Thomas, L.D.W. (Llewellyn D. W.)

Filtering

2021 - 20224

Settings

Author search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.ff368f71-5b63-45bc-8828-56776810c434

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Generativity: a systematic review and conceptual framework
    (Wiley, 2021) Thomas, L.D.W. (Llewellyn D. W.); Tee, R. (Richard)
    The construct of generativity is increasingly adopted to describe system innovation in digital contexts. We systematically review this construct, investigating its antecedents, processes and outcomes in management studies. We draw on different theoretical perspectives to develop an integrative conceptual framework. We argue that generativity is a sociotechnical system where social and technical elements interact to facilitate combinatorial innovation, and where generative fit and governance play a central role. Based on our bibliometric and qualitative analysis, we identify seven components of generativity: generative architecture, generative governance, generative community, generative fit, combinatorial innovation, generative outcomes and generative feedback. We integrate these components into a conceptual framework that describes the relationships among the components and how they collectively result in ecosystem innovation. We also elucidate future research directions for management scholars.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Researching ecosystems in innovation contexts
    (Emerald, 2021-11-22) Autio, E. (Erkko); Thomas, L.D.W. (Llewellyn D. W.)
    Purpose The rapid adoption of the ecosystem concept in innovation contexts has led to a proliferation of differing uses. Scholars need to be crystal clear which concept of the ecosystem they are using to facilitate communication between scholars and allow for cumulativeness and creativity. This paper aims to introduce some clarity into the conceptual mist that surrounds the notion of “ecosystems” in innovation contexts. Design/methodology/approach A review of the extant literature on ecosystems in innovation contexts to derive an integrated approach to understanding the variety of constructs in use. Findings This paper introduces clarity into the conceptual mist that surrounds the term “innovation ecosystem”, showing there are three basic types of ecosystems, all of which have a common focus on the collective production of a coherent system-level output. Originality/value Contributes through a comprehensive overview of the differing ecosystem types in innovation contexts and with a heuristic to disambiguate types of innovation ecosystems.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Measuring platform return on participation
    (Elsevier, 2022) Clements, Z. (Zoë); Parmar, R. (Rashik); Thomas, L.D.W. (Llewellyn D. W.)
    While industry platforms can transform industries and drive the digital economy, little guidance exists to help managers decide which industry platform to join. Derived from industry research, we propose a six-step return-on-participa- tion (ROP) method that enables managers to clearly and logically review how their firms are affected by a platform, what the benefits are, how current and future var- iable and fixed costs vary, as well as the often-hidden joining costs. We suggest this technique could also be used by managers to compare competing platforms and by platform owners to evaluate the attractiveness of their offerings.
  • Thumbnail Image
    On the naming of innovation districts
    (Universitat de Barcelona, 2022-07-01) Giglio-Hirtenkauf, A. (Alessandra); Gurses, K. (Kerem); Thomas, L.D.W. (Llewellyn D. W.)
    Name plays a fundamental role in defining and differentiating a company within a category. In this paper we identify how the leaders of 7 innovation districts (22@Barcelona, Ann Arbor Spark, EECi, Porto Digital, Ruta N – Medellín, SK-Skolkovo and TusPark) understand the construction of the names of their innovation districts. We take an inductive approach utilizing two types of data: exploring the innovation district directors' understanding through direct semi-structured interviews and analyzing secondary data consisting of website and brochures. We show how innovation district leaders use more than one classification name for their organization and that these names either tend towards a more strategic or institutional posture. We contribute by extending existing naming theory to include innovation districts, a complex organization composed by actors of the Triple Helix. We also contribute by providing managerial guidance to assist in understanding the importance of the role of their organization's name in long-term positioning.