© Copyright 2023, Luma Mahairi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... ix

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. xi

CHAPTER I: Introduction .................................................................................................. 1

Study Background ........................................................................................................... 1

Innovation Ecosystems: Challenges ........................................................................ 2

Innovation Ecosystems: Orchestrators .................................................................... 3

Study Sample and Participants ........................................................................................ 5

Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 6

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 8

Project Background ......................................................................................................... 9

Problem Statement ........................................................................................................ 25

Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 25

Importance of the Study ................................................................................................ 26

Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................. 27

Theory of Ten Definitions ..................................................................................... 29

Importance of Orchestrating Open Innovation Ecosystems .................................. 30

Optimizing Innovation Orchestration .................................................................... 32

Research Questions and Objectives .............................................................................. 38

iii
 Qualitative Research Questions (Phases 1–3, all Based on the

Thematic Coding Results) ..................................................................................... 38

Quantitative Research Questions (All Part of Phase 3) ......................................... 40

Research Questions Aligned With the Study’s Broader Concepts................................ 43

Phase 1 Qualitative Research Question Alignment ............................................... 44

Phase 2 Qualitative Research Question Alignment ............................................... 45

Phase 3 Qualitative Research Questions Alignment ............................................. 47

Quantitative Research Questions (All Part of Phase 3) Alignment....................... 59

An Overview of the Design Used in the Research ........................................................ 70

Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................... 71

CHAPTER II: Literature Review ...................................................................................... 73

Review of the Literature ................................................................................................ 73

Orchestrators and Ecosystems ............................................................................... 74

Components of Innovation Ecosystem .................................................................. 79

Innovation Ecosystem Core Pillars ....................................................................... 89

Innovative Startups as Key Elements in the Innovation Ecosystem ..................... 99

Strategy Implementation and Quality Monitoring in an Innovation Ecosystem . 105

Support for Innovation Ecosystems .................................................................... 114

Governance Models in Innovation Ecosystems .................................................. 121

Emergent Trends in Contemporary Innovation Ecosystem ................................ 127

Using the Ecosystem Method to Build a Smart City .......................................... 130

iv
 Artificial Intelligence and Data ........................................................................... 133

How AI and Data Can Help to Orchestrate Automation ..................................... 142

Orchestrating a Successful Artificial Intelligence ............................................... 144

Organizational Capabilities ................................................................................. 145

Financial Ecosystems .......................................................................................... 147

Orchestrating a Successful Healthcare Ecosystem .............................................. 150

Designing and Implementing a Successful Governance Policy

Reform for Innovation Ecosystem ...................................................................... 155

Successful Global Ecosystem.............................................................................. 158

The Cancer Ecosystem ........................................................................................ 161

Role of Culture, Leadership, and Organizational Capacity in

Building Innovation Ecosystems ......................................................................... 168

Technology as a Tool in the Innovation Ecosystem ........................................... 172

Innovations Architectural Framework: People, Processes,

and Technology ................................................................................................... 174

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Innovation Ecosystem ........................... 179

Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................ 184

CHAPTER III: Methods.................................................................................................. 196

Procedures Followed ................................................................................................... 201

Strauss and Corbin’s Grounded Theory .............................................................. 202

Saldaña’s Thematic Coding ................................................................................ 202

v
 Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 204

Qualitative and Quantitative Techniques .................................................................... 207

Prevalence Indicators of MM-GTM .................................................................... 210

Traditional Methods of MM-GTM ..................................................................... 211

Coding ................................................................................................................. 212

Research .............................................................................................................. 214

Research Method, Design, and Approaches ................................................................ 215

Qualitative Research Questions (Phases 1–3, all Based on the

Thematic Coding Results) ................................................................................... 215

Quantitative Research Questions (All Part of Phase 3) ....................................... 217

Phases .......................................................................................................................... 220

Phase 1: Qualitative and Quantitative ................................................................. 220

Phase 2: Comparing and Contrasting Orchestration and Challenges

in Multiple Ecosystems ....................................................................................... 220

Phase 3: Re-visiting Concepts to Develop the Grounded Theory ....................... 221

Changes to Methods and Procedures .................................................................. 222

Data Analysis Techniques ........................................................................................... 226

Project Scope ............................................................................................................... 227

Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................ 228

CHAPTER IV: Findings ................................................................................................. 230

Findings by Research Question ................................................................................... 231

vi
 Phase 1 Qualitative Research Questions ............................................................. 231

Phase 2 Qualitative Research Question ............................................................... 241

Phase 3 Qualitative Research Questions ............................................................. 247

Quantitative Results ............................................................................................ 271

Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................ 283

CHAPTER V: Conclusion and Recommendations ......................................................... 284

Discussion of the Qualitative Findings ....................................................................... 284

Innovation Ecosystems and Partnerships ............................................................ 285

Difficulties Faced by Orchestrators ..................................................................... 286

AI and Technology .............................................................................................. 287

Finances and Funding Innovation ....................................................................... 289

Legal Innovation Ecosystems.............................................................................. 291

Sustainability in Innovation Ecosystems ............................................................. 292

Innovation Ecosystems and Healthcare ............................................................... 294

Universities and Innovation Ecosystems ............................................................. 296

Discussion of the Quantitative Findings ............................................................. 297

Quantitative Analysis Summary.......................................................................... 309

Grounded Theory ........................................................................................................ 310

Theory Sensitivity ............................................................................................... 311

Two Supra-Themes: Technology and Collaboration .......................................... 312

vii
 Synthesizing the Technology Supra-Theme Coupled With Collaboration:

Collective System Building ................................................................................. 323

Framing The Theory............................................................................................ 324

Limitations .................................................................................................................. 328

Recommendations to Leaders and Practitioners ......................................................... 328

Recommendations for the Future Research ................................................................ 329

Summary of Findings .................................................................................................. 331

Closing Thoughts ........................................................................................................ 332

References ....................................................................................................................... 333

APPENDIX A: Phase I Interview Questions .............................................................. 396

APPENDIX B: Phase 2: Interviews ............................................................................ 399

APPENDIX C: Survey Question Sets ......................................................................... 401

APPENDIX D: Community Board Discussions ......................................................... 425

APPENDIX E: Phase 3 – Interviews & Focus Group Session Questions .................. 451

APPENDIX F: Innovation Ecosystem Project Manual ............................................... 486

APPENDIX G: Informed Consent .............................................................................. 511

viii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Quantitative Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................ 272

Table 2. Participant Demographics Used in the Regression Models .............................. 274

Table 3. OLR Results, Importance of Technology in Ecosystems ................................. 275

Table 4. OLR Results, Importance of Technological Savviness ..................................... 276

Table 5. OLR Results, Importance of Artificial Intelligence .......................................... 277

Table 6. IE Orchestrator Attitudes Toward AI Corporate/Personal AI Risk .................. 278

Table 7. OLR Results, Importance of Data Privacy Issues ............................................. 279

Table 8. OLR Results, Importance of Collaboration and Partnerships ........................... 280

Table 9. OLR Results, Importance of Finances .............................................................. 281

Table 10. OLR Results, Importance of Government Involvement ................................. 282

Table 11. Importance of Government Involvement ........................................................ 283

Table 12. Meta-Themes and Supra-Themes ................................................................... 312

ix
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Study Findings Validated Using the Convergent Mixed Parallel Design ......... 70

Figure 2. The Three Study Phases ..................................................................................... 71

Figure 3. Meta-themes and Supra-themes Pertinent to Orchestration

in Innovation Ecosystems ......................................................................................... 327

x
 Abstract

This study concentrated on the function of orchestrators in coordinating innovation

systems to support common objectives among businesses, governmental agencies, and

academic institutions. In contrast to earlier research that concentrated on organizational-

level analysis, this study used individuals who are members of innovation ecosystems as

the analysis unit to examine how orchestrators contribute to developing innovation

ecosystems and a creative workplace. Data from 72 participants from various industries,

including business, government, and non-government innovation ecosystems, were

gathered using a mixed-methods approach. The study concluded that orchestrators with

the necessary abilities such as risk-taking, collaboration, information sharing, and

creativity could thrive in innovation ecosystems and that data security and privacy are

crucial components in orchestrating productive innovation ecosystems. Several other

critical elements, including funding, diversity, equity, inclusion, and ethics, influence the

development of innovation ecosystems.

One recommendation is to create a quantitative research design to look at the

connections between firm size, profitability, and participation with change in innovation

ecosystems for better orchestration. The study recommends using a qualitative research

approach better to understand the topic’s most discussed aspects. Qualitative research

aims to understand participants’ meanings, experiences, and viewpoints using non-

numerical data from sources, including focus groups, interviews, and observations.

Cutting-edge technology and consumer education in financial literacy could aid the

xi
effective orchestration of innovation ecosystems. Businesses may more effectively

cooperate with other ecosystem players and foster innovation by using technology and

arming customers with the required information and skills. This, in turn, can lead to a

more effective and efficient ecosystem orchestration. The study highlights the importance

of orchestrators in cooperative innovation initiatives, collaboration, creativity,

information sharing, a supportive regulatory framework, and a culture that values taking

risks for the growth of innovation ecosystems. The results highlight the necessity of

professional mediation teams and educational initiatives to address orchestration issues in

innovation ecosystems and guarantee that underserved populations can access financial

services. The study’s recommendations can assist in advancing our understanding of

orchestration in innovation ecosystems and build on the study’s existing findings.

Keywords: Innovation Ecosystems; Orchestration

xii
 CHAPTER I: Introduction

Innovation is the lifeblood of progress, and in a world that is changing quickly,

corporations, governmental organizations, and academic institutions must cooperate and

strive toward common objectives. Innovation ecosystems play a role in this. In this

dissertation, we investigate how innovation systems are coordinated by orchestrators,

with an emphasis on the organizational strategies required to establish and maintain a

creative workplace. Using a mixed-methods approach, I investigated organizational

interconnectedness and the significance of orchestrators’ contributions to accomplish

shared objectives.

Study Background

Innovation ecosystems refer to a network of loosely affiliated companies and

entities that can share existing technology, skills, or knowledge to develop new products

and services. It is a collection of various players, artifacts, and activities, as well as

institutions, that are critical for enhancing the population’s performance in innovation.

Ecosystems are networks of various organizations, such as suppliers, customers,

distributors, competitors, government agencies, and other entities that engage in business

transactions (Granstrand & Holgersson, 2020). The innovation ecosystem is essential to

an organization regardless of whether the company is for-profit or nonprofit. Companies

are involved in constant cooperation and competition in a dynamic world to create

meaningful shared value among the members (Bereczki, 2019). Innovation ecosystems

1
are structurally complex fields inhabited by diverse participants linked to information and

value flows.

Innovation Ecosystems: Challenges

There are several challenges that these innovation ecosystems are faced with,

hindering their effectiveness. For instance, if these organizations lack an innovation

culture, it might become hard for these systems to integrate. Leadership also plays a

significant role in enhancing innovation ecosystems’ success (Bereczki, 2019). If the

leadership is poor, innovation is not enhanced, affecting such systems’ effectiveness.

Also, with sufficient benchmarking and preparation within these organizations, it

becomes easier to enhance the effectiveness of these innovation ecosystems. Expertise

and experience are fundamental requirements for the innovation ecosystems to be

effective in any organization. However, most of these organizations have incorporated

orchestrators to enhance the effectiveness of these innovation ecosystems.

Partner and consumer expectations have been changing more quickly than ever in

the 2020s, making it easier for a company to succeed in an innovation ecosystem.

According to Linde et al. (2021), innovation ecosystems are cooperative networks of

businesses, people, and other interested parties that cooperate to advance innovation in a

particular sector or locale. These networks enable sharing of knowledge, resources, and

skills to develop new goods and services, boost output, and promote economic progress.

However, several obstacles can limit the efficiency of innovation ecosystems. One issue

is the need for coordination and common objectives among ecosystem actors, which can

2
lead to resource waste and duplication of effort. In addition, it can be challenging to find

and keep bright employees and business owners who are eager to take chances and

pursue novel concepts, especially in specific regions or industries.

Allocating resources and money can be difficult for innovation ecosystems.

Participants in the ecosystem may need help to scale their operations or develop new

products and services, limiting their potential to foster growth and new opportunities.

Companies in the ecosystem recognize the need for external innovation collaboration

with ecosystem partners with a common vision and shared business approach to the

corporate organizational strategy. Firms in the ecosystem have a standard definition of

innovation, enabling the organization to have a shared innovation strategy (Diriker et al.,

2022b). In many organizations, the innovation ecosystem operates with one or more

governance structures to monitor shared innovation activities. Collaboration within the

innovation ecosystem is essential for firms to designate critical assets and boundaries

explicitly. The smooth operation of the innovation ecosystem depends on effective

orchestration. Orchestrators play an essential part in the challenge-finding and solution-

development process.

Innovation Ecosystems: Orchestrators

Orchestrators play a significant role in facilitating the innovation ecosystem by

providing a basic framework for firms to invent and pilot-test their innovations (Addo,

2022). They are the organizational units or individuals responsible for configuring,

coordinating, and managing the innovation ecosystems, ensuring they fulfil their roles.

3
Effective orchestrators possess several attributes. For instance, they must focus on the

short and long-term goals of the organization (Bereczki, 2019). An innovation ecosystem

is a complex and dynamic environment that requires a certain level of coordination and

management. Orchestrators ensure this coordination and management occur, enabling

firms to thrive in the innovation ecosystem. Effective orchestrators must be skilled in

organizing, communicating, and prioritizing tasks. They must clearly understand the

ecosystem’s goals and objectives and the resources and capabilities needed to achieve

them. Orchestrators must also possess a solid ethical foundation, acting with integrity and

ensuring that their actions align with the values of the innovation ecosystem. They should

create a culture that promotes innovation, risk-taking, and collaboration. By doing so,

they can inspire firms to think creatively and develop new ideas, ultimately benefiting the

entire innovation ecosystem.

Orchestrators are essential to the success of innovation ecosystems. They provide

a basic framework for firms to develop, test, and implement innovations. Effective

orchestrators must focus on short- and long-term goals, make decisions based on

quantitative and qualitative data, possess experience and expertise in their field, be skilled

in organization, communication, and prioritization, act ethically, and create a culture that

promotes innovation. With these attributes, orchestrators can ensure that firms thrive in

the innovation ecosystem, contributing to the overall success of the ecosystem.

According to Valkokari et al. (2017), the innovation ecosystem involves an

organization’s approach and ability to generate an internal culture that encourages

4
employee creativity. Creativity underlies a fundamental approach in the 21st century,

where businesses and organizations connect to trends due to increased competition

among firms (Diriker et al., 2022b). The innovation ecosystem focuses on creating new

resources and ideas, while non-innovative businesses use existing resources to fulfil their

demands. This study focused on the methods orchestrators employ to orchestrate

innovation environments successfully. Organizations may improve their collaborative

networks, encourage innovation, and promote growth by better understanding the role of

orchestrators in innovation ecosystems (Gastaldi & Corso, 2016).

Study Sample and Participants

The study’s objective was to identify the function of orchestrators in innovation

ecosystems. Data from 72 people with prior expertise in this field emerged to understand

orchestration dynamics in innovation ecosystems better. Participants were randomly

chosen and represented various industries, including business, education, the government,

and non-governmental groups, and were members of seven different innovation

ecosystems. For each participant group, eligibility requirements existed, and rewards

helped to promote participation to guarantee the correctness and high caliber of the data

collected.

The study’s focus areas were network orchestration, leadership, and environment.

The participating innovation ecosystems included teams from precision medicine and

cancer, artificial intelligence, university, financial, healthcare, legal, and business

strategy, and competitive dynamics. These groups directly impacted orchestration and

5
offered insightful information about its dynamics. The iTracks platform, which allowed

for various study activities such as live webinars, community board discussions,

interviews, and focus group sessions, was used to carry out the study. The participants

had to have previously dealt with innovation ecosystems and had a basic or advanced

understanding of their job responsibilities in their respective organizations.

The study occurred in three phases (Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3) which

included both quantitative and qualitative research questions. The iTracks platform

facilitated the delivery of incentives to participants. The iTracks platform enabled the

delivery of incentives using a systematic methodology from Phase 2. The assigned

incentives for participation were $10 for surveys, $25 for webinars, $50 for an hour-long

interview, $70 for a 1.5-hour focus group, and $100 for a 2-hour focus group. The

purpose of the structured reward system was to increase participant comfort and make it

easier for them to participate in our research projects.

Data Collection

I used interviews to collect participants’ data to develop the qualitative portion of

the study. Face-to-face discussions made it easier to develop comprehensive information

about the role of orchestrators in innovation ecosystems. Interviews occurred based on

the availability of participants, and factors such as their privacy and confidentiality

maintained their anonymity. For instance, the interviews were conducted based on the

participant’s choice of venue and convenient time; this ensured that they were

comfortable and allowed them to provide detailed information on the topic. The iTracks

6
platform was vital in managing the study activities, including interviews and community-

based discussions, making obtaining high-quality data easier. iTracks platform is a digital

platform for managing study activities such as interviews and discussions.

The iTracks platform allowed for efficient participant communication and

facilitated sharing of ideas and knowledge. In addition to interviews, survey data helped

to understand the innovation ecosystems comprehensively. A survey questionnaire was

developed and administered to a representative sample of the ecosystem participants,

providing a broader perspective on the issues and challenges facing orchestration

dynamics in the ecosystem. The data obtained from the survey was also cleaned and

prepared for analysis, enabling the research team to identify critical trends and insights.

Once the data collection concluded, all data sources were combined and analyzed using

various statistical techniques to understand the innovation ecosystem and its dynamics

better.

The use of iTracks and survey data collection ensured a rigorous and thorough

approach to data collection and analysis, providing valuable insights for the study. The

project’s quantitative aspect involved completing a survey to assess participants’ views

on the significance of several orchestration-related innovation ecosystem factors and their

demographic information. Questions regarding specific components of innovation

ecosystems, such as funding, collaboration, leadership, and technology, were probably

asked in the survey. The researchers quantified the participants’ replies and conducted a

statistical analysis by asking them to rank the significance of these components on a

7
numerical scale. A call for participation was sent to all interviewees to reach the

appropriate sample size needed for ordinal logistic regression (OLR). Once completed,

all data was added into a spreadsheet, cleaned, recoded as necessary (to facilitate

numerical analysis based on Likert-type responses), and then imported into SPSS for

analysis.

Data Analysis

Descriptive data analysis helped identify the role and impact of orchestrators in

innovative ecosystems. Descriptive analysis is an approach that aims to describe,

summarize, and present data points meaningfully, allowing patterns and insights to

emerge. By exploring and presenting the data in a structured and organized manner, the

descriptive analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the data, highlighting its

key features and characteristics. This type of analysis is beneficial in identifying trends,

relationships, and patterns within the data, enabling researchers to draw conclusions and

make informed decisions based on the insights obtained. Descriptive analysis is essential,

providing a foundational understanding of the data that underlies more advanced

analytical techniques. I used three data coding techniques to classify the data into

meaningful groups. One was open data coding, where data descriptions occurred in a

single word to a short sequence of words. Two, axial data coding, where data was related

together to reveal categories, codes, and subcategories from the data collected. Three,

selective coding, where theories involved were defined and their relationship with the

topic of interest identified.

8
 Some of the significant findings about the role and functions of orchestrators in

innovation systems include ensuring that the innovation ecosystem runs effectively by

identifying challenges and the various solutions which can deal with them, working with

these organizations to enhance development and sustainability, among others; this had a

significant implication on action majorly because it expanded the knowledge of

orchestrators and their role in these innovation ecosystems.

Project Background

The idea of an innovation ecosystem has gained popularity but has also led to

discussions and disagreements about what it means and how it should be defined. The

innovation ecosystem uses shared strategy and organizational cooperation to boost total

firm production (Herath et al., 2021). The present study examined orchestration in the

innovation ecosystem and its function. That is, it focuses on how orchestration makes it

easy to coordinate, automate and manage the innovation ecosystem and to streamline and

optimize the execution of systematic, repeatable processes and thus help data teams using

such a system more easily manage complex tasks and workflows. In addition to other

elements contributing to increasing competitiveness and artifacts of the innovation

ecosystem, the research finds uneven cooperation between the enterprises that good

orchestration can reverse.

Orchestrators play a crucial role in fostering an innovative environment by

bringing together individuals and companies from diverse backgrounds, as noted by

Kovács and Kacsuk (2018). The absence of orchestrators can hinder innovators and

9
investors from accessing crucial resources such as capital, mentorship, and networking,

as demonstrated by (Zacharia et al., 2011). By providing these resources to organizations

and creating a platform for collaboration and joint innovation strategies, orchestrators

help to coordinate the innovation ecosystem. They also establish a creative atmosphere

encouraging idea-sharing and mutual growth among firms with similar missions and

visions. Orchestrators’ contributions are essential to fostering organizational innovation

and collaboration.

Firms in the ecosystem have a shared innovation roadmap, allowing the

organization to implement early external innovation initiatives. Generally, various

principles must be established and followed to attain harmony in the innovation

ecosystems. In this study, I focused on how orchestration processes manifest in

innovation systems for the benefit of all partners. Orchestration, in that aspect, assumes a

coordination role where there is cultivating a relationship between government, nonprofit

organizations, profit organizations, and other partners, such as universities, where greater

cooperation is enhanced among them through these ecosystems (Yaghmaie &

Vanhaverbeke, 2020).

Another principle attaining to orchestration requires meeting all the potential

ecosystem partners on their terms, ensuring that relevant stakeholders engage with the

ecosystem approach (Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2020). Generally, the focus of

prospective ecosystem partners has been on immediate needs as they need to realize that

they can address systematic barriers to innovation through ecosystem participation.

10
Yaghmaie and Vanhaverbeke (2020) claimed that the orchestrating team must show

commitment and enthusiasm when facilitating engagement among the relevant

stakeholders and that the partners’ commitment also determines the value created.

Motivational factors should be the focus among the orchestrators as it helps understand

potential ecosystem partners and their objectives as they make various decisions.

Another cornerstone for innovation systems’ success is trust, which leads to a

better relationship among the various stakeholders and value co-creation (Granstrand &

Holgersson, 2020). In the existing safe space, exploration of the tension between

priorities and varying values must occur regardless of not being resolved to establish a

common ground. The element of trust is to persuade the stakeholders of the benefits they

will achieve by being part of the innovation ecosystems (Granstrand & Holgersson,

2020). The aspect of trust is essential, considering the outcome is uncertain within

innovation ecosystems. The evidence-based adaption principle is also crucial for

maintaining direction within the innovation ecosystem. Innovation is dynamic; it is

essential to consider expected changes. Hence orchestration requires a flexible operating

model in the business process (Santipuri et al., 2017). Observing and reflecting on the

ecosystem evolution and the operating conditions is vital among the orchestrators and the

ecosystem partners.

Orchestrators facilitate the effectiveness of innovative ecosystems by (a) ensuring

that relevant stakeholders engage with the ecosystem approach; (b) addressing systematic

barriers to innovation through ecosystem participation; (c) facilitating engagement among

11
the relevant stakeholders; (d) understanding motivational factors should be the focus

among the orchestrators as it helps understand potential ecosystem partners and their

objectives as they make various decisions; (e) facilitating trust, which leads to a better

relationship among the various stakeholders and value co-creation; (f) supporting

evidence-based adaption principle is also crucial for maintaining direction within the

innovation ecosystem; and (g) employing a flexible operating model in the business

process (see Santipuri et al., 2017; Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2020).

The current study is of significant value to researchers seeking to deepen their

understanding of orchestrators and their role in coordinating innovation ecosystems

(Santipuri et al., 2017). Orchestrators are crucial in facilitating innovation ecosystems by

providing a framework for firms to invent and test their ideas (Addo, 2022). Effective

orchestrators possess specific attributes, such as focusing on short- and long-term

organizational goals, using quantitative and qualitative data to inform decisions, and

having expertise in their respective fields (Bereczki, 2019).

Innovation ecosystems’ complex and open nature present a challenge for market

mechanisms, surmountable through shared goals and a clear understanding of

organizational objectives (Santipuri et al., 2017). Universities are key players in

innovation ecosystems, providing a learning environment for research and innovation

while benefitting from the resources and capital of other firms (Reichert, 2019).

Orchestrators must deeply understand the ecosystem’s various players, provide necessary

resources and logistical support, and make informed decisions about project progress to

12
mitigate challenges in the pharmaceutical industry’s innovation ecosystem (Hewett et al.,

2022). Additionally, they must cultivate strong relationships with all players and make

quick decisions when necessary to keep the ecosystem moving forward.

Regardless of the industrial sector, innovation ecosystems exploit creativity,

intellectual properties, and skills (Owen et al., 2020). The role of orchestrators in the

quest for innovation is to motivate innovation using various proven approaches or those

under trial. Indeed, in some cases, innovation becomes typically possible through the lens

of scientific trials explicable through research (Owen et al., 2020). Fine-tuning the

innovation ecosystem such that the forward thrust for innovation can stem from it is

imperative, especially considering the organization and the university as a research entity.

Creativity expression and the exploitation of intellectual capabilities could be limited in

some cases by various aspects, thus creating a lapse within an innovation ecosystem

(Thayer et al., 2018). Thayer et al. (2018) indicated that the innovation ecosystem could

be marred with lapses in crystallizing these precursors to innovation, thus needing a drive

for innovation.

Besides these, it is evident that the thrust for innovation is lacking because of

impediments like access to inputs, digital infrastructure, and regulatory hurdles. For

example, stringent regulations set up by the U.S. are causing a shortage in access to

microchips; regardless, microchips are a tremendous resource for innovation in various

industries (Colon & Hochrainer-Stigler, 2022). Due to the rapid growth of innovations

spurred by electronic and software technologies, the need for a digital infrastructure

13
largely derails innovation ecosystems from moving forward with innovative

undertakings. For this reason, the need to bring about resource availability is already

known as a prerequisite for triggering innovation (Lanzolla et al., 2021). Therefore, when

an innovation ecosystem is available, these steps can be taken to provide thrust for

innovation. A lack of stimulants, the primary forward thrust for innovation, and the

specific problem identified must be confirmed through deliberate communication of

innovation’s benefits (Owen et al., 2020).

Innovation ecosystems are cooperative game plans through which ventures

coordinate their specific proposals into a robust and client-confronting arrangement.

Innovation ecosystems have arisen as an essential part of the improvement plans of

organizations across an expansive assortment of areas because of the headway of data

innovations that have fundamentally diminished coordination expenses. While the most

conspicuous models will generally come from cutting-edge conditions, innovation

ecosystem procedures exist across many areas. It includes business printing, monetary

administration, fundamental materials, and planned operations. According to Zeng

(2022), when their capability is appropriate, biological systems empower endeavors to

deliver esteem that would have been unimaginable for a solitary organization to create

alone. Several titles describe these frameworks, like establishment initiative, cornerstone

methodologies, open advancement, esteem organizations, and hyperlinked associations.

These frameworks’ benefits are certified and recognized (Zeng, 2022).

14
 The lack of a thrust for innovation matters because it is the reason behind the

lapse in innovation, culminating in a slow rate of development, especially in developing

an innovation culture (Adner & Feiler, 2019). Whereas there is a great need to shape how

innovation ecosystems can work towards more innovation, the need for more motivators

causes a significant drawback within innovation ecosystems (Adner & Feiler, 2019). The

implication is that though entities involved in driving innovation might establish

innovation ecosystems, an in-built thrust could be lacking within these ecosystems.

Innovation ecosystems or coordinated efforts between organizations in which individual

contributions converge into a lucid, client-confronting arrangement, are described by

three hazards (Madanaguli et al., 2022). Risk factors in project management divide into

three types, including (a) drive risks, (b) reliance risks, and (c) integration risks. Drive

risks are well-known vulnerabilities in project management, such as financial limitations

and technological challenges. Reliance risks involve the uncertainties of collaborating

with partners and stakeholders.

The adoption process throughout the entire value chain involves integration risks;

organizations must effectively assess and manage these risks to guarantee the success of a

project (Trudeau, 2018). Actors must set reasonable assumptions and foster refined

ecological possibilities. A more substantial development methodology, considering a

smoother and more effective execution process (Trudeau, 2018). Pioneers of innovation,

especially those from outside, could limit drive chances because these are people who act

outside innovation ecosystems and may prove to be more effective than the ecosystem

15
(Mendoza, 2020). The realistic assumptions that may steer innovation are innovation for

executives or practitioners.

Value creation through innovation centers around esteem creation processes

inside development biological system settings resonates with motivating entities within

an innovation ecosystem (Gereffi, 2019). Value creation expands upon and broadens

modern association structures of vital administration, strikingly those tending to industry

structure, industry esteem chains, and worth allocation in industry settings (Gereffi,

2019), by accentuating the non-direct, iterative, and non-consecutive nature of significant

worth creation and assignment processes in industry organizations. Such process streams

add to the innovation ecosystem research by explaining the theoretical rationale of

significant worth creation. Nevertheless, it is an appointment in environment settings and

the components that drive esteem in network settings, like organization externalities and

corresponding advancement (Aagaard & Rezac, 2022). The organization embeddedness

stream accentuates organizations’ primary and social parts and considers the essentials

and imperatives of activity inside development environments.

The stream broadens the theoretical base of innovation ecosystems research by

presenting ideas of social hypothesis, trust, and authenticity at the dyad level like that

proposed in virtual associations (Yang & Lin, 2022). The organization executives should

stress the administration methodologies and strategies for planning and overseeing inside

network settings for catapulting the innovation ecosystem through sufficient motivators

(Cukier et al., 2021). Biological systems widen by expressly including contemplations of

16
the center point firm and contrasting organization methodologies for executives. Together

these three extra related streams develop the theoretical base of the environment build

and, in doing as such, make development more pertinent for experimental examination.

Complex adaptive systems characterize innovation ecosystems filtering out

redundant systems that could inhibit stimulation or the triggering of development through

innovation. Using the complexity theory approach helps reduce many strategies that

cloud the primary focus of innovation within an innovation ecosystem (Centre for

Research and Development Strategy [CRDS], 2010). According to CRDS (2010),

innovation ecosystem development is an expensive error for some organizations over

extended periods. The rationale for this is because of the way that, as well as introducing

additional opportunities, innovation ecosystems likewise give another arrangement of

dangers and conditions that can crash an organization’s earnest attempts. An

organization’s improvement of new innovative approaches, meeting and surpassing the

assumptions of its shoppers, and successfully barring contenders may produce something

other than new business sectors (CRDS, 2010). The exhibition of the company’s

accomplices is similar to possessing execution in deciding if it will arise.

Building holistic models for innovation ecosystems is another approach used to

resolve the problem of the lack of stimulation or catapulting factors within the innovation

ecosystems (CRDS, 2010). How a firm could depend on others for its prosperity

underpins the nature of an innovation ecosystem. Timing is often variable. Stretching out

to showcase beyond one’s rivals is valuable because accomplices work with the

17
organization to build a model for innovation ecosystems (Rabelo & Bernus, 2015). One

more essential angle is asset conveyance. Putting resources into outer accomplices might

be more compelling than putting resources into interior assets to finish the venture since

significant bottlenecks might be situated externally. Nonetheless, the primary end leads to

a wholly re-examined risk evaluation. The expected level of effort frameworks set up at

most firms assesses regions where the organization creates esteem for its benefit

(Gregory et al., 2021).

Invoking technologies like machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI)

to model creativity and imagination is another approach to ensuring innovation

ecosystems remain unlimited by inherent thrusts for innovating. Kruse et al. (2019) stated

that ML and AI are benchmarks for creating or stirring up innovation within healthcare

organizations. Administrators frequently make the mistake of arranging the entire

environment, then, at that point, hurrying to construct and make sense of their part in

giving a coordinated item or administration to the last client. By zeroing in on this point,

administrators generally disregard the cycle and request in which their innovation

ecosystem advances over time. The outcome in environments requires conceiving an

arrangement representing cooperative organizations’ deferrals and limits. Building

ecosystems that support co-creation is another means of addressing the research problem

put forth in this study.

This study addressed the role of orchestrators in coordinating innovation

ecosystems; it focused on the organizational strategies required to establish and maintain

18
a creative workplace. The study explored how companies interact within innovation

ecosystems, the difficulties these ecosystems encounter, and the importance of

orchestrators’ contributions to achieving shared goals. The research also examined the

qualities that make up great orchestrators and how they contribute to developing a

collaborative, risk-taking, and innovative culture. The survey emphasized how crucial

innovation ecosystems are for businesses to thrive in a rapidly evolving environment

where partner and customer expectations are shifting faster than ever.

Co-creation brings together the expertise of different ecosystems, invoking a

rigorous synthesis of ideas that can precipitate a thrust for innovation within these teams

(Eckhardt et al., 2021). The epicenter of this solution is rather than the prevailing

arrangement and institutional concentration in the advancement framework writing; the

two writing streams have so far been detached, to a great extent, notwithstanding the

syntactic closeness of the two ideas. The advancement environment idea has become

subject to much discussion, not the most un-in this diary. Eckhardt et al. (2021)

condemned its handiness and uniqueness corresponding to surviving conceptualizations

of development frameworks, the organically roused eco qualifier, and its poor

relationship to stable environments. Gong (2020) claimed that the idea emerged vaguely

yet recommended that it might be a valuable expansion to the board’s conceptualizations

of development and advancement—it calls for more calculated and experimental

meticulousness.

19
 Having a variety of management methodologies in place is also crucial for

innovation ecosystems (Ritala et al., 2013). The variety is due to their complex systems

while simultaneously characterized by a limited number of management methodologies

which can result in challenges with co-development. Various management methodologies

allow the stakeholders to use the methodology that best suits their needs and helps avoid

conflict. For example, many organizations only use bureaucratic decision-making

methods, creating barriers to innovation. Additionally, many organizations rely on

traditional management models that must be updated and more effective in the 21st

century’s fast-paced world. As a result, the innovation ecosystem needs help to respond

to changes and new challenges effectively (Chatti, 2012). Organizations must adopt a

more flexible and adaptive management model when overcoming these limitations,

allowing stakeholders to collaborate to improve information flow and promote innovation

(Herrfahrdt-Pähle & Pahl-Wostl, 2012). In addition, organizations need to develop

systems that can quickly adapt to changes in the marketplace (Krantz, 2018). Rapid

adaptation allows organizations to respond more effectively to customer needs and

competition. By adopting these management methods, the innovation ecosystem can

become an effective tool for promoting innovation and growth.

Implementing a more flexible management model requires several changes

(Williams & Keady, 2012). Many organizations require assistance in responding quickly

to new challenges and opportunities. Organizations must develop rapidly adapting and

evolving systems to overcome this obstacle, and some stakeholders may feel

20
uncomfortable working in a collaborative environment (Al Ahmad et al., 2019). As a

result, organizations need to develop a strong leadership team that can promote

collaboration. By addressing these challenges, the innovation ecosystem can become an

effective tool for promoting innovation and growth and responding effectively to changes

and new challenges (Almeida, 2018). Organizations must adopt a more flexible

management model to improve the flow of information and promote innovation. Rapid

adaptation and evolving systems are essential to overcome stakeholders’ resistance. By

adopting these strategies, the innovation ecosystem can become an effective tool for

promoting growth and innovation while simultaneously helping to solve various multi-

industry problems experienced presently (Williams & Keady, 2012).

Orchestration of an innovation ecosystem presents a wide range of opportunities

to companies. The orchestrators must utilize the dynamic capabilities for ecosystem

orchestration. Orchestrators across industries always face challenges but identify the

opportunities available through ecosystem orchestration (Paradkar et al., 2015). For

example, when dynamic capabilities disaggregate into their constituents, orchestrators are

expected to point to four key activities: (a) sensing opportunities and related threats, (b)

grabbing these opportunities and maintaining competitiveness through restructuring of

strategies, (c) change of organization management models, and (d) reconfiguring

realigning the available resources for continued profit making while in the innovation

ecosystem (Paradkar et al., 2015). The four activities are crucial for any company to

remain competitive in the ecosystem or market. However, the activities are challenging to

21
balance, presenting a combination that allows for the orchestration of partnerships with

diverse actors in the ecosystem (Paradkar et al., 2015).

Reconfiguring the capital resource so that companies can remain profitable in

innovation ecosystems is another central aspect to which the orchestrator must give

maximum attention (Zahra & Nambisan, 2011). In an innovation ecosystem,

orchestrators can reconfigure the capital resource using technology. Moreover,

reconfigure platforms that facilitate the flow of resources and ideas. For example, they

can use crowdfunding platforms to finance new ventures or online collaboration tools to

connect with a global network of experts (Zahra & Nambisan, 2011). By leveraging the

power of technology, orchestrators can tap into new sources of capital and create a more

efficient, collaborative process for developing new products and services. In addition,

orchestrators can foster a more innovative environment where businesses can thrive by

creating an ecosystem of like-minded organizations (Pop et al., 2018). Innovation

ecosystem, orchestrators remain profitable by reconfiguring the capital resource.

Apart from collaboratively working together, accessing the technology or

innovation realizes gains from other actors in the ecosystem and improves competitive

capabilities. Orchestrators must also consider the market aspect where their productions

land (Almirall et al., 2014). That is, understanding the market nature of competition,

customer behaviors, and other related factors. Typically, these tasks remain the

responsibility of orchestrators to conduct market scanning, interpretation, and learning to

ensure the business’s profitability (Almirall et al., 2014). Companies must thoroughly and

22
frequently search, scan, and explore various markets and ideologies to identify

opportunities and associated threats and understand latent demand (Almirall et al., 2014).

Identifying various opportunities within the innovation ecosystem remains a

challenge of how companies can effectively maintain and manage these opportunities

(Ritala et al., 2013). One-way orchestrators can help companies seize opportunities is by

providing them with the resources they need to understand the innovation ecosystem.

Ritala et al. (2013) stated that such provisions include access to expert knowledge,

networks and tools, and resources that allow companies to track their competitors and

stay ahead of the curve. Orchestrators must help companies build their innovation

ecosystems by creating partnerships with other organizations in the ecosystem and

providing funding and support to new businesses. By helping companies build their

ecosystems, orchestrators can help them stay ahead of the curve and capitalize on

emerging opportunities. Orchestrators can help companies stay profitable by providing

access to resources and expertise and building partnerships and ecosystems; companies

identify opportunities and leverage their resources to stay ahead of the curve (Ritala et al.,

2013).

According to Chatterji and Patro (2014), it is simple to reconfigure company

capabilities to remain competitive orchestrators. However, within an innovation

ecosystem, the task can be complex because the actors depend on each other’s capacity to

adapt thoroughly. Orchestrators have several challenges in reconfiguring company

23
capabilities to stay competitive in an innovation ecosystem; they must ensure that (after

Carayannis & Campbell, 2011):

• The company has the right mix of capabilities, which may require adding or

discontinuing certain activities

• The company organizes in a way that optimizes innovation execution

• They can identify and exploit opportunities in the ecosystem

• They monitor and manage risks associated with innovation

• They create a climate that enables creativity and risk-taking

• They develop long-term partnerships with other companies in the ecosystem

• The company can transition to an innovation paradigm when the opportunity

arises

These challenges underscore the importance of continuously evolving company

capabilities to remain competitive in an ecosystem dominated by innovative companies

(Carayannis & Campbell, 2011).

According to Reypens et al. (2021), orchestrators must ascertain whether fostering

an innovative organizational culture would successfully address issues. Driving

innovation requires motivating staff to try new things and giving them access to the

necessary resources. Additionally, retaining and growing the business’s innovation skills

through long-term alliances with other businesses in the ecosystem requires that

employees receive training to be more effective in their responsibilities (Carayannis &

Campbell, 2011). Understanding the company’s value offering, interacting with key

24
parties, establishing an ideal process, monitoring, adjusting it as necessary, and

leveraging it to get extra benefits are all necessary for managing the orchestration process

successfully. By automating complicated jobs, decreasing the time spent on particular

tasks, and enhancing team communication, orchestration procedures can boost efficiency

and streamline corporate operations. Ultimately, orchestration success depends on a

carefully planned, continuously monitored, and flexible process (Reypens et al., 2021).

Problem Statement

The lack of a defined strategy for encouraging innovation through the efforts of

multiple orchestrators is the leading problem innovators encounter. Research institutions

and businesses must make significant intellectual contributions to tackle diverse

challenges and promote innovation. Organizations are therefore adapting their behavior

to match their objectives with the stimulation of innovation (Fyfe, 2019); this emphasizes

how crucial it is to create plans for fostering innovation through diverse cooperative

tactics, as seen in the case studies of several industrial sectors. The pharmaceutical sector

may gain a lot from orchestrating innovation ecosystems but doing so entails overcoming

several obstacles. Orchestrators must assess and choose the best strategies for promoting

innovation inside the ecosystem (Băban & Băban, 2022).

Purpose of the Study

The study examined how orchestrators coordinate innovation systems to help

firms, government organizations, and universities achieve shared goals. The study helped

me explain how companies might better organize their resources to support thriving

25
innovation ecosystems. I examined orchestrators’ roles in producing desired results, such

as energizing effects. I addressed problems that develop within the innovation ecosystem,

like a lack of trust; this is crucial because, in the contemporary corporate world, a lack of

trust can stifle development by decreasing new concept adoption. The study identified

how orchestrators can support innovation ecosystems and provided recommendations.

Importance of the Study

The study fills a knowledge gap about orchestrators’ contributions to the success

of collaborative innovation initiatives within the innovation ecosystem. Prior research has

concentrated on the components of the ecosystem, ignoring the significance of the

orchestrator’s unique functions. The results of this study, which examined the distinctive

roles that orchestrators play in cooperative innovation projects, can optimize the benefits

of the innovation ecosystem (Autio, 2022).

Innovation ecosystems are crucial for generating value, retaining it, and launching

co-production. Yet, because more players are involved, cooperation has grown

increasingly challenging. Orchestrators are essential to ensure that everyone participates

equitably and receives a share of the value created according to their participation.

Startups and small- and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) frequently need explicit

knowledge of the orchestrator’s role, which has detrimental effects on the innovation

ecosystem due to a lack of awareness.

According to the study, putting people at the core of innovation encourages value-

based collaboration and solves issues that SMEs and startups face while attempting to

26
innovate. Moreover, organizations can gain from ecosystem innovation by building

specialized innovation teams, strategic alliances, licensing and buying cutting-edge

companies or products, and accessing emerging technology and concepts (Paradkar et al.,

2015). For businesses to successfully orchestrate an innovation ecosystem, they must

have access to practical techniques for creating sub-routines that encourage ecosystem

innovation and enhance dynamic capabilities. The study advises businesses to seize new

opportunities inside the ecosystem to maintain their position as industry leaders.

Theoretical Framework

Scholars have compiled various resources to illuminate the orchestration

procedure and orchestrators’ role in delivering the innovation ecosystem’s mission.

According to Yaghmaie and Vanhaverbeke (2020), pursuing network-based results shows

how the intervention might organize to improve the innovation ecosystem. The authors

argued that the innovation ecosystem’s various models offer a setting where businesses

may collaborate and spark new ideas. Open innovation was in analyses concerning other

value-generating activities in the innovation ecosystem. The author also offered an

overview of the sectors covered, the network’s key players, the investigation’s depth, and

the characteristics contributing to a thriving collaborative environment. The European

ecosystem can credit most of its writings on innovation ecosystems to authors based

there.

There are subtle distinctions between European and American inventions

(Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2020). Because of this difference in perspective, American

27
academics have taken a different approach to the orchestration process and the role

performed by the orchestrators over the long term (Kubus, 2020). Researchers have

studied the various parts of the innovation ecosystem—this literature review compiles the

results. Thomas et al. (2021) used the term orchestration to describe how companies

work together to maximize the value of a shared resource. According to the most up-to-

date definition, an ecosystem is “an arrangement of components from several

collaborators that need to work together to provide a central value proposition to stay

competitive” (Xin et al., 2022, p. 19). As a result, orchestrators seek a non-generic

complement to establish a targeted connection structure and value alignment leading to

thriving innovation ecosystem development.

Innovation ecosystems offer a central value proposition to make new goods,

generate consumer value, or adapt an organization’s business model to the current

environment. According to Xin et al. (2022), the completion rate has risen dramatically

recently, necessitating a shift in the organization’s approach to operations to keep up with

the spirit of the changes. When two or more businesses compete, they often provide

identical goods or services to the same customers. Investors must foster a creative

environment to create new goods that meet the needs of a growing client base (Autio,

2022). A limited number of books, journals, and websites discuss the innovation

ecosystem, even though companies are increasingly working together to create new

products and services.

28
 There must be more research in this field, as shown by Bereczki’s (2019)

discussion of exploring innovation ecosystems via an open innovation lens. The author

proposed three evaluations to learn how effective the innovation ecosystem is in assisting

the company in establishing a solid collaboration network in pursuit of open innovation

(Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2020). As a first step, researchers need to consider how the

operation’s organizational structure has changed due to the current degree of analysis.

The second component that needs updating is the roles and duties of the many

participants within the innovation ecosystem. Finally, the authors analyzed the emergence

of new management functions within the ecosystem, including catalysts, implementers,

and orchestrators.

Theory of Ten Definitions

Johnson et al. (2010) saw MM-GTM as complimentary. Quantitative data detect

expected and unexpected results more quickly, while qualitative analysis may hint at an

underlying cause process. The authors could not foresee that qualitative and quantitative

data may be gathered on the same constructs since they were working before the

establishment of mixed methods as a unique approach in the late 1980s. One of the

earliest formal manifestations of MM-GTM in reporting traces back to research

conducted by Shim et al. (2020); that work received additional attention in Chapter 5.

The doctoral committee included R. B. Johnson. Another member of the committee was

well-known for her knowledge of grounded theory. Shim et al. defined their study as

adopting a multi-phase mixed methods research strategy. They stated that the research

29
aimed to create and validate a grounded theory model. Like practically all MM-GTM

research with this objective, they accomplished more than a single purpose. Shim et al.

validated elements of the basic model produced from the literature and interviews while

concurrently extending it by deleting and adding components and postulating routes that

connected them.

The model prioritizes the significance of mixed techniques in generating

explanatorily severable methodologists writing on mixed methods. It has prioritized the

goals it may serve in MM-GTM in ways that expand beyond the classic purpose

described by Johnson et al. (2010) in the first debate about it to emerge in print.

Consistent with grounded theory’s goal of facilitating theorizing, the members of this

group have shown the potential contribution of mixed methods. Walsh (2015), an author

in the field of information systems, emphasized the importance of combining multiple

data sources for more than just triangulation: “The purpose is not to test or correct what

has been found previously, but to extend understanding of the phenomenon under

scrutiny and the scope of the emerging theory” (p. 124).

Importance of Orchestrating Open Innovation Ecosystems

Schepis et al. (2021) noted that the orchestration methods are utilized

concurrently at various levels to generate value for the other members, demonstrating the

interrelatedness of businesses at the level of analysis. According to Schepis et al.,

company-level analysis was the primary focus of open innovation research. When a

firm’s open innovation analysis at the organizational level is constrained, several

30
drawbacks will likely occur. On the one hand, the working partners may prejudice due to

personal interests.

Consequently, by ignoring the amount of interest, the orchestrator finds it

impossible to coordinate the partners (Schepis et al., 2021). However, the structural

complexity of the innovation ecosystem can only work provided the objectives of the

participants coincide, which is why the orchestrator is so crucial. The orchestrator directs

the innovation ecosystem by considering the partnering organization’s goals to assist the

partners in achieving a shared purpose. Some breakthroughs are often costly, and one

company may need help to pay independently for the whole endeavor (Shi & Shen,

2021). In this case, the orchestrator assists the parties in reaching an agreement and

provides the necessary resources to fulfil their expectations.

Additionally, taking part in open innovation at the corporate level may prevent

academics from gathering the data they need to assess open innovation programs. When

research is lacking, academics may not have the information they need to work with

outside partners, which might result in open innovation failing (Sjödin et al., 2022). The

ecosystem requires a thorough comprehension of the objectives of all the players in the

orchestration. The innovation ecosystem method gathers data on the viewpoints of all

parties.

Participant biases in the ecosystem are eliminated by orchestrators, providing a

more profound knowledge of open innovation (Sjödin et al., 2022). The literature advised

31
combining research at the company and ecosystem levels to create a strong foundation

that ensures the success of the innovation ecosystem.

Optimizing Innovation Orchestration

Large organizations frequently use open innovation within an ecosystem of

suppliers and partners. Managing the combination of resources to support a company’s

growth has become more crucial in the digital era (Pelletier & Raymond, 2020). Direct

communication between the partner and the focus organization is made possible by the

open relationships between the parties working. Remneland and Styhre (2022) stated that

whereas an innovation ecosystem starts with a complex network of varied backgrounds to

meet the purpose of innovation, it is uncommon to build inter-organizational links

involving many partners. Remneland and Styhre stressed the value of the innovation

ecosystem in nonprofit organizations. However, little scholarly attention has been paid to

the value creation and capturing components of innovation strategies, which are essential

for the success of the innovation ecosystem (Neudert & Kreutzer, 2021). An orchestrator

is present to manage the ecosystem, according to Mann et al. (2022), and their

responsibilities may change based on the size of the participating businesses and the

ecosystem’s objectives. Most of the current research on innovation ecosystems focuses

on the several management techniques an orchestrator might employ to keep the

ecosystem under check. Although open innovation has received much attention, most

academics only take a small piece of the innovation ecosystem into account (Autio,

2022). It is necessary to understand how the objectives of various parties can be linked

32
while considering the orchestrator to develop an innovation ecosystem among partners

(Remneland & Styhre, 2022).

According to Madsen and Cruickshank (2022), companies use bilateral

agreements to co-innovate roughly 20 years ago; this is strong evidence that the

innovation ecosystem existed then. The parameters of agreements continually change

because of technological advancements to suit the other party’s goals. Businesses created

short-term partnerships to cooperate and trade ideas and technical resources to finish

research and development (R&D) initiatives (Colombo et al., 2021). Since around 2010,

projects have become more complicated due to rising competitiveness, prompting

companies to enhance their level of contact. Additionally, firms have become more

distinct due to growing specialization in a single product line, prompting them to hunt out

collaborators with similar goals (Madsen & Cruickshank, 2022).

New clients and investors need an expanding business where they may work

together and purchase complementary goods. According to Zvereva (2021), engaging

partners to cooperate and build a resource pool to develop innovative strategies. Being

capable of dealing with technological advances has become necessary for the business to

remain financially viable. Multiple ecosystem partners interacting with one another

provide idea exchange without necessarily necessitating predetermined hierarchical

governance among the interested parties—such partnerships may result in sophisticated

marketed goods or services for future benefits (Tronvoll & Edvardsson, 2020).

33
 Orchestrators receive support from both physical and digital infrastructure

(Serrano, 2018). Infrastructures, both digital and physical, demonstrated the company’s

capacity for data storage and interchange through centralized connectivity. Firms must

include fundamental initiatives to support information technology ecosystems and skills.

Because of the dynamics that arise from cooperation, businesses regularly re-evaluate

their approach. Since certain variables are unsustainable by the market and do not

necessarily need hierarchical governance, partners in the innovation ecosystem must

collaborate. De Vasconcelos Gomes et al. (2018) claimed that the orchestrator controls

the innovation ecosystem by generating and capturing value. Academics are inspired to

investigate the feeling of the innovation ecosystem because of the shift toward co-

innovation with various partners.

Partner collaboration facilitates increased knowledge exchange and technology

transfer in the innovation ecosystem. The scale of the cooperating partners should

manifest even though businesses produce and capture value in diverse ways. The

available material must state whether small businesses can work with big businesses (de

Vasconcelos Gomes et al., 2018). Therefore, further study is required to ascertain if

SMEs and major corporations can collaborate within the innovation ecosystem. It is

crucial to comprehend how parties produce value by relying on one another since

participants in the innovation ecosystem engage with one another often. By giving the

collaborators the tools, they need to decide; orchestrators direct the innovation

34
ecosystem. The collaborative actors regard their partners as possible rivals and make

judgments restricted to the organizational bounds (de Vasconcelos Gomes et al., 2018).

In most cases, the orchestrators are intermediaries to bargain with the cooperating

groups and ensure their objectives are congruent. The value produced by the

collaborators relies on how effectively the partners’ aims and objectives match, claim

Talmar et al. (2020). The value generated can be minimal if the companies’ goals differ

much. Their dedication also determines the value the players provide to the project.

Value in a generation when partners’ resources and skills complement each other for the

greatest possible result. It is crucial to comprehend what the corporation may supply to

the ecosystem in addition to its opponent. Value creation is thus the primary element in

the innovation ecosystem that connects the partners. According to Dedehayir et al.

(2018), participants in the innovation ecosystem do not compete with one another—a

group of partners might instead compete for limited resources.

As mentioned earlier, competition is communal; corporations no longer compete

against one another, but instead, the groups compete. Companies provide value to the

ecosystem by emulating the roles they play and how they interact with other

organizations. Production of value and rethinking value production by rearranging the

responsibilities of the many collaborators emerge (Dedehayir et al., 2018). Orchestrators

ensure that the players participate in value creation by providing the necessary resources

to guarantee that businesses consistently exchange values via technology engagement

35
(Tabas et al., 2022). Technology has made it easier for partners to communicate and

share ideas, simplifying organizational cooperation in the 21st century.

Each partner must collectively capture and appropriate each actor’s value under

the collaboration agreement, adding to the overall value generated (Suseno et al., 2018).

Each stakeholder participates in the value creation regarding the players’ bargaining

power, and the orchestrator of the innovation ecosystem organizes the value

appropriation. The non-generic resources of participants in the ecosystem play the

function of bargaining power (Almpanopoulou et al., 2019). In other words, a firm’s skill

and position, representing the ecosystem’s importance and contribution, determine its

bargaining power.

The value produced in an innovation ecosystem relies on the participants’

dedication to the ecosystem. Orchestrators should provide the players with a crucial role

to guarantee that the ecosystem supports the necessary efforts and remains dedicated to

the ecosystem mandate (Neudert & Kreutzer, 2021). Value distribution between

participants must be equal for the innovation ecosystem to be equitable for all players.

Some businesses work together with other businesses to exchange technology and ideas.

However, they do not contribute to innovation or value creation. As a result, an

orchestrator assists the company in determining if each player makes a reasonable effort

to support the innovation ecosystem (Neudert & Kreutzer, 2021). Collaboration across

organizations is crucial.

36
 Some participants may benefit less than they had hoped, leading to them putting

in less effort and finally leaving the innovation ecosystem. Orchestrators should divvy

participant remuneration equitably, guaranteeing ongoing commitment to the innovation

ecosystem (Neudert & Kreutzer, 2021). A good innovation ecosystem is one in which all

participants bring complementary skills (Poblete et al., 2022). According to academics,

the complimentary feature shows that each participant is unique, ensuring that each actor

contributes a unique thought from the other partners. Applying the notion of complex

diversity systems may aid in the thoughtful creation of innovation systems, yet the variety

of the players’ goals and their interdependence increases the complexity of the

ecosystem’s environment (Gu et al., 2021; Juceviius et al., 20214). As a result, the

ecosystem environment’s complexity increases as value is created and extracted from one

another. Gu et al. (2021) contended that to maximize the value of each actor’s

contribution, they should all collaborate to address the problems inside the ecosystem. An

orchestrator oversees the ecosystem, which regulates by ecosystem governance (Reichert,

2019).

The orchestrator must design and manage the innovation ecosystem

(Robaczewska et al., 2019). By setting goals beyond the players’ relationships and

reshaping the innovation ecosystem, the orchestrator provides the actors with various

assets and abilities to maximize each capacity. Similarly, Sjödin et al. (2022) contended

that for the orchestrator to manage the innovation ecosystem effectively, they must

consider two duties. The orchestrator must first understand how to establish and manage

37
the innovation ecosystem to maximize value generation. In addition, the orchestrator sets

up the agreement so that the participants may benefit from the possibility of having

values in common (Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2020). However, the scale of the

ecosystem, the technology used, leadership management, and collective competitiveness

all affect collective competitiveness.

Although the performers do not compete with one another, there is rivalry when it

comes to sharing the benefits of teamwork (Diriker et al., 2022a). Diriker et al. (2022a)

found that the orchestrator assures no conflict among the participants about sharing the

value produced and deters any rivalry. The orchestrator ensures that the actors earn

significant rewards since the organization will only participate in a partnership where

they stand to win; they must ensure that the organization is joining a partnership and

loves doing so to prevent a business from leaving the ecosystem and instead choosing to

remain in the innovation partnership. Orchestrators are crucial in directing value

generation since it anchors the value capture process across several participants (Ritala et

al., 2013).

Research Questions and Objectives

Qualitative Research Questions (Phases 1–3, all Based on the Thematic Coding

Results)

Phase 1 Qualitative Research Question

P1.RQ1) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of orchestration

challenges in innovation ecosystems?

38
Phase 2 Qualitative Research Question

P2.RQ2) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to building new smart cities?

Phase 3 Qualitative Research Questions

P3.RQ3) What are participants’ experiences with, and descriptions of, innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to precision medical treatments for

cancer?

P3.RQ4) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to financial institutions?

P3.RQ5) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to healthcare systems?

P3.RQ6) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to legal systems?

P3.RQ7) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to managing conflict?

P3.RQ8) What are participants’ experiences with, and descriptions of, innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to measuring impact in innovation

ecosystems?

P3.RQ9) What are participants’ experiences with, and descriptions of, innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to policymaking in public health?

39
 P3.RQ10) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to transformative governance?

P3.RQ11) What are participants’ experiences with, and descriptions of,

innovation ecosystems and orchestration challenges as related to measuring the input and

output of innovation ecosystems?

Quantitative Research Questions (All Part of Phase 3)

Model 1

P3.RQ12) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that information technology

systems (excluding artificial intelligence) are important in creating successful

orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Ha1: There is a statistically significant relationship between innovation ecosystem

actors’ feelings that information technology systems (excluding artificial intelligence) are

essential in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems and the dependent

variables (demographics).

Model 2

P3.RQ13) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that the technological savviness of

those operating in the ecosystem is important in creating successful orchestration in

innovation ecosystems?

Ha2: There is a statistically significant relationship between innovation ecosystem

actors’ feelings that the technological savviness of those operating in the ecosystem is

40
important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems and the

dependent variables (demographics).

Model 3

P3.RQ14) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that artificial intelligence systems

are important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Ha3: There is a statistically significant relationship between innovation ecosystem

actors’ feelings that artificial intelligence systems are important in creating successful

orchestration in innovation ecosystems and the dependent variables (demographics).

Model 4

P3.RQ15) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that data privacy and security

issues are important considerations in creating successful orchestration in innovation

ecosystems?

Ha4: There is a statistically significant relationship between innovation ecosystem

actors’ feelings that data privacy and security issues are important considerations in

creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems and the dependent variables

(demographics).

Model 5

P3.RQ16) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that collaboration and partnerships

are important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

41
 Ha5: There is a statistically significant relationship between innovation ecosystem

actors’ feelings that collaboration and partnerships are important in creating successful

orchestration in innovation ecosystems and the dependent variables (demographics).

Model 6

P3.RQ17) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that finances and project funding

are important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Ha6: There is a statistically significant relationship between innovation ecosystem

actors’ feelings that finances and project funding are important in creating successful

orchestration in innovation ecosystems and the dependent variables (demographics).

Model 7

P3.RQ18) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that government involvement is

important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Ha7: There is a statistically significant relationship between innovation ecosystem

actors’ feelings that government involvement is important in creating successful

orchestration in innovation ecosystems and the dependent variables (demographics).

Model 8

P3.RQ19) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that diversity, equity, inclusion,

and ethics are all important considerations in creating successful orchestration in

innovation ecosystems?

Ha8: There is a statistically significant relationship between innovation ecosystem

actors’ feelings that diversity, equity, inclusion, and ethics are all important

42
considerations in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems and the

dependent variables (demographics).

Research Questions Aligned With the Study’s Broader Concepts

Aligning research questions and concepts to study results is essential for ensuring

that research studies are structured and focused on addressing a specific research problem

and that the study is coherent, logically organized, and the results are meaningful

(Creswell & Clark, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Trede & Higgs, 2009). Concepts and

theory are the foundation of any research study, establishing the basis for the research

(Adom et al., 2018). Aligning broader concepts to study results involves identifying the

theoretical concepts, assumptions, and variables that underpin the research study and

examining how they relate to the study findings (Adom et al., 2018; Varpio & Teunissen,

2020). Alignment ensures that the research is well-grounded in theory, concept, and

current literature and that the results are consistent with the same (Rocco & Plakhotnik,

2009; Varpio et al., 2020).

Research questions are critical to any research study, providing a clear direction

(Creswell & Clark, 2011). Aligning research questions to study results involves

examining research question framing, operationalized, and answered by the study results,

helping to ensure that the research questions are relevant, specific, and answerable to the

research data (Black, 2005). Additionally, alignment ensured that the research study held

to rigorous and systematic standards and that the results were reliable and valid (Creswell

& Clark, 2011). Aligning conceptual frameworks and research questions to study results

43
helps ensure that the research study is meaningful and contributes to advancing

knowledge in the field (Osanloo & Grant, 2016). Such alignment involves examining

how the research study contributes to the existing knowledge base, addresses gaps in the

literature, and provides insights into the research problem. Engaging in these connective

exercises helps to ensure that the research study has relevance and impact in the field

(Osanloo & Grant, 2016; Trede & Higgs, 2009). Significant material from the findings

retroactively explained the connections between the research questions, the theoretical

framework, the broad concepts in the study, and the results of the data analysis, as

discussed in detail below.

Phase 1 Qualitative Research Question Alignment

P1.RQ1) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of orchestration

challenges in innovation ecosystems?

Understanding ecosystem agents’ experiences in orchestration challenges is

critical to effective ecosystem orchestration (Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2020).

Ecosystem orchestration involves managing and coordinating various actors and

resources to achieve a common goal or objective, such as fostering innovation and

economic growth. Ecosystem agents often face various orchestration challenges in

innovation ecosystems, such as a lack of coordination, communication barriers, and

conflicting goals and interests (Xin et al., 2022). These challenges can lead to

fragmentation and inefficiencies in the ecosystem, hindering its effectiveness. For

instance, startups may need more coordination between investors and incubators to find

44
funding. In contrast, universities may need more collaboration with industry partners to

commercialize their research (Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2020).

Ecosystem orchestrators can work to improve coordination and communication

between ecosystem agents, foster collaboration and partnerships, and develop shared

infrastructure and resources to overcome these challenges (Sjödin et al., 2022; Yaghmaie

& Vanhaverbeke, 2020). For instance, ecosystem orchestrators may establish

communication platforms to facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing among

ecosystem agents or develop shared physical spaces that bring together startups,

investors, and other stakeholders in a collaborative environment (Remneland & Styhre,

2022). In addition, ecosystem orchestrators can work to align the goals and interests of

ecosystem agents by developing a shared vision and objectives for the ecosystem to

create a sense of shared purpose and identity among ecosystem agents, encouraging them

to work together towards a common goal.

Phase 2 Qualitative Research Question Alignment

P2.RQ2) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to building new smart cities?

Innovation ecosystems play a crucial role in developing new smart cities, bringing

together various stakeholders such as startups, investors, government agencies, and

universities to collaborate and create innovative solutions (Tronvoll & Edvardsson,

2020). However, building a successful innovation ecosystem is a complex process that

requires careful orchestration (Gu et al., 2021; Reichert, 2019). Ecosystem agents, the

45
key players in this process, have unique experiences and descriptions of the challenges of

orchestrating such ecosystems. A primary challenge is that ecosystem agents face the

multifarious tasks of creating shared visions among stakeholders (de Vasconcelos Gomes

et al., 2018). Smart cities require the integration of various technologies, services, and

infrastructure, and getting all stakeholders to agree on a common goal can be difficult.

Ecosystem agents must be skilled at managing relationships and facilitating discussions

to create a shared vision that everyone can work towards (Sjödin et al., 2022).

Innovation ecosystems materialize on open innovation, where ideas and

knowledge are shared freely (Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2020). Ecosystem agents must

encourage collaboration among stakeholders and create platforms for knowledge

exchange requiring building trust among stakeholders and creating an environment where

everyone feels comfortable sharing their ideas and knowledge (Diriker et al., 2022a;

Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2020). Ecosystem agents also face challenges in ensuring

the sustainability of the ecosystem (Costa & Matias, 2020). Innovation ecosystems are

not static; they evolve as new technologies and trends emerge, and ecosystem agents

must adapt and evolve the ecosystem to meet changing needs, requiring a deep

understanding of the ecosystem’s dynamics and the ability to identify and leverage

emerging trends (Thomas & Autio, 2019).

46
Phase 3 Qualitative Research Questions Alignment

P3.RQ3) What are participants’ experiences with, and descriptions of, innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to precision medical treatments for

cancer?

Precision medicine, particularly for cancer treatment, requires a collaborative

approach between various stakeholders, including researchers, clinicians, patients, and

technology companies (de Vasconcelos Gomes et al., 2018; Gomes‐Silva & Ramos,

2018; McCurdy, 2023). Innovation ecosystems are crucial for facilitating collaboration

and creating new solutions in precision medicine (Gomes‐Silva & Ramos, 2018).

Ecosystem agents play a vital role in developing these ecosystems. They have unique

experiences and descriptions of the challenges related to orchestrating innovative

ecosystems for precision medical treatments for cancer (Denicolai & Previtali, 2020).

One of the main challenges that ecosystem agents face in precision medicine is data

management (Azad & Shulaev, 2019). Precision medicine relies heavily on data, and

ecosystem agents must ensure data is collected, stored, and shared securely and

efficiently (Azad & Shulaev, 2019; León & Pastor, 2021). Agents must also ensure that

data is used ethically and complies with regulatory requirements. Ecosystem agents must

work with stakeholders to develop standards and protocols for data management that

enable collaboration while protecting patient privacy (León & Pastor, 2021).

Precision medicine requires collaboration between stakeholders with different

skills, knowledge, and perspectives (Gomes‐Silva & Ramos, 2018; McCurdy, 2023).

47
Ecosystem agents must be skilled at building relationships and facilitating discussions to

ensure all stakeholders have a voice in the innovation ecosystem. They must create an

environment where stakeholders feel comfortable sharing their ideas and expertise

(Gomes‐Silva & Ramos, 2018). Ecosystem agents also face challenges ensuring that

precision medicine solutions are accessible to all patients (Bettaieb et al., 2017).

Precision medicine can be expensive, and ecosystem agents must work to ensure that the

benefits of precision medicine are available to patients of all socioeconomic backgrounds

(Kasztura et al., 2019; McCurdy, 2023). Agents must work with stakeholders to develop

business models and pricing strategies that enable access to precision medicine while

ensuring the sustainability of the ecosystem.

P3.RQ4) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to financial institutions?

Innovation ecosystems are critical for developing new solutions in the financial

industry, merging stakeholders such as fintech startups, established financial institutions,

regulators, and investors (Pallathadka & Pallathadka, 2022). Ecosystem agents play a

crucial role in orchestrating these ecosystems, and they have unique experiences and

descriptions of the challenges related to innovation ecosystems in the financial industry

(Palmié et al., 2020). The financial industry is heavily regulated, and ecosystem agents

must ensure that innovation ecosystems comply with regulatory requirements. They must

work with stakeholders to develop solutions that balance innovation with regulatory

48
compliance, ensuring that new solutions are safe and secure for consumers (Palmié et al.,

2020).

Innovation ecosystems also require collaboration between stakeholders with

different backgrounds, interests, and cultures. Ecosystem agents must be skilled at

building relationships and facilitating discussions to ensure all stakeholders have a voice

(de Vasconcelos Gomes et al., 2018). Agents must manage conflicts and find common

ground among stakeholders (Diriker et al., 2022b). Financial innovation is a rapidly

changing field, and ecosystem agents must be able to adapt and evolve the ecosystem to

meet changing needs. Agents must also work with stakeholders to identify emerging

trends and technologies and create an environment that fosters innovation and growth

(Pelletier & Raymond, 2020).

P3.RQ5) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to healthcare systems?

Innovation ecosystem successes improve patient outcomes, streamline processes,

and reduce costs. These ecosystems bring together various stakeholders, including

healthcare providers, technology companies, researchers, and investors (Iyawa et al.,

2016, 2017). Ecosystem agents play a vital role in orchestrating these ecosystems. They

have unique experiences and descriptions of the challenges related to innovation

ecosystems in the healthcare industry, with a primary challenge being interoperability

(Iyawa et al., 2016, 2017).

49
 The healthcare industry needs to be more cohesive, with many different systems

and technologies. Ecosystem agents must ensure that these systems can communicate and

share data effectively, creating a seamless flow of information between stakeholders

(Robert et al., 2017). Agents must work with stakeholders to develop standards and

protocols that enable interoperability while ensuring the security and privacy of patient

data. Another challenge is managing relationships between healthcare and data (IT)

stakeholders. Ecosystem agents also face challenges in ensuring that new solutions are

accessible and affordable for all patients. Healthcare costs are a significant concern, and

ecosystem agents must help stakeholders to develop business models and pricing

strategies enabling access to innovative solutions while ensuring the sustainability of the

ecosystem (Gopal, 2019).

P3.RQ6) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to legal systems?

Legal systems are critical in shaping the innovation ecosystem by providing a

framework for intellectual property protection, contract enforcement, and regulatory

compliance (Costa & Matias, 2020). Entrepreneurs and investors bring diverse

experiences and perceptions of how legal systems affect innovation ecosystems,

depending on their industry, geography, and stage of development (Chen et al., 2019;

Kutty et al., 2022). One of the key challenges in ecosystem orchestration is to align the

interests and incentives of different actors toward shared goals while managing conflicts

and trade-offs (Kretschmer et al., 2022). Legal systems can facilitate or hinder ecosystem

50
coordination by providing clear rules and incentives for collaboration and innovation or

creating barriers and uncertainties that deter investment and collaboration (Kretschmer et

al., 2022). For example, patent litigation and licensing disputes can create significant

transaction costs and risks for startups and investors in some jurisdictions. In contrast,

weak intellectual property protection in others may discourage innovation and investment

(Kieff & Grant, 2022).

Ecosystem agents also face complex legal and regulatory challenges in navigating

the interface between innovation and societal concerns such as privacy, security, and

ethics (Fosch-Villaronga & Millard, 2019). For example, emerging technologies such as

artificial intelligence, blockchain, and biotechnology raise novel legal and ethical

questions about data privacy, algorithmic bias, and genetic modification, requiring

multidisciplinary expertise and stakeholder dialogue (Fosch-Villaronga & Millard, 2019).

The lack of harmonization and coordination among legal systems across different

jurisdictions can create fragmentation and inefficiencies in innovation ecosystems,

requiring ecosystem orchestration efforts to bridge legal and regulatory gaps (Drobyazko

et al., 2019; Fosch-Villaronga & Millard, 2019).

Finally, cultural and institutional contexts, including values, norms, and power

dynamics, shape ecosystem agents’ experiences and perceptions of legal systems and

innovation ecosystems (Jacobides & Lianos, 2021). Ecosystem orchestration requires a

deep understanding of ecosystem agents’ and stakeholders’ diverse perspectives and

interests and their interaction with legal and institutional frameworks (Saintot & Lulić,

51
2022). For example, the role of government in innovation ecosystems can vary widely

across different countries, ranging from direct intervention and funding to indirect

facilitation and regulation. Effective ecosystem orchestration requires adaptive and

context-specific approaches that account for the complexity and diversity of legal and

institutional environments (Allen, 2019; Jacobides & Lianos, 2021; Kutty et al., 2022;

Saintot & Lulić, 2022).

P3.RQ7) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to managing conflict?

Managing conflict is a critical component of ecosystem orchestration, involving

aligning the interests and incentives of diverse stakeholders toward shared goals (Garin,

2022). Ecosystem agents, such as entrepreneurs, investors, and policymakers, have varied

experiences and descriptions of how conflict arises in innovation ecosystems and how it

can be managed effectively (Autio, 2022; Garin, 2022). One common source of conflict

in innovation ecosystems is resource competition, including funding, talent, and market

share (Autio, 2022; Nambisan et al., 2019). Startups and established firms may compete

for the same customers, investors, or strategic partners, leading to tensions and rivalries

(Nambisan et al., 2019). Managing this type of conflict requires ecosystem orchestrators

to balance the interests of different actors and ensure fair and transparent competition.

For example, creating shared spaces for collaboration and communication, such as

innovation hubs or accelerators, can facilitate the exchange of ideas and resources while

reducing the risk of conflict (Mukhopadhyay & Bouwman, 2019).

52
 Another source of conflict in innovation ecosystems is ecosystem agents’

divergent goals and incentives, which can lead to coordination failures and suboptimal

outcomes (Oskam et al., 2021). For example, investors may prioritize short-term returns

over long-term societal benefits, while policymakers may focus on regulatory compliance

rather than innovation (Zetzsche et al., 2020). Managing this type of conflict requires

ecosystem orchestrators to identify and address the underlying drivers of divergent goals

and align them toward common goals (Oskam et al., 2021). Conflict management may

involve creating incentives and metrics that incentivize cooperation and innovation and

building trust and social capital among ecosystem agents (Redondo & Camarero, 2019;

Schlüter et al., 2019).

A third source of conflict in innovation ecosystems is the need for clear and

enforceable rules and norms, particularly in emerging technologies and industries (Jones

et al., 2021). For example, there must be more consensus on legal and regulatory

frameworks in the blockchain and cryptocurrency space, leading to uncertainty and

disputes (Cumming et al., 2019). Managing this type of conflict requires ecosystem

orchestrators to establish clear rules and norms that balance innovation and societal

concerns while allowing for experimentation and adaptation; this may involve engaging

with policymakers, industry associations, and other stakeholders to co-create and refine

legal and regulatory frameworks (Boyer, 2020; Jones et al., 2021).

Finally, cultural and institutional contexts, including their values, norms, and

power dynamics, shape ecosystem agents’ experiences and descriptions of conflict in

53
innovation ecosystems (Christmann, 2020). Ecosystem orchestration requires a deep

understanding of ecosystem agents, stakeholders’ diverse perspectives and interests, and

their interaction with cultural and institutional frameworks. Effective ecosystem

orchestrators must be able to navigate and mediate conflict across diverse contexts while

fostering dialogue and learning among stakeholders (Domanski et al., 2020).

P3.RQ8) What are participants’ experiences with, and descriptions of, innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to measuring impact in innovation

ecosystems?

Measuring the impact of innovation ecosystems is challenging, as many factors

contribute to their success or failure (Costa & Matias, 2020). Ecosystem agents, such as

incubators, accelerators, and venture capitalists, play a critical role in shaping these

ecosystems and driving innovation (Ojaghi et al., 2019; Pierrakis & Saridakis, 2019;

Rossi et al., 2022). Their experiences and descriptions of innovation ecosystems can

provide valuable insights into the challenges of measuring impact and orchestrating these

complex networks. Ecosystem agents often describe innovation ecosystems as dynamic

and constantly evolving (Heaton et al., 2019). Agents have noted that high levels of

uncertainty, risk, and complexity, which can make it difficult to measure the impact of

their interventions, characterize ecosystems (Autio, 2022; Palmié et al., 2020; Xie &

Wang, 2020). For example, incubators and accelerators may provide support and

resources to startups. However, it can be challenging to determine the extent to which

these interventions contribute to the startup’s long-term success (Blair et al., 2020).

54
 Innovation ecosystems also face orchestration challenges, as ecosystem agents

must coordinate their efforts to create a cohesive and effective network (Myers &

Kellogg, 2022). Ecosystem agents must balance their interests with the ecosystem’s

needs and work together to identify and overcome barriers to innovation. For example,

ecosystem agents may need to collaborate with government agencies to secure funding

for innovation projects or with universities to develop new technologies (Oskam et al.,

2021). Effective ecosystem orchestration requires a willingness to collaborate and

innovate in response to changing circumstances. As innovation ecosystems evolve, the

challenges of measuring impact and orchestrating these networks will become

increasingly important for ecosystem agents and stakeholders (Agbali et al., 2019).

P3.RQ9) What are participants’ experiences with, and descriptions of, innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to policymaking in public health?

Public health policies can cover many areas, including disease prevention, health

promotion, healthcare access and affordability, environmental health, and emergency

preparedness (Mukherjee, 2021). Public health policies can significantly impact the

health and well-being of communities, particularly those that are vulnerable or

marginalized (Baah et al., 2019). Innovation ecosystems are critical in driving innovation

and improving health outcomes in public health policymaking. However, orchestrating

these ecosystems presents unique challenges, as ecosystem agents must traverse

regulatory environments and coordinate with various stakeholders to achieve their goals

(Lepore et al., 2023). Agents in the public health innovation ecosystem describe it as

55
highly collaborative and interdisciplinary, with a wide range of actors working together

to develop and implement new policies and technologies (Natterson-Horowitz et al.,

2023). These actors include government agencies, academic institutions, non-profit

organizations, and private sector firms. However, the regulatory environment can also

present challenges, as agents must understand myriad legal frameworks and comply with

various regulations and guidelines. Agents must also work together to limit inadequate

funding, poor access to data, and outdated policies and regulations (Rocha et al., 2019).

