See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335144117

The strategic analysis of business ecosystems : New conception and practical

application of a research approach

Conference Paper · June 2019

DOI: 10.1109/ICE.2019.8792657

CITATION READS

1 2,542

4 authors, including:

Rafael Götzen Gerhard Gudergan

RWTH Aachen University RWTH Aachen University
1 PUBLICATION   1 CITATION    69 PUBLICATIONS   282 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

myneData View project

Digital Transformation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rafael Götzen on 01 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The strategic analysis of business ecosystems
New conception and practical application of a research approach
Simon Wieninger, Rafael Götzen & Dr. Gerhard Gudergan
Institute for Industrial Management
at RWTH Aachen University
Aachen, Germany
Abstract — In the course of the advancing digitalization, new
business fields are characterized by a mixture of competition and
cooperation of the actors involved. MOORE (1993) postulates that
in analogy to natural ecosystems, long-term successful companies
also operate in comparable network structures. In this context,
there are pronounced controversies about the extent to which there
are leading actors in such a business ecosystem and to what extent
they can control the entire system. Similarly, it is largely unclear
where the boundaries of a business ecosystem actually lie and how
meaningful selective boundaries are. Especially the extent of the
coopetition proves to be characteristic for the relationship between
the involved actors. Therefore, the aim of this research approach
is to develop a new approach for the analysis of corporate ecosys-
tems. To ensure applicability, the developed approach was vali-
dated in a current case study in the telecommunications industry.
Keywords—Business Ecosystem, Ecosystem Analysis, Coopeti-
tion, Value Network, Strategic Analysis, Ecosystem Visualization
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Initial situation and relevance of the topic
The advancing digitalization is leading established compa-
nies worldwide into a paradoxical phase of massive change. On
the one hand, they benefit from the rapidly increasing data ex-
change between different hardware and users [1]. At the same
time, new databased services and increasingly powerful net-
works are the foundation of disruptive business models [2].
Leading companies worldwide to be a particularly high-poten-
tial innovative business field [3] estimate the so-called „Internet
of Things“ (IoT), which is expected to have more than 30 billion
networked objects in 2020. The basic idea of the IoT is to net-
work physical objects of any kind equipped with different sen-
sors (e.g. machines and vehicles) or extended to include living
"things" such as humans and animals. This networking enables,
among other things, continuous monitoring, control and analysis
of a wide variety of processes. [4]. In order to be able to provide
a customer benefit in this business field, companies must man-
age intensive competition as well as cooperation with software
companies, platform providers and hardware manufacturers in
the best possible way and find their own promising positioning
[5]. The question of optimal positioning is one of the core re-
search elements of strategic management and other related dis-
ciplines [6]. In contrast to classical competition-oriented re-
search approaches, such as Michael Porter's industry structure
analysis according to the five-forces model, new digital business
fields are increasingly characterized by a mixture of competition
978-1-7281-3401-7/18/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
Kai Michael Wenning
Deutsche Telekom AG Center for Strategic Projects
Bonn, Germany
and cooperation between the actors [7]. In research, MOORE
already decisively influenced this basic idea in 1993 by the met-
aphorical designation of companies acting in a so-called busi-
ness ecosystem [8]. Here MOORE (1993) postulates that in
analogy to the parallel symbiotic and parasitic coexistence of
different organisms in natural ecosystems, long-term successful
enterprises also operate in comparable network structures. In
such a business ecosystem, companies and other types of organ-
isations cooperate and compete across industries, develop skills
and generally create customer benefits that can be imitated by
competitors [9]. As outlined by MOORE (1993) and expanded
by, among others, IANSITI and LEVIEN (2004), companies
take on diverging functions in such business ecosystems. As
shown in the MIT Sloan Management Review 2015, especially
today prominent digital success companies such as Amazon,
Apple and Microsoft are characterized by understanding and ac-
tively shaping their role and functions in business ecosystems
[7]. However, it is a challenge for most other companies and
from a scientific perspective to understand what characterizes
business ecosystems and what dependencies determine corpo-
rate positioning.
B. Objectives of the study
In order to generate benefit, a basic understanding of possi-
ble interrelationships and interdependencies between actors is to
be created from a theory-retinal perspective. Subsequently, al-
ready existing analytical approaches will be questioned. Fur-
thermore, a generally applicable strategic analysis method will
be developed. This makes it possible to discuss both the exercise
of one's own company-specific function and other actor roles, to
understand their significance in the respective business context.
To ensure applicability, the developed method was validated us-
ing a current case study of the telecommunications industry.
II. RELATIONS TO EXISTING WORKS AND THEORIES
A. Origins of the business ecosystem concept
The basic idea of business ecosystems as a concept for eco-
nomic activity was first presented in 1993 by the US-American
economics professor James F. Moore in the Harvard Business
Review [10]. He postulated that successful companies do not
operate as individual entities in state-determined industries, but
rather, in analogy to organisms in natural ecosystems. They act
simultaneously with different organizations both cooperatively
and competitively and develop capabilities. Each organization
2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,
Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)
has a specific function and role within one ecosystem. This en- (leading) scientists also describe contradictory boundaries.
ables them to develop new products and services and to satisfy MOORE (1993) and IANSITI and LEVIEN (2004), for exam-
