Moore reveals that 1) the source objects are taken from three different paradigms in ecology, 2) not all objects defining the notion of ecosystem in the various paradigms in ecol-ogy are exploited, 3) therefore, the logical structure linking these objects together is not transposed, and 4) the metaphorical meaning of objects in the target domain is clearly distinct from their literal meaning in the source domain. These results dem-onstrate that Moore is not looking for a paradigmatic identity by comparison as pro-posed by Tsoukas (1991). They also prohibit the establishment of an analogy such as the one that Tsoukas suggested (1991). It appears that Moore, rather, takes an interactional approach because he brings out his notion as a result of interactions between different paradigms – which is consistent with the domains- interaction model proposed by Cornelissen (2005).

Consequently, any analysis of the limits of the BE biological metaphor must take into account 1) the nature of the objects actually transposed by Moore, which constitute the defining parameters, 2) the metaphorical meaning of these param-eters as defined by Moore and not the literal meaning of objects in the source domains. However, the works analyzing these limits (Master & Aladjidi 1999; Harte, 2001; Torres, Blay & Gueguen, 2003; Fréry, 2010; Isckia, 2010; Daidj, 2011) explore objects that are not, in the majority of cases, the categorical referents that Moore exploited. In the absence of an analogy or of an identity in Tsoukas’s (1991) sense, only the categorical referents selected by Moore can be considered, and this can be done only by taking into account the metaphorical meaning that he assigned them.

This study shows that specific inference logics are associated with each model of metaphorical theorization – and each inference logic induces a particular theoriza-tion process. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the inference logic involved in BE theorization in order to specify James Moore’s epistemological posture. Indeed this perspective affects the establishment of the definitional parameters and the defini-tion of the BE. Finally, it provides information on the stance to be taken in order to establish the BE’s epistemological limits.

1. Metaphor use in organization theorizingIn recent decades, research on the development of figurative language (Winner,

1995) and cognitive psychology (Gentner, 1981) has shifted the status of metaphor from mere figure of speech to main or even sole mode of cognition (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). This research has implications in all areas of science (Gentner, 1982). Notably, it explains how theories are built through the use of metaphors and analogies that induce or exploit similarities among different scientific fields (Indurkhya, 1991). These studies also indicate differences among metaphor, comparison, analogy and similarity.



1.1 METAPHOR, ANALOGY AND COMPARISON

Beyond the definitions, the cognitive processes underlying comparative, ana-logical and metaphorical transpositions are the same. They all involve a “structural alignment, inference projection, a progressive abstraction and re- representation” (Gentner et al., 2001). What distinguishes these phenomena is the nature of what is being transposed (Tsoukas, 1991).

In Gentner’s (1982) view, “Metaphors are based on an underlying similarity between the source – also referred to as the vehicle or the secondary domain – and the target – also referred to as the topic or the primary domain” (p. 107). Nev-ertheless, the existence of similarities generating the relationship between source and target is not a hard- and- fast rule (Indurkhya, 1991). In some cases, there are no pre- existing similarities between the source and the target, and it is the meta-phor itself that generates them (Black, 1979; Schön, 1979; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). This ability to link source and target in the absence of any pre- established similari-ties clearly distinguishes metaphor from comparison and analogy (Indurkhya, 1991).

Indeed, in both comparison and analogy, the similarities between source and target are the starting point for transposition. Comparison and analogy therefore merely explain existing similarities. However, although both comparison and anal-ogy transpose objects from one domain to another, analogy also transposes all or part of the logical structure – that is, the logical connections between the mean-ings of objects in the same domain (Tsoukas, 1991). That is why analogy is consid-ered an operationalization of metaphor (Bunge, 1973; Sanford, 1987; Vosniadou & Ortony, 1989). Thus, in the view of Simpson and Weiner (1989), analogy is “a name for the fact that the relation borne to any object some attribute or circumstance corresponds to the relation existing between another object and some attribute or circumstance pertaining to it” (p. 432).

Exporting results from cognitive sciences to organizational theories provides an interpretive framework for the many metaphors that the latter uses from areas as distant as ecology (Moore, 1993), neurology (Garud & Kotha, 1994) human ecol-ogy (Hannan & Freeman, 1977), evolutionary theories (Nelson & Winter, 1982), mil-itary strategy (Le Roy, 1997, 1999, 2001), chaos theory (Thietart & Forgues, 1995), jazz (e.g., Zack, 2000), organizational identity (Gioia et al., 2000) and organizational spirit (Weick & Roberts, 1993). But despite this new framework, the role of metaphors in theorizing remains a controversial and significant issue in organizational sciences.

1.2 TOWARD A METHODOLOGY OF METAPHOR IN ORGANIZATIONAL SCIENCES

In a constructivist perspective, Morgan (1980, 1983, 1986, 1988a, 1988b, 1989) argues that metaphor promotes the emergence of different angles of reflec-tion that help explain complex organizational phenomena. On the contrary, Pinder and Bourgeois (1982, 1983) suggest that organizational theories must be developed without any metaphor and recommend that independently existing phenomena be taken into account. They argue that the vagueness and low conceptual content of metaphors make them inadequate for the development of formal organizational the-ories. These two approaches share the common assumption that literal speech and figurative speech are mutually exclusive. However, in the former view, the use of



metaphor is encouraged, whereas in the latter, it is not recommended. Moreover, neither of these perspectives has a clear methodology for the use of metaphor in organizational sciences.

1.3 THE COMPARISON MODEL IN ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY

Tsoukas (1991) tries to reconcile these contradictions by developing a trans-formational vision of metaphor. In his view, the meaning of a metaphor evolves with the degree of assimilation into literal language. Thus, a metaphor starts out being “live” (Ricoeur, 1975): the metaphorical meaning is still distinguished from the lit-eral meaning. Then, after assimilation and recurring use, the metaphorical sense is gradually forgotten and makes way for a new meaning, which has become literal. The metaphor as such is then dead: “The original sentence meaning is bypassed and the sentence acquires a new literal meaning identical with the former metaphori-cal utterance meaning” (Searle, 1979, p. 122). To clarify the mechanisms leading to the transformation of a live metaphor to a dead metaphor in the theorizing proc-ess, Tsoukas (1991) proposes an analysis based on Beer’s (1984) scientific modeling methodology, consisting of three levels:

1. Live metaphors transpose objects from the source domain to the target domain.

2. The transition to analogy makes it possible to transpose the same objects but also the logical structure linking these objects.

3. The transition to identity implies that the transposition of objects and their logical structure is based on a complete concordance between the source and the target. If the match seems perfect from a theoretical point of view, it must be veri-fied empirically.

It is therefore possible to increase the accuracy of a transposition by going from metaphor to analogy – that is, by associating the transfer of objects from the source domain to the target domain with the logical structure that links them. However, this operation is insufficient to allow us to conclude the extent to which the categorical referents of the source were captured by the target ( Tsoukas, 1991). Empirical identity between the source and target is the final stage of transposition.

Like his predecessors (Morgan, 1980; Gentner, 1982; Tinker, 1986), Tsoukas (1991) developed a comparative view of metaphor that aims to identify similari-ties between the source and the target through a process of deductive inference at each level of reasoning. This analysis is complemented by Oswick et al. (2002), who point out that a deductive inference process focuses on the similarities or overlaps between the source and the target and removes the dissimilarities. Therefore, the comparison model highlights correlations – that is, almost exclusively pre- existing knowledge of similarities (Cornelissen, 2005). Thus, in the perspective developed by Tsoukas (1991) on the use of metaphor in theorizing, the question is no longer the extent to which the objects and structures of the source can be transferred to the target, but how source and target can be conceptualized to reveal the deep corre-lation of their identities: “In other words, how can the invariance between X and Y be discovered?” (Tsoukas, 1991, p. 573).