P3.RQ10) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to transformative governance?

Concerning transformative governance, innovation ecosystems play a critical role

in driving transformative change and advancing sustainability goals (Visseren-Hamakers

et al., 2021). Power imbalances and vested interests present challenges, including

dysfunctional political and economic systems and trust and legitimacy among

stakeholders. Effective ecosystem orchestration in the transformative governance

innovation ecosystem requires close coordination between actors and stakeholders

(Skrimizea et al., 2020). Agents must work together to enact transformative change, such

as entrenched power structures, limited access to resources, and resistance to new ideas

and approaches (Dano et al., 2020).

Transformative governance is essential for promoting effective innovation

ecosystem dynamics. This type of governance focuses on creating an environment that

encourages collaboration, creativity, and risk-taking among different stakeholders in the

56
ecosystem and requires that policies and regulations support and facilitate innovation

(Visseren-Hamakers et al., 2021). Transformative governance promotes inclusive growth

by involving diverse actors in the innovation process, such as entrepreneurs, investors,

researchers, and policymakers (Bachtler et al., 2019). By providing the necessary support

and infrastructure, transformative governance can help to drive innovation and create new

economic opportunities. Transformative governance can facilitate this by creating

platforms and networks that bring together actors from different sectors and industries to

create synergies and enable knowledge and resource sharing. Sharing, in turn, leads to

new products, services, and technology development (Hölscher et al., 2019).

Furthermore, transformative governance can help to promote the adoption of innovations

by providing the necessary support for testing and scaling up new ideas (Hölscher et al.,

2019). Transformative governance can help to create sustainable economic growth and

improve the quality of life for citizens by supporting effective innovation ecosystem

dynamics.

P3.RQ11) What are participants’ experiences with, and descriptions of, innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges as related to measuring the input and output

of innovation ecosystems?

Measuring the input and output of ecosystems is essential for understanding their

impact and identifying opportunities for improvement, the interactions between actors,

and the ability to track changes in real time. However, this can be challenging, as data on

ecosystem performance is often dispersed and difficult to collect. Effective ecosystem

57
orchestration in measuring the input and output of innovation ecosystems requires the

identification of key performance indicators and data collection methodologies that can

accurately capture the performance of the ecosystem (Wang, 2021). For example, many

innovation ecosystems rely on measuring the number of patents or publications produced

by a particular institution or region (Mohnen, 2019). However, more than these metrics

may be needed to provide a complete picture of innovation output as they do not capture

the innovations’ economic impact or commercialization potential. Furthermore, using

patents as a metric can be problematic as not all innovations are patentable, and the

patenting process can take several years, delaying the measurement of innovation output

(Mohnen, 2019; Wydra, 2020).

Another problem in measuring innovation output is attributing innovation to a

specific ecosystem or institution. Determining which institution or ecosystem should

receive credit for innovation can be challenging (Wydra, 2020); this can lead to an

underestimation of the innovation output of an ecosystem, as innovations developed in

collaboration with other ecosystems or institutions must receive attribution. Additionally,

attributing innovation output to a specific ecosystem or institution may not reflect the true

impact of the innovation, as it may have been adopted and developed further by other

organizations outside of the ecosystem (Wydra, 2020).

Measuring the input of innovation ecosystems can also be challenging due to

various problems. One of the primary difficulties is identifying the appropriate metrics to

assess the input of an innovation ecosystem. Inputs can include factors such as funding,

58
human capital, and infrastructure. However, measuring these factors can be complicated

by variations in funding sources, human capital quality, and infrastructure availability

and quality. Furthermore, the assessment of inputs may not capture the intangible factors

that contribute to innovation ecosystems’ success, such as culture, creativity, and

collaboration (Taques et al., 2021).

Another area for improvement in measuring the input of innovation ecosystems is

the need to improve the impact of various inputs on innovation output (Mohnen, 2019).

For example, while funding is a critical input for innovation, the relationship between

funding and innovation output is complex and multifaceted. Some studies have found that

higher funding levels do not necessarily lead to increased innovation output, while others

have found a positive correlation. Similarly, the relationship between human capital and

innovation output is not straightforward, as the quality of human capital and its alignment

with innovation goals can play a significant role in determining innovation output

(Abdurakhmanova et al., 2020). Thus, the difficulty in measuring the impact of inputs on

innovation output can make it challenging to determine which inputs are most critical for

innovation ecosystems.

Quantitative Research Questions (All Part of Phase 3) Alignment

These hypotheses developed as part of a study that examined effective

orchestration in innovation ecosystems’ supporting elements. The research aims to

discover if there is a statistically significant link between each variable and the

perceptions of innovation ecosystem players. Each hypothesis focused on a particular

59
element or aspect that may influence innovation ecosystem orchestration. The hypotheses

emerged from previous research and literature related to innovation ecosystems.

P3.RQ12) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that information technology systems

(excluding artificial intelligence) are important in creating successful orchestration in

innovation ecosystems?

Information technology (IT) systems play a critical role in creating and managing

innovation ecosystems, whose agents widely recognize the importance of IT systems in

the success of these networks (Fukuda, 2020). IT systems, such as collaboration and

communication tools, data analytics platforms, and project management software,

facilitate the efficient coordination of ecosystem agents and the effective management of

innovation projects (Wang, 2021). These systems can connect ecosystem actors and

enable them to collaborate more effectively, reducing barriers to communication and

streamlining workflows. Effective ecosystem orchestration in the context of IT systems

requires close coordination between actors and stakeholders (Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke,

2020). Agents must work together to identify key information technology systems that

can support the ecosystem’s needs and to develop processes and workflows that integrate

these systems effectively into their work (Azad & Shulaev, 2019). Such support requires

a deep understanding of the underlying dynamics of the ecosystem and a willingness to

collaborate and innovate in response to changing circumstances (Oskam et al., 2021). By

leveraging these systems, ecosystem agents can drive meaningful change in innovation

ecosystems and help to create more effective and impactful innovation networks.

60
P3.RQ13) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that the technological savviness of those

operating in the ecosystem is important in creating successful orchestration in

innovation ecosystems?

Technological savviness is an important attribute of innovation ecosystem actors,

as it allows them to effectively navigate and leverage the technologies that underpin

innovation processes (Awadh, 2022). Innovation ecosystem actors often place a high

value on technological savviness, as it allows them to effectively communicate and

collaborate with other actors and identify and leverage new opportunities for innovation.

Technological savviness can also help actors identify and mitigate potential risks and

challenges and make informed decisions about allocating resources and investments

(Aryan et al., 2021; Raunio & Andreas, 2020). Effective ecosystem orchestration in the

context of technological savviness requires close coordination between actors and

stakeholders. Agents must work together to identify and develop training and educational

programs that can help to build the technical skills and expertise of actors in the

ecosystem (Raunio & Andreas, 2020). Training requires a deep understanding of the

underlying dynamics of the ecosystem and a willingness to collaborate and innovate in

response to changing circumstances.

A lack of technological savviness can significantly hinder innovation ecosystems,

as it can prevent individuals and organizations from effectively utilizing emerging

technologies to drive innovation. Technology is increasingly critical in enabling new

ideas, products, and services to market (Adepoju, 2022). With technological savviness,

61
individuals and organizations can understand the potential benefits of these technologies

and how to apply them to their business needs. Moreover, a lack of technological

savviness can also lead to a shortage of skilled workers in innovation ecosystems

(Hughes et al., 2019; Zhilenkova et al., 2019). As the demand for technology-related jobs

grows, businesses require individuals with the necessary skills and knowledge to operate

and develop new technologies. However, innovation ecosystems may only thrive with

skilled workers to meet this demand (Hughes et al., 2019). With access to a skilled

workforce, organizations may be able to develop new products or services or improve

existing ones, hindering their growth and limiting their ability to remain competitive in

the market (Tabrizian, 2019; Zhilenkova et al., 2019).

P3.RQ14) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that artificial intelligence systems are

important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become increasingly important in various

industries and contexts, including innovation ecosystems. As a result, many innovation

ecosystem actors recognize the potential of AI systems to enhance the effectiveness and

efficiency of these networks (Stahl, 2022). The use of AI systems in innovation

ecosystems can help to identify new opportunities for innovation, automate routine tasks,

and support the development of new products and services (Arenal et al., 2020).

AI systems enable faster and more accurate decision-making and facilitate the

efficient coordination of ecosystem agents. AI systems can help to identify patterns and

trends in data, enabling ecosystem agents to make more informed decisions about

62
resource allocation and investment strategies (Kahle et al., 2020; Stahl, 2022).

Additionally, AI systems can help automate routine tasks and streamline workflows,

allowing ecosystem actors to focus on high-priority tasks and activities. Effective

ecosystem orchestration in the context of AI systems requires close coordination between

actors and stakeholders (Chen et al., 2021). Agents must work together to identify key AI

systems that can support the ecosystem’s needs and develop processes and workflows

that integrate these systems effectively into their work, necessitating a deep

understanding of the underlying dynamics of the ecosystem and a willingness to

collaborate and innovate in response to changing circumstances (Chen et al., 2021; Stahl,

2022).

P3.RQ15) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that data privacy and security issues are

important considerations in creating successful orchestration in innovation

ecosystems?

Innovation ecosystems often rely heavily on the sharing and exchanging of

information and data among actors, including entrepreneurs, investors, researchers, and

policymakers. As a result, data privacy and security issues are important considerations in

creating and managing successful innovation ecosystems (Appio et al., 2019). Failure to

properly address these issues can result in breaches of trust and loss of confidence among

ecosystem actors, which can hinder collaboration and innovation (Chae, 2019). Adequate

data privacy and security measures can help to ensure that sensitive information, such as

intellectual property, trade secrets, and personal data, is protected from unauthorized

63
access, theft, and misuse, helping maintain trust and fostering a culture of collaboration

and innovation within the ecosystem (Chae, 2019; Stahl, 2022).

Data privacy systems are put in place to safeguard individuals’ sensitive and

personal information, but when they fail, it can have severe consequences for the

innovation ecosystem. When data privacy systems fail, the trust between consumers,

businesses, and governments is eroded (de Vasconcelos Gomes et al., 2021; Wang,

2021). This lack of trust can lead to reduced engagement, lower sales, and, in some cases,

even cause a company to go out of business. Moreover, when data breaches occur, the

confidential information of individuals is exposed, which can lead to identity theft,

financial loss, and other negative impacts (Curry et al., 2021). As a result, individuals

may become less willing to share their data with companies, which can limit the amount

of data available for innovation (Curry et al., 2021; de Vasconcelos Gomes et al., 2021).

Additionally, data breaches can result in significant legal and regulatory consequences.

Companies may face hefty fines, legal fees, and damage to their reputation (Appio et al.,

2019), making it more difficult to attract customers and investors and retain employees.

Furthermore, a data breach can harm the overall innovation ecosystem. If consumers no

longer trust businesses with their data, this can stifle innovation, as companies may

hesitate to invest in new products and services (Curry et al., 2021).

64
P3.RQ16) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that collaboration and partnerships are

important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Successful innovation ecosystems require strong relationships and partnerships to

enable the sharing of resources, expertise, and knowledge among ecosystem actors.

Collaboration and partnerships can also help to foster a culture of innovation and

entrepreneurship within the ecosystem and are crucial to driving innovation and

achieving impact (Steinbruch et al., 2022). Effective collaboration and partnerships

require a deep understanding of the needs and priorities of ecosystem actors, as well as a

willingness to share resources and knowledge transparently and openly. These

relationships can be formal or informal and may take many forms, including joint

ventures, research collaborations, or community outreach programs (Feng et al., 2021).

Effective ecosystem orchestration in the context of collaboration and partnerships

requires close coordination between actors and stakeholders. Agents must collaborate to

identify collaboration and partnership opportunities and develop processes and

workflows that enable effective communication and knowledge sharing among

ecosystem actors (Chen et al., 2021).

Partnerships in innovation ecosystems may fail for various reasons, but one of the

most common reasons is the need for more alignment between partners’ goals and

objectives (Adner, 2006). Partnerships require shared goals and mutual benefits for all

parties involved to succeed. If there is a lack of clarity or disagreement about the

objectives and benefits of the partnership, it may lead to conflicts and disagreements that

65
could fail the partnership. Another reason partnerships in innovation ecosystems may fail

is the need for more effective communication and collaboration (Adner & Feiler, 2019).

Effective communication is crucial for partners to work together towards a common goal.

Failure to establish clear communication channels or a lack of transparency can lead to

misunderstandings, trust, and a partnership breakdown (Appio et al., 2019). Additionally,

if partners fail to collaborate effectively, the partnership may struggle to produce the

desired outcomes, leading to a loss of confidence and a breakdown in the relationship

(Adner & Feiler, 2019; Appio et al., 2019; Rocha et al., 2019). It is essential to ensure all

partners are aligned on their goals and objectives and establish clear communication and

collaboration strategies to avoid these problems.

P3.RQ17) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that finances and project funding are

important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Innovation ecosystems require adequate financial resources and project funding to

support developing and scaling innovative ideas and technologies (Ojaghi et al., 2019).

Effective financial management and funding strategies can also foster a culture of

innovation and entrepreneurship within the ecosystem. Innovation ecosystem actors often

face significant challenges securing financial resources and funding for their projects

(Tolstykh et al., 2020). Scant funding may be due to various factors, including the

complexity of the ecosystem, limited access to capital, and a need for more understanding

among potential investors or funders (Kahn, 2018). Effective ecosystem orchestration in

the context of finances and project funding requires close coordination between actors

66
and stakeholders. Agents must work together to identify and cultivate opportunities for

financial support and to develop processes and workflows that enable effective

communication and collaboration among ecosystem actors (Adner, 2006).

Successful innovation ecosystems require a diverse range of funding sources,

including government grants, private investment, philanthropic donations, and other

sources of support. Effective ecosystem orchestration requires a deep understanding of

the underlying dynamics of the ecosystem, including the needs and priorities of different

actors and the availability of funding sources (Appio et al., 2019). By working together to

identify and cultivate these funding sources, ecosystem actors can help to ensure that

adequate financial resources are available to support the development and scaling of

innovative ideas and technologies.

P3.RQ18) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that government involvement is

important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Innovation ecosystem actors may have varying perspectives on the role of

government in creating successful innovation ecosystems, depending on their experiences

and the specific context of the ecosystem (Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2020). However,

many actors recognize the importance of government involvement in providing

regulatory frameworks, funding opportunities, and other forms of support to foster

innovation and entrepreneurship (Heaton et al., 2019). Government involvement in

innovation ecosystems can take many forms, including developing policies and

regulations supporting innovation and entrepreneurship, providing funding and resources

67
to support research and development, and creating partnerships and collaborations among

ecosystem actors (Kahle et al., 2020).

Effective ecosystem orchestration in the context of government involvement

requires close coordination between actors and stakeholders to identify and cultivate

opportunities for government support and to develop processes and workflows that

enable effective communication and collaboration among ecosystem actors (Kahle et al.,

2020; Rocha et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2019). Innovation ecosystem actors may face

challenges navigating government involvement, such as navigating regulatory

frameworks or securing government funding. However, effective government

involvement can also help to foster a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship within

the ecosystem (Yang et al., 2021). By providing support and resources, governments can

help to catalyze the development and scaling of innovative ideas and technologies,

driving meaningful change and impact in the ecosystem.

P3.RQ19) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that diversity, equity, inclusion, and

ethics are all important considerations in creating successful orchestration in

innovation ecosystems?

Diversity, equity, inclusion, and ethics (DEI&E) are essential for creating

successful innovative ecosystems (Stahl, 2022). Innovation ecosystems rely on

collaboration and diversity of thought to drive innovation, and a lack of diversity can lead

to missed opportunities for innovation. Therefore, creating a diverse and inclusive

ecosystem is critical to promoting innovation and success (Ketonen-Oksi & Valkokari,

68
2019). Innovation ecosystem actors, such as entrepreneurs, investors, and policymakers,

recognize the importance of DEI&E. Many companies are beginning to focus on

diversity, equity, and inclusion in their hiring practices and workplace culture to ensure a

diverse workforce (Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2020). Diversity can bring different

perspectives and ideas to the table, leading to innovative solutions and products that meet

the needs of a wider range of consumers (Ketonen-Oksi & Valkokari, 2019; Wang, 2021;

Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2020).

Moreover, investors are also looking for companies prioritizing DEI&E, as

research has shown that companies with more diverse leadership teams are more likely to

succeed. Additionally, policymakers are starting to recognize the importance of creating

an ethical and equitable ecosystem that supports innovation (Otten et al., 2022). For

example, they advocate for policies supporting underrepresented groups and promoting

innovation, such as providing funding and resources to minority-owned businesses

(Fairlie et al., 2022). Finally, it is worth noting that DEI&E is not only important for

creating successful innovation ecosystems, but it is also the moral avenue to pursue.

Creating a diverse, equitable, inclusive ecosystem promotes social justice and equality.

Thus, innovation ecosystem actors are morally obligated to promote DEI&E and create a

more just and equitable society (Bacon et al., 2019). Innovation ecosystem actors

recognize the importance of DEI&E and are taking steps to create an inclusive and ethical

environment that fosters innovation and success.

69
 An Overview of the Design Used in the Research

Innovation ecosystem study is a relatively new area of inquiry that covers fresh

ideas, applications, and concepts. A mixed-method approach is used in the present

research to identify orchestrators’ functions within the innovation ecosystem using a

convergent parallel mixed approach that enabled me to confirm the results (Figure 1)

from data captured in three phases (Figure 2).

Figure 1

Study Findings Validated Using the Convergent Mixed Parallel Design

70
Figure 2

The Three Study Phases

Chapter Summary

In summary, the study uses mixed methods to investigate the function of

orchestrators in innovation ecosystems. The qualitative research results showed that

orchestrators are essential for promoting knowledge exchange and cooperation among

various actors in the innovation ecosystem. Also, they serve as middlemen, bridging the

gap between many stakeholders and promoting innovation via collaboration and resource

mobilization. Contrarily, the quantitative results supported the idea that the existence of

orchestrators raises the degree of creativity in a particular ecosystem (Addo, 2022). These

results affect practitioners and governments who want to promote innovation in their

fields and areas. The research emphasized the importance of an orchestrator or

middleman to encourage cooperation and information exchange within the innovation

ecosystem. The need to comprehend the dynamics of innovation ecosystems and foster

71
them to promote innovation and economic progress serves as the framework and

justification for this research. As a result, the methodological approach allowed me to

interact with ecology as a natural phenomenon. Chapter 2 discusses the literature review

on innovation and its importance for any organization’s capacity for innovation.

72
 CHAPTER II: Literature Review

A literature review critically analyzes and evaluates existing literature on a

particular topic or research question. The primary purpose of a literature review is to

provide a comprehensive understanding of the existing knowledge on a topic, identify

gaps in the literature, and suggest areas for further research. By reviewing and

synthesizing existing research, a literature review can help researchers develop new

research questions and hypotheses, refine their research methodology, and identify the

strengths and weaknesses of existing research. In addition to informing future research, a

literature review can help readers better understand a particular topic or issue. In

summarizing and synthesizing existing research, a literature review can provide an

overview of the key themes, debates, and findings in a particular field, which is

particularly useful for policymakers, practitioners, and other stakeholders who may not

have the time or expertise to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature

themselves.

Review of the Literature

Innovation is critical to the continued existence of any organization, regardless of

whether it is privately owned and operated, publicly funded, or privately supported, and

allocating resources is necessary to accomplish innovation (Dziallas & Blind, 2019).

Gathering the necessary resources for innovation may take time since doing so often

requires collaborating with various stakeholders and partners. One way may include

collaborations between commercial companies, academic institutions, and governmental

73
agencies (Jugend et al., 2020). The United States Small Business Administration’s (SBA)

Office of Innovation and Investment (OII) helps to support the formation of partnerships

between businesses and academic institutions (Bouncken & Kraus, 2022). By working

together, small businesses can access the resources, information, and infrastructure

necessary to cultivate a creative atmosphere.

For instance, the Office of Technology Transitions (OTT) under the United States

Department of Energy (USDE) promotes connections between private industry and

public research institutes (Miller et al., 2020). Businesses can access the finance required

to bring energy solutions to market by forming partnerships. Orchestrators might make

resource mobilization for innovation easier by connecting companies with the growth-

related resources they need (Fyfe, 2019). Regarding this scenario, the OII mediates

business transactions between startup and venture capital firms. According to Choi and

Markham (2019), it is simpler for smaller firms to get the resources necessary for

expansion when larger businesses combine to form conglomerates.

Orchestrators and Ecosystems

Innovative ecosystems are networks of firms collaborating to produce new goods,

services, or processes. Orchestrators are the ecosystem’s leaders and must coordinate the

actions of the ecosystem’s organizations to create the circumstances for innovation to

emerge (Kobernyk, 2021). Orchestrators are the ecosystem’s coordinators and play a

critical role in ensuring the ecosystem’s many components work together to produce

value. Orchestrators thoroughly understand the ecosystem’s various groups and how they

74
might collaborate and have a vision for how the ecosystem may generate value and a

strategy for doing so (Costanza et al., 2017).

Orchestrator Activities

Orchestrators may coordinate efforts to spark innovation by pooling available

resources (Myers & Kellogg, 2022). It is crucial to forge relationships with educational

institutions and governmental organizations to ensure companies have access to the

resources they need to expand (Linde et al., 2021). An innovation ecosystem receives

support from orchestrators contributing to its growth and longevity. Together with other

ecosystem members, they determine what resources are needed, train the necessary

personnel, and establish functional links between different system parts (i.e., they help

make the innovation system better. Because they are the glue that holds the ecosystem

together, orchestrators play a crucial role in innovation ecosystems; Bittencourt et al.,

2021).

Innovation ecosystems facilitate information and idea exchange between groups

and individuals, enhancing and solidifying existing relationships. Orchestrators may also

work with individual creators to bring their items to market. A comprehensive solution

concerning orchestrating an innovation ecosystem must emerge. However, orchestrators

often carry out several activities, including (a) inventorying all the people and

organizations with a stake in an ecosystem, (b) determining the capabilities of that

ecosystem and the needs of its participants, and (c) enhancing those capacities in various

ways (such as via training and capacity-building programs). Individual innovators get

75
direct aid, and the ecosystem will benefit from improved communication and

coordination among its many parts.

The concept of an orchestrator has been around for a while, but its use in

creativity is relatively recent. An orchestrator assembles a broad group of people and

resources to create an imaginative environment (Xin et al., 2022). Orchestrators may play

a critical role in aiding entrepreneurs and innovators by providing them with resources

they would not otherwise have access to and opportunities for funding, mentorship, and

networking. Orchestrators allow for experimentation and failure and encourage

collaboration among many stakeholders. Several orchestrators are working to stimulate

creativity in a variety of ways. The Kauffman Foundation is an example of a top

entrepreneur orchestrator in the U.S. Another example is the European Commission’s

Horizon 2020 project, which promotes innovation. Orchestrators may play a critical role

in fostering creativity. However, it is critical to emphasize that they cannot be the only

source of assistance. Governments, companies, and other stakeholders should support

innovation.

Orchestrators and Innovation

Scholarly research has proven that innovation is crucial to the success of any

organization, whether it is a corporate, a government agency, or a charitable organization

(Chen & Hung, 2016; Fukuda, 2020). Mobilizing resources for innovation may be

difficult since it often requires bringing together several stakeholders and partners

(Bittencourt et al., 2018). One strategy for achieving this aim is facilitating partnerships

76
between companies, colleges, and government institutions. For example, the OII

promotes relationships between small businesses and academic institutions—connections

that may help small businesses access the resources they need for innovation, such as

funding, expertise, and facilities.

Similarly, the OTT supports collaboration between business and national

laboratories—partnerships that may help businesses access the resources they need to

commercialize energy solutions (Geels, 2019). Orchestrators may connect organizations

with the scaling resources they need and mobilize resources for innovation. For example,

the OII promotes cooperation between small businesses and venture capitalists. These

agreements may help small businesses access the resources they need for development

and success (Jucevicius et al., 2016). Furthermore, orchestrators may be critical in

mobilizing resources for innovation (Carley & Konisky, 2020). They may ensure that

firms have access to the essential resources for innovation by establishing ties between

corporations, schools, and government institutions.

Orchestrators and Cooperation

Orchestrators can aid in the cooperation of many parties engaged in innovation,

including coordinating research and development activities and encouraging information

exchange (Lingens et al., 2022). An enabling environment is one in which the

ecosystem’s many entities may communicate and exchange information. The enabling

environment must support innovation and risk-taking and equip firms with the tools to

experiment and develop new ideas (Jackson, 2011). An orchestrator may help the

77
innovation ecosystem by creating an atmosphere receptive to creating and building the

infrastructure and resources required for innovators to flourish. An orchestrator, for

example, may provide income, training, and networking possibilities and cultivate a

culture of innovation and risk-taking to develop a creative workplace. By mobilizing

resources, an orchestrator may contribute to the innovation ecosystem, bringing together

the essential people, organizations, and resources to promote innovation (Thomas et al.,

2021). An orchestrator, for example, may link firms with research institutes or startups

with prospective clients. They may also help to match resources to requirements,

ensuring that innovation-promoting resources are easily accessible by enabling the

interaction of the many actors in innovation.

Supporting the innovation ecosystem by boosting cooperation and allowing

individuals and organizations to generate new ideas and solutions is also an orchestrator’s

job. They might aid in collaborative research initiatives, arrange collaborative

hackathons, or help resolve disputes and establish consensus among parties (Gupta et al.,

2020). The orchestrator’s capacity to bring together the financial, human, and other

resources that companies need to innovate is referred to as mobilizing resources (Jackson,

2011). Fundraising, linking groups with mentors or investors, or offering access to new

technology or markets are all possibilities. The orchestrator’s most crucial duty is

probably to facilitate cooperation—innovation ecosystems are complicated networks in

which no one firm can prosper. The orchestrator must assist companies in identifying and

developing connections with possible partners and developing the trust and

78
communication required for cooperation (Lingens et al., 2021). The orchestrator’s role is

not to invent but to provide the circumstances for creativity to thrive. As a result, they

play an essential role in developing innovative goods, services, and processes that may

enhance living circumstances as envisioned by the United Nations Millennium

Development Goals.

Components of Innovation Ecosystem

There are several essential components to the innovation ecosystem. The first

component in developing a successful innovation strategy is to define the company’s

goals. Although it may seem obvious, having a clear goal is crucial when making

choices. With this, it is easier to get caught up in the day-to-day and maintain sight of the

broader picture (Fukuda, 2020). Second, the ecosystem must have the proper individuals

working for it; those who can think creatively and critically and those with the technical

know-how to make new ideas a reality fall under this category (Beelen et al., 2022). A

diverse group of individuals from various walks of life must create an inventive

atmosphere. In the third point, the ecosystem must have solid support systems

encompassing the spectrum, from the physical to the digital (Song, 2022). It must be

useful in fostering cooperation and originality and adaptable to new circumstances. The

ecosystem’s culture is the fourth component that must be optimal. A culture that

encourages and recognizes risk-taking and new ideas is essential. It also encourages an

atmosphere where mistakes are seen as instructive rather than catastrophic (Reichert,

2019). Fifth and finally, the ecosystem must have sufficient money. It incorporates the

79
resources necessary to foster innovative ideas and the funds necessary to bring them to

market. For fresh ideas to become a reality, sufficient finance is essential. Businesses

wishing to succeed in today’s fast-paced global economy must work hard to build an

environment that fosters innovation. By concentrating on these five factors, businesses

may foster an atmosphere conducive to creativity and developing novel ideas.

Organizational Capabilities

The organizational qualities required to establish a healthy innovation ecosystem

differ (Zeng, 2022). They include the ability to recognize and evaluate possibilities, the

willingness to take risks, the ability to create and market new goods and services, the

ability to establish and sustain partnerships, and the ability to negotiate the regulatory

environment. Recognizing and evaluating possibilities is crucial for the success of any

innovation environment (Reichert, 2019). Entrepreneurs and businesses must be able to

discover prospective markets, analyze market requirements, and create goods or services

to fulfil those needs. They must also be able to discover and evaluate possible partners,

suppliers, and customers’ skills (Smith, 2006). Another critical organizational

competence is the willingness to take risks.

An innovation ecosystem must have unique organizational qualities to be

effective. First, a clear understanding of the issue the ecosystem attempts to address is

required (Wessner, 2005). All players in the ecosystem should share this understanding to

collaborate toward a single objective. Second, the ecosystem should be capable of

generating new ideas (Smith, 2006). It requires a culture of innovation, risk-taking, and

80
the correct mix of individuals with diverse skill sets and viewpoints. Third, the ecosystem

should be capable of transforming these innovative ideas into profitable goods and

services (Reichert, 2019). It needs finance and the correct balance of enterprises,

institutions, and support services. Fourth, practical inventions should be scalable

throughout the ecosystem, requiring a critical infrastructure and the capacity to attract

talent and investment. An innovation ecosystem with these organizational characteristics

can create new ideas and effectively bring them to market (Zeng, 2022). A robust and

adaptive ecosystem can better satisfy the requirements of a changing world.

Entrepreneurs and Firms

Despite the uncertainty, entrepreneurs and businesses must prepare to invest in

innovative goods and services. They must also be willing to fail, experiment, and attempt

new things. Creating and marketing new goods and services is critical to the success of

any innovation ecosystem. Entrepreneurs and businesses must be able to translate their

ideas into marketable goods or services (Reichert, 2019). They must also be able to

produce such goods or services at a high quality and a reasonable cost. Another critical

organizational competence is the ability to develop and sustain connections.

Entrepreneurs and businesses must be able to connect with possible partners, suppliers,

and consumers. They must also cultivate such ties over time. Another critical

organizational capacity is the ability to negotiate the regulatory environment.

Entrepreneurs and businesses must comprehend the rules applicable to their goods or

services and follow such rules (Mauerhofer & Laza, 2018). The ability to identify and

81
assess opportunities, the willingness to take risks, the capacity to develop and

commercialize new products and services, the ability to build and maintain relationships,

and the ability to navigate the regulatory landscape are all required for the development

of a thriving innovation ecosystem (Mauerhofer & Laza, 2018). These are just a few of

the organizational qualities required to foster a creative atmosphere.

Organizational Culture

The cultural characteristics required to build a thriving innovation environment

differ (Ingram, 2020). The following are critical cultural competencies necessary to

create a thriving innovation ecosystem. A culture of cooperation is essential for an

ecosystem to thrive; a culture of collaboration must exist (Stahl, 2022). Individuals and

organizations must be willing to collaborate toward a similar objective. A risk-taking

culture that supports and promotes risk-taking is crucial. With it, new projects will be

able to gain traction (Jackson, 2011). Individuals and organizations must be willing to

take risks for innovation to develop, implying that a culture of exploration and failure is

required.

An ecosystem requires an open culture to succeed; it must be receptive to new

ideas and methods and open to sharing ideas and collaborating with others (Smith, 2006).

It implies that there must be a culture of information and knowledge exchange. A

diversified culture will aid an ecosystem’s success; it must be diverse, and many

individuals, organizations, and resources are required (Strong, 2002). A culture of

excellence will ensure the ecosystem’s success; it must strive for perfection. Individuals

82
and organizations must be willing to make the necessary effort to succeed. Finally, an

inclusive culture is vital, ensuring everyone has a voice and feels like they belong. These

are only a handful of the cultural characteristics required to build a thriving innovation

environment. Suppose a person can establish a culture that encourages these activities. In

that case, they will be well on their way to creating a vibrant innovation environment.

A good innovation environment includes various distinguishing characteristics. It

has various enterprises, including startups, existing businesses, academic institutions, and

government bodies (Wessner, 2005). Second, these organizations are linked, generally

via official and informal partnerships. The ecosystem then fosters a culture of

cooperation and risk-taking. Finally, the ecosystem provides entrepreneurs with the

resources they need to flourish, such as money, talent, and mentoring. A regional

ecosystem is a geographically defined area with a complex network of connections

between people’s economic and social activities and the biophysical environment

(Smorodinskaya et al., 2017). The notion of a regional ecosystem is helpful in various

situations, including economic development planning, comprehending the environmental

implications of economic growth, establishing and administering protected areas, and

protecting biodiversity (Teodorescu, 2018). A regional ecosystem approach can assist in

identifying and mapping the region’s critical components, understanding the interactions

between the components, developing a shared vision for the region’s future, identifying

opportunities for economic development, and managing the environmental impacts of

development.

83
Role of Universities in an Innovation Ecosystem

The regional ecosystem’s university orchestrators must create a thriving

innovation ecosystem. Creating a vibrant innovation ecosystem is critical for any

community seeking to compete in the global economy (Reichert, 2019). While many

variables contribute to a sustainable environment, one of the most essential is the

university’s role. Because of their research skills, talent pool, and capacity to promote

commercialization, universities hold unique roles as ecosystem orchestrators (Valkokari

et al., 2017). Universities must firmly embed in the area ecosystem, which necessitates

strong partnerships with local companies, the government, and other groups to be

successful orchestrators (Thomas et al., 2019). Universities must also be cognizant of the

region’s distinct strengths and shortcomings to adjust their programs and activities to

meet them.

The institution must seek unique positioning to be a leader in establishing a

regional innovation ecosystem and have a lengthy history of research and teaching

quality and several world-renowned centers of excellence, all situated in an area with

abundant natural resources and a strong business heritage (Thomas et al., 2019; Valkokari

et al., 2017). Universities must play many roles in establishing a regional ecosystem for

innovation, including accelerating ecosystem growth, providing leadership and

coordination, promoting information transfer, recruiting and keeping talent, and boosting

economic activity.

84
 Once embedded in the ecosystem, universities may be critical in promoting

innovation and performing cutting-edge research relevant to the area’s requirements

(Tabas et al., 2022). In addition, they must successfully translate this research into the

commercial sector via incubators, accelerators, and other initiatives (Xiao & North,

2017). Universities must generate the skills required to build and maintain a flourishing

ecosystem, teach the next generation of entrepreneurs, engineers, and scientists, and

foster innovation via research (Smorodinskaya et al., 2017). Students should participate

in real-world projects via internships, co-ops, and other experiential learning initiatives.

Finally, universities must take an active role in commercializing their research.

Working with startups to bring new goods and services to market, licensing the

technology to existing corporations, and investing in startup enterprises are all examples

of this (Song, 2022). While the institution’s role is crucial in developing an innovation

ecosystem, it must recognize that it cannot do so alone. Collaboration with corporations,

governments, and other groups is crucial (Reichert, 2019). The ecosystem’s components

can generate a virtuous loop of innovation that will benefit the entire area.

The university plays two roles in an innovation environment. First, colleges are

critical suppliers of talent and ideas (Reichert, 2019). They train the next generation of

entrepreneurs and conduct research as the foundation for new goods and services.

Second, universities serve as anchor institutions in their respective communities

(Smorodinskaya et al., 2017). They are usually the most significant employers with the

greatest resources. As such, they must promote economic growth and development. Many

85
areas are working hard to build innovation ecosystems (Wessner, 2005). It is, however, a

complex process requiring time, effort, and a financial commitment from all parties.

For example, the University of Michigan developed the Michigan Innovation

Ecosystem Initiative to assist areas in developing the necessary elements of a successful

innovation ecosystem (Jackson, 2011). The University of Michigan is not alone in this

regard. Other institutions, such as Stanford, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

and Carnegie Mellon, are also attempting to assist areas in developing their innovation

ecosystems (Smorodinskaya et al., 2017). The creation of innovation ecosystems is a

difficult task. Nonetheless, it is critical for regional economic development. Regions may

position themselves for success in the global economy by striving to establish the critical

components of a robust innovation ecosystem (Molina & Maya, 2018).

The first stage in creating a healthy innovation ecosystem is establishing a

suitable atmosphere for invention (O’Connor & Audretsch, 2022). The university should

offer the essential infrastructure and resources for innovation and growth, such as cutting-

edge labs and facilities, research and development funds, access to mentors and experts, a

risk-taking culture, and an entrepreneurial attitude. The second phase is to encourage

cooperation among ecosystem stakeholders. Through hackathons, meet-ups, conferences,

and networking events, the institution should allow students, professors, staff, and

external partners to interact and exchange ideas (Jackson, 2011). The final phase is to

develop commercialization strategies. University programs should assist innovators in

turning their ideas into goods and services that the public may utilize via incubators,

86
accelerators, incubation funds, and entrepreneurship programs (Smorodinskaya et al.,

2017). The fourth phase links the ecosystem to the rest of the world. Through trade

missions, business accelerators, and venture capital, universities should assist innovators

in gaining access to markets, consumers, and investors (Thomas et al., 2021). The fifth

phase is to monitor and appraise the ecosystem’s development. The institution should

track the number of new businesses, the amount of financing obtained, the number of

goods and services offered, and the number of employments generated (Kraft & Bausch,

2016). This knowledge could enhance the ecosystem and make it even more successful.

The university is critical to the development of an innovative environment. It can

create an environment conducive to innovation and entrepreneurship by providing the

infrastructure and resources required for innovation to thrive, encouraging collaboration

among various stakeholders, developing mechanisms for commercialization, and

connecting the ecosystem to the outside world (Kraft & Bausch, 2016). A vibrant

university sector is one of the most critical stakeholders in any regional ecosystem, and

universities may contribute to its success in various ways. Innovation ecosystems are

complicated systems that rely on diverse actors and organizations to operate well. The

university sector is essential in any ecosystem because it can supply the expertise,

research, and infrastructure required for innovation to flourish (Oksanen & Hautamäki,

2015). There are several ways colleges can contribute to developing a robust innovation

ecosystem. Institutions can give the talent required for innovation. Businesses want

creative people who can transform fresh ideas into reality. Universities are essential

87
sources of this talent since they create informed and creative graduates (Jackson, 2011).

Universities may do the research required for innovation to occur. Businesses must have

access to the most recent research and advances in their sector.

Legal Ecosystem

Orchestrators provide the foundation of a legal ecosystem. A person who

orchestrates the activity of a group of individuals or organizations to accomplish a shared

objective is known as an orchestrator (Wessner, 2005). In the context of the legal

ecosystem, orchestrators are crucial in bringing together various parties—from attorneys

and law firms to technology suppliers and service providers—and ensuring that they are

successfully working together to satisfy customers’ demands (Costa, 2016). Managing a

legal ecosystem requires a multidimensional strategy considering the different parties

involved, the resources required, and the inherent compliance risks in the organization

(Costa, 2016).

The first stage is to assemble a qualified team of specialists to provide the

complete range of services needed to run the firm. This group should comprise lawyers,

compliance officers, and other legal experts with relevant expertise. The next stage is to

determine the resources required to sustain the company. These resources include office

space, furniture, equipment, and technology (Jackson, 2011). Once the team and

resources are in place, designing policies and procedures to guarantee compliance with

all relevant laws and regulations begins. These rules and procedures should safeguard the

company, workers, and consumers (Smorodinskaya et al., 2017).

88
 The last stage is continuously monitoring the legal ecosystem to verify that the

firm performs correctly and complies with all relevant laws and regulations. This step is

crucial for avoiding difficulties in the future. Orchestrators may contribute to a thriving

legal ecology in a variety of ways. One of the most crucial is establishing a good mix of

players within the ecosystem, including enough legal firms of various sizes and

specialties and various technology and service suppliers. It is also critical to ensure that

the various stakeholders are close to one another so they can readily interact and

communicate. Another essential responsibility for orchestrators is to foster innovation

within the legal ecosystem, which includes discovering new technologies and services

utilized by various stakeholders and collaborating with them to create and execute these

new solutions (Tabas et al., 2022). It is also critical to discover new business models that

various stakeholders might employ to satisfy their customers’ demands better. Finally,

orchestrators encourage customers to utilize the legal ecosystem by working with them to

help them grasp its advantages and give them the assistance they need to make the most

of it (Tabas et al., 2022). Clients need the information to judge which legal firms and

technology suppliers to hire (Eliot & Lance, 2021). Orchestrators are critical to the

functioning of the legal ecosystem because they fulfil these critical responsibilities. With

them, the ecosystem could operate successfully and satisfy customers’ demands.

Innovation Ecosystem Core Pillars

In the 21st century, innovation ecosystems materialize considering diverse factors

but still maintaining two critical pillars in place: community and infrastructure. These

89
two critical pillars ensure that these ecosystems uphold the philosophy that innovation

ecosystems are built by the people, for the people, and of the people (Golubchikov,

2022). When thinking about these principles, it is vital to consider the following: the

ecosystem can be scaled or grown in different aspects, sectors, concepts, and regions, and

even change its focus based on the available drivers and stakeholders. Scalability does

not affect the ecosystem’s outcome or impact; however, it makes the ecosystem become

adaptive to the changing needs. The adaptability of the ecosystem ensures sustainability

maintenance by implementing future-proof mechanisms in place. Efficiency and safety

are other significant factors, especially considering the infrastructure pillar, which highly

impacts all aspects, including people, processes, and technology.

Community Pillar in the Innovation Ecosystem

Community as a pillar in the innovation ecosystem emphasizes a sense of

belonging or a humanistic sense in an innovation ecosystem (Melé, 2016). Community

binds people together in a technology-driven innovation ecosystem, streamlining all

available processes. The community arises on different concepts based on the needs of

the innovation ecosystem in place. Some communities are structured based on social-

economic, technological, environmental, political, or even legal needs. Melé (2016)

stated that in a community or people-oriented pillar, a humanistic sense of attainment

emerges through wholeness, sustainable stewardship, factual knowledge, dignity, growth

and development, common social good, and transcendence. Through a community sense

90
of belonging, businesses, and innovations are humanized, resulting in humanism in

innovations that ultimately drive businesses and economics.

In the 21st century, where most economies are geared towards a knowledge-based

economy, shifting to humanistic economics can be a benefit. The community pillar can

also reference the humanistic ethos elements, as Andreu and Rosanas (2011) highlighted

in the Manifesto for Better Management. Andreu and Rosanas incorporated humanistic

ethos in elements such as the individual and human work, individual interactions with

nature and society, holistic business perspectives, and the generic and sole purpose of the

business in the society contributing to the ecosystem. Integrating the humanistic

approaches in core practices in the innovation ecosystem creates an institutional

statement holistically and genuinely expresses integrity through its values, mission, and

vision statements. This kind of statement strengthens stakeholders’ trust among the

players in the ecosystem. According to (Fenwick et al., 2018), corporate solid core values

developed an all-encompassing, integrated approach to people and processes that led to

radical humanism and structuralism in business, creating trustworthy brands and devoted

patrons.

People and the Community Pillar

Human investment as a component of the community pillar becomes an essential

element in the innovation ecosystem, especially in maintaining organic growth and

development. Internal and external capacity development is critical to maintaining ever-

developing generations of the innovative workforce in an ecosystem (Traitler et al.,

91
2011). Capacity building can take various forms; however, the significant concept is

ensuring knowledge circulation within the ecosystem. An effective innovation ecosystem

enables optimal knowledge generation, skills creation, and policies and regulations to

protect the life cycle of the knowledge in existence, especially in a knowledge economy

where the available knowledge information of data can be very costly in case of a breach

(Thomas & Autio, 2019). Talent development, especially in technical, leadership, and

business focus areas, is often an invaluable investment for the innovation ecosystem’s

sustainability and scalability. Innovation ecosystems should regularly review their

strategy and evaluation metrics, leaders and consumers in their value chain, intellectual

property, culture, and academia to significantly reinvent the innovation ecosystem

(Traitler et al., 2011). All these require innovation partnerships for shared winning

models and frameworks. The ultimate steps in creating sustainable value among partners

are having a winning respectful community, establishing trust among all players, building

societal goodwill, and creating value through products and services.

Cultural Diversity Drives Innovations

According to Jones et al. (2021), cultural diversity is a crucial element in fostering

innovation, but it can also be a limiting factor, especially if the diversity becomes toxic.

Holistically and systemically thinking, the ecosystem’s innovation ability increases with

diversity but complicates its operations (Rabelo & Bernus, 2015). Such a complicated

innovation ecosystem becomes challenging to scale and sustain in other areas, locations,

and even for other people. A limiting culture can originate from people, processes, or

92
even technological adoption, which mostly requires a psychological and mindset shift

other than people, processes, or even technology change. Tian et al. (2021) stated that

cultural diversity can vary locally, regionally, or even become globally distributed based

on other factors such as socioeconomic class or religion. Currently, where social media

influence predominantly impacts many local cultures causing global cultural inclusion, it

is becoming more accessible for people to influence others just by the power of the

internet (Bennett, 2003; Vanclay, 2002). Considering new metrics in evaluating the

effectiveness of a diversity, inclusion, and equity model, especially for public

engagement in an innovation ecosystem, should be vital in helping broaden the concepts

and practices of cultural diversity in any ecosystem (Özdemir & Springer, 2018).

According to Terstriep et al. (2022), cultural diversity affects social-driven innovation

ecosystems more highly than other ecosystems driven by technology, economics, or even

politics; this is because, unlike the complexities in the social concepts, there are standards

in most technology, economic, and political-driven ecosystems.

The University Connection to the Pillar

Academia in innovation ecosystems, unlike in other domains, needs to be holistic

for the ecosystem to be scalable and sustainable and for innovations to be impactful

(Wainaina et al., 2022). Strong industry-academia partnerships facilitate the end-to-end

generation of innovative scientific knowledge, resulting in commercialization. Research

commercialization is often a great challenge that creates barriers, especially in the

business world, where the return on investment must emerge within a specific duration.

93
Proper industry-academia partnership enabled by public-private partnerships ensures

impactful continual research and is often commercialized even though the return on

investment is initially low. An effective innovation ecosystem also ensures the building

of holistic academic talents, considering an integrative and multidisciplinary approach

(Yakman & Lee, 2012). This approach ensures the talents in the ecosystem have some

commonalities, have a constructivism functional literacy, and have attained a holistic

primary base education that is contextually applicable and integrated at all levels. Holistic

education starts with the discipline-specific levels, which are also content-specific for

professional and technical development purposes but ends at the multidisciplinary level

(Yakman & Lee, 2012). Multidisciplinary approaches emphasize building a holistic

individual who can optimally operate and function well in a competitive, innovative

ecosystem where multi-skilled individuals are highly appreciated.

Research and development powered by academia which is mostly the custodian of

knowledge in the form of research, has its own contextual and specific innovation

ecosystem biases, problems, and challenges (Asplund et al., 2021). Academia must go

beyond the provision of education in the innovation ecosystem to shape a dynamic

ecosystem with cutting-edge research. However, it is often not a reality. Appropriate

leverage of the academic knowledge and skillset to develop an innovation ecosystem is

critical in ensuring a high rate of research commercialization between industry and

academia (Van de Burgwal et al., 2018). This optimal leverage reinvents how innovation

ecosystems emerge and perception, creating a holistic innovation where the end-to-end

94
value chain arises. The partners are going over and above their traditionally defined roles

and contributions in the ecosystem.

Open Innovation and the Community

Through community modeling, open innovations enhance sustainable and

scalable innovation ecosystems (Costa & Matias, 2020). Despite the greater good, this

model will likely create, security plays a significant role in ensuring safety in physical

and cyberspace. Open innovations thrive due to the optimal contribution and high value

of the institutional knowledge quickly disseminated from individuals within

organizations, which forms part of the ecosystem (Costa & Matias, 2020). Community

facilitates a great sense of belonging for individuals who, in turn, fosters unique

experiences in the innovation ecosystem. Fostering particular innovation ecosystems in

countries is a great way to develop a knowledge-based economy (Könnölä et al., 2021).

Therefore, communities, as a pillar in the innovation ecosystem, play a significant role in

its development and sustainability.

Startups, businesses, and organizations that have been solely developed and

operated in such an innovation ecosystem enjoy the benefits of the community either as

social capital or through economic capital, directly or indirectly (Bandera & Thomas,

2018). These types of capital are essential for launching, sustaining, and scaling startups

and often create a competitive advantage for successful and unsuccessful innovative

products and services. An innovation ecosystem with significant social-economic capital

through its community often only sometimes produces successful products and services.

95
The shared community values, strategies, models, vision, mission, technology, and other

physical human-cantered resources such as skilled talents and adequate shared financial

capital give individual entrepreneurs, innovators, and organizations in such innovation

ecosystems a high chance of success (Peters et al., 2016). For greater success chances of

an innovation ecosystem, its community pillar needs to be stronger, sometimes more,

than its infrastructure capabilities. According to Cook (2020, p. 314), a quote by Reid

Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn, “Silicon Valley is a mindset, not a location,”

demonstrates this peculiarity.

Infrastructure Pillar in the Innovation Ecosystem

The infrastructure pillar refers to the foundational elements that support

innovation in an ecosystem. These may include physical infrastructure, such as

transportation and energy systems, and digital infrastructure, such as broadband internet

and cloud computing services. In the context of the innovation ecosystem, the

infrastructure pillar is one of several vital components that contribute to the overall health

and success of the ecosystem. Other pillars include education and workforce

development, research and development, and funding and investment. Breaking down the

infrastructure pillar further, we can identify elements essential to supporting innovation.

For example, a reliable and efficient transportation system is critical for moving goods

and people, essential for many businesses to thrive. Similarly, access to high-speed

internet is necessary for companies to leverage digital technologies and reach customers

worldwide. Overall, the infrastructure pillar is a crucial aspect of the innovation

96
ecosystem, providing the necessary foundation for other components to function

effectively and contribute to the growth and success of the ecosystem as a whole.

Innovation Ecosystem as a Driver of the Knowledge Economy

In the 21st return on investment return on investment century, popularly called the

information age, knowledge economy consideration to any government is essential (Byat

& Sultan, 2014). Orchestrator partnerships in an ecosystem require holistic and systemic

par, which bring together public and private partnerships to address ecosystem matters

and handle economic concerns. Unlike a physical resource-dependent economy, the

knowledge economy depends on an intangible valuable resource whose value can be

mistaken. Legal protection in a knowledge economy considers measures predominantly

strengthened by different governing bodies. Knowledge economy assessment, evaluation,

and monitoring metrics vary compared to the other forms of economy. According to

Andreu and Rosanas (2011), with more significant opportunities in the knowledge

economy, it also possesses greater challenges in management, which are more demanding

in humanistic matters than before. Managing knowledge with economic value is expected

to be challenging, especially with the current technological advancement where privacy

and security are significant concerns.

Unlike other types of economy, the knowledge economy supports individual

productive entrepreneurship to flourish, driven and sustained by knowledge workers. Its

investments rest on a solid commitment and reputation (Levy et al., 2011). Some sectors

the knowledge economy will impact will include low carbon due to global climate

97
mitigations. The creative industries will also thrive because of the pressure to have

sustainable business models that offer employers and exporters opportunities.

Manufacturing services will also grow; however, they must be adaptive to the flexible

business models for optimal value with innovative products and services for the clients to

have greater value. Lastly, knowledge-driven business services will likely remain the

global leader in the knowledge economy businesses since the innovation ecosystems

thrive best where innovation acts as an infrastructure of the knowledge economy; changes

in the social-economic national landscapes, with a significant rise in technology-based,

knowledge-driven demand for jobs and economic activities, fuel that growth.

Toimbek (2022a, 2022b) claimed that knowledge-based economies, which depend

more on physical resources than other economies, invest more in intangible resources and

assets. The knowledge economy is in global adoption progress primarily due to the global

changes in consumer demands, which affects how businesses and economic transactions

happen, technological advancements resulting in new jobs due to increased productivity,

and finally, globalization as a driver due to the increased exchange in ideas, knowledge,

and other services accelerating the demands of the knowledge economy. The drivers

mentioned above also demand the development of design, commercial, and

communication skills for an individual to fit into the market demands offered in the

knowledge economy.

98
Innovative Startups as Key Elements in the Innovation Ecosystem

Developing an innovation ecosystem differs from developing a startup, an

established company, or an innovation hub (Rocha et al., 2019). All these entities have

unique, focused visions, missions, goals, and values, among other strategic components,

which determine the direction they are supposed to take. A startup is an essential element

among other entities since it can fit into any of them (Feng et al., 2019). Most startups

have a narrow scope of focus in determining their value chain delivery to their customers

in any model that defines their relationship. Value to the customer regarding a product or

service occasionally defines those narrow scopes. These focused products and services

get scaled as the startup becomes an established company that grows and adopts different

focus areas to keep the business sustainable and scalable (Bereczki, 2019). Most startups

exit either through merging or acquisition by established companies, mainly where the

startup solves a specific need for the established company’s value chain. Besides a startup

being adopted through a merger or acquisition by an established company, most fit well

in innovation hubs, especially where they benefit through accelerators and incubators

(Marcon & Ribeiro, 2021). Innovation hubs differ from innovation ecosystems in various

ways. Narrow focus areas define some innovation hubs.

In most cases, innovation hubs have a limited scope from which they operate.

Generally, the operation principles of an innovation hub vary from that of an innovation

ecosystem. Hypothetically speaking, an innovation hub can fit into an innovation

ecosystem; however, an innovation ecosystem cannot fit into an innovation hub. A hub

99
could mean a central connection point, whereas an ecosystem comprises more than the

system can offer, carrying a broader definition of the terms hub and ecosystem. An

innovation ecosystem is more sophisticated and complex than a hub, taking inspiration

from nature (Browning, 2014).

Competitive Advantages of Startups

Startups can still grow and develop outside an ecosystem; however, a startup that

belongs in an ecosystem has a more competitive advantage (Isenberg & Onyemah, 2016).

According to Feng et al. (2019), special startups can as well grow from mere startups to

an innovation ecosystem. Startups are the fundamental element that gives life to the

ideas, problems, challenges, and solutions driven by individual entrepreneurs and

innovators in an innovation ecosystem. Innovators play a vital role in an innovation

ecosystem since they are the mastermind and the architects of challenges that offer more

significant opportunities to stakeholders. Through the support of other stakeholders, these

innovators create products and services that ultimately add social-economic,

environmental, and even political values.

Startups are easy to form and work with due to their agility, flexibility, and

adaptability, which in most cases, needs to be improved in most established companies.

The simplicity of startup management is a competitive advantage compared to

established companies’ high chain of protocol commands (Marcon & Ribeiro, 2021).

This management simplicity facilitates multidisciplinary problem-solving capabilities,

which overlap many roles, especially at the beginning of a startup, making the decision-

100
making shorter and faster. A faster response is a crucial asset in managing crises, faster

product development, and quick failure, which confirms the viability of the tested and

validated idea or solution. A robust innovation ecosystem nurtures its startups to prepare

to fail fast for iterations for testing, validation, and viability purposes. This mindset is

also critical in responding to time-sensitive challenges and opportunities that only require

a little planning. The strongest startups, in this case, understand how power sprints work

in their favor.

Stakeholders and Scaling the Startup

An effective innovation ecosystem for startups requires stakeholders to focus on

growing it through their strengths and the opportunities they provide to the ecosystem

(Isenberg & Onyemah, 2016). According to the International Telecommunication Union,

some stakeholders include entrepreneurs or innovators, the public and private sectors,

financiers, academia, and entrepreneurial support networks (Eckebrecht, 2021). In most

innovation ecosystems, innovators and entrepreneurs are preferably the youth due to their

flexibility and adaptability, especially in the demanding technical sectors that demand

high steep. These innovators and entrepreneurs have a high affinity for taking risks, a

great asset in forming a strong and sustainable startup in an innovation ecosystem. The

public sector brings government roles into the ecosystem by ensuring that licenses and

other holistic state or federal benefits factor into all startup formation stages. Public

sectors also promote the need for job creation for economic development purposes.

101
 Private sectors bring the scaling support for the startup to go global through new

demanding ideas and solutions which have the potential to grow. Finance plays a vital

role in an innovation ecosystem due to the initial capital and expenses the startups need to

settle to develop, validate, test, and prove the solution viability and become ready for

commercialization. Academia supplies the intellectual capacity to the ecosystem by

ensuring the developed startups are solving problems using the appropriate research

methodologies and the research and development ending in commercialization. Academia

also plays a key role, especially in technical-based startups where advanced knowledge is

needed to provide business sense to the solution provided. Lastly, the entrepreneurial

support network is of great essence to the entire ecosystem so that the developed startups

can develop and grow their global ecosystem linkages, especially for the technical

innovators to benefit from the business thinkers. Kramer et al. (2007) stated that with all

this in place, there is a higher chance of a startup crossing the valley of death successfully

and becoming a profit-making business with high profits and growth potential.

Information Technology Considerations for the Startup

According to Haseeb et al. (2019), information and communication technologies

in an innovation ecosystem impacts almost startups economically by addressing obstacles

such as geographical isolation, legal exclusion, political voice, and social capital.

Addressing these obstacles reduces transaction costs, offers immediate connectivity,

improves productivity, efficiency, accuracy, and transparency, substitutes expensive

physical means, increases market choice and market potentials through widened

102
geographical scopes, and improves knowledge sharing. Despite all the available resources

provided by the innovation ecosystem, for a startup to succeed, it must understand its

market and provide unique value, design solutions to address specific market needs,

innovate its business models, collaborate, and be patient since some solutions take time

for market penetration and adoption. For an innovation ecosystem to regulate without

limiting startups to growing and scaling, it needs equal access to infrastructure, setting

standards, regulatory harmonization, and especially regarding intellectual property rights.

The combination of a clear growth vision, mission, and a suitable business model,

enables a startup to grow from a startup to a scaleup (Ritter & Pedersen, 2022). This

approach works with startups of any type (e.g., gazelle, zebra, unicorn), especially those

beyond the valley of death.

Sustainability Considerations for the Startup

Startups or scaleups naturally face challenges with sustainability due to changing

governance from their operational regionals (Ritter & Pedersen, 2022). This governance

is exclusive and close to business procedures, varying from state to state or nation to

nation. Such problems are difficult to deal with, especially when a startup is in its

infancy. Government policies surrounding sensitive issues like data and digital

cyberspace tend to be challenging and often face volatility from region to region and

from startup to startup. Financing, despite being among the main challenge of most

scaleups, often becomes a limiting factor, especially if the scaling up is capital intensive

and the return on investment and profits are low. Technology forms a strong competitive

103
advantage, especially for technical-based startups. However, it often needs help scaling

up where such technologies fall short due to access and connectivity or government

policies (Rowe et al., 2019). Data, blockchain (cryptocurrency), and artificial

intelligence-based startups are currently among the most affected scaleups due to

different countries’ license requirements and policy variations (Alexandre & Blanckaert,

2020). Lastly, business models often limit the scalability and sustainability of startups,

especially in the technology space, especially where social-economic cases take

precedence.

The sustainability of scaleups in an innovation ecosystem varies (Rowe et al.,

2019). According to Kwak and Lee (2021), some of the recommendations which are

likely to sustain the scaleups include the emphasis on conducting a solid groundwork on

governance, policy, and services to create a flourishing ecosystem that serves as a service

platform for incubation and delivery of the long-term solutions to the society through

successful, adaptive, and innovative ideas and technologies for the innovation ecosystem.

Thomas et al. (2019) and Audretsch et al. (2018) argued that dynamic strategic

approaches are significant in ensuring that a startup can scale and sustain the scaleup

phase. In an innovation ecosystem, pioneer startups who have scaled into becoming

established companies should choose to remain and actively participate in the ecosystem

in growing others. This results in an ever-ending cycle where the starters grow other

startups. Besides relying on external networks to develop fundamental technologies, the

network of innovators supported by all ecosystem partners should assist each other

104
through open innovations in developing new technologies and solutions that primarily

serve the entire ecosystem.

Financial Considerations for the Startup

Regarding financing, special technical-based investors should choose to remain

and keep supporting other kinds of technical startups by offering guidance to fellow

trusted investors. Besides startups and scaleups existing through mergers and

acquisitions, the innovation ecosystem should make it easy for startups and scaleups to

pursue initial public offerings (Thomas et al., 2019). By including different nationalities,

practices, and ideas, cultural diversity in terms of talents, skills, and experiences will also

facilitate sustainability due to high innovation and out-of-the-box problem-solving skills

and building state-of-the-art startups that are easier to scale and sustain (Audretsch et al.,

2018). Additionally, innovation ecosystems need to adopt special subtle legal

peculiarities by engaging policymakers in structuring digitally fit policies, especially in

non-compete agreements and non-disclosure agreements for positive competition

purposes, which leads to collaborations.

Strategy Implementation and Quality Monitoring in an Innovation Ecosystem

Implementing a successful innovation ecosystem strategy and maintaining

sustainability requires establishing effective and efficient quality assessment, evaluation,

and monitoring policies and systems in the respective innovation ecosystem (Adner,

2006). Since the innovation ecosystem acts in integrating scientific endeavor and its

commercial application, innovation ecosystems serve as commercialization catalysts by

105
transforming technological advances into marketable products and services. Accordingly,

the value chain of an innovation ecosystem that succeeds in becoming serial innovators

includes research, development, commercialization, and the production and

dissemination of new innovative products and services. Among the areas of focus for

implementing a successful innovation ecosystem strategy includes the ability to build

capabilities, support and develop R&D activities, and enable commercialization; this

creates an end-to-end value chain that benefits all the partners and stakeholders in the

ecosystem (O’Leary, 2019).

Building Capacity in Innovation Ecosystems

Building capacity is the responsibility of all key stakeholders in the ecosystem.

Each partner is responsible for a particular strategic area that requires proper capacity

(Baruch & Rousseau, 2019). These strategic areas of focus include but are not limited to

advanced technical research, governance and legal policies, finance and business, and

socioeconomic areas which affect both private and public. Strategic capacity, especially

in advanced technology research and development, refers to generating and protecting

intellectual property (IP) and gaining access to the capital and expertise needed to

develop it commercially (Velibeyoglu & Yigitcanlar, 2010). Attracting local and

international companies, which will co-locate within the ecosystem to innovate and

finally do business with the innovators, is also part of strategic capacity building. Doing

so requires creating a network of resources that can, for example, provide the university

ecosystem with access to top-notch commercial research.

106
 Creating a sufficiently large talent pool to scale the need to start and seed new

innovative businesses is critical to foster competitive and transformative sustainable

changes. Strategic business capacity requires establishing and enabling alliances and

partnerships and making acquisitions (through ease of doing business and rationalizing

the policies) to secure the technologies and capabilities needed to strengthen the

innovation ecosystem (Traitler et al., 2011). Additionally, capacity building for the

development of a robust IP protection system by filing their patents and licenses

domestically and internationally, maintaining strong internal policies and processes for

protecting their IP and that of their partners, and advocating the enactment of

comprehensive national IP policies is a necessary strategy that should consistently be

implemented and monitored in an innovation ecosystem always to facilitate quality

output and outcome.

Research and Development in Innovation Ecosystems

Once an innovation ecosystem’s major strategic structural elements are in place, a

self-sustaining R&D ecosystem is needed. Such an R&D system requires capabilities that

enable innovation ecosystem players to capture customer needs, conceive breakthrough

ideas, and feed high-value concepts into the solutions development pipeline to be

successful. Increasing R&D output and outcome requires talent development within the

ecosystem, especially for the staff and students of academic partners (from the university

ecosystem; Traitler et al., 2011). Often this development is fuelled by increased industry

collaboration and financial support from the finance ecosystem. Institutions of higher

107
education in the university ecosystem generate IP marketed to external users by

university-owned companies. Local innovative startups and businesses produce products

and services based on local IP. The legal ecosystem establishes the policies and

governance structures that are adaptive and resilient to any mode of policy violation.

Maturity in R&D activities in an innovation ecosystem requires finding specific

beneficiaries and partners with different objectives, including basic research, industry-

driven commercial research, technology development, and finally, product or service

commercialization through market identification, branding, contracting, and logistics.

This kind of strategic approach requires a proper implementation plan and, above all,

regular quality monitoring to ensure all the metrics, inputs, outputs, outcomes, and

intended impact in constantly maintained at an optimal level (Tiwana, 2013).

Merging Sustainability and R&D

Efficiency and sustainability considerations must be present at all phases to

maintain high-quality output from the implemented strategy by ensuring constant growth

and development of the value chain (Gereffi, 2019). At the initial phase, the

implementation needs to address how efficient the access to capital and expertise is in

ensuring strong IP protection while creating and building new innovative startups and

businesses in a regulatory environment, and network orchestrated to support new

ventures. Once the initial phase is clear, the next phase should facilitate building a self-

sustaining, supporting advanced R&D environment in the orchestrated innovation

ecosystem. A self-sustaining innovative R&D environment should always create a home

108
for independent partners and stakeholders in academia through the university ecosystem

and beyond, as corporations, researchers, and venture capitalists through the finance

ecosystem. The final phase that demands constant quality monitoring after strategy

implementation achievement is attracting world-class scientific talents and business

taking advantage of the local talents to generate scalable internal and external market

demands.

Assessment of Innovation Ecosystems

The implementing partners and players in the ecosystem must constantly assess

and evaluate the key players and institutions’ capacity to maintain quality output and

outcomes from the above-implemented strategies (Browning, 2014). Stakeholders

involved in the innovation ecosystem must assess, evaluate, and monitor to achieve the

target objective. The assessment should only sometimes be sequential since those

involved can sometimes overlap and depend on each other. Mobilizing funding and

policy alignments, especially in legally strict domains such as health, digital access,

security, and finance, needs to be a continuous activity for optimal process improvement

to constantly redefine the bases for an innovation ecosystem to flourish through

partnerships, acquisitions, and innovations (Remneland & Styhre, 2022).

Implementation and operationalization may attract external implementors like

consultants and other corporates. Similarly, these people and entities must understand the

orchestrated innovation ecosystem’s overall strategic vision, goals, mission, and values to

align their responsibilities properly (Tiwana, 2013). Similarly, an internal quality

109
monitoring team should work with external consultants to audit and review the

implemented work. For proper and optimal implementation, the ecosystem leadership

needs to plan for enlisting the potential international and national funding organizations

to understand the needs of each stakeholder. Time-bound manner collaborations and the

materialization of relationships are essential in ensuring the engaged entities abide by the

policies and guidelines. Although consultants will play a vital strategic role in doing the

same, the innovation ecosystem’s oversight and monitoring will significantly impact the

innovation ecosystem (Shivakumar, 2018).

Governance, Leadership, and Policy in Innovation Ecosystems

Transformative governance strategy implementation in an innovation ecosystem

is essential for establishing stable macroeconomic, political, and legal environments in an

ecosystem (Tolstykh et al., 2020). Such transformation aligns people, processes, and

technologies implemented, ensuring a balanced, stable, and sustainable ecosystem

throughout evolution. Governance and policy ecosystem strategies improve the

availability, quality, and efficiency of generalized inputs, infrastructure, and institutions

legally engaged and involved in the ecosystem for everyone’s safety. Such improvement

sets up the general rules and incentives governing competition, such as investment

incentives, anti-trust laws, IP protection rules, and others which also facilitates cluster

growth and development through active participation and collaboration in the ecosystem.

Generally, the transformative government’s strategic role is to improve the innovation

environment and ecosystem rather than to intervene directly in any competitive process.

110
 In this case, the leadership and executives of the innovation ecosystem need to

bring and support the master plan for the step-by-step strategic implementation of the

innovation ecosystem (Tiwana, 2013). The leadership must also implement a defined

quality mechanism to assess, evaluate, and monitor whether the right thing is

implemented at the right time and by the right player. Despite the presence of the

government ecosystem in the orchestrated innovation ecosystem, the executive leadership

in the ecosystem must have mechanisms to monitor and report all stakeholders and key

players to ensure active participation and collaboration in the ecosystem. Generally, an

ecosystem leadership executive plays a pivotal strategic role in implementing,

monitoring, and sustaining the innovation ecosystem’s building, development, and

growth (Shivakumar, 2018).

Policy ecosystems bring together critical players to formalize policies required to

implement different processes in the innovation ecosystem (Autio, 2022); this goes

further to institutionalize the policies through a joint responsibility of the policy

ecosystem players in ensuring regular updates on the policies. The policy ecosystem key

players should make the high-level policy procedural level changes so that in case the

innovation ecosystem has regions, the respective regions can get the launching platform

of their policies based on the maturity level of the ecosystem. All these strategy

implementations and monitoring ensure that the implementation players are aware of the

available basic state policies, which require advancements and need more elaboration

keeping in mind the future perspectives of the innovation ecosystem.

111
Finances in Innovation Ecosystems

A financial ecosystem strategy ensures the growth of the innovation ecosystem as

per the expectation of the milestone set out. Financial and economic growth works with

other strategies in achieving the orchestrated innovation ecosystem objectives (Syrbe &

Grunewald, 2017). Based on the financial maturity of different regions in the innovation

ecosystem implantation territory and their pace of development, the financial

implementation receives consideration for a year-on-year or some regular economic

growth planning. The financial ecosystem should be able to develop a mechanism to

provide revenue streams focusing on a financially self-sustainable model and outsourcing

non-core and peripheral activities to reduce expenses on the generated revenue and

optimally engage the core and relevant players in the innovation ecosystem.

The financial ecosystem’s responsibility, especially from the macro

socioeconomic perspective, is to generate more employment opportunities through

revenue-generation activities for the innovation ecosystem. From the international

perspective, an innovation ecosystem, especially one operating on a global or national

scale, can raise funds for projects from multilateral agencies like World Fund for low-

interest costs (Kiss et al., 2002). For some unique cases, the financial ecosystem can

consider leveraging on raising funds through capital markets such as bond options,

especially from governments, available for escrow against reliable receivables. Funding

mechanisms emerge through the following categories: (a) pre-seed for foundational

operations of a startup, (b) Series A to post a startup to reach a track record, (c) Series B

112
for the startup to expand its market reach and explore new ideation, and (d) finally, Series

C for the stable organization to explore more products to finance growing innovative and

new startups and businesses in an innovation ecosystem (Kiss et al., 2002). Funding

categories benefit from proper financial model designs that positively impact

stakeholders.

Branding the Innovation Ecosystem

Business strategy and competitive dynamics implementation through branding

and marketing of the innovation ecosystem should be enhanced to create a good reach of

the innovations locally and globally, either in total or by sectoral category. The

competitive dynamics through creating strong branding should be a significant

consideration in the value chain (Gereffi, 2019). For an optimal value chain, the brand

strategy should address how the orchestrated innovation ecosystem understands the needs

of the local and global markets. All the stakeholders in the ecosystem should understand

and work in tandem to establish a single brand referencing the innovation ecosystem and

the related solutions coming from the innovation ecosystem (Gereffi, 2019).

Branding strategy needs to factor in opportunities identification and do

appropriate mapping with impactful innovations (Giannopoulos et al., 2021). The

strategists crafting the overall ecosystem brand should perform thorough market analysis

to ensure compatibility with the national and international contemporary markets. The

competitive dynamics and the growth and adoption of the business strategy should factor

in the maturity of the innovation ecosystem in strategic implementation and adoption

113
mechanisms. Quality monitoring regarding the implementation of an overall brand

activity factoring in business strategy should have proper mechanisms during inception

and planning, branding execution methods, solutions merchandising, and advertising and

marketing through mainline, events, and exhibition (Giannopoulos et al., 2021).

Support for Innovation Ecosystems

The detail of the innovation ecosystem model and framework, implementable

guidelines, innovation association benefit realization, and monitoring mechanism must

develop to go together with policy, brand, marketing principles, and economic growth.

Based on the market assessment and global and national needs, the R&D programs

should strategize to realize maximum benefit (Dziallas & Blind, 2019).

Technological Support

Based on different kinds of strategy and their implementation, it is imperative to

have a technology platform to hold the entire ecosystem so that all the existing and

upcoming stakeholders can use it for their collaboration, development and monitoring,

and evaluation (Shivakumar, 2018). In this context, an online-based portal or platform

should develop with an updated content management system, analytical models, and

reporting facility. The requirement analysis of the IT system and other processes involved

should be detailed separately so that the activity can engage in parallel with other related

activities. Preparation for the responsibility assessment matrix, also known as the RACI

matrix, usage mechanism, backup procedure, and deployment mechanism should be

designed for the portal (Shivakumar, 2018).

114
Monitoring Support

The quality of the innovation ecosystem exists across broad areas, which can be

quality drivers for the ecosystem’s qualitative monitoring. Some contextual monitoring

strategies include the input factor conditions, institutional strategic contextual and

competition, demand and supply conditions, and supporting related players. According to

(Vlaisavljevic et al., 2020), input factor conditions for the quality monitoring strategy

involve high quality and specialized inputs for the players in human resources, capital

resources, physical infrastructure, administrative infrastructure, technology infrastructure,

and natural resources in the innovation ecosystem.

Institutional strategic context and competition focus on the local internal context

of the innovation ecosystem that encourages investments and sustained growth and

development of the entire ecosystem irrespective of the available partners and resources

for open, fair, and enhanced vigorous competition (Vlaisavljevic et al., 2020). The quality

monitoring strategy of the demand and supply conditions creates a sophisticated and

demanding local market. Quality monitoring of the supporting related players enhances

the availability of capable locally based partners in the ecosystem and other related

innovation ecosystems locally or globally; this creates the presence of related and

supporting clusters instead of isolated innovation ecosystems (Vlaisavljevic et al., 2020).

Collaboration and Support

Innovation ecosystem orchestration requires strategically sustained, public–

private collaborations that may require 15–30 years to come to fruition under constant

115
and regular quality monitoring (Rabelo & Bernus, 2015). These collaborations require

governmental, academic, and business players. In their quest to develop a successful

innovation ecosystem, transformative government ecosystem players must, therefore,

either create and grow or identify and enlist strong innovation champions from the

orchestrated network of potential partners in a region where the innovation ecosystem

emerges.

Governmental Support

Governments must also identify priority sectors for development to provide

macro-economic, social, and political benefits to provide strategic direction for

innovation ecosystems (Gereffi, 2019). They must seek to balance their economic and

human capital development strategies and provide incentives for innovation in priority

sectors (Gereffi, 2019). For example, they can channel funding and investment to

activities at various stages of the innovation value chain of high-potential startups, or they

can establish companies to operate in these strategic sectors. It is essential to recognize

that ecosystems will thrive only if they naturally further both an innovative business

champion’s and the interested government’s economic interests. These champions play

the role of catalyst in developing innovation ecosystems by helping to build hubs and

ecosystems capabilities and talent pools, by stimulating and supporting R&D activities,

and by helping bridge the gap between research and commercial success—a critical

challenge in ensuring the long-term viability of innovation ecosystems and the national

economic sectors that they must support. With these champions, the odds of creating a

116
successful innovation ecosystem rise significantly; without them, the odds of failure are

almost unavoidable.

Supporting Adaptability for Orchestrators

Innovation is crucial to keep pace with the ever-evolving requirements of

complex ecosystems—orchestrators need to be adaptable (Radicic et al., 2020). In

addition, they need to cultivate an atmosphere where all individuals in the ecosystem are

comfortable taking chances, recognizing and evaluating possibilities, providing

networking, resources, and support, formulating and implementing regulations, and

monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness of the ecosystem. Only then will the

ecosystem thrive and produce innovative products and services (Cao et al., 2020).

Orchestrators have an in-depth understanding of the many kinds of ecosystem

organizations and the possibility for cooperation that each organization type offers. They

could use various financial instruments, expert resources, and informative databases

(Lang et al., 2019). Therefore, orchestrators must be flexible to satisfy the needs of the

21st-century’s complex and rapidly changing innovation settings (Caena & Redecker,

2019).

Cross-sector Support for Orchestrators

Entrepreneurial ecosystems receive support from governmental agencies,

academic institutions, research institutes, and business groups (Choi & Markham, 2019).

These organizations provide aspiring business owners access to the essential

infrastructure and tools they need to be successful. Grants and loans offered by the

117
government could assist in launching new enterprises (Jouti, 2019). They could create

policies and initiatives encouraging people to start their businesses. Research and

development may receive occasional assistance from universities and companies.

Additionally, they could provide programs for incubation and acceleration (Mian

et al., 2021). The SBA is a federal agency that works to help smaller companies achieve

their innovation objectives, offering small companies financial assistance through loans,

grants, and consulting services. In addition, the SBA creates several programs and

regulations that aim to assist small firms in their efforts to contribute to the ecosystem of

entrepreneurial activity. Several other governmental and non-governmental organizations

(NGOs) support innovation.

Since businesses require them, the United States Patent and Trademark Office

(USPTO) must grant trademarks and patents. Additionally, the USPTO provides

businesses with information and resources to protect their intellectual property (Fukuda,

2020; Loren & Reese, 2019). The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a government

organization that finances scientific research and provides startup and small-business

funding (Su et al., 2018). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a government

organization that funds medical research, providing startup and small-business funding

(Choi & Markham, 2019). The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is a

government initiative that finances the research and development of small businesses, and

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) supports aerospace research.

118
 An ecosystem’s orchestrator is responsible for spotting and assessing new value-

generation possibilities and facilitating connections between various ecosystem

participants (Curry et al., 2021). They enable ecosystem participants to develop new

goods, services, and business models; establish and enforce rules and regulations; and

monitor, evaluate, and report on the ecosystem’s efficacy (Ivarsson & Svahn, 2020).

Orchestrators are essential members of innovation ecosystems because they help

enterprises interact with one another and access valuable resources (Dziallas & Blind,

2019). They create an environment conducive to creativity and let businesses zero in on

their best and worst qualities. The orchestrator’s job is crucial to creating new goods and

services for companies.

Large-scale Support for Orchestrators

Orchestrators are often concerned with large-scale concepts and are fearless in

engaging in work regarding ecosystem management, often in everything from spotting

potential areas of innovation to lending a hand in creating new goods and services (Kahn,

2018). Orchestrators are crucial members of the ecosystems that foster creativity and are

essential to the ecosystem’s ability to function smoothly and generate new value, without

which it would suffer. Orchestrators may use many strategies, but all have the same basic

objectives. One of their primary goals is strengthening connections and confidence

among all parties involved. Facilitating conversation and dispute resolution is a part of

this. Additionally, they work to improve the ecosystem by enhancing its members’

capacities, offering access to new resources and information, and training and

119
development programs (Su et al., 2018; Yun et al., 2020). Orchestrators establish

connections among the various components; creating new alliances and forming

connections between existing ones may be necessary.

The effectiveness and growth of innovation ecosystems rely heavily on

orchestrators—without them, it would be difficult for several parties to collaborate

effectively to generate novel ideas (Dziallas & Blind, 2019). An ecosystem’s

orchestrators help with various tasks, such as linking entities and fostering cooperation,

managing resources and money, fostering innovation, and creating new goods, services,

and processes (Dziallas & Blind, 2019). By bridging the gaps between businesses,

orchestrators help them find new avenues for collaboration—a significant factor in

fostering information sharing and mutual understanding essential to creating cutting-edge

technology. The capacity of orchestrators to effectively manage resources and finances

might be crucial to guaranteeing the long-term viability of an ecosystem.

Concerning optimizing joint efforts, knowledge about the many organizations in

the ecosystem is invaluable, and that is what orchestrators provide (Fukuda, 2020).

Orchestrators must earn the respect and cooperation of the many ecosystem players to

spot issues and provide viable solutions. For orchestrators, management, consultancy, and

entrepreneurship are common early career paths (Kobernyk, 2021). Multiple governance

models, tools, methods, organizational competencies, culture, and leadership are

necessary to create a successful innovation ecosystem (Geels, 2019). Governance models

guide decisions and the distribution of resources in an ecosystem.

120
Governance Models in Innovation Ecosystems

The governance mechanism necessary to orchestrate a successful ecosystem is

context and goal-dependent (Fyfe, 2019). Three main types of governance occur in

ecosystem processes: (a) command and control, (b) self-organization, and (c) market-

based. The benefits and drawbacks of each governance model mean that the ecosystem’s

context and objectives matter when determining which model is most appropriate

(Jackson, 2011; Su et al., 2018). A centralized authority may make choices for the whole

ecosystem with a defined hierarchy using command and control governance.

Command and control administration occurs when numerous dynamic

components cause many people to need to work together (Geels, 2019). The governance

model may need to be more bureaucratic and flexible to allow natural self-organization

processes. However, self-organizing governance models might be helpful in low-

complexity situations where flexibility is essential (Kahn, 2018). Decentralization of

decision-making and increased levels of self-organization among the many members of

the ecosystem are made possible by governance frameworks (Fukuda, 2020). One

common complaint is that the system needs more structure or organization. Market-based

governance frameworks are usually the best option when there is a need for coordination

among many heterogeneous actors and some semblance of adaptability (Fukuda, 2020).

Command and Control Administration

The various participants in an ecosystem can work together effectively only if

they are coordinated via market mechanisms, which is why governance rests on them

121
(Lang et al., 2019). When developing a governance model for an ecosystem, it is essential

to consider its various participants’ existing degrees of trust. A more distributed form of

government could be feasible if confidence is vital. If confidence is low, a top-down

approach to leadership may be required (Li et al., 2017). The necessary degree of

coordination is an essential additional issue to consider when developing an ecosystem’s

governance model (Jackson, 2011). Greater centralization of power may be required if a

high degree of coordination is required (Geels, 2019). A decentralized form of

government arises if coordination is minimal.

Having strong governance in place to coordinate the activities of all the

participants is essential for a healthy innovation environment. Strong governance arises

via several different governance models, each with benefits and drawbacks (Li et al.,

2017). A common form of governance is the hierarchical model, in which one superior

oversees and organizes the actions of subordinates, ensuring that everyone is aligned—

but it is not perfect. Not everyone has a voice in the process. The distributed governance

model is an alternative in which all stakeholders have some discretionary power (Su et

al., 2018). While the approach is more open to change and encourages participation from

a broader range of parties, it also risks being less coordinated and fostering more conflict.

The ecosystem and its stakeholders should inform the choice of the governance model.

A governance model such as a command-and-control one is useful when dealing

with complicated situations requiring cooperation among several parties. However, the

approach could be more bureaucratic and restrictive, making it difficult for people to

122
organize themselves organically (Jackson, 2011). When the setting is simple and

malleable, self-organizing forms of governance may work well (Crosling et al., 2015). If

one needs cooperation from many people or organizations, or leeway to make changes, a

market-based style of governance may be of significant assistance (Witte et al., 2018).

The governance model leans on market processes to coordinate the many members of the

ecosystem.

Self-organization

Key stakeholders should have a firm grasp of their duties and responsibilities, and

the governance model should be constructed to encourage transparency, cooperation, and

adaptability (Könnölä et al., 2021). The ecosystem can only function daily with the aid of

tools and procedures. Technologies for managing projects and finances and coordinating

and sharing information are part of this (Mian et al., 2021). Organizations must possess

specific competencies for the ecosystem to function correctly, such as sufficient skilled

workers, sufficient funding, and sound procedures (Rabelo & Bernus, 2015). Culture is

crucial in every system and should encourage originality, risk-taking, and growth.

Success in an ecosystem also depends on strong leadership. Leaders in the ecosystem

should have a well-defined goal in mind and be able to unite all the players behind it.

They should be able to stand back and allow the ecosystem to manage itself when

necessary while still being able to give guidance and assistance (Jackson, 2011).

Establishing a flourishing innovation ecosystem requires a solid governance

framework (Bouncken & Kraus, 2022). The governance model should encourage

123
originality and creativity without sacrificing efficiency or effectiveness (Myers &

Kellogg, 2022). An organizational culture that values and supports innovation and uses

the appropriate tools and methods to assist the innovation process is essential. The

innovation process can only be pushed forward and succeeded with the support of strong

leadership. Building a healthy environment for new ideas and inventions begins with

establishing effective rules of the road. Governing systems must be adaptable and permit

trial and error, welcoming diverse perspectives so everyone involved feels heard (Myers

& Kellogg, 2022).

The fundamental stage is establishing enough infrastructure to foster innovation; a

team will be much more effective in problem-solving if the tools and instruments they

use do just that (Bouncken & Kraus, 2022)—entrepreneurial ecosystems in an

interconnected world: emergence, governance, and digitalization. Additionally, the group

should have a model that serves as a basis for monitoring and reporting on their progress

(Li et al., 2017). With the proper resources, the team can innovate more rapidly and

successfully. When evaluating the value of an innovation ecosystem, it is essential to

consider both the local and global contexts. Startup rates, employment gains, and capital

inflows may measure businesses’ success.

The degree to which institutions work together, the extent to which the

government and other institutions support them, and how well-developed the region’s

infrastructure are all contribute to this attribute. Measuring the rate of entrepreneurship in

a region is one approach to evaluating the effectiveness of its innovation ecosystem

124
(Jackson, 2011). Examining the number of new firms established in the area and the

number of people employed by these enterprises is another approach to evaluating the

success of an innovation ecosystem. Finally, the quantity of venture capital invested in

the area may provide insight into the influence of the innovation ecosystem.

Market-Based

An innovation ecosystem is a group of interdependent entities that work together

to foster creative activity. The ecosystem method evaluates the effects of innovation on a

local, national, or global scale. When trying to gauge the overall impact of an innovation

ecosystem, several aspects must be considered (Su et al., 2018). In the first place, there is

the ecosystem’s overall size. The impact is proportional to the size of the environment.

The second is how well the ecosystem works; the more people work together, the more

influence they can have (Kati & Jari, 2016). The third factor is the ecosystem’s

backing—the more backing, the bigger the chance of success. An innovation ecosystem

may have beneficial and detrimental results (Rabelo & Bernus, 2015). Reduced sales, job

losses, and fewer investments are all unfavorable results. Assessing an innovation

environment’s impact requires considering all of these. The scale, degree of cooperation,

and quality of support within the ecosystem contribute to its influence.

Having access to funding is essential to a thriving corporate environment. New

enterprises require access to cash to get off the ground and flourish. Businesses need

access to capital to fund research and development, product design, and market expansion

to develop and expand their offerings (Zhai et al., 2021). Obtaining financing also paves

125
the way for companies to grow by adding to their workforce, expanding their scope of

operations, and introducing new products or services to the market (Zhai et al., 2021).

Having access to capital is essential to a thriving company environment. Small

companies can only launch and expand with financial backing.

Many different types of organizations help foster an environment conducive to

entrepreneurship, including government agencies, educational institutions, research

centers, and professional associations. Government agencies may provide startup funding

through grants or loans (Babayev & Hajiyev, 2019). It could also develop policies and

initiatives to inspire business creation. Enterprises can get assistance from universities in

R&D (Traitler et al., 2011). As a bonus, the government may support incubation and

acceleration programs, and private organizations may qualify for tax breaks. New

businesses might be motivated to open by these incentives.

Additionally, the government provides aid to enterprises looking to grow or invest

in cutting-edge technology. Universities may aid firms by offering R&D financing. They

provide services for startup incubation and acceleration (Su et al., 2018). These initiatives

may aid startups and existing businesses in reaching their full potential. Academic

institutions may provide data and analysis on business trends. They could also pass laws

that make it easier for people to start businesses. The word resources encompasses

various concepts within AI and data ecosystems. Businesses may get the support system

and tools they need at one of these organizations.

126
Emergent Trends in Contemporary Innovation Ecosystem

Customers and an active client base are essential to the success of any business,

and they are essential to the health of the ecosystem. A firm can only generate revenue

and develop if consumers buy its products and services—business will fail quickly with

no customers (de Vasconcelos Gomes et al., 2018; Witte et al., 2018). The ability of

businesses to make a profit and reinvest those funds into the ecosystem is a sign of a

robust and sustainable system. A large consumer population is essential for the

ecosystem’s resilience and health. Without buyers, businesses would quickly fail due to a

lack of revenue (Witte et al., 2018).

Resources

Tools and resources support the ecosystem and platforms businesses use to

innovate. Businesses might benefit from using prototype technology and creative

thinking to develop and test new concepts to save time and money (Smorodinskaya et al.,

2017). The availability of funds might allow innovative goods and service development.

With market intelligence technologies, businesses may better understand their target

consumers’ desires and needs (Rocha et al., 2019). The innovation ecosystem grows and

improves as more and better resources become available. Businesses must be aware of

the state of the art in the relevant fields to spur innovation (Rocha et al., 2019).

Ecosystem Process

The second component of the ecosystem fosters innovation processes, which

include the methods and techniques businesses employ to develop, produce, and release

127
brand-new products and services (Wessner, 2005). Processes include a wide range, from

market research and customer analysis to product development and launch. With

processes, a business can carry out its innovation plan and create new goods and services

(Rabelo & Bernus, 2015).

Culture

Several different elements influence the culture of innovation. A solid

commitment to providing excellent client service is among the most important (Jackson,

2011). Culture employs several tactics, including (a) open communication, (b) activities

designed to encourage teamwork, (c) and cross-functional collaboration. Service

indicates that the company fully grasps and caters to the requirements of its clientele.

Consumer surveys, focus groups, and feedback loops are some ways to fulfil customers’

requirements. Another necessary quality is a willingness to take risks, which shows that

the company is willing to consider new concepts, even if some may not work (Jucevicius

et al., 2016). Although it may be challenging to build such a culture, innovation must

occur (Wessner, 2005). In addition, there must be a culture of openness and

collaboration, which gives the impression that the staff members are comfortable working

together and sharing ideas.

Mentors

Entrepreneurs may get a range of advantages from the guidance of mentors. They

can assist and advise in various areas, from the administration of finances to marketing

and business strategies (Ritala et al., 2013). Entrepreneurs may also benefit from

128
mentors’ assistance in building their networks and connecting with possible clients,

suppliers, and partners. Entrepreneurs negotiating the obstacles of beginning a new firm

may also value a sounding board as a mentor (Kahn, 2018). Mentors may assist in

recognizing and finding solutions to issues and provide support and encouragement when

times are difficult. Additionally, mentors can assist entrepreneurs in developing and

honing their company strategies (Ivarsson & Svahn, 2020). Mentors can comment on the

company’s practicability and assist in identifying possible areas of concern. They may

also assist business owners in maintaining their drive and keeping their attention on the

tasks at hand. Mentors can encourage and assist entrepreneurs in keeping their spirits up

amid the inevitable failures and obstacles in every new endeavor.

Accelerators

A company can experience rapid expansion with specialized accelerators, who

assist in coaching and access to capital and equipment (Fukuda, 2020). Such a program

may allow one to network with other business owners, investors, mentors, and customers.

Accelerators need to have the capability of providing training and advice to companies

via a network of seasoned experts (Witte et al., 2018). The capacity of accelerators to

give assistance and resources is another significant advantage offered by these programs.

It includes making resources like money and office space available to companies and

providing them access to those resources (Curry et al., 2021). The last thing accelerators

could provide is access to a network of other company owners with similar perspectives

and experiences. Young entrepreneurs benefit from it by having access to a network of

129
supportive and encouraging individuals. Additionally, it may help establish partnerships

and joint ventures.

Incubators

Incubators for startups give budding enterprises working space and other tools to

help them get off the ground. These programs often last from a few months to 1 year and

include various services, such as mentoring and financial assistance (Chan et al., 2022).

Venture capital companies, academic institutions, and government agencies often support

incubator programs. A startup incubator may greatly assist someone beginning a new

company but needs assistance getting the firm off the ground (Fukuda, 2020). It assists

business owners in expanding their operations by making available resources and

offering direction (Zvereva, 2021). Due to the stringent requirements often required for

entry, only some businesses participate in an incubator program.

Using the Ecosystem Method to Build a Smart City

Ecosystem approaches are methods for creating intelligent urban environments

(Cao et al., 2020). A smart city may boost efficiency and production, improving the

quality of life for its residents and lowering operating expenses (Zvereva, 2021).

Additionally, a smart city can better withstand and recover from disasters. A smart city

effectively uses data and technological advancements to improve its residents’ living

standards. Data and technology are used in a smart city to manage municipal resources

and monitor any potential threats (Zvereva, 2021). One approach to creating a smart city

is ecosystems (Khomsi, 2016). An ecosystem is a biodiverse population of creatures in

130
their natural habitat. The ecosystem approach to building a smart city entails making the

urban environment as interdependent and interrelated as a natural ecosystem (Chen,

2015). It begins with thoroughly mapping the city’s primary stakeholder groups. The

city’s prosperity includes the government, corporations, non-governmental organizations,

and residents. Officials, companies, citizens, and tourists are all included. There is a need

for coordination between the many stakeholders in an ecosystem since each plays an

important but distinct role in the system.

The next step is identifying a city’s most pressing problems (e.g., gridlock,

violence, poverty, or environmental damage). If problems require resolution, they must

first be recognized, and only then can stakeholders begin to work on solutions (Zygiaris,

2013). Stakeholders map out a strategy for implementing those fixes. The city’s demands

will evolve; thus, a plan’s framework must be malleable (Burström et al., 2021). Next,

the strategy requires implementation, which calls for coordination among the numerous

parties involved (Carley & Konisky, 2020). Finally, monitoring processes and progress

must occur. The existence of an issue that requires fixing will be more easily detected.

Stakeholders will be able to move more quickly as a result.

Developing a smart city involves establishing a digital infrastructure to back up

the city’s data collecting, technological systems, and data-driven applications (Addo,

2022). A fast, dependable, and secure network that links all the city’s gadgets and

services is part of the infrastructure. Data storage and computer resources for processing

and analyzing data are also included (Khomsi, 2016). A high-speed broadband network, a

131
secure wireless network, and an energy-efficient data center are all essential components

of the necessary infrastructure. After that, planners and stakeholders begin setting up the

sensors and other equipment to gather information (Chan et al., 2022). For this

infrastructure to function, it must link many sensors and devices together and store and

analyze copious volumes of data (Addo, 2022). The next phase is to build software and

services that use this city’s newfound digital infrastructure. These apps and services

monitor the city’s resources, infrastructure, and people’s needs (Khomsi, 2016).

Establishing a trustworthy network that can accommodate the data flow and prevent

unwanted users from gaining access to the data is also crucial.

Sensors and other equipment that can gather data on various city features appear

next in the progression. The data track traffic patterns, air quality, water use, weather, and

energy consumption. They can also monitor the efficiency of municipal services and

determine where people and assets are in real-time. The data is processed and analyzed

following collection to provide actionable insights for enhancing the city’s infrastructure

and services (Bouncken & Kraus, 2022). The step is to take stock of the city’s

infrastructure, population, and natural advantages. People’s lives improve through

administering these assets and resources (Curry et al., 2021). Finally, the city must

institute the rules and regulations that will control the operation of the information

network and its associated software and services. These rules and guidelines will make

the city’s digital infrastructure and apps useful and secure while protecting users’ privacy

(Singavarapu & Singh, 2016).

132
Artificial Intelligence and Data

AI is a crucial orchestrator to create intelligent agents whose systems can

independently think, learn, and act (Chan et al., 2022). A data ecosystem is born when

data is gathered from many sources and analyzed to provide conclusions that might aid

decision-making (Sun et al., 2019). Using AI and data ecosystems may organize

innovation by offering the information and understanding to spot and explore new

possibilities—insights into improved decision-making provided by AI aid in discovering

new prospects. AI can examine data sets for patterns and trends, which may help find

new business prospects. AI may also be used to forecast the future and find possibilities

worth pursuing.

Data Ecosystems

Data ecosystems may aid in the discovery of untapped business potential and

provide organizations with a better picture of a market or sector by compiling

information from various sources—this can help them see missed possibilities (Fukuda,

2020). Insights provided by data ecosystems may also aid in making better choices. Data

ecosystems, for instance, may pick up on patterns and trends that hint at the untapped

potential. Orchestrating innovation with AI and data ecosystems can provide the data and

insights necessary to discover and explore new possibilities. However, it is important to

remember that AI and data ecosystems are not incompatible. These two are mutually

beneficial, offering something the other cannot. Therefore, companies should consider

133
integrating AI and data ecosystems to increase their odds of discovering and capitalizing

on promising new prospects.

Artificial Intelligence

AI is a revolutionary innovation that can completely alter how we live and work

in the future, potentially affecting many sectors, including retail, healthcare, construction,

policing, transportation, and banking (Curry et al., 2021). Data is a crucial component of

AI; the algorithms that allow robots to learn and make judgments cannot function without

this fuel. The potential for AI to drive innovation and economic progress is increasing at

a pace proportional to the volume of data generated (Gupta et al., 2020). The AI

ecosystem is a vast and ever-changing web of contributors from virtually all industry

sectors working together to further the field. It will only be successful if the participants

collaborate and develop new ideas. Data providers, data processing and storage

platforms, and data analytics tools make up the data ecosystem, which is the backbone of

the AI ecosystem (Fukuda, 2020). As new technologies emerge, the data ecosystem

undergoes rapid change.

Innovation ecosystems are orchestrated partly by AI and data ecosystems, which

provide the infrastructure and tools required to create and implement novel innovations.

Without lengthy and costly R&D procedures, these tools and platforms allow developers

to rapidly design and test novel concepts (Curry et al., 2021). Accelerating the creation

and spread of novel technologies, AI, and data platforms also facilitates communication

between developers, investors, and end users within the innovation ecosystem (Fukuda,

134
2020). In the early stages of development, for instance, programmers might utilize AI and

data platforms to network with potential investors and consumers to test their ideas and

get feedback (Rigg, 2001). This input is essential to make the technology better and more

marketable. AI and data ecosystems foster an atmosphere favorable to the fast

development and implementation of innovative technologies (Mauerhofer & Laza, 2018).

AI ecosystems are a foundation upon which programmers may build and fine-tune

AI models to address practical issues. Developers may access and utilize data in the data

ecosystem to train and enhance AI models (Gupta et al., 2020). These two environments

work together to provide programmers with the tools they need to develop ground-

breaking software that addresses pressing issues in the real world. Because of their

complexity, innovation ecosystems need many skills and assets (Arenal et al., 2020). As

they provide the required resources and skills to back up the innovation process, AI and

data ecosystems may play a pivotal role in orchestrating the innovation ecosystem (Lang

et al., 2019). The following tools and resources, provided through AI and data

ecosystems, are crucial for innovation.

Merging Data Ecosystems and Artificial Intelligence

Data sets used in the training and testing of machine learning models exemplify a

resource. All sorts of organizations, both governmental and commercial, as well as

individuals, provide access to these data sets. Another resource is the processing power

necessary for training and executing machine learning models. Cloud computing

companies like Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud Platform, or Microsoft Azure

135
provide that computer capacity (Ucuz, 2020). Finally, resources might include the

expertise needed to create and launch machine learning models (Zhai et al., 2021).

Knowledge emerges via education, hands-on experience, and participation in professional

networks, including discussion groups and in-person gatherings.

AI and data ecosystems should enable easy access to such tools to aid in the

creative process. It is difficult for data and AI ecosystems to provide efficient and

effective access to all these resources (Arenal et al., 2020). As one solution, marketplaces

may emerge where developers can buy and sell resources like data sets, computing time,

and consulting services as needed. Developers in such a market would be free to develop

novel solutions rather than worrying about the nuts and bolts of the underlying

infrastructure (Stahl, 2022). Alternative approaches to encouraging innovation include

creating a freely available data and AI environment (Stahl, 2022). This ecosystem would

provide programmers instantaneous access to various resources, including data sets,

computing resources, and assistance from industry professionals. Furthermore,

professionals could provide developers with on-demand assistance through guidance and

advice inside such an ecosystem.

Detecting trends and patterns in enormous amounts of data made available by AI

drives innovation. The data train machine learning algorithms to automatically detect

patterns and anomalies (Curry et al., 2021). Patterns may generate new thoughts and

knowledge. Data might aid in developing new items and services that bring value to

consumers’ lives, and value may help enterprises generate additional revenue. AI’s

136
ability to detect patterns and trends in data is critical. Using data to produce new products

and services that meet customer requests may give organizations a competitive

advantage. Using AI to generate insights from data helps businesses drive innovation and

provide new customer value (Su et al., 2018).

Dealing with Complex and Large Datasets

The complexity of data businesses is increasing (Bibri, 2021). The volume of data

is growing at an exponential rate. Furthermore, the variety of data is expanding, coming

from several sources, including social media, sensors, and devices. The use of AI to

handle and analyze data is becoming more critical, and the ability of firms to properly

manage and interpret data is a critical differentiator. AI technologies help firms automate

activities. Task automation allows businesses to save time and money while improving

the quality of their products and services. AI allows businesses to create new customer

values, stimulates innovation, and creates new customer value.

AI is a rapidly evolving and intricate discipline. As it advances, it will become

more applicable in various fields, and data ecosystems are (Lang et al., 2019) prime

candidates to reap AI’s benefits. Data ecosystems are complex systems for gathering,

analyzing, and storing data, aiding in developing hypotheses and methods for addressing

problems (Burström et al., 2021). The efficiency and effectiveness of data ecosystems

may improve with the help of AI, which might, for instance, improve data quality. AI

may improve data processing efficiency by identifying and fixing inaccuracies in data

137
sets using AI algorithms (Rocha et al., 2019). In addition, AI speeds up and enhances

data processing by automating formerly labor-intensive tasks.

AI may also spark new insights and approaches in data ecosystems by examining

data sets in search of patterns and connections to inform the creation of novel ideas and

approaches. The use of AI in data ecosystems has enormous promise (Stahl, 2022). AI

has the potential to improve data quality, speed up data processing, and come up with

creative new approaches to problems. Those data ecosystems willing to adopt AI will be

in the best position to reap the numerous rewards of this technology (Burström et al.,

2021). AI may enhance data quality by revealing inconsistencies and errors. In theory, AI

systems streamline data processing by caring for the boring stuff themselves (Traitler et

al., 2011). Data analysis looks for trends and correlations, which might lead to novel

conclusions and strategies. Those information systems open to incorporating AI can take

advantage of its many advantages.

Connections

An innovation ecosystem is a dynamic system that includes many complex

components. An essential characteristic of these ecosystems is the presence of feedback

loops, which allow for the free exchange of data and materials among the many

participants and activities involved. AI may facilitate connecting these feedback loops to

more resources and capabilities (Bibri, 2021). Data and AI have the potential to aid

innovation ecosystems by providing insights that can be used better to allocate scarce

resources (Stahl, 2022). For instance, AI about the performance of different businesses

138
may be used to predict which ones would do best. Data patterns that predict future trends

may be uncovered by AI (Yin et al., 2020). This information makes resource allocation

decisions or highlights areas that need further study. Data and AI also benefit innovation

ecosystems by providing tools to improve operational effectiveness (Cao et al., 2020). AI

may automate tasks like data analysis to save time and money.

Funding

Funding availability in AI and data ecosystems is a critical factor in the success of

new ventures (Fenwick et al., 2018). For instance, one may use them to find investors and

build comprehensive strategies for one’s firm (Fenwick et al., 2018). An innovation

ecosystem is a dynamic system that includes many moving parts. An important

characteristic of these ecosystems is the presence of feedback loops, which allow for the

free exchange of data and materials among the many participants and activities involved.

Connecting these feedback loops to additional resources and capabilities may be

facilitated by AI. AI may be helpful in innovation ecosystems since they provide insights

into the best use of scarce resources. Examples include using data on the performance of

different businesses to predict which ones will do best. This information might help

decide where to allocate funds or identify problem areas that need more analysis.

Markets

Artificial Intelligence and data ecosystems may enable market access for testing

and verifying novel ideas and solutions., There has been an increase in interest in the

potential of AI and data ecosystems to give access to markets that may aid in testing and

139
validating novel ideas and solutions (Fenwick et al., 2018). First, AI and data ecosystems

provide a unique mix of information, computational resources, and tools that may aid in

creating and testing novel models and solutions. AI and data ecosystems are well-suited

for testing and verifying novel ideas and solutions for various reasons (Stahl, 2022).

These data are often more diversified and numerous than conventional datasets restricted

in breadth and quantity. Second, AI and data ecosystems provide tremendous computer

resources for training and testing new models (Curry et al., 2021). These resources are

often more potent than those in typical data center setups.

Mentorship

Artificial Intelligence and data ecosystems can access mentors who provide

advice and support during innovation. The development of an AI and data ecosystem can

be aided significantly by mentoring. Participants in the ecosystem can gain from the

knowledge and experience of others by having access to mentors who can provide

guidance and assistance (Bibri, 2021). It can accelerate the innovation process and

enhance the quality of the ecosystem. Within an ecosystem, the delivery of mentorship is

applicable in various ways. A common practice is to match mentors and mentees based

on their respective areas of expertise to ensure that mentees receive individualized

guidance and assistance. A second strategy is to provide mentorship on a broader scale,

with mentors offering guidance and assistance to any ecosystem participant who requires

it (Caena & Redecker, 2019).

140
 Additionally, online platforms and resources provide access to mentors. These can

assist mentors in reaching a larger audience and providing guidance and support to those

who might not have access to it otherwise. Online mentoring can be more flexible and

convenient for both mentors and mentees. The benefits of mentoring are evident

(Eckebrecht, 2021). Mentoring can accelerate the innovation process and improve the

quality of the ecosystem by providing access to knowledgeable and experienced

individuals.

Resources

Resources might relate to the knowledge and skills necessary to create and deploy

machine learning models. Training, experience, online forums, meet-ups, and

conferences provide access to this expertise. Developers, for example, must have access

to data sets to train and test their models. Furthermore, computing resources must be

available so developers can run their models in real time. When needed, experts must be

present to give guidance and advice. AI and data ecosystems may give access to training

that can assist individuals participating in innovation to enhance their skills and expertise.

AI and data ecosystems are becoming more critical in coordinating innovation

ecosystems (Kobernyk, 2021). AI and data ecosystems may help firms stay updated with

the speed of innovation by offering access to data and technologies used to create new

products, services, and business models (Deggans et al., 2019). Data ecosystems may

assist firms in identifying new prospects for innovation. Organizations can see trends and

patterns that may aid in developing new goods and services (Kastl, 2019).

141
 AI can also spot brand-new trends and patterns. Data ecosystems could also assist

companies in tracking the results of their innovative activities (Rigg, 2001). By tracking

data, organizations may discover which concepts work and which do not. Businesses may

be able to control the risks associated with innovation using ecosystems built on AI and

data (Stahl, 2022). AI and data ecosystems can lower the cost and risk of failure for firms

by giving access to data and tools that could aid in testing new ideas. Data ecosystems

may also assist companies in evaluating how new technology may impact their operations

(Jackson, 2011). If informed of the potential repercussions, organizations can decide

whether to accept new technologies.

How AI and Data Can Help to Orchestrate Automation

AI automates many innovative jobs and can detect data trends, produce new ideas,

then test and verify them (Deggans et al., 2019). Complex innovation ecosystems need

extensive stakeholder communication and cooperation (Sun et al., 2019). Automation

may simplify and streamline these processes; thus, resources create new goods and

services. It may improve data quality, reduce human error, cut wait times, and enhance

productivity (Tarode & Shrivastava, 2022).

Improvement

Artificial intelligence can determine which ideas are likely to succeed and help

choose the most promising ideas. It evaluated over 200,000 patent applications in one

research study (Tarode & Shrivastava, 2022). An AI algorithm may recognize data

trends, anticipate patent approvals, and help lower-performing submissions succeed

142
(Fukuda, 2020). Stahl (2022) used AI to generate over 1,000 product concepts. Data

patterns allowed the AI system to forecast which concepts might succeed. The algorithm

may also offer methods to improve unsuccessful ideas. These studies show that AI may

promote innovation by predicting success.

Collaboration

Artificial intelligence and data may promote innovation and ecosystem

cooperation in numerous ways. First, they link individuals to resources (Stahl, 2022). AI

may search for and suggest materials for a particular subject. Second, AI and data enable

knowledge sharing. They may alert subject specialists and enable knowledge exchange.

Finally, AI and data may find partnership prospects, finding project partners, or market

gaps for a new product or service.

Talent

It also can recruit and retain innovation ecosystem talent, analyze and match

candidates’ talents, provide training and development, and inspire staff more efficiently

and simultaneously (Stahl, 2022). Organizations can hire the finest candidates by

utilizing data to detect and analyze applicant talents through scrutiny (Curry et al., 2021).

Artificial intelligence can also assist individuals in finding training and development

opportunities to improve their abilities (Zygiaris, 2013). Thus, data may excite and

inspire workplaces, helping workers be engaged and dedicated.

Further, AI and data may attract and keep top personnel in the innovation

ecosystem. They can screen and evaluate job candidates, link employees with appropriate

143
learning opportunities, and design offices that inspire and motivate workers. Data and AI

may also be crucial in the innovation ecosystem’s ability to recruit and retain top people

(Curry et al., 2021). For example, businesses may recruit the most qualified people for

available jobs by utilizing data to discover and evaluate their talents (Xin et al., 2022)

through technologies based on artificial intelligence.

Orchestrating a Successful Artificial Intelligence

AI can revolutionize every aspect of human existence, but to realize its full

potential, an environment that supports innovation and advocates for the ethical use of AI

tools must transpire (Stahl, 2022). According to Smorodinskaya et al. (2017), for the

ecosystem to flourish, there must be mutual trust between people, businesses, and

governments—it must be accessible to everyone to ensure that as many people as

possible can contribute to and profit from AI. Moreover, it must be responsible for using

AI to address some of the world’s most serious problems. Every day brings new changes

to the startup world. What is effective in the now could not be in the future. Being quick

thinking and flexible is essential.

Orchestration is crucial for a successful AI innovation that aims to establish a

robust AI governance ecosystem (Tarode & Shrivastava, 2022). The foundation is to

assemble the necessary groups and individuals. Among these activities is assembling

prominent figures in AI study, industry, entrepreneurship, and finance. Collaboration

with government agencies, non-governmental groups, and supranational bodies is also

required. The second step involves creating an environment where AI-based innovation

144
may flourish (Mukhopadhyay & Bouwman, 2019). Research and development funding,

financial incentives for enterprises to adopt AI technology, and the creation of standards

and legislation to promote ethical AI applications are all part of the plan (Isckia et al.,

2020).

Businesses need access to a robust global innovation ecosystem to stay ahead of

the curve and be competitive in today’s market (Valkokari et al., 2017). The first thing to

do is make conditions more favorable for creative thinking, requiring individuals with a

wide range of skills and experiences to take chances and question established norms. An

environment where innovation and original thought are valued is also necessary. Once

the groundwork exists, it is time to start looking for and evaluating potential sources of

innovation (Zahra & Nambisan, 2011). Innovation considers internal and external

variables, such as consumer requirements, market tendencies, and technical

developments. After discovering promising openings, the next step is establishing a

system for carefully evaluating and ranking them. The next phase creates and tests

prototypes and theories, allowing businesses to gauge the viability of their ideas

(Mukhopadhyay & Bouwman, 2019). Feedback from prospective consumers and users

helps finalize the final product or service via prototyping.

Organizational Capabilities

An ecosystem must have the organizational capabilities to identify and address

the needs of its members, connect them to resources, and create an environment that

supports risk-taking and collaboration to be successful (Zeng, 2022). The four critical

145
organizational capabilities needed to develop a flourishing innovation ecosystem include

(a) identifying and addressing members’ needs, (b) connecting members to resources, (c)

creating an environment that supports risk-taking and collaboration, and (d) managing the

measuring progress.

An innovation ecosystem must have a method for determining the requirements of

its constituents and satisfying those requirements in a manner that fosters inventiveness.

It is possible to do this using market research, surveys, focus groups, and other types of

data collecting (Tarode & Shrivastava, 2022). Once known, the ecosystem must possess

the organizational skills necessary to meet member demands (Curry et al., 2021).

Fulfiling those demands may mean making information available, developing programs

and activities, or linking members with specialists. Participants must link to the resources

they need to succeed, including access to cash, mentors, talent, and markets (Curry et al.,

2021; Tarode & Shrivastava, 2022). Other examples may include compiling a database of

available resources, holding events designed to facilitate connections between members

and resources, or making financial assistance available to facilitate member access to

resources (Yin et al., 2020). An atmosphere encouraging taking risks and working

together is essential for an innovation ecosystem, giving members a working area or

sponsoring events to stimulate cooperation. Finally, an ecosystem for innovation must

have a mechanism in place to monitor and evaluate progress by establishing objectives,

keeping track of key performance indicators (KPIs), and analyzing the outcomes (Curry

et al., 2021; Yun et al., 2020).

146
Financial Ecosystems

Individuals or organizations manage, organize, and control different parts of the

financial system—put another way, they coordinate the financial ecosystem.

Orchestrators are essential to the financial ecosystem because they guarantee that the

system’s many components operate efficiently and effectively (Smorodinskaya et al.,

2017). The financial system would be in disarray if orchestrators did not exist. Because of

the rising complexity of the financial ecosystem, the function of orchestrators has grown

even more crucial in recent years. The necessity for orchestrators to coordinate and

regulate the many aspects of the ecosystem has grown increasingly apparent as the

ecosystem has become more linked.

Several aspects must be considered and effectively managed to choreograph a

successful financial ecology. The most crucial component requires all stakeholders to

know and support the ecosystem’s goal (Traitler et al., 2011). There must be a common

understanding of ecological objectives and why they are essential to everyone engaged.

Once this is in place, the various stakeholders can collaborate to ensure that the

ecosystem operates as efficiently and effectively as possible (Tarode & Shrivastava,

2022). There are numerous ways for stakeholders to collaborate to make this happen—

communication is one of the most vital (Su et al., 2018). Ecosystems must run effectively

if all stakeholders communicate openly and regularly.

Cooperation is another vital aspect of an ecosystem’s success. All stakeholders

must be willing to collaborate to ensure that the ecosystem functions as successfully as

147
possible and contribute to their resources, ideas, and knowledge. Cooperation also

suggests that ecosystems must be willing to collaborate to address challenges (Tarode &

Shrivastava, 2022). The last component required for a healthy environment is

adaptability. Ecosystems must change to satisfy the ever-changing expectations of

engaged individuals and adapt to stakeholders’ changing requirements (Tarode &

Shrivastava, 2022). If these conditions exist, it can create a thriving financial

ecosystem—not a simple process requiring great preparation and coordination from all

parties. However, if done correctly, it may be a very successful manner of satisfying the

financial demands of all parties involved.

Orchestrators’ initial task is to establish and execute the financial ecosystem’s

overarching plan, which must meet the ecosystem’s unique goals and objectives

(Koroleva & Solgan, 2021). First, a quality plan must also examine the various strengths

and weaknesses of the ecosystem’s many components. Second, the orchestrators

distribute resources to various areas of the ecosystem. They must optimize the

ecosystem’s overall performance, which requires a thorough knowledge of the various

demands of its many components (Levkovich & Kalashnikova, 2022). Third,

orchestrators monitor and manage the ecosystem’s performance, demanding ongoing

monitoring of the ecosystem’s many components and a frequent review of overall

performance. Orchestrators must also be willing to adjust their approach and resource

allocation if the ecosystem’s performance merits it. The job of orchestrators is critical to

the smooth operation of the financial ecosystem. Because of the rising complexity of the

148
financial ecosystem, the function of orchestrators has grown even more crucial (Mann et

al., 2015). The necessity for orchestrators to coordinate and regulate the many aspects of

the ecosystem has grown increasingly apparent as the ecosystem has become more

linked.

A successful financial ecosystem is one in which numerous financial institutions

collaborate to deliver services and products to consumers and enterprises (Arslanian &

Fischer, 2019). A financial ecosystem must provide a diverse range of financial goods

and services, such as a diversity of products and services that fulfil the demands of

consumers and enterprises, to be effective. For example, it should include checking and

savings accounts, loans, credit cards, and investment products and contain various

financial providers, including banks, credit unions, and investment businesses. Variety

means that consumers and companies have myriad suppliers to choose from and may

pick the best source for their requirements.

Furthermore, financial ecosystems must give a range of entry points to financial

goods and services: A financial ecosystem should include many channels for obtaining

goods and services, including online, mobile, and in-person (Arslanian & Fischer, 2019).

This variety allows consumers and companies to choose the channel that best matches

their requirements. It must also provide a variety of payment alternatives, including cash,

cheque, debit card, and credit card. Because of the variety, consumers and companies

may choose the payment method that best matches their requirements (Sarkki, 2017). A

final obligation is to make available a variety of financial education materials. A healthy

149
financial ecosystem should provide various financial education materials, such as articles,

books, and seminars (Mann et al., 2015). Variety guarantees that individuals and

organizations can learn about and efficiently utilize their financial goods and services.

Orchestrating a Successful Healthcare Ecosystem

An environment that fosters innovation and encourages cooperation among many

stakeholders is required to revolutionize healthcare genuinely. The genesis identifies the

crucial actors in the healthcare innovation ecosystem, including patients, payers,

providers, pharmaceutical and medical device firms, and others. Each of these groups has

a distinct function in the ecosystem and must be involved to foster a vibrant environment

for innovation. Patients are at the heart of the healthcare ecosystem and must be included

at all stages of innovation (Rajahonka et al., 2015). Individuals under treatment may

eventually benefit from innovative treatments and technology, and their participation is

critical to ensuring that healthcare products emerge with patients’ interests in mind

(Sarkki, 2017). Payers play an essential part in the ecosystem by sponsoring novel

therapies and technology and affect which goods the healthcare system embraces since

they often decide which therapies are reimbursed by insurance.

Managing a thriving healthcare innovation ecosystem is demanding, requiring a

thorough awareness of the intricate relationships among many stakeholders, a clear vision

for the future, and the capacity to align the interests of all parties involved. The

biopharmaceutical sector is a significant component of the healthcare innovation

ecosystem (Zahra & Nambisan, 2011). Drug development is difficult and costly, and

150
biopharmaceutical firms are essential in delivering novel therapies to patients. Another

key component of the healthcare innovation ecosystem is R&D, a critical in developing

novel illness treatments and cures (Stahl, 2022). The healthcare system is also a critical

component of the innovation ecosystem, offering the infrastructure and resources

required for innovation. These players must collaborate for the healthcare innovation

ecosystem to operate correctly (Smorodinskaya et al., 2017).

Managing a flourishing healthcare environment requires carefully balancing the

interests of multiple stakeholders, a thorough grasp of the ecosystem’s interdependence,

and a willingness to iterate and adapt as the ecosystem develops (Jacobson & Brooks,

2022). Healthcare companies seek innovation to promote care delivery improvements and

business models in response (Smorodinskaya et al., 2017). Traditional healthcare

institutions often hinder innovation owing to regulatory constraints, a lack of financing,

and reluctance to change (Myers & Kellogg, 2022). Healthcare companies must build an

innovation ecosystem with all the essential players required to drive change to address

these issues, offering the conceptual framework for identifying and commercializing new

ideas, goods, and services. Developing an innovation ecosystem is to examine the

company’s requirements and identify the areas where innovation is most required; once

identified, the company may choose the ecosystem that best suits its requirements.

Identify the Problem and Desired Outcomes

One must have a firm grasp of the issue that the healthcare ecosystem is

attempting to address and the results sought (Stahl, 2022; Zahra & Nambisan, 2011).

151
Aligning the interests of all parties involved would be difficult without this. In the

pharmaceutical industry, for instance, the issue may be an illness for which there is

currently no effective therapy. The intended result may be the creation a new medicine

that can do so (Smorodinskaya et al., 2017).

Understand the Stakeholders and Their Interests

Orchestrators need to understand the various stakeholders in the healthcare

ecosystem and their respective interests. Only then can they identify the key players and

align their interests. For example, the main stakeholders in the drug development process

include patients, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and regulators (Boehm & Golub,

2015). The healthcare innovation ecosystem includes all the players involved in

developing and commercializing new healthcare products and services, such as

biopharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, digital health startups,

academic research institutions, and government agencies (Jugend et al., 2020). Each

player in the healthcare innovation ecosystem supports the development of innovations,

such as (a) biopharmaceutical companies are focused on developing new drugs and

therapies, (b) medical device manufacturers create treatment-delivering devices, and (c)

digital health startups develop software and applications that help patients and providers

manage their health. Academic institutions conduct the basic and clinical research

necessary to develop new treatments, while government agencies provide the regulatory

framework and funding necessary to support the healthcare industry.

152
Creating an Enabling Environment

Orchestrators create conducive settings within the healthcare ecosystem, and

establishing the proper infrastructure, systems, rules, and laws is part of this process. In

the medication development process, orchestrators must guarantee that a solid clinical

trial infrastructure and appropriate regulatory framework are in place (Smorodinskaya et

al., 2017).

Collaboration and Coordination

Orchestrators must facilitate collaboration and coordination among the various

stakeholders in the healthcare ecosystem (Pikka et al., 2011). This includes promoting

information sharing, identifying and resolving conflicts, and ensuring everyone works

towards the same goal (Boehm & Golub, 2015). For example, in the drug development

process, orchestrators need to ensure that different stakeholders, such as patients, doctors,

pharmaceutical companies, and regulators, can work together effectively (Pikka et al.,

2011).

Adapt and Iterate

As new problems and possibilities surface in the healthcare ecosystem,

orchestrators must be flexible and ready to evolve and adapt (Rajahonka et al., 2015).

Altering the ecosystem’s structure and the rules that control it might be part of the

solution. For instance, suppose requirements or rules change throughout the drug

development process; in that case, orchestrators may need to modify the clinical trial

setup. The healthcare industry is under pressure to improve patient outcomes while

153
cutting expenses. Healthcare organizations are responding by relying on innovation to

power shifts in service provision and business models (Jacobson & Brooks, 2022).

However, regulatory hurdles, lack of money, and aversion to change sometimes hamper

innovation inside conventional healthcare systems. Healthcare firms may overcome these

obstacles by developing an innovation ecosystem that brings together all the critical

actors involved in effecting change in the industry (Smorodinskaya et al., 2017). New

ideas, goods, and services must be discovered and brought to market inside the

ecosystem.

The quality and cost-effectiveness of healthcare can only increase with

technological advancements. The escalating cost of care, the rise in the incidence of

chronic illnesses, and the population aging are only a few of the significant issues that

may be helped by this (Boehm & Golub, 2015). A wide variety of innovations have been

made in healthcare. New diagnostic procedures and therapeutic options are two examples

of developments that may improve the standard of medical care (Babayev & Hajiyev,

2019). Different models and payment schemes are among the innovations aimed at

enhancing the effectiveness of healthcare delivery. New technology is often used in

healthcare innovations but might be the development of novel care delivery or enterprise

models.

154
Designing and Implementing a Successful Governance Policy Reform for Innovation

Ecosystem

Reforming the institutions and mechanisms that determine public policy is called

governance policy reform, which aims to make such systems more effective, efficient,

and accountable to the people they serve. Governance policy reform includes the

formally established governance mechanisms and the unwritten codes of conduct that

influence daily actions. Reforming a system may need adjusting components such as

policies, procedures, structures, and allocations of time and money (Ghazal et al., 2022).

No panacea exists for creating an effective environment for creating governance policy—

its success depends on effective adaptation to the specific conditions of each nation or

location, and each stakeholder group has different objectives, expectations, and

limitations (Smorodinskaya et al., 2017). A thorough understanding of the reform process

and the role of each stakeholder group is essential to navigating these opposing interests

effectively.

Ecosystems for innovation are intricate webs of entities and interactions that

foster the development and dissemination of novel goods and methods of doing

business—they are dynamic and varied and work well together (Heaton et al., 2019).

Successfully changing governance policy requires an in-depth familiarity with innovation

ecosystems and creating and implementing policies that encourage innovation while

simultaneously meeting the demands of key stakeholders. Innovating at the intersection

of governance and policy is dynamic and intricate. Policymakers must have a thorough

155
understanding of the numerous players involved, their motives, and how they interact

with one another to effectively traverse complex ecosystems (Sun & Wei, 2019).

Policymakers must first identify the most important players and their roles to foster an

environment where government policy reform innovations thrive. These parties fall into

three groups: (a) facilitating, (b) analyzing, (c) adopting, and (d) questioning the status

quo.

The term enabler often refers to governmental entities or bodies that foster an

atmosphere conducive to innovation. Implementing the legal and regulatory framework

and providing necessary money and other assistance Organizations are defined as

adopters if they take up and use new technologies. Many people are part of this group,

including think tanks, universities, and the press, all fall under the category of

challengers because they tend to question the status quo and, in doing so, spur innovation

(Smorodinskaya et al., 2017). When policymakers have identified the primary players,

they may evaluate the interests and priorities of each group (Yang, 2020), determining

how to get them involved and what type of assistance they may need is sure to be useful

(Bittencourt et al., 2018). The following elements are necessary for an effective

governance policy change in the innovation ecosystem:

• A well-defined, actionable policy change plan outlining the ecosystem’s

desired outcomes

• A solid and detailed governance structure that clearly defines the obligations

of all ecosystem participants

156
 • A comprehensive and well-coordinated implementation strategy that specifies

what institutions should do and when they should do it

• It is essential to have a mechanism in place to constantly assess the

ecosystem’s development and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.

• A succinct communications plan to educate people about the ecosystem and

get them involved in making it work

• Reforms in governance policies are essential for maintaining healthy

ecosystems

Thus far, efforts to improve policies have been primarily piecemeal, with many

parties working toward their ends. Because of this, the policy landscape is disorganized

and frequently conflicting, which is terrible for ecosystems (Sun & Wei, 2019).

Therefore, a concerted and all-encompassing strategy for policy change is required to

enhance ecosystem health and function.

First, the ecosystem must have strong leadership and political will to foster

innovation in policy transformation successfully. The nation’s leaders are willing to make

the adjustments required to foster an innovative culture (Iorga & Scarfone, 2016).

Second, stable financing is essential for a thriving policy reform innovation environment,

originating from the government, the business sector, or both---new ideas need financial

backing (Haseeb et al., 2019). Third, a culture of cooperation and transparency is

essential to the success of an ecosystem for policy change innovation (Smorodinskaya et

al., 2017). All parties involved must be willing to cooperate to achieve success.

157
Additionally, there must be a disposition for open communication and exchanging ideas

(Haseeb et al., 2019). Fourth, success in the policy reform innovation ecosystem requires

laser-like attention to outcomes, necessitating a methodical approach to implementing

and tracking new ideas.

Successful Global Ecosystem

Different groups from all around the globe may collaborate on innovation

initiatives by joining forces in a global innovation ecosystem. For cooperation to be

fruitful, this ecosystem must include enough tools and infrastructure (Nambisan et al.,

2019). A well-defined mission and objectives for the ecosystem will ensure everyone

pulls in the same direction. Suppose a nation or company wants to stay ahead of the

innovation curve—they must be part of a dynamic global innovation ecosystem

(Mukhopadhyay & Bouwman, 2019). Companies may swiftly and efficiently bring their

ideas and products to market with the help of such an ecosystem because of its conducive

conditions for commercialization, scaling, and dissemination (Prokopenko et al., 2014).

Executives may use general guidelines to establish a worldwide environment for

innovation (Prokopenko et al., 2014). The ecosystem needs a common goal considering

the community’s needs and hopes and informing the creation of ecosystem-friendly

policies, programs, and activities (Nambisan et al., 2019).

Establishment of Reliable Institutions

Establishing reliable institutions and groups to back up the ecosystem is crucial.

The ecosystem in which these institutions and organizations operate must be dynamic.

158
Thus, they must be flexible enough to change as time goes on to fulfil the community’s

demands (Rabelo & Bernus, 2015). Connecting the various ecosystem components is

paramount. Institutions connect in various ways, such as via research partnerships or

pooling their resources and expertise.

Innovation means introducing something new or considerably better, be that a

new product or service, a new method of production, or even a new business strategy

(Rabelo & Bernus, 2015). An action must be both repeatable and beneficial to qualify as

innovative. Identifying the main actors is the first step in orchestrating a global

innovation ecosystem. Many stakeholders exist, including corporations, governments,

universities, and the public. All these parties must work together to foster a creative

atmosphere. Invention primarily results from the efforts of businesses spending money on

R&D to produce innovative goods and services (Isckia et al., 2020). By spending money

on infrastructure and offering tax breaks, governments may foster an atmosphere

conducive to innovation. The academic community is crucial in developing novel

understandings and concepts (Gastaldi & Corso, 2016). Entrepreneurs may benefit from

the guidance and assistance of the community at large.

The step involves building a structure allowing the major parties to collaborate via

existing platforms, collaborations, and other initiatives. Accelerators and incubators are

examples of platforms that may help startup companies (Xiao & North, 2017). There are

two fundamental requirements for a flourishing global innovation ecosystem to emerge:

(a) the correct combination of individuals with the right goals and motivations is also

159
essential, and (b) all parties involved must have access to and understand this crystal-

clear shared vision (Yang, 2020). Having the proper combination of people: the

ecosystem must unite individuals from many walks of life and professional experiences

(Mukhopadhyay & Bouwman, 2019). A diverse group of individuals from various places

and backgrounds is essential because they will enhance one another.

Several factors must be in equilibrium for a global innovation ecosystem to

thrive—an established plan and direction for innovation are possibly the most crucial.

Once a plan for the ecosystem emerges, action must follow to implement the necessary

infrastructure and procedures, such as allocating funds to establish training and mentoring

initiatives (Mukhopadhyay & Bouwman, 2019). Additionally, it would assist in

cultivating a culture of creativity and risk-taking by establishing conditions that

encourage new ideas to flourish. The health of an ecosystem can only be maintained via

constant monitoring and assessment (Koellner et al., 2018a).

A worldwide ecosystem for innovation emerges with the aid of specific broad

guidelines. A common goal for the ecosystem must materialize initially. The needs and

hopes of the community should inform the creation of this vision, which should be

crafted in close cooperation with influential community members (Yang, 2020). When

the vision exists, it may inform the creation of ecosystem-friendly policies, programs, and

activities. Establishing reliable institutions and groups to back up the ecosystem is

crucial. The ecosystem in which these institutions and organizations operate must be

dynamic. Thus, they must be flexible enough to change as time goes on to fulfil the

160
community’s demands (Mukhopadhyay & Bouwman, 2019). Connecting the various

ecosystem components is paramount, bringing us to our third point. Institutions connect

in various ways, such as via research partnerships or pooling their resources and

expertise.

A culture of innovation is essential for every successful business since it inspires

and motivates workers to think outside the box and question established norms (Smith,

2006). It also involves helping people realize their vision by giving them access to the

tools they need (Smorodinskaya et al., 2017). The company should have a well-defined,

well-executed plan for innovation that is consistent with the company’s overarching

business strategy and tailored to the company’s unique requirements (Mukhopadhyay &

Bouwman, 2019). The next thing the company needs is access to and recruit and keep the

greatest and brightest individuals in the world. In addition, the business should have a

well-developed physical and digital infrastructure to foster creativity and new ideas; this

includes labs, offices, and digital resources like high-speed networks and cloud storage

(Singavarapu & Singh, 2016). Finally, the group must have access to enough finance,

which may come from various sources.

The Cancer Ecosystem

Organizations and people working together to gather, preserve, and communicate

patients’ PHI for uses including but not limited to individual patient care, population

health, public health, illness prediction and prevention, and healthcare delivery constitute

a changed health ecosystem (Baylin, 2011). Ecosystems, including cancer, are complex

161
and dynamic. A high-quality cancer ecosystem may evolve with the field to benefit

cancer patients and their loved ones. It takes a collaborative effort by scientists, patients,

doctors, hospitals, health systems, authorities, and businesses to effectively cure and

prevent cancer (Vittecoq et al., 2013). These groups must work together to achieve a

similar goal, prioritizing efforts to build trust, improve communication, and reduce

egocentric bias (Eckebrecht, 2021). Recognizing and respecting one’s spouse’s strengths,

weaknesses, contributions, and challenges is essential. Each player is also responsible for

ensuring the collaborative ecosystem is responsive to input, capable of change, and

willing to work together to achieve a common goal (Mukhopadhyay & Bouwman, 2019).

The following must be present to have a healthy ecology for cancer.

Patient Information

Patients want the healthcare industry to advocate publicly for safe information

exchange and commit to implementing these measures (Smorodinskaya et al., 2017).

Patients should be able to have a say in local clinical trials, be included in them, and

receive new treatments as soon as they become available. Successful new U.S. Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) approaches show how the regulatory system may be

improved to speed up the production of the most promising pharmaceuticals

(Mukhopadhyay & Bouwman, 2019). Fifty percent of the 60 breakthroughs with

significantly shorter schedules since the FDA’s Breakthrough Designation in 2013 has

been for cancer (Boehm & Golub, 2015). The FDA needs enough funding to carry out its

progressive agenda, which includes using real-world data to spur drug development, back

162
up regulatory judgments, and beef up safety monitoring to be at the forefront of research

(Mukhopadhyay & Bouwman, 2019).

Privacy Concerns

Due to the information-intensive nature of these services, patients’ agents require

medical histories and other relevant details about their health and lifestyle. Before the

ecosystem can gather, process, store, and share massive amounts of sensitive PHI,

security, privacy, and trust problems must be overcome. Because of this lack of

transparency, customers may have difficulty deciding who or what to trust regarding

security and privacy, and current solutions are inadequate (Mukhopadhyay & Bouwman,

2019). According to Boehm and Golub (2015), traditional concepts of privacy, such as

privacy as a function of agency and control, and traditional concepts of trust, such as trust

as a function of belief or perception, fall short in digital health ecosystems. The authors

argued that it is time for the healthcare industry to re-evaluate its understanding of

privacy and trust, draft new laws to account for novel privacy and approach models and

require participants in the health ecosystem to reveal the extent to which they place a

premium on protecting patient data. Boehm and Golub also assessed potential strategies

for dealing with these challenges in the interest of ecosystem health.

Coordination in the Cancer Ecosystem

The optimal care for cancer patients must be coordinated throughout the

ecosystem (Vittecoq et al., 2013). I recommend that this treatment be all-encompassing,

based on reliable data, and tailored to each patient’s needs. Patients may get the best care

163
possible with a comprehensive and coordinated system. Comprehensive, evidence-based,

and individualized care is essential. It is necessary to consider the patient’s medical needs

and emotional, social, and spiritual wants and needs to provide holistic care

(Mukhopadhyay & Bouwman, 2019). Evidence-based medicine is basing medical

decisions on the most robust available evidence, such as information gathered from

clinical investigations, observational studies, and basic scientific studies (Eckebrecht,

2021). Individualized care is tailored to the needs of each patient and considers their

unique history, values, and preferences.

Patients and their families are at the core of the care team in the patient- and

family-centered care paradigm. According to this model of care, patients and their loved

ones are in the best position to make treatment decisions since they are intimately

familiar with their unique circumstances (Vittecoq et al., 2013). This assistance is

essential as the healthcare system develops and people want more individualized and all-

encompassing care. A cancer ecosystem must prioritize the needs of everyone affected by

the disease and their family members to be effective (Xie & Bourne, 2015). Attention

must be all-encompassing, well-structured, and culturally sensitive. Comprehensive care

encompasses all facets of a patient’s well-being, from the physical to the mental

(Mukhopadhyay & Bouwman, 2019). Care coordination ensures that all care team

members work together to provide optimal treatment. Respecting the patient’s cultural

values and norms is crucial to culturally competent treatment.

164
 The finest cancer care is delivered when treatment centers on the patient and their

loved ones (Vittecoq et al., 2013). All care areas may receive attention and coordination

when the patient and their family gather with the care team. The most significant

potential result for the patient requires this kind of treatment. Cancer patients’ wellness

and quality of life should be the primary goals of any cancer ecosystem (Xie & Bourne,

2015). Many complex parts work harmoniously to provide a healthy environment for

cancer research. It is essential to begin with a shared understanding of the cancer care

continuum and the specific functions of each participant in that continuum (Tabas et al.,

2022). There must be an emphasis on patient safety and constant quality improvement, a

dedication to openness and responsibility, and a readiness to engage in new ideas.

Efficient Clinical Studies and Private-sector Involvement

Companies in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries play several roles

in the fight against cancer. However, their initiative, capital expenditures, and

contributions to the field receive inadequate compensation (Smorodinskaya et al., 2017).

Now more than ever, businesses in the private sector must look for win-win opportunities

rather than putting their focus on cooperation. The National Cancer Institute’s Molecular

Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) initiative is a collaborative effort between many

pharmaceutical companies that aims to improve the efficacy of targeted drugs by

matching patients to treatments based on the genetic abnormalities of their malignancies

(Vittecoq et al., 2013). Fundamental scientific research is needed to find targets for

cancer therapy, early detection, and disease prevention, all of which are necessary for

165
disease control (Vittecoq et al., 2013). Financial growth directly results from rising

government spending on research (Traitler et al., 2011). More collaboration across

disciplines has the potential to speed up the process of discovering and sharing

information that may improve people’s lives.

According to a study conducted by the Institute of Medicine in 2013 on cancer

care, growing prices, a shrinking labor force, and an increasing demand for services have

created a crisis in the primary healthcare delivery system (Horning, 2017). The suggested

conceptual framework for a high-quality cancer delivery system highlights engaging

patients and their families, offering evidence-based treatment, and integrating the

evidence into routine clinical care. Despite the apparent advantages, the positive results

of studies are generally implemented slowly and randomly in the present system

(Smorodinskaya et al., 2017). The average time for research implementation into standard

medical practice is estimated to be 17 years. The growing interest in closing the gap

between the finding of essential research discoveries and their application in clinical

practice has led to the fast expansion of the discipline of distribution and implementation

(D&I) science (Crosling et al., 2015). Eccles and Mittman used the term implementation

in 1967 to describe the study of methods to incorporate better scientific findings and

other forms of evidence into everyday practice (Horning, 2017). Implementation research

consists of two main parts: (a) dissemination (the targeted distribution of information and

intervention materials to a specific public health or clinical practice audience) and (b)

implementation (the use of strategies to adopt and integrate evidence-based health

166
interventions and change practice patterns within specific settings; Vittecoq et al., 2013).

Historically, evidence-based methods have failed to integrate research results into daily

practice via conventional, passive implementation and dissemination strategies, such as

publishing in journals and producing consensus statements.

The Therapeutic Environment

The therapeutic environment in the real world is vulnerable to contextual

influences, in contrast to the controlled research contexts where evidence-based therapies

are produced and assessed. Context factors may affect implementation success; in some

cases, this means adapting existing practices or developing brand-new strategies to match

local conditions (Vittecoq et al., 2013). When designing and executing therapies

supported by research, it is critical to consider the relevant context (Xie & Bourne, 2015).

Various contextual aspects may affect the success of implementation, and it may be

necessary to adjust existing methods or develop brand-new strategies to accommodate

local conditions. One may see these traits at several stages of the implementation process,

including those concerning the person. This stage involves building relationships with

other workers and developing skills. An individual perspective is a person’s degree of

engagement with the team, and their ability to contribute might be affected by their

immediate environment (Xie & Bourne, 2015). For instance, team members’ varying

degrees of expertise may affect how well they communicate with one another.

167
Role of Culture, Leadership, and Organizational Capacity in Building Innovation

Ecosystems

People have been rewarding and praising those who come up with new ideas for

centuries, but most innovations can only be made with some team effort (Cao et al.,

2020). Therefore, the building blocks of collaboration are easy to isolate. The primary

motivation for early humans to form societal bonds was to share resources and protect

themselves from danger—a feat only attainable through faith in one another; therefore,

they took moderate risks (Crosling et al., 2015). When people in a group believe that their

collective vision may become a reality, they are likelier to put their faith in one another

and work together to accomplish their shared objectives via communication,

brainstorming, and implementing shared strategies (Jackson, 2011). Routine operations

have rules and protocols to guarantee success and prevent issues. A significant challenge

for businesses is determining when it is acceptable to break the rules (Curry et al., 2021).

Therefore, it is crucial to construct organizations that promote internal stability, safety,

and trust, enabling workers to concentrate on external issues, threats, or challenges that

motivate creativity and productivity.

Integrating AI and data may spark several shifts in the innovation ecosystem. AI

and data may look for and apply novel operational methods, evaluate existing paradigms,

and develop brand-new business models (Stahl, 2022). By combining AI with data, it

could be possible to create novel and more efficient work methods. In addition to

challenging established norms, they also facilitate the development of novel business

168
models (Curry et al., 2021). Potentially lucrative new markets may emerge via data

mining, and AI can then design offerings that are just right for them. With AI and data,

the innovation ecosystem may have access to higher-quality information and make more

informed decisions. They might also help with the price of innovation (Fyfe, 2019).

Using data, we can monitor the project’s development and zero in on any problems.

When AI automates tedious processes, we free up mental bandwidth to devote to more

interesting problems.

AI and data might influence innovation ecosystems to develop and deploy novel

approaches to challenging established assumptions and developing novel business models

(Smorodinskaya et al., 2017). Innovation has become the corporate strategy to maintain

operational profitability and market share (Fyfe, 2019). Since 2010, companies have

faced more challenges than ever from worldwide competitors. As a result, companies

have cut the time it takes to create new products and services to maintain market

profitability over the long term. However, more is needed for most companies (Jackson,

2011). Alternatively, if organizations seek financial success, they must provide

something no one else is selling (Wessner, 2005).

The most challenging task that businesses must do is to create a company culture

that encourages and values innovation (Fukuda, 2020). Efficacy determines the degree to

which an organization’s culture is consistent with the group’s environment, resources,

values, and goals. It fosters commitment, direction, a sense of shared identity, and

community among its members (Geels, 2019). Strong cultures often reject new methods

169
and procedures, making implementing essential changes or pursuing new opportunities

challenging (Gupta et al., 2020). An invention’s viability depends on how well it fits into

the organization’s existing framework and how easily it can be modified. Leaders provide

the impetus for innovation and fresh thinking. Leaders are accountable for cultivating an

environment encourages creativity and new ideas among their teams (Mukhopadhyay &

Bouwman, 2019). Executives of a company lay the groundwork for innovation and guide

the processes of innovation that are essential to the success of innovation. Most business

cases show how leaders can be a catalyst for creative thinking. Such instances boost

experts’ motivation. Leadership that actively promotes and manages diversity in the

workplace is beneficial for all parties involved (Gupta et al., 2020).

Each objective also has an underlying driver of action. Because of this,

individuals are motivated to do extraordinary things. Employee motivation is one of the

most critical aspects of organizational creativity (Mukhopadhyay & Bouwman, 2019). If

a company wants to foster an environment conducive to innovation, it must back that

effort. When workers feel appreciated, they are more likely to go above and beyond

(Granstrand & Holgersson, 2020). Moreover, it is important not to discount an

organization’s cultural role in inspiring its employees to be creative and develop novel

solutions to problems (Granstrand & Holgersson, 2020).

Creativity relies heavily on cultural variables, which are essential in encouraging

original thought. The social model exhibits a commercially oriented corporate culture.

When other elements, such as structural and organizational ones, fail to account for a

170
phenomenon, such as artistic production, attributable to culture (Mercan & Goktas,

2011). An increase in the company’s capacity for innovation traces back to the

widespread adoption of models emphasizing culture’s importance. According to Hauser’s

(2009) theoretical framework, an innovative culture permeates an organization. Adapting

to the difficulties of culture, exterior harmony, and internal cohesiveness is stated to be a

pattern of underlying assumptions formed, found, or produced by a specific group; these

are organizational culture artifacts, values, and fundamental assumptions make up the

model’s three tiers (Smorodinskaya et al., 2017).

Organizational culture, which in turn drives innovation, guides cultural

orientation. The level of innovation and originality in an organization is affected by its

culture. Understanding innovation may benefit from a cultural lens, given the intricacies

of the phenomenon and the contradictory nature of innovation study results (Jaskyte,

2004). According to Kanter (1997), organizations that foster innovation should foster a

“culture of pride and success” (p. 124). Culture is a critical factor in innovation

management, and businesses must make employees feel comfortable speaking out to

foster and maintain an innovative culture (Kruse et al., 2019).

Clarity, mutual trust, incentive management behaviors, strategic orientations,

supporting structures, and learning and knowledge acquisition methodologies are

necessary for organizations to succeed. Therefore, the most important aspects of creating

an innovative culture are the ones related to management, culture, strategy, and structure

(Smorodinskaya et al., 2017). A more open and collaborative managerial style fosters an

171
environment where employees feel safe taking risks, expressing their opinions, and

working together, possibly generating new ideas. Similarly, Jaskyte (2004) argued that

innovation models benefit from including considerations of company culture. Obenchain

(2002) explored organizational culture and innovation in higher education and provided

examples of different organizational cultures. Granstrand and Holgersson (2020)

demonstrated a link between innovation practice ambitions and culture type, particularly

those of the adhocracy culture type.

Although the present research, like that of Obenchain (2002), sought to

understand how different kinds of company cultures affect creativity, it needed to be

more emphasized. This research looks at the effects on for-profit companies rather than

educational institutions, aiming to add to the literature by offering a concept for

determining appropriate situations and contexts for company-level innovativeness and

ascertaining the impact of culture type on the firm’s internal innovation system.

Technology as a Tool in the Innovation Ecosystem

Technology is an important tool in orchestrating an innovation ecosystem.

However, it should not be considered the only critical ecosystem component. Utilization

of appropriate technologies in an innovation ecosystem is essential in enhancing the

scalability, sustainability, and replicability of successful solutions in an innovation

ecosystem. Different technologies play critical roles in an innovation ecosystem,

including planning, implementing, deploying, growing, scaling, or sustaining. Impactful

technological tools exist as trending, emerging, or future technologies. All these

172
technologies play a significant role in each phase of the innovation ecosystem. Despite all

the technologies experiencing different experience levels in different regions, an

innovation ecosystem should define and cluster available technologies based on their

needs. For example, an emerging technology in an innovation ecosystem could be a

trending or even a future technology in another innovation ecosystem due to its adoption

and contextual needs based on its strategic drivers (Kramer et al., 2007).

Trending technologies are tools currently in abundant use due to their maturity

and the immediate benefits it provides to the ecosystem. Examples in this category

include but are not limited to AI, blockchain, cloud computing, IoT, VR/AR, robotics,

5G, big data, self-driving vehicles, and nanotechnologies, among others (Kramer et al.,

2007). The adoption of these technologies varies in most global regions; they are

trending. On the other hand, emerging technologies are tools in development with

unrealized potential. Despite most mentioned technologies above being categorized as

trending, some aspects still qualify them as emerging technologies. Standards are

essential when defining and categorizing emerging and trending technologies. Some

concepts, such as standards, applicability, and security concerns in technologies such as

AI, IoT, Cloud computing, blockchain, and 5G, among others, qualify these tools to

belong to either category depending on which metrics one uses (Kramer et al., 2007).

Additionally, future technologies are the technological tools whose full potential

has yet to be applicable, or in terms of business considerations, they are yet not

commercial but are still under pure research and development for future utilization.

173
Similarly, to the previous two categories, technologies such as quantum computing, Web

3.0, Metaverse, and 6G, among others, would be regarded globally as future technologies

(Rawal et al., 2022). For example, there is currently no commercially accessible 6G or

7G systems in the market despite substantial work in research and development (Lin et

al., 2022).

Innovations Architectural Framework: People, Processes, and Technology

Orchestrating an innovation ecosystem in a smart city environment provides a

competitive advantage concerning technological, processes, and people considerations. A

smart city, by nature, comprises smart people, a smart economy, and an intelligent city

infrastructure. According to Nokia’s Future X Architecture (Weldon, 2016) which

considers a Smart-City-as-a-Platform, an ideal smart city has four end-to-end layers.

According to Weldon (2016), high-performance networking orchestration is the first

layer, the fundamental component, and the low-level layer in considering the architecture.

The network orchestration infrastructural layer comprises dedicated deep connectivity,

which is both wired and wireless, for reliability, accessibility, affordability, coverage, and

for security considerations. These networks contain a strong, smart network fabric to

support intelligent smart city needs. The second layer comprises the multi-cloud

infrastructure framework, which supports local edge cloud computing, distributed edge,

and hybrid cloud. All three cloud offerings are structured to ensure high security,

efficiency, and sustainability for optimal people’s digital experience through the provided

technologies and innovation processes. The third layer contains digital value platforms

174
which support industrial automation, cognitive analytics, and digital operations. Layer

four supports digital transformation, which bridges the gap between innovative business

application needs and cloud offerings. The top level comprises the business application

layer, where all the innovations provide business value. The business application layer

facilitates innovative business cases such as smart mobility, safety, resiliency, and

extended smart city services. Dynamic security emphasizes liveability, efficiency,

sustainability, and safety in all four layers.

The orchestrated innovation ecosystem framework enables the production,

exchange, and use of innovations, entities that produce or are a source of innovations, and

the institutions that use innovation (Browning, 2014). The perspectives of these entities

collaboratively nurture inclusive innovation, commercialization, transdisciplinary

development of research and development, and sustainable and resilient transition

(Pelletier & Raymond, 2020). The entities expected to use the generated innovations in

an ecosystem include public R&D, private firms, formal and informal economy and

practices, government actors, networks through shared learning, public third-party sectors

and partners, and other individual communities present in the ecosystem.

Through collaborations, innovations can be produced by anyone, either within or

without the innovation ecosystem (Tiwana, 2013). Formally produced or generated

innovations in an ecosystem can come from the university ecosystem under public or

private R&D or from firm-firm or firm-university linkages. Innovations can also be

produced from developmental universities, transdisciplinary development research,

175
policy research and evaluation, transition managers, and socio-technical niches such as

smart cities (Lanzolla et al., 2021). Additionally, building public R&D capacity and

supporting collaborative innovations in susceptible areas like health, data, privacy, and

education through open innovations enables the production and usage of innovations in

ecosystems. Innovation brokering and institutional arrangements to involve a broader

range of stakeholders in innovation production and applications can also be an enabler in

a thriving innovation ecosystem.

Innovations Pipelining and Funneling in the Innovation Ecosystem

End-to-end management of innovations is essential to the success of an ecosystem

(Lang et al., 2019). Developing effective pipelines and funnels will grow the most

deserving and impactful innovations, resulting in successful startups and businesses.

Effective pipelines should elaborate innovation sourcing, problem curating, prioritization

mechanisms, solution exploration or testing the innovation hypothesis, incubation, and

integration mechanism to the ecosystems benefiting through the programs like

accelerators which transfer startups to scaleups.

Innovations must have all the considered metrics at the sourcing phase, including

novelty and ingenuity of ideas, technology created, and problems the innovation

addresses. At the problem curation, innovators, other stakeholders, and partners in the

ecosystem must craft resonating problem statements, build relevant use cases around the

innovation, and explore adequate market surveys to clearly understand the problem and

the potential markets (Syrbe & Grunewald, 2017). The prioritization mechanism clarifies

176
ways of selecting the most deserving innovation in a pool of innovation based on the

strength of the problem solved, growth potential, and market targets, also considering the

execution of the innovation to create a profitable business or a startup out of the

innovation idea or a problem. Hypothesis testing or iterations of the prototypes is a

demanding startup phase. A successful innovation should be able to create a minimum

viable product to demonstrate its functionality or features through sketches, wireframes,

designs, or a working prototype of the look-alike of the solution. This stage is critical in

validating assumptions and getting critical feedback from the intended users and owners

for proper customer-centered design and development of the product. This phase is a

resource and time-demanding stage due to iterations.

According to Syrbe and Grunewald (2017), in the solution exploration phases, it

might be challenging to have a perfect product or service with all the required functions

or features, but this helps the innovator to create the innovation roadmap, which creates

future product versioning and foreseen updates and upgrades. At the incubation phase,

most innovations are now ready technologically. The available solution prototype

qualifies to be moved to the next stage and starts to consider other essential factors, such

as the business model. From the incubation phase, some innovations qualify for the next

phase in the ecosystem, which accelerates the innovation to explore the growth potential

of the innovation at hand. Successful innovations after the accelerator stage qualify for

active seed funding, a sign of maturity and huge growth potential. Most sourcing of

innovations happens pre-startup phase, and it is mostly independently operated and, in

177
most cases, starts with an individual through courses or competitions. The ideas which

graduate to becoming a startup end up either at the incubation or at a co-working space in

the ecosystem. Depending on the operating principles, modeling, and frameworks

available in the ecosystem, co-working and incubators spaces can either be fee-driven or

invites only based on the merits since this is a temporary phase most lasting for 6 months.

The accelerator and active seed phases are growth-driven stages, thus tested and

validated; qualified startups reach this stage with a proper working business. Despite

providing equal support and resources to the innovation ecosystem, different startups take

different duration to become successful.

Innovation Ecosystem Demand and Supply

Innovation ecosystem as it is like any resource-dependent ecosystem; the success

of generated innovations depends on several factors. Some of these factors result from the

availability of problems with equal opportunities. Similarly, the balance or imbalance of

problems and opportunities results in either the demand and supply being equally stable

or unstable (Syrbe & Grunewald, 2017). For example, to have a balanced ecosystem,

many problems must have equal opportunities to avoid the stakeholder not being

overwhelmed or underwhelmed. The value flow in the ecosystem engages resources,

financial capital, physical assets, knowledge (tangible and intangible), branding and

connectivity, and innovations (Gereffi, 2019). The ever-demanding ecosystem with

limited supply sets the ecosystem for the survival of the fittest, rewarding the winners and

always considering positive competitive advantage. Everything is interconnected and

178
interdependent; therefore, the success or failure of a significant entity in the value chain

affects the entire ecosystem. It is paramount for players in the ecosystem to practice

stewardship for appropriate resilience-based innovation resource management in a

changing ecosystem.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Innovation Ecosystem

The nature of an ecosystem best explains diversity. Ecosystems are hard to

replicate anywhere else due to the many unwritten system rules and cultures. Diversity is

always a strength in an innovation ecosystem, especially when specific models and

frameworks are in place to enhance appropriate diversity, equity, inclusion, and ethics

(DEI&E). In an innovation ecosystem, these models factor in metrics like compliance by

developing policies and defining regulatory requirements. Creating awareness while

building a diverse pipeline and tracking and assessing its effectiveness improves

compliance. Unique pipeline models’ effectiveness materializes when accepted, and there

is a culture of belonging; this removes models’ execution barriers. Removal of execution

barriers makes the practices consistently applicable and easily monitored, creating a

diverse and inclusive ecosystem brand through commitment to the greater good and

collaboration. Such practices ultimately create sustainable outcomes and impact

ecosystem actions (Syrbe & Grunewald, 2017).

In an innovation ecosystem, DEI&E efforts can broadly aim at demographics

(e.g., gender, age, race, religion, people with disabilities), spatial communities and

regions, and industrial innovation R&D promotion in traditional industries (Klingler-

179
Vidra, 2019). The authors stated that innovation ecosystems create synergies through

inclusive innovation activities, especially by promoting women in engineering and

technology-related engagements. Policy is another area where synergies arise through

broad demographic engagement in policy development. The gaps that DEI&E needs to

address in the innovation include the initiatives of the LGBTQIA2S+ and people with

disabilities, consistent social media campaign engagements to create awareness, robust

data and measurement, coherent collaboration across diverse entities who are ordinarily

not invited in such ecosystems and limited range of policy types used.

Mid and long-term strategies for the complex innovation ecosystem DEI&E

issues will only be effective with an actual representative, collaborative, inclusive

engagement and approach to developing such strategies (Browning, 2014; Chang &

Lowell, 2018). Ecosystem development fundamentally revolves around groups’ access to

available resources. Irrespective of the purpose, innovation ecosystems have

methodically excluded many clusters likely to experience inconsistent impacts the

innovation issues. DEI&E within innovation ecosystems can lead to appropriate,

effective, and impactful innovations, community empowerment, and public-private

partnerships buy-in, especially during critical decision-making processes, resulting in

appropriate solutions to the ecosystem issues. For this reason, it is imperative that we

methodically diversify the innovation movement.

DEI&E can be thought of differently within the innovation ecosystem especially

referencing science, policy, and management (Chang & Lowell, 2018). According to

180
Chang and Lowell (2018), focusing on DEI&E through representation, content, and

process when engaging ecosystem leaders to discuss the various perspectives and

frameworks in how they engage in diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and inviting

audience members to contribute to the discussion highlights unrealized perspectives in

closed executive boardrooms. Such openness fosters a safe space and increases

engagement in issues related to representation, retention policies, education, traditional

and indigenous knowledge, hiring practices, and methods of engaging in productive

conversations with superiors without fear of retribution. Such approaches highlight the

perspectives of historically underrepresented voices and have created an initial network

of interested parties in continuing conversations regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion

in the innovation ecosystem.

Fechner and Shapanka (2018) stated that people of color, women, and lower-

income people patent innovations and inventions at significantly lower rates than their

White, male, and wealthier counterparts. In the U.S., less than 20% of all the patents filed

today have listed a woman as an innovator or an inventor. Among the graduates of either

a university or a college, less than 50% as many Black Americans or Africans and

Hispanics have listed their patents, compared to their white counterparts. Moreover, a

U.S. child born to a household living in the middle-income class is 10 times less likely to

file a patent in a lifetime compared to a child born to a household in the top-income class

level.

181
 Such differences limit economic growth leadership in innovation ecosystems

(Shivakumar, 2018). According to Fechner and Shapanka (2018), attaining better gender,

race, and income diversity in innovating, inventing, and patenting would solve a puzzle in

the wealth of innovation, economic growth, and job creation that is currently not entirely

tapped, delivering new and better innovators, inventors, ideas, and technologies into the

innovation pipeline and ecosystem at large. Governments, educational institutions, and

public and private organizations should implement measures, procedures, and

methodologies to encourage extensive contribution and involvement in the invention,

innovation, and patents to ensure that people of color, women, people living with

disabilities, and lower-income persons can contribute correspondingly and significantly

to the innovation economy. Public policy and private practice should echo the

domineering that extensive contribution in inventing, innovating, and patenting drives

continued and sustained ecosystem leadership in the worldwide innovation economy and

encourages ultimate fairness. Regarding DEI&E, Fechner and Shapanka recommended

that policymakers should be concerned about how to close the gender, race, and income

gaps that continue to be significant limiting factors in the innovation ecosystem.

Klingler-Vidra (2019) recommended that some actions be adopted in an

ecosystem and treated as the innovation ecosystem’s DEI&E best practices for future

collaboration. Some of these practices include formalizing networks which run regularly,

supported by a designated manager or a network coordinator. Even though many

innovative ecosystems are taking public-private initiatives seriously, they need to make

182
greater use of these initiatives. These initiatives are extensive and constantly growing

their global network in the high-technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship initiatives

such as She Codes, Code.org, Girls Who Code, Tec mums, Tech She Can, and others.

Innovation ecosystems can also learn how governments like the Israeli Ministry of Social

Equality partnered; She Codes in delivering programming and coding training to girls and

young women (Klingler-Vidra, 2019).

Innovation ecosystems should also practice organizing summits and congresses

with broader international communities in the diverse innovation realm to get better

exposure and culturally immersive experiences. Cross-national hackathons, fellowships,

competitions, missions, and other programs that bring together entrepreneurs and

innovators from different countries are also encouraged for future collaborations.

Additionally, rather than ordinary entrepreneurship and innovators-focused workforce

development programs at the educational level, especially for secondary schools, the

ecosystem should practice STEM study exchange, especially in the areas where the

underrepresented and minority groups do not highly appreciate STEM-related subjects.

Lastly, Klingler-Vidra (2019) insisted on cross-national collaborations focusing on

knowledge exchange concerning DEI&E-related innovation program plan, design,

implementation, assessment, evaluation, and monitoring.

Fasnacht (2018) elaborated that open innovation fosters collaborations and

attracts strong partnerships, which amass knowledge and speed up the rate of innovation

and growth in an ecosystem. With the open nature of the ecosystem, there is a high sense

183
of belonging for many partners and individuals, which facilitates the agenda of DEI&E.

Similarly, Rego and Gergen (2017) stated that in fostering an inclusive innovation

ecosystem, breaking, and limiting the zero-sum game through the development of

leadership bridges is critical in creating a culture that nurtures community growth through

appropriate socioeconomic mechanisms. Zero-Sum Game is anti-DEI&E since it fosters

situations where the gain or benefit of one person is equivalent to the loss of another

person, which results in the net change in wealth or economic change to zero. In the same

regard, Mullin et al. (2021), in the organizational responsibility to leadership

competency, expanded the DEI&E concept by adding an accessibility aspect into it,

which changes from DEI&E to inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility (IDEA),

which rethinks performance management, governance, and mentorship through the IDEA

lens. This concept emphasizes that there is no DEI&E if it is not accessible by all the

stakeholders in the ecosystem.

Chapter Summary

A complicated phenomenon, the theoretical background of innovation ecosystems

involves interactions between numerous parties, including universities, businesses,

entrepreneurs, and other actors. As a result, it is crucial to comprehend the multiple

components of an innovation ecosystem and the difficulties in coordinating them

(Granstrand & Holgersson, 2020). A wide range of components makes up innovation

ecosystems, including artificial intelligence, money and resources, ecosystem

components, entrepreneurs and businesses, organizational capabilities, organizational

184
culture, and the function of universities. With its improved capabilities for data analysis,

pattern recognition, decision-making, and process automation, AI is playing an

increasingly important role in innovation ecosystems. AI can increase the efficiency of

innovation processes and discover new areas for innovation. It can also reduce costs and

speed up time to market by maximizing the effectiveness of product and service

development.

Resources and funding are crucial for the success of an innovation ecosystem.

These resources may originate from several places, including grants, venture money, and

public-private partnerships. They are required to assist in the creation of concepts,

models, and goods that can benefit consumers and enterprises. Organizations and their

capabilities, entrepreneurs, and businesses are all parts of an innovation ecosystem.

Entrepreneurs and businesses are essential players in innovation ecosystems when

introducing new concepts and technology. They can spot fresh opportunities and turn

them into valuable goods and services. Organizations must simultaneously possess the

skills necessary to reap the benefits of innovation; this includes the capacity to obtain and

manage resources, develop and put into practice strategies, and establish an innovative

organizational culture.

The importance of universities in an innovation ecosystem is paramount.

Universities offer a unique setting for knowledge creation, collaboration, and research.

New technologies, concepts, and marketable products frequently come from them.

Entrepreneurs can collaborate and create new goods and services on university campuses.

185
Universities can foster an environment that encourages innovation and promotes

economic growth by connecting individuals and groups. Innovation ecosystems are a

complicated phenomenon involving many different parties’ communication. It is crucial

to comprehend the function of each component to generate and seize value from

innovation. Organizations can build a thriving innovation ecosystem by utilizing

universities’ roles, the capabilities of AI, and sufficient funding and resources. The

following section of the chapter discusses the difficulties in coordinating innovation

ecosystems.

Chapter 2 also examined how difficult it is to manage the ecosystem’s

complexity, how important it is to foster cooperation and trust among the various actors,

and how difficult it is to match incentives and goals among them. Organizations must

therefore be aware of the ecosystem’s multiple components and the difficulties in

coordinating them. Organizations must concentrate on creating the skills and plans

needed to foster cooperation and trust among the participants in their ecosystems and

align incentives and goals. Organizations must also develop metrics, governance

frameworks, and innovation strategies to manage the ecosystem effectively.

Universities, businesses, organizations, investors, and other groups make up

complex networks of actors known as innovation ecosystems. These actors link resources

and incentives to generate and capture value from innovation. Organizations must

comprehend the various components of an innovation ecosystem, including artificial

intelligence, funding and resources, components of innovation ecosystems, entrepreneurs

186
and firms, organizational capabilities, organizational culture, and the function of

universities in an innovation ecosystem, to effectively orchestrate and manage one.

Organizations must also be aware of the difficulties involved in managing an

ecosystem for innovation, including coordinating incentives and goals among various

actors, fostering cooperation and trust, and controlling the ecosystem’s complexity.

Organizations must create strategies to ensure the success of their innovation ecosystem,

implement efficient governance structures, and develop metrics to measure and drive

their performance to overcome these obstacles. Organizations must also foster an

atmosphere that promotes cooperation and trust among the various players in the

innovation ecosystem. Organizations must encourage open communication and

collaboration, offer rewards for teamwork and innovation, and define clear roles and

boundaries for each actor. Organizations must, in the end, make sure that each actor’s

incentives and goals are in line with the ecosystem’s overall objectives to ensure the

success of the innovation ecosystem. Organizations can successfully manage their

innovation ecosystems and generate and capture value from innovation by understanding

the various components of an innovation ecosystem, developing efficient metrics,

governance structures, and innovation strategies, and encouraging cooperation and trust

among the actors involved.

A robust innovation ecosystem must have DEI&E as its top priorities. An

inclusive culture ensures that all opinions are valued and heard, and that everyone has fair

access to opportunities and resources. Collaboration and innovative problem-solving are

187
encouraged by DEI&E, which enables firms to better foresee and react to shifting market

conditions and customer needs. Also, it fosters a welcoming, safe workplace where many

viewpoints, experiences, and backgrounds spur incredible inventions. Thriving

innovation ecosystems also need a clear strategy, efficient resource management, and an

enabling environment besides DEI&E. Leaders must decide on the precise goals they

want to achieve and the resources they need to support their innovation efforts before

developing an innovation strategy. They must also outline the procedures for determining

success and the metrics they will use to monitor their development. The orchestration of

resources entails coordinating internal and external resources to foster a creative

atmosphere; this involves building teams with various skill sets, promoting departmental

cooperation, and utilizing outside partners to gain access to new technology and markets.

Finally, the appropriate systems, procedures, and tools must support the environment.

It takes much work to establish a thriving innovation ecosystem. Companies must

balance the demands for various viewpoints, equitable access to resources, efficient

innovation orchestration, and the difficulties of fostering an inclusive culture and

enabling an innovative environment. Organizations can cultivate a culture of cooperation

and creativity and build an environment that supports innovation efforts by concentrating

on DEI&E and adopting a holistic approach. Customers, providers, and partners are just a

few stakeholders that make up an innovation ecosystem. These parties must cooperate to

foster an environment that is conducive to innovation. Organizations must thoroughly

understand both to create a strategy to fulfil customers’ wants and market prospects. They

188
must also choose the best partners to assist them in meeting the demand and providing

the goods and services necessary to satisfy it; this necessitates precise coordination of the

ecosystem’s various components. It is essential to comprehend the stakeholders’ many

roles, their particular demands, and the obstacles they encounter to guarantee that the

ecosystem functions cohesively. Companies must identify the appropriate tools,

technologies, and processes to integrate the ecosystem and promote collaboration to

achieve their objectives, supporting effective orchestration.

Any successful innovation ecosystem must include both innovation pipelining and

funneling. The process of gathering and assessing prospective ideas is known as the

pipeline while selecting the best ones is known as the funnel. Internal and external parties

can contribute ideas, including partners, investors, and industry experts. The best ideas

win, and the funneling procedure executes. The concepts are further examined and

improved in this stage to ensure they are workable and prepared for implementation. The

funneling method also aids in prioritizing the best ideas and eliminates any impractical or

that do not align with the company’s goals. Finding the most promising ideas and

successfully implementing them is the ultimate purpose of the innovation pipeline and

funnel. Innovation ecosystems must successfully manage the many stakeholders

participating in the process. Both internal and external stakeholders, like partners,

customers, and investors, are included in this. Internal stakeholders include executives,

managers, and staff. Orchestration involves teamwork and clear communication between

stakeholders to ensure that the finest ideas are chosen and implemented. In addition,

189
stakeholders must be able to cooperate to resolve any issues that develop during the

process. Limitations in capability, a lack of resources, and competing interests can all be

problems. Orchestration must recognize and address these issues to fully realize the

innovation ecosystem’s promise.

The heart of any innovation environment is its people. They provide the abilities,

information, and imagination to generate fresh concepts and solutions. Companies must

ensure they have the necessary personnel, such as product managers, engineers, and

designers, to foster innovation. The goal is to have the correct mix of individuals with

various backgrounds and skill sets. Organizations must also ensure their team can access

the tools and resources to successfully develop and implement creative ideas. Procedures

should be in place to encourage the creation and application of novel concepts.

Organizations should have a codified innovation process, such as design thinking, lean

startup, or agile, to ensure that the proper techniques and frameworks are in place to

foster and support new ideas. Organizations should also create an internal culture

encouraging cooperation, innovation, and experimentation. Organizations must ensure

that all three elements—people, processes, and technology—are in sync to orchestrate an

innovation ecosystem successfully. Companies must create and implement strategies that

guarantee all three components’ appropriate integration and harmonious operation.

Ensuring that the proper people, procedures, and technology are in place to support the

organization’s innovation goals necessitates a high degree of coordination and

collaboration amongst teams, departments, and stakeholders.

190
 Companies must understand critical technological changes and ensure they can

exploit them. Technology should be utilized as a facilitator to establish an atmosphere

that encourages innovation and enables businesses to remain competitive. In addition to

developing new ones to expand their capabilities, organizations should build methods to

incorporate emerging technologies into their current systems and processes.

Organizations must also be aware of the various innovation ecosystems and the

difficulties that could develop in coordinating them. Customers, partners, rivals,

suppliers, and third parties frequently participate in these ecosystems. Organizations must

know the potential for conflict and disruption while knowing how to take advantage of

these relationships to provide value. Businesses must identify the types of technical

breakthroughs to serve best their unique aims and objectives and the appropriate ways to

implement and manage them. Organizations can gain a competitive edge and position

themselves for long-term success by comprehending the many innovation ecosystems and

how to orchestrate them successfully.

Leadership is crucial to create an environment that supports and promotes

innovation. For ideas to be shared and investigated, leaders must foster an environment of

openness and collaboration inside and outside. Also, this culture ought to encourage

innovation and experimentation with cutting-edge methods and tools. Leaders must also

ensure their organization is agile enough to change with the environment and implement

new ideas; this entails creating and maintaining a system that facilitates generating and

applying new ideas. For teams to effectively collaborate and develop solutions to

191
complicated problems, leaders must also need help and resources. Finally, leaders must

create a safe environment where people may experiment and take chances without

worrying about failing. These actions enable leaders to construct a culture and

infrastructure that supports innovation and the growth of an innovation ecosystem.

Innovation ecosystems for cancer therapies and cures involve several players,

each crucial to the system’s smooth operation. While nurses and patient advocates are

essential in supporting and caring for those impacted by the disease, researchers,

scientists, and doctors are responsible for developing and testing therapies and cures

(Loomans-Kropp & Umar, 2019). Also, legislators play a crucial role in creating the

required judicial and regulatory framework to guarantee that cures and treatments are

efficient, secure, and available to those who require them. Coordination between these

numerous stakeholders is crucial to create treatments and cures swiftly and effectively

while also considering the patient’s requirements. Assuring that all stakeholders have a

common knowledge of the goals, knowing the resources accessible to each, and devising

straightforward tactics to optimize the advantages of cooperation between the various

actors in the system are challenges in orchestrating such ecosystems—innovation

ecosystems for cancer therapies and cures structure successfully by tackling these issues.

All parties involved in developing the cancer ecosystem (e.g., patients,

physicians, researchers, governmental, commercial, and other healthcare organizations)

must participate. All stakeholders must be committed to providing the required funding

and assistance to build a successful and long-lasting cancer ecosystem (Loomans-Kropp

192
& Umar, 2019). The vision and plan should outline each stakeholder’s duties and

responsibilities and how they will work together to accomplish the intended results.

The cancer ecosystem should contain tactics to encourage innovation in addition to the

vision and plan; this could involve establishing incentives for research and development,

promoting cooperation amongst many stakeholders, and developing laws to simplify data

access. It is also crucial to ensure that all interested parties have access to the tools they

need for research and development.

Finally, systems must be in place to gauge and assess the ecosystem’s

development in the fight against cancer; this includes creating benchmarks and metrics to

measure progress, researching areas for development, and keeping an eye on the system

for any adjustments. Stakeholders can identify issues and creative ideas to strengthen the

system by monitoring the cancer ecosystem’s development. By doing this, one can ensure

that the ecosystem for cancer research supports advancements in cancer research and

innovation. Good communication and coordination among stakeholders are also crucial

to ensure that resources enjoy effective use and promptly resolve any stakeholder

disputes. Effective communication makes sharing knowledge and resources possible,

which can improve resource use and hasten the development of treatments and cures.

Because cancer ecosystems are intricate, it takes a tremendous commitment from all

parties to make them work. Each stakeholder must know and cooperate to meet the

system’s requirements and objectives. It is conceivable to develop an efficient and

193
effective method that may result in game-changing therapies and cures by coordinating

the players and resources of the cancer ecosystem in the best way possible.

Innovation ecosystems are intricate networks of institutions, individuals, and

resources that facilitate creating and applying fresh concepts. These ecosystems foster

innovation and collaboration among people and enterprises and are crucial for economic

growth and development. The fundamental components of effective innovation

ecosystems are diversity, equity, and inclusion because they foster a climate where all

viewpoints are valued, and individuals can participate. A crucial factor in the success of

an innovation ecosystem is the capacity to balance supply and demand, or the desire for

and collection of resources. Moving people, ideas, and resources through the system is

vital to success. An innovative architectural framework is also required to guarantee that

the ecosystem is based on a solid foundation and can accommodate the interests of all

stakeholders. Technology is essential to an innovation ecosystem because it makes

collaboration, communication, and idea development more effective. Lastly, culture,

leadership, and organizational capability are all crucial elements of a thriving innovation

ecosystem since they support the ecosystem’s direction, coherence, and guidance.

Government, healthcare providers, research institutes, and commercial firms

frequently work together in these ecosystems. Cancer ecosystems need a strong vision

and plan to ensure effective and responsible resource use if they are to succeed (Coccia &

Watts, 2020). The cancer ecosystem should also use cutting-edge technology, such as AI

and machine learning, to accelerate and improve cancer research and therapy. The

194
ecosystem should also adopt a comprehensive strategy to support all stakeholders, such

as patients, caregivers, and healthcare workers. Cooperation and communication among

the various players are crucial to the ecosystem’s success. Chapter 3 outlines the methods

used to complete the current study.

195
 CHAPTER III: Methods

Since its inception as a school of thought led by its group of methodological

gurus, mixed-methods research has consistently shown its capacity to adapt to new issues

and fields of study. There are hundreds of empirical papers and a large body of

methodological literature supporting the originality and ingenuity with which it has been

in practice, which may contribute to its extensive cross-disciplinary appeal. The use of

mixed methods to investigate issues as varied as poverty in Bangladesh, climate change

in Siberia, police procedures in Canada, population growth in urban centers, and access to

clean water in remote Aboriginal communities exemplify the breadth of the usefulness of

these approaches in practice, which emerged alongside the trend toward interdisciplinary

team-cantered research (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2021).

The widespread acceptance of the ontological premise that consulting many data

sources improves quality among social and behavioral researchers is a critical factor in

the flexibility of mixed methods. Differentiating mixed-method research from multi-

method research is the emphasis placed on combining findings from different

methodologies. Mixed methods studies use many techniques and data sources but must

integrate them fully. Understanding the intricate interaction between human and societal

phenomena and the natural environment is central to the logic of mixed methods, which

necessitates the deliberate engagement of several data sources, analytical techniques,

methodologies, and viewpoints. Methodological mixing is the most prevalent

hybridization (Sandelowski, 2014). Its widespread use opens the door for conversations

196
across disciplines and methods, as seen in integrated methodological approaches such as

mixed methods grounded theory (Creamer, 2018a), case study (Guetterman & Fetters,

2018), participatory action research (Ivankova & Wingo, 2018), and visual methods

(Shannon-Baker & Edwards, 2018). Such collaboration forces us to re-evaluate whether

researchers may safely label their specialty as purely qualitative or quantitative in today’s

fast-paced environment. Multifaceted problems, such as poverty, health disparity,

immigration, violence, and sustainability, need multidisciplinary knowledge and

understanding. Each of these methods for theorizing or refining an existing theory

highlights a dedication to the value that various research procedures and practices can

offer.

Anyone doing grounded theory research should know the potential coding

difficulties they may encounter. Most researchers struggle with moving from a

descriptive to a conceptual level of analysis, trusting their innate understanding of the

concept generation process to enable a principle to emerge, and finally feeling confident

enough to limit data collection as well as coding only to the core concept and those

notions that relate to the core. Those unfamiliar with the grounded theory technique may

fear missing something significant if they focus only on the ideas that arise from the data

instead of the data itself. The usage of theoretical codes is a significant barrier to progress

for many. Many researchers who try grounded theory succumb to the excitement of

conceptual development at the substantive level, settling for a few promising ideas before

197
giving up on the effort. The work will be more challenging without combining coding

and analysis with mamboing.

Grounded theory creation starts with a data conceptualization. A conceptual code

is the backbone of the partnership between data and theory. By dividing the data into

codes, researchers may step back from the details of the data and instead focus on the

larger picture, developing a hypothesis to explain the data’s underlying pattern. Using

codes, researchers may get a simplified, abstract perspective that includes previously

inaccessible depth and breadth, hence a better understanding of complex processes. The

constant comparative approach analyses and codes events described in the data yielded

substantive and theoretical categories.

By creating a theory for just what emerges via his skillful induction, a grounded

theorist meekly submits to the evidence as much as feasible. He ensures the ideas and

concepts fit, work, and are important enough to propose by integrating them as they

emerge from the coding and sorting. These are only conjectures; no evidence supports

them (Glaser, 1992). In contrast to other research methods, traditional grounded theory

views the coding process as an ongoing part of its analytic character. For this reason, it is

crucial to fully grasp the conceptual strength of the approach to know when and how to

participate in the many components of coding. The analyst must be familiar with the

differences between substantive, academic, open, and selective coding and the iterative

nature of constant comparative and theoretical sampling to move the analysis forward

into higher levels of theoretical abstraction, fundamental emergence, and conceptual

198
integration. The ability and confidence to use all code components evolved after

comprehending these differences. The analyst’s conviction in investigating and validating

emerging abstract concepts grows with experience, allowing them to trust their intuition

regarding when to go from one stage to the next.

MM-GTM is the best-integrated approach available today for coding. The

overarching ideas go from one chapter to the next, where they are expanded upon and

refined. This chapter focuses on three main points. The use of mixed methods with

grounded theory has been narrowly framed in the methodological literature, if not

necessarily in practice, to preserve the distinctions between the qualitative and

quantitative strands, with one phase devoted to developing theory using grounded theory

methods and a second used to refine or test it using quantitative methods. By

incorporating the reasoning behind mixed methods into the processes of grounded theory

analysis, an MM-GTM strategy may likewise create or improve an explanation

framework. The unexpected results of combining and contrasting several data sets are a

rich vein from which new ideas and theoretical insights may emerge.

The beginning of the chapter presents an explanation of the differences between a

theoretical (explanatory) and a conceptual framework, as well as the differences between

mixed-method and multi-method research. After that, I elaborate on the widespread

nature of MM-GTM by referencing the available evidence. In the next part, I examine a

specific instance of well-integrated MM-GTM and highlight its complexity. Next, MM-

GTM is a unique methodology incorporating the constant comparative method and

199
analytical procedures like theoretical sampling that are foundational to grounded theory

while incorporating abductive logic and a back-and-forth exchange between data from

different sources. Next, I discuss how I utilized examples and exemplars and explain the

difference between the two. At the chapter’s end, I draw connections between the

chapter’s main ideas and the more extensive collection of recurring themes.

Evidence-based practice and the scientific method depend on developing testable

hypotheses (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2010). Sandelowski (2014), a prominent methodologist in

the academic community of nursing researchers and among mixed methodologists,

argued that theoretical knowledge is always implicit in imaging an issue, regardless of

explicit articulation. Although the term theory is sometimes used interchangeably with

supposition or hunch in casual speech, that is misleading; theory aligns with explaining

how things function (Weick, 1995). According to the standards of empirical study, a

theory is a consistent framework for explaining observed phenomena. A theoretical

framework explains complicated phenomena without eliminating the variety in how it is

perceived; this is especially useful in empirical research, where theory develops from

evidence. Agerfalk (2014) further explained how ideas influence research conduct by

saying, “Theories assist in organizing our thinking, explaining phenomena, assuring

consistent explanations, enhance our predictions, and shape design” (p. 24). The sort of

theory generated by MM-GTM is not an abstraction with little practical usefulness in the

social and human sciences context. It contributes to evidence-based policy and practice

by clarifying the why and how of visual impacts (Burch & Heinrich, 2017).

200
 Theories aid in mental organization, providing explanations for occurrences,

ensuring consistency in those explanations, enhancing our ability to make accurate

predictions, and providing insight into the design process (Agerfalk, 2014). Numerous

commonly used theories of human behavior, such as those concerning learning,

motivation, or rational choice, are influenced by the prevailing social and cultural norms

at the time they were developed and tested. They are only sometimes a good match for

directing inquiries into complex, ever-changing settings like schools, hospitals, or for-

profit or non-profit businesses and the wide range of people they serve. Assuming a

viewpoint formed in the 1950s, an immigrant’s acculturation to a new community

involves the loss of one’s native culture, meals, and holiday rituals that look ancient in a

multicultural society. One of the main conclusions drawn by researchers trying to explain

the discrepancy between the results suggested by their qualitative and quantitative data is

that the phenomenon they studied was far more complex and multifaceted than initially

conceived, despite our desire for the seeming certainty offered by a well-established

theory and validated instruments (Creamer, 2018b).

Procedures Followed

I first defined an innovation environment and identified the many kinds of

orchestrators. The next section of the research will focus on the evolution an organization

must experience to stay relevant in the market. Finally, I determined the many

measurements, tools, sources, outputs, and aspects crucial to effectively implementing an

enabling environment. For that, I used the four phases of mixed method grounded theory:

201
(a) data collection, (b) coding, (c) mamboing, and (d) theoretical sampling (Corbin &

Strauss, 2008), followed by Saldaña’s (2020) coding method to thematically arrange the

content.

Strauss and Corbin’s Grounded Theory

Data collection was the initial phase and included gathering data relating to the

study issue interviews, examinations, or documentary reviews. With the interviews, I

collected consent signatures before the study started. The second phase was data coding,

assigning codes to the information gathered to discover trends and connections. Open,

axial, and selective coding were viable options for this method. The third stage was

mamboing—jotting down thoughts and theories concerning the coded information in

handwritten notes. Methods like mind maps and freewriting helped with this. The fourth

phase was theoretical sampling, deciding what extra information to gather to validate

hypotheses and improve theoretical frameworks. Participants received incentives

throughout the research. Additional strategies, such as the Schillinger group and vision

live, were examined at the study’s conclusion to engage more particular essential

executives and consumers to answer our hypothesis.

Saldaña’s Thematic Coding

Saldaña’s (2020) thematic coding approach aids in analyzing and thematically

arranging qualitative data. It involves identifying and categorizing patterns of meaning or

themes within the data. A multi-step process begins with data collection, multiple rounds

of coding, refinement, and analysis, and ends with creating a final report. Saldaña

202
emphasized the importance of rigor and transparency in qualitative research, and his

method enjoys widespread use in fields such as sociology, psychology, education, and

anthropology due to those qualities. The first step in Saldaña’s thematic coding approach

is to familiarize oneself with the data, which involves reading and re-reading the data to

understand the content. Next, the researcher generates initial codes or keywords that

describe the content of the data. Codes generate through various means, such as

highlighting important words or phrases, writing notes, or creating a codebook.

The second step involves organizing the codes into themes. The researcher groups

similar codes to create broader categories that capture the main ideas within the data

(they may also use sub-themes to organize the codes further). Once the themes and sub-

themes emerge, themes undergo review and refinement until they accurately represent the

content of the data. The final step is to use the themes to analyze and interpret the data

presented in Chapters 4 and 5. The extensive data volume required two additional layers

added to the study. Six meta-themes were created based on the 34 themes that emerged

from the coding process. Creating those themes assisted me in distilling the content into

easier-to-handle components for the grounded theory exploration. Further, the six meta-

themes were re-categorized into two supra-themes to initiate the theory explanation

process in its simplest terms, following the principle of parsimony (also known as

Occam’s Razor; Vandekerckhove et al., 2015).

203
 Assumptions

There are many competing schools of thought regarding the foundational ideas of

grounded theory. However, Charmaz and Thornberg (2020) noted that the approach is

sometimes incorrectly seen as a “mechanical application of techniques” (p. 7). Grounded

theory is a technique that offers a thorough way to construct a theoretical framework

from evidence inductively. According to Sandelowski (2014), the object of grounded

theory research is to create new theory stemming from the research results—the goal is

not a prediction but rather the development of an abstract explanation (Charmaz, 2017).

Grounded theory is a systematic inductive or emergent method to studying

fundamental social psychological processes and how people, communities, and

organizations evolve through time (Benoliel, 1996). Glaser (1978b) defined a grounded

theory as “the systematic creation of theory from systematically gathered evidence. An

inductive or emergent strategy constructs and improves the theory. However, this may

never be the case. The grounded theory distinguishes between the confirmatory mentality

and deductive reasoning involved with hypothesis testing and the inductive mindset and

theory formation connected with the discovery process. The purpose of grounded theory

is theory construction rather than testing (Urquhart et al., 2010).

Grounded theory research occurs with the explicit goal of theorizing. According

to Sandelowski (2014), although rarely discussed by most grounded theorists, a

conceptual framework is one of many possible approaches to theorizing in a research

investigation. A conceptual framework provides a preliminary explanation for a

204
phenomenon based on synthesizing relevant literature and practical knowledge. The

researcher creates this to show the interconnectedness of the relevant literature for a

specific topic (Collins & Stockton, 2018). It reveals preconceived notions about the issue

under investigation (Maxwell, 2012). A conceptual framework typically includes ideas

from several theoretical schools of thought.

Theoretical (analytical or explanatory framework) and conceptual frameworks

differ. Empirical in nature, a theoretical framework is the product of an ideally thorough

data study. A conceptual framework is built by first contact with the literature, albeit this

needs to be more content among grounded theory specialists. A conceptual framework

has various uses and is thus likely to be revised many times over research. Objectives (a),

(b), and (c) involve identifying essential constructs and organizing data gathering to data-

gathering pine an initial coding system, respectively.

One approach to avoid forcing theory onto the interpretation of the facts is to see

it as provisional and easily revisable. Gerard’s view that theory is always incomplete,

temporary, and needing replacement with a better explanation is beneficial to adopt and

retain (Gorard, 2004). To what extent the literature is engaged at the outset of a study

without excessively biasing the researcher is still a debate among grounded theory

practitioners. In grounded theory, the problem and the opportunity lie in maintaining an

inquisitive position that welcomes discovery and fresh understanding. Grounded theory

arose as a data-driven approach to studying fundamental social and psychological

processes (Benoliel, 1996).

205
 Change through time is inherent to social and psychological processes, making

them temporal. A temporal process has “clear origins and ends, with benchmarks in

between,” as Charmaz (2014) defined. This passage of time is associated with a

transformational process. Glaser (1978a) stated that the person might serve as the unit of

study for studies of fundamental social and psychological processes. The person is the

unit of analysis in a survey on how scientists, engineers, and doctors define themselves.

Alternatively, the team itself may serve as the analytical unit in a study of group studying

not enough to verify existing information to gain insight into the processes that generate a

phenomenon. Instead, one must explain previously unseen interconnections and

connections (Van Maanen et al., 2007).

It necessitates an awareness of contextual interactions (Irwin, 2008) and the

recognition of the complexity and variety of such relationships (Charmaz, 2017).

Qualitative research structures our inquiries and analysis at the person’s level, especially

in the Western world. It may be countered by attention to social processes (Charmaz,

2017). When we shift our perspective from an inward one on individual experiences to

one that views them in terms of many overlapping environmental factors, our ability to

think logically about phenomena dramatically expands. It may be how social contexts

like families, communities, workplaces, and cultures shape our worldview. A virtually

infinite number of social and psychological processes might form the foundation of an

MM-GTM investigation. Here are a few instances of social-psychological methods:

• Evolving personal, sexual, or professional identity

206
 • Recovering from trauma

• Becoming environmentally conscious

• Re-acclimating after immersion in another culture

• Withdrawing from an abusive relationship

• Creating inclusive leadership practices

• Navigating infertility

• Learning a new technology

• Living single

• Embracing spirituality

• Seeking help to improve wellbeing

• Developing complex reasoning skills

• Navigating a new culture

• Creating corporate culture

Most shifts do not happen in a straight line in a method that can be predicted

(Mason, 2006). Different people, groups, and organizations may use different approaches

to bring about change.

Qualitative and Quantitative Techniques

Several researchers have noted the potential in either a multi-method or a mixed-

method approach to construct an explanatory framework in developing grounded theory

as a methodology, but they remain unexplored. Most researchers have backed grounded

theory techniques because they use numerous data types, including quantitative data

207
(Charmaz, 2014). For instance, Glaser (1978a) famously claimed that everything is data

to highlight the benefits of using various data sources and formats. Holton and Walsh

(2017), who advocated using quantitative data in grounded theory, also took this stance,

although they did not elaborate on how this might occur. Using both qualitative and

quantitative data creates a large area of extra empirical options for producing theory

(Holton & Walsh, 2017).

Many have drawn a more direct line between mixed methods and grounded

theory, arguing that the former may include qualitative and quantitative data analytical

approaches. For instance, Charmaz (2014) remarked, “An emergent grounded theory

might signal to require more than one sort of requirements and can contain more than one

style of analysis” (p. 124). Walsh (2015) provided a holistic picture of integration beyond

statistics, which was helpful. Using qualitative and quantitative data, procedures, and

approaches, they argued that “a [grounded theory] may be developed” (p. 127).

Data gathering and analysis strategy that aims to better comprehend complex

social phenomena by incorporating diverse viewpoints via the use of numerous data

sources and quantitative and qualitative analytical processes. Inconsistencies between

findings from multiple analyses, separate or combined, are often the first warning sign

that a phenomenon is more and subtly assumed to be used initially (Creamer, 2018a).

Researchers might use the mixed-method grounded theory methodology (MM-GTM),

which incorporates dialectical logic into the constant comparative and grounded theory

methods to create a middle-level theoretical framework or refine an existing one.

208
Qualitative research techniques frequently receive more weight than mixed methods in

MM-GTM studies that show in-depth knowledge of grounded theory as a method and

methodology.

The double capitalization of MM-GTM conveys an equal partnership in which

neither mixed methods nor grounded relegates to a secondary position during data

collection and analysis. It is part of the notation system that serves as shorthand among

methodologists with expertise in mixed methods. That mixed method comes first in this

abbreviation reflects my interests and skills rather than a declaration that one approach is

more significant than the one that seamlessly combines a variety of methods. The term

fully integrated mixed method research (FIMMR) refers to a specific methodological

approach within the realm of mixed methods studies in which the blending of qualitative

and quantitative data and analytical procedures ingrained at every stage of the study’s

development, from the generation of research questions to the selection of samples to the

analysis of results and the drawing of conclusions (Burch & Heinrich, 2017). FIMMR is a

mixed-priority design, unlike an equal-priority design, where the strands are

compartmentalized, but no one approach is superior (Creamer, 2018a).

Initially, the most advanced and dynamic of the mixed method designs described

FIMMR. A complex interplay between micro and macro levels of analysis characterizes

multi-level mixed methods research. This current decurrent slightly is compatible with

such research (Creamer, 2018a). The term dynamic underscore that research that makes

fully stated data and methodologies must often adjust to new circumstances, such as those

209
that arise inside the study environment or within the research team. The integrated mixed

method grounded theory methodology (FIMM-GTM) aims to evaluate the theoretical

framework by integrating data from several sources at various points in the research

process, including during data analyses.

Prevalence Indicators of MM-GTM

The first authors to hint at the frequency of MM-GTM were Guetterman et al.

(2017). Using standard search terms and systematic review methods, they identified 61

MM-GTM articles using qualitative and quantitative in the title or abstract. However, the

terms mixed method and multi-method went unused. Guetterman et al. compiled a list of

the characteristics of this research but wanted to be more satisfied with what they found.

It might be partly due to the search phrases they used—only approximately a third of the

articles indicated insufficient use or development of a theoretical call framework.

Most studies use insufficiently grounded theory method searches adopting

grounded theory in mixed methods study seldom relied upon all or even most of the

aspects of grounded theory,” Guetterman et al. (2017) expressed dissatisfaction with the

method (p. 10). Another requirement of MM-pervasiveness GTGTM is the number of

times it shows up in doctorate theses. Doctoral dissertations containing the terms

grounded theory and mixed methods were systematically searched for by Howell-Smith

et al. (2019). Their result revealed an average of 48 dissertations per year from 2011–

2017. From 2001–2016, the number of dissertations rose consistently but fell from 2016–

2017. Doctoral dissertations, which are now readily available via online repositories, are

210
perhaps the most significant predictor that the notion of marrying mixed techniques with

grounded theory would be successful.

Traditional Methods of MM-GTM

Johnson et al. (2010) introduced the concept of MM-GTM as a different

methodological approach. Johnson is well-known in the academic community that has

argued for the epistemological grounds of mixed methods in dialectical pluralism

Johnson et al. (2010). Johnson et al. first used the term mixed method grounded theory

(MM-GT). They made a case for how mixed methods could benefit from Glaser and

Strauss’s (1967) theory that grounded theories can emerge using qualitative or

quantitative information. Johnson et al. characterized it as a blending of two radically

opposed philosophical assumptions about knowledge formation; in their words, “MM-

GTM, as described here, is a creative and dynamic mix of objectivist and constructivist

grounded theory” (p. 126). While constructivists stress that there are frequently several

realities and everyone’s perception of them is unique, objective realists think there is a

single reality to record objectively. The conflicting demands of producing nomothetic

law-like knowledge and particularistic, local, and contextual ideographic knowledge can

be fused through MM-GTM, as Johnson et al. argued.

This method of MM-GTM is flexible enough to incorporate two distinct

paradigms due to the clear demarcation between the qualitative and quantitative stages.

This distinction between a study’s qualitative and quantitative components, as presented

by Johnson et al. (2010), is central to Johnson et al. conceptualization of MM-GTM.

211
Greene (2007) coined the phrase component design to describe this method. This way of

thinking conforms to the standard classification of mixed methods designs as

predominantly concurrent (data collection and analysis happen at the same time) or

sequential (one phase precedes and is dependent on another). However, Johnson et al.

cited triangulation as the primary motivation for employing mixed methods rather than

analytical insight. Johnson et al. delineating distinct roles for a study’s qualitative and

quantitative aspects exemplify the component design’s reasoning.

Judith Wuest’s extensive body of work detailing her 2-decade-long project to

develop a theory about family caregiving using MM-GTM follows this same reasoning,

albeit at the project rather than study level (Wuest & Hodgins, 2011). Both the qualitative

and quantitative stages were necessary. During the first stage, the focus was on quality

rather than quantity. Using grounded theory methods, finding a central construct and

developing hypotheses about its interrelationships were accomplished. When the

qualitative stage was over, it was time to move on to the quantitative one. It was

supposed to be a statistical test of how well the theories held together and how much their

connections mattered to one another.

Coding

A thorough description of the coding technique may be required to understand the

analytical approach better or highlight significant situations. Cannon (2012) analyzed an

interview transcript with a community college English language learner using

dramaturgical coding. In this essay, they described the steps used to arrive at the product:

212
a screenplay for an ethnocratic play that dramatizes the international student’s

experience. Cannon described how the data analysis supplied the basis for the subsequent

coding cycles and the play’s creation.

Dramaturgical Coding

According to Onwuegbuzie et al. (2016), the dramaturgical coding method, in

which lines receive tags with a mix of in vivo and gerund codes, reviewed the interview

transcript for coding the data. Every coded sequence gets a secondary code disclosing the

person’s thoughts, feelings, and problems. Bogdan and Biklen (1997) used this encoding

technique in 1959 (Bogdan, 1959), forming the basis for Saldaña’s (2020) method.

Objective, conflict, tactics, attitudes, subtext, and emotions are the six identifiers used in

this system (EMO).

Method of Inductive Coding

Creating subsamples of the qualitative data collection produces a data subset,

generating codes that adequately represent the data in the sample; this re-examines the

data and plugs in the regulations. One should analyze the new sample while noting any

discrepancies or blanks in the code to apply the principles just made to a new data

sample. Moreover, codes should generate from the second sample, and the researcher

should recode all replies. Return to the last step; all data has a code with completed

coding frames. Thus, the created code inserts into a coding structure.

213
Research

The flat hierarchical method treats all codes as equally specific and vital (Mao et

al., 2019). Codes are arranged in a hierarchical structure, considering their interrelation.

The top level outlines the subject, the mid-level code specifies the feeling, and the third

level describes the characteristic or unique topic related to the matter. This technique

attempts to label hierarchies for model training. Using an HTC as a Markov decision

process, the assignment policy is labeled in-depth to the suggested way to decide where

to place an object and when to end the assignment process; the assignment Policy uses

deep reinforcement learning. The best alternative approach to this problem is to solve the

puzzle of mismatches between inference model learning and training.

Both grounded theory and mixed methods are flexible in accommodating various

contexts and questions. According to Seidel and Urquhart (2013), “A grounded theory

method is a dynamic approach that is prone to idiosyncratic perception and flexible

deployment” (p. 19), emphasizing how researchers apply grounded theory to varied

settings. An investigator’s ontological and epistemological worldview, as well as the

broader social and intellectual currents that impact an era, are all reflected in the

approach they choose to use (Ralph et al., 2015). It includes formulating a grounded

theory, and mixed methods overlap in numerous ways. One may argue for MM-

uniqueness GTMs based on the regions where the two methodologies’ underlying

assumptions match. When consumers gain exposure to new products, novelty is crucial.

214
Requests deploy based on the score where they differ from the advertisements to check

how unique they are.

Research Method, Design, and Approaches

The research designs in the present study integrated mixed methods and a

grounded theory. Johnson et al. (2010) introduced the grounded theory, a practical

methodology that allows for dialectical pluralism and the quantitative, mixed-method

approach. Johnson and Walsh (2019) had a mixed grounded theory as “a research

approach that includes the development of a grounded theory using qualitative and

quantitative data. It uses elements, logics, and strategies from both GT (grounded theory)

and MR (mixed research) traditions” (Johnson & Walsh, 2019, p. 9). Johnson and Walsh

also included six basic MGT designs with exemplars from the literature to “help

beginning researchers get started in their conduct of MGT” (p. 9).

Qualitative Research Questions (Phases 1–3, all Based on the Thematic Coding

Results)

Phase 1 Qualitative Research Question

P1.RQ1) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of orchestration

challenges in innovation ecosystems?

Phase 2 Qualitative Research Question

P2.RQ2) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to building new smart cities?

215
Phase 3 Qualitative Research Questions

P3.RQ3) What are participants’ experiences with, and descriptions of, innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to precision medical treatments for

cancer?

P3.RQ4) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to financial institutions?

P3.RQ5) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to healthcare systems?

P3.RQ6) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to legal systems?

P3.RQ7) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to managing conflict?

P3.RQ8) What are participants’ experiences with, and descriptions of, innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to measuring impact in innovation

ecosystems?

P3.RQ9) What are participants’ experiences with, and descriptions of, innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to policymaking in public health?

P3.RQ10) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to transformative governance?

216
 P3.RQ11) What are participants’ experiences with, and descriptions of,

innovation ecosystems and orchestration challenges as related to measuring the input and

output of innovation ecosystems?

Quantitative Research Questions (All Part of Phase 3)

Model 1

P3.RQ12) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that information technology

systems (excluding artificial intelligence) are important in creating successful

orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Ha1: There is a statistically significant relationship between innovation ecosystem

actors’ feelings that information technology systems (excluding artificial intelligence) are

essential in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems and the dependent

variables (demographics).

Model 2

P3.RQ13) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that the technological savviness of

those operating in the ecosystem is important in creating successful orchestration in

innovation ecosystems?

Ha2: There is a statistically significant relationship between innovation ecosystem

actors’ feelings that the technological savviness of those operating in the ecosystem is

important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems and the

dependent variables (demographics).

217
Model 3

P3.RQ14) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that artificial intelligence systems

are important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Ha3: There is a statistically significant relationship between innovation ecosystem

actors’ feelings that artificial intelligence systems are important in creating successful

orchestration in innovation ecosystems and the dependent variables (demographics).

Model 4

P3.RQ15) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that data privacy and security

issues are important considerations in creating successful orchestration in innovation

ecosystems?

Ha4: There is a statistically significant relationship between innovation ecosystem

actors’ feelings that data privacy and security issues are important considerations in

creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems and the dependent variables

(demographics).

Model 5

P3.RQ16) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that collaboration and partnerships

are important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Ha5: There is a statistically significant relationship between innovation ecosystem

actors’ feelings that collaboration and partnerships are important in creating successful

orchestration in innovation ecosystems and the dependent variables (demographics).

218
Model 6

P3.RQ17) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that finances and project funding

are important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Ha6: There is a statistically significant relationship between innovation ecosystem

actors’ feelings that finances and project funding are important in creating successful

orchestration in innovation ecosystems and the dependent variables (demographics).

Model 7

P3.RQ18) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that government involvement is

important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Ha7: There is a statistically significant relationship between innovation ecosystem

actors’ feelings that government involvement is important in creating successful

orchestration in innovation ecosystems and the dependent variables (demographics).

Model 8

P3.RQ19) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that diversity, equity, inclusion,

and ethics are all important considerations in creating successful orchestration in

innovation ecosystems?

Ha8: There is a statistically significant relationship between innovation ecosystem

actors’ feelings that diversity, equity, inclusion, and ethics are all important

considerations in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems and the

dependent variables (demographics).

219
 Phases

Phase 1: Qualitative and Quantitative

Participants signed up for a one-on-one interview session on innovation

ecosystem components that took approximately 35 minutes to complete, survey question

sets, and ecosystem mapping. The sample comprised participants with backgrounds in AI

(including hardware or software engineering and data science), legal, governance,

coalition, community building, healthcare innovation, and clinical research. Snowball

sampling participants used a user interview recruiting tool and social media (LinkedIn).

Data collection commenced using semi-structured interviews and four survey sets with

open and closed-ended questions.

Phase 2: Comparing and Contrasting Orchestration and Challenges in Multiple

Ecosystems

I set up community board discussions and allowed access to all participants to see

which board discussions the participants found relevant and subsequently used.

Limitations like additional steps to onboard and participants from the user research

platform to the new platform needed to be more welcoming, thus leading to a few

moments of confusion and frustration amongst some participants. I simplified the process

by modifying the pseudo on the new platform. I assisted the participants step-step until

project completion. Community board discussions provided context by posting videos,

playbooks, and whitepapers on specific topics. Activities on the board discussion covered

the following topics:

220
 • University ecosystems

• Smart city ecosystems

• Ecosystem governance and regional development

• Global Ecosystem

• Artificial intelligence and data ecosystems

• Financial ecosystems

• Leadership, culture, and organizational capacity

• Legal ecosystem

• Cancer ecosystem

• Healthcare ecosystem

Additionally, participants that had not completed the questions from Phase 1 on

innovation ecosystem responded to a one-to-one interview concerning the smart city

ecosystem. The pool formed from Phase 1 participants from the user research platform

and social media (Linkedin) joined the pool. Sample characteristics were similar to Phase

1: participants with backgrounds in AI (including hardware or software engineering and

data science), legal, governance, coalition, community building, healthcare innovation,

and clinical research.

Phase 3: Re-visiting Concepts to Develop the Grounded Theory

The Schlesinger group provided new participants. The participants provided

background information on the level of development of their ecosystem and their

understanding of the ecosystem model. They were qualified to be part of the study based

221
on their understanding. Participants from Phases 1 and 2 were selected based on their

understanding of the ecosystem model and their positive engagement during the study. A

one-to-one interview session occurred to answer specific questions relating to multiple

ecosystem frameworks, orchestration, dynamic capabilities, governance, routines/sub-

routines, mechanisms, and processes for each of the ecosystems (e.g., legal, healthcare,

cancer, AI/data ecosystems, governance/municipal ecosystems, university ecosystems).

After completing the interview sessions, participant teams further engaged in

focus group sessions to discuss and debate the current models of ecosystem orchestration,

governance, leadership, relationships, and other components that make up the ecosystem

model. The focus groups encouraged participants to recommend additional components

to the current ecosystem orchestration frameworks and provide more depth to the

routines, mechanisms, and processes necessary to strengthen, renew, boost, and transform

the ecosystem.

Changes to Methods and Procedures

Amendments During Phase 2

I updated the user dashboard to provide more explicit instructions on project

design before the participants transitioned to the iTracks platform, where they could read

project details on the welcome page. Participants requested a clear description of the

components of the project at the time of signing up for user interviews. Participants

expressed dissatisfaction concerning excessive email notifications sent for the projects

included on the iTracks platform. Due to the complaint, I included a sign-up survey sheet

222
for participants to sign up for specific community board discussions during Phase 2. Then

I sent them the email notification from iTracks for each activity they selected to reduce

excessive email notifications.

Amendments During Phase 3

For Phase 3, I sent an email notification to each real-time project. I sent

participants an email explaining that the onboarding process for Phase 3 involved

multiple email notifications before we sent the iTracks notifications, warning them of the

excessive email notifications. I also emailed the pdf with the specific eligibility criteria

for each project to all the participants. Participants received a project manual before the

start of Phase 3. Participants received an incentive of $50–$200 for Phase 2, but that

range underwent restructuring into a package including a specific amount for each

activity.

I planned on recruiting participants for Phase 3 from the Schlesinger group, but

there was a high rate of participants from Phases 1 and 2, so I did not conduct any further

recruiting. An audit process was completed at the end of Phase 3 to confirm that all

participants received incentives for the different activities. The iTracks program

management team resent unprocessed gift cards. During Phase 2, the community board

discussions housed the questions. For Phase 3, no questions were added to the board

discussions. The boards served as a platform for additional information on the topic.

Participants attended the following sessions if they met the specific eligibility

criteria for the project and agreed to participate further. Semi-structured interviews or

223
focus group sessions occurred. A maximum of 15 participants could attend the focus

group sessions, but the actual range that attended stood at between 4–8 participants. The

following projects occurred:

• Transformative governance

• Neo-triple helix model

• Legal ecosystem

• Policy and public health ecosystems

• Healthcare ecosystem

• Financial ecosystem

• Precision medicine/cancer ecosystems

• University ecosystems

• Artificial intelligence ecosystems

• Dynamic capabilities

• Network orchestration

• Ecosystem formation/adaptive capacity/resilience

• Managing conflict/harassment/violence

• Measuring impact

• Business strategy

Participants completed a final survey to generate the data required to run the OLR

models since a common identifier could not join the initial surveys. The flexibility

offered by MM-GMT resulted in the final survey emerging from all thematically coded

224
projects. A layer of coding termed meta-themes emerged based on the global coverage

calculations, and survey questions focused on the content of those meta-themes. From the

survey data, eight ordinal logistic regression (OLR) models emerged from testing the

relationship between ecosystem actors’ responses concerning whether their sector was

crucial in creating a successful ecosystem (criterion variable) and demographic data on

the participant (predictor variables). The themes included used to inform survey

construction were:

• Team and product development and distribution

• Technology and research considerations

• Financial institution issues

• Government, legal, and regulatory considerations

• Collaboration, communication, and patient connections

• Technological infrastructure (including privacy and security controls) are

paramount issues

• Identification and prevention

• Government, private, and public sector considerations

• The dynamics of universities and external partnerships

A fourth phase existed in the data plan, but I canceled it, and the data collection

ended after Phase 3 in December 2022.

225
 Data Analysis Techniques

First, the researcher evaluates the data for both quantitative and qualitative

methods, then compares the output and separates the quantitative data from the

qualitative to get more granular information on the population. After comparing the two

methods, data collecting may commence. A methodical procedure reveals the ecological

components identified in earlier investigations. Keyword searches using phrases like

ecosystem, innovation, open innovation, and orchestrator started the investigation.

Second, I combined the key terms to create query strings. Using the inclusion and

exclusion model, I next chose the articles with the necessary data and completed a second

analysis on only those articles.

Using qualitative and quantitative methods was essential in gathering information

for the study. The study’s qualitative methodology also used semi-structured interviews

and structured observation forms. Data obtained from structured documents were clear

with the help of the semi-structured method. The form of the inquiry was to determine the

research question to provide reliable results. In contrast, the quantitative approach

gathered numerical data for statistical tests (in this research, OLR). Maxwell (2021)

argued that a quantitative methodology is necessary to generalize the findings.

Cronbach’s alpha was employed to determine the reliability of the survey data. As a

result, we can trust the results drawn by the triangulation method convergence model’s

thorough evaluation of the data (Bans-Akutey & Tiimub, 2021; Bernhard et al., 2019;

Natow, 2020).

226
 Most of the study’s respondents comprised executives, business owners, and

managers with a stake in an organization’s innovation endeavor. Each participant was in

a separate group according to the sector or industry in which their company was active.

Teachers and other faculty members play a significant role in academic institutions.

Medical professionals, researchers, and pharmacists are just a few of the many people

involved in providing healthcare in the future. Data scientists, administrators, and

engineers represented the IT sector. The participant pool included lawyers, government

advisors, and legal industry regulators.

The phases of their ecosystem growth are crucial to separate the players. Using

stratification means choosing the respondents to remove potential biases (Belotto, 2018).

Data may be understood using the qualitative method by highlighting the distinguishing

characteristics of the respondents. Through a series of questions and answers, information

about the intended audience gleans through interviews (Ritala & Gustafsson, 2018). Forty

interviewees built the study’s dataset. By adding quantitative data, more thorough and

representative sample collection leads to more reliable results. The procedure was

continuous to ensure the accuracy of the final tally.

Project Scope

Deliverables, objectives, and remaining tasks were part of the project’s scope. The

goal of this project was to define the functions of the orchestrator in orchestration.

Orchestration is crucial inside an innovation ecosystem to give collaboration and

strategy-sharing metrics. This study examined the fundamental paradigm through which

227
orchestrators manage the innovation ecosystem. The study’s literature provides a deeper

understanding of the scope, which outlines the gaps covered in this present-day study.

Chapter Summary

Each area of the chapter—introduction, project history, problem description,

study purpose, the study itself, the significance of the study, research questions and goals,

project scope, and limitation—received special attention. As the chapter opened, the

notion of an innovation ecosystem was introduced, along with some of the reasons for its

importance in modern businesses, such as the ability to stay ahead of the competition and

build alliances based on shared goals. The inquiry, which focuses on the role of

orchestration in the creative process, is set up in the other section of the project.

Additionally, Chapter 3 examined the concept of orchestrators and the various roles and

principles they may play within the innovation ecosystem to outline the issues this study

seeks to address. The chapter also includes the topic’s primary and secondary goals and

the relevant research question.

I checked the identification of the study’s intended trajectory in the research plan.

Investigating the function of orchestrators in innovation ecosystems used a mixed-method

approach, integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches. According to the current

study, triangulation design usage and validity will use a parallel mixed-method approach.

The goal, in terms of project scope, is to define the function of the orchestrator during the

orchestration phase. Moreover, the intricacy of the mixed technique has certain possible

restrictions on the study, such as difficulties in data processing and dissemination. In

228
Chapter 4, the study’s findings receive careful assessment using a range of

methodologies, including mixed methods and research design.

229
 CHAPTER IV: Findings

Chapter 4 presents study findings by research questions based on the chosen

grounded theory mixed methods and research design (MM-GTM) and associated phases

and assumptions enumerated in Chapter 3. The choice of the MM-GTM approach is to

use in-situ data collection techniques combined with quantitative methods as a means of

advancing knowledge on how a relatively small group of firms promote an innovation

ecosystem (IE) in which orchestrators create repeatable processes that create sustainable

competitive advantage through transformation. The study aimed to combine well-

established research philosophies underpinning quantitative, qualitative, and grounded

theory approaches to explore phenomena to identify commonalities of effective IE

orchestrators and create an appraisal tool. Findings presented in this chapter form the

basis for the discussion, interpretation, implications, and conclusions regarding IE

orchestrator’s essential qualities presented in Chapter 5. Results are presented by phase,

and within that structure, by research question in numerical order where possible. The

thematic coding results were such that the research questions grouped into numerical

order in a few instances. The cohesiveness of the passages below worked better by

grouping the content rather than the research questions where the need arose.

230
 Findings by Research Question

Phase 1 Qualitative Research Questions

P1.RQ1) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of orchestration

challenges in innovation ecosystems?

Descriptions of Innovation Ecosystems

The participants provided a delineation of the innovation ecosystem and their role.

According to participants, successful innovation ecosystems demand the value of

collaboration, openness, communication, information transfer, laws, regulations,

diversity, equity, and inclusion. These elements are crucial for fostering innovation and

making sure that everyone benefits from it. Furthermore, the participants asserted that

partnerships are common in the innovation ecosystem and key to innovation. According

to them, partnerships allow industry players to collaborate and acquire funding and data

for research from each other. In the long run, partnerships create a win-win situation for

involved industry players:

Many industry partnerships go on with researchers because it’s a win-win

situation. You know, as far as the researchers are concerned, they’re getting

collaboration and funding, and then also they’re getting data for their research,

and meanwhile, the company benefits.

Participant 2 contended that startups partner with academic institutions to co-

innovate by funding Ph.D. and Masters’ theses to promote innovation among student

researchers:

231
 Funding PhDs, et cetera. So I’m a little more involved in that because I was part

of that process. And so my role would be to try to progress that, acquire more

projects, and try to sustain that ecosystem of innovation.

According to Participant 2, the only way the company can effectively innovate is

by researching beyond the company, achieved through partnerships:

That knowledge of who is out there trying to do similar things to what we do and

if there’s any synergy between us. So that’s how we normally access those

resources just by investigating outside of our scope and outside of our company,

which is achieved through partnerships.

Participant 2: Apart from partnerships with learning institutions, startups also

partner with other startups to co-innovate, as contended by another participant.

Yeah, this is an interesting one. So I think hubs are important, you know, within

that specific niche; for example, startups having a niche of, you know, other

networks within the startup community helps tremendously. And, like our

coworking space, we’re allowed to work with other startups in the area. But you

know, COVID brought about kind of a roadblock for this since many people were

working from home. So I think that online forums, communities.

They added that there is a coworking center located in Boston, which is a center

of innovation. Her company makes use of that coworking space to share ideas with other

firms hence achieving innovation breakthroughs that would otherwise not have been

realized solely through reliance on its resources: “We also have our coworking space, the

232
center of innovation in Boston. The CIC is a big factor that plays into our ecosystem

because we can, So that helps with innovation 100% and the AI technology we use.”

From Participant 4’s perspective, successful innovation requires the input of

multiple stakeholders, including consultants, contractors, and implementation personnel.

The interaction of these different stakeholder groups results in knowledge transfer:

So what happens is there are contractors, there are consultants, there might be an

implementation rm, and they’re all trying to go and support the client. And then,

everyone has this sort of knowledge transfer unless the company is setting other

people to fail.

Participant 4 also held that transparency and communication play a significant

role in the innovation ecosystem: “When folks are more transparent and providing a lot of

opportunity to discuss technology, they’re able to leverage their ecosystem kind of, and a

lot of it is around communication.”

Participant 5 indicated that the company they work for partners with the clients to

develop innovative sustainable solutions: “We do drive some innovation, as I said, you

know, focusing on sustainability and things like that, but we also generally work with our

customers. So it’s a give and takes.” Apart from partnerships with clients, one of them

contended their company also partners with other companies to develop innovative

solutions for clients: “There is a lot of knowledge sharing between companies. One thing

our company is really big in is there is a group called the Adhesives and Sealants

Council.”

233
 They mentioned that partnerships between academic and non-academic

institutions are important for innovation within the healthcare sector in which her

company specializes:

The approach would be there are research partnerships. Partnerships with

companies, not academic institutions, might provide some patient care services.

For example, there is a company focused on treating diabetes, and they offer

health coaching. They offer different ways of tracking blood sugar.

Selim also mentioned the partnership between her company and a big academic

institution: “We partner with a bigger academic institution called Ferret Hospital. Our

main role in the innovation institution of it’s actually. Unfortunately, it’s not as large as

possible because most of the innovation comes from them to us.”

The participant described the type of firm that his company would partner with in

the innovation ecosystem: According to them, a potential firm that they would partner

with is one that focuses on a particular innovation that is of interest to them: “So an RM

is something that, like an RM that you’ve partnered with that is like at least done this,

like a consulting company, but like more focused on this innovation.”

Building of Smart Cities

The participants revealed that the innovation ecosystem contributes immensely to

building smart cities that can boost efficiency and production, improve the quality of life

for its residents, and lower operating expenses. Many large cities experience

234
development, inclusion, housing, security, infrastructure, climate, and transport

challenges. Some of the key solutions may emerge by developing smart cities.

“A smart is essential because it is open to research and innovation ecosystems that

entail a wide range of people and stakeholders. I believe that Smart contributes

immensely to multiculturalism and multidisciplinary aspects.”

Another participant cited the following the aspects

I think there are innovation gaps that exist when it comes to the establishment of

smart cities. Innovation ecosystems can seal these innovation gaps. For there to be

smart cities, there is a need for the integration of human intelligence, which can

foster collaboration within the cities.

Several participants asserted that smart cities are only possible through innovation

ecosystems that can bring human intelligence.

Orchestrators in Various Roles

Participants identified various types of orchestrators of innovation. One of the

participants identified researchers as among the key orchestrators of innovation.

Participant P also indicated that companies that provide funding for innovation as key

orchestrators in the innovation ecosystem:

Yeah, so when we say orchestrators, I’d have to think about whom that’s referring

to. You know, if we cite, orchestrators are talking about the researchers who are

initiating the project. Sorry, talking about the companies providing the funding.

235
 A participant also identified experts in various fields as orchestrators in the

innovation ecosystem. In particular, the participant gave an example of her role in the

innovation process: “I work as a technical lead. I do that in data science. I try to create

that strategic road map and have a lot of conversations with the vice president.” Another

participant also identified herself as an orchestrator since they are actively involved in the

innovation process: “I tend to be pretty involved in our technology group or, you know,

lab as a whole.”

Participants identified their own company as an orchestrator in the innovation

ecosystem. However, the participant did not specify the actual role that his company

plays in the innovation ecosystem: “I would say we normally act as the orchestrators, but

it is just because probably we’re bigger players, let’s say, than the people we collaborate

with.”

A participants identified his company’s directors as the main orchestrators of

innovation. According to participants, the directors are the ones that decide to finance

particular innovation ideas:

So we, in the pharmacy department, the directors, are primarily the people who

will say yes or no, right? So we have two directors. There’s a clinical director, and

then there’s a senior director that takes more of the big-picture financial stuff with

it, right?

236
Difficulties Orchestrators Face

Orchestrators need help with implementing innovative ideas. Participant P

identified lack of approval and endorsement as one of the challenges that orchestrators

face: “But I also, without my work, you know, the wheel doesn’t turn, and money doesn’t

get dispersed, and research doesn’t get approved and doesn’t happen.” Participant P

added that some ideas did reach implementation efficiently: “That’s the biggest thing. It’s

being able to implement it and being able to implement it efficiently.” Participants also

held that the bigger players sometimes do not care about creating a win-win situation,

discouraging innovators: “I think in the hospital setting, this is difficult because I feel like

a lot of these big players don’t care about a win-win.

Characteristics of Orchestrators and Leaders

Participants identified several attributes distinguishing orchestrators from other

innovation ecosystem players. Participant Y described an orchestrator as someone who

coordinates different roles to ensure an innovation idea achieves implementation

successfully:

So the difference between an orchestrator is someone that’s usually on top of the

whole game, right, and they have so many different connections. They’re trying to

coordinate all the key efforts for this long-term vision that they’re seeing that

maybe not everyone else is seeing. And then, within the same company, you also

have innovators that may be innovating in different capacities and may be on the

237
 same project or, you know, on a different project. So how did that may orchestrate

that wears multiple hats, and you could think about the orchestration.

In another interview, Joshua identified orchestrators as higher education

institutions that provide the knowledge and resources for innovation: “Department of

Education. The community-based organizations and the funding providers play a

secondary role, but the orchestrators, I would say, are the actual higher education

institutions. That leads the way in research.” Participant W, however, identified good

company managers as orchestrators. According to Participant W, good company

management skills characterize orchestrators: “Well, the best thing is to have good

project managers at your company.”

Problems and Risks for and Within the Organization

The findings obtained revealed several challenges associated with innovation.

One of the key challenges raised was market risk. Participants argued that every

innovative product faces market risk; the product could end up failing in the market, thus

translating into losses to the innovators and orchestrators:

Well, I think the biggest market risk would be to develop a technology that is

unsuitable for the consumer, which is always a risk when you’re trying to

innovate or have these projects and conversations about new technologies to bring

to the market. So yeah, I think product t is probably the biggest risk we need to

assess, and we probably want to.

238
 Participants added that there is a lot of uncertainty in innovation, particularly

concerning the performance of the innovative product in the market: “Obviously, with

innovation, there’s lots of uncertainty, but we’re also an established company, and so it’s,

I would put it in the middle.” Laura also identified uncertainty in the market as a key

factor affecting successful innovation. Laura used the Covid-19 pandemic as an example

of external environmental factors that may hinder innovation: “Well, the uncertainty

comes from COVID because COVID can wipe out the whole department, and then

there’s nothing. I think that’s the only thing we fear nowadays; otherwise, it hasn’t

happened yet.”

Participant Y also identified market risk as a significant challenge to innovation:

“Yeah, we just saw some market risks by taking pulse checks every two weeks to every

month of the labor market in the United States.” Participant Y added that her company

had implemented a system where they regularly check the market risk of their innovative

product. However, Participant Y did not specify how regularly checking the market

performance of the innovative product helps them address market risk: “So we assess

technology risks; seeing how many people within our demographic are active on their

phones, have phones, have smartphones and are, you know, willing to download apps.”

Participant Y described a challenge associated with innovation from the consumer

perspective. Particularly, they focused on the experience of a consumer who purchases an

innovative product that does not solve the problem:

239
 But now it’s too late, right? You’ve already bought the equipment. We’ve, you

know, purchased the software. All this stuff, right? So I think a lot of it can be

solved from the beginning. So, when you ask the vendor that question, you can

get rid of them. If they don’t do that thing, right? So then you’re so I think a lot of

that’s one of the things that I think a lot of

Participants also held a similar perspective as Participant Y concerning the

challenges associated with innovation. Participants imagined a situation where an

innovative technology adds more work instead of bringing efficiency:

Sometimes new innovation is brought in and adds more work. It doesn’t

streamline anything, and it’s just one extra thing. So I mean value created would

be streamlining something and taking work off, which is in the hospital setting. I

mean, I rarely ever see that happen. It’s always added more.

Participant 12 identified technology risk as another challenge facing innovation.

In particular, Joshua identified cyber-security risk as a technology risk impeding

successful innovation: “The technology risk, I would just say the cyber security issue is a

big factor.”

Participant W identified an ethical risk associated with innovation in the medical

and healthcare domains. According to Participant W, some medical innovations require

patient samples, which may be unethical: “And risk using patient samples. I’ve been in

clinical environments, and there’s an ethical risk.”

240
Phase 2 Qualitative Research Question

P2.RQ2) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to building new smart cities?

Using the Ecosystem Method to Build Smart Cities

Participants described smart cities as being characterized by green trends. The

term ‘green,’ as used by participants, referred to the efficient use of energy, particularly

from renewable sources such as solar. Participant P described smart cities as

characterized by energy-efficient housing units: “But when I see some of the

development going on, multi-use housing and energy-efficient stuff.” Participant P also

acknowledged much research concerning grazing sheep under solar panels: “We have

people doing research with grazing sheep under solar, solar panels, you know.”

They also discussed sustainable energy use, such as through recycling: “Or

recycling to kind of help with that sort of sustainability and then kind of like this

suffering compost.” While another participant acknowledged that there is a lot of green

space in contemporary cities, they were also concerned with the walkability of these

cities: “We have a lot of green space, but we don’t have a lot of really walkable cities.”

From Participant XX’s perspective, smart architecture, such as green roofs and lighter

exteriors, characterizes future cities. According to another participant, current cities

already have some of the attributes of potential future smart cities, such as thermostats:

Well, we have a lot of bits and pieces of that already. You know, things like

thermostats that can automatically cycle power off and on. I think definitely our

241
 energy use is going to have to change. We’re going to have to use more renewable

energy, especially smart buildings. A lot of people think AI, but I think smart

architecture, you know, green roofs, lighter exteriors.

Participants mentioned the green mobility of cities: “In terms of trends of cities

that I am aware, um obviously green mobility of cities, I think that’s quite a big push at

least here in my city, and in all cities in the UK I’ve cited as well as other parties in

Europe.” Participant Y also mentioned the green mobility of smart cities: “So I would

say, you know, the green movement is, you know, everything. How do we operate in a

way that’s better for the planet and greener? How do we champion the underserved?”

Participant X1 had a slightly different conceptualization of the ‘green trend’ in

modern cities. According to Participant X1, one of the key attributes of the green trend is

the vegan movement, where everyone wants to be vegan: “That’s a trend right now,

everyone wanting to be vegan and stuff. And I like that trend.”

Participant X12 desired more solutions to make contemporary cities greener.

Some of the ideas that Participant X12 raised that would make contemporary cities

greener include rooftop gardens and community gardens near parking lots: “I would love

to see rooftop gardens. They’re doing more with old parking lots and things and making

community gardens.” Participant X12 imagined a building where they would regularly go

to the rooftop and plant and harvest some peppers: “It’s like, no, I’m going to go up on

the roof, which is a lovely place, and I’m going to plant and harvest some peppers.”

242
Participant G also raised the idea of greenways: “Making it easier for people to go for a

walk on a sidewalk or on greenways or things like that.”

Participant J believed that more needs to be done to contemporary cities to make

them greener. According to Participant J, accessing fresh fruits and vegetables in a

typical contemporary city is difficult. In that way, people are denied the opportunity to

live healthy lives:

There’s not even something like fresh fruits and vegetables in many communities.

It makes it very hard to build a healthy community like that because it does not

give people many choices. It’s not giving people the opportunity to be healthy and

does things that will make them healthier.

Participant C also acknowledged the need to improve contemporary cities’ ‘green’

nature. From Participant C’s perspective, one way through which modern cities could be

made greener is through rewarding construction companies that use ‘green’ materials in

their construction projects:

I think that also starts with some of these small businesses and businesses that

they would partner with for construction or reward them for having green

materials. Let’s empower the community that we already have if someone wants

to come in and build.

Remote Working as a Trend

Remote working is another crucial attribute of smart cities, as evidenced by the

participants’ responses. Participant P held that shortly, companies will see no need to

243
have their employees commute to work: “I think people, companies especially, are going

to be like, well, why do we need to y someone here.” Participants also held similar views

as Participant P, claiming that many companies endorse remote work since it allows

employees to work for some companies regardless of their physical location. They stated,

“Now obviously with remote is a little bit easier in a way because people can still work

for some companies from different locations.”

Participant Y also mentioned that remote work and less commuting portray future

cities: “Yeah, I think that trends that will shape future cities, I mean we’re seeing, you

know, extreme population growth that’s going to be a big one as well as remote work, so

less commuting.” Nathan also mentioned remote work as an attribute of modern cities.

Participant Y used the COVID -19 pandemic as an example. During the COVID -19

period, many companies allowed some of their employees to work remotely: “The only

thing that good that has happened in the last couple of years is with COVID. There’s

much more remote work, so much traffic is going away.” Unlike other participants, such

as Participant Y, who insisted that remote working is already a reality. For instance, Y

acknowledged that he and his wife mostly work remotely; they stated:

Jobs in a lot of cases. I mean, my work is mostly remote. My wife’s work is

mostly remote, with a couple of days in the office. A lot of the people that we

have as friends. There are people that are entirely remote.

244
Technology in Smart Cities

Advanced intelligence, such as artificial intelligence (AI) systems, also depicts the

smart city. Participants recounted experiences interacting with various advanced

technologies in contemporary smart cities. For instance, Participant P mentioned the

presence of AI systems in smart cities:

An AI is only as good as this algorithm, and it’s only as good as the people that

program the other algorithm, and it’s only as good as the depth and breadth of the

data that went into that algorithm.

Participant P also talked about the need for intelligent public transport system

design: “Again, public transit depends on funding, and it depends on intelligent design,

depends on stakeholders.” According to Participant Y, smart cities are also characterized

by advanced surveillance systems for security purposes: “Take on any unrest. That is,

police officers rely on a lot of times cameras.”

Participant Z also insisted that in the future smart cities, AI will be incorporated in

everything, including governing citizens, thanks to technological advancement: “So it’s

relevant because of our technological advancements. AI is incorporated into everything,

and with any city and governing of citizens, you know that that law-and-order kind of

aspect, how do we, how do we merge the two?”

A participant also indicated that technology in smart cities can collect data to

maintain a safe neighborhood. “Make it a safe neighborhood and capture data around for

there.” A participant identified WiFi and the Internet as an aspect of contemporary smart

245
cities. At one point, a participant described how Google provided free WiFi to all

residents of San Francisco: “Maybe being backed in by a large player in this space like,

for example, Google had a one time they give free WiFi to everyone in San Francisco.”

Participants looked at how modern technology can address problems in

contemporary cities—problems such as transport costs and inadequate and expensive

housing. Participants contended that technology would be instrumental in addressing

these problems in future smart cities:

Well, I think in terms of actions like the cities that there are cities that are quite

crowded. So, in terms of actions, affordability of housing, affordability of

transport, improvement of transport, resisting missions, that’s kind of the action

that I think cities are taking and will need to take in the future, and the role of

technologies to enable that.

Participants contended that connectivity and customization describe future smart

cities:

Just device connectivity everywhere you go. Like you need to be able to be kind

of because the Internet is going to rule everything. I think the future city will be

customized to what you want.

246
Phase 3 Qualitative Research Questions

P3.RQ3) What are participants’ experiences with, and descriptions of, innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges as related to precision medical treatments for

cancer?

