Comparing Business, Innovation, and Platform Ecosystems: A Systematic Review of the Literature
-
Published:2024-04-04
Issue:4
Volume:9
Page:216
-
ISSN:2313-7673
-
Container-title:Biomimetics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Biomimetics
Author:
Liu Zhe1ORCID, Li Zichen1, Zhang Yudong23ORCID, Mutukumira Anthony N.4ORCID, Feng Yichen1, Cui Yangjie1, Wang Shuzhe1, Wang Jiaji2ORCID, Wang Shuihua25
Affiliation:
1. School of Management, Henan University of Technology, Zhengzhou 450001, China 2. School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK 3. Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Computing and Information Technology, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia 4. School of Food and Advanced Technology, Massey University, Auckland 0745, New Zealand 5. Department of Biological Sciences, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou 215123, China
Abstract
In recent decades, the term “ecosystem” has garnered substantial attention in scholarly and managerial discourse, featuring prominently in academic and applied contexts. While individual scholars have made significant contributions to the study of various types of ecosystem, there appears to be a research gap marked by a lack of comprehensive synthesis and refinement of findings across diverse ecosystems. This paper systematically addresses this gap through a hybrid methodology, employing bibliometric and content analyses to systematically review the literature from 1993 to 2023. The primary research aim is to critically examine theoretical studies on different ecosystem types, specifically focusing on business, innovation, and platform ecosystems. The methodology of this study involves a content review of the identified literature, combining quantitative bibliometric analyses to differentiate patterns and content analysis for in-depth exploration. The core findings center on refining and summarizing the definitions of business, innovation, and platform ecosystems, shedding light on both commonalities and distinctions. Notably, the research unveils shared characteristics such as openness and diversity across these ecosystems while highlighting significant differences in terms of participants and objectives. Furthermore, the paper delves into the interconnections within these three ecosystem types, offering insights into their dynamics and paving the way for discussions on future research directions. This comprehensive examination not only advances our understanding of business, innovation, and platform ecosystems but also lays the groundwork for future scholarly inquiries in this dynamic and evolving field.
Funder
National Social Science Foundation of China BHF, UK Royal Society, UK MRC, UK Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, UK Sino-UK Industrial Fund, UK GCRF, UK LIAS, UK Data Science Enhancement Fund, UK Fight for Sight, UK Sino-UK Education Fund, UK BBSRC, UK
Reference189 articles.
1. Verbrugghe, N., Rubinacci, E., and Khan, A.Z. (2023). Biomimicry in Architecture: A Review of Definitions, Case Studies, and Design Methods. Biomimetics, 8. 2. Sa, A.A.M.d., and Viana, D.M. (2023). Design and Biomimicry: A Review of Interconnections and Creative Potentials. Biomimetics, 8. 3. Biomimicry step-by-step;Rowland;Bioinspired Biomim. Nanobiomater.,2017 4. Evolution of Mimicry Rings as a Window into Community Dynamics;Kunte;Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.,2021 5. Mimicry of emergent traits amplifies coastal restoration success;Temmink;Nat. Commun.,2020
|
|