customer needs as best as possible [8]. According to MOORE ple, initially set very extensive definitions, but only cited empir-
(1993), business ecosystems, similar to natural ecosystems, can ical examples that are strongly centered on individual compa-
also collapse completely if they do not adapt or react to external nies, without explaining the entire business ecosystem and its
changes sufficiently quickly. Thus, individual performance, i.e. limits [16]. A further criticism is the fundamental questioning of
long-term corporate success or decline, is determined by the the business ecosystem concept as a real theory. The main argu-
adaptive action of the ecosystem [8]. ments for this are a lack of postulated external validity, i.e. the
generalizability of isolated empirically proven findings. Thus,
Despite the obvious linguistic similarity, the business eco- the diversity of existing case studies are insufficient to confirm
system concept must be clearly distinguished from the classical an actual system [17]. The concept critique introduced here rep-
Organizational Ecology Theory, which was fundamentally resents only a selective section of the discussion focusing on the
shaped by HANNAN and FREEMAN (1977) [11]. A large part entire business ecosystem. Nevertheless, it is important to con-
of the work in this field of research is concerned with companies sider the identified weaknesses in the context. In particular, the
as completely independent entities, without the interdependen- lack of clarity regarding the business ecosystem boundaries rep-
cies that MOORE has shown across industries [9]. Another im-
resents a critical challenge in addressing the identified objec-
portant divergence is the assumed adaptability of organizations. tives.
The Organizational Ecology Theory shows that most companies
are not able to adapt to external changes. However, the Business
Ecosystem postulates that companies can understand and react III. CONCEPT DELIMITATION OF EXISTING APPROACHES FOR THE
adaptively to changes in corresponding skills [9, 12]. Based on ANALYSIS OF BUSINESS EOSYSTEMS
MOORE's (1993) terminological outline of a business ecosys- After a basic understanding of Business Ecosystems was
tem, various researchers and practitioners with different inter- created, already existing analysis approaches could be ques-
ests developed further interpretations [10]. So far, the research tioned. For this purpose, requirements and criteria were devel-
field has been characterized by a certain heterogeneity of defi- oped in two steps, to evaluate these approaches. First, contextual
nitions - more than 30 divergent interpretations could be identi- requirements that question the extet to which critical aspects can
fied in the existing research literature. Moreover, it can be stated be taken into account by the analysis approach. Subsequently,
that most of these definitions are based on conceptual work and applicability-related requirements were established to ensure a
that empirical studies based on them have only been carried out potential use of the method as a consulting tool.
to a small extent [10]. Essentially, the different definitions em-
phasize the following characteristics of business ecosystems: A. Contextual requirements
Co-Evolution: Depending on each other, the various actors The analysis of a company's function or role in the business
develop abilities to valorise innovations and to satisfy customer ecosystem is of central importance. Thus, the aim is to gain a
needs as best as possible. basic understanding of the respective relationships and interde-
pendencies between the actors and to question the role of one's
Coopetition: The relationship between the actors is charac- own company on a case-by-case basis. In this context, it is par-
terised by both cooperation and competition. This implies that ticularly important to critically examine whether any special re-
individual companies depend on the success of the entire busi- lationship-defining characteristics occur and to what extent
ness ecosystem on the one hand, but often compete simultane- these can be described or measured in concrete terms. MOORE
ously for resources and customers, for example. (1993) already addresses the existence and significance of dif-
Cross-industry: In contrast to classical economic ap- ferent functions and roles in a business ecosystem in his first
proaches, e.g. by PORTER (1985), the network of actors can be work. In general, the bargaining power of the individual ecosys-
regarded as cross-industry [13]. tem participants is primarily determined by whether they deliver
a value-added contribution that cannot be replaced by other
B. Terminological criticism companies (both within and outside the business ecosystem) [8].
A further factor is the possible costs of switching for ecosystem
The use of metaphorical comparisons is widespread in eco- members if they decide to operate in parallel or completely in
nomic research and frequently serves to promote an intuitive un- another business ecosystem. Thus, further investments may be-
derstanding of problem and factual relationships [14]. In partic- come necessary and partner-specific resources used so far may
ular, the metaphorical approach adopted by MOORE (1993), become obsolete [8]. It is therefore important to assess to what
leads to an extension of the often strongly limited analytical per- extent the method under consideration may question different
spective to internal challenges and to a more holistic structure functions and roles, analyse them and in particular make them
of interdependencies [15]. This striking analogy is also some- manifestable.
times referred to as merely inapplicable and consciously sensa-
tional terminology. The basis for this are, among other things, Hybrid forms of both cooperative and competitive business
contradictions and assumptions that cannot be found in the eco- strategies often characterize new technology-driven markets.
logical context. An example of this is sometimes a postulated Software developers, platform providers, hardware manufactur-
conscious struggle between different business ecosystems. Fur- ers and telecommunications companies jointly drive new busi-
ther criticism focuses on the already outlined problem of the un- ness opportunities. At the same time, they compete for achieva-
clear business ecosystem boundaries. This is not only evident in ble margins and the use of partly similar products and services
the analysis and comparison of different authors; individual [18]. However, the measurement or explanation of an applicable

