Home Resource Orchestration in Hub-Based Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: A Case Study on the Seaweed Industry
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Resource Orchestration in Hub-Based Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: A Case Study on the Seaweed Industry

  • Baozhou Lu EMAIL logo and Song Zhang
Published/Copyright: August 30, 2022
Entrepreneurship Research Journal
From the journal Entrepreneurship Research Journal Volume 14 Issue 3

Abstract

Hub-based entrepreneurial ecosystems (HEEs) have become an important venue for entrepreneurship. This study examines how ecosystem-specific resources and capabilities are orchestrated by ecosystem actors (i.e., hub firms and ecosystem entrepreneurs) to support the development of new ventures in the context of HEEs. Using an explorative single case study approach, we uncover nine distinctive resource orchestration subprocesses that are grouped into three aggregate processes that help sustain enduring entrepreneurship in the HEE context. Our findings extend and complement the literature on entrepreneurship and ecosystems by developing a new resource orchestration model and by illustrating how resource orchestration in an HEE facilitates the synergies across ecosystem ventures as well as the synergies between hub firms and ecosystem entrepreneurs in coexploring and coexploiting new opportunities.

Keywords: hub-based entrepreneurial ecosystem; resource orchestration; enduring entrepreneurship; hub firm; ecosystem entrepreneurs
Corresponding author: Baozhou Lu, PhD, School of Business, Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266071, China, E-mail:

Funding source: Science and Technology Plan of Youth Innovation Team in Colleges and Universities of Shandong Province in China

Award Identifier / Grant number: 2019RWG031

Funding source: Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province

Award Identifier / Grant number: ZR2020MG012

Funding source: National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences

Award Identifier / Grant number: 21AGL008

  1. Research funding: This research was funded by Science and Technology Plan of Youth Innovation Team in Colleges and Universities of Shandong Province in China (grant no. 2019RWG031), Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (grant no. ZR2020MG012), and National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences (grant no. 21AGL008).

Appendices

Appendix A: Sample interview guide

Interview Guide for Interview with BMG’s Top Managers
BMG’s business environment and transformation

  1. Who were Bright Moon’s main competitors (both local and international)?

  2. What factors (external and internal) drove BMG to make the transformation decision back to the early 2000s?

  3. What challenges did BMG encounter to achieve the business transformation?

  4. And how did BMG solve those challenges and problems?
Evolution of BMG’s ecosystem (innovation and entrepreneurial)

  1. How did BMG’s ecosystem evolve over the years since its beginning?

  2. What were some of the key initiatives of BMG’s ecosystem over the course of its history?

  3. What was rationale behind these initiatives?

  4. When did the entrepreneurial activities begin to emerge in BMG′ ecosystem? And how?

  5. What is the overall ecosystem strategy? And its role in ecosystem management?

  6. How did BMG select entrepreneurs and new ventures?

  7. How did the ecosystem contribute to the overall business performance of BMG?
Resource orchestration

  1. How do you describe the relationships between BMG and its ecosystem entrepreneurs? And can you give a few examples?

  2. How did a new venture emerge out in the ecosystem?

  3. How did BMG and ecosystem work together to explore and exploit a new opportunities?

  4. What did BMG do to support the creation and the growth of a new venture within its ecosystem effectively and efficiently?

  5. In terms of a specific venture, what resources and capabilities did BMG provide? And how?

  6. What changes did BMG make in business and organizations to facilitate the pursuit of new opportunities within its ecosystem?

Appendix B: BMG’s primary businesses

Category Industries Value (thousand CNY per ton) Description
Traditional manufacturing businesses (before the ecosystem strategy was implemented) Alginates 16 Alginates, including sodium alginate, potassium alginate, etc., are a family of naturally occurring polysaccharides that are extracted from brown seaweed. Alginates are widely used as ingredients in several industries, such as food, skin care, textile printing and dyeing, pharmaceutical, and medical materials, for their specific applications in gelling, thickening, stabilizing, emulsion, water retention, fireproofing, sustained release, etc. BMG has the largest alginate manufacturing capacity in the world, producing 13,000 tons of alginates per year and holding a 25% share of the international market
Polyols 18 Polyols are carbohydrates that are not sugars; thus, they are sugar-free sweeteners. BMG produces two types of polyols: Mannitol and sorbitol, both of which are used in several industries, such as pharmaceutical, food, daily chemical and other fields
Emerging businesses (after the ecosystem strategy was implemented) Marine biomedical materials 2400 Marine biomedical materials are one of the four emerging high-tech industries and are developed using alginates as the raw materials. Products in this category include skin wound dressings, surgical sutures, pharmaceutical excipient, medical absorbent articles, adult incontinence products, etc., and have very high added value because of their special features. For example, skin wound dressings made from alginates can promote healing and be removed with less pain than conventional dressings. BMG is the largest marine drug API and pharmaceutical excipient supplier in China
Marine biofertilizers 20 The marine biofertilizer industry began by using seaweed waste that is produced from manufacturing alginate products, and it expanded based on R&D in the applications of microorganisms, biological enzymes, and seaweed active oligosaccharides, etc. The biofertilizer products of BMG, including microbial soil inoculants, seaweed organic-inorganic compound fertilizers, seaweed organic fertilizers, seaweed compound microbial fertilizers and plant growth regulators, are green and effective for soil amelioration and improving the quality of the agricultural products
Marine skin care products 160 Marine skin care products are developed based on seaweed extracts, which are effective for skin care, antioxidation, anti-wrinkle, ultraviolet proof and slimming. The marine skin care products of BMG include alginate facial masks, facial mask powders, lotions, skin milk, serum, etc

References

Acs, Z. J., E. Autio, and L. Szerb. 2014. “National Systems of Entrepreneurship: Measurement Issues and Policy Implications.” Research Policy 43 (1): 476–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.016.Search in Google Scholar

Adner, R., and R. Kapoor. 2010. “Value Creation in Innovation Ecosystems: How the Structure of Technological Interdependence Affects Firm Performance in New Technology Generations.” Strategic Management Journal 31 (3): 306–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.821.Search in Google Scholar

Ahmed, N., C. Li, S. A. Qalati, H. ur Rehman, A. Khan, and F. Rana. 2020. “Impact of Business Incubators on Sustainable Entrepreneurship Growth with Mediation Effect.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 12 (2): 137–60.10.1515/erj-2019-0116Search in Google Scholar

Al-Omoush, K. S., S. Ribeiro-Navarrete, C. Lassala, and M. Skare. 2022. “Networking and Knowledge Creation: Social Capital and Collaborative Innovation in Responding to the COVID-19 Crisis.” Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 100181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100181.Search in Google Scholar

Alvarez, S. A., and L. W. Busenitz. 2001. “The Entrepreneurship of Resource-Based Theory.” Journal of Management 27 (6): 755–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700609.Search in Google Scholar

Amit, R., and X. Han. 2017. “Value Creation through Novel Resource Configurations in a Digitally Enabled World.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 11 (3): 228–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1256.Search in Google Scholar

Arikan, A. T., and M. A. Schilling. 2011. “Structure and Governance in Industrial Districts: Implications for Competitive Advantage.” Journal of Management Studies 48 (4): 772–803.10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00951.xSearch in Google Scholar

Autio, E., and L. D. W. Thomas. 2014. “Innovation Ecosystems: Implications for Innovation Management.” In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management, edited by Dodgson, M., Phillips, N. and Gann, D. M., pp. 204–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Autio, E., S. Nambisan, L. D. W. Thomas, and M. Wright. 2018. “Digital Affordances, Spatial Affordances, and the Genesis of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 12 (1): 72–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1266.Search in Google Scholar

Azzam, J. E., C. Ayerbe, and R. J. Dang. 2017. “Using Patents to Orchestrate Ecosystem Stability: The Case of a French Aerospace Company.” International Journal of Technology Management 75 (1–4): 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2017.085695.Search in Google Scholar

Baert, C., M. Meuleman, M. Debruyne, and M. Wright. 2016. “Portfolio Entrepreneurship and Resource Orchestration.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 10 (4): 346–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1227.Search in Google Scholar

Baldwin, C. Y., and J. Woodard. 2009. “The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified View.” In Platforms, markets and innovation, Vol. 19–44, edited by Gawer, A. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781849803311.00008Search in Google Scholar

Barney, J. B., and A. M. Arikan. 2001. “The Resource-Based View: Origins and Implications.” In Handbook of Strategic Management: 124–188, edited by Hitt, M. A., Freeman, R. E. and Harrison, J. S. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Cavallo, A., A. Ghezzi, and R. Balocco. 2019. “Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research: Present Debates and Future Directions.” The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 15 (3): 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0526-3.Search in Google Scholar

Chadwick, C., J. Super, and K. Kwon. 2015. “Resource Orchestration in Practice: CEO Emphasis on SHRM, Commitment-Based HR Systems, and Firm Performance.” Strategic Management Journal 36 (3): 360–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2217.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, C., W. Zhang, W. Zhang, and Y. Jiang. 2022. “Entrepreneurial Traits, Entrepreneurial Environment Perception, and New Venture Performance: Empirical Evidence from Chinese Firms.” Entrepreneurship Research Journal 12 (1): 20180316. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2018-0316.Search in Google Scholar

Chesbrough, H. W. 2003. Open innovation: The new Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Search in Google Scholar

Conner, K. 1991. “A Historical Comparison of Resource-Based Logic and Five Schools of Thought within Industrial Organization Economics: Do We Have a New Theory of the Firm?” Journal of Management 17: 121–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700109.Search in Google Scholar

Delgado, M., M. E. Porter, and S. Stern. 2010. “Clusters and Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Economic Geography 10 (4): 495–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbq010.Search in Google Scholar

Dhanaraj, C., and A. Parkhe. 2006. “Orchestrating Innovation Networks.” Academy of Management Review 31 (3): 659–69. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.21318923.Search in Google Scholar

Du, W. D., S. L. Pan, N. Zhou, and T. Ouyang. 2018. “From a Marketplace of Electronics to a Digital Entrepreneurial Ecosystem (DEE): the Emergence of a Meta-Organization in Zhongguancun, china.” Information Systems Journal 28 (6): 1158–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12176.Search in Google Scholar

Eaton, B., S. Elaluf-Calderwood, C. Sørensen, and Y. Yoo. 2015. “Distributed Tuning of Boundary Resources: The Case of Apple’s iOS Service System.” MIS Quarterly 39 (1): 217–44. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2015/39.1.10.Search in Google Scholar

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Journal 14 (4): 532–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557.Search in Google Scholar

Eisenhardt, K. M., and M. E. Graebner. 2007. “Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges.” Academy of Management Journal 50 (50): 25–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888.Search in Google Scholar

Gawer, A., and M. A. Cusumano. 2002. Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gawer, A., and M. A. Cusumano. 2014. “Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 31 (3): 417–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12105.Search in Google Scholar

Gephart, R. P. 2004. “Qualitative Research and the Academy of Management Journal.” Academy of Management Journal 47 (4): 454–62. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2004.14438580.Search in Google Scholar

Ghazawneh, A., and O. Henfridsson. 2015. “A Paradigmatic Analysis of Digital Application Marketplaces.” Journal of Information Technology 30 (3): 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.16.Search in Google Scholar

Gioia, D. A., K. Corley, and A. Hamilton. 2013. “Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology.” Organizational Research Methods 16 (1): 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151.Search in Google Scholar

Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. “Grounded Theory: The Discovery of Grounded Theory.” Sociology The Journal Of The British Sociological Association 12: 27–49.Search in Google Scholar

Glaeser, E. L., W. R. Kerr, and G. A. Ponzetto. 2010. “Clusters of Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Urban Economics 67 (1): 150–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2009.09.008.Search in Google Scholar

Goswami, K., J. R. Mitchell, and S. Bhagavatula. 2018. “Accelerator Expertise: Understanding the Intermediary Role of Accelerators in the Development of the Bangalore Entrepreneurial Ecosystem.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 12 (1): 117–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1281.Search in Google Scholar

Hansen, M. T., and J. Birkinshaw. 2007. “The Innovation Value Chain.” Harvard Business Review 85 (6): 121–30.Search in Google Scholar

Helfat, C. E., and M. A. Peteraf. 2003. “The Dynamic Resource-Based View: Capability Lifecycles.” Strategic Management Journal 24 (10): 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.332.Search in Google Scholar

Helfat, C., S. Finkelstein, W. Mitchell, M. Peteraf, H. Singh, D. Teece, and S. Winter. 2007. Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations. Malden: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Iansiti, M., and R. Levien. 2004. “Strategy as Ecology.” Harvard Business Review 82 (3): 68126–78.Search in Google Scholar

Ireland, R. D., M. A. Hitt, and D. G. Sirmon. 2003. “Strategic Entrepreneurship: The Construct and its Dimensions.” Journal of Management 29: 963–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2063_03_00086-2.Search in Google Scholar

Ireland, R. D., and J. W. Webb. 2009. “Crossing the Great Divide of Strategic Entrepreneurship: Transitioning between Exploration and Exploitation.” Business Horizons 52 (5): 469–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.05.002.Search in Google Scholar

Jacobides, M. G., C. Cennamo, and A. Gawer. 2018. “Towards a Theory of Ecosystems.” Strategic Management Journal 39 (8): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904.Search in Google Scholar

Klein, H. K., and M. D. Myers. 1999. “A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems.” MIS Quarterly 23 (1): 67–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/249410.Search in Google Scholar

Kusa, R., J. Duda, and M. Suder. 2021. “Explaining SME Performance with fsQCA: the Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation, Entrepreneur Motivation, and Opportunity Perception.” Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 6 (4): 234–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2021.06.001.Search in Google Scholar

Lippman, S. A., and R. P. Rumelt. 2003. “A Bargaining Perspective on Resource Advantage.” Strategic Management Journal 24: 1069–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.345.Search in Google Scholar

Locke, K. 2001. Grounded Theory in Management Research. London: SAGE Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Lusch, R. F., and S. Nambisan. 2015. “Service Innovation: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective.” MIS Quarterly 39 (1): 155–75. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2015/39.1.07.Search in Google Scholar

March, J. G. 1991. “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning.” Organization Science 2 (1): 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.Search in Google Scholar

Nambisan, S., and M. Sawhney. 2011. “Orchestration Processes in Network-Centric Innovation: Evidence from the Filed.” Academy of Management Perspectives 25 (3): 40–57. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2011.63886529.Search in Google Scholar

Nambisan, S., and R. A. Baron. 2013. “Entrepreneurship in Innovation Ecosystems: Entrepreneurs’ Selfregulatory Processes and Their Implications for New Venture Success.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 37 (5): 1071–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00519.x.Search in Google Scholar

Nambisan, S. 2016. “Digital Entrepreneurship: toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 41 (6): 1029–55.10.1111/etap.12254Search in Google Scholar

Neuman, L. W. 2005. Social research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 6th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Search in Google Scholar

Pan, S. L., and B. Tan. 2011. “Demystifying Case Research: A Structured–Pragmatic–Situational (SPS) Approach to Conducting Case Studies.” Information and Organization 21 (3): 161–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2011.07.001.Search in Google Scholar

Pitelis, C. N., and D. J. Teece. 2010. “Cross-border Market Cocreation, Dynamic Capabilities and the Entrepreneurial Theory of the Multinational Enterprise.” Industrial and Corporate Change 19 (4): 1247–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq030.Search in Google Scholar

Pitelis, C. 2012. “Clusters, Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Co-creation, and Appropriability: A Conceptual Framework.” Industrial and Corporate Change 21 (6): 1359–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dts008.Search in Google Scholar

Pratt, M. G., K. Rockmann, and J. Kaufmann. 2006. “Constructing Professional Identity: the Role of Work and Identity Learning Cycles in the Customization of Identity Among Medica Residents.” Academy of Management Journal 49 (2): 235–62. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20786060.Search in Google Scholar

Priem, R. L., and J. E. Butler. 2001. “Is the Resource-Based View a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research?” Academy of Management Review 26: 22–40. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4011928.Search in Google Scholar

Ritala, P., L. Armila, and K. Blomqvist. 2009. “Innovation Orchestration Capability – Defining the Organizational and Individual Level Determinants.” International Journal of Innovation Management 13 (4): 569–91. https://doi.org/10.1142/s136391960900242x.Search in Google Scholar

Rutherford, M. W., P. F. Buller, and P. R. McMullen. 2003. “Human Resource Management Problems over the Life Cycle of Small to Medium-Sized Firms.” Human Resource Management 42: 321–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.10093.Search in Google Scholar

Selander, L., O. Henfridsson, and F. Svahn. 2013. “Capability Search and Redeem across Digital Ecosystems.” Journal of Information Technology 28 (3): 183–97. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2013.14.Search in Google Scholar

Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman. 2000. “The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research.” Academy of Management Review 25 (1): 217–26. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611.Search in Google Scholar

Sirmon, D. G., and M. A. Hitt. 2003. “Managing Resources: Linking Unique Resources, Management and Wealth Creation in Family Firms.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 27: 339–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-8520.t01-1-00013.Search in Google Scholar

Sirmon, D. G., M. A. Hitt, and D. Ireland. 2007. “Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Environments to Create Value: Looking inside the Black Box.” Academy of Management Review 32 (1): 273–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.23466005.Search in Google Scholar

Sirmon, D. G., S. Gove, and M. A. Hitt. 2008. “Resource Management in Dyadic Competitive Rivalry: The Effects of Resource Bundling and Deployment.” Academy of Management Journal 51: 919–35. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.34789656.Search in Google Scholar

Sirmon, D. G., M. A. Hitt, D. Ireland, and B. A. Gilbert. 2011. “Resource Orchestration to Create Competitive Advantage: Breadth, Depth, and Life Cycle Effects.” Journal of Management 37 (5): 1390–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385695.Search in Google Scholar

Siggelkow, N. 2007. “Persuasion with Case Studies.” Academy of Management Journal 50 (1): 20–4. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160882.Search in Google Scholar

Spigel, B. 2017. “The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 41 (1): 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167.Search in Google Scholar

Spigel, B., and R. Harrison. 2018. “Towards a Process Theory of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 12 (1): 151–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1268.Search in Google Scholar

Steyaert, C. 1997. “A Qualitative Methodology for Process Studies of Entrepreneurship: Creating Local Knowledge through Stories.” International Studies of Management & Organization 27 (3): 13–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1997.11656711.Search in Google Scholar

Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Sussan, F., and Z. J. Acs. 2017. “The Digital Entrepreneurial Ecosystem.” Small Business Economics 49 (1): 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9867-5.Search in Google Scholar

Teece, D. J. 1986. “Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing and Public Policy.” Research Policy 15 (6): 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2.Search in Google Scholar

Teece, D. J. 2018. “Profiting from Innovation in the Digital Economy: Standards, Complementary Assets, and Business Models in the Wire-Less World.” Research Policy 47 (8): 1367–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.015.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, T., J. Purdy, and M. J. Ventresca. 2018. “How Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Take Form: Evidence from Social Impact Initiatives in Seattle.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 12 (1): 96–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1285.Search in Google Scholar

Tilson, D., K. Lyytinen, and C. Sørensen. 2010. “Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda.” Informtion Systems Research 21 (4): 748–59. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0318.Search in Google Scholar

Tiwana, A., B. Konsynsk, and A. A. Bush. 2010. “Platform Evolution: Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics.” Information Systems Research 21 (4): 675–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0323.Search in Google Scholar

Von Briel, F., P. Davidsson, and J. Recker. 2018. “Digital Technologies as External Enablers of New Venture Creation in the it Hardware Sector.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 42 (1): 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717732779.Search in Google Scholar

Walsham, G. 1995. “Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and Method.” European Journal of Information Systems 4 (2): 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.1995.9.Search in Google Scholar

Walsham, G. 2006. “Doing Interpretive Research.” European Journal of Information Systems 15 (3): 320–30. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000589.Search in Google Scholar

Wareham, J. D., P. B. Fox, and J. L. Cano Giner. 2014. “Technology Ecosystem Governance.” Organization Science 25 (4): 1195–215. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0895.Search in Google Scholar

West, J., and M. Bogers. 2014. “Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: a Review of Research on Open Innovation.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 31 (4): 814–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12125.Search in Google Scholar

Wiklund, J., and D. A. Shepherd. 2009. “The Effectiveness of Alliances and Acquisitions: the Role of Resource Combination Activities.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 33 (1): 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00286.x.Search in Google Scholar

Yin, R. K. 2003. Case study Research: Design and Methods, Applied social Research Methods Series. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Zahra, S. A., I. Filatotchev, and M. Wright. 2009. “How Do Threshold Firms Sustain Corporate Entrepreneurship? the Role of Boards and Absorptive Capacity.” Journal of Business Venturing 24: 248–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.09.001.Search in Google Scholar

Zahra, S. A., and S. Nambisan. 2011. “Entrepreneurship in Global Innovation Ecosystems.” AMS Review 1 (1): 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-011-0004-3.Search in Google Scholar

Zolper, K., D. Beimborn, and T. Weitzel. 2014. “The Effect of Social Network Structures at the Business/it Interface on it Application Change Effectiveness.” Journal of Information Technology 29 (2): 148–69. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.6.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2022-02-23
Accepted: 2022-08-13
Published Online: 2022-08-30

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Competitive Research Articles
  3. Entrepreneurship in Times of Crisis: A Comprehensive Review with Future Directions
  4. Entrepreneurial Failure: Structuring a Widely Overlooked Field of Research
  5. Why Peer Support Matters: Entrepreneurial Stressors, Emotional Exhaustion, and Growth Intentions of Women Entrepreneurs
  6. “And Yet It Moves”: National Entrepreneurial Culture and Entrepreneurship-Friendly Policies: Evidence From OECD Countries
  7. Research on the Influence Mechanism of Dual Social Network Embeddedness Combined Ambidexterity on Entrepreneurial Performance of Returning Migrant Workers
  8. Holding Friends Closer or Keeping Them at a Distance: The Intimacy with Founding Members and Its Effect on Entrepreneurs’ Effectual Problem Setting
  9. Entrepreneurs’ Personality Traits and Social Enterprise: A Legitimation Perspective
  10. The Antecedents to Habitual Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs’ Narcissism and Educational Level
  11. Network Insight and Entrepreneurial Performance of New Ventures: Understanding the Roles of Resource Integration and Dynamic Management Capability
  12. Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior – A Longitudinal Study of Entrepreneurial Intentions
  13. Patterns of Technological Entrepreneurship and Their Determinants: Evidence from Technology-Based Manufacturing Firms in China
  14. The Relationship between Cognitive and Contextual Factors: A Self-Regulatory Mechanism Underlying Persistence in Nascent Entrepreneurs
  15. Is e-Government a Driver to Enhance Entrepreneurship? An Empirical Investigation of European Countries
  16. Investigating the Relationship between Technological Entrepreneurship and National Innovativeness: Moderating Effects of Intellectual Property Protection and R&D Transfer Environment
  17. How Does Subsidiary Autonomy Influence Performance in the Emerging Economy: Different Moderating Effects of Subsidiary Entrepreneurship
  18. Resource Orchestration in Hub-Based Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: A Case Study on the Seaweed Industry
  19. How Does the Combination of Factors Influence Entrepreneurs’ Decision-Making Logic? A Qualitative Comparative analysis
  20. Competitive Strategy in Everyday Entrepreneurial Ventures: A Self-determination Theory Perspective
  21. Should Start-Ups Be Green? Corporate Environmental Responsibility, Institutional Contexts, and Financial Performance of New Ventures
  22. Success Factors in Equity Crowdfunding – Evidence from Crowdcube
https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2022-0071
Keywords for this article
hub-based entrepreneurial ecosystem; resource orchestration; enduring entrepreneurship; hub firm; ecosystem entrepreneurs

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Competitive Research Articles
  3. Entrepreneurship in Times of Crisis: A Comprehensive Review with Future Directions
  4. Entrepreneurial Failure: Structuring a Widely Overlooked Field of Research
  5. Why Peer Support Matters: Entrepreneurial Stressors, Emotional Exhaustion, and Growth Intentions of Women Entrepreneurs
  6. “And Yet It Moves”: National Entrepreneurial Culture and Entrepreneurship-Friendly Policies: Evidence From OECD Countries
  7. Research on the Influence Mechanism of Dual Social Network Embeddedness Combined Ambidexterity on Entrepreneurial Performance of Returning Migrant Workers
  8. Holding Friends Closer or Keeping Them at a Distance: The Intimacy with Founding Members and Its Effect on Entrepreneurs’ Effectual Problem Setting
  9. Entrepreneurs’ Personality Traits and Social Enterprise: A Legitimation Perspective
  10. The Antecedents to Habitual Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs’ Narcissism and Educational Level
  11. Network Insight and Entrepreneurial Performance of New Ventures: Understanding the Roles of Resource Integration and Dynamic Management Capability
  12. Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior – A Longitudinal Study of Entrepreneurial Intentions
  13. Patterns of Technological Entrepreneurship and Their Determinants: Evidence from Technology-Based Manufacturing Firms in China
  14. The Relationship between Cognitive and Contextual Factors: A Self-Regulatory Mechanism Underlying Persistence in Nascent Entrepreneurs
  15. Is e-Government a Driver to Enhance Entrepreneurship? An Empirical Investigation of European Countries
  16. Investigating the Relationship between Technological Entrepreneurship and National Innovativeness: Moderating Effects of Intellectual Property Protection and R&D Transfer Environment
  17. How Does Subsidiary Autonomy Influence Performance in the Emerging Economy: Different Moderating Effects of Subsidiary Entrepreneurship
  18. Resource Orchestration in Hub-Based Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: A Case Study on the Seaweed Industry
  19. How Does the Combination of Factors Influence Entrepreneurs’ Decision-Making Logic? A Qualitative Comparative analysis
  20. Competitive Strategy in Everyday Entrepreneurial Ventures: A Self-determination Theory Perspective
  21. Should Start-Ups Be Green? Corporate Environmental Responsibility, Institutional Contexts, and Financial Performance of New Ventures
  22. Success Factors in Equity Crowdfunding – Evidence from Crowdcube
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 28.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/erj-2022-0071/html
Scroll to top button