The transformation of metaphorical ideas into concepts, then into a scientific model, is enacted through a reflection favoring back- and- forth movement between source objects and target objects (Tsoukas, 1991). In short, the comparative model is based on the transposition of the similarities existing between the source and tar-get domains. It specifies what objects and logical structures are taken into account in the source domain and transposed into the target domain. On this basis, three degrees of transposition are distinguished: metaphor, analogy and identity. Trans-formational vision helps reasoning go from the stage of comparative deduction to that of induction, including back- and- forth movement between the source and tar-get domains, which may lead, if necessary, to a reconceptualization of the source and target objects until an identity is obtained.

1.4 THE DOMAINS- INTERACTIONAL MODEL

Despite this progress, the comparison model has some limitations that warranted the subsequent emergence of another model of metaphor in theorizing of organizations. In fact, in most cases, it is the metaphor itself that generates similarity between the source domain and the target domain where there was none before (Indurkhya 1991): “Metaphors generate inferences beyond the similarities required for their comprehension” (Cornelissen, 2005, p. 754). However, because the comparison model works by deduc-tive inference, all other things being equal, it does not include all of the basic mecha-nisms involved in the production and understanding of metaphors.

Moreover, Tourangeau and Rips (1991) show that the context is also involved in determining the nature of the transposition activated by a specific metaphor. Out-side of this context, the nature of the transposition cannot be anticipated. In addi-tion, they suggest the existence of a mechanism that allows the recipient of the metaphor to assign properties to it that do not result from a process of deductive inference between the source and the target.

Based on these findings, Cornelissen (2005) proposes an alternative model built on Black’s (1962, 1979) work on the interactional nature of the metaphori-cal process. This model underlines the fact that the characteristics of the source can rarely be applied directly to the target, as the similarities shared by the two domains are often only metaphorical. The identity approach developed by Tsoukas (1991) is therefore valid only in very rare cases. Black (1962) also contends that a connection between the characteristics of the components of source and target is insufficient because metaphors imply that complete semantic domains are assembled by examining all the similarities and differences between the correlated areas. Cor-nelissen (2005) uses some results from cognitive psychology (Gentner, 1983; Fau-connier & Turner, 1998) to demonstrate the existence of similar inherent structures between correlated domains. In metaphors, the objects of source and target domains have equivalent structural positions and similar characteristics in their respective representations. This finding is related to the phenomenon that when a metaphor is implemented, higher- order cognitive schemas are activated in source and target domains. A higher- order cognitive schema governs the assembly of semantic objects in a single field, such as ecology or organizational theory. It constitutes a net-work connecting objects associated with the same theme; for instance, the seman-tic field of ecology includes objects such as biotope (habitat), biocenosis (biotic



community), population and environment. Once higher- order cognitive schemas have been activated, they guide all subsequent treatments connected to a specific met-aphor. For every theory or concept there is a representation included in a higher- order cognitive schema. Because each schema represents a specific network, the nature of the projection made from the source schema to the corresponding target schema (Gentner, 1983) is influenced by their specific cross- links. The metaphori-cal process therefore takes structural connections into account – the circumstances and the nature of the existing structures in each area – when establishing each new relationship between two domains. Not only is a correspondence established between the source and target domains, but a new metaphorical space is created that feeds on a back- and- forth process between two higher- order cognitive schemas. In this space, a new meaning is assigned to transposed objects, making it possi-ble to establish correspondences between the source and the target where appar-ently there was none to begin with. When all the stages of the cognitive process of the metaphor are integrated, it appears that they exceed those of the analogy process by deductive inference because they can move from abduction to deduction and from deduction to induction. It is this phenomenon that, according to Cornelis-sen (2005), makes metaphor a more powerful cognitive process than analogy. His domains- interaction model falls into three main steps:

1. Development of a generic structure: “First, on encountering a metaphor, its terms are encoded, the relevant domains are inferred, the structures to be seen as paral-lel are found, and the correspondences between these structures are mapped. These cognitive activities correspond to the first phase of metaphor comprehension, which I label here the development of a generic structure.” (Cornelissen, 2005, p. 758).

2. Development and elaboration of the blend: “After a generic structure is constructed, further instance- specific information is transferred from the target and source concepts and is elaborated upon. This process of blending composes ele-ments from the target and source concepts, and, furthermore, leads the comprehen-der (i.e., the theorist) to complete and elaborate on the composition made. I term this second phase of metaphor comprehension the development and elaboration of the blend.” (Cornelissen, 2005, p. 758).

3. Emergent meaning: “Then, finally, the meaning (ideas and conjectures) that emerges from the blend is linked and translated back to the input target concept. There is new meaning in the blend that is not simply a composition of meanings that can be found in either the target or source concepts. Nonetheless, as mentio-ned, such blended meaning can be referred back to them. I therefore label the final phase of metaphor the emergent meaning, which is linked back to the input tar-get and source concepts and, in particular, forces us to see a target subject such as organization in a new light.” (Cornelissen, 2005, p. 758).

In short, the metaphorical and analogical processes are two different sys-tems of analysis from a cognitive point of view. The information- processing stages are respectively specific and do not lead to the same results. Analogy proceeds by deductive inference. It is based on the similarities and dissimilarities between the objects of source and target domains and translates them in terms of similarities of meaning and logical structure. Metaphor, on the other hand, generates a new space in which interaction between the source and target domains develops on the basis



of the meaning of the metaphorical objects. This interaction can then generate sim-ilarities between objects of source and target domains where initially they did not appear. Metaphor is therefore a creative process involving abduction, deduction and induction, whereas analogy is a comparative process based primarily on a process of deductive inference and inductive connection.

2. The BE ecological metaphor according to James Moore

When one returns to the logic behind the development of the BE concept, it is easy to determine the nature of James Moore’s metaphor from the point of view of the two models presented. Indeed, in the comparison approach, the process of deductive inference by comparing two fields implies the existence of a single source, whereas in the interactional approach, several source paradigms can be correlated to cause a metaphor to emerge.

2.1 BIBLIOGRAPHIC SOURCES USED BY JAMES MOORE

In his 1996 book The Death of Competition, Moore bases the construction of his metaphor on references culled from various domains. Ecology is obviously very present, drawn from the publications of a number of authors (Janzen, 1983; Wilson, 1990, 1992; Wetterer, 1994), some of whom are not scientists ( Abercrombie, 1992; Royte, 1995; Heacox, 1995). In this framework, Moore does not hesitate to use par-adigms presenting different visions of the notion of ecosystem in ecology, as he cites not only evolutionary ecologists such as Daniel Hunt Janzen (1983) and James Wetterer (1994), but also Edward Osborne Wilson – an entomologist who studies sociobiology and biodiversity in ants ( Wilson, 1990) – by exploiting the paradigm of community ecology (Wilson, 1992), and Henry Lowe – who upholds the ecology of ecosystems and communities (Howe & Westley, 1988).

Complex systems theory is also an important source of inspiration for Moore, who often refers to the works of Gregory Bateson (1972, 1979) in order to illustrate the notions of coevolution (Moore, 1996, p. 11) and coopetition (Moore, 1996, p. 12) or to demonstrate the importance of collective representations (Moore, 1996, p. 19). However, when Moore specifies the construction stages of his ecological met-aphor (Moore, 1996, chapter 2), he quotes only works by biologists, naturalists and ecologists. In the 1990s, three paradigms defining the notion of ecosystem coex-isted: community ecology, ecosystems ecology and evolutionary ecology. Although each paradigm relies on specific objects, some of these objects are shared by two or three paradigms. The notions of biotope (habitat), biocenosis (biotic community) and population, for example, are common elements whose literal meaning remains constant from one theory to another. However, certain objects, although they are present in several paradigms, do not present the same meaning because their par-adigmatic context causes them to rest on different premises. As a result, before conducting a correlation analysis between the literal and metaphorical meanings of objects transposed by Moore, the precise meaning of these objects in their source paradigms must be specified.


The BE ecological metaphor according to James Moore 29

2.2 DEFINITION AND DEFINITIONAL PARAMETERS

In 1996, Moore defined the BE as “an economic community supported by a foundation of interacting organizations and individuals – the organisms of the busi-ness world. This economic community produces goods and services of value to cus-tomers, who are themselves members of the ecosystem. The member organisms also include suppliers, lead producers, competitors, and other stakeholders. Over time, they co- evolve their capabilities and roles, and tend to align themselves with the directions set by one or more central companies. Those companies holding leader-ship roles may change over time, but the function of ecosystem leader is valued by the community because it enables members to move toward shared visions to align their investments, and to find mutually supportive roles” (Moore, 1996, p. 26). He then presented the BE as an alternative to competitive strategies. In his view, the BE provides a new framework for analysis, including cooperation logic, which was then thriving in the business world.

Moore (1993) also provides a first description of the stages of the BE life-cycle based on the tension between cooperative and competitive issues. In this context, he emphasizes the role of the leader (keystone organization) within the BE and defines the challenges that it faces at each stage of the lifecycle. This first approach integrates the logics of cooperative and collective action that characterize new modes of interaction among organizations in a wider envi-ronment (Nalebuff & Brandenburger, 1996). It highlights the growing interde-pendence among companies involved in a common innovation process and the resulting coevolution for collaborating actors. Moore (1996) considers that his ecological metaphor goes beyond a mere interpretive framework because it makes it possible to analyze the evolution process of businesses and sectors of activity, taking into account environmental changes. Thus, the competition mechanism is presented from a systemic point of view, taking into account the dynamic equilibrium existing 1) among actors and 2) between actors and their environ-ment (Moore, 1996).

Although a few studies did subsequently analyze the organizational logic of the BE (Torres- Blay, 2000; Iansiti & Levien, 2004a), the institutional frame-work underlying the interactions between the actors is discussed only by Moore (2006). However, he presents the BE as an ideal- type that cannot provide an ade-quate account of the diversity of existing forms. In addition, the hybrid nature of the organization of exchanges represented by the BE remains unclear, because for each new proposed definition (Moore, 1993, 1996, 1998, 2006, Torres- Blay, 2000; Iansiti & Levien, 2004a, 2004b, Gueguen et al., 2004, Gueguen et al., 2006; Teece, 2007; Pierce, 2009) there is a different organizational logic (such as network, com-munity or coalition) and a specific institutional framework (Josserand, 2007). More-over, although the ecological metaphor is a constructive interpretive framework, it adds to the difficulties of defining the boundaries of BE.

Indeed, it seems a priori difficult to specify the scope of a concept based on dynamic equilibrium, intrinsic and extrinsic selective retroactive effects, or an evolving nature. As a result, the epistemological limits of the BE remain unclear and need to be specified.



2.3 SOURCES OF THE TRANSPOSED OBJECTS

Beyond these findings, in his various publications Moore always presents the same notions of community, cooperation, interdependence, coevolution, eco-systemic functions, loose coupling, fluctuation and porosity of boundaries, and resilience as the definitional parameters of his ecological metaphor. And these objects are all actually present in the various paradigms explicating the notion of ecosystem in ecology. A comparison between the literal sense of these objects in their source paradigm and the metaphorical sense that Moore assigns them will help to specify the evolution and the premises (Table 1).

TABLE 1. — Nature of transposed objects and common premises between source and target domains.

Paradigm

in ecology

Object

in ecology

Object in the BE

conceptCommon premise

Communityecology

(Wilson, 1990, 1992)

Community of populations

Strategic destiny/shared community

The community includes subunits of a different nature in relation with each other within the system

Intra- and inter- specific relations

Relations among actors within the BE

Relations exist between subunits of either identical or different nature within the system

Interdependence of populations within the ecosystem

Interdependence of actors within the BE

Subunit behaviors are interdependent within the system

Adaptation to the variations of environmental conditions

Resilience, flexibility, resistance

The system can adapt to the variations of environmental conditions through its subunits

Ecosystemecology

(Howe & Westley, 1988)

Ecosystemic functions Ecosystemic skills

Characteristics developed by the subunits in view of context allowing optimization of system equilibrium

Porosity of ecosystem boundaries

Porosity of BE boundaries

Porosity of system boundaries

Interdependence of populations within the ecosystem

Interdependence of actors within the BE

Subunit behaviors are interdependent within the system

Interactions between biological ecosystems

Interactions among BEs

Interactions between the systems and subunits of various systems



Evolutionaryecology

(Janzen, 1983; Wetterer, 1994)

Mobility of populations Mobility of actors

Subunits are mobile within the system and between systems

Populations look for the environment best suited to their needs

Loose coupling of actors to the BE

Subunits may leave a system to enter another one where their development can be more efficient

Co- evolution of populations within the ecosystem

Co- evolution of actors within the BE

Subunits evolve jointly within the system

Biological couplingPositive externalities between actors

Subunits generate favorable elements for the development of other subunits within the system

Fluctuation of ecosystem area boundaries

Fluctuation of BE boundaries

System boundaries evolve as time goes by

A quick glance confirms that objects are taken from the three paradigms presenting different visions of the ecosystem notion in ecology. A further, deeper analysis of correlations specifying the meaning of definitional param-eters of the ecosystem notion in ecology in each source paradigm (Table 2) reveals that: 1) some objects have been transposed identically and both the vocabulary and the meaning have been retained, 2) some objects have been transposed and the vocabulary has been retained but it no longer covers the same reality, 3) some objects have been renamed in the transposition and the meaning is not preserved.


Critical Perspectives On the Business Ecosystem Ecological Metaphor32TA

BLE

2.

— C

orre

latio

n be

twee

n lit

eral

sen

se a

nd m

etap

horic

al s

ense

of

the

BE d

efin

ition

al.

Para

dig

m

in e

colo

gy

Obje

ctLit

era

l m

eanin

g a

ccord

ing t

o E

dw

ard

Wil

son

Meta

phori

cal

meanin

g a

ccord

ing t

o

Jam

es

Moore

Corr

ela

tion

COM

MU

NIT

Y

ECOLOGY

(Wil

son,

1990,

1992)

Ecos

yste

m

“Com

mun

ity

of o

rgan

ism

s, i

nter

acting

with

one

anot

her,

plus

the

env

ironm

ent

in w

hich

the

y liv

e an

d w

ith

whi

ch t

hey

also

int

erac

t […

]. S

uch

a sy

stem

inc

lude

s al

l ab

iotic

com

pone

nts

[and

] bi

otic

com

pone

nts.

”2 (M

oore

, 19

96,

p. 2

6, a

fter

W

ilson

, 19

92)

“An

econ

omic

com

mun

ity

supp

orte

d by

a

foun

dati

on o

f in

tera

ctin

g or

gani

zati

ons

and

indi

vidu

als

– th

e or

gani

sms

of

the

busi

ness

wor

ld.

This

eco

nom

ic

com

mun

ity

prod

uces

goo

ds a

nd

serv

ices

of

valu

e to

cus

tom

ers,

who

are

th

emse

lves

mem

bers

of

the

ecos

yste

m.”

(M

oore

, 19

96,

p. 2

6)

Lite

ral

sens

e≠

met

apho

rica

l se

nse

Com

mun

ity

“[…

] tw

o ex

trem

e po

ssib

ilitie

s: O

ne i

s th

at t

he

com

mun

ity o

f or

gani

sms

[…]

is i

n to

tal d

isor

der.

The

spec

ies

com

e an

d go

as

free

spiri

ts.

Thei

r co

loni

zatio

n an

d ex

tinct

ion

are

not

dete

rmin

ed

by t

he p

rese

nce

or t

he a

bsen

ce o

f ot

her

spec

ies.

[…

] Th

e se

cond

ext

rem

e po

ssib

ility

is

extr

eme

orde

r. Th

e sp

ecie

s ar

e so

clo

sely

int

erde

pend

ent,

th

e fo

od w

ebs

so r

igid

, th

e sy

mbi

osis

so

tight

ly

boun

d, t

hat

the

com

mun

ity i

s vi

rtua

lly o

ne g

reat

or

gani

sm,

a su

pero

rgan

ism

. […

] Ec

olog

ists

[…

] en

visi

on a

n in

term

edia

te f

orm

of

com

mun

ity

orga

niza

tion,

som

ethi

ng li

ke t

his:

whe

ther

a

part

icul

ar s

peci

es o

ccur

s in

a g

iven

sui

tabl

e ha

bita

t is

larg

ely

due

to c

hanc

e, b

ut f

or m

ost

orga

nism

s th

e ch

ance

is

stro

ngly

affe

cted

- the

di

ce a

re lo

aded

- by

the

ide

ntity

of

the

spec

ies

alre

ady

pres

ent.

” (W

ilson

, 19

92,

p. 1

63 –

64)

“[Th

e co

mm

unit

y] i

s m

ade

up o

f cu

stom

ers,

mar

ket

inte

rmed

iaries

(i

nclu

ding

age

nts

and

chan

nels

, an

d th

ose

who

sel

l co

mpl

emen

tary

pr

oduc

ts a

nd s

ervi

ces)

, su

pplie

rs [

…].

Th

ese

mig

ht b

e th

ough

t of

as

the

prim

ary

spec

ies

of t

he e

cosy

stem

. [T

he c

omm

unit

y] a

lso

incl

udes

the

ow

ners

and

oth

er s

take

hold

ers

of t

hese

pr

imar

y sp

ecie

s, a

s w

ell

as p

ower

ful

spec

ies

who

may

be

rele

vant

in

a gi

ven

situ

atio

n, i

nclu

ding

gov

ernm

ent

agen

cies

an

d re

gula

tors

, an

d as

soci

atio

ns a

nd

stan

dard

s bo

dies

rep

rese

ntin

g cu

stom

ers

or s

uppl

iers

.” (

Moo

re,

1996

, p.

27)

Lite

ral

sens

e≠

met

apho

rica

l se

nse

2 “S

uch

a sy

stem

inc

lude

s al

l ab

ioti

c co

mpo

nent

s su

ch a

s m

iner

al i

ons,

org

anic

com

poun

ds,

and

the

clim

atic

reg

ime

(tem

pera

ture

, ra

infa

ll, a

nd o

ther

phy

sica

l fa

ctor

s).

The

biot

ic c

ompo

nent

s ge

nera

lly i

nclu

de r

epre

sent

ativ

es f

rom

sev

eral

tro

phic

lev

els;

pri

mar

y pr

oduc

ers

(mai

nly

gree

n pl

ants

); m

acro

con

sum

ers

(mai

nly

anim

als)

, w

hich

ing

est

othe

r or

gani

sms

or p

arti

cula

te o

rgan

ic m

atte

r; m

icro

con

sum

ers

(mai

nly

bact

eria

and

fun

gi),

whi

ch b

reak

dow

n co

mpl

ex o

rgan

ic c

om-

poun

ds u

pon

the

deat

h of

the

abo

ve o

rgan

ism

s” (

Moo

re,

1996

, p.

26

insp

ired

by

Wils

on,

1992

).



COM

MU

NIT

Y

ECOLOGY

(Wil

son,

1990,

1992)

Rela

tion

s

“Thi

nk o

f th

e co

mm

unit

y as

a f

ood

web

, a

conn

ecti

on o

f sp

ecie

s th

at p

rey

on o

ther

sp

ecie

s.”

(Wils

on,

1992

, p.

180

)“I

n su

ch l

oose

ly o

rgan

ized

com

mun

itie

s,

ther

e ar

e lit

tle

play

ers,

and

big

pla

yers

and

th

e bi

gges

t pl

ayer

s of

all

are

the

keys

tone

sp

ecie

s. A

s th

e na

me

impl

ies,

the

rem

oval

of

a ke

ysto

ne s

peci

es c

ause

s a

subs

tant

ial

part

of

the

com

mun

ity

to c

hang

e dr

asti

cally

.” (

Wils

on,

1992

, p.

164

)

“[Th

e m

embe

r or

gani

sms]

ten

d to

alig

n th

emse

lves

wit

h th

e di

rect

ions

set

by

one

or

mor

e ce

ntra

l co

mpa

nies

.”

(Moo

re,

1996

, p.

26)

“Tho

se c

ompa

nies

hol

ding

lea

ders

hip

role

s m

ay c

hang

e ov

er t

ime,

but

the

fu

ncti

on o

f ec

osys

tem

lea

der

is v

alue

d by

the

com

mun

ity

beca

use

it e

nabl

es

mem

bers

to

mov

e to

war

d sh

ared

vis

ions

to

alig

n th

eir

inve

stm

ents

, an

d to

fin

d m

utua

lly s

uppo

rtiv

e ro

les.

” (M

oore

, 19

96,

p. 2

6)

Lite

ral

sens

e≠

met

apho

rica

l se

nse

Inte

rdep

ende

nce

Trop

hic

inte

rdep

ende

nce

betw

een

popu

lati

ons

= fo

od c

hain

(W

ilson

, 19

92,

p. 1

80)

“[Th

e ex

ecut

ives

] w

ill h

ave

to i

nves

t in

new

ski

lls,

new

ass

ets,

new

di

rect

ions

. Bu

t th

ey c

anno

t m

ake

thes

e de

cisi

ons

unila

tera

lly b

ecau

se t

hey

are

inte

rdep

ende

nt w

ith

at l

east

som

e of

th

e ot

her

mem

bers

of

the

com

mun

ity.

” (M

oore

, 19

96,

p. 6

1)

Lite

ral

sens

e≠

met

apho

rica

l se

nse

Co- e

volu

tion

“The

evo

luti

on o

f tw

o or

mor

e sp

ecie

s du

e to

m

utua

l in

fluen

ce”

(Wils

on,

1992

, p.

163

– 6

4,

394)

“[Th

e m

embe

r or

gani

sms]

co-

evol

ve

thei

r ca

pabi

litie

s an

d ro

les,

and

ten

d to

alig

n th

emse

lves

wit

h th

e di

rect

ions

se

t by

one

or

mor

e ce

ntra

l co

mpa

nies

.”

(Moo

re,

1996

, p.

26)

Lite

ral

sens

e≠

met

apho

rica

l se

nse

Ecos

yste

mic

fu

ncti

on

“If

an i

ndiv

idua

l’s f

itne

ss i

s si

gnific

antl

y de

term

ined

by

its

inte

ract

ions

wit

h ot

her

mem

bers

of

the

com

mun

ity,

the

n th

ese

inte

ract

ions

can

pro

perly

be

refe

rred

to

as

ecos

yste

m f

unct

ions

.” (

Wils

on,

1992

quo

ted

by

Hag

en 1

992,

p.

195)

“Syn

ergi

stic

com

pete

ncie

s: [

…]

you

mus

t no

t on

ly h

ave

a pl

an f

or y

our

own

prod

uct

or s

ervi

ce,

but

a pl

an t

o he

lp o

ut t

he e

ntire

ecos

yste

m [

…]”

“[

…]

capa

bilit

ies

and

rela

tion

ship

s an

d th

e ch

oice

s ab

out

how

and

whe

n to

est

ablis

h th

em [

…]”

(M

oore

, 19

96,

p. 6

7)

Lite

ral

sens

e≠

met

apho

rica

l se

nse


Critical Perspectives On the Business Ecosystem Ecological Metaphor34 T

able

2.

— (c

ontin

ued)

Cor

rela

tion

betw

een

liter

al s

ense

and

met

apho

rical

sen

se o

f the

BE

defin

ition

al p

aram

eter

s.

Para

dig

m i

n

eco

logy

Obje

ctLit

era

l se

nse

in e

colo

gy

Meta

phori

cal

sense

acc

ord

ing t

o J

am

es

Moore

Corr

ela

tion

ECOSYSTE

M

ECOLOGY

(How

e &

W

est

ley,

1988)

Ecos

yste

mic

fu

ncti

on

“The

col

lect

ive

intr

aspe

cific

and

inte

rspe

cific

inte

ract

ions

of

the

biot

a,

such

as

prim

ary

and

seco

ndar

y pr

oduc

tion

an

d m

utua

listi

c re

lati

onsh

ips.

” (H

agen

, 19

92)

“Syn

ergi

stic

com

pete

ncie

s: [

…]

you

mus

t no

t on

ly h

ave

a pl

an f

or y

our

own

prod

uct

or s

ervi

ce,

but

a pl

an t

o he

lp o

ut t

he e

ntire

ecos

yste

m [

…]”

“[…

] ca

pabi

litie

s an

d re

lati

onsh

ips

and

the

choi

ces

abou

t ho

w a

nd

whe

n to

est

ablis

h th

em [

…]”

(M

oore

, 19

96,

p. 6

7)

Lite

ral

sens

e≠

met

apho

rica

l se

nse

Poro

sity

of

boun

daries

“The

eco

syst

em [

is]

not

so m

uch

a co

ncre

te g

eogr

aphi

cal

enti

ty a

s a

flexi

ble

abst

ract

ion.

[…

] Al

thou

gh,

its

boun

daries

m

ight

be

poor

ly m

arke

d, t

he i

nves

tiga

tor

coul

d st

ill p

erce

ive

it a

s a

“sys

tem

” fo

r th

e pu

rpos

e of

eco

logi

cal

stud

y. E

nerg

y,

chem

ical

sub

stan

ces

or o

rgan

ism

s, m

ight

re

gula

rly m

ove

in a

nd o

ut o

f th

e sy

stem

.”

(Hag

en,

1992

, p.

127

).

“In

the

new

eco

nom

y, s

tabl

e ec

osys

tem

s ar

e op

en e

cosy

stem

s, r

ipe

for

new

ent

rant

s. T

he

very

sta

bilit

y of

the

bas

ic b

usin

ess

mod

el m

akes

it

a s

itti

ng t

arge

t fo

r en

terp

risi

ng c

ompa

nies

th

at a

re w

illin

g to

wor

k a

littl

e ha

rder

, or

ac

cept

sm

alle

r re

turn

s, t

han

the

mem

bers

of

the

esta

blis

hmen

t.”

(Moo

re,

1996

, p.

97)

Lite

ral

sens

e=

met

apho

rica

l Se

nse

Inte

rdep

ende

nce

“The

ide

a of

a g

roup

of

inte

rdep

ende

nt

orga

nism

s, w

hat

Step

hen

Forb

es r

efer

red

to a

s a

com

mun

ity,

bec

ame

a ce

ntra

l co

ncep

t in

eco

logy

.” (

Hag

en,

1992

, p.

15)

“[…

] a

mut

ualis

tic,

sel

f- re

info

rcin

g se

t of

re

lati

onsh

ips

[…]

a se

t of

int

erde

pend

ent

rela

tion

ship

s […

]” (

Moo

re,

1996

, p.

109

)

Lite

ral

sens

e≠

met

apho

rica

l se

nse

Inte

ract

ions

am

ong

ecos

yste

ms

“Lan

dsca

pe p

atte

rn i

nflu

ence

s th

e tr

ansf

er o

f m

ater

ials

am

ong

ecos

yste

ms.

In

man

aged

and

unm

anag

ed l

ands

cape

s,

ecos

yste

ms

inte

ract

wit

h on

e an

othe

r al

ong

topo

grap

hic

sequ

ence

s.”

(Cha

pin

et

al., 2

003,

p.

8)

“Alli

ance

- to-

allia

nce

riva

lries

oft

en e

mer

ge

whe

n bu

sine

sses

hav

e al

tern

ativ

e vi

sion

s fo

r th

e fu

ture

of

any

give

n co

mm

unit

y.”

(Moo

re,

1998

, p.

169

)

Lite

ral

sens

e≠

met

apho

rica

l se

nse



EVOLU

TION

ARY

ECOLOGY

(Janze

n,

1983;

Wett

ere

r,

1994)

Loos

e co

uplin

g

“[…

] jo

int

evol

utio

nary

and

dis

pers

al

dyna

mic

s ca

n sh

ape

the

spec

ies

com

posi

tion

and

div

ersi

ty o

f na

tura

l co

mm

unit

ies.

” (U

rban

et

al., 2

008,

p.

311

)

“[…

] so

met

imes

int

ense

str

uggl

es t

ake

plac

e fo

r te

rrit

ory

amon

g al

tern

ativ

e ec

osys

tem

s th

at

prov

ide

mor

e or

les

s su

bsti

tuta

ble

prod

ucts

and

se

rvic

es.”

(M

oore

, 19

98,

p. 1

69)

Lite

ral

sens

e≠

met

apho

rica

l se

nse

Co- e

volu

tion

“Co-

evol

utio

n is

the

pro

cess

of

reci

proc

al

evol

utio

nary

cha

nge

betw

een

inte

ract

ing

spec

ies,

drive

n by

nat

ural

sel

ecti

on.”

(T

hom

pson

, 20

01,

p. 1

)“M

ulti

- spe

cies

co-

evol

utio

n af

fect

s em

erge

nt c

omm

unit

y st

ruct

ure

or

ecos

yste

m f

unct

ioni

ng.”

(Ca

ldar

elli

et a

l.,

1998

).

“[Th

e m

embe

r or

gani

sms]

co-

evol

ve t

heir

capa

bilit

ies

and

role

s, a

nd t

end

to a

lign

them

selv

es w

ith

the

dire

ctio

ns s

et b

y on

e or

m

ore

cent

ral

com

pani

es.”

(M

oore

, 19

96,

p. 2

6)

Lite

ral

sens

e≠

met

apho

rica

l se

nse

Fluc

tuat

ion

of

boun

daries

Fluc

tuat

ion

of b

ound

arie

s of

eco

syst

em

area

(W

ette

rer,

199

4)

“In

the

new

eco

nom

y, s

tabl

e ec

osys

tem

s ar

e op

en e

cosy

stem

s, r

ipe

for

new

ent

rant

s. T

he

very

sta

bilit

y of

the

bas

ic b

usin

ess

mod

el m

akes

it

a s

itti

ng t

arge

t fo

r en

terp

risin

g co

mpa

nies

th

at a

re w

illin

g to

wor

k a

little

hard

er,

or

acce

pt s

mal

ler

retu

rns,

tha

n th

e m

embe

rs o

f th

e es

tabl

ishm

ent.

” (M

oore

, 19

96,

p. 9

7)

Lite

ral

sens

e=

met

apho

rica

l se

nse



2.4 LOGICAL STRUCTURE ASSOCIATING DEFINITIONAL PARAMETERS

No transposition of all the definitional parameters associated with a sin-gle source paradigm has been carried out. Indeed, because metaphor modifies the meaning of objects, the logical structure linking these objects cannot be trans-posed. Thus Moore not only adjusts the meaning of the objects that he trans-poses, but he also connects these objects to each other in order to link them in a new logical structure.

2.5 NATURE OF JAMES MOORE’S TRANSPOSITION PROCESS

Beyond the clear expression of his position – “In one significant respect, a strictly biological metaphor does not apply to business. Unlike biological com-munities of coevolving organisms, business communities are social systems. And social systems are composed of real people who make decisions” (Moore, 1996, p. 18) – these findings confirm that Moore does not search for paradigmatic identity by deductive inference, as Tsoukas (1991) proposes. They also show that establishing an analogy in Tsoukas’s (1991) sense is impossible because the multiplicity of source paradigms prevents transposition of the logical struc-ture linking objects from a single domain. Moore makes the BE emerge by inter-actions between various paradigms. To identify the inference logics associated with this approach, each stage in the process described by Cornelissen (2005) must be analyzed:

1. Development of a generic structure: The alignment of the source domain (involving three different paradigms in ecology) and the target domain (strategic management) corresponds to an undercoded abduction as presented by Carontini (1990) – the exploitation of the ecological notion of ecosystem in strategic mana-gement allows Moore (1993, 1996) to set up an explanatory hypothesis about his field observations.

2. Development and elaboration of the blend: Moore (1996) goes on to explore the consequences of his hypothesis. To that end, he arranges for the objects defi-ning the notion of ecosystem in various paradigms in ecology to interact with his hypothesis of the existence of an ecosystemic form of organization and connects the concepts of community, interdependence, coevolution, and others. Thus, all the definitional parameters of the BE are selected by deductive interaction among the various domains.

3. Emergence of a new meaning: Out of the interaction among domains, a new meaning emerges for each object transposed. This meaning is not that of the source objects anymore and does not exist in the target domain. Howe-ver, it connects all the objects transposed to the target domain. Thus, based on his hypothesis (existence of a form of an ecosystemic form of organization) and its consequences (parameters defining how it functions), Moore (1996) works by induction to determine the general rules governing the BE (such as definition, life cycle or stakes).

Thus the BE theorization implies the implementation of a recursive loop (abduction/deduction/induction) in Pierce’s ([1931 – 35]) sense.



2.6 CONSEQUENCES OF THE ANALYSIS OF BE LIMITS

In view of the metaphorical process used by Moore (1993; 1996), any analysis of theoretical BE limits must take into account: 1) the literal meaning of objects in their source domain, 2) the nature of objects actually transposed by Moore and which represent as many definitional parameters, 3) the metaphorical sense of these param-eters as Moore defines it, as opposed to the literal sense of objects in their source paradigms, and 4) the inference logic used by Moore to generate the metaphorical sense of objects by interaction between their literal sense and the target domain.

The research papers analyzing these theoretical BE limits are written essen-tially by French- speaking scholars (Maitre & Aladjidi, 1999; Harte, 2001; Torrès- Blay & Guéguen, 2003; Daidj, 2011; Fréry, 2010; Isckia, 2010). They bear mainly on the impossibility of transposing to the business environment some of the objects char-acterizing the notion of ecosystem in ecology. They exploit an analogical perspective or even an identity perspective. This tends to demonstrate the inadequacy between the sense of objects characterizing the notion of ecosystem in ecology and that in strategic management. Such studies fail to take into account the nature of Moore’s metaphorical process and the inference logics that are derived from it. As a result, his epistemological perspective must be specified beforehand. Moreover, in the vast majority of cases, the objects considered do not correspond to the categorical ref-erents that Moore exploited (Table 3).

In these criticisms, the paradigmatic origin of objects chosen is not taken into account and therefore the literal sense of each object in its original theoretical framework is not specified. However, certain objects in ecology such as the notion of coevolution come in different flavors depending on the premises on which the theo-retical construction rests, even within the same paradigm (Urban et al., 2008). Thus the literal sense of objects from ecology which were used to define the theoretical BE limits in an analogical and identity approach (Maitre & Aladjidi, 1999; Torrès- Blay & Gueguen, 2003; Isckia, 2010; Daidj, 2011) was not really taken into account. The sense that is presented for these objects is, rather, a representation that the authors themselves assign to it, which undermines the validity of the reasoning applied.

TABLE 3. — Ecological metaphor theoretical limits: synthesis of the works of Maître & Aladjidi, 1999; Harte, 2001; Torrès- Blay & Guéguen, 2003; Fréry, 2010; Isckia,

2010; Daidj, 2011 (adapted from Daidj, 2011)

Object

Definitional

parameters

according

to Moore

Maitre

& Aladjidi,

1999

Harte,

2001

Torrès- Blay

& Gueguen,

2003

Fréry,

2010

Isckia,

2010

Reproduction NO ✓ ✓ ✓

Time scale, evolution, extinction NO ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Area, environment, biotope (habitat) NO ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓



Object

Definitional

parameters

according

to Moore

Maitre

& Aladjidi,

1999

Harte,

2001

Torrès- Blay

& Gueguen,

2003

Fréry,

2010

Isckia,

2010

Awareness, will, intention NO ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Endogenous structure YES ✓ ✓

Endo- exogenous relations NO ✓

Competition between ecosystems YES ✓ ✓

Predation, stability YES ✓ ✓ ✓

Food chains NO ✓

Conclusion

The use of comparative models (Tsoukas, 1991) and interactional models (Cor-nelissen, 2005) of the metaphorical theorization of organizations as an interpreta-tion framework makes it possible to specify the nature of the metaphorical process actually implemented by Moore to construct his ecological metaphor. The analysis shows that the transposition process applied is not analogical but a construction by interaction among several domains. In this context, in the absence of an analogy or an identity in the sense of Tsoukas (1991), only the categorical referents chosen by Moore can be considered, and the metaphorical sense that he has assigned them must be taken into account. This reflection shows the impact of the nature of the metaphorical theorization process on the construction of the meaning of the defi-nitional parameters determining the boundaries of BEs.

The nature of the metaphorical BE’s theorization process also provides infor-mation on the stance to be taken to define its limits. The inability to identify the premises determining the literal sense of source objects in their original paradigm, to distinguish between the literal and metaphorical senses of the objects trans-posed as so many definitional parameters, and to analyze the metaphorical process actually implemented, show that previous researchers aiming to specify theoretical limits of BEs (Maitre & Aladjidi, 1999; Torrès- Blay & Gueguen, 2003; Isckia, 2010; Daidj, 2011) were not able to take into account the epistemological stance adopted by its founder. Researchers were also unable to analyze the theoretical limits of the BE itself, but instead analyzed the theoretical limits of the ecological metaphor in an inadequate analogical perspective. The analogical approach (Tsoukas, 1991) looks for similarities by applying deductive inference in order to check the exist-ence of an identity between the objects defining the notion of ecosystem in ecol-ogy and the objects defining this same notion in strategic management. However, Moore draws on the interaction among several paradigms, revealing new meaning for each object that he transposes, beyond pre- existing similarities. It is therefore


Conclusion 39

necessary to identify the inference logic that governs each of these operations in order to define not the theoretical limits of ecological metaphor, but the epistemo-logical limits of the BE.

This study shows that theorization of the BE implies the implementation of recursive loop (abduction/deduction/induction) in the sense of Pierce ([1931-35]). This situation makes qualifying James Moore’s epistemological stance more compli-cated in view of the main theoretical currents in organizational sciences. From an epistemological point of view, this stance does not correspond to a specific cur-rent of thought (such as positivism, constructivism or realism) but its relevance is defended by a growing number of studies in organizational sciences (such as David et al, 2000; Robert- Demontrond, 2005; Martinet & Pesqueux, 2013). This recent per-spective considers the generation of scientific knowledge more globally and tends to go beyond the opposition between an inductive approach and a hypothetical- deductive approach. It considers the question of theorization by demonstrating the importance of importing concepts in the development of organizational sciences. While it is not easy to liken Moore’s epistemological stance to a specific current of thought, the inference logic that he uses must be taken into account in the study of the limits of BE and be corroborated by the theoretical exploratory path in order to check the coherence of the reasoning. Moreover, a second empirical validation is necessary to show how well the BE matches the multiple realities of the field. This link between observable reality and descriptive model will vary depending on the objectives and the epistemological approach chosen by the researcher. Conse-quently, it is essential to specify these elements, which will, in turn, determine: 1) the logic of construction of the BE’s definition 2) the framework in which the the-oretical grounding of the BE is to be found and 3) the logic that must prevail in order to determine the BE’s epistemological limits.

Moreover, the attempts to determine the theoretical limits of the BE clearly show the difficulty generated by the use of metaphor. Indeed, this polysemous notion includes various transposition processes that correspond to different infer-ence logics and epistemological stances. To verify the epistemological relevance of the use of metaphor in the theorization of organizations, the inference processes involved must be defined clearly. The epistemic stance adopted by the author of this theorization can thus be taken into account in subsequent analyses of hypotheses, of the general rule or of ensuing consequences. If determination of the transposi-tion process is critical to checking the consistency of logical inferences associated with the theoretical exploration mode applied, it also allows the analysis of the sci-entific validity of the theorization. In view of the many importations of concepts and theories applied in organizational sciences, our methodology could be use-ful. Finally, our approach confirms the fundamental conceptual nature of metaphor (Lakoff & Ortony, 1993) and reconnects the phenomena of scientific conceptualiza-tion and linguistic figuration.

Furthermore, following the elaboration of the BE notion, a new, unify-ing paradigm emerged in ecology: the biodiversity ecosystem function paradigm, or BEFP (Naeem, 2002). By feeding on previous theories, the BEFP incorporates genetics (evolutionary ecology), communities (community ecology) and ecosys-temic functions (ecosystem ecology) into a single holistic vision that integrates



all trophic levels to be found in an environment. By giving an active role to habi-tat in the governance of environmental conditions, this paradigm opposes conven-tional thinking. This recent holistic paradigm in ecology became emancipated after publication of Moore’s first work. Indeed, since it integrates the previous perspec-tives while providing a more complete vision of the ecosystem concept, this para-digm would represent an ideal reference for updating the BE metaphor by making it possible to refocus on all the transpositions carried out by Moore on a single reference paradigm. Moreover, the analysis of causality links between the diversity of actors and the stability of ecosystemic processes could be integrated into the metaphor. Although Moore expresses this link intuitively, he scarcely justifies it. Finally, this new vision of the notion of ecosystem in ecology makes the transpo-sition of the logical structure linking the objects exploited by Moore possible, and therefore makes it possible to go from an interactional process (Cornelissen, 2005) to an analogical process (Tsoukas, 1991). Such a construction would shed new light on the existing links between the definitional parameters of the BE notion and would make the analysis of its limits easier.

References

Abercrombie M. — The New Penguin Dictionary of Biology, London, Penguin Books, 1992.

Bateson G. — Steps to an Ecology of the Mind, New York, Ballantine Books, 1972.

Bateson G. — Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity (Advances in Systems Theory, Com-plexity, and the Human Sciences), New York, E.P. Dutton, 1979.

Beer S. — The Viable System Model: its Provenance, Development, Methodology and Pathology, Journal of Operational Research Society, 1984, 35, p. 7-25.

Black M. — Models and metaphor, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, 1962.

Black M. — More about metaphor, in: Metaphor and thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, & Ortony A., 1979, p. 19-43.

Bourgeois W.V., Pinder, C.C. — Contrasting philosophical perspectives in admin-istrative science: A reply to Morgan. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983, 28, p. 608-613.

Bunge M. — Method, model and matter, 1973, Dordrecht, Reidel D.

Caldarelli G., Higgs P.G., McKane A.J. — Modelling coevolution in multispecies com-munities, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1998, 193, p. 345 — 358.

Carontini E. — Le rôle de l’abduction dans le processus d’interprétation, in: Technolo-gies et symboliques de la communication, PUF & Sfez L., Coutlée G., 1990.

Chapin F.S., Matson P.A., Mooney H.A. — Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology, New York, Springer- Verlag, 2002.

Cornelissen J.P. — Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory, Academy of Management Review, 2005, 30, p. 751 — 764.

Cornelissen J.P., Kafouros M. — Metaphors and Theory Building in Organization The-ory: What Determines the Impact of a Metaphor on Theory?, British Journal of Man-agement, 2008, 19, p. 365 — 379.

Cornelissen J.P., Clarke J.S. — Imagining and rationalizing opportunities: inductive reasoning and the creation and justification of new ventures, Academy of Manage-ment Review, 2010, 35, p. 539 — 557.


References 41

Daidj N. — Les écosystèmes d’affaires: une nouvelle forme d’organisation en réseau?, Management & Avenir, 2011, 6, p. 105-130.

David A., Hatchuel A., Laufer R. — Les Nouvelles Fondations des sciences de gestion: éléments d’épistémologie de la recherche en management, Paris, Vuibert, 2000.

Edouard S., Gratacap A. — Dictature de l’innovation et prime à la nouveauté dans le champ académique; Positionnement de l’approche par les écosystèmes d’affaires au sein du management stratégique, Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 2011, 5, p. 131-154.

Fauconnier G., Turner M. — Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 1998, 22, p. 133 — 187.

Frery F. — Les Ecosystèmes d’affaires: un malentendu fertile, Communication a la Table Ronde sur les Ecosystèmes d’affaires: intérêts et limites dans le champ du manage-ment stratégique, 2010, XIXe Conference de I’AIMS, Luxembourg, 2-4 juin.

Garud R., Kotha S. — Using the Brain as a Metaphor to Model Flexible Production Sys-tems, Academy of Management Review, 1994, 19, p. 671-698.

Gentner D. — Generative analogies as mental models, Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1981, p. 97-100.

Gentner D. — Are scientific analogies metaphors? in: Metaphor: Problems and perspec-tives, Brighton, Harvester & Mwi D.S., 1982, p. 106-132.

Gentner D. — Structure mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy, Cognitive Sci-ence, 1983, 7, p. 155 — 170.

Gentner D., Bowdle B., Wolff P., Boronat C. — Metaphor is like analogy, in: The ana-logical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science, Cambridge, MIT Press & Gentner D., Holyoak K.J., Kokinov B.N., 2001, p. 199-253.

Gerring J. — What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding concept formation in the social sciences, Polity, 1999, 31, p. 357-393.

Gioia D.A., Schultz M., Corley K.G. — Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability, Academy of Management Review, 2000, 25, p. 63 — 81.

Grant D. Oswick C. — Metaphor and organizations, London, Sage Publication, 1996.

Gueguen G., Torres O. — La dynamique concurrentielle des écosystèmes d’affaires. Linux contre Microsoft, Revue française de gestion, 2004, 1, p. 227-248.

Guéguen G., Pellegrin- Boucher E., Torrès O. — Des stratégies collectives aux écosys-tèmes d’affaires: le secteur des logiciels comme illustration, Atelier de Recherche AIMS « Stratégies collectives: vers de nouvelles formes de concurrence », Montpellier, 2004.

Gueguen G., Pellegrin- Boucher E., Torrès O. — Between cooperation and competition: the benefits of collective strategies within business ecosystems. The example of the software industry, EIASM, 2nd Workshop on coopetition strategy, Milan, September 14-15, 2006.

Guéguen G., Passebois- Ducros J. — Les écosystèmes d’affaires: entre communauté et réseau, Management & Avenir, 2011, 46, p. 131-156.

Hagen J.B. — An Entangled Bank: The origins of ecosystem ecology, New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press, 1992.

Hannan M.T., Freeman J. — The Population Ecology of Organization, American Jour-nal of Sociology, 1977, 82, p. 929-964.

Harte J. — Business as a living System: the Value of Industrial Ecology, California Management Review, 2001, 43, p. 16-25.



Heacox K. — The Smithsonian Guides to Natural America, The Pacific: Hawaii and Alaska, New- York, Random House Publishing Group, 1995.

Howe H.F., Westley L.C. — Ecological Relationships of Plants and Animals, New York, Oxford University Press, 1988.

Iansiti M., Levien R. — The Keystone Advantage, Boston, Harvard Business School Press, 2004a.

Iansiti M., Levien R. — Strategy as Ecology, Harvard Business Review, 2004b, 82, p. 68-78.

Indurkya B. — Modes of metaphor, Metaphor and symbolic activity, 1991, 6, p 1-27.

Inns D. — Metaphor in the literature of organizational analysis: A preliminary tax-onomy and a glimpse at a humanities- based perspective, Organization, 2002, 9, p. 305 — 330.

Isckia T. — Note de synthèse des travaux de recherche en vue de l’obtention de l’habilitation à diriger des recherches en science de gestion. Paris, INT, 2010.

Janzen D.H. — Costa Rican Natural History, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1983.

Lakoff G., Johnson M. — Metaphors we live by, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Le Roy F. — La stratégie militaire comme métaphore de la rivalité concurrentielle, Six-ième Conférence de l’AIMS, Ecole des HEC de Montréal, Canada, 1997.

Le Roy F. — Les conditions de l’application de la stratégie militaire au management, RFG, 1999, 122, p. 6-16.

Le Roy F. — Le transfert de concepts en sciences de gestion: métaphores, analo-gies et modélisations analytiques, Economies et Sociétés, Série Sciences de Gestion, 2001, 29, p. 153-174.

Lecerf A., Richardson J.S., — Biodiversity- ecosystem function research: insights gained from streams, River. Res. Applic., 2010, 26, p. 45 — 54.

Maitre B., Aladjidi G. — Les Business Modèles de la Nouvelle Economie, Paris, Dunod, 1999.

Martinet A.C., Pesqueux Y. — Epistémologie des sciences de gestion, Paris, Vuivert, 2013.

Mayhew P. — Discovering Evolutionary Ecology: Bringing together ecology and evolu-tion, New- York, Oxford University Press, 2006.

Moore J.F. — Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition, Harvard Business Review, 1993, 71, p. 75-86.

Moore J.F. — The Death of Competition. Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Busi-ness Ecosystems, New York, Harper Business, 1996.

Moore J.F. — The rise of a new corporate form, Washington Quarterly, 1998, 21, p. 167-181.

Moore J.F. — Business ecosystems and the view of the firm, Antitrust Bulletin, 2006, 51, p. 31-75.

Morgan G. — Paradigm, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory, Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 1980, 25, p. 605-622.

Morgan G. — More on metaphor: why we cannot control tropes in administrative sci-ence, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983, 28, p. 601-607.

Morgan G. — Images of organization, Beverly Hills, Sage, 1986.


References 43

Morgan G. — Accounting as reality construction: Towards a new epistemology for accounting practice, Organizations and Society, 1988a, 13, p. 477-485.

Morgan G. — Riding the waves of change, San Francisco, Jossey- Bass, 1988b.

Morgan G. — Creative organization theory, Newbury Park, Sage, 1989.

Naeem S. — Ecosystem consequences of biodiversity loss: the evolution of a para-digm, Ecology, 2002, 83, p. 1537-1552.

Nalebuff B., Brandenburger A. — La Co- opetition: une Revolution dans la Manière de Jouer Concurrence et Cooperation, Paris, Village Mondial, 1996.

Nelson R., Winter S. — An evolutionary theory of economic change, Cambridge, Belknap, 1982.

Oswick C., Keenoy T., Grant D. — Metaphor and analogical reasoning in organi-zation theory: Beyond orthodoxy, Academy of Management Review, 2002, 27, p. 294 — 303.

Pellegrin- Boucher E., Gueguen G. — Stratégies de « coopétition » au sein d’un écosys-tème d’affaires: une illustration à travers le cas de SAP, Finance Contrôle Stratégie, 2005, 8, p. 109-130.

Peirce C.S. — Collected Papers, Vol. 1-6, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, [1931-1935].

Pierce L. — Big Losses in Ecosystem Niches: How Core Firm Decisions Drive Comple-mentary Product Shakeouts, Strategic Management Journal, 2009, 30, p. 323-47.

Pinder C., Bourgeois V.W. — Controlling tropes in administrative science, Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 1982, 27, p. 641 — 652.

Ricoeur P. — La métaphore vive, Paris, Le Seuil, 1975.

Royte E. — On the brink: Hawaii’s vanishing species, National Geographic, 1995, 188, p. 2-37.

Sanford A.I. — The mind of man, Brighton, Harvester Press, 1987.

Shön D.A. — Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem- setting in social pol-icy, in: Metaphor and thought, New York, Cambridge University Press & Ortony A., p. 154-283, 1979.

Searle J.R. — Metaphor, in: Metaphor and thought, New York, Cambridge University Press & Ortony A., p. 92-123, 1979.

Simpson J.A., Weiner E.S.C. — The Oxford English dictionary, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1989.

Tansley A.G. — The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms, Ecology, 1935, 16, p. 284-307.

Teece D.J. — Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance, Strategic Management Journal, 2007, 28, p. 1319-1350.

Thiétart R.A., Forgues B. — Chaos theory and organizations, Organization Science, 1995, 6, p. 19 — 42.

Thiétart R.A. — Méthodes de recherche en management, Paris, Dunod, 1999.

Thompson J.R. — Coevolution, Wiley Online Library, 2001.

Tinker T. — Metaphor or reification: Are radical humanists really libertarian anar-chists?, Journal of Management Studies, 1986, 23, p. 363 — 385.


Und

ers

tand

ing

Bus

ine

ss E

co

syst

em

sSo

uma

ya B

EN L

ETA

IFA

, Ann

e G

RATA

CA

P, T

hie

rry

ISC

KIA

(é

d.)

Understanding Business EcosystemsHow Firms Succeed in the New World of Convergence?

Understanding Business Ecosystems: How Firms Succeed in the New World of Convergence? builds on strategic management and innovation management academic contributions to better understand theoretical and empirical challenges of business ecosystems. Even if the concept of business ecosystem was coined in 1993, it will lie fallow during more than ten years before gaining scholars’ interest. Managers will however recognize the relevance of this concept as it grasps the complexity of their business reality in terms of new collaborative and innovative strategies.

Thus, the main purpose of this book is twofold. On the one hand, the objective is to identify the epistemological and theoretical fundamentals of business ecosystems, and on the other hand, the purpose is to analyse the various managerial challenges. This volume analyses in particular the issues of knowledge management, coopetition strategies, platforms, governance, etc.

Understanding Business Ecosystems: How Firms Succeed in the New World of Convergence? is finally a key reference book that innovates by integrating for the first time well known French speaking scholars’ contributions from the strategy and innovation management fields.

Soumaya Ben LetaiFa is an associate Professor of Strategy at the Management School of Université du Québec à Montréal. Her research and teaching focus on new paradigms in marketing and strategy and on connecting the macro, the mezzo and the

micro levels of business relationships in global and local contexts. More specifically, she explores B2B relationships far beyond the traditional buyer-seller dyad to grasp the complexity of interactions and networks of actors.

Anne GrATAcAp studied at the École Normale Supérieure. She is Professor of strategic management in University of Paris 1 Pantheon – Sorbonne. She co-manages M2 Commercial Strategy and the Negotiation Policy unit. Her research into

corporate strategy concerns the role played by Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the reconfiguration of organizations and corporate strategies.

Thierry ISckIA is full-time Professor of strategic management in Telecom École de Management (Institut Mines-Telecom), Director of the Master in Strategic Management. His research interests are in strategic management, innovation

management and knowledge management. His current research investigates business ecosystems and/or network-centric innovation, knowledge-based inter-organizational collaborations and platform-based innovation management.

We thank the authors who contributed to the writing of this book:Marie Carpenter, nabyla Daidj, Valérie Fautrero, Mickael Géraudel, Gaël Gueguen, Gérard koenig, Denis Lescop, Elena Lescop, Thomas Loilier, Magali Malherbe, Xavier parisot et David Salvetat.

ISBN 978-2-8041-7676-1BUSECO

ISSN 1781-4944 www.deboeck.com


M A N A G E M E N T



of Convergence?


BUSECO-cov.indd 1-3 5/09/13 09:55

Understanding Business Ecosystems MANAGEMENT … · Understanding Business Ecosystems Understanding...

Documents

Transcript of Understanding Business Ecosystems MANAGEMENT … · Understanding Business Ecosystems Understanding...