978-1-7281-3401-7/18/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,

Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)
methodology for the actual determination of the strategic inter-
dependence remains out of consideration. Thus the concrete re-
cording of this connection between individual actors in the busi-
ness ecosystem, referred to as coopetition. Numerous research-
ers have already intensively dealt with the analysis and descrip-
tion of coopetition. Accordingly, a large number of slightly di-
verging definitions have been developed [19]. What they all
have in common, however, is the observation that coopetition
can be found between companies with both vertical and hori-
zontal ties and can therefore exist in any business relationship
[20]. It is therefore important to assess the extent to which ex-
isting analytical approaches make it possible to grasp the nature
of coopetition between different actors in the context of business
ecosystems and to make it tangible for possible strategic con-
clusions.
Another decisive contextual requirement criterion is the
analysis perspective of the method. On the one hand, this offers
the possibility to view and assess the strategic interdependencies
of a company as a whole [8]. On the other hand, the question
arises to what extent an assessment at company level makes
sense for internationally operating corporations with a highly di-
versified product and service portfolio. A driving aspect of this
critical assessment is, among other things, the possibility of re-
cording all value-added activities at company level. From a
practical perspective, it is hardly possible to record all business
ecosystem members of a company. This becomes obvious espe-
cially against the background of the challenge of unclear eco-
system boundaries [21]. It is also questionable how effective a
business ecosystem analysis is at the corporate level, since in-
ternational corporations often take on a wide variety of func-
tions in different corporate networks. An overarching consider-
ation and consolidation of corporate networking would probably
not contribute to a concrete assessment of the position in these
new business fields.
B. Applicability related requirements
From an application-oriented perspective, the aspect of
traceability in particular represents an essential criterion. When
using methods in day-to-day consulting, it is often critical to
success that the resulting outcomes and recommendations for
action have been derived in a comprehensible way from the cus-
tomer's perspective. This makes it possible to discuss assump-
tions made and to present decisions both internally and exter-
nally to critics in a justifiable manner [22]. Against this back-
ground, it is necessary to critically examine existing analysis ap-
proaches for their comprehensibility and to uncover possible
weaknesses. In addition, the necessary knowledge should be
taken into account in the assessment of existing approaches for
the analysis of business ecosystems. This is characterized in par-
ticular by distinct consulting experience and strategically ori-
ented methodological competence. A further requirement crite-
rion related to applicability is the need for information, i.e. in
contrast to personal expertise, the necessary information input
for carrying out the analysis method. Here both the necessary
expenditure for research work and the basic expected readiness
of other enterprises to share information play a decisive role. For
example, the extent to which it is possible to obtain information
about all Business Ecosystems members must already be viewed
critically with regard to MOORE's original work [8]. Especially
978-1-7281-3401-7/18/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
in cases of pronounced coopetition, the question of willingness
to exchange information intensively arises. Accordingly, it is
necessary to question the information requirements of the re-
spective analysis method.
C. Evaluation of existing approaches
Within the scope of the investigation, existing analysis ap-
proaches of business ecosystems as well as similarly obvious
concepts were evaluated. For this purpose, the previously de-
rived requirement criteria were discussed and the general objec-
tives of the methods as well as other striking peculiarities were
outlined. In order to ensure a uniform understanding, the analy-
sis methods considered are briefly presented below:
• Business Ecosystem Health Framework: The aim of the
framework presented by IANSITI and LEVIEN (2004) in
the Harvard Business Review is to assess the health of the
business ecosystem in which the company is located. The
company dossier and an optimal strategy for its own role
should also be proposed [15].
• Value Network Analysis: The aim of this method is to pro-
vide an opportunity for modelling, analysing, evaluating and
optimising exchange relationships between tangibles and in-
tangibles in the Value Network [23].
• 6C Framework: The method developed by RONG ET AL.
(2015) refers to the analysis of the following six core com-
ponents - Context, Construct, Capabilities, Change, Config-
uration and Cooperation [24].
• MOBENA: The method described by BATTISTELLA ET
AL. (2013) as Methodology of Business Ecosystem Net-
work Analysis aims at the analysis, modelling and develop-
ment prediction of business ecosystems using a four-step
process [25].
• Data-driven approach: This BASOLE ET AL. (2015) pro-
cess is designed to analyze and visualize business ecosys-
tems and the dynamics that occur between companies within
this system, based on the integration of larger databases [26].
• BEAM: TIAN ET AL. (2008) have developed a framework
for the analysis and modelling of business ecosystems,
called Business Ecosystem Analysis and Modelling. This
framework is based on approaches of classical network mod-
elling, simulation techniques as well as game theoretical ex-
planatory models [27].
• Ecosystem as a Structure: ADNER (2016) introduces a new
approach to the understanding and analysis of business eco-
systems. Instead of the actors, Adner places the structures
and/or activities and functions for the creation of a specific
customer benefit in the foreground [6].
The evaluation of these existing approaches was based on
the previously derived contextual and applicability-related re-
quirement criteria. In order to enable a qualitative comparison
between the distinctions of the different methods, the following
matrix was developed based on the evaluation (see Fig. 1).
2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,
Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)
 Contextual requirements Application-oriented requirements
Likewise, value creation must be realized by a corporate net-
work and not by an individual company. Here it is decisive that,
Visualization of Analytical Necessary
Methodolog y Role understanding Traceability Information needs
coopetition perspective know-how

Business Ecosystem
Health Framework
based on ADNER (2016), it can be assumed that the value prop-
Value Network Analysis
osition is created by several different functional sub-steps that
can be distinguished from each other and assigned to different
6C Framework
companies. Thus, the question of functional components or ac-
MOBENA tivities for the creation of value proposition must also be an-
Beam
swered. In this context, the approach presented here does not
Ecosystem as
aim to cover all the ecosystems of established, complex compa-
a Structure
nies. Rather, it tries to focus on the structures and activities for
Fig. 1 Evaluation of existing approaches a specific customer benefit instead of the actors, following
ADNER (2016) [6].
As the detailed evaluation of the already available analysis 2) Business Ecosystem Analysis
approaches as well as the compressed matrix clearly showed,
there is no method that optimally meets the requirements for the Once the core of the business ecosystem has been fundamen-
analysis of business ecosystems. In particular, there is a lack of tally identified based on the addressed value proposition, the
an approach that provides a method-based, case-specific under- deeper analysis, understood as the second phase, can take place
standing of how a company performs functions in such a busi- systematically. Here it is crucial to answer the question which
ness ecosystem. companies assume the respective function in creating the value
proposition in the business ecosystem. Within the framework of
the analysis, this makes it possible for companies not to be
IV. RESEARCH APPROACH
viewed as a single entity. As already pointed out by MOORE
A. Development of a strategic analysis method (1993) and also highlighted by more recent approaches such as
ADNER (2016), the potential substitutability of an actor or its
In the following, the derivation of an optimal method based functional value contribution in the business ecosystem is of
on the previous analysis is presented systematically (see Fig. 2). considerable importance [6, 8]. Thus, it determines the respec-
The process describes the relevant tasks of identifying, analyz- tive power position and accordingly the ability to secure greater
ing and visualizing business ecosystem specific content. Based profits for itself. Similarly, these actors or hard-to-replace func-
on the orientation of the method, this is referred to as value sup- tions can pose a particularly high threat to the success of the
ply-oriented business ecosystem analysis. business ecosystem. There are multitudes of approaches for op-
erationalizing substitutability, in simplified terms this reflects
the "degree of dependence of the market partners" on the respec-
tive manufacturer or service provider [30]. It is therefore neces-
sary to answer the question of how easily the undertaking in
question can be replaced in the performance of a specific func-
tion. The question of replaceability is methodically imple-
mented by a five-stage rating scale (1 = very easily replaceable
to 5 = very difficult to replace) [31].
Actors in a business ecosystem usually cooperate in order to
Fig. 2 Process model of the value supply-orientated analysis
optimally develop customer needs and value innovations, which
they would not be able to do in the same way solely with their
1) Business Ecosystem Identification own skills and capacities. Cooperation between companies has
Similar to OSTERWALDERS and PIGNEURS (2011) been intensively investigated as a field of research for decades,
Business Model Canvas, the first step here is to identify the fun- but there is still no uniform understanding of concepts or con-
damental value proposition or the specifically focused problem structs [32, 33, 34]. Nevertheless, some basic common charac-
from the customer's perspective [28]. This enables an optimal teristics can be identified: In simplified terms, for example, one
case-specific approach, which is particularly suitable for large can speak of cooperation when two or more actors act in a coor-
corporations.The construct of the value proposition is not uni- dinated manner in economic activities based on agreements
formly defined in research. Nevertheless, it is characterized by [35]. Accordingly, the question must be answered: To what ex-
the fact that it is generally not perceived as a simple product or tent is there a cooperative relationship to the respective com-
service, but as the total benefit perceived by the customer [29]. pany with regard to the specifically executed function in the
In order for the method to be applicable, the value proposition business ecosystem? The query of the cooperation relationship
already would have to be largely determined or known. This is is analogously represented by a rating scale (1 = very weakly
because the method is designed for the strategic analysis of pronounced to 5 = very strongly pronounced).
planned or existing business ecosystems, but not for the search At the same time, actors in a business ecosystem often com-
for a customer-optimal value proposition. Therefore, the ques- pete with each other. For example with regard to the use of
tion of the value proposition created by the business ecosystem partly similar products and services. It is also necessary to ques-
must be answered. Based on this, the essential functional com- tion this relationship in order to create an understanding of a
ponents for generating the value proposition are to be identified
disjointly and described comprehensibly [6, 24].

978-1-7281-3401-7/18/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,

Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)
specific business ecosystem: To what extent is there, a compet-
itive relationship to the respective company with regard to the
specific function performed in the business ecosystem? A rating
scale (1 = very weakly pronounced to 5 = very strongly pro-
nounced) is also applied here.
state or the government can exert a considerable influence on
the feasible ecosystem activities due to its legislative function
[16].
3) Business Ecosystem Visualization

As already explained, actor relationships in business ecosys- The aim of the developed business ecosystem analysis
tems are often characterised by coopetition, i.e. by strategic mix- method is to enable companies to better understand their own
ing ratios of the previously mentioned cooperation and compe- role or the functions performed in new innovative business
tition. In the evaluation of existing approaches, it has become fields and in particular, to question whether, beyond the classi-
clear that none of the variants shown makes it possible to actu- cal connectivity service, a more far-reaching positioning is
ally record the intensity of the coopetition relationship between taken or whether additional critical functions are performed in
two actors. Due to the difficult manifestability of this construct, the business ecosystem. In order to make this possible in a com-
a direct query is to be evaluated only as conditionally meaning- prehensible way, information based on the recorded ecosystem
ful. Nevertheless, coopetition should be considered as a decisive has to be visualized in a meaningful way, understood as the third
characteristic especially in the analysis of business ecosystems. phase of the developed method. As a basic visualization struc-
Thus, cooperation and competition must not be recorded as "ei- ture, a one-dimensional ring model (see Fig. 3) was developed
ther-or-decision", but must be questioned as a continuum of in- which, as explained in more detail below, provides the possibil-
termediate characteristics [36]. This follows the idea of strategic ity to systematically enter the various relevant information re-
networks such as Collaborative Networked Organisations garding the respective business ecosystem and then to discuss
(CNOs) which show high potential for value co-creation and co- it.
innovation [37]. Both forms of relationship can occur in parallel
and thus simultaneously determine the interaction of organiza-
tions [20]. On this basis, the research idea of the coopetition in-
dex is conceived within the framework of this methodological
approach, which can be calculated from the mathematical dif-
ference of the previous scoring of cooperation and competition.
This can be derived from the specific focus on the distinction
between cooperation and competition characteristics in business
ecosystems. Due to the selected scaling, the coopetition index
can take on values from 4 to - 4. Increasingly positive values
characterize almost exclusively cooperative relationships
(coopetition index = 4). Increasingly negative values express
highly competitive relationships, i.e. almost exclusively connec-
tions determined by competition (coopetition index = -4). The
coopetition index makes it possible to better understand coopeti-
tion between actors and, in particular, to discuss it in connection
with the respective substitutability of actors. Moreover, the
coopetition index is a helpful parameter for the visualization of
the business ecosystem.
In order to enable a holistic perspective, despite focusing on
the value proposition addressed by the business ecosystem, clas-
sical competitors or competing business ecosystems should also
be considered and intersections with regard to customer offer-
ings understood. Thus, these usually offer a comparable value
proposition, but may not be captured by the previously ques-
tioned analysis criteria due to their lack of connection with their
own activities [10]. If necessary, an extension of the method is
possible, e.g. by integrating classical approaches to competitor
analysis such as those of BERGEN and PETERAF (2002) [38].
However, the focus of this study is on the consideration of typ- Fig. 3 Business ecosystem visualization
ical characteristics of business ecosystems, i.e. in particular the
mixing ratios of cooperation and competition as well as the sub- First, the functions performed by ones own company ought
stitutability of actors in the ecosystem. A method for competitor to be arranged in the ”zone of value proposition” by circles. The
analysis is therefore not carried out in detail. assignment of a point value for these kind of functions becomes
obsolete at this point, since only activities in the "zone of
Finally, other actors, such as governmental organizations coopetition" are assigned with index values. Subsequently,
and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which also deter- functions of other business ecosystem participants can be en-
mine value creation in the business ecosystem, are to be identi- tered in the surrounding circles. Functions that are almost exclu-
fied. It is important to understand these roles and to question sively shaped by cooperation (coopetition index = 4) should be
their significance for the business ecosystem. For example, the

978-1-7281-3401-7/18/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,

Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)
located in the directly following cooperation circle. With regard
to the more divergent mixed ratios of cooperation and competi-
tion, the coopetition index offers an orientation parameter for
placement in the subsequent coopetition circle. The previously
determined substitutability can be used to determine the circle
sizes of the various functions. Thus, the size of these circles in-
crease with the difficulty of the substitutability and emphasize
the usually increasingly critical importance in the ecosystem.
After the functional elements directly linked to the value prop-
osition have been located in the structure, the identified compe-
tition or the competing business ecosystem originating from it
must be entered in the external competitor ring. These can be
illustrated as squares in contrast to the previously visualized
functions, since these are not functions, but companies, business
ecosystems or customer offers. Finally, it is necessary to enter
further relevant actors, such as non-private actors and govern-
mental organisations. Though NGOs and competitors might
share the same values, they are located outside the ring structure
and illustrated as triangles. The reason for this is that the func-
tions performed by these actors in terms of cooperation and
competition are often not clearly distinguishable at first glance
what makes it difficult to award index values for these functions.
V. VALIDATION OF THE STRATEGIC ANALYTICAL METHOD
To ensure validity, the developed method was first applied
to a current practical example of a telecommunications com-
pany. In consultation with the strategic in-house consulting of
the reference company, a public IoT project was selected. Spe-
cifically, it was a digital parking service, which intendence is to
simplify the search, finding and paying for parking spaces in ur-
ban areas. Additionally, this makes it possitble to improve urban
traffic flow and increase revenues for both private car park op-
erators and cities. Accordingly, a specific value proposition
(which addresses different interconnected customer groups) was
identified.
For many car drivers, an increasingly complex search for a
parking space, especially at peak times in large cities, is a time-
and long-term cost-intensive undertaking. This development is
also increasingly posing a problem from an urban perspective.
In addition to the considerable environmental pollution, the in-
creased volume of traffic and the misuse of parking spaces lead
to additional accidents [39]. Despite digital presence on the in-
ternet and already existing mobile apps from private parking op-
erators, these are often not optimally utilised. One reason for this
is, in particular, the limited user range of their own apps, as each
operator often uses an individual applications. The parking ser-
vice, driven in particular by the reference company, counteracts
these customer problems with a smart public-IoT solution. Thus,
the value proposition for the customer is characterised by the
fact that, in contrast to the existing individual solutions of pri-
vate car park operators, a massive increase in range is made pos-
sible by their overall integration into the service.
After an in-depth analysis of the addressed value proposi-
tion, the necessary functional components for its implementa-
tion were determined. In order to be able to accurately record
parking space occupancy levels on public roads and assign them
to individual road users, the latter must be equipped with sen-
sors. Both the development of an appropriate technology and the
978-1-7281-3401-7/18/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
manufacture of the sensors can be identified as functional ele-
ments. In addition, the sensors must be installed accordingly and
be serviced regularly. The parking space occupancy levels must
also be continuously recorded. In addition to the freely accessi-
ble public parking spaces, both public and private parking areas
with restricted access must be recorded. Here it is to be assumed
that the parking space occupancy levels are already recorded
due to the restriction. Further functions are thus the operation of
private as well as public parking areas with restricted access.
The entire recorded data is to be made conveniently accessible
to car drivers in an app, in order to comfortably support the en-
tire parking process as shown. For this purpose, the collected
individual data of the sensors and parking space operators must
be merged. Therefore, the provision of connectivity, i.e. the net-
working of the individual system components, is a decisive
function. Furthermore, real-time data must be stored and contin-
uously evaluated. Finally, the consolidated information were in-
tegrated into an intuitive app and made available to the cus-
tomer. For this, both the app development and its continuous
optimization must be carried out and the actual availability must
be guaranteed via an app sales platform. To ensure that not only
car drivers benefit from this service, payment processing must
also be ensured so that private car park operators and the public
sector are remunerated accordingly. In addition, a control func-
tion is required to ensure that only paying road users use the
parking areas. In order to be able to implement the project, both
a coordination and a communication function must be exercised,
which acts as an interface and mediator between the various
players.
Fig. 4 Visualization of the „park app“ business ecosystem
After the essential functional elements for the realization of
the value proposition have been identified, the next step was to
perform the actual business ecosystem analysis. As already ex-
plained, various functions had to be assigned to specific compa-
nies and their substitutability in the ecosystem had to be evalu-
ated. In addition, the relationships with the respective compa-
nies were to be evaluated first with regard to a cooperative and
then a competitive relationship. The above figure (see Fig. 4)
illustrates the result of the value supply-oriented business eco-
system analysis, whichs results are briefly outlined below.
The telecommunications company can be described as a
leader or keystone in the business ecosystem because of its com-
plex and central function [8, 15]. First, it must be noted that in
the business ecosystem implementing the parking service, the
2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,
Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)
reference company provides the connectivity of the overall sys-
tem, but further functions are also carried out. The substitutabil-
ity of the functions shown in Fig. 4 was formulated and vali-
dated in cooperation with experts from the telecommunications
provider. Especially the continuous recording of occupancy lev-
els of unrestricted publicly accessible parking spaces as well as
data storage and evaluation are functions of central importance
that are difficult to replace. With regard to the former, however,
the interdependence with public actors must be taken into ac-
count. Likewise, more easily replaceable functions such as the
development of the parking app and a coordination and commu-
nication function in the ecosystem are performed. Due to the
difficult substitutability as well as the strong competitive rela-
tionship to the private parking operators dominating the market,
their special importance in the business ecosystem becomes
clear. Without the integration of these actors, it would not be
possible to realize the desired value proposition. Accordingly,
strategic coordination is necessary and the interests of these
must be taken into account in order to ensure a sustainable eco-
system success. In particular, the recording of cooperation and
competition as a continuum of intermediate characteristics, pa-
rameterised by the coopetition index, makes it possible to take a
differentiated look at the various private parking operators and
thus to clearly distinguish the role of other smaller parking op-
erators from the aforementioned actors.
VI. CONCLUSION
Within the scope of this research approach, a theory based
strategic method for the analysis of business ecosystems was de-
veloped, practically applied and validated. It is characterized in
particular by its value proposition oriented approach. In addi-
tion, this approach makes it possible to include cooperation and
competition, parameterised by the coopetition index. It was pos-
sible to analyse the functional performance of a telecommuni-
cations company in the business ecosystem implementing park-
ing services. It has also become possible to gain an understand-
ing of the interrelationships and the individual significance of
the players. A long-term benefit could be created beyond the an-
alysed example shown by the development of a cross-case ap-
plicable analysis method. Due to its replicable approach, this
method can be used as a future consulting tool or starting point
for possible comparisons or longer-term benchmarking of busi-
ness ecosystem developments.
The derivation of concrete implications for action and pos-
sible strategies does not represent the scope of this method. In
this context, the own role or the functions performed should first
be questioned. This implies answering the question of whether,
for example, several functions are exercised and how easily
other actors can replace these. In contrast to the previously eval-
uated existing approaches, the parameters of replaceability and
the coopetition index in particular offer quantified assistance as
a corresponding basis. The business ecosystem, which is visual-
ized analogously, provides a condensed overview and supports
a comprehensible discussion in the consulting application.
Relevant insights could be gained, which can serve as start-
ing points for future research, provided that some limitations are
observed. The application of this method made it possible to un-
derstand business ecosystems primarily from the perspective of
a company. In order to create a holistic understanding, future
978-1-7281-3401-7/18/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
research may aim at carrying out the methodology from the
point of view of several involved business ecosystem members.
This will enable the identification and analysis of differences in
perception with regard to the substitutability of actors or the
coopetition. Furthermore, it is necessary to subject the method-
ology developed in the context of this approach to further appli-
cations in order to fully confirm the validity of the value-based
Business Ecosystem Analysis. The developed method was car-
ried out at a certain point in time, similar to a snapshot. The aim
of further research can be to examine options for action to ex-
ploit the findings of this snapshot. Research based on this ap-
proach could analyse the temporal development of business eco-
systems with the help of the developed approach.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The presented research is part of the results of the research
project “Digivation - Dienstleistungsinnovationen durch Digi-
talisierung – Methoden, Potenziale und Transfer für Smart Ser-
vice” funded by Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
(BMBF), under the funding reference numbers 02K14A221.
The responsibility for the content of this publication lies with
the authors. The authors would like to thank the BMBF for the
kind support within this research project.
REFERENCES
[1] Detecon, “Telekommunikationsunternehmen am Scheideweg zwischen
Bitpipe und Schrittmacher der Digitalisierung,”
https://Www.Detecon.Com/Sites/Default/Fi-
Les/Telekommunikationsunternehmen_Am_Scheideweg.Pdf (Last
Access: 03/01/2018).
[2] K. Matzler, F. Bailom, S. A. Friedrich von den Eichen and M. Anschober,
Digital Disruption: Wie Sie Ihr Unternehmen auf das digitale Zeitalter
vorbereiten. München: Vahlen, Franz, 2016.
[3] Bearing Point, “How Telcos can benefit from adopting digital ecosystem
management,”
Https://Www.Bearingpoint.Com/Files/How_Telcos_Can_Benefit_From_
Adopt-Ing_Digital_Ecosystem_Management_DEM-
1.Pdf&Download=0&Itemid=461463, (Last Access: 04/11/2017).
[4] A. Rayes and S. Salam, Internet of Things From Hype To Reality. Cham:
Springer International Publishing, 2017.
[5] A. Ghanbari, A. Laya, J. Alonso-Zarate and J. Markendahl, “Business
Development In The Internet Of Things. A Matter Of Vertical
Cooperation,” in IEEE Communications Magazine 55 (2017) 2, pp. 135–
141, 2017.
[6] R. Adner, “Ecosystem As Structure,” in Journal Of Management 43 (2016)
1, pp. 39 – 58, 2017.
[7] P. Weill and S. L. Woerner, “Thriving In An Increasingly Digital
Ecosystem. Given The Amount Of Turmoil Digital Disruption Is Causing,
It’s Time For Companies To Evaluate The Threats And Opportunities —
And Start Reating New Business Options For The Future,” in MIT Sloan
Management Review 4 (2015) 56, pp. 27 – 34, 2015.