Innovations Must be Scalable

When developing AI innovations, developers and orchestrators must consider the

future expansion ability of the innovations. From the participants’ responses, making AI

innovations scalable is necessary, considering future implications. Participant XX, for

instance, mentioned the need for AI developers to remain open-minded. According to this

participant, an AI system originally designed to solve a particular problem may end up

solving another completely different problem:

That’s why we talked about having the delimitation priority because maybe you

create a new strategy to help reduce hospital visits, but you and that it reduces

homelessness, whatever. So, you have to be able to open to identify that and be

like, hey, maybe this isn’t really the right t for this, but we can see some natural

linkages in this direction and be open to being flexible.

Participant XX also mentioned the importance of innovators considering the

scalability of their innovations. Participant XX particularly stated as follows:

And you know, innovation is something that, you know, it’s going to come

simple. You know, anybody can automate something; that’s not the problem. But

you really want to make sure what you’re automating is correct, and it’s scalable

247
for the future because, obviously, that’s gonna change, as we all learned several

years ago.

They continued:

So they rerun a test and then find something that they’ve never would have

thought of before, you know. So yeah it’s tumor sequencing is currently too

expensive, but I think that there are making it; the sensors that have the resource

or have developed certain testing. You know, foundation medicine is a company

that also runs these types of testing, but they’re like super expensive and

sometimes take months to get back to you. Whereas when we run it at home, we

can get the results within like 4 weeks.

Timing emerged as a factor in innovation and scaling scheduling:

They find out they have maybe potential cancer, and they just run away. Like, Oh

my God, we could be under financial pressure, too, right? It could be a stigma.

You know, for some people, societal pressures can influence their perception of

healthcare.

And individualization should be a part of scaling:

Primary care doctors should be able to introduce an approach to individualize the

prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the illness. Patients should understand the

mechanisms by which most illnesses occur to work toward prevention.

248
Privacy and AI Limitations

Innovators need to understand the privacy limitations associated with this

technology when developing AI systems. Participants described various privacy

limitations associated with AI development. Participant XX described the need for

innovators and AI developers to consider possibilities of data breach and potential legal

violations that could arise: “malware attacks, you know, you have, you know, data being

stolen, HIPAA violations, things like that.” Participant XX reiterated that AI innovators

must explain how their clients’ data is stored, where it is stored, and how it is used:

Your data clearly specifies where your data is going to go. So maybe I don’t even

say location or usability, just a very clear description or clear waiver on what’s going to

be happening to your data, and also the description of what happens to your data in the

future.

Participant XX also mentioned that AI innovators need to ensure they have proper

credentials before accessing data. Innovators also need to ensure they have implemented

data protection mechanisms to prevent data loss or data breaches:

With healthcare and the data watch privacy, there’s a lot of, you know, getting

access to the data and making sure you’ve got the proper credentials and

information barriers in place to make sure that you don’t lose data in that AI has

to be airtight because you’re going to get audited multiple times and having all

that information will make the doctor’s life a lot easier.

249
P3.RQ4) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems related to financial institutions?

Financial Institutions

Innovation within the financial space manifests through technologies such as

peer-to-peer payments and automated portfolio management. However, access to

financial services is limited in some areas. Participants contended that certain groups of

people have difficulty accessing financial services. Participant X2 recommended a

mediation group to examine the critical issues affecting access to financial services

among disadvantaged groups. One of the possible reasons for difficulty accessing

financial services includes the lack of internet connectivity. Participant X2 stated as

follows:

Who needs funding? Let us help you with that small little piece. It could be

Internet access in other areas. Like there are all these groups doing all this

movement work, and they’re not online; no one can find them when you do

searches that there’s nothing. So let us connect to that piece. And it’s a different

approach. So I think a specialized mediation group to recognize the individual

gaps in different areas is important because not everyone is underserved for the

same reasons.

According to Participant X2, the lack of internet connectivity is part of the limited

access to financial services in specific communities. Participant X2 expounded that

nearly 50% of the world population needs access to the Internet, undermining their ability

250
to access financial services mostly availed through the Internet. They stated, “I would say

broadband access, you know, so I think 50% of the world does not have access to the

Internet. And that exponentially impacts women and girls.”

Participant X2 also raised the issue of inadequate digital skills to enable people

from disadvantaged groups to access financial services. According to Participant X2,

people need more digital skills to access financial services: “I think the second thing is

digital skills. You know, not everybody has the knowledge to education, whatever, the

money, whatever it may be, to know, how do you use the tools in front of you.”

Participant X2 held that geographical location might affect an individual’s ability

to access financial services. For instance, participant X2 considered less developed

countries in Africa and Asia where a considerable portion of the adult population does

not even have bank accounts:

So, when it comes to financial services, such as bank accounts, let’s say it could

have to do with your geographical location—for example, a quick example. See a

country like many of those in rural areas in Asia, Africa, a kit, and occasionally

some The Ocean countries. You take those, and many citizens don’t even have a

bank account.

While some people may have the skills and knowledge of financial services, their

financial status prevents them from accessing financial services such as credit.

Supporting this claim, participant X2 stated as follows:

251
 Financial services are made more accessible and subpopulations by having it, so

by having a big, it’s big education aspect. When it comes to financial services, a

lot of people like, I’ll take credit, for example. So you have poor credit or credit

score, that’s not in a place where you want to be or a place that’s preventing you

from getting things like a car, a house, a car; I think a lot of that ties in education.

Participant X2 emphasized limitations concerning access to certain financial

services for some people who either do not have enough history or are negatively rated

by financial rating agencies: “If you either don’t have enough history or your history is

not viewed as good, that can serve as a bar to getting access to something as simple as a

checking account balance.”

Customers Want Information and Need to Feel Secure

Security is a significant challenge in the financial services sector. Financial

service providers hold critical information such as their client’s credit card numbers,

names, and location details. Thus, clients are concerned about information security and

the possibility of accidental data delivery to unwanted third parties. Participants in this

study raised this issue, indicating that clients in the financial services sector are

particularly concerned about their information security. Participant X2 contended that

clients of financial services firms want to feel comfortable. They also want the assurance

that their service providers are legitimate: “To feel more comfortable and not even

comfortable with, like, you know, to see how legitimate you were indicating things are if

that is a demand that a stakeholder might have.”

252
 Clients also want more information about what their financial service providers

are doing. Such clients are constantly communicating with the service provider, as

indicated by participant X2: “If they individuals that want to know exactly what the

outcome of our product is what we’re doing, you know, they’re always in constant

communication.”

According to Participant X2, a good financial services provider should expose

their clients to information that could potentially help them attain financial literacy:

Exposure. You can teach financial literacy by exposing individuals to

information, whether it is providing the information or kind of guidance; as you

know, you’re trying to learn different things. Do some individuals learn as they go

as they do? So I think that’s, that’s, that’s a good way to teach financial literacy.

Exposure.

Participant X2 held that financial literacy is important to clients as it helps them

realize the different options. When they have this knowledge, they can make more

financially informed decisions:

So, I think it’s all about knowledge of, you know, various options that can help

provide more calming and be more resilient and personally by utilizing some of

those options available to them, or at least considering them. That’s how I see it.

Participant X2 further argued that giving out information to clients helps them to

gain access to certain financial services whose access procedure is sometimes unclear:

253
 I would say that there are a couple of things here that are relevant when it comes

to education, that frequently is not a clear linear progress where when you access

a financial service, you need some knowledge of the existing financial service to

go out and acquire that financial service or to know how and where to sign up for

that financial services.

While providing financial information is helpful to clients, the source of that

information is equally important. According to Participant X2, clients are more likely to

trust information from banks rather than small financial institutions with legitimacy

questions: “Banks are trustworthy. So, if they dish out the information, we can improve.”

With too much information outside there, clients must understand how to spot

legitimate information and distinguish it from fake, predatory information. Participant X2

stressed the need for clients to understand valid and false information: “Being able to spot

when something is a scam or not, I think that the other thing, too, is how many of us do a

great job saving and preparing for the future.”

P3.RQ5) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to healthcare systems?

Approaches and Allocation of Resources at the Primary Care Level

Participants described various innovations in the screening and treatment of

cancer. Participant X1 indicated that innovations for screening and early detection of

cancer now exist: “Screening and early detection and active.” Participant X1, however,

highlighted the need for innovations regarding proper cancer screening guidelines: “The

254
right guidelines for the screening should take the National Academies of Medicine also

pushing for the same. Now it is incumbent upon our PCP and our GPs, our primary care

physicians, and our general practitioners too.”

Participant X1 also devised a new innovative idea to improve cancer screening

rates. According to these participants, employers can indirectly play a role by setting

aside specific days for cancer screening purposes:

Screening procedures in their routine yearly checkup visits, and it’s something

that we shouldn’t completely rely on healthcare participants for. But we should

also encourage employers to play a role in that, where employers may have

national screening days at large for large or even smaller employers, the same

way employers may have a national blood drive.

Participant X1 highlighted the need for innovators in the cancer treatment domain

to focus on developing innovative ways for precision screening as well as precision

therapies for early detection and treatment of cancer: “So how can we help or push more

precision screening or precision therapies right that is focused on targeting genetic

mutations molecular.” Participant X1 also contended that innovators in the cancer

treatment sector must focus on developing preventative measures to shield people against

developing cancers: “You need to get out into the eld. You need to bring those

preventative measures to the communities because I think often.”

Participant X1 also came up with an innovative way to improve cancer screening.

According to the participant, there is a need for a sub-specialty called primary care

255
oncology that would exclusively focus on screening and early detection of cancer: “So

those screenings that are very specific to these different areas as far as cancer treatment

goes, they need to, we need to get maybe we need to have a sub-specialty called primary

care oncology, you know.”

Financial and Insurance Considerations

Cancer treatment is costly; hence innovators need to focus on reducing the cost of

cancer drugs. Participants described various financial and insurance considerations of

cancer treatment. First, participants described the need for the government to fund

programs and subsidize cancer treatment. Participant X1, for instance, considered a

scenario where a patient pays for their medications in case they intend to seek a second

opinion:

But say this doctor, I’m just making it up, is not as knowledgeable as I had hoped.

And then, as a result, I want a second opinion, and my insurance will not cover

that. And as a result, who would want to pay almost out of pocket for things

Demonstrating the effectiveness of funding cancer treatment programs.

Participant X1 described a particular organization that has received funding for several

years. According to Participant 1, the organization has developed several cancer drugs for

treating conditions such as Melanoma:

[Melanoma] has had many years of funding and clinical trials, and they’ve done a

lot of work, and they have a lot of, you know, the not over-the-counter but no

longer needing FDA approval drugs. They have a lot of drugs that can be offered

256
 as part of the standard of care. The same goes with breast medicine, I think, and

probably prostate, I would say, are the top three, and Melanoma.

Participant X1 acknowledged that cancer medications are costly. As such,

participant X1 contended that there is a need for doctors and oncologists to increase

patients’ access to precision therapies: “And at the end of the day, you know, it’s so

costly that it’s almost impossible that you have that much money to cover some of these

costs.”

While stressing the need for funding to subsidize cancer treatment, participant X1

described the testing process as expensive. According to Participant X1, the cost of each

screening test is greater than the cost of purchasing the screening machine: “You know,

this lab tour, and she, the lab director [said], we have six machines. This machine was

like $150,000. And then this was even crazier; the machine costs $150.00 but running the

test costs $30,000.”

To demonstrate how expensive cancer treatment is, participant X1 recalled

encountering patients flying from Seattle to New York City every two weeks to receive

cancer treatment. Participant X1 argued that the cost of accessing cancer care is high and

not everyone can afford it:

Some people were flying from Seattle every 2 weeks for a weekend to get

treatment, which was totally within their budget. It wasn’t a dent in the well for

them. Not everybody can do that, you know, not everybody can say every 2

257
 weeks, I got to go to New York City to get treatments for the weekend. I’ll be

back.

While insurance covers exist, participants argued they are a significant barrier to

effective cancer treatment. For instance, participant X1 argued that most insurance

services do not cover complex services such as cancer treatment: “But most insurance

companies don’t cover all the services involved, really, the more complex services.”

Participant X1 added that insurance companies do not easily approve certain medical

conditions: “Insurance companies make it too difficult for approval. Cancer isn’t a

growing, everyday disease that we may not know what’s happening. So you almost have

to treat.” Participant X1 also argued that some insurance companies use complex jargon

that consumers do not understand. As such, consumers may purchase services not

covered under cancer treatment: “Make the insurance jargon simple enough for

consumers to understand what they are purchasing.”

Healthcare and Cultural Diversity

Understanding cancer progression and treatment from different cultural

perspectives is important. Generally, participants argued that cancer might develop and

progress differently in people from different cultural backgrounds. People from different

cultural backgrounds may also respond differently to cancer medications. Understanding

these cultural dynamics concerning cancer screening and treatment is important for

effectively managing the disease. For instance, participant X1 raised a concern that

minority communities may be more vulnerable to carcinogens than dominant

258
communities: “I think in healthcare is maybe there’s also concern that maybe minority

communities, they may be more vulnerable.”

Participant X1 also described a case where African American and Hispanic

communities were complaining about cancer awareness messages not reaching them:

“Relations in our metropolitan area, which tended to be Hispanic and African American,

and the feedback was well, the message is not coming from people who look like us.”

Participant X1 also argued that cancer awareness messaging has predominantly targeted

Whites in the United States: “Cancer awareness has predominantly been a white thing,

especially in America.”

According to Participant X1, understanding cultural differences may also assist

healthcare providers in offering culturally-sensitive care. For instance, participant X1

contended that in the Spanish communities, the type of sickness is normally not disclosed

to the patients, especially if they are elderly: “I mean, like one thing that is very common

is in Spanish communities when an elder is sick, they don’t tell them.” Participant X1

added that in the Hispanic and Latino communities, disclosing the type of illness an

elderly patient is suffering from is akin to burdening the patient with a thought they

should not have:

I think that that is very common, and if you survey Latinos and Hispanic

individuals, you’ll get a like a 95% of them would be like, yes, this is true. I

mean, even in my own family, I saw them tell my grandfather he was new. No,

you’re this is you only have a small thing, and you mean prostate cancer, that’s

259
 not a small thing. And then, no, why would we want to burden him with that

thought?

Participant X1 highlighted the need for ensuring all communities are included in

clinical trials to ensure the drugs eventually developed are applicable across the board:

It’s specific to how we enhance diversity in clinical trials. And that would get you

to Louisiana, you know, get yourself to Ohio, but don’t just go to one part of

Ohio; go to the densely black population in Ohio as well. When you go to

California, make sure that you’re doing a lot of outreach in the Mexican

community because there’s a large population of them, but also, in the north,

there’s a big population of Vietnamese.

Lastly, participant X1 indicated that cancer research retains elements of racial

biases, making it difficult for people of color to be protected. They claimed that “there is

racial bias in previous research, so it is not exactly known how people of color can be

protected.”

P3.RQ6) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to legal systems?

Borders and Legalities

Innovation ecosystems related to artificial intelligence face the significant hurdle

of borders and legalities. Participants described various legal and border-related

challenges that hamper the successful implementation of innovations from the AI lens.

260
Participant XX indicated that the creation of industry borders prevents the effective

implementation of AI:

And often, you know, I think, really trying to create specific boundaries around

industries. It’s a losing game to me because you’re always not to be right.

Because the essence is different ecosystems interact with various levels of

degrees. So you could map out, you know, gradients of how they interact. But

when you’re coming up with an AI solution, recognize where it begins, and allow

it to trail out to wherever it will naturally impact. Just honest.

Participant XX also raised the issue of legal compliance when developing and

implementing AI. According to this participant, there are a lot of grey areas when it

comes to the implementation of technologies such as AI hence the need for tighter

regulations: “When it’s coming like community, AI, technology, space, as I said, there is

a lot of a grey area can be kind of hairy when it comes to you know, complying with

things.”

Ethics and the Legal System. The innovation process has many legal and ethical

implications. In this theme, participants described various ethical and regulatory

considerations that innovators, orchestrators, and other stakeholders should consider

during their innovation journey. Participant X5, for instance, contended that their job is to

ensure adherence to ethics when research and development occur. In particular,

participant X5’s main role is to ensure minimal risk of human harm during innovation

research and development: “And then I come in, and my agreement is OK. My job is to

261
try to ensure that people don’t get too carried away about a research project and that a

human doesn’t get hurt as a result.”

Participant X5 described a new module his organization has implemented to

ensure all research studies comply with appropriate regulations. Participant X5 insisted

that his role encompasses reviewing research proposals to ensure they are ethical and

comply with appropriate federal regulations:

So one of the major elements we’ve just recently put in place in February is called

the rat, the system, and the entire Ras module; it’s called the Research

Administration support service. So it’s a cloud-based module that enables

compliance across all regulatory functions. So, my function in the IRB is to

ensure that research with human participants is done ethically and following

federal regulations, and we also have the institutional.

Participant X5 clarified that all research in their organization must comply with

the appropriate federal laws regardless of whether the federal government funded it. They

stated, “By nature of that, even though we have a lot of research that is not federally

funded, we apply the same ethical and regulatory standard regardless to all the research

that happens here.” Participant X5 emphasized the need for government regulation, citing

too much power wielded by private corporations, which balance emerges only through

proper regulation. They continued, “I think the private industries are way too powerful,

and the only way to balance them is to push for government regulation.”

262
P3.RQ7) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to managing conflict?

Managing conflict in innovation ecosystems requires a delicate balance between

encouraging diverse perspectives and resolving differences constructively. It is important

to create an environment where individuals feel safe expressing their opinions and ideas

while promoting open communication and collaboration. Conflict resolution techniques

such as mediation, negotiation, and compromise can be useful in resolving disputes and

finding mutually beneficial solutions. Additionally, fostering a culture of transparency

and accountability can help prevent conflicts from arising in the first place. Effective

conflict management can lead to stronger relationships and more successful innovation

outcomes. Participant P recommended:

Sit everybody together at the same time when the conflict is and ask people to that

they have that they can speak freely and say, what they think, and where the end,

they have people trying to resolve the problem. Just not as much as possible, not

with the authority or not with the people up; it can be with the person. Okay, I

already did this in it was me to solve the problem if the people could not solve the

problem. And it worked well, and the two people that were with the problem

managed to find the solution that everybody agreed.

Participant X3 also added:

You have different societal social norms, morals, and values in different cultures

and different places and different regions around the world, even within

263
 individual countries, different laws governing certain behaviors; it can be tough to

go back to the bigger ecosystem; it can be tough to have a core set of commonly

understood rules of what’s acceptable behavior, what’s professional, and how to

resolve conflicts and what’s appropriate and what’s not. I’m sure there are

different takes on that where you go around the world.

Cultural differences can create unique challenges when managing conflict in

innovation ecosystems. Cultural values and norms shape how individuals perceive and

respond to conflict, making understanding and respecting these differences important.

Leaders should strive to create a culture of inclusion and diversity that encourages open

communication and recognizes the value of different perspectives. Active listening and

empathy can also be valuable in navigating cultural differences and finding common

ground. In addition, having a diverse team with a range of cultural backgrounds can

provide various insights and approaches to conflict management. Ultimately, successfully

managing conflict in a culturally diverse innovation ecosystem requires a willingness to

learn, adapt, and appreciate different viewpoints.

Participant XX noted, “I think that culture plays a big role in whether it’s conflict

or violence, or just the way that people work together to get things done, and how

they communicate with one another. Cultural differences should be taken into

consideration so as to improve tolerance and accommodation.

264
P3.RQ8) What are participants’ experiences with, and descriptions of, innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges as related to measuring impact in innovation

ecosystems?

P3.RQ11) What are participants’ experiences with, and descriptions of, innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges as related to measuring the input and output

of innovation ecosystems?

Measuring impact and inputs/outputs in innovation ecosystems can be complex

and multifaceted. It requires identifying and tracking key performance indicators (KPIs)

relevant to the ecosystem’s specific goals and objectives. KPIs may include metrics such

as the number of new startups created, jobs generated, investments attracted, or patents

filed. It is also important to consider innovation’s broader social and environmental

impacts, such as sustainability, equity, and community engagement. Collecting and

analyzing data over time is necessary, and using that information to inform decision-

making and drive continuous improvement for metric creation and use. Additionally,

engaging stakeholders in the measurement process can help build trust and accountability

and ensure that the ecosystem aligns with the needs and priorities of its constituents.

Participant Z noted:

You know, people can see what you know your metrics were your output has

been and how you know whatever the effort, the money, the time, you know the

people, blah blah blah. However, that you know connects to whatever it is you’re

trying to achieve. And so if everyone’s sharing transparent data, you can better

265
 identify actually what the results are in a world that’s impacted by multiple

innovations at one time. So you’re not setting everything in a silo, and you can get

more accurate results that way

Participant P noted that training was important:

And so if everyone’s sharing transparent data, you can better identify actually

what the results are in a world that’s impacted by multiple innovations at one

time. So you’re not setting everything in a silo, and you can get more accurate

results that way.

They also stated that creating metrics may be difficult:

So I got a couple of things. I think, you know, in the services industry, you know,

sometimes things are quite esoteric, you know, kind of hard to put your finger on

per se, and I think that sometimes it’s hard.

P3.RQ9) What are participants’ experiences with, and descriptions of, innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges as related to policymaking in public health?

Healthcare Systems, Laws, and Policymaking

As per the findings of this study, poorly written laws and regulations, which, in

some cases, only benefit some businesses unfairly, describe the healthcare sector

innovation ecosystem. For instance, Participant X3 contended that some big healthcare

cooperation compromises the laws and regulations passed by giving donations to the

government:

266
 Part of our problem is right now; if you work in pharma, that’s one. But I think

big pharma has its hands in the government’s pocket with donations, and

sometimes they tend to override the things that should be done. Unfortunately,

people look at money and what they can gain from it. There are plenty of laws

that have not been passed because of that. And I think that’s why some

prescription costs are still so high.

Participant X3 emphasized poor law writing, with too much interpretive space.

Thus, laws provide too much leverage to hospitals as an interpretation of the laws is at

their disposal:

Yes, so this is interesting. So I work in clinical research compliance especially,

and the biggest issue I think the laws have is that they’re very poorly written.

There’s too much room for interpretation, and it ends up being the hospital’s

responsibility to apply their interpretation of that law. For example, the common

rule recently just rolled out a couple of years ago.

Participant X3 held similar views, indicating that some of the laws appear in

vague or superfluous language, again providing ample room for interpretation and

possibly malignment:

They’re within the means of their interpretation of the law. So the language is

very vague at times, and it’s, and it’s supposed to be written in a way that it’s not

vague, but it’s so excessive with the words that like you can create an

interpretation and then if you are

267
 Participant X3 held that the American healthcare system is a business, not a

healthcare enterprise. According to this participant, U.S. hospitals are businesses like any

Fortune 500 company. Thus, hospitals can make mistakes interpreted as part of the

normal business process:

The American healthcare system is a business and not truly a healthcare

enterprise. I think people will feel less. Agitated with some things that happened

because we, for example, would extend more grace to certain businesses if they’re

being, if they’re messing up because we understand, oh, that’s part of the

business, right? I’m not saying that that should be applied in the hospital because

we should minimize the mistakes to the best of our abilities, but the reality is that

a hospital is a corporation. It is just like any other Fortune 500 company.

P3.RQ10) What are participants’ experiences with and descriptions of innovation

ecosystems and orchestration challenges related to transformative governance?

The success of innovation is solely dependent on transformative governance. In

other words, poor leadership is one of the critical issues affecting innovation and service

delivery within the healthcare sector. Participants provided several responses alluding to

the fact that the American healthcare system is adversely affected by poor leadership. For

instance, participant X4 contended that the leadership structure in his organization is so

bureaucratic that he sometimes takes the blame for mistakes that originate from the top

management:

268
 That’s above you; well, if it’s so above me, why am I coming across this issue at

my level? It’s a failure in your leadership and governance that it got, you know?

But I can’t say that directly to them because I’m trying to keep my job. But

essentially, he [states], if I’m seeing it at my level when you’re talking about

what’s above me, then this is a failure on your part as a leader because you should

have stopped it before he even got to my desk.

Participant X4 lamented that ineffective communication is the main culprit behind

poor organizational leadership: “I think the structure depends on good communication.

And what Joshua said is a lack of communication because it starts at the top, but you

must communicate down.”

Participant X4 held that when employees fail, the blame falls to the leader, and

employees are a reflection of their leader; they stated:

I would say what Joshua said is great. And I think again, the hospital hierarchy

tends to forget that you’re only as good as your employees at that point. Your

employees that you have are a reflection of you at that point if you’re taking the

time and getting the right people.

Participant X4 extended the scope beyond a typical organization into the political

system. Mainly, participant X4 blamed the political system for the high cost of treatment

in the United States:

Because you can’t rely on the politicians, politicians can’t agree on what color the

sky is. And they’re the ones that have problems. So you know, it’s about getting

269
 the cost of medicine down so people can afford it. It’s about getting people the

cost of just treatment down so they can afford it. I mean, it’s just, I mean, in the

United States, it’s just a very bad system.

Participant X4 demonstrated how the political class interferes with citizens’

access to affordable care. According to Participant X4, the poverty threshold for

Medicare and Medicaid qualification was initially very low, and most people qualified.

However, legislators recently raised it, making it extremely difficult to qualify: “Our

politicians in Oklahoma put us on a rollercoaster ride in terms of access to Medicare and

Medicaid. And the threshold was very low in terms of poverty; nobody could qualify

when we raised it.”

Participant X4 maintained that passing legislation in the U.S. usually is difficult

since the motion sponsor needs to get many legislators’ approval. According to

Participant X4, the difficulty in passing healthcare legislation is a significant barrier to

access to affordable care among U.S. citizens:

Just passing any legislation is very difficult. You know, you have to get everyone

enough people to agree on one thing, which is always hard to do, and people want

something for their agreement that doesn’t have anything to do with what they’re

working on. So any legislation is very difficult. And, I mean, there’s not been a

lot of, I would say, monumental legislation lately, I mean, in terms of the

healthcare industry.

270
 Apart from the legislature and the political class, participant X4 claimed the FDA

is another hurdle that hinders successful innovation in the U.S. healthcare sector. From

Participant 4’s perspective, the FDA has many approval stages that a product must go

through before it is finally approved: “The FDA has a three-tier; you have to go through

three different specific tiers to get something approved.”

Quantitative Results

This section weaves together key findings based on quantitative data concerning

quantitative questions. Research questions integrate the alignment of quantitative and

qualitative findings with the study objectives to present the results. Research questions

integrate the alignment of quantitative and qualitative findings with the study objectives

to present the results. Under the heading for each research question, the quantitative

statistics appear, and verbatim quotes address that question. Table 1 summarizes the

quantitative research questions with the hypothesis examined quantitatively. According to

(Doody & Bailey, 2016), a good research question helps the researcher find an

appropriate research question answer.

271
Table 1
Quantitative Research Questions and Hypotheses
Research question
P3.RQ12): Do innovation ecosystem agents
feel that information technology systems
(excluding artificial intelligence) are
important in creating successful innovation
ecosystems?
P3.RQ13): Do innovation ecosystem actors feel
the technological savviness of those
operating in the ecosystem is important in
creating successful innovation ecosystems?
P3.RQ14): Do innovation ecosystem actors feel
that artificial intelligence systems are
important in creating successful innovation
ecosystems?
P3.RQ15): Do innovation ecosystem actors feel
data privacy and security issues whether
important considerations are in creating
successful innovation ecosystems?
P3.RQ16): Do innovation ecosystem actors feel
collaboration and partnerships are important
in creating successful innovation
ecosystems?
P3.RQ17): Do innovation ecosystem actors feel
that finances and project funding are
important in creating successful innovation
ecosystems?
P3.RQ18): Do innovation ecosystem actors feel
government involvement is important in
creating successful innovation ecosystems?
P3.RQ19): Do innovation ecosystem actors feel
that diversity, equity, inclusion, and ethics
are all important considerations in creating
successful innovation ecosystems?
Note. *Demographics appear in Table 2.
Hypothesis
Ha1: There is a statistically significant relationship between
innovation ecosystem actors’ feelings that information
technology systems (excluding artificial intelligence) are
important in creating successful innovation ecosystems and
the dependent variables (demographics*).
Ha2: There is a statistically significant relationship between
innovation ecosystem actors’ feelings that the technological
savviness of those operating in the ecosystem is important
in creating successful innovation ecosystems and the
dependent variables (demographics).
Ha3: There is a statistically significant relationship between
innovation ecosystem actors’ feelings that artificial
intelligence systems are important in creating successful
innovation ecosystems and the dependent variables
(demographics).
Ha4: There is a statistically significant relationship between
innovation ecosystem actors’ feelings that data privacy and
security issues are important considerations in creating
successful innovation ecosystems and the dependent
variables
Ha5: There is a statistically significant relationship between
innovation ecosystem actors’ feelings that collaboration
and partnerships are important in creating successful
innovation ecosystems and the dependent variables
(demographics).
Ha6: There is a statistically significant relationship between
innovation ecosystem actors’ feelings that finances and
project funding are important in creating successful
innovation ecosystems and the dependent variables
(demographics).
Ha7: There is a statistically significant relationship between
innovation ecosystem actors’ feelings that government
involvement is important in creating successful innovation
ecosystems and the dependent variables (demographics).
Ha8: There is a statistically significant relationship between
innovation ecosystem actors’ feelings that diversity, equity,
inclusion, and ethics are all important considerations in
creating successful innovation ecosystems and the
dependent variables (demographics).
272
 Additionally, the research questions met the study’s goal of examining how

orchestrators affect inventions in the innovation ecosystem. Before the study, my primary

considerations were the research questions. For instance, one of the study questions

employed,” Do actors in the innovation ecosystem believe that government involvement

is crucial to developing those ecosystems?” outlined the studies. They have addressed

questions or concerns which will be resolved in any data analysis using quantitative and

qualitative methods. Most questions adopted in the study were exploratory questions,

where the researcher intended to understand the impacts without necessarily having to

affect the results. Additionally, the choice of deploying these types of questions was to

avoid data biases and discrimination, which could lead to detrimental impacts on the

study’s primary objective. All models used participant demographics as dependent

variables, summarized in Table 2.

273
Table 2

Participant Demographics Used in the Regression Models

Demographic n-value and percent (except for age)

M Median SD Min. Max.
Age
40.3 38 11.47 21 80
Male Female
Gender
41 (57%) 31 (43%)
Under
Transform-
Ecosystem Growing Established construct-
ational
characteristic 27 (37.5%) 13 (18.1%) ion
24 (33.3%)
8 (11.1%)
Bachelor’s
Graduate
Educational degree or
degree
level lower
53 (73.6%)
19 (26.4%)
Annual Less than $200,000 or
household $200,000 more
income 43 (59.7%) 29 (40.3%)
White Non-White
Race
44 (61.1%) 28 (38.9%)
Government,
Educat-
Type of Technology Healthcare non-profit, or Legal Financial
ion
industry 17 (23.6%) 16 (22.2%) other 12 (16.7%) 6 (8.3%)
6 (8.3%)
15 (20.8%)
Less than 5,000 or
Company size 5,000 more
42 (58.3%) 30 (41.7%)
C-level,
manager, or All other
Seniority level
director 28 (38.9%)
44 (61.1%)
Small business Yes No
owner 29 (40.3%) 43 (59.7%)
Business Yes No Unsure
uses AI 39 (54.2%) 22 (30.5%) 11 (15.3%)
Business
partners with Yes No Unsure
other 55 (76.4%) 12 (16.6%) 5 (7.0%)
organizations
Note. Ordinal regression demands the use of dummy regressors (0,1), not summarized here.

274
 Model 1. P3.RQ12) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that information

technology systems (excluding artificial intelligence) are important in creating successful

orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Model 1 showed one significant independent variable (p = .002): Does your

business partner with others? With a negative estimate parameter and No as the reference

variable, this reveals that businesses that did not partner with others were less likely to

think that information technology is important (Table 3).

Table 3

OLR Results, Importance of Technology in Ecosystems

Term Log odds SE Sig.

Business partners with others 2.66 0.80 .000*
Note. *p < .05

N = 72; df = 14; -2 log-likelihood = 126.3; Pseudo R-square: Cox and Snell R2 = .303;

Nagelkerke R2 = .343.

Model 2. P3.RQ13) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that the technological

savviness of those operating in the ecosystem is important in creating successful

orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Model 2 showed one significant independent variable (p = .005): Are you a small

business owner? With a negative estimate parameter and no as the reference variable, this

states that those who do not own a small business were less likely to think that the

275
technological savviness of those operating in the ecosystem is an important consideration

in creating successful innovation ecosystems (Table 4).

Table 4

OLR Results, Importance of Technological Savviness

Term Log odds SE Sig.

Small business owner -1.05 0.37 .005*
Note. *p < .05

N = 72; df = 14; -2 log-likelihood = 95.95; Pseudo R-square: Cox and Snell R2 = .262;

Nagelkerke R2 = .316.

Model 3. P3.RQ14) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that artificial

intelligence systems are important in creating successful orchestration in innovation

ecosystems?

Model 3 produced five significant predictor-criterion relationships (Table 5).

Ecosystem agents that did not own a small business were less likely to state that AI

systems are important in creating successful innovation ecosystems (p < .000). Those not

in government, nonprofit, or other were more likely to state that AI systems are important

in creating successful innovation ecosystems (p = .006). Respondents whose businesses

did not partner with others were less likely to state that AI systems are important in

creating successful innovation ecosystems (p = .008). Participants whose businesses did

not use AI were less likely to state that AI systems are important in creating successful

276
innovation ecosystems (p = .024). Finally, those not in healthcare were less likely to state

that AI systems are important in creating successful innovation ecosystems (p = .038).

Table 5

OLR Results, Importance of Artificial Intelligence

Term Log odds SE Sig.

Small business owner -1.40 0.36 < .000**
Not in government,
1.16 0.43 .006*
nonprofit, or other
Business did not partner
-1.50 0.49 .018*
with others
Businesses did not use AI -0.96 0.43 .024*
Not in healthcare -1.06 0.51 .038*
Note. *p < .05; **p < .000

N = 72; df = 1; -2 log-likelihood = 136.2; Pseudo R-square: Cox and Snell R2 = .340;

Nagelkerke R2 = .375.

All participants completed a forced-choice questionnaire to clarify the feeling of

IT professionals (Table 6). Based on the results, IT professionals appeared impressed

with the state of AI in innovation ecosystems.

277
Table 6

IE Orchestrator Attitudes Toward AI Corporate/Personal AI Risk

Item: The risk that an AIs advanced profiling of users to

n %*
use sensitive information about them and harm them
AI poses no such risks 65 25%
Such risks are recognized, but we do not know how to
address them 45 16%
Such risks are not recognized at the organizational level 42 15%
We know how to address such risks 39 14%
Countermeasures are being created, albeit not on a
companywide level 30 14%
Companywide governance is in place, and
countermeasures are carried out 21 8%
AI, which poses such risks, is not used, and such risks
are not recognized at the organizational level 5 1%
We know how to address such risks. Countermeasures
are being created, albeit not on a companywide level 3 1%
Note. N = 72; *Proportion adds to 94% due to 8 responses less than 1%

Model 4. P3.RQ15) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that data privacy and

security issues are important considerations in creating successful orchestration in

innovation ecosystems?

Model 4 produced two significant results with the importance of data privacy and

security as the criterion (Table 7). Those not in government, nonprofit, or other were less

likely to state that data privacy and security issues are important considerations in

creating successful innovation ecosystems (p = .020). Those businesses that did not

partner with others were less likely to state that data privacy and security issues are

important considerations in creating successful innovation ecosystems (p = .027).

278
Table 7

OLR Results, Importance of Data Privacy Issues

Term Log odds SE Sig.

Not in government, -1.60 0.70 .020*
nonprofit, or other
Business did not partner -1.30 0.59 .027*
with others
Note. *p < .05

N = 72; df = 14; -2 log-likelihood = 69.72; Pseudo R-square: Cox and Snell R2 = .367;

Nagelkerke R2 = .477.

Model 5. P3.RQ16) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that collaboration and

partnerships are important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Model 5 produced two significant results with the importance of data privacy and

security as the criterion (Table 8). Those businesses that did not partner with others were

less likely to state that collaboration and partnerships are important in creating successful

innovation ecosystems (p = .005). Those not in government, nonprofit, or other were less

likely to state that collaboration and partnerships are important in creating successful

innovation ecosystems (p = .021).

279
Table 8

OLR Results, Importance of Collaboration and Partnerships

Term Log odds SE Sig.

Did not partner with others -1.41 0.51 .005*
Not in government -1.41 0.61 .021*
Note. *p < .05

N = 72; df = 14; -2 log-likelihood = 109.0; Pseudo R-square: Cox and Snell R2 = .273;

Nagelkerke R2 = .323.

Model 6. P3.RQ17) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that finances and project

funding are important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Model 6 showed one significant independent variable, and it is a variable making

its first appearance as significant in any model (level of seniority; Table 9). Those that

answered, all other (all other meaning anything other than C-Level, Manager, Director,

or Owner), were less likely to state that finances and project funding were important in

creating successful innovation ecosystems.

280
Table 9

OLR Results, Importance of Finances

Term Log odds SE Sig.

Anything position other than C- -0.70 0.36 .050*
level, manager, director, or owner
Note. *p < .05

N = 72; df = 14; -2 log-likelihood = 110.5; Pseudo R-square: Cox and Snell R2 = .349;

Nagelkerke R2 = .402.

Model 7. P3.RQ18) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that government

involvement is important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Model 7 showed two significant independent variables, including those whose

businesses do not use AI (p = .012), who were less likely to state that government

involvement is important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems,

and whose industry was legal (p = .032), who were more likely to state that government

involvement is important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems

(Table 10).

281
Table 10

OLR Results, Importance of Government Involvement

Term Log odds SE Sig.

Businesses did not use AI -1.01 .41 .012
Industry other than legal 1.18 .55 .032
Note. *p < .05

N = 72; df = 14; -2 log-likelihood = 165.2; Pseudo R-square: Cox and Snell R2 = .289;

Nagelkerke R2 = .310.

Model 8. P3.RQ19) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that diversity, equity,

inclusion, and ethics are all important considerations in creating successful orchestration

in innovation ecosystems?

Finally, Model 8 showed one significant relationship. Those that answered with

an industry type of not legal were more likely to state that diversity, equity, inclusion,

and ethics are all important considerations in creating successful innovation ecosystems

(p = .026; Table 11).

282
Table 11

Importance of Government Involvement

Term Log odds SE Sig.

Industry other than legal 1.25 0.56 .026
Note. *p < .05

N = 72; df = 14; -2 log-likelihood = 149.9; Pseudo R-square: Cox and Snell R2 = .264;

Nagelkerke R2 = .289.

Chapter Summary

Chapter 4 presented the study with opinions related to innovations and

orchestrators. The purpose of both qualitative and quantitative studies was to investigate

the impacts of innovations on industry and production while at the same time

investigating their changes regarding the environment. Chapter 5 includes the study’s

findings on innovations and orchestrators based on the main themes (a) characteristics of

orchestrators and leaders, (b) government, economic and technological considerations, (c)

community and social diversity, equity, and inclusion, and (d) technology in smart cities

and give a need for future studies of the same topic.

283
 CHAPTER V: Conclusion and Recommendations

Chapter 5 presents a discussion of the findings. This study addressed the need for

a thrust regarding how to stimulate innovation through the efforts of various

orchestrators. These orchestrators could be industry-based actors or research institutions

like universities (Băban & Băban, 2022). Stimulating innovation was a task faced with

various barriers. It requires serious inputs exploiting weighty intellectual capabilities by

research institutions and industries. For this reason, there was an ongoing trend of

changing organizational behavior to align the quests of organizations with innovation

stimulation (Fyfe, 2019). The implication is that there was a growing need to write a

means of providing thrust for innovation through the lens of stimulating approaches

involving various partners. This study analyzed the role of orchestrators in coordinating

innovation systems to help businesses, public agencies, and universities meet their

common objectives. In addition, the research was to provide an understanding of how

businesses might better coordinate their assets to foster vibrant innovation ecosystems.

Discussion of the Qualitative Findings

The Discussion section continues by parsing content into specific innovation

ecosystem areas. Innovation ecosystems are complex and dynamic environments that

require collaboration and coordination among various actors, including government,

industry, academia, and civil society. Building and sustaining a thriving innovation

ecosystem requires a shared vision, a supportive policy framework, and the active

284
engagement of all stakeholders. The key themes that present themselves in the findings

are as follows. Quantitative results appear following the qualitative discussion.

Innovation Ecosystems and Partnerships

Findings indicated that partnerships are essential in industry and academic

innovation systems. The participants reported that innovation systems promote product

quality and share knowledge, results, and success in the industry and academics. The

organizational culture, cooperation, and hierarchy enhance innovation systems.

According to participants, sustainability plans, education, and operations, characteristics

of orchestrators in various roles, and orchestrators in various roles plays are essential in

innovation systems (Wessner, 2005; Yakman & Lee, 2012). Results imply that

innovation ecosystems promote product quality and knowledge sharing and that

organizational culture, cooperation, and hierarchy enhance the innovation ecosystems.

A culture of cooperation and transparency is essential to the success of an

ecosystem for policy change innovation (Bittencourt et al., 2018). All parties involved

must be willing to cooperate to achieve success (Smorodinskaya et al., 2017). Identifying

various opportunities within the innovation ecosystem remains a challenge of how

companies can effectively maintain and manage these opportunities (Ritala et al., 2013).

Orchestrators can help companies seize opportunities by providing the resources they

need to understand the innovation ecosystem. According to Ritala et al. (2013), such

provisions include access to expert knowledge, networks and tools, and resources that

allow companies to track their competitors and stay ahead of the curve. In addition,

285
orchestrators must help companies build their innovation ecosystems by creating

partnerships with other organizations and providing funding and support to new

businesses (Arenal et al., 2020; Ritala et al., 2013). By helping companies build their

ecosystems, orchestrators can help them stay ahead of the curve and capitalize on

emerging opportunities (Ferasso et al., 2018).

Difficulties Faced by Orchestrators

Orchestrators need help with innovation systems, including empowering

managers to lead the organization, problems, risks for and within the organization,

materials and product shortages, public image issues, and COVID-19-related issues

(Lepore et al., 2023). In addition, the participants reported various factors influencing

innovation systems, such as government, economic, and technological considerations,

laws, regulations, compliance, and politics. Economics (finance, markets, and supply

chains), data science, and information technology also significantly impacted innovation

systems. Results highlighted the many difficulties and potential solutions for the

ecosystem of critical innovation (Mohammadian et al., 2020; Thomas & Autio, 2019).

Concentrating on difficulties prevents corporations from contributing productively to

their ecosystems, highlighting the need for ecosystem orchestrators to act (Băban &

Băban, 2022). Orchestrators must have access to the most effective methods for

developing sub-routines that foster ecosystem innovation and improve dynamic

capabilities to orchestrate an innovation ecosystem effectively (Holgersson et al., 2022).

286
AI and Technology

Findings also revealed that innovation ecosystem actors feel the technological

savviness of those operating in the ecosystem is vital in creating thriving innovation

ecosystems. Results imply that knowledge and technology skills may help create

successful innovation ecosystems (Mercan & Goktas, 2011). Findings concur with

previous literature indicating that resources might relate to the knowledge and skills

necessary to create and deploy machine learning models (Yin et al., 2020). Training,

experience, online forums, meet-ups, and conferences provide access to this expertise. AI

and data ecosystems must give access to these resources to enable innovation (Yin et al.,

2020). Developers, for example, must have access to data sets to train and test their

models. In addition, computing resources must be available so developers can run their

models in real-time (Khang et al., 2022).

AI and data ecosystems may give access to training that can assist individuals

participating in innovation to enhance their skills and expertise. AI and data ecosystems

are becoming more critical in coordinating innovation ecosystems (Kobernyk, 2021).

Ecosystem actors feel that artificial intelligence systems and data privacy and security

issues are important considerations in creating thriving innovation ecosystems (Khang et

al., 2022). Innovation ecosystem actors feel data privacy and security issues are important

considerations in creating successful innovation ecosystems. Artificial intelligence, data

privacy, and security issues may enhance innovation ecosystems (Humerick, 2017).

287
 Results corroborate with literature indicating that AI and data ecosystems may

help firms stay up with the speed of innovation by offering access to data and

technologies that can create new products, services, and business models (Stahl, 2022).

Data ecosystems may assist firms in identifying new prospects for innovation.

Organizations can see trends and patterns that may aid in developing new goods and

services (Kastl, 2019). By monitoring data, organizations may discover which ideas are

successful and which are not. AI and data ecosystems may also assist firms in managing

the risks associated with innovation (Stahl, 2022). AI and data ecosystems may help

firms minimize the expense and danger of failure by offering access to data and

technologies that can aid in testing new ideas and enhancing data privacy and security

(Mazurek & Małagocka, 2019).

Findings indicated the need for technological infrastructure (including privacy

and security controls)—a paramount issue (Susanto et al., 2021). As a result, actors must

be educated and technologically savvy to promote innovation systems. Leadership that

actively promotes and manages diversity in the workplace is beneficial for all parties

involved (Gupta et al., 2020). Smart city development involves establishing a digital

infrastructure to back up the city’s data collecting, technological systems, and data-driven

applications (Addo, 2022). A fast, dependable, and secure network that links all the city’s

gadgets and services is part of the infrastructure. Each objective also has an underlying

driver of action. Moreover, it is important not to discount an organization’s cultural role

in inspiring employees to be creative and develop novel solutions to problems (Susanto et

288
al., 2021). The results demonstrate that technological infrastructure is vital in promoting

innovation ecosystems and that the actors must be educated and technologically savvy to

promote innovation systems.

Finances and Funding Innovation

Innovation ecosystem actors feel that finances and project funding are essential in

creating successful innovation ecosystems and that government involvement is vital in

creating successful innovation ecosystems (Palmié et al., 2020). Innovation ecosystem

actors also feel that diversity, equity, inclusion, and ethics are important in creating

successful innovation ecosystems. Finances, project funding, government involvement,

diversity, equity, inclusion, and ethics are essential in creating successful innovation

ecosystems (Sun et al., 2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems receive support from several

governmental agencies, academic institutions, research institutes, and business groups

(Choi & Markham, 2019). These organizations provide aspiring business owners access

to the essential infrastructure and tools they need to be successful. Grants and loans

offered by the government could assist new enterprises in getting off the ground in

creating successful innovation ecosystems (Mazurek & Małagocka, 2019).

Financial ecosystems must provide a diverse range of financial goods and

services, such as a diversity of products and services that fulfil the demands of consumers

and enterprises, to be effective (Palmié et al., 2020). A financial ecosystem, for example,

should include checking and savings accounts, loans, credit cards, and investment

products. It should also give a range of financial sources containing various financial

289
providers, including banks, credit unions, and investment businesses. This variety means

that consumers and companies have a variety of suppliers to choose from and may pick

the best source for their requirements (Koroleva & Solgan, 2021). The findings are

consistent with the current study result that finances and project funding are important in

creating successful innovation ecosystems.

Customers want information and need to feel secure (Wang, 2021). The findings

imply that customers want to know what the outcome of the product is and what financial

institutions are doing by always being in constant communication. Access to financial

services is difficult for underserved groups indicating that not all individuals may have

access to financial resources because of a lack of collateral (Cole & Nguyen, 2020).

Additionally, enforcing laws and regulations to prevent crime and corruption is

challenging for financial institutions, negatively affecting innovation systems. Financial

institutions should be well supervised because most of the transactions are electronic,

thereby encouraging the need for bank supervision (Zetzsche et al., 2020).

A financial ecosystem should include many channels for obtaining goods and

services, including online, mobile, and in-person. This variety allows consumers and

companies to choose the channel that best matches their requirements. It must also

provide a variety of payment alternatives, including cash, cheque, debit card, and credit

card. Because of the variety, consumers and companies may choose the payment method

that best matches their requirements (Zahra & Nambisan, 2011). A final obligation is to

make available a variety of financial education materials. A healthy financial ecosystem

290
should provide various financial education materials, such as articles, books, and

seminars (Mann et al., 2015). This variety guarantees that individuals and organizations

can learn about and efficiently utilize their financial goods and services.

Legal Innovation Ecosystems

In the context of the legal ecosystem, orchestrators are crucial in bringing together

various parties, from attorneys and law firms to technology suppliers and service

providers and ensuring that they are successfully working together to satisfy customers’

demands (Costa, 2016). Managing a legal ecosystem requires a multidimensional strategy

considering the different parties involved, the resources required, and inherent

compliance risks in the organization (Costa, 2016; Suchek et al., 2021). The first stage is

to assemble a suitable team of specialists to provide the complete range of services

needed to run the firm. This group should comprise lawyers, compliance officers, and

other legal experts with relevant expertise.

The next stage is to determine the resources required to sustain the company.

These resources include office space, furniture, equipment, and technology (Jackson,

2011). Once the team and resources are in place, designing policies and procedures to

guarantee compliance with all relevant laws and regulations begins. These rules and

procedures should safeguard the company, workers, and consumers (Smorodinskaya et

al., 2017). In an innovation ecosystem, orchestrators can help companies stay profitable.

It is by providing access to resources and expertise and building partnerships and

ecosystems. Doing this can help companies to identify opportunities and leverage their

291
resources to stay ahead of the curve (Ritala et al., 2013). The last stage is continuous

monitoring of the legal ecosystem to verify that it performs correctly and that the firm

complies with all relevant laws and regulations.

Tabas et al. (2022) aligned with the present study’s results. The authors indicated

that orchestrators might contribute to a thriving legal ecology in various ways. One of the

most crucial is establishing a good mix of players within the ecosystem, including enough

legal firms of various sizes and specialties and various technology and service suppliers.

It is also critical to ensure that the various stakeholders situate close to one another so

they can readily interact and communicate. Another critical responsibility for

orchestrators is to foster innovation within the legal ecosystem, which includes

discovering new technologies and services utilized by various stakeholders and

collaborating with them to create and execute these new solutions (Granstrand &

Holgersson, 2020).

Sustainability in Innovation Ecosystems

Innovation systems enhance building new smart cities by creating green trends in

urban spaces, promoting remote working as a trend, and improving technology in smart

cities (Appio et al., 2019). Participants remarked that orchestrators could enhance

innovation through community and social diversity, equity, and inclusion. Innovation

systems can improve by resolving privacy, security, and censorship concerns and

integrating technology, government, and regulations (Agbali et al., 2019; Appio et al.,

2019). Further, the results indicated the need for private sector involvement in cities.

292
Addressing transportation issues, growth, energy, and sustainability, as well as

community sustainability and environmental issues, could result in improved innovation

systems in industry and academic sectors. Players in these sectors can ensure enhanced

education, knowledge building/sharing, and resource allocation to promote innovation

ecosystems. AI and data can sustain inventions and aid in environmental impact

monitoring and detection, resource-friendly production, and creative recycling and reuse

programs (Fukuda, 2020; Stahl, 2022). AI and data-driven inventions may have security

and privacy risks, and while this is true, there is optimism that AI and data may make

innovation more sustainable (Zahra & Nambisan, 2011).

Before the ecosystem can gather, process, store, and share massive amounts of

sensitive PHI, security, privacy, and trust problems must be overcome (Appio et al.,

2019; Chae, 2019; Zahra & Nambisan, 2011). Because of this lack of transparency,

customers may have difficulty deciding who or what to put their faith in regarding

security and privacy, and current solutions need to be revised (Mukhopadhyay &

Bouwman, 2019). Traditional concepts of privacy, such as privacy as a function of

agency and control, and traditional concepts of trust, such as trust as a function of belief

or perception, both fall short in the context of digital health ecosystems (Bayram et al.,

2020; Boehm & Golub, 2015). The healthcare industry must re-evaluate its understanding

of privacy and trust and draft new laws for novel privacy and approach models. Further,

healthcare systems should require participants in the health ecosystem to reveal how

much they place a premium on protecting patient data (Bayram et al., 2020).

293
Innovation Ecosystems and Healthcare

Mukhopadhyay and Bouwman (2019) assessed potential strategies for dealing

with these challenges in the interest of ecosystem health. The present findings support

that claim by establishing that addressing transportation, growth, energy, privacy and

security, sustainability, community, and environmental issues could improve innovation

systems in both industry and academic sectors. Orchestrators in industry and academics

can ensure improved education, knowledge building/allotment, and resource allocation to

support innovation ecosystems (Cai et al., 2020).

Regarding medical for cancer, the findings revealed the need for approaches and

allocation of resources at the primary care level, enhancing cultural differences and

understanding diversity. Participants indicated that screening procedures in their routine

yearly checkup visits should be partially relied on by healthcare participants. Participants

indicated the need to encourage employers to play a role where employers may have

national screening days at large for large employers or even smaller employers.

Community and research partnerships must improve (Cai et al., 2020; Costa & Matias,

2020). Five participants indicated the need for concerted effort and community

engagement outreach programs, such as the immigrant health and cancer disparity

programs and financial insurance considerations.

Healthcare laws and regulations exhibit poor construction or unfairly benefit

businesses because people look at money and what they can gain. More laws must

emerge to combat high prescription costs. In this regard, there is a need for healthcare

294
laws, regulations, bureaucracies, and business fairness. However, the result indicates that

bureaucratic barriers and poor leadership hinder progress in innovation systems. The

healthcare ecosystem culture has shifted since the COVID pandemic. Participants

highlighted that the culture had changed dramatically since COVID, and the nurses, the

doctors, and everyone involved with COVID were culturally affected. As such, there is a

need for cultural considerations and shifts in culture (Germain & Yong, 2020; Yearby &

Mohapatra, 2020).

Researchers have highlighted that patients are the heart of the healthcare

ecosystem and must be included at all stages of innovation (Rajahonka et al., 2015;

Secundo et al., 2021). Patients will eventually benefit from innovative treatments and

technology, and their participation is critical in designing healthcare products with

patients’ interests in mind (Sarkki, 2017). Payers play an essential part in the ecosystem

by sponsoring novel therapies and technology. They also hugely affect which goods the

healthcare system embraces since they often decide which therapies are reimbursed by

insurance (Rajahonka et al., 2015). Participants also pointed out that sometimes one may

have senior-level attorneys handling the matters in their entirety or delegating the work.

Such actions result in delayed execution of work, thereby negatively affecting innovation

systems. Ethical, diversity, and regulatory considerations, as well as inefficient

governments and legal systems, pose challenges to innovation systems (Secundo et al.,

2021).

295
 Regarding medical for cancer, the findings revealed the need for approaches and

allocation of resources at the primary care level (Appio et al., 2019; Costa & Matias,

2020), enhancing cultural differences and understanding diversity. Participants indicated

that screening procedures in their routine yearly checkup visits should be partially relied

on by healthcare participants. Participants indicated the need to encourage employers to

play a role in that employers might have national screening days at large for large or even

smaller employers, the same way employers may have a national blood drive. The

findings indicated that community and research partnerships must strengthen (Costa &

Matias, 2020). Five participants indicated the need for concerted effort and community

engagement outreach programs, such as the immigrant health and cancer disparity

programs and financial insurance considerations.

Universities and Innovation Ecosystems

Regional ecosystem university orchestrators must create a thriving innovation

ecosystem. Creating a vibrant innovation ecosystem is critical for any community seeking

to compete in the global economy (Reichert, 2019). The academic community is crucial

in developing novel understandings and concepts (Gastaldi & Corso, 2016).

Entrepreneurs may benefit from the guidance and assistance of the community at large.

The needs and hopes of the community should inform the creation of this vision, which

should be crafted in close cooperation with influential community members (Yang,

2020). When a vision establishes itself, it may inform the creation of ecosystem-friendly

policies, programs, and activities. The academic community has embraced the concept

296
and technique of the approaches to create a cooperative atmosphere for the organization

to share ideas (Kovács & Kacsuk, 2018).

An ecosystem’s orchestrator is responsible for spotting and assessing new value-

generation possibilities and facilitating connections between various ecosystem

participants (Curry et al., 2021). Orchestrators enable the ecosystem to participate in

developing new goods, services, and business models; establish and enforce rules and

regulations; and monitor, evaluate, and report on the ecosystem’s efficacy (Ivarsson &

Svahn, 2020). Orchestrators are essential members of innovation ecosystems. They help

enterprises interact with one another and access valuable resources, creating an

environment conducive to creativity and letting businesses zero in on their best and worst

qualities (Dziallas & Blind, 2019). The orchestrator’s job is crucial in creating new goods

and services for companies.

Discussion of the Quantitative Findings

The regression exercises over eight model runs produced 15 significant

relationships among the various criterion variables.

P3.RQ12) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that information technology systems

(excluding artificial intelligence) are important in creating successful orchestration in

innovation ecosystems?

Model 1 revealed one significant independent variable (p = .002): Does your

business partner with others? With a negative estimate parameter and No as the reference

variable, this reveals that businesses that did not partner with others were less likely to

297
think that information technology is essential. What might be driving this relationship?

Due to several factors, businesses that do not partner with others may be less likely to

think that information technology is essential. Without partnerships, businesses may have

less exposure to the benefits of technology, as they are not interacting with other

organizations leveraging it to drive innovation and efficiency. They may be less likely to

have access to the latest technological advancements as they need to actively seek out or

collaborate with technology vendors or solution providers. Additionally, businesses that

do not partner may be more focused on traditional ways of doing things and less open to

the change or disruption technology can bring. As a result, they may need to see the value

or importance of investing in information technology compared to businesses that partner

and collaborate with others in their industry.

P3.RQ13) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that the technological savviness of those

operating in the ecosystem is important in creating successful orchestration in

innovation ecosystems?

Model 2 showed one significant independent variable (p = .005): Are you a small

business owner? With a negative estimate parameter and no as the reference variable,

these results indicate that those who did not own a small business were less likely to think

that the technological savviness of those operating in the ecosystem was a crucial

consideration in creating thriving innovation ecosystems. Non-small business owners

may be less likely to think that the technological savviness of those operating in the

innovation ecosystem is an essential consideration because they may have less

298
understanding of the inner workings of small businesses and the role that technological

savviness (of workers, owners) plays in driving innovation and growth. They may need

more understanding of the challenges those small businesses face in adopting and

leveraging technology and its potential benefits. Those not owning a small business could

focus more on other factors necessary for creating successful innovation ecosystems,

such as funding, infrastructure, or talent. For these reasons (and others not considered in

the model), non-small business owners give less weight to the importance of

technological savviness in driving innovation and success within the ecosystem.

P3.RQ14) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that artificial intelligence systems are

important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Model 3 provided much material to connect, returning five predictor variables of

significance. Ecosystem agents that did not own a small business were less likely to state

that AI systems are integral in creating booming innovation ecosystems (p < .000). Those

not in government, nonprofit, or other were more likely to state that AI systems are

essential in creating thriving innovation ecosystems (p = .006). Respondents whose

businesses did not partner with others were less likely to state that AI systems are

essential in creating prosperous innovation ecosystems (p = .008). Participants whose

businesses did not use AI were less likely to state that AI systems are important in

creating thriving innovation ecosystems (p = .024). Finally, those not in healthcare were

less likely to state that AI systems are important in creating successful innovation

ecosystems (p = .038).

299
Ecosystem Agents That did not Own a Small Business

Innovation ecosystem agents without small businesses might need to be more

technically savvy or have support systems to help them understand how AI can drive

innovation and improve business processes. They are not actively working within a small

business utilizing AI. Additionally, they may be concerned about AI’s ethical and social

implications and may need to fully understand these systems’ potential benefits and

limitations. They could also have different priorities and perspectives on what is most

important for creating successful innovation ecosystems. They may focus on other factors

such as funding, talent, or infrastructure.

Ecosystem Agents not in Government, Nonprofit, or Other

Innovation ecosystem agents not in government or nonprofits (essentially, the

private sector) likely better understand how AI can drive innovation and improve

business processes as they work more directly within the private sector and are more

flexible than government entities. Additionally, they may be more attuned to the

competitive advantages that AI can provide, such as enhanced efficiency, productivity,

and customer insights. Furthermore, they may be more focused on the potential economic

benefits that AI can bring, such as increased revenue and job creation. As a result, they

may prioritize the importance of AI in driving innovation and success within the

ecosystem.

300
Ecosystem Agents Whose Business Did not Partner With Others

Without partnerships, ecosystem agents may have less exposure to how AI can

drive innovation and improve business processes, as they are not actively collaborating

with other organizations leveraging AI. Additionally, these agents may need more access

to the latest technological advancements as they need to actively seek and collaborate

with technology vendors or solution providers. Furthermore, they may be more focused

on traditional ways of doing things and less open to the change or disruption that AI can

bring. As a result, they may need to see the value or importance of investing in AI

compared to businesses that partner and collaborate with others in their industry.

Ecosystem Agents Whose Businesses did not use AI

Innovation ecosystem agents whose businesses do not use AI are less likely to

state that AI systems are important in creating successful innovation ecosystems for

several reasons. However, the obvious answer is that they do not use it because they do

not see it as important. The root cause of this is likely one of two phenomena: (a) wilful

ignorance or (b) inability to understand the technology. They may need to fully

understand AI’s potential benefits and limitations as they have yet to experience them

first-hand, leading to willful ignorance. Furthermore, they may be concerned about the

cost and complexity of implementing AI, making them less likely to prioritize it as an

important consideration for creating successful innovation ecosystems. As a result, they

may not emphasize the importance of AI in driving innovation and success within the

ecosystem.

301
Ecosystem Agents not in Healthcare

AI likely has the power to revolutionize medicine. The possibilities seem endless,

from diagnosing conditions far more rapidly than a human could to quickly creating

complex surgical or treatment plans. Innovation ecosystem agents not in healthcare were

less likely to state that AI systems are important in creating successful innovation

ecosystems for several reasons. While regression cannot suggest the opposite, as a matter

of explanation, this implies that healthcare personnel might state that AI is important in

their field. Firstly, they may have exposure to the specific use cases and applications of

AI within healthcare and may have a greater understanding of its potential impact in this

field. Secondly, they may have a strong understanding of AI’s benefits in improving

patient outcomes, reducing costs, and driving innovation in the industry. Thirdly, they

may be more attuned to the regulatory and ethical implications of using AI in healthcare

and better equipped to navigate these challenges. As a result, they may prioritize the

importance of AI in driving innovation and success within the healthcare ecosystem.

Furthermore, given the complex and dynamic nature of the healthcare industry,

innovation ecosystem agents in healthcare may be more likely to see the potential of AI

in solving some of the industry’s most pressing challenges, such as improving access to

care, enhancing clinical decision-making, and advancing personalized medicine.

302
P3.RQ15) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that data privacy and security issues are

important considerations in creating successful orchestration in innovation

ecosystems?

Model 4, with the importance of data privacy and security as the criterion,

produced two significant results. Those not in government, nonprofit, or other were less

likely to state that data privacy and security issues are important considerations in

creating successful innovation ecosystems (p = .020). Those businesses that did not

partner with others were less likely to state that data privacy and security issues are

important considerations in creating successful innovation ecosystems (p = .027).

Ecosystem Agents not in Government, Nonprofit, or Other

Innovation ecosystem agents not in government or nonprofit may be less likely to

state that data privacy and security issues are important considerations in creating

successful innovation ecosystems as they may not understand the regulatory and legal

frameworks surrounding data privacy and security and may not fully appreciate the

implications of non-compliance or data breaches. Secondly, they may be more focused on

other areas of innovation, such as product development or market expansion, which may

have less overlap with data privacy and security concerns. Thirdly, they may not perceive

data privacy and security as critical components of innovation and may not fully value

the impact that breaches can have on consumer trust and brand reputation. As a result,

they may not emphasize the importance of data privacy and security in creating

successful innovation ecosystems.

303
Ecosystem Agents Whose Business Did not Partner With Others

Firstly, they may perceive data privacy and security as less critical to their

business operations, particularly if they need to handle sensitive customer data or

intellectual property. Likely, those businesses that do not have partners may be engaged

in fewer data sharing than multiple businesses in one network. Secondly, they may need a

more comprehensive understanding of the potential risks associated with data breaches or

cyber-attacks. They may need to fully appreciate the potential impact on consumer trust

and brand reputation. Thirdly, they may need more resources or expertise to invest in

robust data privacy and security measures, particularly if they are a smaller or early-stage

business. As a result, they may not prioritize data privacy and security as important

considerations in creating successful innovation ecosystems, even though they may be

critical to the overall health and sustainability of the ecosystem.

P3.RQ16) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that collaboration and partnerships are

important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Model 5, with the importance of data privacy and security as the criterion,

produced two significant results. Those businesses that did not partner with others were

less likely to state that collaboration and partnerships are important in creating successful

innovation ecosystems (p = .005). Those not in government, nonprofit, or other were less

likely to state that collaboration and partnerships are important in creating successful

innovation ecosystems (p = .021).

304
Ecosystem Agents Whose Business Did not Partner With Others

Innovation ecosystem agents whose businesses do not partner with others are less

likely to state that collaboration and partnerships are important in creating successful

innovation ecosystems due to their individualistic approach to innovation. As such, they

might believe that they can achieve success on their own without the need for external

collaboration. Limited exposure could also be an explanation, especially if they are

operating in a niche or specialized market—there may not be many businesses to

collaborate with! Collaboration and partnerships might be perceived as costly or time-

consuming, particularly if they do not have established relationships with other

businesses or organizations. As a result, they may not prioritize collaboration and

partnerships as important considerations in creating successful innovation ecosystems,

even though it may be critical to access resources, expertise, and networks essential for

innovation.

Ecosystem Agents not in Government, Nonprofit, or Other

Ecosystem agents not in government or nonprofit may be less likely to state that

collaboration and partnerships are important in creating successful innovation ecosystems

since they could have a more individualistic approach to innovation and may prioritize

independent R&D over external collaboration. Their profit-driven mindset may prioritize

competition over collaboration, particularly if they are operating in a crowded or

competitive market. They may have limited exposure to the benefits of collaboration and

partnerships, particularly if they have yet to engage in such activities. As a result, they

305
may not prioritize collaboration and partnerships as important considerations in creating

successful innovation ecosystems, even though it may be critical to access resources,

expertise, and networks essential for innovation.

P3.RQ17) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that finances and project funding are

important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Model 6 showed one significant independent variable: level of seniority. Those

that answered, all other (all other meaning anything other than C-level, manager,

director, or owner), were less likely to state that finances and project funding were

important in creating successful innovation ecosystems.

Workers Besides C-Level, Manager, Director, or Owner

These ecosystem agents may need a comprehensive understanding of the financial

aspects of innovation ecosystems, including the need for adequate funding and the

potential sources of financing. They may perceive innovation as a primarily creative or

technical endeavor rather than a financial one and may need to fully appreciate the role of

finance in supporting innovation activities. Non-managers or owners may have limited

exposure to the financial challenges associated with innovation, particularly if they are

not involved in the strategic decision-making process or do not have access to financial

information. As a result, they may not prioritize finances and project funding as an

important consideration in creating successful innovation ecosystems, even though it may

be critical to securing the resources and support needed for innovation to thrive.

306
P3.RQ18) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that government involvement is

important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems?

Model 7 showed two significant independent variables, including those whose

businesses do not use AI (p = .012), were less likely to state that government involvement

is important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems and whose

industry was legal (p = .032) were more likely to state that government involvement is

important in creating successful orchestration in innovation ecosystems.

Ecosystem Agents, Whose Businesses do not use AI

Ecosystem agents businesses that do not use AI may be less likely to state that

government involvement is important in creating successful orchestration in innovation

ecosystems due to several reasons, as they might harbor a more self-reliant approach to

innovation and believe that they can achieve success on their own, without the need for

external support or intervention (government). Such agents may perceive government

involvement as potentially burdensome, particularly compliance with regulations or

reporting requirements. Finally, they may need more exposure to the potential benefits of

government involvement in innovation ecosystems, particularly if they operate in a niche

or specialized market.

Ecosystem Agents Whose Industry Was Legal

The legal sector is highly regulated, and as such, legal firms may have a greater

understanding of the role of government in creating policies and frameworks that enable

innovation to thrive while ensuring compliance with legal requirements. Agents in the

307
legal sector are often involved in complex transactions and deals, which may require

significant government intervention, such as regulatory approvals, licensing, and permits.

Legal firms may recognize the potential benefits of government involvement, such as

access to funding, resources, and infrastructure that can support innovation and facilitate

collaborations between different stakeholders. As a result, they may prioritize

government involvement as an important consideration in creating successful

orchestration in innovation ecosystems, even though it may involve complying with

regulations and reporting requirements.

P3.RQ19) Do innovation ecosystem actors feel that diversity, equity, inclusion,

and ethics are all important considerations in creating successful orchestration in

innovation ecosystems?

Finally, Model 8 showed one significant relationship. Those that answered with

an industry not legal were more likely to state that diversity, equity, inclusion, and ethics

are all important considerations in creating successful innovation ecosystems (p = .026).

Ecosystem Agents Whose Industry was anything other than Legal

There is growing recognition that innovation thrives in diverse and inclusive

environments where diverse perspectives and ideas can be shared and explored. As such,

many businesses and organizations emphasize diversity and inclusion initiatives to ensure

they can access a wider pool of talent and ideas. There is a growing awareness of the

ethical implications of innovation, particularly as new technologies like AI and robotics

raise new ethical questions around privacy, security, and accountability. Stakeholders

308
increasingly recognize that creating a sustainable innovation ecosystem requires a

commitment to social responsibility and equity to ensure that the benefits of innovation

are shared equitably across all members of society. As a result, ecosystem agents outside

the legal sector may prioritize diversity, equity, inclusion, and ethics as important

considerations in creating successful innovation ecosystems.

Quantitative Analysis Summary

The ordinal regression analysis in the study examined the relationship between

various factors and the perceived importance of different considerations in creating

successful innovation ecosystems. The results indicated that government involvement and

AI systems were important factors in creating successful innovation ecosystems,

particularly for ecosystem agents not in healthcare. Collaboration and partnerships were

also deemed important, but less so for ecosystem agents whose businesses did not partner

with others. In contrast, finances and project funding were deemed less important,

particularly by non-management workers. Finally, diversity, equity, inclusion, and ethics

were deemed important considerations for creating successful innovation ecosystems,

particularly for ecosystem agents not in the legal sector. The findings suggest various

factors to consider when creating successful innovation ecosystems, with different factors

being more or less important depending on the industry, role, and other characteristics of

ecosystem agents.

309
 Grounded Theory

Grounded theory is a qualitative research methodology that aims to develop a

theory from data analysis rather than starting with a preconceived hypothesis (Corbin &

Strauss, 2008). This approach involves collecting data through interviews, observations,

or other means and then systematically analyzing the data to identify patterns and

concepts. Through this analysis, the researcher develops a theory that explains the

relationships between the concepts and how they relate to the phenomenon under study.

Grounded theory is often used in social sciences, such as sociology and psychology, to

explore complex social phenomena and develop new theoretical frameworks to

understand them (Glaser, 1992). One of the critical steps in the grounded theory research

process is constructing a theory statement (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The theory statement

is a concise, clear, and coherent description of the central concept, its properties, and the

relationships between these properties.

According to Corbin and Strauss (2008), constructing a theory statement in

grounded theory research involves several steps. First, the researcher must identify the

emerging central concept or phenomenon from the data. This central concept rests on the

data’s most common and significant patterns. Then, the researcher should identify the

properties or dimensions of the central concept and describe how they relate to each

other. Finally, the researcher should articulate the relationships between the central

concept and the context in which it occurs. The theory statement was continually revised

and refined throughout the research process as new data was collected and analyzed. The

310
developed theory statement accurately reflects the data and provides a robust framework

for understanding innovation ecosystem orchestration.

Theory Sensitivity

The unit of analysis was the individual, with content coded according to Saldaña’s

(2020) method. Thus, initial codes, memoing, then axial coding proceeded until emergent

themes were apparent. I added additional rounds of interviews as the data analysis

proceeded. Results showed 34 individual themes over seven groupings. As such, I

reduced the large count of themes to six-meta themes (refer to the Results chapter for

details). I further distilled the meta-themes into two supra-themes that encompass the

broadest generalities of the meta-themes. Innovation ecosystem orchestration is driven

primarily by two forces: (a) technology and (b) collaboration (Table 12). Granular

aspects of grounded theory naturally allow for a considerable overlap of major thematic

structures revealed through the thematic coding exercises (Glaser, 1992). Hybridization

adds a third collective force to the theoretical statement but is not a separate construct.

Based on the thematic coding completed for this research, six meta-themes emerged,

which then were re-themed into supra-themes: the two main forces identified above.

311
Table 12

Meta-Themes and Supra-Themes

Meta-theme Supra-theme
Technology
Artificial intelligence Technology
Data privacy and security
Collaboration and partnerships
Financial considerations Collaboration
Government
Note. The meta-themes emerged from the thematic coding of the eight innovation

ecosystem areas of (a) artificial intelligence, (b) cancer research, (c) the financial sector,

(d) the healthcare sector, (e) the legal ecosystem, (f) managing conflict, (g)

transformative governance, and (f) the university ecosystem.

Two Supra-Themes: Technology and Collaboration

Innovation ecosystem orchestration is an important concept for managing the

complex and interdependent relationships between different stakeholders involved in

innovation. Technology has played a crucial role in enabling collaboration in innovation

ecosystems, allowing for greater speed and efficiency in developing new products and

services. Cloud-based tools and platforms allow teams to work together on real-time

projects, regardless of their physical location; this can lead to more efficient

collaboration, faster time-to-market, and better outcomes.

312
 Open innovation platforms are another example of technology-enabled

collaboration in innovation ecosystems. These platforms allow companies to collaborate

with external partners such as startups and universities, bringing fresh perspectives and

expertise. By leveraging the power of digital platforms, companies can reach a broader

range of potential collaborators and tap into new sources of innovation, helping

accelerate innovation and reducing costs and risks associated with in-house development.

Another way that technology can enable collaboration in innovation ecosystems is

by using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning. These technologies can help to

automate tasks such as data analysis and decision-making, freeing up time and resources

for more strategic activities. By leveraging AI, companies can gain insights into customer

needs and behaviors, develop more effective products and services, and improve

collaboration and communication within the ecosystem, driving innovation and growth.

Finally, blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies can enable

collaboration in innovation ecosystems. These technologies allow for the secure and

transparent sharing of data and information between different stakeholders in the

ecosystem, reducing the risk of fraud, increasing trust and accountability, and enabling

new forms of collaboration and value creation. By leveraging the power of blockchain

and other distributed ledger technologies, innovation ecosystem orchestrators can create a

more collaborative, transparent, and effective innovation ecosystem.

313
The Technology Supra-Theme Part 1: Thomas Hughes’ Technology Momentum

Theory

Thomas Hughes’ technology momentum theory suggests that technological

innovations can face barriers to adoption due to established practices and social structures

that resist change. However, once these barriers fade, there can be a momentum of

innovation that drives further development and adoption. This theory materializes in the

use of technology in innovation ecosystems related to team and product development,

distribution, and artificial intelligence. Teams may need help changing established

workflows and practices, but once removed, there can be a momentum of innovation that

leads to further improvements. Finally, adopting artificial intelligence may face resistance

due to concerns about job displacement and privacy.

Technology considerations in cancer research also demonstrate the inertia and

momentum of technology. New technologies may need more support from established

practices and social structures in the medical field, but better patient outcomes follow.

For example, adopting new imaging technologies faced initial resistance due to concerns

about cost and accuracy. However, additional technological applications have emerged

with improved diagnostic techniques and better patient outcomes. In addition, data

analysis and artificial intelligence may face resistance due to concerns about data privacy

and accuracy.

Finally, legal systems’ technological infrastructure demonstrates technology’s

inertia and momentum. Legal systems may resist change due to established practices and

314
social structures. For example, adopting digital documents and electronic

communications initially faced resistance due to concerns about authenticity and security.

In addition, blockchain technology may face resistance due to concerns about regulation

and adoption.

The Technology Supra-Theme Part 2: The Product-process Life Cycle Theory of

Technology

The product-process life cycle theory of technology suggests that there are

distinct phases that a technology goes through, from initial development to eventual

obsolescence. This theory arises in using technology in innovation ecosystems related to

team and product development, distribution, and artificial intelligence. In the initial

development phase, teams may focus on developing and testing new technologies for

efficacy. In the growth phase, there is a focus on refining and scaling the technology for

wider use. In the maturity phase, there is a focus on optimizing the technology for

efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Finally, in the decline phase, there is a focus on

replacing the technology with newer, more advanced alternatives. This life cycle is

visible in developing and adopting new technologies in all innovation ecosystems.

Technological considerations further demonstrate the product-process life cycle

theory of technology in cancer research. In the early stages of development, researchers

may concentrate on creating and evaluating the efficacy of novel medicines for expanded

patient applications. The treatments are improved and scaled up during the growth phase,

enabling advanced research concepts to emerge. During the mature phase, the treatments’

315
effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are optimized and brought to marginalized groups. In

the decline phase, the final goal is to replace the treatment with fresher, more

sophisticated options based on new and continued research.

The technological infrastructure of legal systems also demonstrates the product-

process life cycle theory of technology. Legal systems may concentrate on creating new

data management and communication technologies in the early stages of development. If

needed in phase two (growth), the focus rests on altering the approach. During the mature

phase, technological optimization for efficacy and cost-efficiency engages. In the decline

phase, while still useful, older technologies experience relegation and replacement. The

creation and use of new technologies in legal systems, such as the transition to paperless

courts and the usage of blockchain for secure transactions, follow this life cycle.

The Technology Supra-Theme Part 3: The Theory of Meta-learning

The theory of meta-learning in technology suggests that individuals and teams can

learn how to learn, improving their ability to adapt to new situations and technologies.

This theory can is viewable in the use of technology in innovation ecosystems related to

team and product development, distribution, and artificial intelligence. Teams that can

engage in meta-learning are better equipped to handle the challenges of developing and

adopting new technologies. They can quickly learn how to use new tools and techniques,

adapt to changes in the market and industry, and stay ahead of the curve. More innovative

products and processes and a more agile and adaptive team typically emerge.

316
 Technology considerations in cancer research also demonstrate the theory of

meta-learning. Researchers who engage in meta-learning are better equipped to handle

the challenges of developing new treatments and therapies. They can quickly adapt to

changes in technology and industry standards, staying ahead of the curve and developing

more effective treatments. In addition, engaging in meta-learning can help researchers

stay current on the latest research and findings, ensuring that they make the most

informed decisions possible.

Finally, legal systems’ technological infrastructure also demonstrates the meta-

learning theory. Legal professionals who engage in meta-learning are better equipped to

handle the challenges of a rapidly evolving technological landscape. They can quickly

learn how to use new tools and techniques, adapt to changes in the legal system, and stay

ahead of the curve. In addition, engaging in meta-learning can help legal professionals

stay current on the latest regulatory and compliance issues, ensuring that they provide the

best possible service to their clients.

The Technology Supra-Theme Part 4: The Theory of Technological Interdependence

and Improvement

According to the technical interdependence and advancement principle, many

breakthroughs and technologies link together, and advancements in one field may

influence advancements made in other areas. Technology application in innovation

ecosystems connected to team and product creation, distribution, and artificial

intelligence demonstrates this notion. For instance, when teams can better assess

317
customer feedback and market trends, data analytics and machine learning advances can

result in more precise and effective product creation. In addition, developments in supply

chain management and logistics for product distribution may make distributing goods

easier and less expensive.

Technological issues also show the principle of technological dependency and

advancement in cancer research. Research and therapy for cancer have substantially

improved thanks to technology and innovation in genetics, imaging, and customized

medicine. For instance, genome sequencing technology has made it possible for

researchers to pinpoint genetic mutations that fuel the spread of cancer, resulting in

tailored treatments. In addition to more effective and individualized therapies, advances

in imaging technologies have made it possible to identify cancer earlier and more

accurately.

Further supporting the thesis of technical interdependence and advancement is the

technological foundation of judicial systems. Artificial intelligence and natural language

processing, among other technological advancements, have made legal research and

analysis more effective and precise. Also, improvements in cybersecurity technology

have made it possible for lawyers to safeguard sensitive data better and stop data

breaches. Both legal practitioners and their clients’ profit from the more effective legal

systems and procedures resulting from these technological advancements.

318
The Collaboration Supra-Theme Part 1: The Role of Evolutionary Psychology

Evolutionary psychology can provide insights into human behavior and decision-

making that can be useful for collaboration in innovation ecosystems. For example,

understanding the fundamental human needs for social connection and cooperation can

help to create a collaborative culture within healthcare organizations (Yun et al., 2020).

By fostering an environment of trust and openness, healthcare providers can work

together more effectively to improve patient outcomes. Additionally, by recognizing the

role of emotions in decision-making, financial institutions and government regulators can

work to build more effective communication and collaboration strategies.

In the financial industry, the collaboration between government regulators and

financial institutions is crucial for maintaining stability and reducing risks. Evolutionary

psychology can shed light on the underlying motivations and biases that drive behavior in

the financial sector. For example, research on the psychology of risk-taking can inform

policies and strategies for managing financial risk. Innovative solutions emerge that

benefit the financial industry and society by fostering collaboration and communication

between regulators and industry players.

Effective conflict management is another important aspect of collaboration in

innovation ecosystems. Evolutionary psychology can provide insights into the underlying

causes of conflict, such as competition for resources or status. By recognizing these

underlying factors, strategies arise to prevent conflicts before they arise and to manage

conflicts that occur constructively. For example, by promoting fairness and equity in

319
resource allocation, government, private, and public sector entities can reduce the risk of

conflict and promote more effective collaboration.

Collaborating between government, private, and public sector entities in

transformative governance is critical for achieving long-term sustainable development

goals. Evolutionary psychology can provide insights into the underlying motivations and

biases hindering collaboration and progress. Transformative governance can be achieved

by promoting collaboration and communication across sectors and recognizing the

importance of shared values and goals, potentially leading to a more effective and

equitable distribution of resources, improved quality of life, and sustainable economic

growth.

Finally, the dynamics of universities and external partnerships improve through

collaboration and communication. Evolutionary psychology can help understand the

motivations and biases of different stakeholders, such as researchers, industry partners,

and government funders; recognizing the importance of shared goals and values, effective

partnerships surface that benefits all parties involved. For example, universities can

attract more external partners and funding by fostering a culture of openness and

collaboration, leading to more innovative research and improved societal outcomes.

Evolutionary psychology can provide valuable insights into human behavior and

decision-making that can inform collaboration and communication strategies in various

innovation ecosystems. Innovative solutions develop that benefit all stakeholders

involved by recognizing the underlying motivations and biases that drive behavior.

320
Collaboration and communication are critical for achieving shared goals and driving

innovation in healthcare, finance, conflict management, governance, and academia.

The Collaboration Supra-Theme Part 2: Group Cycling

According to Davis and Baulch (2011), the collaborative forms of parallel dyads

and unified triads produce various multi-partner cooperation issues. Two groups in this

study adopted a different strategy. These groups produced an extended chain of dyads

with high innovation performance by excluding third parties from particular dyads and

connecting the content of succeeding dyads. Davis termed this group cycling as the active

dyads that cycle around the margins of their triadic relationship structure over time. Davis

and Baulch’s group cycling clarifies innovation ecosystems related to healthcare

collaboration, communication, and patient connections. By bringing together

stakeholders from different sectors, such as healthcare providers, technology companies,

and patient advocates, cycling explains the development of new approaches to healthcare

that prioritize patient-centered care and effective communication among healthcare

providers. In particular, the group’s emphasis on collaboration and open communication

has led to innovative tools and platforms that enable patients to connect more easily with

their healthcare providers and manage their health outcomes.

In addition to healthcare, Davis and Baulch’s (2011) group cycling helps explain

innovation ecosystems related to financial institutions and government regulation. The

group has helped identify and address regulatory challenges hindering innovation and

collaboration by convening experts from these sectors. Moreover, the group has

321
encouraged financial institutions to invest in innovative healthcare technologies and

solutions to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. However, another

area where group cycling aligns theory with the concept is identifying and preventing

conflict within innovation ecosystems. Through its emphasis on collaboration and open

communication, the group has helped promote a culture of transparency and

accountability that can help prevent conflicts. Additionally, the group has provided

resources and tools to help stakeholders better manage conflicts when they do arise, such

as mediation services and conflict resolution training.

In the context of transformative governance, group cycling explains public-private

partnerships that can drive innovation and collaboration across different sectors. By

bringing together stakeholders from government, private industry, and the public sector,

the group has helped to foster a culture of innovation that prioritizes collaboration and

shared outcomes. Moreover, the group has provided a platform for stakeholders to share

best practices and strategies for effective governance in the context of innovation. Group

cycling supports promoting partnerships between universities and external partners.

Through its emphasis on collaboration and open communication, the group has helped to

promote a culture of innovation that encourages universities to partner with external

stakeholders to drive research and development in healthcare and other sectors.

Additionally, the group has provided resources and tools to help universities navigate the

complexities of external partnerships, such as intellectual property agreements and

funding arrangements.

322
Synthesizing the Technology Supra-Theme Coupled With Collaboration: Collective

System Building

Technology and collaboration are two key components of collective systems

building, which involves creating and developing networks and resources that enable

actors to collaborate and share knowledge to achieve common goals. Technology

provides the tools and infrastructure for collaboration and knowledge sharing, such as

communication and project management software, cloud-based platforms, and data

analytics tools. By leveraging technology, actors can collaborate more effectively and

efficiently, regardless of physical location, and share knowledge and resources in real

time.

Conversely, collaboration involves the joint efforts of multiple actors working

together towards a common goal. Collaboration can take many forms, including formal

partnerships, informal networks, and virtual teams. Effective collaboration requires trust,

open communication, and a shared vision and goals. By collaborating, actors can pool

their knowledge, expertise, and resources and work together to overcome challenges and

achieve common goals. Collaboration can also create new ideas, technologies, and

innovations that are impossible through individual efforts alone. Musiolik et al. (2012)

proposed a conceptual framework for system building in innovation ecosystems, termed

collective system building. Musiolik et al. (2012) argued that system building involves

creating and developing networks and network resources that enable actors to collaborate

and share knowledge to achieve common goals. These networks and resources are

323
essential for the effective functioning of technological innovation systems, as they

facilitate the flow of information, resources, and knowledge between actors.

The synthesis of technology and collaboration are evident in this grounded theory

construct (Annells, 1997) when understood through the lens of those two phenomena as

derived by the multitude of data collected herein and coded logically and

comprehensively according to accepted methods (Saldaña, 2020; Strauss & Corbin,

1998). Further, to cement the theory, the technology supra-theme is positioned as the

primary supra-theme, with collaboration acting as the bond between technology and the

six areas coded without the explicit reference to technology in the innovation ecosystem

nomenclature; those are (a) healthcare, including cancer research; (b) the legal

ecosystem; (c) the financial sector; (d) governance; and (e) the university ecosystem.

Framing The Theory

Theoretical frameworks play a crucial role in grounded theory, as they provide a

foundation for the analysis of data and the development of new theories (Corbin &

Strauss, 2008). Theoretical frameworks provide a lens through which researchers can

view and interpret their data, helping them to identify patterns and themes that might not

be immediately apparent. They also provide a framework for organizing and categorizing

data, allowing researchers to develop new concepts and theories based on their

observations (Adom et al., 2018). In grounded theory, the theoretical framework is not

imposed on the data but emerges from it as researchers iteratively analyze and refine their

observations. This approach allows for the developing of new theories grounded in the

324
data and closely linked to real-world phenomena, making them highly relevant and

helpful in understanding complex social processes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The

culmination of this process is described below in (a) short theory form (i.e., the theory

statement) and (b) long theory form (i.e., an extended explanation of the short form). The

final component presented is a conceptual diagram including all components of the

thematic coding process from meta-theme generation forward (initial coding and

keyword identification, memoing, and axial coding). The 34 individual themes do not

overload the conceptual diagram with excessive text and information).

Theory Assertion in Short Form

Innovation ecosystem orchestration is driven primarily by two forces: (a)

technology and (b) agent synergy, and a collective system-building framework supports

collaboration.

Theory Assertion in Long Form

The notion of innovation ecosystem orchestration involves orchestrating multiple

elements cohesively to achieve innovation. It perfectly embodies how technology,

collaboration, and collective system building can work together to create a more

sustainable future. In this theory, technology is not just a tool but an enabler of

collaboration, facilitating the exchange of information and promoting connectivity across

the innovation ecosystem. This synergy helps harness diverse stakeholders’ collective

wisdom and knowledge and create the best possible solutions.

325
 Collaboration is the backbone of innovation ecosystem orchestration, promoting

sharing ideas, skills, and expertise between different actors. The exchange of ideas, skills,

and expertise leads to innovation, promoting growth and development in various fields.

Harnessing the power of technology enhances collaboration’s effectiveness. For example,

platforms like GitHub and Zoom enable collaboration by allowing people worldwide to

work together in real time, overcoming geographical barriers.

Collective system building is a vital component of innovation ecosystem

orchestration. It involves creating a collaborative environment where stakeholders can

work together towards a common goal, including aligning interests, goals, and resources

to create a more sustainable future. For example, in the healthcare sector, stakeholders

can work together to identify areas of need, establish priorities, and collaborate on

developing innovative solutions to address them. Through collective system building,

stakeholders can leverage each other’s strengths and create a more robust and

comprehensive response to complex problems.

Synergy is the glue that binds together the elements of this cohesive theory. It is

the force that allows technology, collaboration, and collective system building to work

together to achieve innovation. This synergy creates a virtuous cycle in which innovation

leads to new technologies, enabling further collaboration and collective system building,

leading to even more innovation. It is a continuous process that promotes growth and

development in various fields, allowing us to tackle complex problems and create a more

sustainable future.

326
 Figure 3

Meta-themes and Supra-themes Pertinent to Orchestration in Innovation Ecosystems

327

Note. The content within the infinity symbol is the two meta-themes: (a) technology and (b) collaboration.
 Limitations

The first limitation exposed the difficulties in mixed methods data processing and

presentation. More time and resources were in use during the data-collecting stages,

making it difficult to investigate novel information sources since the complexity of the

research required the division of data into quantitative and qualitative components.

Additional limitations were recruiting participants well-informed about the study and

intrinsically motivated to expand the region's innovation ecosystem. I added a screening

survey for Phase 3 of the study. I partnered with additional research groups, such as

Schlesinger, who assisted in conducting preliminary interviews to qualify the participants

and improve the participant pool's quality.

Recommendations to Leaders and Practitioners

The innovation ecosystem is a current topic that immensely influences the modern

world. Therefore, leaders should work on providing a conducive environment for these

systems to work effectively. Firstly, the leadership is responsible for creating an

innovative environment that allows the flourishing of creative ideas; this entails having

transformative governance focused on creating an enabling environment for innovations.

Secondly, leadership in various organizations should focus on developing cross-

organizational networks that promote collaboration and exchange of ideas. Thirdly, the

leadership work providing financial assistance for orchestrators who are engaged in the

innovation ecosystem because most of them have been left in the past to struggle without

any assistance, and even receiving insurance assistance becomes challenging. Fourth, the

328
leadership should nurture a culture supporting innovation and entrepreneurship. Lastly,

the leadership works to mobilize the collective ecosystem approaches to address a

particular development challenge, allowing the innovation ecosystem's growth in various

aspects.

Recommendations for the Future Research

While drawing upon various studies and the current study, innovation ecosystems

present several gaps to address. Future research should detail the key interactions,

capacities, and roles played by various actors to promote successful innovation

ecosystems. While this study was solely concerned with the role of orchestrators, the

need to focus on their interactions with other actors can assist in providing detailed

comprehension of every actor in the innovation ecosystem. Because this concept of

innovation ecosystems has gained traction over the last 2 decades, it presents many

research areas. Future studies should establish a detailed relationship between innovation

ecosystems and other aspects that have been addressed, such as AI. The problem results

from the company favoring the ecosystem approach above the alternative arrangements

for creating value, capturing such value, and initiating co-production (Autio, 2022).

Nevertheless, the growing contact between many companies made cooperation more

difficult. The future should seek to comprehend the importance of collaboration and

partnerships among the companies, government agencies, and the country's leadership,

which is critical in promoting an enabling environment for the innovation ecosystems. As

329
a result, the need to coordinate the participation of several players in the invention

became increasingly obvious (Băban & Băban, 2022).

Most businesses, particularly startups, may use this study's findings to have a

strong understanding of the job of the orchestrators. Since many companies need to be

aware of the orchestrators' presence, the innovation ecosystem may need more awareness.

Even if they know their place in the innovation ecosystem, they may need help

understanding it. It is even though the research implies that the relationship between

industry and universities is a complicated one. According to the research findings, most

companies believe it is more effective to foster value-based cooperation by positioning

people at the center of innovation.

The topic analysis highlights the many difficulties and potential solutions for the

ecosystem of critical innovation (Thomas & Autio, 2019). Future studies should

concentrate on addressing the key challenges and difficulties and the implementation of

the strategies and solutions. A corporation can continually develop and benefit from

ecosystem innovation through the organization of its business operations in several ways

(Thomas & Autio, 2019). However, the implementation stage is usually challenging,

where many organizations stagnate. For this reason, future research should focus on

implementation and using the available research to benefit the company (Paradkar et al.,

2015).

330
 Summary of Findings

The qualitative findings indicated that partnerships are important in industry and

academic innovation systems. The participants reported that innovation systems promote

product quality and share knowledge, results, and success in the industry and academics.

The organizational culture, cooperation, and hierarchy enhance innovation systems. The

results revealed that innovation systems enhance building new smart cities by creating

green trends in urban spaces, promoting remote working as a trend, and improving

technology in smart cities. Innovation ecosystems must ensure privacy, security, and

censorship concerns and integrate technology, government, and regulations. Further, the

results indicated the need for private sector involvement in cities. The findings

established that borders and legalities challenge governance in innovation systems.

Regarding medical for cancer, the findings revealed the need for approaches and

allocation of resources at the primary care level, enhancing cultural differences and

understanding diversity. Participants indicated the need to encourage employers to play a

role in that employers might have national screening days at large for large or even

smaller employers, the same way employers may have a national blood drive. The

findings demonstrated that customers want information and feel secure and want

information on the product's outcome and what financial institutions are doing by

constantly communicating. The findings established that healthcare laws and regulations

benefit businesses unfairly because people look at money and what they can gain from

that; laws must emerge to control high prescription costs. Bureaucratic barriers and poor

331
leadership hinder progress in innovation systems, and the healthcare ecosystem culture

has shifted since the Covid pandemic.

Closing Thoughts

Innovation ecosystems are crucial for the growth and success of businesses and

societies. By fostering collaboration, creativity, and knowledge sharing, innovation

ecosystems create a virtuous cycle that accelerates innovation and drives economic

growth. Successful innovation ecosystems unite stakeholders, including startups,

investors, corporations, research institutions, and government agencies, to collaborate and

innovate. Effectively coordinating these stakeholders requires a supportive regulatory

environment and a culture that values risk-taking and experimentation. As people

navigate a rapidly changing global landscape, innovation ecosystems will become even

more critical for driving sustainable economic growth, creating new jobs, and addressing

some of the world's most pressing challenges.

332
 References

Aagaard, A., & Rezac, F. (2022). Governing the interplay of inter-organizational

relationship mechanisms in open innovation projects across ecosystems.

Industrial Marketing Management, 105, 131–146.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.06.003

Abdurakhmanova, G., Shayusupova, N., Irmatova, A., & Rustamov, D. (2020). The role

of the digital economy in the development of the human capital market.

International Journal of Psychological Rehabilitation, 24(7), 8042–8051.

https://tsue.scienceweb.uz/index.php/archive/article/download/2581/2065

Addo, A. (2022). Orchestrating a digital platform ecosystem to address societal

challenges: A robust action perspective. Journal of Information Technology,

37(4), 359–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962221088333

Adepoju, O. D. (2022). Technology entrepreneurs: Surviving the valley of death in the

Nigerian innovation ecosystem. In O. Kolade, D. Rae, D. Obembe, & K. W. Beta

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of African entrepreneurship (pp. 329–350).

Palgrave.

Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard

Business Review, 84(4), 98. https://hbr.org/2006/04/match-your-innovation-

strategy-to-your-innovation-ecosystem

333
Adner, R., & Feiler, D. (2019). Interdependence, perception, and investment choices: An

experimental approach to decision making in innovation ecosystems.

Organization Science, 30(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1242

Adom, D., Hussein, E. K., & Agyem, J. A. (2018). Theoretical and conceptual

framework: Mandatory ingredients of a quality research. International Journal of

Scientific Research, 7(1), 438–441. https://www.doi.org/10.36106/ijsr

Agbali, M., Trillo, C., Ibrahim, I. A., Arayici, Y., & Fernando, T. (2019). Are smart

innovation ecosystems really seeking to meet citizens’ needs? Insights from the

stakeholders’ vision on smart city strategy implementation. Smart Cities, 2(2),

307–327. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities2020019

Agerfalk, P. J. (2014). Insufficient theoretical contribution: A conclusive rationale for

rejection? European Journal of Information Systems, 23, 593–599.

https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.35

Al Ahmad, S., Easa, N. F., & Mostapha, N. (2019). The effect of transformational

leadership on innovation: Evidence from Lebanese Banks. European Research

Studies Journal, 10(4), 215–240.

https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/50811

Alexandre, C., & Blanckaert, L. (2020). The influence of artificial intelligence on the

consulting industry [Unpublished master’s thesis, Louvain School of

Management, Université Catholique de Louvain].

http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/thesis:24659

334
Allen, F. (2019). A legal framework for financial market. Capital markets union and

beyond. MIT Press.

Almeida, F. (2018). Strategies to perform a mixed methods study. European Journal of

Education Studies, 5(1), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1406214

Almirall, D., Nahum-Shani, I., Sherwood, N. E., & Murphy, S. A. (2014). Introduction to

SMART designs for the development of adaptive interventions: With application

to weight loss research. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 4(3), 260–274.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0265-0

Almpanopoulou, A., Ritala, P., & Blomqvist, K. (2019). Innovation ecosystem

emergence barriers. Institutional Perspective, 6, 43–49.

https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1768&context=hicss-52

Andreu, R., & Rosanas, J. M. (2011). Manifesto for a better management. A rational and

humanistic view (Working paper WP-885).

https://media.iese.edu/research/pdfs/DI-0885-E.pdf

Annells, M. (1997). Grounded theory method, part I: Within the five moments of

qualitative research. Nursing Inquiry, 4(2), 120–129.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1800.1997.tb00085.x

Appio, F. P., Lima, M., & Paroutis, S. (2019). Understanding smart cities: Innovation

ecosystems, technological advancements, and societal challenges. Technological

Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 1–14.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.018

335
Arenal, A., Armuna, C., Feijoo, C., Ramos, S., Xu, Z., & Moreno, A. (2020). Innovation

ecosystems theory revisited: The case of artificial intelligence in China.

Telecommunications Policy, 44(6), 101960.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101960

Arslanian, H., & Fischer, F. (2019). The future of finance: The impact of FinTech, AI,

and crypto on financial services. Springer.

Aryan, V., Bertling, J., & Liedtke, C. (2021). Topology, typology, and dynamics of

commons‐based peer production: On platforms, actors, and innovation in the

maker movement. Creativity and Innovation Management, 30(1), 63–79.

https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12392

Asplund, F., Björk, J., Magnusson, M., & Patrick, A. J. (2021). The genesis of public-

private innovation ecosystems: Bias and challenges. Technological Forecasting

and Social Change, 162, Article 120378.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120378

Audretsch, D., Mason, C., Miles, M. P., & O’Connor, A. (2018). The dynamics of

entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(3–4),

471–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1436035

Autio, E. (2022). Orchestrating ecosystems: A multi-layered framework. Innovation,

24(1), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2021.1919120

336
Awadh, W. H. (2022). FinTech innovation ecosystems. In Transformation dynamics in

fintech: An open innovation ecosystem outlook (pp. 161–177).

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811239731_0006

Azad, R. K., & Shulaev, V. (2019). Metabolomics technology and bioinformatics for

precision medicine. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 20(6), 1957–1971.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbx170

Baah, F. O., Teitelman, A. M., & Riegel, B. (2019). Marginalization: Conceptualizing

patient vulnerabilities in the framework of social determinants of health—An

integrative review. Nursing Inquiry, 26(1), e12268.

https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12268

Băban, C. F., & Băban, M. (2022). An orchestration perspective on open innovation

between industry–university: Investigating its impact on collaboration

performance. Mathematics, 10(15), Article 2672.

https://doi.org/10.3390/math10152672

Babayev, B., & Hajiyev, N. (2019). Building an innovation ecosystem in Azerbaijan—

On the basis of the study of Israeli practice. In M. Ibrahimov, A. Aleksic, & D.

Dukic (Eds.), Economic and social development: Book of proceedings (pp. 312–

319). https://www.esd-

conference.com/upload/book_of_proceedings/Book_of_Proceedings_esdBaku201

9_Online.pdf

337
Bachtler, J., Martins, J. O., Wostner, P., & Zuber, P. (2019). Towards cohesion policy

4.0: Structural transformation and inclusive growth. Routledge.

Bacon, E., Williams, M. D., & Davies, G. H. (2019). Recipes for success: Conditions for

knowledge transfer across open innovation ecosystems. International Journal of

Information Management, 49, 377–387.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.07.012

Bandera, C., & Thomas, E. (2018). The role of innovation ecosystems and social capital

in startup survival. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 66(4), 542–

551. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2018.2859162

Bans-Akutey, A., & Tiimub, B. M. (2021). Triangulation in research. Academia Letters,

2021, Article 3392. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3392

Baruch, Y., & Rousseau, D. M. (2019). Integrating psychological contracts and

ecosystems in career studies and management. Academy of Management Annals,

13(1), 84–111. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0103

Baylin, S. B. (2011). Resistance, epigenetics and the cancer ecosystem. Nature Medicine,

17(3), 288–289. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0311-288

Bayram, M., Springer, S., Garvey, C. K., & Özdemir, V. (2020). COVID-19 digital

health innovation policy: A portal to alternative futures in the making. \ A Journal

of Integrative Biology, 24(8), 460–469. https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2020.0089

338
Beelen, L., Jansen, S., & Overbeek, S. (2022). Are you of value to me? A partner

selection reference method for software ecosystem orchestrators. Science of

Computer Programming, 214, 102–107.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2021.102733

Belotto, M. J. (2018). Data analysis methods for qualitative research: Managing the

challenges of coding, interrater reliability, and thematic analysis. The Qualitative

Report, 23(11), 2622–2633. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3492

Bennett, W. L. (2003). New media power: The Internet and global activism. In J. Curran

& N. Couldry (Eds.), Contesting media power: Alternative media in a networked

world (pp. 17–38). Rowman & Littlefield.

Benoliel, J. Q. (1996). Grounded theory and nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health

Research, 6(3), 406–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239600600308

Bereczki, I. (2019). An open innovation ecosystem from a startup’s perspective.

International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(08), Article 1940001.

https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919619400012

Bernhard, R., Bramann, C., & Kühberger, C. (2019). Mixed methods and triangulation in

history education research: Introduction. History Education Research Journal,

16(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.18546/HERJ.16.1.01

Bettaieb, A., Paul, C., Plenchette, S., Shan, J., Chouchane, L., & Ghiringhelli, F. (2017).

Precision medicine in breast cancer: Reality or utopia? Journal of Translational

Medicine, 15(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-017-1239-z

339
Bibri, S. E. (2021). Data-driven smart sustainable cities of the future: An evidence

synthesis approach to a comprehensive state-of-the-art literature review.

Sustainable Futures, 3, 100047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2021.100047

Bittencourt, B. A., dos Santos, D. A. G., & Mignoni, J. (2021). Resource orchestration in

innovation ecosystems: A comparative study between innovation ecosystems at

different stages of development. International Journal of Innovation, 9(1), 108–

130. https://doi.org/10.5585/iji.v9i1.18076

Bittencourt, B. A., Zen, A. C., Schmidt, V., & Wegner, D. (2018). The orchestration

process for emergence of clusters of innovation. Journal of Science and

Technology Policy Management, 34(54), 12–19.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074265

Black, T. (2005). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences. SAGE Publications.

Blair, B., Khan, M. S., & Iftikhar, R. (2020). Role of accelerators in innovation

ecosystems: The case of New Zealand. journal of general management, 46(1), 47-

59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306307020932876

Boehm, J. S., & Golub, T. R. (2015). An ecosystem of cancer cell line factories to

support a cancer dependency map. Nature Reviews Genetics, 16(7), 373–374.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3967

Bogdan, R. (1959). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and

methods. Ally & Bacon.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1997). Qualitative research for education. Allyn & Bacon.

340
Bouncken, R. B., & Kraus, S. (2022). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in an interconnected

world: emergence, governance and digitalization. Review of Managerial Science,

16(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00444-1

Boyer, J. (2020). Toward an evolutionary and sustainability perspective of the innovation

ecosystem: Revisiting the panarchy model. Sustainability, 12(8), 3232.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083232

Browning, T. R. (2014). Managing complex project process models with a process

architecture framework. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2),

229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.05.008

Burch, P., & Heinrich, C. J. (2017). Mixed methods for policy research and program

evaluation. SAGE Publications.

Burström, T., Parida, V., Lahti, T., & Wincent, J. (2021). AI-enabled business-model

innovation and transformation in industrial ecosystems: A framework, model and

outline for further research. Journal of Business Research, 127, 85–95.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.016

Byat, A. B., & Sultan, O. (2014). The United Arab Emirates: Fostering a unique

innovation ecosystem for a knowledge-based economy. The Global Innovation

Index, 2014, 101–111.

http://www.albasselfair.gov.sy/userfiles/files/gii_2014_chapter_6.pdf

341
Caena, F., & Redecker, C. (2019). Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st

century challenges: The case for the European Digital Competence Framework

for Educators (Digcompedu). European Journal of Education, 54(3), 356–369.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12345

Cai, Y., Ma, J., & Chen, Q. (2020). Higher education in innovation ecosystems.

Sustainability, 12(11), 4376. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114376

Cannon, A. (2012). Making the data perform: An ethnodramatic analysis. Qualitative

Inquiry, 18(7), 583–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412450153

Cao, X., Ouyang, T., Balozian, P., & Zhang, S. (2020). The role of managerial cognitive

capability in developing a sustainable innovation ecosystem: A case study of

Xiaomi. Sustainability, 12(17), Article 7176. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177176

Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2011). Open innovation diplomacy and a 21st

century fractal research, education and innovation (FREIE) ecosystem: building

on the quadruple and quintuple helix innovation concepts and the “mode 3”

knowledge production system. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2(3), 327–

372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0058-3

Carley, S., & Konisky, D. M. (2020). The justice and equity implications of the clean

energy transition. Nature Energy, 5(8), 569–577. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-

020-0641-6

342
Center for Research and Development Strategy. (2010). Framework for an innovation

ecosystem aimed at solving problems (0-SP-FY2010-CRDS).

https://www.jst.go.jp/crds/pdf/2010/SP/CRDS-FY2010-SP-10.pdf

Chae, B. K. (2019). A General framework for studying the evolution of the digital

innovation ecosystem: The case of big data. International Journal of Information

Management, 45, 83-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.023

Chan, Y. E., Krishnamurthy, R., & Sadreddin, A. (2022). Digitally-enabled university

incubation processes. Technovation, 118, Article 102560.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102560

Chang, M., & Lowell, N. (2018, June 4). Diversity, equity, and inclusion for

environmental progress [Paper presentation]. Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference,

Seattle, WA, United States. https://cedar.wwu.edu/ssec/2018ssec/allsessions/608/

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Charmaz, K. (2017). Special invited paper: Continuities, contradictions, and critical

inquiry in grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–

8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917719350

Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2020). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory.

Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 305–327.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357

343
Chatterji, A., & Patro, A. (2014). Dynamic capabilities and managing human capital.

Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 395–408.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0111

Chatti, M. A. (2012). Knowledge management: a personal knowledge network

perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 829–844.

https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262835

Chen, J. (2015). Innovation ecosystem for green smart city building in China. Frontiers

of Engineering Management, 2(4), 325. https://doi.org/10.15302/j-fem-2015058

Chen, J., Hu, Y., Gao, Y., Wang, Q., & Liu, Z. (2019). Orchestrating an innovation

ecosystem: The role of hub firms and ecosystem based on dynamic capabilities

[Paper presentation]. International Conference on Strategic Management

Proceedings. Francis Academic Press.

https://webofproceedings.org/proceedings_series/ECOM/ICSM%202019/ICSM0

43.pdf

Chen, P. C., & Hung, S. W. (2016). An actor-network perspective on evaluating the R&D

linking efficiency of innovation ecosystems. Technological Forecasting and

Social Change, 112, 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.016

Chen, Y., Chen, Y., Guo, Y., & Xu, Y. (2021). Research on the coordination mechanism

of value cocreation of innovation ecosystems: Evidence from a Chinese artificial

intelligence enterprise. Complexity, 2021, 1–16.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/7629168

344
Choi, J. I., & Markham, S. (2019). Creating a corporate entrepreneurial ecosystem: The

case of entrepreneurship education in the RTP, USA. Journal of Open Innovation:

Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(3), Article 62.

https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc5030062

Christmann, G. B. (2020). Introduction: Struggling with innovations. Social innovations

and conflicts in urban development and planning. European Planning Studies,

28(3), 423-433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1639396

Coccia, M., & Watts, J. (2020). A theory of the evolution of technology: Technological

parasitism and the implications for innovation management. Journal of

Engineering and Technology Management, 55, 101552.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2019.11.003

Cole, M. B., & Nguyen, K. H. (2020). Unmet social needs among low‐income adults in

the United States: Associations with health care access and quality. Health

Services Research, 55, 873–882. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13555

Collins, C. S., & Stockton, C. M. (2018). The central role of theory in qualitative

research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17, 1–10.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918797475

Colombo, W. A., Karnouskos, S., & Hanisch, C. (2021). Engineering human-focused

industrial cyber-physical systems in industry 4.0 context. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society A, 379(2207), Article 20200366.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2020.0366

345
Colon, C., & Hochrainer-Stigler, S. (2022). Systemic risks in supply chains: a need for

system-level governance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.

Advance publication online. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-03-2022-0101

Cook, K. (2020). The psychology of Silicon Valley: Ethical threats and emotional

unintelligence in the tech industry. Palgrave McMillan.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Costa, B. S. (2016). The role of legal aspects of Ecosystem Service in Brazil to achieve

the sustainable development. Ecosystem Services, Article 100354.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.02.015

Costa, J., & Matias, J. C. (2020). Open innovation 4.0 as an enhancer of sustainable

innovation ecosystems. Sustainability, 12(19), 8112.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198112

Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber,

S., & Grasso, M. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we

come, and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28, 1–16.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008

Creamer, E. G. (2018a). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research.

SAGE Publications.

346
Creamer, E. G. (2018b). Paradigms in play: Using case studies to explore the value-added

of divergent findings in mixed methods research. International Journal of

Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 30–40.

https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v10n1a2

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, P. V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Crosling, G., Nair, M., & Vaithilingam, S. (2015). A creative learning ecosystem, quality

of education and innovative capacity: A perspective from higher education.

Studies in Higher Education, 40(7), 1147–1163.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.881342

Cukier, W., McCallum, K. E., Egbunonu, P., & Bates, K. (2021, June). The mother of

invention: Skills for innovation in the post-pandemic world. Public Policy Forum.

https://www.torontomu.ca/diversity/reports/MotherOfInvention_EN.pdf

Cumming, D. J., Johan, S., & Pant, A. (2019). Regulation of the crypto-economy:

Managing risks, challenges, and regulatory uncertainty. Journal of Risk and

Financial Management, 12(3), 126. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm12030126

Curry, E., Metzger, A., Zillner, S., Pazzaglia, J. C., & García Robles, A. (2021). The

elements of big data value: Foundations of the research and innovation

ecosystem. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68176-0

347
Dano, U. L., Balogun, A. L., Abubakar, I. R., & Aina, Y. A. (2020). Transformative

urban governance: Confronting urbanization challenges with geospatial

technologies in Lagos, Nigeria. GeoJournal, 85, 1039–1056.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10009-1

Davis, P., & Baulch, B. (2011). Parallel realities: Exploring poverty dynamics using

mixed methods in rural Bangladesh. Journal of Development Studies, 47(1), 118–

143. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2010.492860

Dedehayir, O., Mäkinen, S. J., & Ortt, J. R. (2018). Roles during innovation ecosystem

genesis: A literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136,

18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.028

Deggans, J., Krulicky, T., Kovacova, M., Valaskova, K., & Poliak, M. (2019).

Cognitively enhanced products, output growth, and labor market changes: will

artificial intelligence replace workers by automating their jobs? Economics,

Management and Financial Markets, 14(1), 38–43.

https://doi.org/10.22381/emfm14120194

Denicolai, S., & Previtali, P. (2020). Precision Medicine: Implications for value chains

and business models in life sciences. Technological Forecasting And Social

Change, 151, 119767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119767

de Vasconcelos Gomes, L. A., Facin, A. L. F., & Salerno, M. S. (2021). Managing

uncertainty propagation in innovation ecosystems. Technological Forecasting and

Social Change, 171, 120945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120945

348
de Vasconcelos Gomes, L. A., Facin, A. L. F., Salerno, M. S., & Ikenami, R. K. (2018).

Unpacking the innovation ecosystem constructs Evolution, gaps, and trends.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 30–48.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.009

Diriker, D., Boons, M., Tuertscher, P., & Porter, A. J. (2022a). Taking on grand

challenges through collaborative crowdsourcing: The importance of common

ground for knowledge integration. IEEE Transactions on Engineering

Management. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3191292

Diriker, D., Porter, A. J., & Tuertscher, P. (2022b). Orchestrating open innovation

through punctuated openness: A process model of open organizing for tackling

wicked multi-stakeholder problems. Organization Studies, 44(1), 135–157.

https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406221094174

Domanski, D., Howaldt, J., & Kaletka, C. (2020). A comprehensive concept of social

innovation and its implications for the local context–on the growing importance

of social innovation ecosystems and infrastructures. European Planning Studies,

28(3), 454-474. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1639397

Doody, O., & Bailey, M. E. (2016). Setting a research question, aim and objective. Nurse

Researcher, 23(4). https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.23.4.19.s5

349
Drobyazko, S., Makedon, V., Zhuravlov, D., Buglak, Y., & Stetsenko, V. (2019). Ethical,

technological and patent aspects of technology blockchain distribution. Journal of

Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 22, 1–6.

https://www.proquest.com/openview/f0773b7791a9063857d02fe4659a9329/1?pq

-origsite=gscholar&cbl=38868

Dziallas, M., & Blind, K. (2019). Innovation indicators throughout the innovation

process: An extensive literature analysis. Technovation, 80, 3–29.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.05.005

Eckebrecht, F. (2021). Much ado about nothing? The controversy about the International

Telecommunication Regulations and Internet Governance. Social Science

Research Network. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3796242

Eckhardt, J., Kaletka, C., Krüger, D., Maldonado-Mariscal, K., & Schulz, A. C. (2021).

Ecosystems of co-creation. Frontiers in Sociology, 6, Article 642289.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.642289

Eliot, D., & Lance, B. (2021). Legal ecosystem complexities and the cascading impacts

of AI. SSRN Electronic Journal, Article 3975776.

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3975776

Fairlie, R., Robb, A., & Robinson, D. T. (2022). Black and white: Access to capital

among minority-owned start-ups. Management Science, 68(4), 2377–2400.

https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.3998

350
Fasnacht, D. (2018). Open innovation ecosystems. Springer, Cham.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76394-1_5

Fechner, H., & Shapanka, M. S. (2018). Closing diversity gaps in innovation: Gender,

race, and income disparities in patenting and commercialization of inventions.

Technology & Innovation, 19(4), 727–734.

https://doi.org/10.21300/19.4.2018.727

Feng, L., Lu, J., & Wang, J. (2021). A systematic review of enterprise innovation

ecosystems. Sustainability, 13(10), 5742. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105742

Feng, N., Fu, C., Wei, F., Peng, Z., Zhang, Q., & Zhang, K. H. (2019). The key role of

dynamic capabilities in the evolutionary process for a startup to develop into an

innovation ecosystem leader: An indepth case study. Journal of Engineering and

Technology Management, 54, 81–96.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2019.11.002

Fenwick, M., Vermeulen, E. P., & Corrales, M. (2018). Business and regulatory

responses to artificial intelligence: Dynamic regulation, innovation ecosystems

and the strategic management of disruptive technology. In M. Corrales, M.

Fenwick, & N. Forgó (Eds.), Robotics, AI and the future of law (pp. 81-103).

Springer Singapore.

Ferasso, M., Takahashi, A. R. W., & Gimenez, F. A. P. (2018). Innovation ecosystems: a

meta-synthesis. International Journal of Innovation Science.

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-07-2017-0059

351
Fosch-Villaronga, E., & Millard, C. (2019). Cloud robotics law and regulation:

Challenges in the governance of complex and dynamic cyber–physical

ecosystems. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 119, 77–91.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2019.06.003

Fukuda, K. (2020). Science, technology and innovation ecosystem transformation toward

society 5.0. International Journal of Production Economics, 220, Article 107460.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.07.033

Fyfe, L. M. (2019). The financial and competitive sustainability of the Transatlantic’s

most environmentally-sustainable airline: Can Norwegian survive and thrive? An

exploratory case study of Norwegian Air Shuttle’s ability to cultivate a

sustainable competitive advantage [Master’s thesis, Norwegian School of

Economics]. http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2610946

Garin, A. (2022). Characterising the structure and dynamics of ecosystem orchestration:

A literature review. AIMS. https://hal.u-pec.fr/hal-03667275

Gastaldi, L., & Corso, M. (2016). Academics as orchestrators of innovation ecosystems:

The role of knowledge management. International Journal of Innovation and

Technology Management, 13(5), Article 1640009.

https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219877016400095

Geels, F. W. (2019). Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: A review of criticisms

and elaborations of the multi-level perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental

Sustainability, 39, 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009

352
Gereffi, G. (2019). Global value chains and international development policy: Bringing

firms, networks and policy-engaged scholarship back in. Journal of International

Business Policy, 2(3), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-019-00028-7

Germain, S., & Yong, A. (2020). COVID-19 highlighting inequalities in access to

healthcare in England: A case study of ethnic minority and migrant women.

Feminist Legal Studies, 28(3), 301–310.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-020-09437-z

Ghazal, T. M., Al-Dmour, N. A., Mohamed, T., Chabani, Z., Harguem, S., Noamas, S., &

ALMaazmi, N. (2022, November). E-Supply chain issues in internet of medical

things. In 2022 14th International Conference on Mathematics, Actuarial Science,

Computer Science and Statistics (MACS) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.

Giannopoulos, A., Piha, L., & Skourtis, G. (2021). Destination branding and co-creation:

A service ecosystem perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management,

30(1), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-08-2019-2504

Glaser, B. (1978a). Theoretical sensitivity. Sociological Press.

Glaser, B. (1978b). All is data. Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal, 6(2).

https://groundedtheoryreview.com/2007/03/30/1194/

Glaser, B. (1992). Emergence vs forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Sociology

Press.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. Aldine.

353
Golubchikov, O. (2022). People-smart sustainable cities. SSRN Electronic Journal,

Article 3757563. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3757563

Gomes‐Silva, D., & Ramos, C. A. (2018). Cancer immunotherapy using CAR‐T cells:

from the research bench to the assembly line. Biotechnology Journal, 13(2),

1700097. https://doi.org/10.1002/biot.201700097

Gong, H. (2020). Innovation ecosystems for precision medicine implementation.

Wharton, University of Pennsylvania.

https://repository.upenn.edu/wharton_research_scholars/214/

Gopal, K. M. (2019). Strategies for ensuring quality health care in India: experiences

from the field. Indian Journal of Community Medicine: Official Publication of

Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine, 44(1), 1.

https://doi.org/10.4103%2Fijcm.IJCM_65_19

Gorard, S. (2004). Sceptical or clerical? Theory as a barrier to the combination of

research methods. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 5(1), 1–21.

https://ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/EDEQ/article/view/514/383

Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review

and a new definition. Technovation, 90, Article 102098.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.102098

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Wiley Publishers.

354
Gregory, R. W., Henfridsson, O., Kaganer, E., & Kyriakou, S. H. (2021). The role of

artificial intelligence and data network effects for creating user value. Academy of

Management Review, 46(3), 534–551. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0178

Gu, Y., Hu, L., Zhang, H., & Hou, C. (2021). Innovation ecosystem research: Emerging

trends and future research. Sustainability, 13(20), Article 11458.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011458

Guetterman, T. C., Babchuck, W. A., Howell Smith, M. C., & Stevens, J. (2017).

Contemporary approaches to mixed methods-grounded theory research: A field-

based analysis. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 179–195.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817710877

Guetterman, T. C., & Fetters, M. D. (2018). Two methodological approaches to the

integration of mixed methods and case study designs: A systematic review.

American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 900–918.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218772641

Gupta, A., Panagiotopoulos, P., & Bowen, F. (2020). An orchestration approach to smart

city data ecosystems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, Article

119929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119929

Haseeb, A., Xia, E., Saud, S., Ahmad, A., & Khurshid, H. (2019). Does information and

communication technologies improve environmental quality in the era of

globalization? An empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution

Research, 26, 8594–8608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04296-x

355
Hauser, R. (2009). Cultural identity in a globalised world? A theoretical approach

towards the concept of cultural identity. Neue Medien und Kulturelle Vielfalt.

Konzepte und Praktiken, 327–348. https://www.zak.kit.edu/downloads/Hauser-

Cultural_Identity_in_a_Globalised_World_final_2.pdf

Heaton, S., Siegel, D. S., & Teece, D. J. (2019). Universities and innovation ecosystems:

a dynamic capabilities perspective. Industrial and Corporate Change, 28(4), 921–

939. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtz038

Herath, R., Senaratne, S., & Gunarathne, N. (2021). Integrated thinking, orchestration of

the six capitals, and value creation. Meditari Accountancy Research.

https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-01-2020-0676

Herrfahrdt-Pähle, E., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2012). Continuity and Change in Social-

ecological Systems: The Role of Institutional Resilience. Ecology and Society,

17(2). http://www.jstor.org/stable/26269033

Hewett, K., Hult, G. T. M., Mantrala, M. K., Nim, N., & Pedada, K. (2022). Cross-border

marketing ecosystem orchestration: A conceptualization of its determinants and

boundary conditions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 39(2), 619–

638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.09.003

Holgersson, M., Baldwin, C. Y., Chesbrough, H., & M. Bogers, M. L. (2022). The forces

of ecosystem evolution. California Management Review, 64(3), 5–23.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00081256221086038

356
Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., & Loorbach, D. (2019). Tales of

transforming cities: Transformative climate governance capacities in New York

City, US and Rotterdam, Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Management,

231, 843–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.043

Holton, J. D., & Walsh, I. (2017). Classic grounded theory: Applications with qualitative

and quantitative data. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802762

Horning, S. J. (2017). A new cancer ecosystem. Science, 355(6330), 1103–1103.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1295

Howell-Smith, M. C., Babchuk, W. A., Stevens, J., Garrett, A. L., Wang, S. C., &

Guetterman, T. C. (2019). Modeling the use of mixed methods-grounded theory:

Developing scales a new measurement model. Journal of Mixed Methods

Research, 14(2), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819872599

Hughes, C., Robert, L., Frady, K., Arroyos, A., Hughes, C., Robert, L., & Arroyos, A.

(2019). Middle-skill-level employees and technological environments. Emerald

Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78973-077-720191002

Humerick, M. (2017). Taking AI personally: how the EU must learn to balance the

interests of personal data privacy & artificial intelligence. Santa Clara High

Technology Law Journal, 34, 393.

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol34/iss4/3/

357
Ingram, K. L. (2020). Power and culture in human-centric innovation ecosystems.

Journal of Management and Training for Industries, 6(2), 1–16.

https://doi.org/10.12792/jmti.6.2.1.

Iorga, M., & Scarfone, K. (2016). Using a capability-oriented methodology to build your

cloud ecosystem. IEEE Cloud Computing, 3(2), 58–63.

https://doi.org/10.1109/mcc.2016.38

Irwin, S. (2008). Data analysis and interpretation: Emergent issues in linking qualitative

and quantitative evidence. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of

emergent methods (pp. 415–435). Guilford Press.

Isckia, T., De Reuver, M., & Lescop, D. (2020). Orchestrating platform ecosystems: The

interplay of innovation and business development subsystems. Journal of

Innovation Economics & Management, Prépublication, 32, 197–223.

https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.032.0197ff

Isenberg, D., & Onyemah, V. (2016). Fostering scale up ecosystems for regional

economic growth. Innovations Technology Governance Globalization, 11(1–2),

60–79. https://doi.org/10.1162/inov_a_00248

Ivankova, N., & Wingo, N. (2018). Applying mixed methods in action research:

Methodological potentials and advantages. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7),

978–997. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218772673

358
Ivarsson, F., & Svahn, F. (2020). Becoming a digital ecosystem orchestrator—The

Sydved case. In Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Information

Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/191

Iyawa, G. E., Herselman, M., & Botha, A. (2016). Digital health innovation ecosystems:

From systematic literature review to conceptual framework. Procedia Computer

Science, 100, 244-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.149

Iyawa, G. E., Herselman, M., & Botha, A. (2017, May). A scoping review of digital

health innovation ecosystems in developed and developing countries. In 2017

IST-Africa Week Conference (IST-Africa) (pp. 1–10). IEEE.

https://doi.org/10.23919/ISTAFRICA.2017.8102325

Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills. Guilford

Press.

Jackson, D. J. (2011). What is an innovation ecosystem. National Science Foundation,

1(2), 1–13. https://erc-

assoc.org/sites/default/files/topics/policy_studies/DJackson_Innovation%20Ecosy

stem_03-15-11.pdf

Jacobides, M. G., & Lianos, I. (2021). Ecosystems and competition law in theory and

practice. Industrial and Corporate Change, 30(5), 1199–1229.

https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtab061

359
Jacobson, J., & Brooks, A. (2022). Reflections on “orchestrating for impact”:

Harmonizing across stakeholders to accelerate global health gains. The American

Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 19(67), 34–39.

https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.21-1101

Jaskyte, K. (2004). Transformational leadership, organizational culture, and

innovativeness in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and

Leadership, 15(2), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.59

Johnson, R. B., McGowan, M. W., & Turner, L. A. (2010). Grounded theory in practice:

Inherently a mixed method? Research in the Schools, 17(2), 65–78.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ942916

Johnson, R. B., & Walsh, I. (2019). Mixed grounded theory: Merging grounded theory

with mixed methods and multimethod research. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory (pp.

517–531). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526436061.n27

Jones, S. L., Leiponen, A., & Vasudeva, G. (2021). The evolution of cooperation in the

face of conflict: Evidence from the innovation ecosystem for mobile telecom

standards development. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4), 710–740.

https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3244

360
Jouti, T. A. (2019). An integrated approach for building sustainable Islamic social finance

ecosystems. ISRA International Journal of Islamic Finance, 11(2), 246–266.

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJIF-10-2018-

0118/full/html

Jucevicius, G., Juceviciene, R., Gaidelys, V., & Kalman, A. (2016). The emerging

innovation ecosystems and “valley of death”: Towards the combination of

entrepreneurial and institutional approaches. Engineering Economics, 27(4), 430–

438. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.27.4.14403

Jugend, D., Fiorini, P. D. C., Armellini, F., & Ferrari, A. G. (2020). Public support for

innovation: A systematic review of the literature and implications for open

innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 156, Article 119985.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119985

Kahle, J. H., Marcon, É., Ghezzi, A., & Frank, A. G. (2020). Smart products value

creation in SMEs innovation ecosystems. Technological Forecasting and Social

Change, 156, 120024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120024

Kahn, K. B. (2018). Understanding innovation. Business Horizons, 61(3), 453–460.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.011

Kanter, R. M. (1997). World class. Simon and Schuster.

Kastl, P. (2019). Business Ecosystems, platform ecosystems, and innovation ecosystems.

Controlling, 31(6), 66–68. https://doi.org/10.15358/0935-0381-2019-6-66

361
Kasztura, M., Richard, A., Bempong, N. E., Loncar, D., & Flahault, A. (2019). Cost-

effectiveness of precision medicine: a scoping review. International journal of

public health, 64, 1261-1271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-019-01298-x

Kati, V., & Jari, N. (2016). Bottom-up thinking—Identifying socio-cultural values of

ecosystem services in local blue–green infrastructure planning in Helsinki,

Finland. Land Use Policy, 50, 537–547.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.031

Ketonen-Oksi, S., & Valkokari, K. (2019). Innovation ecosystems as structures for value

co-creation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(2).

http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1216

Khang, A., Rani, S., & Sivaraman, A. K. (Eds.). (2022). AI-centric smart city ecosystems:

Technologies, design and implementation. CRC Press.

Khomsi, R. M. (2016). The smart city ecosystem as an innovation model: Lessons from

Montreal. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(11), 26–31.

https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1032

Kieff, F. S., & Grant, T. D. (2022). Patents and Competition: Commercializing

Innovation in the Global Ecosystem for 5G and the Internet of Things. GWU

Legal Studies Research Paper, (47). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4203890

362
Kiss, A., Castro, G., & Newcombe, K. (2002). The role of multilateral institutions.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A:

Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 360(1797), 1641–1652.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2002.1024

Klingler-Vidra, R. (2019). Global review of diversity and inclusion in business

innovation.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac

hment_data/file/777640/Global_Review_LSE_Consulting_2019.pdf

Kobernyk, A. O. (2021). Regional innovation ecosystems in Ukraine. Business Inform,

7(522), 56–61. https://doi.org/10.32983/2222-4459-2021-7-56-61

Koellner, T., Schröter, M., Schulp, C. J. E., & Verburg, P. H. (2018). Global flows of

ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 31, 229–230.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.04.012

Könnölä, T., Eloranta, V., Turunen, T., & Salo, A. (2021). Transformative governance of

innovation ecosystems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173,

Article 121106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121106

Koroleva, E. V., & Solgan, L. A. (2021). Ecosystem within ecosystem: The development

of financial technologies in Russia. Finance and Credit, 27(5), 1116–1131.

https://doi.org/10.24891/fc.27.5.1116

363
Kovács, J., & Kacsuk, P. (2018). Occopus: A multi-cloud orchestrator to deploy and

manage complex scientific infrastructures. Journal of Grid Computing, 16(1), 19–

37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10723-017-9421-3

Kraft, P. S., & Bausch, A. (2016). How do transformational leaders promote exploratory

and exploitative innovation? Examining the black box through MASEM. Journal

of Product Innovation Management, 33(6), 687–707.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12335

Kramer, W. J., Jenkins, B., & Katz, R. S. (2007). The role of the information and

communications technology sector in expanding economic opportunity. CSRI

Publications. https://lib.icimod.org/record/13181

Krantz, J. (2018). Dilemmas of organizational change: A systems psychodynamic

perspective. In L. Gould (Ed.), The systems psychodynamics of organizations (pp.

133–156). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429483387-7

Kretschmer, T., Leiponen, A., Schilling, M., & Vasudeva, G. (2022). Platform

ecosystems as meta‐organizations: Implications for platform strategies. Strategic

Management Journal, 43(3), 405-424. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3250

Kruse, L., Wunderlich, N., & Beck, R. (2019). Artificial intelligence for the financial

services industry: What challenges organizations to succeed. Proceedings of the

52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/53b933fa-4961-

48ca-bd6b-3ee8009edff9/content

364
Kubus, R. (2020). Innovation ecosystems in the European Union Doctoral dissertation,

National University of Distance Education (Spain)].

http://e-spacio.uned.es/fez/view/tesisuned:ED-Pg-UniEuro-Rkubus

Kutty, A. A., Wakjira, T. G., Kucukvar, M., Abdella, G. M., & Onat, N. C. (2022). Urban

resilience and livability performance of European smart cities: A novel machine

learning approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 378, 134203.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134203

Kwak, Y. H., & Lee, J. (2021). Toward sustainable smart city: Lessons from 20 years of

Korean programs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 70(2), 740–

754. https://doi/org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3060956

Lang, N., von Szczepanski, K., & Wurzer, C. (2019). The emerging art of ecosystem

management. Boston Consulting Group.

https://www.bcg.com/publications/2019/emerging-art-ecosystem-management

Lanzolla, G., Pesce, D., & Tucci, C. L. (2021). The digital transformation of search and

recombination in the innovation function: Tensions and an integrative framework.

Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(1), 90–113.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12546

León, A., & Pastor, O. (2021). Enhancing precision medicine: A big data-driven

approach for the management of genomic data. Big Data Research, 26, 100253.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bdr.2021.100253

365
Lepore, D., Frontoni, E., Micozzi, A., Moccia, S., Romeo, L., & Spigarelli, F. (2023).

Uncovering the potential of innovation ecosystems in the healthcare sector after

the COVID-19 crisis. Health Policy, 127, 80–86.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.12.001

Levkovich, O., & Kalashnikova, Y. (2022). Strategic directions of development of the

financial ecosystem of Ukraine. Efektyvna Ekonomika, 1, 34–37.

https://doi.org/10.32702/2307-2105-2022.1.94

Levy, C., Sissons, A., & Holloway, C. (2011). A plan for growth in the knowledge

economy (Knowledge Economy 2 programme paper).

https://www.culturenet.cz/coKmv4d994Swax/uploads/2016/02/A-Plan-for-

Growth-in-the-Knowledge-Economy.pdf

Li, F., Liu, X., Zhang, X., Zhao, D., Liu, H., Zhou, C., & Wang, R. (2017). Urban

ecological infrastructure: An integrated network for ecosystem services and

sustainable urban systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 163, S12–S18.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.079

Lin, Y., Gao, Z., Du, H., Niyato, D., Kang, J., Deng, R., & Shen, X. S. (2022). A unified

blockchain-semantic framework for wireless edge intelligence enabled Web 3.0.

IEEE Wireless Communications. Advance publication online.

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.15130

366
Linde, L., Sjödin, D., Parida, V., & Wincent, J. (2021). Dynamic capabilities for

ecosystem orchestration A capability-based framework for smart city innovation

initiatives. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 166, Article 120614.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120614

Lingens, B., Böger, M., & Gassmann, O. (2021). Even a small conductor can lead a large

orchestra: How startups orchestrate ecosystems. California Management Review,

63(3), 118–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/00081256211005497

Lingens, B., Huber, F., & Gassmann, O. (2022). Loner or team player: How firms

allocate orchestrator tasks amongst ecosystem actors. European Management

Journal, 40(4), 559–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.09.001

Loomans-Kropp, H. A., & Umar, A. (2019). Cancer prevention and screening: The next

step in the era of precision medicine. NPJ Precision Oncology, 3(1), 3.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41698-018-0075-9

Loren, L. P., & Reese, A. (2019). Proving infringement: Burdens of proof in copyright

infringement litigation. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 23, 621–680.

https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/28482-lcb232article5lorenpdf

Madanaguli, A., Dhir, A., Talwar, S., Clauss, T., Kraus, S., & Kaur, P. (2022). Diving

into the uncertainties of open innovation: A systematic review of risks to uncover

pertinent typologies and unexplored horizons. Technovation, 119, Article 102582.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102582

367
Madsen, T. L., & Cruickshank, D. (2022). Co-innovation platforms: A playbook for

enabling innovation and ecosystem growth. Springer Nature.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75977-3

Mann, C., Loft, L., & Hansjürgens, B. (2015). Governance of ecosystem services:

Lessons learned for sustainable institutions. Ecosystem Services, 16, 275–281.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.003

Mann, G., Karanasios, S., & Breidbach, C. F. (2022). Orchestrating the digital

transformation of a business ecosystem. The Journal of Strategic Information

Systems, 31(3), Article 101733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2022.101733

Mao, Y., Tian, J., Han, J., & Ren, X. (2019). Hierarchical text classification with

reinforced label assignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10419.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10419

Marcon, A., & Ribeiro, J. L. D. (2021). How do startups manage external resources in

innovation ecosystems? A resource perspective of startups’ lifecycle.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 171, Article 120965.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120965

Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research,

6(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058866

Mauerhofer, V., & Laza, I. (2018). How do ecosystem services perform in enforceable

law? Potentials and pitfalls within regional and national integration. Ecosystem

Services, 29, 260–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.006

368
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). The importance of qualitative research in causal explanation in

education. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(8), 655–661.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412452856

Maxwell, J. A. (2021). Why qualitative methods are necessary for generalization.

Qualitative Psychology, 8(1), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000173

Mazurek, G., & Małagocka, K. (2019). Perception of privacy and data protection in the

context of the development of artificial intelligence. Journal of Management

Analytics, 6(4), 344–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/23270012.2019.1671243

McCurdy, D. (2023). Ecosystems in precision medicine: The need for good governance.

In I. Vasiliu-Feltes & I. Mysore (Eds.), Digital identity in the new era of

personalized medicine (pp. 28-45). IGI Global.

Melé, D. (2016). Understanding humanistic management. Humanistic Management

Journal, 1(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-016-0011-5

Mendoza, R. L. (2020). Effects of innovation and insurance coverage on price elasticity

of demand for prescription drugs: Some empirical lessons in pharmacoeconomics.

Journal of Medical Economics, 23(9), 915–922.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2020.1772797

Mercan, B., & Goktas, D. (2011). Components of innovation ecosystems: a cross-country

study. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 76(16), 102–

112. http://www.internationalresearchjournaloffinanceandeconomics.com

369
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley and Sons.

Mian, S. A., Klofsten, M., & Lamine, W. (2021). Introduction to the Handbook of

research on business and technology incubation and acceleration. In Handbook of

research on business and technology incubation and acceleration (pp. 1–15).

Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788974783.00006

Miller, E. L., Thompson, S. T., Randolph, K., Hulvey, Z., Rustagi, N., & Satyapal, S.

(2020). U.S. Department of Energy hydrogen and fuel cell technologies

perspectives. MRS Bulletin, 45(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2019.312

Mohammadian, H. D., Shahhoseini, H., Castro, M., & Merk, R. (2020, September).

Digital transformation in academic society and innovative ecosystems in the

world beyond Covid19-pandemic with using 7PS model for IoT. In 2020 IEEE

Learning with MOOCS (LWMOOCS) (pp. 112-117). IEEE.

https://doi.org/10.1109/LWMOOCS50143.2020.9234328

Mohnen, P. (2019). R&D, innovation and productivity (pp. 97–122). Springer

International Publishing.

Molina, V., & Maya, J. (2018). Successful entrepreneurship ecosystems for regional

development: a proposal for their modeling and creation. International Journal of

Innovation and Regional Development, 8(4), 322–336.

https://doi.org/10.1504/ijird.2018.097481

370
Mukherjee, K. (2021). Integrating technology, innovation and policy: COVID-19 and

HTA. Health Policy and Technology, 10(1), 16-20.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2021.01.003

Mukhopadhyay, S., & Bouwman, H. (2019). Orchestration and governance in digital

platform ecosystems: a literature review and trends. Digital Policy, Regulation

and Governance, 21(4), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-11-2018-0067

Mullin, A. E., Coe, I. R., Gooden, E. A., Tunde-Byass, M., & Wiley, R. E. (2021,

November). Inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility: From organizational

responsibility to leadership competency. Healthcare Management Forum, 34(6),

311–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/08404704211038232

Musiolik, J., Markard, J., & Hekkert, M. (2012). Networks and network resources in

technological innovation systems: Towards a conceptual framework for system

building. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(6), 1032–1048.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.01.003

Myers, J. E., & Kellogg, K. C. (2022). State actor orchestration for achieving workforce

development at scale: Evidence from four US states. ILR Review, 75(1), 28–55.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793920942767

Nambisan, S., Zahra, S. A., & Luo, Y. (2019). Global platforms and ecosystems:

Implications for international business theories. Journal of International Business

Studies, 50, 1464–1486. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00262-4

371
Natow, R. S. (2020). The use of triangulation in qualitative studies employing elite

interviews. Qualitative Research, 20(2), 160–173.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794119830077

Natterson-Horowitz, B., Aktipis, A., Fox, M., Gluckman, P. D., Low, F. M., Mace, R.,

Read, A., Turner, P. E., & Blumstein, D. T. (2023). The future of evolutionary

medicine: sparking innovation in biomedicine and public health. Frontiers in

Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsci.2023.997136

Neudert, P. K., & Kreutzer, M. (2021). Ecosystem orchestration: Matching new ventures

and established organizations to catalyze innovation. Academy of Management

Proceedings, 2021(1), Article 12926. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.183

Obenchain, A. M. (2002). Organization culture and organizational innovation in not-for-

profit, private and public institutions of higher education (Doctoral dissertation,

Nova Southeastern University).

O’Connor, A., & Audretsch, D. (2022). Regional entrepreneurial ecosystems: learning

from forest ecosystems. Small Business Economics, 2022.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00623-8

Ojaghi, H., Mohammadi, M., & Yazdani, H. R. (2019). A synthesized framework for the

formation of startups’ innovation ecosystem: A systematic literature review.

Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 10(5), 1063–1097.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-07-2018-0071

372
Oksanen, K., & Hautamäki, A. (2015). Sustainable innovation: A competitive advantage

for innovation ecosystems. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(10),

24–30. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview934

O’Leary, D. E. (2019). Technology life cycle and data quality: Action and triangulation.

Decision Support Systems, 126, Article 113139.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2019.113139

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Frels, R. K., & Hwang, E. (2016). Mapping Saldana's coding

methods onto the literature review process. Journal of Educational Issues, 2(1),

130–150. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1127478

Osanloo, A., & Grant, C. (2016). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical

framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”

Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research,

4(2). https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9

Oskam, I., Bossink, B., & de Man, A. P. (2021). Valuing value in innovation ecosystems:

How cross-sector actors overcome tensions in collaborative sustainable business

model development. Business & Society, 60(5), 1059–1091.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650320907145

Otten, R., Faughnan, M., Flattley, M., & Fleurinor, S. (2022). Integrating equity,

diversity, and inclusion into social innovation education: A case study of critical

service-learning. Social Enterprise Journal, 18(1), 182–200.

https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-11-2020-0101/full/html

373
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2020). Responsible research and innovation:

From science in society to science for society, with society. In G. E. Marchant &

W. Wallach (Eds.), Emerging technologies: Ethics, law, and governance (pp.

117–126). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003074960-11

Özdemir, V., & Springer, S. (2018). What does “diversity” mean for public engagement

in science? A new metric for innovation ecosystem diversity. OMICS: A Journal

of Integrative Biology, 22(3), 184–189. https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2018.0002

Pallathadka, H., & Pallathadka, L. K. (2022). Role of Fintech as a Business Innovation

Ecosystem-An Empirical Study. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and

Government, 28(1), 237–246.

https://cibgp.com/article_17627_65459a83030d21f92ec8a946914fb15a.pdf

Palmié, M., Wincent, J., Parida, V., & Caglar, U. (2020). The evolution of the financial

technology ecosystem: An introduction and agenda for future research on

disruptive innovations in ecosystems. Technological Forecasting and Social

Change, 151, 119779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119779

Paradkar, A., Knight, J., & Hansen, P. (2015). Innovation in start-ups: Ideas filling the

void or ideas devoid of resources and capabilities? Technovation, 41, 1–

10.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.03.004

374
Pelletier, C., & Raymond, L. (2020, January). Orchestrating the digital transformation

process through a ‘strategy-as-practice lens: A revelatory case study. Proceedings

of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2020.528

Peters, C., Maglio, P., Badinelli, R., Harmon, R. R., Maull, R., Spohrer, J. C., &

Moghaddam, Y. (2016). Emerging digital frontiers for service innovation.

Communications of the Association for Information Systems: CAIS, 39.

https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03908

Pierrakis, Y., & Saridakis, G. (2019). The role of venture capitalists in the regional

innovation ecosystem: A comparison of networking patterns between private and

publicly backed venture capital funds. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(3),

850–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9622-8

Pikka, V., Iskanius, P., & Page, T. (2011). The business enabling network—A tool for

regional development. International Journal of Innovation and Regional

Development, 3(3/4), 324–344. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijird.2011.040529

Poblete, L., Kadefors, A., Rådberg, K. K., & Gluch, P. (2022). Temporality,

temporariness, and keystone actor capabilities in innovation ecosystems.

Industrial Marketing Management, 102, 301–310.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.01.012

375
Pop, O. M., Roijakkers, N., Rus, D., & Hins, M. (2018). The link between entrepreneurial

attributes and SME ecosystem orchestration: a case from the Dutch HR services

industry. In Researching open innovation in SMEs (pp. 347-375).

https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813230972_0011

Prokopenko, O. V., Omelianenko, V. A., & Eremenko, Y. I. (2014). Role of international

factor in innovation ecosystem formation. Economic Annals, 21, 4–7.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/141443136.pdf

Rabelo, R. J., & Bernus, P. (2015). A holistic model of building innovation ecosystems.

IFAC-Papers Online, 48(3), 2250–2257.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.423

Radicic, D., Pugh, G., & Douglas, D. (2020). Promoting cooperation in innovation

ecosystems: evidence from European traditional manufacturing SMEs. Small

Business Economics, 54, 257–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104047

Rajahonka, M., Pienonen, T., Kuusisto, R., & Handelberg, J. (2015). Orchestrators of

innovation-driven regional development: Experiences from the INNOFOKUS

Project and Change2020 Programme. Technology Innovation Management

Review, 5(10), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/937

Ralph, N., Birks, M., & Chapman, Y. (2015). The methodological dynamism of grounded

theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(4), 1–6.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915611576

376
Raunio, M., & Andreas, D. (2020). Transnationalising business and innovation

ecosystems shaping EU-Africa relations: A case study of Finland and Namibia. In

Expanding boundaries (pp. 168–184). Routledge.

Rawal, B. S., Ahmadand, S., Mentges, A., & Fadli, S. (2022). Opportunities and

Challenges in Metaverse the Rise of Digital Universe. In L. J. Zhang (Ed.),

International conference on metaverse (pp. 3–17). Springer, Cham.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23518-4_1

Redondo, M., & Camarero, C. (2019). Social capital in university business incubators:

dimensions, antecedents and outcomes. International Entrepreneurship and

Management Journal, 15, 599–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0494-7

Rego, L., & Gergen, C. (2017). Fostering inclusive innovation ecosystems. In A. Boitano,

R. L. Dutra, & H. E. Schockman (Eds.), Breaking the zero-sum game (pp. 43–57).

Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78743-185-

020171006

Reichert, S. (2019). The role of universities in regional innovation ecosystems. European

University Association.

https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/eua%20innovation%20ecosystem%20repor

t%202019-3-12.pdf

Remneland, W. B., & Styhre, A. (2022). Open innovation ecosystem organizing from a

process view: A longitudinal study in the making of an innovation hub. R&D

Management, 53(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12537

377
Reypens, C., Lievens, A., & Blazevic, V. (2021). Hybrid orchestration in multi-

stakeholder innovation networks: Practices of mobilizing multiple, diverse

stakeholders across organizational boundaries. Organization Studies, 42(1), 61–

83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619868268

Rigg, C. M. (2001). Orchestrating ecosystem management: Challenges and lessons from

Sequoia National Forest. Conservation Biology, 15(1), 78–90.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2001.99339.x

Ritala, P., Agouridas, V., Assimakopoulos, D., & Gies, O. (2013). Value creation and

capture mechanisms in innovation ecosystems: A comparative case study.

International Journal of Technology Management, 63(3–4), 244–267.

https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2013.056900

Ritala, P., & Gustafsson, R. (2018). Q&A. Innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem

research: Where are we now and how do we move forward? Technology

Innovation Management Review, 8(7), 52–57.

https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1171

Ritter, T., & Pedersen, C. (2022, April 13). An entrepreneur’s guide to surviving the

“Death Valley curve.” Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/04/an-

entrepreneurs-guide-to-surviving-the-death-valley-curve

378
Robaczewska, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Lorenz, A. (2019). Applying open innovation

strategies in the context of a regional innovation ecosystem: The case of Janssen

Pharmaceuticals. Global transitions, 1, 120–131.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2019.05.001

Robert, J., Kubler, S., Kolbe, N., Cerioni, A., Gastaud, E., & Främling, K. (2017). Open

IoT ecosystem for enhanced interoperability in smart cities—example of

Métropole De Lyon. Sensors, 17(12), 2849. https://doi.org/10.3390/s17122849

Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks,

and theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource

Development Review, 8(1), 120–130.https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617

Rocha, C. F., Mamédio, D. F., & Quandt, C. O. (2019). Startups and the innovation

ecosystem in Industry 4.0. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(12),

1474-1487. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2019.1628938

Rossi, M., Chouaibi, J., Graziano, D., & Festa, G. (2022). Corporate venture capitalists as

entrepreneurial knowledge accelerators in global innovation ecosystems. Journal

of Business Research, 142, 512–523.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.003

379
Rowe, A., Dong, L., Landon, J., & Rezkalla, E. (2019). Scaling start-ups: Challenges in

Canada’s innovation ecosystem. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (pp. 1–17).

The International Society for Professional Innovation Management.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343450223_Scaling_Start-

ups_Challenges_in_Canada's_Innovation_Ecosystem

Saintot, V. M., & Lulić, F. (2022). Transforming legal ecosystems: A conceptual

framework derived from our practice. In K. Jacob, R. Strathausen, & B. Waltl

(Eds.), Liquid legal–humanization and the law (pp. 133–155). Springer, Cham.

Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis strategies. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford

handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 876–911).

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190847388.013.33

Sandelowski, M. (2014). Unmixing mixed-methods research. Research in Nursing in

Health, 37, 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21570

Santipuri, M., Ghose, A., Dam, H. K., & Roy, S. (2017). Goal orchestrations: Modelling

and mining flexible business processes. In H. Mayr, G. Guizzardi, H. Ma, & O.

Pastor (Eds.), Conceptual modelling (ER 2017, Lecture Notes in Computer

Science, Vol. 10650). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69904-

2_29

Sarkki, S. (2017). Governance services: Co-producing human well-being with ecosystem

services. Ecosystem Services, 27, 82–91.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.003

380
Schepis, D., Purchase, S., & Butler, B. (2021). Facilitating open innovation processes

through network orchestration mechanisms. Industrial Marketing Management,

93, 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.01.015

Schlüter, M., Orach, K., Lindkvist, E., Martin, R., Wijermans, N., Bodin, Ö., & Boonstra,

W. J. (2019). Toward a methodology for explaining and theorizing about social-

ecological phenomena. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39, 44–

53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.011

Secundo, G., Shams, S. R., & Nucci, F. (2021). Digital technologies and collective

intelligence for healthcare ecosystem: Optimizing Internet of Things adoption for

pandemic management. Journal of Business Research, 131, 563–572.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.034

Seidel, S., & Urquhart, C. (2013). On emergence and forcing in information systems

grounded theory studies: The case of Strauss and Corbin. Journal of Information

Technology, 28, 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2013.17

Serrano, W. (2018). Digital systems in smart city and infrastructure: Digital as a service.

Smart Cities, 1(1), 134–154. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities1010008

Shannon-Baker, P., & Edwards, C. (2018). The affordances and challenges to

incorporating visual methods in mixed methods research. American Behavioral

Scientist, 62(7), 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218772671

Shi, Q., & Shen, L. (2021). Orchestration capability: A bibliometric analysis. Kybernetes,

51(10), 3073–3094. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-05-2021-0386

381
Shim, M., Johnson, B., Bradt, J., & Gasson, S. (2020). A mixed methods-grounded

theory design for producing more refined theoretical models. Journal of Mixed

Methods Research, 15(1), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820932311

Shivakumar, S. K. (2018). Complete guide to digital project management. Apress.

Singavarapu, A., & Singh, C. (2016). Creating an enabling digital ecosystem: issues and

challenges in financial inclusion (IM Bangalore Research Paper No. 508). SSRN

Electronic Journal, Article 2763578. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2763578

Sjödin, D., Parida, V., & Visnjic, I. (2022). How can large manufacturers digitalize their

business models? A framework for orchestrating industrial ecosystems. California

Management Review, 64(3), 49–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/00081256211059140

Skrimizea, E., Lecuyer, L., Bunnefeld, N., Butler, J. R., Fickel, T., Hodgson, I., &

Young, J. C. (2020). Sustainable agriculture: Recognizing the potential of conflict

as a positive driver for transformative change. Advances in Ecological Research,

63, 255–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2020.08.003

Smith, K. R. (2006). Building an innovation ecosystem: Process, culture and

competencies. Industry and Higher Education, 20(4), 219–224.

https://doi.org/10.5367/000000006778175801

Smorodinskaya, N., Russell, M., Katukov, D., & Still, K. (2017, January). Innovation

ecosystems vs. innovation systems in terms of collaboration and co-creation of

value. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system

sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.636

382
Song, Y. (2022). How do Chinese SMEs enhance technological innovation capability?

From the perspective of innovation ecosystem. European Journal of Innovation

Management. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2022-0016

Stahl, B. C. (2022). Responsible innovation ecosystems: Ethical implications of the

application of the ecosystem concept to artificial intelligence. International

Journal of Information Management, 62, 102441.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102441

Steinbruch, F. K., Nascimento, L. D. S., & de Menezes, D. C. (2022). The role of trust in

innovation ecosystems. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 37(1), 195-

208. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-08-2020-0395

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Strong, M. F. (2002). Needed: A new global governance model. Biodiversity, 3(3),

Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2002.9712581

Su, Y. S., Zheng, Z. X., & Chen, J. (2018). A multi-platform collaboration innovation

ecosystem: The case of China. Management Decision, 56(1), 125–142.

https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2017-0386

Suchek, N., Fernandes, C. I., Kraus, S., Filser, M., & Sjögrén, H. (2021). Innovation and

the circular economy: A systematic literature review. Business Strategy and the

Environment, 30(8), 3686–3702. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2834

383
Sun, C., & Wei, J. (2019). Digging deep into the enterprise innovation ecosystem.

Chinese Management Studies, 13(4), 820–839.

https://doi.org/10.1108/cms-05-2018-0505

Sun, S. L., Zhang, Y., Cao, Y., Dong, J., & Cantwell, J. (2019). Enriching innovation

ecosystems: The role of government in a university science park. Global

Transitions, 1, 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2019.05.002

Susanto, H., Yie, L. F., Rosiyadi, D., Basuki, A. I., & Setiana, D. (2021). Data security

for connected governments and organisations: Managing automation and artificial

intelligence. In Web 2.0 and cloud technologies for implementing connected

government (pp. 229–251). IGI Global.

Suseno, Y., Laurell, C., & Sick, N. (2018). Assessing value creation in digital innovation

ecosystems: A social media analytics approach. The Journal of Strategic

Information Systems, 27(4), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2018.09.004

Syrbe, R. U., & Grunewald, K. (2017). Ecosystem service supply and demand–the

challenge to balance spatial mismatches. International Journal of Biodiversity

Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 13(2), 148–161.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1407362

Tabas, A. M., Nätti, S., & Komulainen, H. (2022). Orchestrating in the entrepreneurial

ecosystem—Orchestrator roles and role-specific capabilities in the regional health

technology ecosystem. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 38(1), 223–

234. https://doi.org/10.1108/jbim-05-2021-0257

384
Tabrizian, S. (2019). Technological innovation to achieve sustainable development—

Renewable energy technologies diffusion in developing countries. Sustainable

Development, 27(3), 537-544. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1918

Talmar, M., Walrave, B., Podoynitsyna, K. S., Holmström, J., & Romme, A. G. L.

(2020). Mapping, analyzing and designing innovation ecosystems: The Ecosystem

Pie Model. Long Range Planning, 53(4), Article 101850.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.09.002

Taques, F. H., López, M. G., Basso, L. F., & Areal, N. (2021). Indicators used to measure

service innovation and manufacturing innovation. Journal of Innovation &

Knowledge, 6(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.12.001

Tarode, S., & Shrivastava, S. (2022). A framework for stakeholder management

ecosystem. American Journal of Business, 37(2), 76–88.

https://doi.org/10.1108/AJB-01-2020-0003

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2021). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social &

behavioral research. SAGE publications.

Teodorescu, G. (2018). How to build a smart climate city conserving and using

biodiversity. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.

https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640

385
Terstriep, J., Rehfeld, D., & Kleverbeck, M. (2022). Favourable social innovation

ecosystem(s)?—An explorative approach. In J. Terstriep & D. Rehfeld (Eds.), The

economics of social innovation (pp. 29–53). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003291510-3

Thayer, A. L., Petruzzelli, A., & McClurg, C. E. (2018). Addressing the paradox of the

team innovation process: A review and practical considerations. American

Psychologist, 73(4), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000310

Thomas, A., Passaro, R., & Quinto, I. (2019). Developing entrepreneurship in digital

economy: The ecosystem strategy for startups growth. In B. Orlando, Strategy

and behaviors in the digital economy. IntechOpen.

https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85423

Thomas, E., Faccin, K., & Asheim, B. T. (2021). Universities as orchestrators of the

development of regional innovation ecosystems in emerging economies. Growth

and Change, 52(2), 770–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12442

Thomas, L. D., & Autio, E. (2019). Innovation ecosystems. In R. Aldag (Ed.), Oxford

research encyclopaedia of business and management. Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3476925

Tian, M., Deng, P., & Wu, B. (2021). Culture and innovation in the international context:

a literature overview. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science

Research, 34(4), 426–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1783644

386
Tiwana, A. (2013). Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and

strategy. Morgan Kaufman. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-408066-9.00001-1

Toimbek, D. (2022a). Building the human capital in Kazakhstan: Information-processing

skills and socio-economic outcomes of the population. Journal of Adult and

Continuing Education, 14779714221145861.

https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714221145861

Toimbek, D. (2022b). Problems and perspectives of transition to the knowledge-based

economy in Kazakhstan. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(2), 1088–1125.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00742-9

Tolstykh, T., Shmeleva, N., & Gamidullaeva, L. (2020). Evaluation of circular and

integration potentials of innovation ecosystems for industrial sustainability.

Sustainability, 12(11), 4574. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/11/4574

Traitler, H., Watzke, H. J., & Saguy, I. S. (2011). Reinventing R&D in an open

innovation ecosystem. Journal of Food Science, 76(2), R62–R68.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01998.x

Trede, F., & Higgs, J. (2009). Framing research questions and writing philosophically:

The role of framing research questions. In J. Higgs, D. Hornsfall, & S. Grace

(Eds.), Writing qualitative research on practice (pp. 13-25). Brill.

Tronvoll, B., & Edvardsson, B. Å. (2020). Explaining how platforms foster innovation in

service ecosystems. Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on

System Sciences (HICSS 2020). https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2020.198

387
Trudeau, D. (2018). Integrating social equity in sustainable development practice:

Institutional commitments and patient capital. Sustainable Cities and Society, 41,

601–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.007

Ucuz, D. (2020). Comparison of the IoT platform vendors, microsoft Azure, Amazon web

services, and Google cloud, from users’ perspectives. In 2020 8th international

symposium on digital forensics and security (ISDFS) (pp. 1–4). IEEE.

https://doi.org/10.1109/ISDFS49300.2020.9116254

Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M. (2010). Putting the “theory” back into grounded

theory: Guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems.

Information Systems, 20, 357–381.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00328.x

Valkokari, K., Seppänen, M., Mäntylä, M., & Jylhä-Ollila, S. (2017). Orchestrating

innovation ecosystems: A qualitative analysis of ecosystem positioning strategies.

Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(3), 12–24.

https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1061

Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment

Review, 22(3), 183–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00105-6

Van de Burgwal, L., Van der Waal, M., & Claassen, E. (2018). Leveraging academic

knowledge in the innovation ecosystem: The societal impact value cycle as a

toolbox. Stichting Maatschappij en Onderneming.

https://repub.eur.nl/pub/104386/Societal-Impact-Value-Cycle.pdf

388
Vandekerckhove, J., Matzke, D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2015). Model comparison and

the principle. The Oxford handbook of computational and mathematical

psychology, 300.

Van Maanen, J., Sorensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. (2007). Introduction to special topic

forum: The interplay between theory and method. Academy of Management

Review, 32(4), 1145–1154. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586080

Varpio, L., Paradis, E., Uijtdehaage, S., & Young, M. (2020). The distinctions between

theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework. Academic Medicine,

95(7), 989–994. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003075

Varpio, L., & Teunissen, P. (2020). Leadership in interprofessional healthcare teams:

empowering knotworking with followership. Medical teacher.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1791318

Velibeyoglu, K., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2010). An evaluation methodology for the tangible

and intangible assets of city-regions: The 6K1C framework. International Journal

of Services Technology and Management, 14(4), 343–359.

https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTM.2010.035783

Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Razzaque, J., McElwee, P., Turnhout, E., Kelemen, E., Rusch,

G. M., & Zaleski, D. (2021). Transformative governance of biodiversity: Insights

for sustainable development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,

53, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.06.002

389
Vittecoq, M., Roche, B., Daoust, S. P., Ducasse, H., Missé, D., Abadie, J., Labrut, S.,

Renaud, F., Gauthier-Clerc, M., & Thomas, F. (2013). Cancer: A missing link in

ecosystem functioning? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(11), 628–635.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.07.005

Vlaisavljevic, V., Medina, C. C., & Van Looy, B. (2020). The role of policies and the

contribution of cluster agency in the development of biotech open innovation

ecosystem. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 155, 119987.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119987

Wainaina, I., Muriungi, K., Chumo, K., & Mulongo, D. (2022). STEM Vs. STEAM

approach dilemma in the innovation ecosystem for smart cities sustainability.

IEEE Smart Cities. https://smartcities.ieee.org/newsletter/april-2022/stem-vs-

steam-approach-dilemma-in-the-innovation-ecosystem-for-smart-cities-

sustainability

Walsh, I. (2015). Using quantitative data in mixed-design grounded theory studies: An

enhanced path formal grounded theory in information systems. European Journal

of Information Systems, 24, 531–557. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.23

Wang, P. (2021). Connecting the parts with the whole: Toward an information ecology

theory of digital innovation ecosystems. Mis Quarterly, 45(1).

https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2021/15864

Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly,

40, 290–385. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393789

390
Weldon, M. K. (2016). The future x network: a Bell Labs perspective. CRC press.

https://doi.org/10.1201/b21038

Wessner, C. W. (2005). Entrepreneurship and the innovation ecosystem policy lessons

from the United States. In D. Audretsch, H. Grimm, C. W. Wessner (Eds.). Local

heroes in the global village: Globalization and the New Entrepreneurship

Policies (pp. 67–89). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23475-6_5

Williams, S., & Keady, J. (2012). Centre stage diagrams: A new method to develop

constructivist grounded theory-late-stage Parkinson’s disease as a case exemplar.

Qualitative Research, 12(2), 218–238.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111422034

Witte, P., Slack, B., Keesman, M., Jugie, J. H., & Wiegmans, B. (2018). Facilitating start-

ups in port-city innovation ecosystems: A case study of Montreal and Rotterdam.

Journal of Transport Geography, 71, 224–234.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.03.006

Wuest, J., & Hodgins, M. J. (2011). Reflections on methodological approaches and

conceptual contributions in a program of caregiving research: Development and

testing of Wuest’s theory of family care-giving. Qualitative Health Research,

21(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732310385010

Wydra, S. (2020). Measuring innovation in the bioeconomy–Conceptual discussion and

empirical experiences. Technology in Society, 61, 101242.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101242

391
Xiao, L., & North, D. (2017). The role of technological business incubators in supporting

business innovation in China: A case of regional adaptability? Entrepreneurship

& Regional Development, 30(1–2), 29–57.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1364789

Xie, L., & Bourne, P. E. (2015). Developing multi-target therapeutics to fine-tune the

evolutionary dynamics of the cancer ecosystem. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 6,

Article 209. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2015.00209

Xie, X., & Wang, H. (2020). How can open innovation ecosystem modes push product

innovation forward? An fsQCA analysis. Journal of Business Research, 108, 29–

41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.011

Xin, X., Miao, X., & Cui, R. (2022). Enhancing sustainable development: Innovation

ecosystem coopetition, environmental resource orchestration, and disruptive green

innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3194

Yaghmaie, P., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2020). Identifying and describing constituents of

innovation ecosystems: A systematic review of the literature. EuroMed Journal of

Business, 15(3), 283–314. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-03-2019-0042

Yakman, G., & Lee, H. (2012). Exploring the exemplary STEAM education in the US as

a practical educational framework for Korea. Journal of the Korean Association

for Science Education, 32(6), 1072–1086.

https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.6.1072

392
Yang, S. (2020). How do innovation ecosystem actors complement: The perspective of

prospective resourcing. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2020(1), Article

20015. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2020.20015abstract

Yang, Y. K., & Lin, W. S. (2022). How to enhance workplace climate through telework

communication approaches in organization during the era of changes? Evidences

of authentic leaders. Asia Pacific Management Review Advance online

publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2022.07.002

Yang, Z., Chen, H., Du, L., Lin, C., & Lu, W. (2021). How does alliance-based

government-university-industry foster cleantech innovation in a green innovation

ecosystem? Journal of Cleaner Production, 283, 124559.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124559

Yearby, R., & Mohapatra, S. (2020). Law, structural racism, and the COVID-19

pandemic. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1), lsaa036.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa036

Yin, D., Ming, X., & Zhang, X. (2020). Sustainable and smart product innovation

ecosystem: An integrative status review and future perspectives. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 274, Article 123005.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123005

Yun, J. J., Zhao, X., Jung, K., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2020). The culture for open innovation

dynamics. Sustainability, 12(12), Article 5076.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125076

393
Zacharia, Z. G., Sanders, N. R., & Nix, N. W. (2011). The emerging role of the third-

party logistics provider (3PL) as an orchestrator. Journal of Business Logistics,

32(1), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2158-1592.2011.01004.x

Zahra, S. A., & Nambisan, S. (2011). Entrepreneurship in global innovation ecosystems.

AMS Review, 1(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-011-0004-3

Zeng, J. (2022). Orchestrating ecosystem resources in a different country: Understanding

the integrative capabilities of sharing economy platform multinational

corporations. Journal of World Business, 57(6), Article 101347.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2022.101347

Zetzsche, D. A., Arner, D. W., & Buckley, R. P. (2020). Decentralized finance. Journal

of Financial Regulation, 6(2), 172–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/jfr/fjaa010

Zhai, X., Chu, X., & Li, Y. (2021, May). Exploring the construction of innovative

educational ecosystem based on the “internet+ educational crowd funding”. IEEE

24th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in

Design (pp. 476–479). IEEE.

https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD49262.2021.9437735

Zhilenkova, E., Budanova, M., Bulkhov, N., & Rodionov, D. (2019, March).

Reproduction of intellectual capital in innovative-digital economy environment.

IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 497(1), 012065.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/497/1/012065

394
Zvereva, T. V. (2021). “Smart city” management: Environmental and ecosystem

sustainability. Revista Gestão Inovação E Tecnologias, 11(4), 935–946.

https://doi.org/10.47059/revistageintec.v11i4.2158

Zygiaris, S. (2013). Smart city reference model: Assisting planners to conceptualize the

building of smart city innovation ecosystems. Journal of the Knowledge

Economy, 4(2), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0089-4

395
 APPENDIX A: Phase I Interview Questions

Innovation Ecosystem Components

1. What is the main role of your institution in the innovation ecosystem?

2. How are the actors in the innovation ecosystem positioned, and what role

do they play?

3. How do companies access external knowledge and resources and

incorporate external players in their Global Innovation Ecosystem in a win-

win way?

4. How are the activities of the orchestrators coordinated with the other

innovation-related players in the company so that their combined actions

make a coherent whole?

5. Once the most important external players have been located and prioritized

how is the relationship with these players designed so that they are

motivated to contribute in a win-win way?

6. Are Hub firms the most effective in leveraging the ecosystem or is there an

alternative approach to leverage the innovation ecosystem?

7. What tools and mechanisms do orchestrators use to build the ecosystem and

create cohesion?

8. How would you define the effectiveness and efficiency of an innovation

ecosystem?

9. Would you consider yourself a successful innovation ecosystem? Why or

why not?

396
10. What is the value proposition of the ecosystem for the end customer?

11. (not counted): Please sketch the ecosystem by drawing and explaining the

partners, their roles, benefits, contributions, and relationships necessary for

this value proposition to be delivered

12. How is the value creation generated and distributed within the ecosystem?

What are the activities of the respective partners?

13. How are the partners linked with each other? How rigid or flexible are the

respective positions?

14. How closely are the partners intertwined? How deep are the links among

the respective partners?

15. How is your innovation ecosystem governed? Do you have a specific

model?

16. In your opinion, how is your company perceived by its clients (ex: as a

quality leader, trusted partner/company)?

17. What are the market conditions that are most relevant for your ecosystem?

Why is that the case?

18. How would you describe how competitive your market is?

19. AS AN INNOVATION ECO SYSTEM How do you assess market risks in

your environment?

20. AS AN INNOVATION ECO SYSTEM How do you assess technology

risks in your environment?

397
21. How uncertain is your environment?

22. How would you describe the structure of your company?

23. How do you describe the behavior of your company in

coordinating/orchestrating with other partners in the Innovation eco

system?

24. How do you describe the culture of your company compared to other

partners in the innovation eco system?

25. Why are you the orchestrator of your FIRM IN THE INNOVATION

ecosystem?

26. What are your FIRM’S strengths regarding ENSURING A SUCCESSFUL

innovation ECO SYSTEM?

27. What are your FIRM’s weaknesses that COME IN THE WAY OF

ENSURING A SUCCESSFUL innovation ECO SYSTEM?

398
 APPENDIX B: Phase 2: Interviews

Innovation Ecosystem – Building an Urban City with a Purpose

1. What are the challenges in driving future solutions: (economic, social,

political)

2. What trends will shape the future of cities? (what is the trend? Why is the

trend important? How it should be implemented? Where to see this in

action?

3. Why are AI-enabled surveillance and predictive policing relevant for cities

and their citizens?

4. How to define successful implementation?

5. Why are privacy awareness, cybersecurity, and related safety systems

relevant in a city? How do we ensure successful implementation?

6. There is a big trend toward data platforms and urban platforms. What is the

relevance of these technologies in delivering a better service to citizens

while also streamlining the city’s process?

7. On one hand, we want to feel secure and use AI and predictive policing,

face and voice recognition, to protect our urban ecosystems. On the other

hand, we have privacy issues. What is the right balance?

8. What kind of recommendations would you give to local governments in

order to be cyber secure?

9. What is the role of the private sector?

399
10. What is your vision of a city in the future? How will it become your dream

city?

11. What are the key factors for the vision to succeed?

12. How to ensure the successful implementation of Smart Healthy

Communities?

13. What is your view about smart buildings and smart infrastructure for

achieving resilience and sustainability of your city?

14. How do we convince developers to be sustainable and smart when

sometimes it is more expensive?

15. How can we get participation from all segments of the population?

16. Why is Social Inclusion relevant for cities and citizens?

17. How do you ensure the successful creation of an inclusive city?

18. How do you think the future of our mobility will look like?

19. In times of failing municipal revenues, how can we fund this transition?

400
 APPENDIX C: Survey Question Sets

A. Innovation Culture-Transformation Survey

1- Stage of development of Innovation Ecosystem

• Established

• Transformational

• Under Construction

• Growing

• Other

2- My organization regularly challenges its assumptions about customers,

business models, and the competition in its formal planning and product

development processes.

• Strongly Disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly Agree

• Other

3- Our leadership supports a collaborative culture that encourages different

departments working in cross-functionality to identify and develop new

innovations and solutions.

401
 • Strongly Disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly Agree

• Other

4- My organization has a systematic process for actively monitoring emerging

trends and developing alternative scenarios that represent either threats or

opportunities.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly Agree

• Other

5- My organization directly involves customers (existing & potential) in the

innovation process as a strategy for identifying both articulated and

unarticulated needs.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

• Other

402
6- My organization’s strategy development processes engage key internal

stakeholders, customers, suppliers, and outside thought leaders as a way of

identifying new opportunities and creating unique business models and

strategies.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

• Other

7- My organization has goals and measures stating, “X% of revenues will

come from products/services introduced less than X years ago.”

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

• Other

8- My organization clearly understands its core competencies and has

explicitly outlined the linkage between its long-term strategic goals and its

short- and medium-term R&D investments and technology strategies.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

403
 • Agree

• Strongly agree

• Other

9- My organization has adequate staffing, funding, leadership, and cross-

functional management support to successfully identify and implement new

ideas.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

• Other

10- My organization takes a systemic view of implementation and

organizational change in order to ensure that both strategic and tactical

projects receive the resources and priorities necessary for successful

implementation

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

• Other

404
 11- My organization has dedicated resources and formalized processes focused

on identifying and developing both incremental and breakthrough

innovations.

• Strongly disagree

• Disagree

• Agree

• Strongly agree

• Other

a. Ecosystem – Regional Development Survey

1. What is the name of your Ecosystem (ex. technology park, business

cluster, association, network, innovation funding program, accelerator,

lab, partnership, incubator, co-working space)?

2. What region is your ecosystem located (city, state, country)?

3. What is the stage of growth is your innovation ecosystem?

• Established

• Growing

• Transformational

• Under Construction

• Other

405
4. What is the industry that you work in?

5. What is the name of the company you work for?

6. What is your position at the company?

7. What is your educational level?

8. What are the most important needs and challenges that the US is facing

in the domain of innovation? In particular, for developing break-through

innovations, scaling up firms, investing in innovation, and bridging the

innovation divide in the US? Please select one of the following options

that describe the general approach that should be taken.

• Deliver innovation that contributes to the US’s political

ambition for the US’s green and digital transition.

• Have clear and focused innovation policy objectives

across the US

• Promote breakthrough and deep tech innovations and the

role of startups and dynamic players and drivers of

innovation

• Implement an inclusive and broad approach to

innovation policy that notably ensures the inclusion of

less developed US regions

• Other

406
9. Please specify any other thoughts you may have on the needs and

challenges the US faces in the domain of innovation.

10. What are the most important needs and challenges that the US is facing

in the domain of innovation? In particular, for developing break-through

innovations, scaling up firms, investing in innovation and bridging the

innovation divide in the US? Please select one of the following options

that describes the type of skills and people (access to skills, talents,

knowledge, and ability) needed?

• Tertiary education or vocational training that can provide

the necessary skills

• Scarcity/shortage of appropriate skills or talents on the

labor market?

• Policies that reflect that innovation is increasingly

coming from sources other than research and researchers

(entrepreneurs, students, academia, industry, public

sector, civil society)?

• More balanced participation of women and cultural and

social diversity

• Policies that reflect that innovation is increasingly

coming from sources other than research and researchers

407
 (entrepreneurs, students, academia, industry, public

sector, civil society)

• Transforming our higher education sector to strengthen

the links between education and innovation

• Other

11. Please specify any other thoughts you may have on the needs and

challenges of innovation relating to skills and people.

12. What are the most important needs and challenges that the US is facing

in the domain of innovation? In particular, for developing break-through

innovations, scaling up firms, investing in innovation, and bridging the

innovation divide in the US? Please select one of the following options

that describe the needs and challenges of funding/financing (public and

private investments in R&I) innovation?

• Access to finance in general

• Availability of risk finance

• Availability of public support

• Availability of alternative finance (crowdfunding, etc.)

• Incentives for private investors

• Better leverage of the US R&I funding programs

• Other

408
13. Please specify any other thoughts you may have on the needs and

challenges of innovation relating to funding/financing

14. What are the most important needs and challenges that the US is facing

in the domain of innovation? In particular, for developing break-through

innovations, scaling up firms, investing in innovation, and bridging the

innovation divide in the US? Please select one of the following options

that describe the needs and challenges relating to the Regulatory

environment/single market (sufficiently innovation-friendly regulations

• Reinforcing the internal market and tackling

fragmentation/multiple national/regulatory regimes that

create obstacles to the development and diffusion of

innovations and firm’s scale-up

• Decreasing the regulatory burdens and red tape affecting

all businesses

• Adjusting product market regulations and standards that

prevent, hinder, or make uncompetitive the development

and marketing of innovations, notably due to the

inability to combine innovation support with the

safeguard of socio-environment requirements

409
 • Public procurement rules can be developed that take into

account the innovation dimension or reward innovative

solutions

• Better access and enhance the possibility to re-use data

and knowledge

• Greater influence on global standard-setting relevant to

innovation

• More opportunities for innovation co-creation,

crowdsourcing, and/or experimentation

15. Please specify any other thoughts on needs and challenges relating to

the regulatory environment/single market

16. What is your vision for the innovation ecosystem? How can we

strengthen the local innovation ecosystems and the development of an

interconnected and inclusive innovation ecosystem at the US level?

Please select from the following options.

• Give innovation a direction by focusing on delivering US

leadership in innovations for the green and digital

transitions and related economic and societal

transformations

410
 • Adopt a broad scope for innovation policy covering

technological, non-technological and social innovation

and engaging with people, students and end-users

• Stimulate a value-based, citizen-led and human-centric

innovation approach, placing people at the center of

innovation

• Increase the focus on defragmenting US internal market

for innovations, and creating a pro-innovation regulatory

and standard-setting environment

• Increase the focus on mobilizing long-term capital and

risk finance for scale-up and diffusion of innovation

• Increase the focus on inclusion and interconnection of

innovation ecosystems across the US

• Increase the focus on capacity building in US’s local

innovation ecosystems

• Increase the focus on broadening innovation and

technology adoption, addressing the innovation divide

and regions at all levels of development

17. Please specify any other visions you may have for the innovation

ecosystem

411
18. What are your ideas for action (How would you support innovation at

the US national, regional, or local level relating to skills/people

development?

• Support underrepresented innovators

• Create a more responsive educational/training system

that responds (more rapidly) to new innovation skills and

changing labor market needs

• Promote entrepreneurship in education and training

programs across all groups

• Provide better support for social innovators

• Develop easier/faster solutions for attracting talent to the

US

• Other

19. Please specify if you have other ideas for action (How would you

support innovation at the US national, regional, or local level relating to

skills/people development?

20. What are your ideas for action (How would you support innovation at

the US national, regional, or local level relating to funding/financing?

• Create conditions for mobilizing/crowding in more

private funding

• Leverage the US R&I funding instruments

412
 • Create critical mass for Venture Capital in the US

through public support

• Create conditions for strengthening Patient capital in the

US

• Develop new forms of public-private high-risk financing

• Launch joint or coordinate major innovative

procurement initiatives

• Make use of innovative procurement to promote the

development and market uptake of innovative solutions

• Other

21. Please specify if you have any other ideas for action (How would you

support innovation at the US national, regional, or local level relating to

funding/financing?

22. What are your ideas for action (How would you support innovation at

the US national, regional, or local level relating to the regulatory

environment?

• Identify and remove regulatory burdens

• Involve innovators in early discussions of regulations

and standards with legislators and policymakers

• Make information more easily/widely accessible about

regulatory measures affecting emerging tech

413
 • Develop standards in priority policy areas concerning

new technologies or innovations reaching commercial

application

• Create lead markets for breakthrough technologies and

strategic innovations

• Develop and promote frameworks/guidance for

technology/knowledge transfer between academia and

business

• Create spaces for experimentation and testing of

innovative solutions

• Assist stakeholders in understanding state aid in the area

of R& I

• Other

23. Please specify if you have any other ideas for action (How would you

support innovation at the US national, regional, or local level relating to

the regulatory environment?

24. What are your ideas for action (How would you support innovation at

the US national, regional, or local level relating to building the

innovation ecosystem?

414
• Develop bottom-up, place-based approaches of smart

specialization and use them to guide R&I investments

and initiatives for reinforcing innovation ecosystems

• Enhance local innovation networks among innovation

actors (academia, industry, public bodies, civil society,

and citizens) and reinforce network connectivity

between them

• Improve/integrate information & service platforms at the

local level, and interconnect them at the US level

• Develop pan-US marketplaces that connect ideas and

research results with entrepreneurs and investors across

the US (supply and demand)

• Support networking among innovation actors of strategic

value chains across the ecosystems, notably building on

US-level initiatives

• Interconnect US innovation hubs

• Foster synergies between the different US, as well as

national and regional programs

• Other

415
 25. Please specify if you have any other ideas for action (How would you

support innovation at the US national, regional, or local level relating to

building the innovation ecosystem?

26. Please provide examples of existing initiatives, policies or programs that

could help improve the innovation performance at the national, regional

or local level. You can share up to three examples that have the potential

to be replicated, customized or scaled up by providing a brief

description with links and the examples’ demonstrated impact.

b. Innovation Business Growth Survey

1. Describe the organizational capability input/output metrics used to assess

the success of innovation by filling out the following question: What is

the % of employees who have received training and tools for innovation

(ex: instruction in estimating market potential of an idea)

2. Describe the organizational capability input/output metrics used to assess

the success of innovation by filling out the following question: Rate the

existence of formal structures and processes that support innovation

3. Describe the organizational capability input/output metrics used to assess

the success of innovation by filling out the following question: The

416
 number of new competencies (distinctive skills and knowledge domains

that spawn innovation)

4. Describe the organizational capability input/output metrics used to assess

the success of innovation by filling out the following question: The

number of innovations that advance existing businesses

5. Describe the organizational capability input/output metrics used to assess

the success of innovation by filling out the following question: The

number of new-to-company opportunities to new markets.

6. Address the behaviors that senior managers and leaders exhibit to support

a culture of innovation and growth initiatives by filling out the following

questions. What is the % of executives time spent on strategic innovation

versus day-to-day operations (ACTUAL %)

7. Address the behaviors that senior managers and leaders exhibit to support

a culture of innovation and growth initiatives by filling out the following

questions. % of product/service or strategic innovation projects with

assigned executive sponsors

8. Address the behaviors that senior managers and leaders exhibit to support

a culture of innovation and growth initiatives by filling out the following

question. Number of managers that become leaders of new category

businesses

417
9. Describe the organization’s metrics used to assess financial return of

innovation by filling out the following questions. What is the % of capital

invested in innovation activities such as submitting and reviewing ideas

for new products and services and developing ideas through an innovation

pipeline? (ACTUAL %)

10. Describe the organization’s metrics used to assess financial return of

innovation by filling out the following questions. What percentage of

outside vs. inside inputs are part of the innovation process (ACTUAL %)

11. Describe the organization’s metrics used to assess financial return of

innovation by filling out the following questions. The number of new

products, services, and businesses launched in new markets in the past

year (ACTUAL NUMBER)

12. Describe the organization’s metrics used to assess financial return of

innovation by filling out the following questions. What is the Actual vs.

targeted breakeven time (BET)

13. Describe the organization’s metrics used to assess financial return of

innovation by filling out the following questions. What is the % of

revenue/profit from products or services introduced in the past X years

14. Describe the organization’s metrics used to assess financial return of

innovation by filling out the following questions. What is the Royalty and

licensing income from patents/intellectual property

418
 15. Describe to WHAT EXTENT DO YOU USE strategies to involve key

stakeholders (RATE ON A SCALE OF 1-2-3-4-5)

16. Describe to WHAT EXTENT DO YOU USE strategies to track metrics

against goals (RATE ON A SCALE OF 1-2-3-4-5)

17. Describe to WHAT EXTENT DO YOU USE strategies to allow for

continous learning and improvement (RATE ON A SCALE OF 1-2-3-4-

5)

c. Ecosystem-Artificial Intelligence Governance Survey

1. The purpose of adopting Artificial Intelligence

• Operational efficiency

• Cost reduction

• Creation of new business

• Work style reform

• Growth in sales for existing businesses

• Other

2. Operational Areas in which A.I. is being used ?

• Clerical

• R&D

• Marketing

419
 • Customer Service

• Sales

• Accounting & Finance

• Inventory management

• HR

• Planning

• Other

3. What is the approximate amount that your organization plans to invest

into AI technology in the next year?

4. Approximately how much have investments into A.I. technology

improved your annual sales figures?

5. Approximately how much have investments into A.I technology

reduced your annual costs?

6. Current stage of Applying A.I. ?

• Using or having started using A.I

• Conducting or have conducted a PoC (Proof of Concept) Phase Reached

• Have reached full-scale application

7. Issues Preventing Further use of A.I.: Strategy

• Our organization does not have a culture of continuously striving for innovation

• Where is a lack of clarity or control over how to measure the effectiveness of

analytics (A.I.) in order to achieve sales targets and other objectives

420
• Our strategy and vision concerning technology are unclear or doesn’t exist

• Data-driven decision-making is not a crucial part of our organization’s culture

• Agreement regarding our vision for analytics among key stakeholders is

insufficient

• Other

8. Issues Preventing Further use of A.I.: Talent

i. There isn’t anyone who can drive organizational change using

analytics (A.I)

ii. Analytics (A.I) training and skill improvement plans don’t exist

or are insufficient

iii. Knowledge on analytics (A.I.) remains at an individual level; a

function for managing knowledge on an organizational level

doesn’t exist or is insufficient

iv. Communication between departments is limited in regards to

analytical (A.I) areas

v. Departments in our organization are independent from one

another, making it difficult to accumulate or share knowledge

vi. Other

9. Issues Preventing Further use of A.I: The Process

• An agile process for making use of analytics (A.I) does not exist or is not

sufficiently established

421
• Opportunities for analytics and business departments to communicate with one

another do not exist or are insufficient

• Development is insufficient due to the lack of a means for automation

• Other

10. Issues Preventing Further use of A.I: Data

• Data isn’t subject to quality control or maintenance and this is hindering our ability

to use A.I.

• Data is scattered all over the place and this is hindering our ability to use A.I.

• Tools and environment to process or aggregate data do not exist, or their use is

insufficient

• A governance structure for analytics (ex: handling data and A.I models, addressing

security risks) do not exist, or is insufficient

• Tools and environment to create A.I. models do not exist, or their use is insufficient

• Other

11. Issues Preventing Further use of A.I.: Technology

• We are not making progress on bringing operations in-house, and the scope to

which we should do this is not clear

• We are not making any headway on making use of cloud environments and other

new services

• The environment for adopting new technology (ex: analytical sanboxes) does not

exist, or is insufficient

422
• We struggle to select suitable vendors for our needs

12. How risks in using A.I are being addressed (A Checkbox Grid was

added)

Rows:
1. The risk of someone maliciously inputting information into the A.I. so

that it makes errors in judgement that could lead to an incident or spark

criticism from society

2. The risk of someone, either maliciously or not, having the A.I. learn on

inappropriate data which then causes the A.I. to make errors in

judgement that could lead to an incident or spark criticism form society

3. The risk of intellectual property leaking from a publicly available A.I.,

if an external party uses the A.I. to make a large number of decisions

and analyses the results to identify the data and decision models that

constitutes the A.I.

4. The risk of sparking criticism from society should the A.I. make unfair

decisions toward specific groups based on factors such as gender and

nationality

5. The risk of bodily harm or damage to property should the A.I. make

faulty decisions

6. The risk that an A.I.’s prediction accuracy will deteriorate over tie

7. The risk of having to explain the rationale behind an A.I’s decision

should a user request it

423
8. The risk of potential problems arising regarding ownership of training

data and models when A.I. development is outsourced

9. The risk that an A.I.s advanced profiling of users will infer sensitive

information about them, thus violating their privacy

Columns:
1. A.I. which pose such risks are not used

2. Such risks are not recognized at the organizational level

3. Such risks are recognized, but we do not know how to address them

4. We know how to address such risks

5. Countermeasures are being created, albeit not on a company-wide level

6. Companywide governance is in place and countermeasures are carried

out

424
 APPENDIX D: Community Board Discussions

A. A.I and Data Ecosystems

1. How can we consolidate data from non-internal sources? What types of agreements

and technical infrastructure should be in place?

2. Data is commonly uploaded into one central APIs (Application Programming

Interfaces). In the case of a partnership, the data will need to be uploaded into one

central API and then it should be accompanied by a data governance group that

coordinates the data exchange efforts between the partners. What should be the

functions and roles of the data governance group in faciliating data exchange?

3. What common challenges do you experience when trying to collaborate with

partners?

4. There is a new trend of data orchestrators using the open dash mesh architecture

rather than aggregated the data into centralized domains. The data mesh

architecture creates multiple owners of the data, and thus in order to facilitate the

interoperability of the data, data governance standards need to be well-defined

amongst the partners.

5. How do you assess success in building a data as a service ecosystem? Please list

the inputs, outputs, and activities involved to achieve your definition of success?

6. What are the common risks of your current data system?

7. What type of data sets, source systems, and softwares are used currently to manage

your data catalog?

425
8. How can you describe the culture of your organization towards data?

Do you currently have a data governance model? Do you have any suggestions as

to what would be the best fit for your ecosystem?

9. What are your current challenges when implementing Artificial Intelligence?

10. How can you assess the difference in your current capabilities and the types of

initiatives you wish to embark on?

11. What tools or resources will help you overcome these challenges.

12. Can you identify any current architecture plateaus you may be experiencing? How

do you plan on moving past this plateau?

13. What does artificial intelligence mean to your company?

14. What specific problem are you trying to solve by implementing artificial

intelligence?

15. What do you foresee in the future with respect to implementation of artificial

intelligence? Will it be incremental or transformational?

16. What do you see the use of A.I will lead to? Will there be more gains or losses in

opportunities for professionals?

17. How do you plan on building trust in your data quality approach?

18. Please list the common data quality issues you commonly experience?

19. After reviewing the attachment can you identify what are the root causes of your

data quality issues?

20. How do you plan on fixing these data issues and addressing these challenges?

426
21. Would you be interested in a follow up workshop on the data quality management

program?

22. What types of challenges do leaders experience when building their data platform?

23. Companies tend to “not” have a clear strategy on how they partner or collaborate

with others in their ecosystem. What type of roles are needed (ex: orchestrators,

contributor, facilitator) should be involved in the building of the data platform?

24. Platforms require iteration, adaptability, and significant networking to be built.

What type of governance model and control mechanisms should be in place with a

new technology that may involve greater risk and a redefinition of value?

25. What type of metrics or performance meausures should be used to assess successful

implementation of the platform? Will the older metrics system still be relevant?

26. Many of the frameworks on platforms are being shared by “academics.” What type

of tools, resources, or training do corporate leaders find helpful to bridge the gap

between academic research and practical use of the research?

B. Cancer Ecosystem

1. How do we assess effective engagement and education of stakeholders in key

policy domains?

2. What policy actors (ex; Decision makers) should be involved in engaging

stakeholders? How should they be engaged?

3. How do we frame our policy issues so that they are clear and encompass the

political, social, and economic challenges of that specific environment? How do we

427
 define problems in a way that leads to policy solutions? Do you have any strategies

or suggestions?

4. How do we assess the development process of policy implementation locally and

nationally? How do we assess successful operationalizing of the policy,

enforcement, and monitoring of implementation?

5. What mechanisms and tools are needed for successful monitoring and

implementation of policies?

6. How to we make sure our policies are in alignment with the best available evidence

and policy findings?

7. What barriers or facilitators can you identify to proper policy implementation?

8. How do we assess the benefit and impact of the policies created on the larger

population?

9. How do we get people insurance coverage for their cancer care so they are provided

a full suite of medical services?

10. How can oncologists and primary care providers expand patient access to precision

therapies?

11. The ASCO policy brief on increasing diversity in clinical trials stated that , “a

clinical research enterprise that does not recruit representative study populations

may be unable to ascertain potential differences in drug efficacy or tolerability

between subpopulations. How do we ensure that key minority populations are over-

428
 recruited for specific patient clinical studies in attempt to change the common trend

of having very low minority participant rates in clinical trials?

12. How do we resolve the issue of fragmentation in our healthcare system? When

patients simply receive a diagnostic test and do not follow up with the right

specialist their health is negatively impacted. How do we resolve this issue?

13. How do we holistically take care of the patient throughout their patient care journey

to ensure they receive proper treatment and achieve their health goals?

14. What other system or policy barriers can you think of that impact the patient’s

cancer care? How do we address these barriers? What strategies can be

implemented to address these issues?

15. Can we forecast a tumour’s next evolutionary step?

16. Is the genetic model of carcinogenesis correct and do we need to develop alternative

models to improve our ability to forecast tumour evolution?

17. How can game theory be utilized to understand tumorigenesis and potentially guide

therapy?

18. Are there measures of the evolution and ecology of tumours that can be used to

develop a classification system for tumours, so as to improve prediction, prognosis

and management of tumours?

19. To what extent do the widely used model systems in cancer research represent the

ecological and evolutionary processes governing tumour emergence and

429
 progression and how can comparative oncology be used to find new research

directions?

20. How can tumour ecology be used to improve the search for biomarkers and predict

patient outcomes?

21. What lessons can we learn from the evolutionary dynamics of species extinction

for cancer therapy?

C. Ecosystem Governance & Regional Development

1. Since the core of PSDL is understanding the social context of the individuals,

what type of resources and knowledge base should be provided to

policymakers to design more human-centric policies?

2. Acknowledging the multiple actors involved in policy development, how is

co-production in the process of policy design, defined so that value is truly

generated to the citizen as the end outcome? What types of dyadic

relationships should be in place? What types of actors should be involved?

3. What types of marketing or social exchanges strategies should be used to

engage stakeholders and citizens during the policy analysis and design

process?

4. In an ecosystem, we wish analyze more than just the service that is being

offered. To truly create programs that adaptive and generate value over a

long period of time, how do we create social programs that provide the

430
 necessary resources and support to actors during the value co-creation

process?

5. In an ecosystem, public programs are not seen as managed by an institution

but as a multi-actor system involved multiple layers and institutions. What

type of governance mechanisms and technological tools should be in place

to manage this “system”?

6. How do we co-develop policies that are in parallel with public and private

(industry) objectives?

7. How should we create regulatory frameworks that allow for co-development

of innovation?

8. How do we measure sucess in collaboration on policy and governance in the

ecosytem?

9. What key performance metrics (ex: KPI) should we use to assess successful

implementation of a policy and governance model?

10. What best practices, tools, mechanisms, platforms, functions, or specialized

roles should be in place to operationalize the developed governance and

policy management system?

11. How do we ensure that the policy and governance management system is

fully integrated in the architecture of the institution and the innovation

ecosystem?

431
12. What people or governance bodies (core of the network) are needed to

facilitate and the proper governance and evolution of the innovation

ecosystem?

13. Please share how else public policy should change to further advance

innovation in the region? What key challenges are there with respect to

multiple points of views and divergence of perspectives in reaching

consensus? What strategies do we use to overcome these challenges?

14. How do we set strategies in our organizations that align with our primary

performance objects, while remaining compliant with our standards and

regulatory frameworks?

15. How do we create a culture that supports success?

16. What model can we use to ensure that our core functions align with our

(people, processes, and technologies)?

17. How do we define success and how do we assess our progress?

18. How do we create adaptive policies that respond to internal and external

changes effectively?

19. How do we make our policies accessible to everyone in the company?

20. How do we define successful policy design and implmentation? What

metrics should we use?

21. What key actors should be involved in the policy process and what levels

(micro, meso, macro) should be involved?

432
 22. Please provide for each of the five features the following:

• key characteristis of the feature in the current ecosystem,

• What is the desired characteristic of the feature in the ecosystem (in your dream

city)

• What changes or strategies need to be implemented to achieve our desired state?

23. By keeping the above features of the transformative governance ecosystem

framework, how can we transform into a more polycentricity governance

model that has fewer redundancies, overcomes difficulties, and addresses the

needs of the entities in the ecosystem?

24. Please list the common measurement perspectives.

• What should be measured in a regionally rooted innovation?

• List inputs that should be included in the assessment

• List activities that should be included in the assessment

• List outputs/results that should be included in the assessment

25. How do we define and measure impact and value?

26. What key challenges do you expect we will face when transitioning to a more

robust, resilient, and agile form of governance?

27. What strategies, tools, or mechanisms should be used to address and

overcome these challenges?

28. Would you be interested in being part of a round table discussion on the

topic?

433
29. Would you be interested in a sponsored 1 hour training session by Scholars

Research Network to help in building a multi-disciplinary research working

group?

30. The LSNB is intended to be built in a way such that it facilitates and support

organizations and change agents during their transition period by filling any

gaps or offering any assistance to ease the transition. The facilitator (LSNB)

is working in an open system with other key actors and components in the

system. Please state the key actors and entities (departments, units, center

heads, etc.) that should be directly connected to the “facilitator” during the

design phase of ecosystem creation

31. A complete process of ecosystem creation involves three “work together”

phases from idea creation to design phase, feasibility analysis, and

implementation phase.

32. According to the research, when we shift our focus from “actors” to systems

and relationship building, our end result will significantly differ and lead to

the emergence of a new regional development model. As Aristotle stated,

“the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” (Aristotle) , or better, “the

whole is other than the sum of its parts” as stated by the Gestalt theory

(Battistoni and Barbero). The main question is how does the LSNB with the

innovation design team, design in such a way that it will ensure it will help

and be of value to the future lives of people?

434
 33. Would you be interested in us completing a case study at your organization

to further delve into the challenges, enablers, barriers, and opportunities for

growth at your organization?

D. Financial Ecosystem

1. One of the challenges is that ESG definitions and guidelines for success are

expressed in very broad terms. How should we define success, what metrics or

assessments should we use to demonstrate success implementation of the ESG

guidelines?

2. Should the ESG themes be converted into laws with common standards and clear

objectives for organizations to follow?

3. What other challenges are corporations facing in implementing the ESG principles

in their financial ecosystems?

4. What strategies, tools, or resources do we need to overcome these challenges?

5. What entities or actors should be part of creating new initiatives, practices,

taxonomy codes, and protocols that will advance the implementation of ESG

principles?

E. Global Ecosystems

1. What are the best practices for implementing Global Ecosystem Model for

Sustainability?

435
2. Are there specific capabilities that need to be in place for this initiative to be

successful?

3. Does there need to be a change in the needs, capabilities, or best practices per sector

or industry to transition to a sustainable global ecosystem model?

4. The above case was shared as an example. How would you as an innovator operate

in order to receive funding and resources to enable project implementation and

proper operations?

5. How should the public-private partnerships be created to achieve such a goal such

as the fight against TB on a large scale (nationally and global)?

6. What strategies can be used to overcome technical barriers and economic

constraints through partnerships?

7. Based on the case study, the innovators overcame co-innovation risks and lessened

the natural tensions of accountability between the partners by defining success

metrics as well as key market and delivery objectives. The innovators also

established a governance structure, and an overshadowing steering committee

before they worked together. The frequency and type of communication was

determined during the planning phase, which included formal monthly, quarterly,

and annual meetings. The consistency in communication allowed for continuous

collaboration amongst the key partners. Our main request is for you to please share

with us what type of governance model, communication plan, success metrics,

accountability measures, market and delivery objectives would you recommend if

436
 you were part of an innovation network whose mission was to advance global

health?

8. What type of progressive international agreements and taxation policies should be

implemented to strengthen our economy?

9. How can we start building an infrastructure that allows for wider access for all

members of society and encourage inclusiveness?

10. What type of governance model should the public sector incorporate to build trust

with their citizens and provide them with a sense of purpose in co-creating a better

future?

11. How can we expand our current systems (healthcare, legal, government, etc.) to be

more adaptive and resilient during times of crisis?

12. What changes should be made in our educational systems to be best prepared for

the “markets of tomorrow”?

F. Healthcare Ecosystem

1. What challenges are there in implementing RM, and how can we better leverage

the innovation ecosystem to advance its use?

2. What type of business model would be the most effective?

3. What type of governance models and policies should be in place to advance its

implementation?

4. What types of actors in the innovation ecosystem should be involved in creating a

more effective system for implementing RM?

437
5. What are the key challenges related to data privacy, security, and other legal issues?

6. What type of governance structure would be the most effective?

7. What type of traditional and non-traditional healthcare providers should be part of

the platform?

8. What type of software tools for healthcare data collection and diagnostic systems

should be integrated into the platform?

9. What type of training should healthcare providers receive to be well-equipped to

utilize these platforms?

10. What type of engagement should large biopharmaceutical companies have with

startups and other organizations?

11. What is more effective to have in these biopharmaceutical companies, board-

interlocks or governance bodies?

12. Do you recommend agreements between the biopharmaceutical with other

companies or universities to mobilize talent?

13. Should there be a licensing agreement when working with startups?

14. How can we facilitate co-participation between the different players in the

ecosystem?

15. What key challenges are common in the biopharmaceutical ecosystem and what

strategies should we use to address them?

16. What types of tools or technologies do we need to better understand how digitalize

Busines Process Management (BPM)

438
17. What are the organizational capabilities that are need to enable a Blockchain Driven

healthcare system

18. What types of socio-technical challenges are part of digitalizing our Business

Processes?

19. Implementation of such a technology may radical change the way providers work.

What best practices should be used when redesigning and reorganizing the work of

cross-organizational processes.

20. How should we redesign the heuristics to allow for the different entities to

collaborate in centralized and integrated cross-organization process?

21. How should we redesign the heuristics to allow for data from external entities to be

stored into distributed ledger data sources to streamline activation at different

contact points?

22. How do we redesign the architecture to allow for asset management through

tokenization? This is when the blockchain heuristics have digital representations

that contract with tangible and intangible assets to allow for monitoring of assets

across the organization.

23. What other challenges not addressed above can you think of and how do you

recommend these challenges to be overcome?

24. What is the goal of implementing IoT technologies in your healthcare system?

25. What key players would be part of your digital technology team?

439
26. How do we implement Iot in a healthcare system? What types of actions and

processes need to be in place for successful implementation?

27. Please list the common challenges faced when implementing artificial intelligence

in your healthcare system

28. Please list suggested strategies to overcome these challenges?

29. What is the perception of the providers towards such a technology?

30. The complain is that many of the current implementation models such as the

Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) or Tailored

Implementation for chronic diseases are too abstract to help guide healthcare

executives. What type of training or resources do healthcare executives, innovation

leaders, or healthcare providers need to ease this transition?

31. How we can address challenges such as legal data sharing and liability issues?

32. What new strategies can be implemented to advance internal collaboration?

33. How can we build trust in Artificial Intelligence systems for their use to be accepted

clinical?

34. As a healthcare provider, what resources would you need to participate in such a

project?

35. What type of short-term and long-term decisions should be made and by whom in

order for this project to be successfully implemented?

36. How do we know if the research is having the desired impact?

440
37. What do you foresee as a valuable end product or service being created for the

patient from this research project?

38. Based on your context, please state the key factors & indicators that involve

orchestrating the system to enable it to evolve to a more mature collaborate state

amongst the partners

39. What socio-political and economic factors influence the end outcomes of

orchestration in your ecosystem?

G. Leadership & Culture

1. Please share with us a story of when you went through a very stressful situation

2. Please reflect if you could have answered better questions at the time?

3. Could you have found a more inspiring answer to solve your problem?

4. Are there any key changes do you feel in your lifestyle that will help your transition

from being more creative to less reactive?

5. What types of values do effective innovative leaders demonstrate?

6. How do leaders act like brokers within their ecosystem to facilitate cooperation and

knowledge sharing?

7. How do leaders act as dot connectors between communities and ideas to set a

direction in a participatory way?

8. How do leaders effectively balance conflict, chaos, and the improvisation of their

work for continous growth and improvement?

441
9. How do we identify power resources and allow for their deployment for innovative

change projects in institutions?

10. From an innovation perspective, how do we legitimize power as a positive force.

What types of governance needs to be in place to give credibility, accountability,

and balance to power?

11. As a professional which type of power do you commonly embody? Which type of

power do you find to be the most effective to orchestrate an innovation ecosystem?

12. Since organizations are embedded in their own “cultural webs” that are complex in

nature and rooted in their history, researchers recommend focusing on specific

behaviors that will allow for diverse entities to work together and create synergy.

What types of behaviors can leaders demonstrate to evolve into a strong ecosystem

that incorporates a diverse and wide range of inter-organizational cultural networks

that are interconnected with public policy?

13. How do organizations in the ecosystem have “collaborative practices” at the core

of all their initiatives to achieve the desired goals and objectives despite our

differences?

14. Since ecosystems are complex adaptive systems, how do we define and measure

success considering both the human elements, financial assets, and technological

capabilities? Please provide specific indicators of sucess, inputs, outputs, and

examples of scenarios of success. You are welcome to share any quotes that reflect

your perspective.

442
15. How does one calculate risk per your context?

16. How do you make risk assessment decisions where your balance your portfolio

projects between the ones that are low and high in risk?

17. How do you balance between efficiency and freedom to allow for some level of

creativity and out of the box thinking despite this not being supported in many

functional units?

18. What does good portfolio management look like?

19. What are the types and strengths of innovation activity in your team/organization?

20. Which areas of innovation do your projects work in?

21. Would you be interested in a follow strategy session with your group or team to

discuss balancing and aligning your strategy goals with your portfolio projects?

22. What values call to you? When do you feel most aligned to these values?

23. What are you seeking to change? Is it a system of power, a mindset or a policy, or

a crisis that calls you to take action?

24. What roles do you feel comfortable and natural playing? What roles make you come

alive and why? How are these roles linked to your core values?

25. What impact of playing these roles have on you - physically, energetically,

emotionally, or spiritually? “What” and “Who” sustains you?

26. In your role (s), how often do you vision and dream? What is the effect of repetition

and redundancy, or compromise and sacrifice in the roles you play?

443
27. How does your role connect to your privilege and power? Do you feel like you are

taking too much or not enough space?

28. What story emerges about you when you review the map and your reflections?

29. How could you stretch yourself? Where can you take bolder risks?

30. Social change can be very self-fulfiling but can be draining at times. How do you

maintain the balance between being empathetic to social needs and the good of the

people and self-care?

31. Would you be interested in a follow up group session with your team on social

change and the roles of key players?

32. Are you interested in setting up a follow up session on social change ecosystems

with your

H. Legal Ecosystems

1. What are your perceptions of the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning?

2. What strategies are law firms using to manage the potential negative affects of using

disruptive technologies (artificial intelligence and machine learning)?

3. As a law firm, do you find yourself working within an open or closed innovation

system?

4. What percentage of your law firm’s work is influenced by external factors?

5. Which external factors influence the drive to adopt Disruptive Technologies?

6. How is the flow and synergy within the firm? Between departments or units? How

are internal challenges or tensions addressed?

444
7. Please describe the level of synergy and willingness of all partners in the law firm

to move past local system boundaries and create connections in the larger regional

ecosystem?

8. Has innovation and transformation of the traditional legal delivery model been a

catalyst for your work or an augmentation of additional work on the attorneys and

their paralegals?

9. Based on the first set of interviews, participants acknowledged a direct correlation

between market conditions and the adoption of innovation. Please describe the

connection between the market conditions and efforts relating to process

improvements,workflow reconfigurations, disruptive, and incremental nnovation?

10. Based on the interviews, efficiency was foreseen as a noteable future trend. Have

law firms made the necessary changes to be more efficient and adaptive to the new

legal service delivery model?

11. How serious are law firms about changing their legal service delivery model to

provide greater value to their clients (as supposed to simply lowering their rates)?

12. Participants from the first phase of the study acknowledged the role of incubators

and the benefits of external partnerships to advance the internal law firm’s

innovation strategies. Please share with us the most effective strategies to continue

to generate value-based innovation?

13. What new tools do you need to address the ACC’s Value Challenge and CLOC’s

Core Competencies?

445
14. Please provide the resources needed to transform into the new robust legal service

delivery model?

15. What key challenges do you expect to experience during the transition phase

(human issues, external factors, technology, financial, etc.)?

16. How do you plan on addressing these challenges?

17. With accleration of technologies such artificial intelligence and block chain,

General Councils and their teams are proactively developing their business model

to embrace digital transformation. What will be your overall strategy in building

your teams to be prepared for the new digital world?

18. Would you be interested in having our research team complete a case study of your

legal team. This will include facilitation of round taable discussions, assessments

of your current level of readiness, determining any gaps in your resources or needs,

and providing opportunities and tools to expand your growth efforts.

I. Smart City Ecosystems

1. What are the challenges in driving future solutions: (economic, social, political)

2. Trends that will shape the future of cities? (what is the trend? Why is the trend

important? How it should be implemented? Where to see this in action?

3. Why are AI-enabled surveillance and predictive policing relevant for cities and

their citizens? How to define successful implementation?

4. Why are privacy awareness, cybersecurity, and related safety systems relevant in a

city? How do we ensure successful implementation?

446
5. There is a big trend toward data platforms and urban platforms. What is the

relevance of these technologies in delivering a better service to citizens while also

streamlining the city’s process?

6. On one hand, we want to feel secure and use AI and predictive policing, face and

voice recognition, to protect our urban ecosystems. On the other hand, we have

privacy issues. What is the right balance?

7. What kind of recommendations would you give to local governments in order to be

cyber secure?

8. What is the role of the private sector?

9. What is your vision of a city in the future? How will it become your dream city?

10. What are the key factors for the vision to succeed?

11. How to ensure the successful implementation of Smart Healthy Communities?

12. What is your view about smart buildings and smart infrastructure for achieving

resilience and sustainability of your city?

13. How do we convince developers to be sustainable and smart when sometimes it is

more expensive?

14. How can we get participation from all segments of the population?

15. Why is Social Inclusion relevant for cities and citizens?

16. How do you ensure the successful creation of an inclusive city?

17. How do you think the future of our mobility will look like?

18. In times of failing municipal revenues, how can we fund this transition?

447
19. What goals and metrics should we set to define our success in being bringing

diverse people to the center of our city. How do we know our efforts towards

building inclusive cities is in fact achieving our objectives?

20. How can we leverage our systems (technical, etc.) to best mobilize our resources

and talents on a very large scale to further build and share across the regional

ecosystem?

21. What type of infrastructure should we have to break through the digital divide?

22. What role will you play in building our smart cities? What roles and players are

needed to build the ecosystem?

23. How do we promote city to city collaboration?

24. Please describe the current challenges and barriers in our cities to transition to the

dream city? How can we leverage our assets to advance innovation projects and

increase awareness?

25. Would you like to be part of a round table discussion with key experts on building

the smart city model?

J. University Ecosystems

1. Who are the key actors in the region driving the innovation fabric, both in terms of

institutions and individuals?

2. What is the special role of the university, as compared with the other institutions?

3. How does the university respond to human capital needs of the region?

448
4. What is the role of the university in Continuing Education and Professional

Development of regional partners?

5. What is the University’s contribution to the analysis of the development of regional

competitiveness, assets and potential?

6. How do different regional actors contribute to the process of regional strategy

development?

7. How does the university’s strategy take account of regional development?

8. How do different regional stakeholders aim at creating or retaining critical mass of

research and innovation assets?

9. How do different regional stakeholders ensure its actors interact dynamically to

create synergies?

10. How does the region make use of formal and informal networks to enhance its

competitiveness and what is the role of the university in these networks?

11. What channels and formats of communication do intermediaries use to bridge

different perspectives?

12. What funds and incentives can regions and universities make use of to develop

regional competitiveness and how can universities help to mobilize funds?

13. What are the benefits and problems of financial incentives? (short, medium, and

long term funding)

14. How do infrastructures sustain regional competitiveness?

15. What is the role of universities in ensuring competitiveness?

449
16. What do regional actors do and how do they join efforts to attract talents to the

region? What is the specific role of the university in this?

450
 APPENDIX E: Phase 3 – Interviews & Focus Group Session Questions

a. Innovation Ecosystem Phase 3 Survey Questions:

1. Your email
2. Confirm whether you have read and signed the informed consent?
• Yes
• No
3. Your first Name?
4. Your last name?
5. What is your age? (Provided in a whole number)
6. What is your gender?
• Male
• Female
• Other
• Prefer not to answer
7. What is your ecosystem characteristics?
• Under construction
• Growing
• Transformational
• Established
8. Select all your ecosystem actors?
• Government
• Industry
• Universities
• Financial institutions
• Social media/communication
• Legal firms
• Healthcare/Hospitals
• Clinical Research Organizations
9. What is your region? (City, state, country)
10. What is your educational level (Graduate degree or higher, Bachelor’s
degree or lower)
11. What is your annual household income?
• $200000 or more
• Less than $200000
12. What is your race? (White, Black or African American, American Indian or
Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific islander)
13. What is your ethnicity? (Hispanic or Non-Hispanic)
14. What is your type of industry? (Technology, education, healthcare,
financial, non-profit, legal, government, other)

451
 15. What is the size of your company? (5000 employees or more, less than
5000)
16. What is your seniority level? (C-level, manager, director, owner, all other)
17. Are you a small business owner? (Yes or No)
18. Does your company or business currently use AI for any aspect? (Yes, No,
Unsure)
19. Does your company or business currently partner with any other
organization for any aspect of your operations? (Yes, No, Unsure)
20. Information and technology systems (not including AI systems) are
important in creating successful innovation ecosystems) (Strongly disagree,
disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree)
21. Technological savviness of those operating in the ecosystem is an
important consideration in creating successful innovation ecosystems.
(Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree)
22. Artificial intelligence systems are important in creating successful
innovation. (Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree)
23. Data privacy and security issues are important consideration in creating
successful innovation ecosystems?
24. Are collaboration and partnerships important in creating successful
innovation ecosystems?
25. Are finances and project funding important in creating successful
innovation ecosystems? (Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree,
strongly agree)
26. Is government involvement important in creating successful innovation
ecosystems? (Strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree)
27. Are diversity, equity, inclusion, and ethics important considerations in
creating successful innovation ecosystems? (Strongly disagree, disagree,
neutral, agree, strongly agree)

b. Dynamic Capabilities

1. To what extent do other elements of the environment’s dynamic

capacities contribute to the growth of the ecosystem? (Consider

ecosystem links or the degree to which businesses have

embraced digitalization as examples.)

452
2. How do different aspects of the ecosystem influence the

ecosystem’s overall performance and capacity to adapt?

3. When constructing the various ecosystems, what steps,

processes, and procedures are required for each dynamic

capacity (sensing, seizing, and capturing)?

4. Can you explain how the ecosystem’s three transforming

dynamic capacities work to benefit the ecosystem as a whole?

5. Is the existing paradigm, which identifies just these three

dynamic capacities as necessary to constructing an innovation

ecosystem, incomplete?

6. Transitioning to an ecosystem based on an innovation platform

requires structural stability and flexibility that is not always

present in a system’s dynamic capabilities.

7. The “how” and “why” of performing a job or selecting a

particular governance model are provided by dynamic

capabilities. Separate portfolios of governance mechanisms

should be established for each adaptable capacity. How would

you control each dynamic capacity in the context of your

ecosystem?

8. When moving from a product to an innovation platform, partners

had to depend more on their developing skills than on their

453
 established ones to ensure a smooth transition. What are those

developing skills?

9. What are all the dynamic skills required to successfully enter a

new system with a new partner in the innovation ecosystem?

10. To make a smooth change, what procedures, processes, and

mechanisms must be in place?

c. Group Dynamics in Ecosystem Relationships

1. Do people of high rank get a lot of one-way relationships or just a small

number of them?

2. Given their prevalence, are homophilous bonds more or less likely to be

reciprocated?

3. Do certain situations encourage reciprocity, while numerous broken one-

way ties characterize others?

4. Do activities with a gradient of winning or losing vs. noncompetitive

engagement (such as a book club) have a different effect on the formation

of ties?

5. How might activities that draw attention to a significant component of

personal

• similarity, such as a shared love of the environment, assist forge bonds between

• individuals that are otherwise non-homophilous or distantly connected via

familiar third parties?

454
d. Providing opportunity through personal autonomy

1. What are the mechanisms of providing be best opportunities through

personal autonomy?

2. How true is it that creative people demonstrate high performances under

personal autonomy?

3. What is the effectiveness of providing autonomy to employees to process

their thoughts and present their ideas on the projected work?

4. How profitable and beneficial is creating a thinking room for the company

providing personal autonomy?

5. To what extent does providing personal autonomy guarantee the best

practices and functionality?

e. Encouraging diversity of thoughts

1. What possible means of encouraging diversity of thought towards the

innovation

• process?

2. What are the ways of limiting assumptions to encourage diversity?

455
 3. What is the most effective way to discourage the belief that

disenfranchised groups cannot innovate?

4. How effective is it when everyone is involved in decision-making?

f. Transformative Governance & Ecosystems

1. What factors contribute to the formation of a transformative governance

ecosystem?

2. How do transformative governance ecosystems differ from traditional

governance structures?

3. What are the benefits of a transformative governance ecosystem?

4. How can a transformative governance ecosystem be used to achieve

specific goals?

5. What are the critical components of a transformative governance

ecosystem?

6. How does a transformative governance ecosystem function?

7. How is a transformative governance ecosystem maintained?

8. What challenges does a transformative governance ecosystem face?

9. What are the potential applications of a transformative governance

ecosystem?

456
10. How can the present model be expanded to incorporate information on

governance frameworks and decision-making processes that would help

the ecosystem?

11. How can market and governmental actors collaborate to effectively

identify concerns, problems, and opportunities and correctly coordinate

their efforts to solve these issues successfully?

12. What kinds of official and informal agreements must exist between

market participants and regulatory actors at the top of a hierarchical

structure?

13. What systems, practices, and procedures must be in place to encourage

system self-regulation and increase ecological resilience?

14. What kind of monitoring and continuous improvement system has to be

in place to continually gather data for improving collective performance?

15. How can we link the government’s plan with developing market

mechanisms that will help further define and enact long-term objectives?

16. The government is interested in better managing and interfering in the

system to address significant obstacles to the market’s development due

to the rising degree of difficulties, sure, and the prevalence of sub-optimal

firm-focused operating models. How can the government collaborate with

market players to overcome obstacles and adopt a more assertive posture

457
 on fundamental problems, including the absence of data sharing, to

improve the ecosystem even more?

17. What adjustments or tactics must be put in place if we are to reach our

goal state?

18. How can we transition towards a more polycentric governance model that

has fewer redundancies, solves challenges, and attends to the interests of

the entities in the ecosystem while maintaining the characteristics

mentioned above of the transformational governance ecosystem

framework?

19. How is artificial intelligence being used to transform governance

structures?

20. What are the potential consequences of using artificial intelligence in the

governance system?

21. How can artificial intelligence be used to improve access to public

services?

22. What ethical issues should be taken into consideration when using

artificial intelligence in the governance system?

23. What are the opportunities for collaboration between government entities

and artificial intelligence technology providers?

458
 24. What strategies should be used to ensure the accuracy and fairness of

public services when implementing artificial intelligence in the

governance system

g. Ecosystem Architecture Meta-Model for Supporting Large Scale Digital

Transformations Focus Group Session Questions

Identification of Actor Classes

1. What actor classifications are there in the ecosystem today?

2. What changes occur to actor classes during the transformation?

3. What purposes, obligations, and passions do the various actor classes in

the ecosystem have?

4. What potential changes may actor classes’ roles, duties, and interests

undergo?

5. Which agreements between which actor classes are presently in effect?

6. Which actor-class contracts are necessary for the transformation?

Transformation and Collaboration of Actor Classes

7. Which fundamental actor classes collaborate?

8. Which collaborative processes will the transformation introduce or

modify?

9. Which infrastructure elements, interfaces, and information systems are

employed for which enable collaborative processes?

Ecosystem Monitoring

459
 10. What are the broad domain objectives on which ecosystem participants

are concentrating?

11. How much will complete transformation goals contribute to domain

objectives?

12. Which transformation objectives are project managers required to have to

be aligned with the development of the transformation in light of outside

factors?

13. What outside factors are the primary drivers in the legal ecosystem?

14. What effects could external factors have on the preferences of the actor

classes?

15. Which technological developments are relevant to the ecosystem’s actor

classes?

16. How can IT courses help the legal ecosystem better adapt to emerging

digital trends?

Legislation and Certification

17. Which laws are most important to the actor classes involved?

18. What modifications to rules will end up influencing the transformation

process?

19. Which IT objects must adhere to strict certification standards?

20. Which IT products modified or developed during the transition need to be

certified?

21. What IT objects are now under the purview of which certifying bodies?

460
 22. Which individuals and collaborative techniques will manifest for the

required certification?

Privacy and Security

23. Which actors share personal information via which information flows?

24. Which privacy-sensitive information systems will result from the

transformation?

25. How are interfaces that transfer sensitive data secured?

26. Which modern interfaces are in charge of transferring private

information?

Questions on the Development of the Meta-Model:

Domains
27. How can we design an ecosystem monitoring system with a continuous

view that shows the sociological, legislative, and digital factors that affect

the actor classes, the IT environment, and cooperation procedures?

Actors
28. How can we identify the various players at each level, their function

concerning

stakeholders’ interests, and the present business model?

Collaboration
29. What are collaborative development techniques required to create ultra-

large digital transformations that support cooperative goal setting?

IT Landscape

461
 30. What is the optimal platform entity or architecture that will have the

capacity to retrace information flows, provide clarity on actor-specific

duties, and communicate data across organizations?

Modeling Relationships: Vertical and Horizontal Slicing

31. How can we regularly evaluate the roles, responsibilities, and interests of

the many participants on one ecosystem layer?

32. How can we cut horizontally and vertically to evaluate critical drivers and

align progress over time?

h. Public Policy and Ecosystems Focus Group Questions

1. Policy ecosystems are networks of policies, laws, and regulations that
are interrelated and interconnected, creating a connected system that
governs the behavior of individuals and organizations (Robaczewska
et al., 2019). How have policy ecosystems influenced your
engagement with public health and innovation?
2. The complexity of understanding the various policy goals, regulations,
and stakeholders involved in public health and innovation has been a
major challenge (Bittencourt et al., 2021)
What challenges have you experienced navigating policy ecosystems
related to public health and innovation?
3. A range of approaches in policy ecosystems have been used to support
public health and innovation. What strategies have you used to address
challenges in policy ecosystems related to public health and
innovation?
4. Several factors have been key to successful public health and
innovation initiatives in policy ecosystems. How have policy
ecosystems influenced the development of public health and
innovation initiatives over time?
5. Policy ecosystems have significantly impacted the ability of public
health and innovation initiatives to be successful. What factors have
been key to successful public health and innovation initiatives in
policy ecosystems?
6. What role has stakeholders in policy ecosystems played in advancing
public health and innovation?

462
 7. How have policy ecosystems enabled collaborations between public
health and innovation initiatives by providing an environment that
facilitates communication and encourages joint efforts?
8. How have policy ecosystems contributed to the sustainability of public
health and innovation initiatives?
9. What do you think should be the priorities of policy ecosystems to
support general health and innovation?
10. These are complex matters and beg the question, what are we to do
with this thing called complexity?
11. What are the key dimensions of an innovation ecosystem?
12. How can a crisis change its dimensions?
13. What has to be addressed to fully represent the intricacy of the
relationships present in innovation ecosystems, which are often shaky
and muddled?
14. If the public danger is novel in nature, what makes the law rigid and
ineffective in the face of unexpected harms?
15. What is the role of law as a settler of social norms?
16. The constraint is that laws are often produced by national legislatures
and judiciaries which means that their reach is typically confined to
inside individual states. However, public health dangers know no
national boundaries. Is this statement TRUE or FALSE?
17. What is mostly aimed at the obligations of the state to protect the
rights of its citizens?
18. The political or executive branch of a state’s government is often
responsible for determining public health policy, however private
public health agencies may also establish policy in accordance with
their own public health goals. TRUE or FALSE?
19. To achieve health, prosperity, social justice, and a healthy ecology on
a societal level, a population-level ecological approach would ask,
“What adjustments do we need to make to social and ecological
determinants?”
20. When it comes to stimulating economic growth in the municipal area
and the region as a whole, what role do local government units play in
terms of activating entrepreneurship and innovation, developing
cooperation with local business, supporting the development of
cooperation and clusters of companies cooperating with other entities?

i. Financial Ecosystem Focus Group Questions

Financial Digital Ecosystems
21. How can financial ecosystems with technology entrepreneurs combine
entwined actors to legitimize better and market their organization or
product?

463
 22. In the context of Fintech, the current financial ecosystem is described
as an association where barriers between ecosystem participants have
been removed. Given the predominance of symbiotic and
interdependent interactions, how can radical innovations and
ecological changes affect the relationships between the many
ecosystem players?
23. What are the various financial ecosystem participants’ demands for
legitimacy?
24. How are tactics, commercialization, and performance affected by the
demands of each stakeholder in the ecosystem?
25. How do the various demands of the many participants in the
ecosystem affect their choice to join an alliance or be a part of an
acquisition?
Access to financial services
26. What are the main barriers to accessing financial services?
27. How can financial services be made more accessible to underserved
populations?
28. What is the role of financial literacy in accessing financial services?
29. How can corruption be prevented in the financial sector?
30. What are the main types of financial crime?
31. How can financial regulation be improved?
32. What is the role of financial supervision in ensuring financial stability?
33. How can financial stability be maintained in the face of global
economic uncertainty?
34. What are the risks associated with new financial technologies?
35. How can financial ecosystems be made more resilient to shocks?
Financial inclusion
36. How can access to financial services be improved for everyone?
37. How can financial inclusion be increased globally?
38. What are the best methods for teaching financial literacy?
39. How can corruption be reduced in the financial sector?
40. How can financial crime be prevented?
41. What are the most effective financial regulations?
42. How can financial supervision be improved?
43. What are the biggest threats to financial stability?
44. How can we make the financial system more resilient?
45. What are the long-term trends affecting the financial sector?
Financial literacy
46. What are the effects of financial literacy on an individual’s financial
well-being?

464
 47. How does financial literacy vary among different demographics?
48. How can financial literacy be improved?
49. What is the role of financial literacy in financial stability?
Corruption
50. What is the role of the private sector in preventing financial
corruption?
51. What is the role of the public sector in preventing financial corruption?
52. How can civil society organizations contribute to the prevention of
financial corruption?
53. What are the international standards for preventing financial
corruption?
Financial regulation
54. How does financial regulation impact economic growth and financial
stability?
55. What are the goals of financial regulation and what strategies should
we use to achieve these goals?
56. What are the implications of financial regulation for firms and
consumers?
Financial stability
57. How can we measure financial stability?
58. What are the leading indicators and main drivers of financial stability?
59. What are the main risks to financial stability?
• Sustainable Financial Model

60. Should the ESG themes be made into regulations with agreed-upon
criteria and definite goals for corporations to follow?
61. What additional obstacles do businesses face to integrating ESG
principles into their financial ecosystems?
62. What methods, equipment, policies, or resources are required to
overcome these obstacles?
63. What organizations or individuals should be involved in developing
new projects, procedures, taxonomies, and protocols that will promote
the application of ESG principles

j. Artificial Intelligence Focus Group Session Questions

1. What methods, procedures, and techniques should be used to get
predictive models from the lab to the patient’s bedside?
2. How can we make it easier to integrate more sophisticated prediction
algorithms into the present healthcare system?

465
 3. What tactics, instruments, agreements, and other structures must be
implemented to encourage inter-organizational cooperation to
exchange clinical data and knowledge?
4. What kind of players should be engaged in building an artificial
intelligence ecosystem together? What are the actors’ respective
roles?
5. What are their expectations depending on the operating model that
each participant in the ecosystem uses?
6. What difficulties will there be working with actors who have different
expectations?
7. What tactics and guidelines may we use to handle the different
expectations of the participating actors?
8. What general corporate structure has to be in place to audit and
comment on the moral foundations of applying artificial intelligence in
an extensive system?
9. How can organizations like the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial
Intelligence negotiate and reconcile divergent expectations while
developing laws, rules, and morally sound technical frameworks for
widespread adoption?
k. Healthcare Ecosystem Focus Group Session
1. The macro/mese/micro framework was reviewed and how it used as a
taxonomy to prepare systems to shift into healthcare ecosystems.

466
l. Who are the key actors that make up the healthcare ecosystem?
m. What are the key challenges and how do we address these challenges in each
component of the macro/meso/micro level healthcare ecosystem?
1. Micro-Level:
i. Culture
ii. Structure
iii. Processes
2. Meso-Level
i. Language
ii. Practice
iii. Intellectual Property
3. Macro-Level
i. Legislation
ii. General beliefs

467
468
 Orchestrating Healthcare Platforms
1. What are the main obstacles relating to data security, privacy,
and other legal concerns?
2. Which kind of governance framework would be most efficient?
3. What kind of training should medical professionals acquire to
use these platforms effectively?
Bio-Pharmaceutical Innovation Networks
4. How should major biopharmaceutical firms interact with new
businesses and other organizations?
5. Do you advocate pharmaceutical entering into relationships
with other businesses or academic institutions to mobilize
talent?
6. What significant issues are prevalent in the biopharmaceutical
ecosystem, and how should we approach them?

n. Orchestration of University Innovation Ecosystems Focus Group Questions

The following two figures were shared during the group session.

469
7. Is it necessary to change the orchestrator’s duties as the process
evolves?
8. Are there other factors besides those in the university
orchestrator model that should be considered?
9. What crucial practices and systems must exist for the
orchestrator to complete their primary responsibilities and
finish their tasks properly?
10. What orchestrator facilitation acts would include the actors and
more effectively use their network?
11. What issues must be resolved for colleges to bring knowledge
and innovation to the marketplace? How do we handle such
difficulties?
12. What systems need to be in place to enable colleges to link
their internal players in innovation with the market?
13. Ecosystem building entails a series of changing acts to plan,
lead, and oversee the actions of the essential players. What
procedures and actions are required to link academic
researchers to the broader ecosystem to increase value creation
and capture?
14. How is artificial intelligence being used to transform the neo-
triple helix model?
15. What are the potential consequences of using artificial
intelligence in the neo-triple helix model?
16. How can artificial intelligence be used to optimize the
performance of the neo-triple helix model?
17. What ethical issues should be taken into consideration when
using artificial intelligence in the neo-triple helix model?
18. What are the current challenges in implementing artificial
intelligence in the neo-triple helix model?
19. How can artificial intelligence be used to reduce costs
associated with the neo-triple helix model?

470
 20. What are the opportunities for collaboration between the three
sectors (university, industry, and government) and artificial
intelligence technology providers?
21. What strategies should be used to ensure the accuracy and
fairness of decisions made within the neo-triple helix model
when implementing artificial intelligence?
22. Who are the key actors in the region driving the innovation
fabric, both in terms of institutions and individuals?
23. What is the special role of the university, as compared with the
other institutions?
24. How does the university respond to human capital needs of the
region?
25. What is the role of the university in Continuing Education and
Professional Development of regional partners?
26. What is the University’s contribution to the analysis of the
development of regional competitiveness, assets and potential?
27. How do different regional actors contribute to the process of
regional strategy development?
28. How does the university’s strategy take account of regional
development?
29. How do different regional stakeholders aim at creating or
retaining critical mass of research and innovation assets?
30. How do different regional stakeholders ensure its actors
interact dynamically to create synergies?
31. How does the region make use of formal and informal
networks to enhance its competitiveness and what is the role of
the university in these networks?
32. What channels and formats of communication do
intermediaries use to bridge different perspectives?
33. What funds and incentives can regions and universities make
use of to develop regional competitiveness and how can
universities help to mobilize funds?
34. What are the benefits and problems of financial incentives?
(short, medium, and long term funding)
35. How do infrastructures sustain regional competitiveness?
36. What is the role of universities in ensuring competitiveness?
37. What do regional actors do and how do they join efforts to
attract talents to the region? What is the specific role of the
university in this?

o. Neo-Triple Model Focus Group Session Questions

471
1. To what extent do the Triple, Quadruple, and Quintuple Helix models used
in analyzing the innovation ecosystems (Cai, 2022)?
2. Which is the best model to use to analyze the innovation ecosystem?
How do the arguments of Carayannis and his scholars perceive the models
on the nature of expansions
Note: The 3 Modes were shared with the participants to answer the
above question. The following information was shared with the
participants:
Mode 1 (discipline-based) and Mode 2 (practical and
interdisciplinary) knowledge production systems(Gibbons, 1998).
Mode 3 knowledge production is defined as follows:
The nexus or hub of the emerging twenty-first century Innovation
Ecosystem, where people, culture, and technology … meet and
interact
to catalyze creativity, trigger invention, and accelerate innovation
across
scientific and technological disciplines, public, and private sectors
…
and in a top-down, policy-driven as well as bottom-up,
entrepreneurship
empowered fashion (Carayannis and Campbell, 2012).
3. How does the natural environment and the common perceptions relate or
contrast to the present idea of the Quintuple Helix Model?
4. How can one define Helix Trilogy? To what extent does it have an impact
or influence on other models?
5. What are the similarities and differences between the 21st-century
innovation ecosystem and the previous centuries?
6. How is the innovation ecosystem beneficial to the entire society?
7. To what extent was the Triple Helix Model a major transition from
political knowledge to the vast knowledge of the economy? How did the
social conditions contribute to the mentioned aspects?
8. The Triple Helix model comprises three aspects that include but are not
limited to; innovation genes, social structure, and the natural environment.
How are all of these components important to the ecosystem innovations,
and what is the relationship?
9. What is the ideal of having fewer discrepancies but, on the other hand, the
potentialities for building, especially between the Triple Helix and the
Quintuple Helix?
10. How does public policy ensure the transformations of innovative
ecosystems? What procedures need to be in place to ensure a smooth
innovation

472
• Identify the six pillars in analyzing the smartness scheme, and five
lines explain how each helps to understand the background of
“smartness” (The smart pillars diagram was shared with the
participants):

• Smartness as a concept involves many aspects (in reference to the

six smart pillars). Elaborate on these aspects, giving detailed
information and how it relates to the smartness synthesis and
application.
• For the cities to have a clear and distinct ecosystem involves the
authorities and the government’s input. Highlight the importance
and the key factors that stimulate smartness and thus spur the
cities.
• Innovation has been the key future in the smart and emerging
knowledge debate. In urban planning, for example, the critical
concept of a smart city implementation has seen unprecedented
support from the public and related authorities. Give more detailed
information explaining the role of government or other related
authorities in the collaborative and smart ecosystems.
• Using the SWOT technique to identify typical positive and
negative factors related to the implementation of the models, what
approaches can lead to full realization and full enforcement of
specific ideas, and what derails those strengths. How can the
negative factors and weaknesses be minimized?

473
 • The attempt has been made to use the 360-degree model to
prioritize and empathize the initiatives to achieve the smart city
concepts amongst municipal officials, and citizens. With the help
of the quadruple helix model, explain the aim and importance of
including these parties in decision-making and planning.
• The daily and uncertain challenges that every society faces
becomes complex and global; therefore, more than one player
needs to act for the right and appropriate solutions to be provided.
Using the quintuple Helix model, explain the governing of cities as
living labs and socio-ecological entrepreneurship.

p. Cancer Ecosystem Focus Group Session Questions

1. How can internal and external partners successfully engage with
national cancer prevention programs, health professionals,
governments, and global communities fighting cancer?
2. How can a road plan for long-term success be created using knowledge,
money, and technology resources?
3. What difficulties would ecosystem actors have while developing a
program to prevent cancer? How can we overcome such difficulties?
4. What methods, approaches, and procedures can program designers
employ to capitalize on the current national cancer program’s positive
aspects and encourage the co-development of new initiatives with
various stakeholders to implement a stronger, more long-lasting, and
more affordable national cancer program?
5. How can we help patients with cancer insurance coverage so they can
get a complete range of medical services?
6. How can primary care doctors and oncologists increase patients’ access
to precision therapies?
7. How can we care for patients holistically throughout their medical
journey to ensure they get the proper care and reach their health
objectives?
8. How can the fragmentation in our healthcare system be fixed? Patients’
health suffers when they only undergo a diagnostic test without
following up with the appropriate professional. How can we address this
problem?
9. In your opinion, what other systemic or legislative obstacles affect the

patient’s cancer treatment? How can these obstacles be overcome?

What tactics may be used to deal with these problems?

474
10. What tools besides EHR systems can be used to equip primary care
providers to:
• Better stratify patient’s risk of cancer
• Engage and educate patients at time of diagnosis and throughout
their treatment journey.
• Better adhere to the most up to date guidelines
11. What are the different types of bottle necks in clinical research
management?
12. How can we change from small changes in clinical trials to changing
the entire game for greater impact and more adaptive/cost effective
clinical trials?
13. What type of tests or screening can we encourage in the primary care
setting and in clinical trials to better understand the interactions that take
place between the tumor and the rest of the body’s organ systems (ex:
tissues, immune system, metabolism, molecular precision strategies at
the cell and protein level, etc.)?
14. How can we create workflow processes and what technologies can we
use to help build trust and transparency amongst all the stakeholders
during clinical trials?
15. How would you design a sensitive system that would have built-in
mechanisms that would trace and avert processes to reduce the
likelihood of medication errors, misconduct prone steps or corruption of
data registrations?
16. Blockchain and Smart Contact technologies have shown to allow for
closely tracking of events on multiple levels of the system. Blockchains
can also be used as a service to power biorepositories for data sharing
and reusing amongst multiple institutions. How can we address the
common challenges faced when implementing blockchain technologies
to be more interoperable and interconnected (ex: differences in
consensus algorithms, differences in programming language, and
compatibility issues that involve the lack of trust when integrating two
different security systems in the ecosystem?
17. Blockchain helps with the flow of medical information and traceability
of the data across institutions. How can blockchain technology be
combined with artificial intelligence and big data to advance A.I.
medical research?
18. How can we overcome the major challenge of lack of interoperability
and data standards to achieve unified data standardization across all
parties (ex: national health insurance, research centers, etc.) to allow for
more effective information circulation?
19. Medical associations tend to have a hard time integrating or sharing data
with other associations. A sample scenario of integration in the region

475
 involves a leader in the hospital system who leads an alliance
integration, cooperates with other regional players, proposes a unified
standard for data and regulations to allow for medical data sharing. The
leader then needs to promote or advocate for data circulation by
reaching out to additional players in the ecosystem (ex: insurance
institutions, pharmaceuticals, and other institutions). Due to the
differences in interests between the multiple parties, such a scenario
comes with its challenges and obstacles. How do you see industry
regulatory agencies or associations playing a more proactive role with
hospital leaders to promote integration within the region?

q. Managing Conflict Focus Group Sessions

1. What are the main sources of conflict within an innovation
ecosystem?
o How does the existing structure of the ecosystem contribute
to conflict?
o What type of conflicts arises between innovators and other
stakeholders?
o What role does decision-making have in creating or
exacerbating conflict?
2. How does an innovation ecosystem’s size and scope impact
how conflicts are managed?
o How does the scale of the ecosystem influence the ability to
manage conflicts?
o How do the different stakeholders within the ecosystem
interact with each other in terms of conflict management?
o How do different geographic locations impact the ability to
manage conflict?
3. What strategies can be used to manage conflict in an innovation
ecosystem?
o What techniques can be used to identify and address
potential conflicts?
o What methods can be used to resolve conflicts when they
arise?
o How can different stakeholders be empowered to
participate in conflict resolution?
4. How can communication be improved to reduce potential conflicts
in an innovation ecosystem?
o What methods can be used to facilitate open and productive
dialogue between stakeholders?
o How can decision-makers ensure that all stakeholders have
a voice in the discussion?

476
 o What strategies can be used to ensure that conflicts are
communicated in a constructive manner?
5. What systems can be implemented to anticipate and address
potential conflicts in an innovation ecosystem?
o How can data be used to identify potential conflicts before
they arise?
o How can processes be put in place to ensure conflicts are
addressed in a timely manner?
o How can implementing new policies or procedures
help reduce or eliminate conflicts?
6. What role do incentives play in managing conflicts within an
innovation ecosystem?
• How can different stakeholders be incentivized to
cooperate in conflict resolution?
• How can incentives be used to encourage stakeholders to
invest in conflict management solutions?
7. How can traditional conflict resolution techniques be adapted to an
innovation ecosystem?
o How can existing practices such as mediation and
arbitration be applied to an innovation ecosystem?
o What methods can be used to ensure that all stakeholders
are heard and respected during the resolution process?
o How can problem-solving techniques be used to develop
innovative solutions to conflicts?
8. What are the root causes of men’s violence against women in an
innovation ecosystem?
o How do the existing gender-based power dynamics in the
ecosystem contribute to violence against women?
o What type of violence arises between men and women in
the ecosystem?
o What role does the lack of access to resources have in
creating or exacerbating violence?
9. How can cultural differences be taken into account when
preventing violence against women in an innovation ecosystem?
How about when managing between partners?
• How can cultural norms and values be taken into account when
addressing violence?
• What strategies (constructive communication & dialogue tactics)
can be used to prevent and address violence against women or
between partners in an innovation ecosystem?

477
 • What policies, resolution processes, and systems can be
implemented to anticipate and address potential conflicts between
partners in an innovation ecosystem?

r. Measuring Impact and Assessment Models

Assimilation
1. Why does the assimilation of services not consider the invisible form of

Innovation?

2. What factors lead to underestimating the actual effects of Innovation in

services?

Demarcation
1. Why does demarcation only observe non-technological Innovation and

considers visible Innovation?

2. Why is Innovation seen from an evolutional or progressive

perspective?
Note: Added Quotes In the chat to help explain the two concepts:
Evolutionary Innovation: (Darwin)
• “It is argued that innovation processes are constituted by many knowledge-

seeking activities, whereby agents’ perceptions and actions are translated into

practice. Evolution as defined here draws on an explicit comparison of

evolutionary theories for biology and socio-economic phenomena. The

perspective of evolutionary innovation has close ties to evolutionary economics

but also to other social sciences.”

• Progress Innovation:

• “Progress might have been all right once, but it has gone on too long”

• Progressive evolution has a direction

478
• It is argued that innovation processes are constituted by many knowledge-

seeking activities, whereby agents’ perceptions and actions are translated into

practice. Evolution as defined here draws on an explicit comparison of

evolutionary theories for biology and socio-economic phenomena. The

perspective of evolutionary innovation has close ties to evolutionary economics

but also to other social sciences.

3. Outline why Innovation in services is particular and distinct from

Innovation in manufacturing.

Integration
1. What is the basis for combining assimilation and differentiation to build

a broad, cross-industry framework?

2. To what extent does integration capture a broader understanding of

Innovation to be more accurate in identifying real cross-industry
Innovation?
3. Why does integration capture both tangible and intangible Innovation?

Tools
1. How does using input, intermediate, and output indicators bring better

analytical capacity, regardless of the target industry?

2. What are the indicators relevant to account for organizational

Innovation through a systematic review process and report the
existence of a limited number of hands at the early stages?

Input
1. Why does input not act as an indicator of the actual introduction of new

products, services, or processes?

479
 2. Why does input measure other inputs, such as product design, market
analysis, training, fixed-asset investments for Innovation, or even
production on an experimental basis – Why is there a propensity to
underestimate R&D at small companies in standardized surveys?
3. What are the reasons behind the tendency to concentrate information
in the financial intermediation sector? Hint: The inclination to
underestimate the amount in small businesses?
4. Why does input not pinpoint the type of Innovation associated with
Non-R&D expenditure on external Innovation?
5. Why does the Qualification level not necessarily imply practical
Innovation? Small businesses tend to show this indicator in lower
Quantity or lower proportion. Indicator composition at time tends to
result in innovations only in later periods- Susceptible to variations in
the collection cycle.
6. Explain why the Number of training courses or training hours is not
equivalent to the actual development of the targeted skills.
7. Why does input only Identify whether there was Innovation but does
not quantify its relevance? Hint: Potential difficulties for respondents
to distinguish and define strategic Innovation, management innovation,
and organizational Innovation.
8. Why does input fail to identify costs associated with innovation
knowledge sources?
9. What is the basis for input not measuring the degree of commitment to
identifying responsibility?

Output
1. Why is output always dependent on approximate company estimates

and sensitivity to the economic cycle, which can distort perceptions

regarding the indicator?

2. Why does output cause a difficulty in indicating which type of

Innovation it refers to, thus missing on much complexity to measure
activities exclusively for consumers and other companies?
3. Expound on the idea that output depends on questionnaires, which has
restricted comparability between indicators of innovation introduction.

s. Business Strategy

480
 1. How does differentiation strategy commonly try to develop Innovation

and marketing capabilities that help them differentiate their goods

(products or services) from competitors?

2. Through what ways do companies have to implement a cost leadership

strategy to build capabilities that help them achieve efficiencies and
maintain lower costs relative to competitors?
3. As resources, this relationship between cost leadership and
differentiation is managed effectively to ensure that the external
suppliers provide products that meet the firm’s quality standards and
offer the appropriate quantities and timing to support the firm’s
advantage over competitors.
4. How and why does the cost leadership strategy require investments in
specific resources to build capabilities that produce efficiency?
5. What are the reasons behind differentiation always being positive and
enhancing the value provided to the customers beyond what
competitors offer?
6. Under what circumstances will the differentiation and cost leadership
strategy simultaneously minimize investments in other resources that
do not help the company meet its efficiency goals?
7. How will a company take specific competitive actions and effectively
respond to its rivals’ efforts to develop and maintain a competitive
advantage?

t. Competitive dynamics

1. How dynamic has the competitive landscape in which most companies

operate become?

2. Although the company’s business environments have been dynamic

for several years, how common have the highly complex and
hypercompetitive environments become?
3. What surety is based on companies building more flexibility to
maintain a competitive advantage in such environments?
4. What does the flexibility strategy majorly respond to?
5. What does it mean by saying an environment in which competitive
rivalry is intense generates significant uncertainty for all firms
involved? Hint: This environment often requires continuous Change
and therefore necessitates dynamic managerial capabilities.

481
 6. Explain how companies gain strategic flexibility by moving beyond
incremental bundling activities.
7. How innovative should a company operating in a highly competitive
market be to create compelling strategic flexibility?
8. How advisable for a company is building an innovative internal
capability and obtain innovations externally or through collaborative
relationships?
9. In markets with intense rivalry, incremental Innovation is less likely to
help a company maintain a competitive advantage except in the
concise term. What strategy suits a long-term operating company?
10. What is bisociation as long as stock integration is concerned?
11. How does bisociation help companies in creating fresh or new
pioneering capabilities and entrepreneurial strategies that together
support Change that may revolutionize markets?
12. How do structured governance and incentives come in during market
operations?
13. How does one gain access to appropriate complementary resources
through strategic alliances and acquisitions when they are not in a
position to develop an internal capability?
14. How important is gaining access to complimentary resources
concerning creating novel innovations and sustaining a competitive
advantage?

u. Ecosystem Formation/Adaptive Capacity/Resilience

1. In the innovation of ecosystem orchestration will be determining factors

that will enhance innovation; therefore, what will be the three factors

that will determine the robustness of an ecosystem?

2. What are the five qualities that define the efficiency and effectiveness

of innovation in human resources in the ecosystem?

3. In the innovation model of ecosystem orchestration, what are the two

possible routes a system may take to change its state?

482
4. Because ecological resilience may be used to manage ecosystems, how

will innovation help the participants realize its importance?

5. How will people determine the level of innovation and new technology

in their local ecosystem by monitoring research and patent activity?

Ecosystem resilience
1. Why should there be constantly new technology, new ways of
thinking, and new skills to incorporate?
2. Why does the collaboration model continuously realign our incentives
as we jointly decide on developing projects to invest resources in?
3. Why should the ecosystem leader ensure proactive and continuous
adaptations as the ecosystem evolves, new markets arise, technologies
develop, partners leave the ecosystem, and new actors join?
4. Since the basic premise of value creation is changing, the contributions
of different ecosystem actors may change, necessitating other revenue
models and risk-sharing agreements. Continuously scanning for
ecosystem combination was critical to maintaining complementarity
amongst ecosystem actors. How important is that strategy?

Adaptive value creation

1. Why should one depend partially on digital platform providers to
continuously develop and adapt the functions to respond to the
customers’ changing demands?
2. What is the need to analyze the requirements, adaptation, and
development of solutions with our suppliers?
3. To be in the consortium requires something from an individual; what
is a consortium?
4. What are the primary reasons why there is a need to contribute so that
the ecosystems continuously create value?
5. What are the ways of continuously re-evaluating what creates value for
customers and what new opportunities technologies and markets can
offer?
6. How are possibilities opened up for the Creation of new value in
correspondence to the use of digitalization maturity that increases in
the customer organization that may lead to emerging new
opportunities that were either not contemplated or not considered
possible?

483
 7. What is the significance of obliging the system and technology
provider to achieve a close work relationship with their digital
platform partners and other system providers?
8. Why does an ecosystem leader ensure that the system’s competence is
updated and that the ecosystem’s various elements can complement
each other over time?

Ecosystem formation
1. How is success guaranteed after the idea has been developed with key
partners, the sub-suppliers confronted, and the whole ecosystem?
2. How critical and significant is the need for structured routines for
ecosystem formation?
3. Why do providers and customers continuously stress the need for a
leading actor to set the ecosystem’s plan and to direct ecosystem roles
and responsibilities?
4. As the innovation ecosystem demands close Collaboration between
some key ecosystem partners, many informants expressed a need to
move away from transactional partnerships and initiate vested
partnerships. How is it achieved?
5. Why does a critical activity of ecosystem formation involve creating
effective and transparent communication channels amongst ecosystem
partners?
6. Elaborate why the key to sustained competitiveness and profitable
growth is the ability to reconfigure resources and ecosystem structures
as the actors evolve and markets and technologies changes?
7. Reconfiguring capabilities in an ecosystem innovation is about
ensuring evolutionary fitness for the ecosystem, its underlying value
proposition, and the alignment structure among actors over time. How
can the reconfiguration be implemented and achieved in the shortest
time possible?

v. Network Orchestration/Leadership

1. How does leadership for regional economic development based on

trust and cooperation among institutional actors and not on traditional
hierarchical relationships
2. Besides the short-term interest of actors, orchestrators’ engagement
with the ecosystem is consistently undermined; why do they strongly
depend on individuals with particular motivations to engage with the
industry or policymakers?
3. Why is the Creation of a partnership with the inter-municipal agency b
the orchestrators based on two territorial development programs?

484
4. What are the ways of establishing a greater understanding of how
orchestrators strategic capacity supports organic collaborations that
builds up over time through regional deliberative forums?
5. What is the role of orchestrators concerned with supporting the
development of an environment conducive to innovation in the
emerging economy?
6. Apart from building partnerships and developing coalitions as leaders
in their localities, executing place leadership, what are the other
management roles?
7. What are the models explaining the expected fulfilment of traditional
innovation systems?
8. Why does orchestration describe collaborative practices for
developing, managing, and coordinating innovation networks but not
hierarchical authority?
9. Why does the orchestration of a network refer to an actor’s capacity to
influence the evolution of a whole network more strictly than
managerial activities?
10. What is the difference between bottom-up and top-down approaches to
governance in a self-regulated and collaborative ecosystem?
11. In which governance approach (top-down and bottom-up) do regional
policies are more toward creating a context in which productive
entrepreneurship and innovation can flourish rather than focus solely
on a specific indicator of entrepreneurship growth?
12. How does the network recruitment process impact the network’s
innovation output?
13. During what phase does the orchestrator scan the environment and
select strategic and complementary partners?
14. What conditions govern innovator’s ability to capture profits through
patents, copyrights, and trademarks, and minimize free-riding
behaviors or unfair advantages?
15. What are the dynamics which aim for non-negative growth rate while
allowing for the entry and exit of network member?
16. Why is exploration seen as a spillover effect into the broader regional
ecosystem, not the role of the orchestrator as a factor of Innovation?
17. How do orchestrators take the regional lead and simultaneously reflect
and contribute to creating an innovation ecosystem?

485
 APPENDIX F: Innovation Ecosystem Project Manual

TABLE OF CONTENTS
• Multi-Phase Innovation Ecosystem Study

• Participant Code of Conduct

• Understanding Innovation Ecosystems - Core Principles and Values

• Data Management Policies for Dissertation and Future Multi-Partner Projects

• Innovation Team Project Playbook

• Informed Consent

• Non-Disclosure Agreement

Mixed Method Grounded Theory Innovation Ecosystem Study

Introduction
1 Ecosystems are networks of organizations such as suppliers, customers,

distributors, competitors, government agencies, and other entities involved in

business transactions (Granstrand & Holgersson, 2020).

2 Different definitions of innovation ecosystems have been proposed by

researchers. An innovation ecosystem is a group of players, artifacts and
activities, and institutions that are essential for the performance of the
population in terms of innovation, according to one accepted definition of
this phrase.
3 The innovation ecosystem is a structurally complex field inhabited by
diverse participants linked to information and value flows (Valkokari,
2015).
4 The innovation ecosystem focuses on creating new resources and ideas,
while the non-innovative business uses the existing resources to fulfil its
demands (Chen et al., 2019).
Ecosystem Orchestration
1. The orchestrator plays a significant role in uniting people or companies from

different backgrounds to create an innovative environment (Kovács et al., 2018).

486
 Research has shown that orchestrators play a major role in helping innovators and

investors access the needed resources that may be inaccessible in their absence.

2. Companies in the ecosystem recognize the need for external innovation

collaboration with ecosystem partners with a common vision and shared
business approach to the corporate organizational strategy (Zahra &
Nambisan, 2011).
3. Zacharia et al. (2011) concluded that the orchestrator orchestrates the
innovation ecosystem by creating an innovative atmosphere. In addition,
the orchestrator can create a platform for firms with similar missions and
visions to interact and agree on a shared. innovation strategy to help them
collaborate and share ideas on how to grow the two firms.
Principles:
1. Generally, various principles must be established and followed to attain harmony

in the innovation ecosystems.

2. One of the principles requires that orchestration facilitate all innovation

ecosystems rather than imposing. Orchestration, in that aspect, assumes a
coordination role where there is cultivating a relationship between
government and non-profit organizations, such as universities, with
ecosystem parts leading to greater cooperation (Yaghmaie &
Vanhaverbeke, 2020).
3. Another principle attaining to orchestration requires meeting all the
potential ecosystem partners on their terms. The aim is always to ensure
that relevant stakeholders engage with the ecosystem approach.
4. Another cornerstone for innovation systems’ success is trust, which leads
to a better relationship among the various stakeholders and the co-creation
of value (Granstrand & Holgersson, 2020). In the existing safe space,
exploration of the tension between priorities and varying values must occur
regardless of not being resolved to establish a common ground.
5. The project is worthy of the researchers looking for more information
about the orchestrators and how they help coordinate the innovation
ecosystem. The open innovation and complex context surrounding the
innovation ecosystem create a dilemma that affects market mechanisms.
Therefore, bridging the relationship between companies occurs by creating
shared goals.
6. Generally, only some processes come out successful without encountering
drawbacks. The orchestrators of the pharmaceutical industry’s innovation
ecosystem must minimize the implications of these challenges (Teece,

487
 2007). Therefore, orchestrators must deeply understand the various players
in the ecosystem and their strengths and weaknesses.
Research Design:
7. The research design integrates mixed methods and grounded theory.
8. Mixed methods research is a research design that uses both qualitative and
quantitative data to answer a research question (Tashakkori & Creswell,
2007). The term “mixed methods” refers to the use of multiple methods,
such as surveys and interviews, to collect data.
9. This study will use a mixed methods approach with a focus on grounded
theory. This means that we will collect both quantitative and qualitative
data, and use the grounded theory methodology to analyze this data. The
researcher will use a variety of data collection methods, including surveys,
interviews, and focus groups.
10. The use of mixed methods and grounded theory in this study will allow for
a more comprehensive and detailed understanding of the organizational
change process (Creamer, 2021). The mixed methods design will provide
for the collection of data from a variety of sources, while the grounded
theory approach will ensure that the data drives the theory, rather than the
other way around.
Research Questions:
1. The main question that will be covered in this paper is how do orchestrators

orchestrate the innovation ecosystem?

2. To answer this question, the study will first define what an innovation
ecosystem is and identify the different types of orchestrators that exist.
3. The study will then discuss the different stages of development that a
company must go through in order to remain competitive in the market.
4. Finally, the study will identify the different metrics, tools, inputs, outputs,
and factors that are essential for the successful implementation of an
innovation ecosystem.
Methods: Four Phases of the Study
Phase 1: Mixed Methods Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches
1. In phase 1 the researcher used a mix of qualitative and quantitative approaches to

collect data on innovation ecosystem components. Specifically, the researcher

conducted semi-structured interviews with participants and also administered four

survey question sets.

488
 2. The goal in this phase was to gain a better understanding of the various
components of innovation ecosystems and how they interact with each other.
3. Qualitatively, the researcher asked participants about their experiences with
innovation ecosystems and what they saw as the key components. The
researcher also asked them to map out their own personal innovation
ecosystem, which allowed us to get a better sense of how they visualize these
ecosystems.
4. Quantitatively, the researcher collected data on participants’ perceptions of
innovation ecosystems using four different survey question sets. These
question sets explored participants’ thoughts on the purpose of innovation
ecosystems, the role of different stakeholders, the challenges and barriers to
building innovation ecosystems, and the enablers of successful innovation
ecosystems.
5. This data allowed the researcher to get a more detailed understanding of
participants’ views on innovation ecosystems and to identify some of the key
issues that need to be addressed in order to build and sustain these ecosystems.
6. Participants with backgrounds in Artificial Intelligence/engineering/data
science, legal, governance, coalition and community building, healthcare
innovation, and clinical research
7. Participants signed up for a 1:1 interview session on innovation ecosystem
components that took approximately 35 minutes to complete, survey question
sets, and ecosystem mapping
8. Participants with backgrounds in Artificial Intelligence/engineering/data
science, legal, governance, coalition and community building, healthcare
innovation, and clinical research
9. The participants had a lot of positive things to say about innovation
ecosystems. They felt that they were beneficial in terms of fostering
collaboration, spurring innovation, and driving economic growth. However,
they also identified some challenges, such as the need for ongoing investment
and coordination, and the risk of losing sight of the needs of individual
businesses and entrepreneurs.
10. For the data collection phase, the teams conducted semi-structured interviews
and four survey sets with both open- and closed-ended questions. The
interviews allowed us to probe deeper into participants’ thoughts and
experiences related to innovation ecosystems, while the surveys helped us to
capture a broad overview of participants’ opinions. Overall, this mixed-
methods approach helped us to gain a better understanding of the various
factors that contribute to the success of innovation ecosystems.

11. Please refer to the diagram below that describes the analysis completed during
the study:

489
Phase 2: Comparing & Contrasting Orchestration and Challenges in Multiple
Ecosystems
1. In this phase, the research team compared and contrasted orchestration and

challenges in multiple ecosystems. To do this, they set up community board

discussions and allowed access to all participants to see which board discussions

did the participants found relevant and gravitate towards.

2. While this was helpful in providing context, there were some limitations.
Additional steps to onboard participants from the user research platform to
the new platform that they were not accustomed to lead to a few moments of
confusion and frustration amongst some of the participants.
3. The researcher simplified the process through changing in the
programming on the new platform and assisted the participants step-step
until project completion.
4. The community board discussions provided context through the posting of
videos, playbooks, and whitepaper on the specific topic area. The activities
on the Board Discussion covered the following topics: University
ecosystems, Smart City Ecosystems, Ecosystem Governance and Regional

490
 Development, Global Ecosystem, Artificial Intelligence & Data
Ecosystems, Financial Ecosystems, Leadership, Culture, and
Organizational Capacity, Legal Ecosystem, Cancer Ecosystem, and
Healthcare Ecosystem.
5. Additional 1:1 interview were offered to participants that had not
completed the questions from phase 1 on “innovation ecosystem
components” and to answer questions on the smart city ecosystem.
6. Participants were recruited from Phase 1 and additional participants were
recruited from the user research platform and from social media (linkedin).
The sample characteristics were similar to Phase 1 (participants with
backgrounds in Artificial Intelligence/engineering/data science, legal,
governance, coalition and community building, healthcare innovation, and
clinical research)
7. Participants from Phase 1 and Phase 2 were followed up if they did not
complete the main survey question set on “ecosystem characteristics” and
company name to allow further analysis between the different development
stages that each participant was a part of.
8. It is possible that orchestrators may coordinate efforts to spark innovation
by pooling together available resources (Myers & Kellogg, 2022). To
ensure that companies have access to the resources they need to expand, it
is crucial to forge relationships with educational institutions and
governmental organizations (Linde et al., 2021.
9. An innovation ecosystem is helped along by orchestrators who play a role
in its growth and longevity. Together with other members of the
ecosystem, they determine what resources are needed, train the necessary
personnel, and establish functional links between different parts of the
system.
Phase 3
1. The research team will recruit new participants and require them to provide

information on the development of their ecosystem and their understanding of the

ecosystem model. Based on this understanding, they will be qualified to be part of

the study. The older participants from Phases 1 and 2 were selected based on their

understanding of the ecosystem model and their positive engagement during the

study.

2. 1:1 interview session will be conducted to answer specific questions relating

to multiple ecosystem frameworks, orchestration, dynamic capabilities,

491
 governance, routines/sub-routines, mechanisms, and processes for each of
the ecosystems.
3. After completion of the interview sessions, teams will be built to further
engage in focus group sessions to discuss and debate the current models of
ecosystem orchestration, governance, leadership, relationships, and other
components that make up the ecosystem model.
4. The focus groups were intended to encourage participants to recommend
additional components to the current ecosystem orchestration frameworks
and provide more depth to the routines, mechanisms, and processes
necessary to successfully strengthen, renew, boost, and transform the
ecosystem.
5. An ecosystem’s orchestrator is responsible for spotting and assessing
potential new value generation possibilities and facilitating connections
between the various sorts of ecosystem participants. They enable
participants of the ecosystem develop new goods, services, and business
models; establish and enforce rules and regulations; and monitor, evaluate,
and report on the ecosystem’s efficacy (Thomas et al., 2021).
6. The effectiveness and growth of innovation ecosystems rely heavily on
orchestrators. Without them, it would be far more difficult for several
parties to work together effectively to generate novel ideas (Dziallas &
Blind, 2019).
7. When it comes to optimizing joint efforts, knowledge about the many
organizations present in the ecosystem is invaluable, and that’s exactly
what orchestrators provide. To be successful, orchestrators must earn the
respect and cooperation of the many ecosystem players. They should also
be fast to spot issues and provide viable solutions. Management,
consultancy, and entrepreneurship are common early career paths for
orchestrators (Kobernyk, 2021).
8. Participants will have access to the Innovation Ecosystem Exhibit on the
itracks platform. Please refer to the table below that includes a summary of
themes and subthemes that will be covered during phase 3.

Phase 3 Ecosystem Exhibit Themes & Sub-Themes

Topic Sub-themes

Building the Ecosystem’s Strategic management, Disaggregation of Dynamic

Dynamic Capabilities
Capabilities into Capacity (sensing, seizing,
maintaining, and reconfiguring activities),
opportunity screening, partnership scouting, value
proposition development, ecosystem formation,
adaptive value creation, ecosystem resilience

492
Assessing Successful
Ecosystem Building
Orchestrators Govern Regional
Innovation
Orchestrators Govern Industrial
Innovation
Creating the Innovational
Environment
Group Dynamics in Ecosystem
Relationships
Corporate/ Business Strategy &
Competitive Dynamics
Artificial Intelligence
Ecosystems
Financial Digital Ecosystems
Orchestration of University
Innovation Ecosystems
Global Ecosystems
Healthcare Ecosystems
Precision Medicine –
Ecosystems as a Service Model
Metrics, Assimilation of Services, Demarcation,
Integration, Tools, Inputs, Outputs, Factors
(product/service, process, marketing, organizational)
Policies, Leadership Roles, Empowering Regional
Stakeholders, Heterogeneous Territories, Dynamic
Structures, Innovation System, Process of Network
Orchestration
Orchestration Process in Industry, Orchestrating
modes (dominating vs. consensus-based),
Involvement in Digital Co-Creation Platforms &
Digital Healthcare ecosystems
Dimensions, Activities, Programs, Providing
Opportunity through personal autonomy, building a
cross-organization network, encouraging diversity of
thought, goal-based thinking
Homophily bias, Difference in activities with a
gradient of winning/losing/noncompetitive
engagements, one-way relationships & contextual
influences, heterogenous group development
Leadership strategy, resources, differentiation,
highly competitive environment
Methods, procedures, techniques to integrate
predictive models from the lab to the patient’s
bedside; structures, agreements, & instruments to
encourage inter-organizational cooperation & data
exchange; tactics and guidelines to handle
expectations of participating actors, integrating
artificial intelligence predictive models into Clinical
Diagnostic Workflows.
Sustainable Financial Model
Change in Orchestrator’s duties; essential practices,
tasks, and systems; difficulties involved in bringing
academic knowledge into the marketplace; linking
academics to the broader ecosystem through specific
procedures and actions
Global Ecosystem, New Compass for Economic
Growth
Orchestrating Platforms, Bio-Pharmaceutical
Innovation Networks, Digital Healthcare
(blockchain, A.I), Regenerative Medicine
Obtaining Cancer insurance coverage, increasing
patient access to precision therapies, better
493

Socio-Ecological Framework
for Cancer Prevention
Ecosystems for Diagnosing &
Treating of Disease
Ecosystem Architecture &
Legal Transformation
Leveraging the Policy
Ecosystem in Public Health
Meta Rule of Law & Socio-
Legal Ecosystems
determining medication effectiveness, over-
recruiting minority groups in clinical trials, fixing
the healthcare systems fragmentation, holistic
healthcare for the patient’s medical journey, tactics
to overcome legislative or systemic obstacles
Better predicting tumor’s stage of evolution, game
theory to understand cancer and inform treatment,
creating a tumor categorization system,
understanding mechanism, biomarkers, and key
indicators of the tumor’s evolution, development of
national prevention cancer programs, road plan for
capitalizing and encouraging co-development of new
initiatives between diverse stakeholders
Moving past the traditional diagnostic model by
categorizing the pathogen or by the patient’s signs
and symptoms. A shift to an Ecosystem Diagnostic
framework that includes factors of disease evolution
such as the pathogen process of mutation that allows
it to manage the host’s immune system leading to
medication and chemotherapy resistance. Other
factors on a cell-level are being considered to better
understand disease evolution.
Identification of Actors Classes, Transformation and
Collaboration of Actor Classes, Ecosystem
Monitoring, Legislation & Certification,
Development of IT Artifacts, Privacy & Security,
Development of the Meta-Model (Domains, Actors,
Collaboration, IT landscape, modeling relationships
– vertical & horizontal slicing)
Articulating policy concerns while acknowledging
political, social and economic difficulties,
characterizing effective policy responses, education
and involvement of stakeholders in policy domains,
policy implementation development process,
impediments or enablers to effective policy
implementation, evaluating effective adoptive
policies
Regulatory Structures, Soft Law/Hard Law,
Distribution of Legal information, Responsive
Legislation that integrates a complex data
governance system
494
 Transformative Governance
Ecosystem Framework
Ecosystems for Smart Cities
Orchestration & Triple/
Quintuple Helix
Governance & Decision-Making Processes,
Regulatory Actors, Formal/Informal Agreements,
Monitoring & Continuous Improvement Systems,
Management & Interventions in the System to
overcome significant obstacles due to rising degree
of difficulties; government collaborations with
multiple players
Evolution of Governance Structures over time,
reinterpreting governance for enabling co-
development, co-creation of policies, empowerment
of citizens, and creating structures or strategies to
overcome social, political, and regulatory obstacles
that hinder innovation in the region.
Understanding the routines, policies, agreements,
program, and other action plans needed to encourage
collaboration across the different dimensions of the
helix (government, industry, academia)

Phase 4 Integration Synthesis

1. In this final phase of the research project, the research team will ask participants

for their feedback on the new model that was generated after Phase 3. The team

would like to know how this new model is better than the older ecosystem

orchestration framework, and what the participants’ vision is for the future of the

project.

2. A final set of questions will be sent to the experts to gain feedback on the
accuracy and practicality of the new model. The experts were asked how
the new model was an improvement on the older model, and what practical
applications the new model might have.
3. The grounded theory will be further refined after CFA analysis and other
statistical and validity analyses were completed.
4. Finally, participants will be asked for their reflections on the overall
project, opportunities for improvement, and their vision for the future of
the study and how they would like to see the results be used in a practical
setting.

Understanding Innovation Ecosystems - Core Principles and Values

495
 A person or organization’s core values are the essential principles that guide their
actions. These guiding principles may help individuals make the proper decisions, even
when confronted with challenging circumstances since they control conduct and provide
direction. The foundation on which fundamental values are constructed is made up of
principles (Amgresearch, 2014). They serve as a guide for decision-making and ensure
that fundamental principles are respected. The aims and objectives of a research team
need to serve as the foundation for the team’s fundamental values and guiding principles.
These guiding principles and values should be developed to ensure the team’s continued
success while also safeguarding its individual members.
The guiding concepts and ideals of the research process are embodied through the
core research teams. They work hard to ensure that research is carried out honestly and
responsibly, that results are widely publicized, and that they are utilized to improve
policy and practice (Autio, 2022). Core research teams also aim to encourage public
participation in research and improve local communities’ research capability. A strong
foundation of shared values, in which each team member has faith and to which they are
fully dedicated, is the cornerstone of every successful team. These core values serve as a
compass for the conduct and decisions made by the team and a mold for the group’s
culture. There are a wide variety of values that have the potential to be significant to a
team; however, the following are some fundamental principles that any team needs to
uphold:
Trust: The relationship between the team members should be based on trust.
Everyone on the team should be able to have complete faith in one another to carry out
their responsibilities and make decisions that are in the best interest of the group.
Respect: All team members should respect one another and feel that the other
members of the team respect them (Pain, 2014). This includes feeling appreciated for the
ideas they provide, the job they do, and the contributions they make to the team.
Dedication: All team members should be fully dedicated to accomplishing the
team’s goals. This involves being willing to put in additional effort to contribute to the
team’s success and ensure that the team’s objectives are achieved.
Responsibility: Every member of the team must be held responsible for the acts
they do. This entails taking responsibility not just for their job but also for the
accomplishments of the team as a whole.
Openness: The group needs to be open to new ideas and various approaches to
accomplishing the same goal. This requires an openness to the perspectives of others as
well as an interest in exploring novel concepts.
Work as a team: The team has to cooperate to accomplish what it set out to do.
This requires concerted efforts to collaborate and advance toward a shared objective.
Communication: The team members should speak with one another openly and
honestly (Pel & Kemp, 2020). This covers both the providing and receiving of feedback
as well as the exchange of information.

496
 Focus: The group needs to focus on its objectives and the things that are vital to
the group. This involves avoiding becoming distracted by other things and keeping
focused on the work at hand.
In conclusion, the core research team’s beliefs and principles are necessary to
succeed. They act as a guide for the team as it works and assists individual team members
in becoming successful in their respective tasks. The beliefs held by the team on the
significance of the research, the commitment to excellence held by the team, and the
dedication to community service form the foundation for the values and principles upheld
by the team.

Participant Code of Conduct

Our Pledge
Innovative Helix is committed to providing a safe, productive, and welcoming environment
for all participants in any project hosted or managed by Innovative Helix. We are dedicated
to ensuring respectful treatment of everyone regardless of gender, gender identity or
expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, age, body size, race, religion,
national origin, ethnicity, level of experience, political affiliation, veteran status, pregnancy,
genetic information, as well as any other characteristic protected under state or federal law.
Scope
This Code of Conduct applies to the Innovation Ecosystem project, and it also applies when
an individual is representing the Innovation Ecosystem project or its community in public
spaces.
Acceptable Behavior
Acceptable and expected behavior, includes, but is not limited to the following:
1. Treat all participants with respect and consideration

2. Value a diversity of views and opinions

3. Be considerate, respectful, and collaborative

4. Avoid personal attacks directed toward other participants

5. Be mindful of your surroundings and of your fellow participants

6. Gracefully accepting constructive criticism

Unacceptable Behavior
Unacceptable behavior, includes, but is not limited to the following:
1. Use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances

497
 2. Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks

3. Public or private harassment

4. Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or email address, without

explicit permission

5. Alarming, intimidating, threatening, or hostile comments or conduct

6. Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a

professional setting

Our Responsibilities
1. We are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and are

expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances

of unacceptable behavior.

2. We have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject survey answers, data,

and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban

temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem

false, inappropriate, threatening, offensive, harmful, or not provided in good faith.

3. We will ensure the fair selection of all participants and obtain informed consent

prior to commencing any studies, including, but not limited to the Innovation

Ecosystem project.

4. We will take all reasonable measures to ensure your personal data remains

confidential and will remove any and all personally identifiable information, if

requested to do so.

Your Responsibilities

498
 1. You will answer all survey questions fully and truthfully to the best of your ability,

skipping any non-applicable questions.

2. You will ensure that you are providing your own data and not conducting outside

research or providing the data of others, with or without the others’ consent.

3. You will take all reasonable measures to follow Our instructions and conduction

yourself in a respectful and professional manner at all times.

Enforcement
Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported by
contacting Dr. Luma Mahairi at luma_mahairi@yahoo.com. All reports shall be reviewed
and investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate to the
circumstances. We are obligated to maintaining confidentiality with regard to the reporter of
an incident. Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted separately.

Participants who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face
temporary or permanent repercussions as determined on a case-by-case basis.
Questions
If you have questions about the implementation or details of this code of conduct, please
email Dr. Luma Mahairi at luma_mahairi@yahoo.com.

Data Management Policies for Dissertation and Future Multi-Partner Projects

There are many ethical considerations to take into account when designing and
conducting research. These considerations are essential to ensure that the rights and
welfare of research participants are protected, and that the data collected is reliable and
valid (Steffen, 2016). The following are some key points to consider:
Part A: Key Concepts
Data Security: Data security is essential for ethical data management. Data collected in
our dissertation and future multi-partner projects must be stored securely. Data security
must be managed under applicable laws and regulations.
Informed consent: Research participants must be informed about the purpose of the
research, what will be required of them, and any potential risks and benefits. They must
give their voluntary and informed consent before participating.
Data collection: Data must be collected in a way that is ethical and compliant with the
informed consent agreement. This includes ensuring that the data is collected from a
representative population sample. It is accurate and complete.

499
 Data storage: Data must be stored securely and confidentially. Only those with a
legitimate need to access the data should be able to do so.
Data analysis: Data must be analyzed in a way that is ethical and compliant with the
informed consent agreement. This includes ensuring that the data is analyzed objectively
and that the results are reported accurately.
Data sharing: Data must be shared in a way that is ethical and compliant with the
informed consent agreement. This includes ensuring that the data is shared only with
those who have a legitimate need to access it and that the data is not used for any purpose
other than the research purpose. These are just some of the ethical considerations to take
into account when designing and conducting research. It is essential to consult with
ethical experts when planning research to ensure that all ethical considerations are
considered.
Part B: Outline or checklist of the critical points in the summary relating to
compliance and ethical data management
The purpose of this summary is to provide an overview of compliance and ethical data
management. Specifically, this summary will address the following topics:
1. Introduction
2. The importance of compliance in data management
3. The ethical considerations involved in data management
4. The potential consequences of non-compliance
5. Compliance Risks Associated with Data Management
6. Mitigating Compliance Risks through Ethical Practices
7. Conclusion

1. Introduction
The purpose of this summary is to provide an overview of compliance and ethical data
management. In particular, this summary will focus on the compliance risks associated
with data management and how these risks can be mitigated through ethical practices.
2. The importance of compliance in data management
Compliance with data privacy laws and regulations is essential in order to protect the
privacy of individuals and to ensure the security of data. The ethical considerations
involved in data management must be considered when collecting, storing, and sharing
data. These considerations include ensuring that data is collected and used in a way that
does not violate the privacy of individuals and that data is stored and shared securely.
3. The ethical considerations involved in data management
Ethical considerations must be considered when collecting, storing, and sharing data
(Steffen, 2016). There are serious consequences that can result from non-compliance,
including fines, imprisonment, and damage to reputation.
4. The potential consequences of non-compliance
There are serious consequences that can result from non-compliance with data privacy
laws and regulations, including fines, imprisonment, and damage to reputation.
5. Compliance Risks Associated with Data Management

500
There are several compliance risks associated with data management. These risks can
arise from both the collection and use of data. Data collection risks can arise when
personal data is collected without the consent of the individual concerned. This can
happen if data is collected indirectly, such as through cookies, or if data is collected from
sources that are not publicly available, such as social media. These risks can also arise
from the use of data. For example, if data is used for marketing purposes without the
consent of the individual concerned, this could be considered a breach of data protection
legislation.
6. Mitigating Compliance Risks through Ethical Practices
There are several ways in which compliance risks can be mitigated through ethical
practices. Firstly, it is essential to ensure that personal data is only collected with the
consent of the individual concerned (Francis & Armstrong, 2003). This can be done by
ensuring that individuals know how their data will be used and allowing them to opt-out
of data collection if they wish. Secondly, it is essential to ensure that data is only used for
the purposes for which it was collected. This can be done by ensuring that data is only
used for the specific purpose for which it was collected and by ensuring that individuals
know how their data will be used. Thirdly, it is essential to ensure that data is only shared
with third parties who have a legitimate need for it. This can be done by ensuring that
data is only shared with third parties with a legitimate need for it and that individuals
know how their data will be shared. Fourthly, it is essential to ensure that data is stored
securely. This can be done by ensuring that data is stored in a secure location and by
ensuring that data is encrypted when it is stored.
7. Conclusion
Compliance and ethical data management are essential considerations for any
organization that collects and stores personal data. Data management has several
compliance risks, but these risks can be mitigated through ethical practices.

501
Innovation Team Project Playbook
The Innovation Group is responsible for developing research studies, development
projects, and services for our ecosystem and the larger community. We must take the
initiative to search for methods to improve our offerings and operations continuously. This
Playbook is intended to serve as a guide for enhanced collaboration, which is one of our
primary goals as we work to ensure that we continue to be the leaders in our industry.
We are neither managers nor are we managed in our role as internal innovation
consultants; instead, we move from one priority to the next while collaborating with other
senior members (such as the Deputy Mayor and the Chief of Staff), city units, and
departments, association leaders, university or innovation alliance leaders. However, we
are not considered managers and do not have direct reports.
Even if our primary partners have broader responsibilities and maybe conflicting
objectives, our organization is designed to be hyper-focused on bringing new approaches
to bear in key areas that are narrowly defined but considerable. We are in an excellent
position to work together across departments and functions, putting the talents and energy
of all participants to good use in order to achieve measurable results.
Partners that work with us while developing new solutions and innovations
subsequently share responsibility for implementation once our function shifts to
performance management. Because of this delegation approach, we can take on brand-new
responsibilities consistently.
This is mirrored in the process known as Innovation Delivery, in which an Owner
and a Sponsor are expressly designated for each piece of work (referred to as an
“initiative”) that will be carried out. The Owner can be city or private employee who is in
control of day-to-day operations. The Owner is typically a manager, but this is not always
the case. In most cases, the Owner is answerable to the Sponsor, who is ultimately
responsible for achieving the project’s goals.
Roles & Responsibilities
The members of the Innovation Team are each responsible for a certain
responsibility that contributes to the team’s overall success. It is feasible for team members
to flip between these positions as the project or job demands. The team’s sole objective is
to assist leaders and communities in developing inventive new approaches to dealing with
critical problems. Because the innovation partner can team with local government (and
sometimes even outside of it) it will be implementing the developed solutions, the team
should anticipate putting in much effort. As a result, the squad must find suitable allies and
begin working with them as soon as feasible. This should be the fundamental goal of any
new group that forms. With this information in mind, let us look at some key players in
this endeavor.
Everyone in the Innovation Team contributes to the group’s overall success in their
unique way. Members’ roles may need to be adjusted due to the nature of the project or the
specifics of the task at hand. The organization’s only objective is to assist university
leaders, public officials, and communities in developing inventive approaches to
addressing pressing issues. The implementation of the project is shared with the partners

502
of the innovation team (government, city, university, or community leaders). Prior to
committing to any project with a partner organization, key individual participation within
the organization needs to be determined prior to initiating any project. Making sure this
happens should be the first thing any new group does when they get together. Keeping this
in mind, the following parts will provide further information about the key players.
Public Officials
The he/she determines the venture’s overall tone
1. The Public Official emphasizes the importance of the accomplishments, and the

team insists on accountability from the group and its leadership (the Director and

Initiative Sponsors) but stands by them even when specific projects fail.

2. Director to make important choices and shows the Public Official’s full confidence

in the person.

3. The Public Official also attends stock takes to show city stakeholders the value of

programs and goals.

4. Listens to the team’s concerns when it finds problems, and always consults with

higher-ups in relevant departments and other outside groups (such as charities)

when the Public Official’s hand must be forced.

5. When the team, its department partners, and the overall plan have all met their

goals, the Public Official will announce and celebrate.

Initiative Sponsors
Sponsors of Initiatives are the department heads who report to the Leader (academics,
public officials, or private sector) and are responsible for the initiatives’ effective rollout.:
1. They consider themselves personally responsible for efforts, and they consider the

success with which those initiatives are completed to be a major factor in their

leadership success.

503
 2. They participate in updates with the Leader (Academic, public official, or private

sector) and other internal meetings to guarantee that projects are carried out as

planned.

3. They vocally and enthusiastically back all departmental endeavors.

4. When projects have challenges across departments, they collaborate well with their

counterparts to find solutions.

5. In order to ensure the success of initiatives, they dedicate key personnel who

possess the necessary expertise (which may mean reprioritizing tasks to ensure that

an initiative is implemented effectively).

6. In addition to taking part in discussions, they are also good at resolving problems

quickly.

Initiative Owners
Owners of Initiatives, who are in charge of managing and directing their projects daily:
1. Feel personally invested in the outcome of an endeavor and see their success as a

direct result of the initiative’s success.

2. Always keep the Sponsor updated and involved.

3. Maintain a laser-like concentration on reaching the plan’s objectives and dealing

with problems when they crop up.

4. Collaborate effectively with the project managers and the initiative leaders to

accomplish the set goals.

Innovation Team Director

An effective Director will serve as a key city official and primary proponent of the
Innovation Delivery method:

504
 1. Encourages Sponsors and Owners to set higher goals and push for the creation of

novel methods to achieve them.

2. Keeps its laser-like attention on results, including how initiatives are faring

compared to the original plan, any roadblocks, and any necessary adjustments.

3. Gives Project Managers helpful advice on how to tackle complex problems.

4. Makes the most efficient use of the Leader’s time by keeping them apprised of

developments related to the most pressing matters.

5. Makes use of the Leaders Authority when necessary, as well as other forms of “soft

power,” such as appealing to coworkers’ interests to win their support.

6. Makes certain that team members within the department get their due recognition

for any successes or goals reached.

Innovation Team Project Manager

A successful Project Manager contributes to the success of the Sponsors and Owners by:
1. Serving as an impartial evaluator who is aware of the factors that may be preventing

certain efforts from succeeding and can thus provide feedback on how to improve

them

2. Helping Owners overcome transformation obstacles by providing actionable

guidance and emotional support

3. Owners’ Coaching (on problem-solving, implementation strategies, and

presentation skills)

4. Acting as a “cheerleader” to make sure the public official acknowledges each

department’s successes

505
Idea Generation
The group’s main duty is to think of creative solutions. We must always be on the
lookout for methods to enhance our operations, offerings, and customer support. We must
keep an eye out for emerging methods and fashions that may have practical applications
for our industry. We need an attitude of openness and encouragement of “outside-the-box”
thinking to foster innovation. A good way to come up with fresh ideas is to have a
brainstorming session. We must be wary of the “groupthink” tendency and resist the
temptation to get too complacent. No matter where an idea comes from, it deserves a
thorough evaluation.
After the study phase is completed, the team and its partners should thoroughly
grasp the difficulties and factors that contributed to each priority area. At this point in the
process, the group and its supporters will engage in some really bold and innovative
brainstorming in order to come up with a whole suite of projects that have the potential to
make a difference. The team’s studies should begin with determining what has previously
worked and what is now working in existing cities.
This inquiry may yield solutions that appear to be reliable enough to handle the
group’s concerns. On the other hand, the Innovation Delivery technique encourages users
to jump to conclusions based on preliminary research. The strategy is founded on the
assumption that the organization can improve the current condition of things. It is possible
that the group will not be able to locate a tried-and-true answer; in that case, they will need
to come up with some unique ideas for the scenario(Midgley, 2010).
This chapter gives established and tried ways to develop new ideas for both public
and private sector innovators. One of the most important aspects of successful idea
generation is listening to customers who have already purchased a product or service
(citizens who will be directly affected or served by the innovations). One idea is to
compensate individuals for contributing their unique insights. The fundamental goal of
Innovation Delivery is to create an environment where the team and its municipal partners
can step away from their typical routines to conceive and implement radical new ideas.
This goal will be met by creating an environment where they may engage in Innovation
Delivery (Lugones, 2006).
During the second phase of this process, it is critical to remember that the final
responsibility for implementing the initiatives developed will not be the teams. The
Initiative Owner is responsible for day-to-day operations, while the Initiative Sponsor
guarantees adequate funding and assesses the project’s overall performance. When coming
up with ideas, it is critical to consider who might become the idea’s Owner and Sponsor.
Partners benefit greatly from an inclusive approach to idea development since they can
participate in the formulation of concepts for which they will be held accountable.
Generating new ideas is necessary and can be enhanced with forethought and self-control.
Raise the bar and think beyond the box if you want to find the most imaginative answers
to your problems. There is no such thing as enough time, whether it be an afternoon spent

506
completing internet research or a single session of group brainstorming (Newlove & Hall,
1976).
The organization’s purpose is to guide its partners through a process that will
increase the number of new options and creative ideas available. The following are some
guidelines for coming up with new ideas: Strive for the stars and generate a slew of creative
ideas. Avoid establishing an emotional relationship with the bad ones and remember that
sometimes the greatest ideas come from the most unexpected places.
While you are picturing the change, those most affected by it may supply you with
useful remarks. Use the information and comments provided by users; if a brilliant solution
already exists, feel free to borrow or modify it to fit local conditions; however, you should
also set aside some time to consider how you can apply this concept elsewhere, making it
more effective for the needs of your city(Pali, & Swaans, 2013)
After completing Stage 2, a group should have a list of ideas for projects that are
likely to be successful. These ideas could have come from various sources, including, but
not limited to, data analysis, other cities, experts, crowd-sourcing, group brainstorming
sessions, idea competitions, and end-user interaction. Every plan of action must be founded
on the underlying issues identified in the first step (Villa Alvarez et al., 2022)
Before going on to the next prospective idea, each one must have as much detail
and specificity as humanly possible built into it. Step 3: Prepare to deliver the presentation.
Consider every choice that is available to you. Do the majority of people merely consider
one element of the situation? A strategy that spreads resources too thin is risky unless a
single underlying cause can be identified as the primary source of trouble. The final list of
projects should include a varied range of Sponsors, action methods, contributing issues,
and impact horizons.
It is likely that innovation teams may return to Step 2 at some point during the
process, either to generate new ideas to aid in course corrections or because the team has
been assigned a new priority. After performing an in-depth review of each potential project
and developing it further, the group and its partners will choose a portfolio of initiatives to
work on during the third step, “Prepare to Deliver.”

Project Management
After we have generated some new ideas, we will analyze them and select the finest
ones to explore further. There is also the issue of turning these ideas into feasible programs
and overseeing their implementation. This area includes planning, organizing, and
monitoring. It is critical to realize that not every team member will work on every project.
Depending on their skills and personal preferences, some team members may be more
immersed in the brainstorming process, while others may take on more of a management
role(Malve-Ahlroth et al., 2018)
Step 3 focuses on turning the unique ideas in Step 2 into realistic strategies for
implementation. This strategy is iterative and involves multiple drafts and adjustments
while working closely with collaborators. Step 2 initiative concepts may or may not be
developed into genuine initiatives, depending on various reasons. At this stage, partners

507
from various city departments (and beyond) who have worked with the i-team throughout
the research and ideation process will have their roles formally defined. The Initiative
Owner is in charge of day-to-day operations, while the Project Sponsor is ultimately
responsible for the project’s success. A lexicon of these and other key terms follows
(McClellan, 2020).
A comprehensive implementation strategy will go deeper because most
workstreams contain several steps. Using the preceding example, the last phase of building
construction could include laying the foundation, erecting the frame, plumbing the
building, and so on. It is critical to segregate similar tasks (such as establishing the
foundation before putting the frame) into their schedules and deliverables. Larger and more
sophisticated projects necessitate more detailed planning. Outlining subtasks alongside
main tasks, mapping dependencies across tasks (e.g., Task B cannot begin until Task A is
completed), and developing a method for tracking the progress of individual tasks are
examples. Some i-teams use costly project management software such as Microsoft
Project, while others rely on extensive spreadsheets or documentation (Vick et al., 2015)
It may be beneficial to consolidate all efforts for a given problem into a single
master calendar, especially when multiple initiatives are being delivered concurrently. This
will demonstrate when the team and department partners are most busy and when the leader
is most needed and highlight interdependencies between initiatives that individual initiative
planners may not have anticipated. Even if it appears to be easier and faster in the short
term, innovation teams should avoid drafting charters and work plans on their own (Shi et
al., 2021)
Communication
The success of the team depends on its members’ ability to communicate with one
another effectively. There must be open and helpful communication between us. The
company’s upper management, clients, and business associates must all be kept abreast of
our progress. We need to lay down some guidelines for communicating with one another.
For instance, we should define a procedure for providing and receiving comments and
agree on a means of communicating ideas (email, online forum, etc.). We must also
determine the best time and method of sharing information with those who have a vested
interest (Kleyn et al., 2005). While it may be tempting to brag about your top-notch team,
the most effective groups work in the background to drive a streamlined process by giving
critical insight and analysis. Owners and Sponsors should be celebrated as heroes for all
their hard work in launching a new venture. As history has shown, giving credit where
credit is due is extremely important.
Therefore, when discussing the job, either internally or externally, the team should
be wary of taking too much credit for themselves. Innovation team members should always
give partners that helped implement projects the highest level of credit. Rather than the
other way around, potential partners will often come chasing after innovation teams that
consistently achieve this (Gill & Gattuso, 2015). All the steps necessary to choose, refine,
define, and launch an initiative have been completed. There is an Owner who is accountable
for the day-to-day operations of the initiative and a Sponsor who is accountable for the

508
project’s overall success. Partners have progressed through Steps 1, 2, and 3 by the team
(MacCormack et al., 2007)
As teams move into Step 4: Deliver and Adapt, they must prepare to bring their
plans off the page and into practice. Teams who have carefully planned for execution,
engaged partners and created relationships, and selected initiatives based on extensive
study and appropriate data are more likely to succeed. However, all teams will be tested by
the delivery. Lastly, teams must stick to delivery routines while remaining flexible enough
to respond to the inevitable minor, everyday emergencies that will arise (O’Connor, 1998).
Evaluation
Evaluate our efforts consistently to verify that we are moving in the right direction
and accomplishing our goals. This involves examining each project on its own and
analyzing the overall performance of our team as a whole. It is critical to solicit the opinions
of several different stakeholders, including customers, business partners, and senior
management. When evaluating the quality of our work, we can adopt any one of several
different techniques to do so. Other qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus
groups, and others, such as financial indicators or customer satisfaction surveys, are
quantitative (Brady & Hobday, 2011).
As part of the preparations the Owners and Sponsors made for the delivery of the
product, the teams aided them in producing logic models, charters, and implementation
plans during Step 3 of the process. Now is the time to put all of our focus on giving the
presentation.
What exactly does it entail to say that the products have been handed over? Delivery is the
successful execution of planning efforts using defined project management methods and
unrelenting attention to targets. Delivery is the term used to describe the successful
completion of a task (Rusu et al., 2009)
As the initiatives for which they are responsible debut or are ready to launch, the
owners and sponsors of those initiatives will devote a significant amount of work to
implementing such efforts. During this phase, the team’s job is to support the Owners and
Sponsors in implementing projects in a disciplined manner, to maintain focus on progress
toward targets, and to coordinate efforts to remove hurdles quickly. These responsibilities
include:
• This section of the Playbook discusses five different delivery routines that have

been put through their paces by real-world teams and have been determined to

be effective due to their use. These delivery routines are distinct from one

another and complement one another. Not only do the routines aim to ensure

that the relevant information is provided to the appropriate personnel at the

appropriate time, but they also assist in strengthening the focus that the

509
 Innovation Delivery strategy has on metrics and targets. Each delivery routine

is intended to be utilized on a regular, repeating schedule, and it is provided

here with true examples taken from already existing teams and the partners of

those teams in order to aid you in getting started as quickly as possible (Artto

et al.,2008). The full comprehensive version of the Innovation Ecosystem

Project Playbook will be provided to our partners upon completion of the study.

We wish to hear the perspectives of participants during phase 3 prior to

finalizing the design of the final project playbook.

Conclusion
The Innovation Team Playbook was created to facilitate our collaboration and
ensure that we remain leaders in our sector. We can ensure that we cooperate effectively
by defining our roles and duties, establishing some essential ground rules for
communication, and conducting frequent performance assessments. Even though this is the
fourth and final stage of the Innovation Delivery process, the work the teams must complete
far from complete. The cycle of innovation and reform can continue indefinitely as long as
the delivery and invention processes continue. Despite the notion that the Playbook depicts
a sequential process, teams engage in extensive iteration and several feedback loops inside
each phase and between phases in practice. For example, In-Depth Reviews may reveal
that some initiatives are not making significant progress toward a challenging goal over
time, requiring a team and city to produce new ideas for initiatives (Step 2: Generate New
Ideas) or take on new challenges (Step 1: Investigate the Problem). An in-depth
examination may also reveal the team’s ability to take on more duties, which may result in
the discovery of new areas in which to focus efforts (Getting Started). The status quo is
constantly changing, driven by careful data monitoring (Binder, 2022).

510
 APPENDIX G: Informed Consent

TITLE OF STUDY
How orchestrators orchestrate the Innovation Ecosystem: A Case Study of the Midwest
Regional Innovation Ecosystem

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
Dr. Ram Tenkasi
Organizational Development Phd Program at Benedictine University
630-829-6206
rtenkasi@ben.edu

Dr. Luma Mahairi

Organizational Development Phd Student at Benedictine University, Lisle, IL
630-696-7211
Luma_mahairi@yahoo.com

IRB Contact
Dr. Alandra Devall
630-829-6295
adevall@ben.edu
PURPOSE OF STUDY

You are being asked to take part in a research study. Before you decide to participate in
this study, it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it
will involve. Please read the following information carefully. Please ask the researcher if
there is anything that is not clear or if you need more information.
The purpose of this study is to explore how different Innovation Ecosystem orchestrators
govern regional and industrial innovation by specific tools and mechanisms through
open-ended questions, interviews, and case studies. By understanding the factors that
make the orchestrator’s role more effective, organizations are better able to manage their
innovation and resources in a diverse environment involving multiple stakeholders.

STUDY PROCEDURES
We thank you for engaging in our interview questions and surveys. All responses
will remain confidential, and participants will remain anonymous. Upon completion of
the study the data will be stored in a file at Benedictine University in Lisle, IL USA.

To facilitate our notetaking, we would like to audio tape our conversations today.
Please sign the release form. For your information, only researchers on the project will be
privy to the tapes which will be eventually destroyed after they are transcribed. In
addition, you must sign a form devised to meet our human subject requirements.

511
Essentially, this document states that: (1) all information will be held confidential, (2)
your participation is voluntary, and you may stop at any time if you feel uncomfortable,
and (3) we do not intend to inflict any harm. Thank you for your agreeing to participate.
We have planned this interview to last no longer than one hour. During this time,
we have several questions that we would like to cover. If time begins to run short, it may
be necessary to interrupt you in order to push ahead and complete this line of questioning.
orchestrators. You may decline to answer any or all questions and you may terminate
your involvement at any time if you choose.

RISKS

N/A

BENEFITS

There will be no direct benefit to you for your participation in this study. However, we
hope that the information obtained from this study may help us obtain the different
perspectives and insights on key success indicators and strategies for the building of an
innovation ecosystem and regional advancement. The goal is to use the information
shared by leaders in the industry to not only contribute to the literature, but also to use for
proper positioning of key orchestrators (institutions and universities) within the
innovation ecosystem to better leverage the system for long-term sustainability.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Your responses to this interview and survey will be anonymous. Please do not write any
identifying information on your survey. For the purposes of this research study, your
comments will be anonymous. Every effort will be made by the researcher to preserve
your confidentiality including the following:
• Assigning code names/numbers for participants that will be used on all research
notes and documents
• Keeping notes, interview transcriptions, and any other identifying participant
information in a locked file cabinet in the personal possession of the researcher.]
Participant data will be kept confidential except in cases where the researcher is legally
obligated to report specific incidents. These incidents include, but may not be limited to,
incidents of abuse and suicide risk.

CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have questions at any time about this study, or you experience adverse effects as
the result of participating in this study, you may contact the researcher whose contact
information is provided on the first page. If you have questions regarding your rights as a

512
research participant, or if problems arise which you do not feel you can discuss with the
Primary Investigator, please contact the Institutional Review Board at (865) 354-3000,
ext. 4822.

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION

Your participation in this study is voluntary. It is up to you to decide whether or not to

take part in this study. If you decide to take part in this study, you will be asked to sign a
consent form. After you sign the consent form, you are still free to withdraw at any time
and without giving a reason. Withdrawing from this study will not affect the relationship
you have, if any, with the researcher. If you withdraw from the study before data
collection is completed, your data will be returned to you or destroyed.

CONSENT

I have read and I understand the provided information and have had the opportunity to
ask questions. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to
withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost. I understand that I will
be given a copy of this consent form. I voluntarily agree to take part in this study.

Participant’s signature ______________________________ Date __________

Investigator’s signature _____________________________ Date __________

MUTUAL NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT (“NDA”)

Innovative Helix, LLC, with a principle place of business at 16W649 Hawthorne Court,
Willowbrook, Illinois 60527 and located at , individually referred to as a “Party”
and collectively as the “Parties”, enter into this NDA with an Effective Date of . The
Parties agree for themselves, their successors and assigns as follows:

1. Purpose. Either Party may disclose certain confidential and proprietary

information about its products, services, business strategies, and related matters to the other
Party for the other Party’s purposes in evaluating a possible business relationship between the
Parties (“Purpose”). A Party will be considered to be a “Discloser” with respect to
information that it discloses and a “Recipient” with respect to information that it receives. No
Party is willing to disclose any such confidential and proprietary information to the other
without the restrictions on use and disclosure contained in this NDA.

513
• Confidential Information. “Confidential Information” shall include, but is not

limited to the following: (a) any and all business or technical information of

Discloser or any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of Discloser, whether disclosed

orally or in writing and in whatever form or medium that is not generally known

to the public including, without limitation, business plans and strategies;

customer, employee, distributor, supplier, agent, and vendor names, identities,

data, lists, contracts, and agreements; algorithms; drawings; designs;

documents; engineering information; financial analysis and information;

forecasts; formulas; samples; raw materials; hardware configuration

information; know-how; ideas; inventions; market information; marketing

plans; processes; products (including, without limitation, geometry and

composition of materials); product plans; services; research; testing methods,

capabilities, and results; project management strategies; equipment; shop

procedures; production and materials handling procedures; improvements;

methods; techniques; specifications; software; programs; source and object

code; IT systems; IT strategies; web design, functionality, and data; and

intellectual property (including, without limitation, patents, copyrights, trade

and service marks and trade secrets) (collectively, the “Disclosed Materials”);

(b) any information otherwise obtained, directly or indirectly, by Recipient

through inspection, review, or analysis of the Disclosed Materials and/or while

514
 visiting the premises of Discloser or any parent, subsidiary or affiliate of

Discloser; (c) any confidential information of a third party that is in the

possession of Discloser or any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of Discloser, and

is disclosed to Recipient; and (d) Personally Identifiable Information including

any data or information relating to an identified and/or directly or indirectly

identifiable natural person, including but not limited to: name, address, mobile

telephone number, e-mail address, social security number (or foreign country

equivalent) or driver’s license number.

• Form of Disclosure. Confidential Information may be oral, visual, or by

demonstration, or in some other form not permanently recorded, and shall be

considered Confidential Information regardless of whether such Confidential

Information has been expressly designated as confidential or proprietary.

• Limitations on Disclosure and Use of Confidential Information. Recipient

agrees that it will use at least the same degree of care in protecting the

confidentiality of Discloser’s Confidential Information that it uses to protect its

own confidential information of like importance but in no event less than a

commercially reasonable degree of care. In addition, Recipient agrees that it

shall not use the Confidential Information for any reason except with respect to

the Purpose and shall disclose Confidential Information only to its employees,

515
 agents, and representatives who need to know the Confidential Information to

further the Purpose.

• Exclusions. This NDA imposes no obligation upon a Recipient with respect to

Confidential Information which: (a) was in the Recipient’s possession before

receipt from the Discloser (except for Confidential Information previously

disclosed to Recipient by Discloser); (b) is or becomes a matter of public

knowledge through no fault of the Recipient; (c) is rightfully received by the

Recipient from a rightfully possessing third party without a duty of

confidentiality; (d) is disclosed by the Recipient with the Discloser’s prior

written approval in accordance with that written approval; or (e) in accordance

with a subpoena or other valid judicial or government order, and Recipient shall,

if legally permitted to do so, give Discloser prompt notice of that fact, including

in its notice the legal basis for the required disclosure and the nature of the

Confidential Information which must be disclosed. Recipient shall cooperate fully

with Discloser in obtaining a protective order or other appropriate protection

relating to the disclosure and subsequent use of the Confidential Information.

Recipient shall disclose only that portion of the Confidential Information that is

legally required to be disclosed.

516
• Retained Rights. All Confidential Information is and shall remain the sole and

exclusive property of the Discloser, and neither Party acquires any license,

intellectual property rights, or legal or equitable interest in the other Party’s

Confidential Information, including, without limitation, rights or license under

any present or future patent, patent application, copyright, trademark, service

mark, trade secret or other proprietary information owned, licensed or

controlled by Discloser.

• No Warranty. All Confidential Information is provided “AS IS,” and neither

Party makes any warranty regarding the accuracy, appropriateness, or reliability

of such information. The entire risk arising out of the use of the Confidential

Information remains with the Recipient.

• Discovery of Unauthorized Use. The Recipient shall notify the Discloser

immediately upon discovery of any unauthorized use or disclosure of

Confidential Information, or any other breach of this NDA by the Recipient, or

its employees, agents, or representatives, or caused by any of them, and will

cooperate with the Discloser in every reasonable way to help the Discloser

regain possession of the Confidential Information and prevent further

unauthorized use or disclosure.

517
• Enforcement. Each Recipient acknowledges that Discloser would have no

adequate remedy at law should Recipient breach its obligations under this NDA.

Therefore, Recipient agrees that Discloser shall be entitled to pursue

enforcement of its rights under this NDA in case of any breach or threatened

breach by obtaining appropriate equitable relief including a temporary

restraining order and an injunction. Discloser’s delay in exercising or failure to

exercise any right under this NDA shall not be deemed to be a waiver of that

right or of the right to assert a claim with respect to any future breach of this

NDA.

• Prevailing Party. If either Party employs attorneys to enforce any rights arising

out of or relating to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to

recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses.

• Period of Confidentiality and Non-Use. Unless extended by written mutual

agreement, this NDA shall automatically terminate five (5) years after the

Effective Date. Recipient’s obligations with respect to disclosed Confidential

Information shall continue for a period of five (5) years from the termination of

this NDA. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the nondisclosure

obligations and restrictions on use with respect to any Confidential Information

that constitutes a trade secret shall continue in effect so long as the Confidential

518
 Information remains a trade secret under applicable law. Upon expiration and

at the Discloser’s request, Recipient shall either return or destroy the

Confidential Information and all copies as well as all documents produced

containing the Confidential Information. However, Recipient shall not be

required to return or destroy any copies that were created in the ordinary course

of business and retained in Recipient’s computer system for archival backup

purposes.

• Indemnification. Recipient shall reimburse, indemnify and hold harmless

Discloser and its affiliates, owners, employees, officers, directors, agents and

representatives from any damage, loss, penalty, cost or expense incurred by

Discloser as a result of or in connection with the use or disclosure of the

Confidential Information contrary to the terms of this Agreement by Recipient

or its affiliates, employees, directors, officers, owners, consultants, agents or

representatives or any others to whom such Confidential Information has been

disclosed by any such persons or entities. The term “affiliates” as used in this

Agreement shall mean any persons, corporations, partnerships, limited liability

companies, or other business entities, which directly or indirectly control, are

controlled by, or are in common control with such party to this Agreement. As

used herein, the term “control” shall mean possession, directly or indirectly, of

519
 power to direct or cause the direction of management or policies (whether

through ownership of securities, by contract or otherwise).

• No Public Comment. Recipient shall notify Discloser immediately upon

discovery of any unauthorized use or disclosure of Confidential Information or

any other breach of this Agreement by Recipient or any third party and will

cooperate with Discloser in every reasonable way to help Discloser regain

possession of the Confidential Information and prevent its further unauthorized

use or disclosure.

• Governing Law. This NDA is deemed to be made under and shall be construed

and enforced according to the laws of the State of Illinois.

• Severability. Should any part of this NDA be rendered or declared invalid by

a court of competent jurisdiction or new legislation, such invalidation of such

part or portion of this NDA should not invalidate the remaining portions thereof,

and they shall remain in full force and effect.

• Relationship. This Agreement shall not be construed as a joint venture, pooling

arrangement, partnership, teaming effort or agency arrangement. The Recipient,

520
 unless otherwise stated in a separate agreement, shall have no ownership

interest whatsoever in the Confidential Information received.

• Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon both Parties and

their subsidiaries, successors, assigns, legal representatives, and all

corporations controlling the Parties or controlled by the Parties and shall inure

to the benefit of the Parties and their subsidiaries, successors, assigns, legal

representatives, and all corporations controlling the Parties or controlled by the

Parties.

• Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by either Party without the

written Consent of the other Party.

• Headings. The headings in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and

shall not limit or otherwise affect the meaning of the provisions.

• Counterparts. This NDA may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall

be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same

document.

• Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding

between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement,

521
 supersedes all earlier oral or written agreements, and may not be modified or

supplemented except in writing signed by both parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused their duly authorized representatives to
execute this Agreement as of the dates written below:

On behalf of Innovative Helix, LLC,

Signature of Duly Authorized Representative Date

Printed Name/Title

On behalf of :

Signature of Duly Authorized Representative Date

Printed Name/Title

522
 ProQuest Number: 30492385

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2023 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA