CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,724Digital Platforms and EconomicsBusiness Strategy and InnovationInnovation and Knowledge Management

Towards a theory of ecosystems

Open access
Jacobides, Michael G., Cennamo, Carmelo, Gawer, Annabelle·2018·Strategic Management Journal
DOI 10.1002/smj.2904
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Research Summary: The recent surge of interest in “ecosystems” in strategy research and practice has mainly focused on what ecosystems are and how they operate. We complement this literature by considering when and why ecosystems emerge, and what makes them distinct from other governance forms. We argue that modularity enables ecosystem emergence as it allows a set of distinct yet interdependent organizations to coordinate without full hierarchical fiat. We show how ecosystems address multilateral dependences based on various types of complementarities—supermodular or unique, unidirectional or bidirectional—which determine the ecosystem's value‐add. We argue that at the core of ecosystems lie nongeneric complementarities, and the creation of sets of roles that face similar rules. We conclude with implications for mainstream strategy and suggestions for future research. Managerial Summary: We consider what makes ecosystems different from other business constellations, including markets, alliances, or hierarchically managed supply chains. Ecosystems, we posit, are interacting organizations, enabled by modularity, not hierarchically managed, bound together by the nonredeployability of their collective investment elsewhere. Ecosystems add value as they allow managers to coordinate their multilateral dependence through sets of roles that face similar rules, thus obviating the need to enter into customized contractual agreements with each partner. We explain how different types of complementarities (unique or supermodular, generic or specific, uni‐ or bi‐directional) shape ecosystems and offer a “theory of ecosystems” that can explain what they are, when they emerge, and why alignment occurs. Finally, we outline the critical factors affecting ecosystem emergence, evolution, and success—or failure.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/smj.2904

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A significant fraction of multihoming investments tends to be co-specialized, such that they cannot be easily redeployed or re-used on other platforms, increasing the risk of holdup and the costs of multihoming to a distant platform.

    “A significant fraction of these multihoming investments tends to be co-specialized, such that they cannot be easily redeployed or re-used on other platforms (Jacobides et al. 2018), increasing the risk of holdup and the costs of multihoming to a distant platform.”

    From Smart Timing for Smart Products? Complementor Multihoming in Nascent Platform Markets (2026) · cites this paper as Jacobides et al. 2018

    Section 3.4 (page not provided) says that joining an ecosystem involves some nonfungible investment that cannot easily be redeployed elsewhere without cost; it also links co-specialization to the cost of retooling for another ecosystem. It does not establish that a significant fraction of multihoming investments tends to be co-specialized. Nor does it specifically establish increased holdup risk or the cost of multihoming to a distant platform. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The focal platform actor requires specific capabilities to form and orchestrate the surrounding ecosystem, enforces governance principles and fosters generativity, allowing complementors to undertake discrete actions to contribute to the platform's value proposition.

    “Here the focal platform actor requires specific capabilities to form and orchestrate the surrounding ecosystem (Helfat & Raubitschek, 2018), enforces governance principles and fosters generativity, allowing the complementors to undertake discrete actions to contribute to the platforms' value proposition (Adner, 2017;Jacobides et al., 2018;Teece, 2018).”

    From Digital platform ecosystems in flux: From proprietary digital platforms to wide-spanning ecosystems (2023) · cites this paper as Jacobides et al., 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 102 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-opetition: A revolutionary mindset that combines competition and cooperation in the marketplace. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  2. Dewey, J., Hickman, L. A., & Alexander, T. M. (Eds.). (1999). The essential Dewey. Bloomington, IN.: Indiana University Press.
  3. James, W. (1975, 1909). The meaning of truth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  4. Leten, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Roijakkers, N., Clerix, A., & Van Helleputte, J. (2013). IP models to orchestrate innovation ecosystems. California Management Review, 55(4), 51-64.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A.
Affiliations
  • London Business School (GB)
  • Bocconi University (IT)
  • University of Surrey (GB)
Corresponding author
Jacobides, Michael G.
ORCID
Venue
Strategic Management Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-06-05
Volume
39
Issue
8
Pages
2255-2276
ISSN
  • 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0266
DOI
10.1002/smj.2904
OpenAlex
W2799670133
Cited by
3,724
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 790 · 2025: 565 · 2024: 520 · 2023: 499 · 2022: 483 · 2021: 404 · 2020: 297 · 2019: 129 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
358.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Strategic Management Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • London Business School Research Online (London Business School) (acceptedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della Ricerca - Bocconi (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
London Business School
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategy and Innovation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
Keywords
business ecosystems, ecosystem emergence, modularity, complementarity, inter-organizational coordination, governance forms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review