[8] J. F. Moore, “Predators And Prey. A New Ecology Of Competition,” in
Harvard Business Review, pp. 75 – 86, 1993.
[9] D. J. Teece, The Palgrave Encyclopedia Of Strategic Management.
Business Ecosystem. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
[10] E. Anggraeni, E. Den Harthigh and M. Zegveld, Business Ecosystem As
A Perspective For Studying The Relations Between Firms And Their
Business Networks. Delft, 2007.
[11] M T. Hannan and J. Freeman, “The Population Ecology Of
Organizations,” in American Journal Of Sociology (1977) 82, pp. 929 –
964, 1977.
[12] M.T. Hannan and J. Freeman, “Structural Inertia And Organizational
Change,” in American Sociological Review (1984) 49, Pp. 149 – 164,
1984.
2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,
Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)
[13] M. E. Porter, Competitive Advantage. Creating And Sustaining Superior
Performance. New York: Free Press, 1985.
[14] J. Foster, “The Analytical Foundations Of Evolutionary Economics. From
Biological Analogy To Economic Self-Organization,” in Structural
Change And Economic Dynamics 8 (1997) 4, pp. 427 – 451, 1997.
[15] M. Iansiti and R. Levien, “Strategy As Ecology,” in Harvard Business
Review, 3, Pp. 1 – 11, 2004
[16] G. Koenig, “Business Ecosystems Revisited,” in M@N@Gement (2009)
15, pp. 208 – 224, 2009.
[17] X. Parisot and T. Isckia, “A Critical Theorization Of Business
Ecosystems,” in Understanding Business Ecosystems. How Firms
Succeed In The New World Of Convergence? Hrsg.: S. Ben Letaifa; A.
Gratacap; T. Isckia; Y. Pesqueux. Méthodes & Recherches Management.
De Boeck, Bruxelles, pp. 45 – 67, 2013
[18] T. Mejtoft, “Internet Of Things And Co-Creation Of Value," in
Ithings/Cpscom 2011. Proceedings. Hrsg.: Institute Of Electrical And
Electronics Engineers. IEEE, CA, pp. 672 – 677, 2011.
[19] N. Daidj, The Evolution Of New Entrants’ Strategies In The Media Sector
In A Context Of Convergence. The Case Of Apple, Google And Microsoft,
In: Understanding Busi-Ness Ecosystems. How Firms Succeed In The
New World Of Convergence? Hrsg.: S. Ben Letaifa; A. Gratacap; T.
Isckia; Y. Pesqueux. Méthodes & Recherches Management. Bruxelles: De
Boeck, pp. 165 – 192, 2013.
[20] Y. Luo, “A Coopetition Perspective Of Global Competition,” in Journal
Of World Business 42 (2007) 2, pp. 129 – 144., 2007
[21] G. Adomavicius, J. Bockstedt, A. Gupta and R. J. Kaufmann,
“Understanding Patterns Of Technology Evolution: An Ecosystem
Perspective,” in Sprague 2006. Hrsg.: IEEE Computer Society, Los
Alamitos. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 1–10, 2006
[22] I. Ennsfellner, R. Bodenstein and J. Herget, Exzellenz in der
Unternehmensberatung: Qualitätsstandards für die Praxis. Wien: WKO,
Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, 2014.
[23] V. Allee, “Value Network Analysis And Value Conversion Of Tangible
And Intangible Assets,” in Journal Of Intellectual Capital 9 (2008) 1, pp.
5 – 24, 2008.
[24] K. Rong, G. Hu, Y. Lin, Y. Shi and L. Guo, “Understanding Business
Ecosystem Using A 6C Framework In Internet-Of-Things-Based Sectors,”
in International Journal Of Production Economics 159 (2015) 5, pp. 41 –
55, 2015.
[25] C. Battistella, K. Colucci, A. F. Toni and F. Nonino, “Methodology Of
Business Ecosystems Network Analysis. A Case Study In Telecom Italia
Future Centre,” in Technological Forecasting And Social Change 80
(2013) 6, pp. 1194 – 1210, 2013.
[26] R. C. Basole, M. G. Russell, J. Huhtamäki, N. Rubens, K. Still and H.
Park, “Understanding Business Ecosystem Dynamics, in ACM
Transactions On Management Information Systems 6 (2015) 2, pp. 1–32.,
2015.
978-1-7281-3401-7/18/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
View publication stats
[27] C. H. Tian, B. K. Ray, J. Lee, R. Cao, W. Ding and A. Beam, A Framework
For Business Ecosystem Analysis And Modeling, In: IBM Systems
Journal 47 (2008) 1, pp. 101 – 114, 2008.
[28] A. Osterwalder and Y. Pigneur, Business Model Generation. Ein
Handbuch Für Visionäre, Spielveränderer Und Herausforderer. Frankfurt:
Campus Verlag, 2011.
[29] S. Reinecke, “Creating Value Propositions,” in Thexis 23 (2006) 3, p.1,
2006.
[30] S. Jung, Das Management Von Geschäftsbeziehungen. Ein Ansatz auf
transaktionskostentheoretischer, sozialpsychologischer und
spieltheoretischer Basis. Wiesbaden: Gabler Edition Wissenschaft.
Deutscher Universitätsverlag, 1999.
[31] B. Greving, “Messen Und Skalieren Von Sachverhalten,” in Methodik der
empirischen Forschung. Hrsg.: S. Albers; D. Klapper; U. Konradt; A.
Walter and J. Wolf., Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag, pp. 65 – 78., 2009.
[32] P. Schwarz, Morphologie von Kooperationen und Verbänden. Tübingen:
J.C.B. Mohr, 1979.
[33] R. Balling, Kooperation: Strategische Allianzen, Netzwerke, Joint
Ventures und andere Organisationsformen zwischenbetrieblicher
Zusammenarbeit in Theorie und Praxis, vol. 2, Frankfurt Am Main: Peter
Lang GmbH, 1998.
[34] S. Killich and H. Luczak, Unternehmenskooperation für kleine und
mittelständische Unternehmen: Lösungen für die Praxis, Berlin: Springer,
2003.
[35] C. Scholta, “Erfolgsfaktoren Unternehmensübergreifender Kooperation
am Beispiel der mittelständischen Automobilzulieferindustrie in
Sachsen,” in Wissenschaftliche Schriftenreihe des Institutes für
Betriebswissenschaften und Fabriksysteme, Technische Universität
Chemnitz (2005) 48, pp. 1 – 243, 2005.
[36] U. Peitz, Struktur und Entwicklung von Beziehungen in
Unternehmensnetzwerken. Theoretisch-Konzeptionelle Zugänge und
Implikationen für das Management von Netzwerkbeziehungen.
Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, 2002.
[37] Romero, D. and Molina, A., “Collaborative Networked Organisations and
Customer Communities: Value Co-Creation and Co-Innovation in the
Networking Era” in Journal of Production Planning & Control, Volume
22, Issue 4, Special Issue on “Co-Innovation and Collaborative Networks",
p. 1, 2011.
[38] M. Bergen and M. A. Peteraf, “Competitor Identification and Competitor
Analysis. A Broadbased Managerial Approach,” in Managerial and
Decision Economics 23 (2002) 4-5, pp. 157 – 169, 2002.
[39] K. Brardt, Hamburg - Einfach und digital Parken. Release of the "Park
And Joy" app from 1st of October 2017. Hrsg.: Behörde Für Inneres Und
Sport, Hamburg, 2017. Http://Www.Hamburg.De/Content-
Blob/9753396/C1e8edb086fd347aaca94d3f4d6cc50c/Data/Kundeninfo-
Hamburg-Macht-Parken-Einfach-Stand-2017-10-20-Final-1).Pdf (Last
Access: 20/11/2017).
2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering,
Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC)