(PDF Download) The Innovation Ecosystem As A Source of Value Creation: A Value Creation Lever For Open Innovation Odile de Saint Julien Fulll Chapter

Full download test bank at ebook ebookmass.
com
The Innovation Ecosystem as a

Source of Value Creation: A Value
Creation Lever for Open Innovation
Odile De Saint Julien
CLICK LINK TO DOWLOAD
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-innovation-
ecosystem-as-a-source-of-value-creation-a-
value-creation-lever-for-open-innovation-
odile-de-saint-julien/
ebookmass.com
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Finance for Executives: Managing for Value Creation 6th

Edition Gabriel Hawawini
https://ebookmass.com/product/finance-for-executives-managing-
for-value-creation-6th-edition-gabriel-hawawini/
Frugal Innovation and Innovative Creation Paul Bouvier-

Patron
https://ebookmass.com/product/frugal-innovation-and-innovative-
creation-paul-bouvier-patron/
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable

Value Creation Fourth
https://ebookmass.com/product/strategic-corporate-social-
responsibility-sustainable-value-creation-fourth/
New Developments in Evolutionary Innovation: Novelty

Creation in a Serendipitous Economy Gino Cattani
https://ebookmass.com/product/new-developments-in-evolutionary-
innovation-novelty-creation-in-a-serendipitous-economy-gino-
cattani/
Co-Innovation Platforms: A Playbook for Enabling
Innovation and Ecosystem Growth Tammy L. Madsen
https://ebookmass.com/product/co-innovation-platforms-a-playbook-
for-enabling-innovation-and-ecosystem-growth-tammy-l-madsen/
Strategic Leadership for Business Value Creation:

Principles and Case Studies Don Argus
https://ebookmass.com/product/strategic-leadership-for-business-
value-creation-principles-and-case-studies-don-argus/
Value Creation for Owners and Directors: A Practical

Guide on How to Lead your Business Massimo Massa
https://ebookmass.com/product/value-creation-for-owners-and-
directors-a-practical-guide-on-how-to-lead-your-business-massimo-
massa/
Circular Economy: From Waste Reduction to Value

Creation Karen Delchet-Cochet
https://ebookmass.com/product/circular-economy-from-waste-
reduction-to-value-creation-karen-delchet-cochet/
Engineering Investment Process. Making Value Creation

Repeatable 1st Edition Edition Florian Ielpo
https://ebookmass.com/product/engineering-investment-process-
making-value-creation-repeatable-1st-edition-edition-florian-
ielpo/
The Innovation Ecosystem as a Source of Value Creation
Diverse and Global Perspectives on Value Creation Set
coordinated by
Nabyla Daidj
Volume 4
The Innovation Ecosystem as

a Source of Value Creation
A Value Creation Lever

for Open Innovation
Odile de Saint Julien

First published 2022 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted
under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the
case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the
CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the
undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

27-37 St George’s Road 111 River Street
London SW19 4EU Hoboken, NJ 07030
UK USA
www.iste.co.uk www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2022

The rights of Odile de Saint Julien to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by her in
accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022936852
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-574-9
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Chapter 1. Innovation Ecosystem: Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Definitions of innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3. Innovation clusters, business ecosystems, innovation ecosystems:
what are the differences? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.1. The innovation cluster: in favor of continuous innovation . . . . . . 3
1.3.2. The business ecosystem: an anchor in the value proposition . . . . 4
1.3.3. The innovation ecosystem: co-creation for innovation . . . . . . . . 6
1.4. Towards an understanding of the innovation ecosystem through four
concrete examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4.1. The university innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4.2. The university–industrialist innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4.3. The university–industrialist–commercial innovation ecosystem . . 14
1.4.4. The start-up–industry–financier innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . 17
1.4.5. Towards a non-universal definition of the innovation ecosystem . . 20
1.5. Strengths, drawbacks and boundaries of the innovation ecosystem . . . 22
1.5.1. The strengths of the innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.5.2. The drawbacks of the innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.5.3. The porous boundaries of the innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . 23
1.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Chapter 2. Innovation Ecosystem and Innovation Processes . . . . 27

2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2. A tangle of concepts in the innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.1. Ecology as the origin of the innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.2. The commercial ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
vi The Innovation Ecosystem as a Source of Value Creation
2.2.3. The innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

2.2.4. The knowledge ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.2.5. The roles of Valkokari’s three ecosystems in innovation . . . . . . 36
2.3. The innovation process: from discovery to innovation . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.3.1. Discovery, invention, innovation: what are the differences? . . . . 40
2.3.2. Definition of the innovation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.3.3. The innovation process in the innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . 43
2.4. Ecosystems and innovation processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.4.1. Certain phases of the innovation process forgotten
in ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.4.2. Example 1: “graphene” innovation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.4.3. Example 2: “carbyne” innovation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.4.4. The links between innovation ecosystems and innovation
processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Chapter 3. Modeling: Combination of Three Ecosystems . . . . . . . 53

3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.2. The roles of the actors and their activities: examples . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.2.1. Example 1: from the atom to the graphene bulb . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.2.2. Example 2: from carbon atoms to carbyne material . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.3. The roles of the three ecosystems of the innovation ecosystem . . . . . 57
3.3.1. Roles of scientific ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3.2. Roles of technological ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.3.3. Roles of commercial ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.4. Foundations of innovation ecosystem modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.4.1. The basis of the modeling: the combination of the
three ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.4.2. Affiliation: birth of the iterative network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.4.3. Transfers: the birth of the integrated value chain . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.5. Modeling the “graphene” innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.5.1. “Graphene” innovation ecosystem, its iterative network and
its integrated value chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.5.2. The roles of the iterative network and the integrated
value chain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.6. Modeling the “carbyne” innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.6.1. “Carbyne” innovation ecosystem, its iterative network
and its integrated value chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.6.2. The roles of the iterative network and the integrated
value chain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Contents vii
3.7. Modeling the innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3.7.1. Modeling anchored on the iterative network and the integrated
value chain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.7.2. Modeling the innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Chapter 4. The Actors of the Innovation Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . 73

4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.2. The actors of the ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.2.1. Four profiles of actors: the “contrib-actors” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.2.2. Logics beyond technological standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.2.3. The roles of the actors within the innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . 77
4.3. Activities of actors in the innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.3.1. Communities of actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.3.2. Innovation activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.3.3. Coordination through digital platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.3.4. Towards hub and spoke ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.4. Coexistence of multiple dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.4.1. Co-specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.4.2. Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.4.3. Co-evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Chapter 5. Coherence and Interdependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

5.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.2. Towards a search for coherence between design
situations and capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.2.1. Design situations and capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.2.2. From capabilities held to capabilities to be acquired . . . . . . . . . 92
5.2.3. Complementary capacities: relational capacities . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.3. Pool and reciprocal interdependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.3.1. The perception of interdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.3.2. Creation of pool interdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.3.3. Creation of reciprocal interdependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.3.4. A combination of pool and reciprocal interdependencies . . . . . . 104
5.4. Towards a search for coherence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
viii The Innovation Ecosystem as a Source of Value Creation
Chapter 6. The Iterative Network: Collaboration and Typology . . . 107

6.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.2. Networks and ecosystems: a brief overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
6.3. The network: an anchor for collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.3.1. Definition of collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.3.2. Expectations of collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6.3.3. Barriers to collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.4. “Small worlds” and interdependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
6.4.1. The emergence of “small worlds” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
6.4.2. Interdependencies and collaboration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.5. Typology of collaborations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.5.1. The three types of collaborations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.5.2. Strong collaboration: pool and reciprocal combination. . . . . . . . 118
6.5.3. Medium collaboration: pool and reciprocal articulation . . . . . . . 119
6.5.4. Weak collaboration: asymmetry between pool and reciprocal . . . 120
6.6. The innovation ecosystem network: definition and criteria . . . . . . . . 121
6.6.1. Definition of the iterative network of the innovation
ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
6.6.2. The “small-world” actors of the network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
6.6.3. Dimensions of the iterative network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.6.4. The evolution of the iterative network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Chapter 7. Asset and Knowledge Transfers: The Integrated Value

Chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.2. Traditional value chain, focal actor, limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
7.2.1. The traditional value chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
7.2.2. The value chain anchored on the focal actor and niches . . . . . . . 131
7.3. Integrated value chain: an anchoring in knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
7.3.1. Definitions of the knowledge value chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
7.3.2. The KVC: a sequence of cognitive tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
7.3.3. The KVC: a chain of processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.3.4. Identification of the knowledge processes of the
innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
7.4. Transfer processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
7.4.1. Definition of the knowledge transfer process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
7.4.2. Content transfer processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
7.4.3. Transfer processes in context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
7.5. The integrated value chain of the innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . 140
7.5.1. A combination of assets and knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
7.5.2. The objectives of transfers in the integrated value chain . . . . . . . 143
Contents ix
7.5.3. The roles of the actors in the integrated value chain . . . . . . . . . 147
7.5.4. Towards an integrated value chain modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
7.5.5. Transfers via interdependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Chapter 8. Ecosystems and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

8.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
8.2. Innovation creates value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
8.2.1. Open innovation at the heart of innovation strategies . . . . . . . . . 158
8.2.2. The challenges of innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
8.3. Profound strategic changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
8.3.1. The evolution of strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
8.3.2. A strategic foundation rooted in collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
8.4. Collaborative strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
8.4.1. Two main collaborative strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
8.4.2. Experience-based strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
8.4.3. Strategy based on exploration and reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
8.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Chapter 9. Ecosystems and Value Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

9.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
9.2. A search for a balance between opportunism and reciprocity . . . . . . 169
9.2.1. The production of value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
9.2.2. The limits of the focal firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
9.2.3. Between opportunism and reciprocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
9.3. Creating value through collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
9.3.1. Value creation through value constellations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
9.3.2. Value creation through the network and value chain . . . . . . . . . 174
9.4. Value creation through net value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
9.4.1. Definition of net value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
9.4.2. Evolution of the value chain towards net value . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
9.4.3. Net value characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
9.5. A combination of decontextualization and recontextualization
of knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
9.5.1. Decontextualization of value-creating knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . 179
9.5.2. Recontextualization of value-creating knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . 179
9.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Introduction
In an ecosystem, you can always intervene and change

something but there’s no way of knowing what all the
downstream effects will be or how they might
affect the environment.
Richard Lewontin, DEFI-Écologique, undated
Borrowed from biology, the term ecosystem refers to a grouping of

individuals and organizations that interact in dependent relationships to
create innovations [MOO 96]. The actors are interconnected in the form of a
network [BAS 09], linked to a large enterprise [IAN 04] or connected to
each other via a digital platform [CEC 12].
Ecosystems have been present in the economy and management for

decades, and in recent years they have been developing rapidly [JAC 18].
Well adapted to the imperatives of innovation and growth [GUI 17], they are
of major interest to innovation actors and researchers. Economic actors, such
as Nicolas Dufourcq, CEO of Bpifrance, or Jean-Lou Chameau, former
president of CalTech, appreciate ecosystems for their organizational
flexibility and the possible collaborations between economic actors, public
agents and the territory [LEA 15].
Faced with this enthusiasm, work on meta-organizations, such as

ecosystems, is approached through different concepts [GUL 12], leading to a
diversity of definitions that prevents any consensus among researchers
[OH 16]. In this logic, researchers study different aspects of ecosystems
xii The Innovation Ecosystem as a Source of Value Creation
according to their field of research. However, two types of ecosystems

dominate the literature: business ecosystems and innovation ecosystems.
The most studied is the business ecosystem. Analyses focus on the

individual firm and its economic environment [TEE 07] in a logic of seeking
resources to exploit in order to create customer value [APP 17]. The
innovation ecosystem is concentrated on a value proposition driven by the
focal firm of the business ecosystem, around which companies and start-ups
from various fields of activity are rounded up [IAN 04]. Its main function is
to develop a specific innovation [CLA 14] by integrating new technologies,
captured from research institutes, from the crowd and from users via digital
platforms.
The focal firm manages the mobility of knowledge, the design and
appropriation of innovation, and the stability of the network [DHA 06]. For
example, for Venkatraman and Lee [VEN 04], then Iyer and colleagues
[IYE 06], the ecosystem is a network whose core is the focal firm. Focused
on the co-creation of value, through products and services, for customers and
markets, exploitation of resources and knowledge is privileged over
exploration of new knowledge. This knowledge comes from scientific or
technological ecosystems. In this context, strategies, mostly commercial, are
driven by the business ecosystem. It is a source of competitive advantage for
companies at an individual level [ADN 12].
Business and innovation ecosystems have the same objective: to create

value and economic profitability [BEN 18] for the focal firm and its partners
[SMI 13]. The ecosystem is defined as a “community of organizations,
institutions, and individuals that impact the enterprise and the enterprise’s
customers and supplies” [TEE 07]. The ecosystem represents an economic
community of actors in interaction who influence each other through their
activities [ADN 10].
Here, the studies focus on the spillover effects of these activities in terms
of co-creation of innovation [MAC 13], knowledge transfer [ZAH 12],
growth [TEE 14], resource and risk sharing [BEN 18] and access to markets
[CLA 14]. From this point of view, only those relationships that favor the
increase of this economic performance are studied [WEB 15]. Strategic
actions performed by the actors are oriented towards competitive advantage
[VAL 15].
Introduction xiii
Here, only innovations that are economically profitable in the market are
developed. This strategic vision limits innovation to improvements of
existing products or services through additional features. In an attempt to go
beyond the boundaries of incremental innovation, studies of innovation
ecosystems are oriented towards networks and research into their impact on
the performance of innovation for the focal firm [SHA 20]. Attention is then
directed towards focal innovation, on the components and additional features
that support it [JAC 18]. New definitions of ecosystems are emerging, such
as that of Adner, who defines an ecosystem as “the collaborative
arrangements through which firms combine their individual offerings into a
coherent, customer-facing solution” [ADN 06].
The emphasis is on the design of a basic product of the Minimum Viable

Product1 type and its functionalities. The services associated with it provide
strong added value for end users [ADN 12]. Innovation ecosystems present a
broad perspective of value creation [PAP 17], where collaboration and
cooperation [DAI 17] are key success factors for actors in the ecosystem
[SCH 20].
Work is intensifying on the coordination of actors and on the way they

interact to create and disseminate innovations capable of optimally satisfying
the end customer [KAP 17]. In this context, Adner developed his definition
of the ecosystem and gave it a strategic dimension: “the alignment structure
of the multilateral set of partners that need to interact in order for a focal
value proposition to materialize” [ADN 17]. For the author, the alignment
structure is “the extent to which there is mutual agreement among the
members regarding positions and flows, ‘with the objective to secure its
role’ in a competitive ecosystem” [ADN 17].
In the wake of Adner, the work of Jacobides and colleagues features a

holistic vision. The authors focus on the complementarities of the different
actors as well as on their nature and coordination [JAC 18]. However, these
notions are little studied in ecosystems. The work of Adner [ADN 17] and
Jacobides and colleagues [JAC 18] is complementary: the authors consider
the creation of value as inherent to the actors in the ecosystem. Therefore,
the combination of resources and skills has an impact on the
interrelationships between actors and on the growth of the ecosystem itself.
1 The term “minimum viable product” was developed in 2001 by Robinson, CEO of SyncDev
Incorporated: www.syncdev.com/minimum-viable-product/.
xiv The Innovation Ecosystem as a Source of Value Creation
Here, the ecosystem supports the improvement of innovation and its

outcomes through the clustering of heterogeneous actors and the sharing of
resources and core competencies via digital platforms [BAL 17]. Network
effects and cooperation allow for increased access to products, services and
end customers. If coordination is well orchestrated, long-term ecosystem
growth is possible through sustained productivity and stability [ISC 13].
In parallel with this work, in the tradition of Clarysse and colleagues

[CLA 14], who highlighted the presence of three ecosystems of differing
natures, Valkokari shows the importance of the roles played by these three
interacting ecosystems in innovation [VAL 15]: the business ecosystem is at
the heart of the development of innovation. It can be service or industrial,
depending on the value proposition of the focal firm. For the author, the
business ecosystem focuses on the creation of value for the market. In this
context, large companies are perceived as key partners. The expected results
are economic and support competitive advantage. The innovation ecosystem
is dependent on the business ecosystem. It appears as an integrating
mechanism between the exploration of new knowledge and its exploitation
for value creation in the business ecosystem. For the author, innovation
decision-makers, local intermediaries, innovation brokers and funding
agencies are the key players in the innovation ecosystem. Finally, the
knowledge ecosystem focuses on the creation of new knowledge that can be
integrated by the innovation ecosystem into the business ecosystem where it
can be exploited for innovation.
R&D centers and technological entrepreneurs play a central role in the

knowledge ecosystem. Entrepreneurs are seen as an “alternative mode of
exploring new activities” [FER 17]. Valkokari highlights the recursive
relationships that are created between the three ecosystems, the
multidimensional nature of the interactions and interdependencies between
actors. She places great emphasis on the knowledge borne by the actors and
the knowledge they develop through innovation.
However, as in most of the work on ecosystems, there remains a lack of

consensus on the definition of the innovation ecosystem. Assimilated to the
business ecosystem, most work remains focused on the focal firm and its
digital platform. However, some actors generate disruptive innovations
without being orchestrated by a focal firm.
Introduction xv
Many works focus on performance and customer-oriented value creation

[APP 17] rather than on the mechanisms of knowledge creation and transfer.
The ownership of innovation by each specific “community” of actors –
scientists, technologists and business people – is not really addressed.
Similarly, the in-depth role of the network in the innovation ecosystem, its
extension and stability are not discussed, with the exception of the work of
Pellinen and colleagues [PEL 12] or Azzam and colleagues [AZZ 17].
Other studies are interested in the co-evolution of actors’ innovative

capacities. However, few studies have reported on how they adapt and create
interdependencies within the ecosystem [JAC 18]. While relationships and
interdependencies have been extensively studied, the innovation process,
which takes innovation from discovery to market, is not particularly
addressed in innovation ecosystems. Similarly, the transfer of results,
material assets and knowledge from one ecosystem to another, and the
creation of value through strategies developed and implemented by these
actors, have not been studied in depth.
The aim of this book is to make a modest contribution to these various

shortcomings through nine chapters that can be read separately or in
combination.
Chapter 1 defines the innovation ecosystem in terms of the nature of the

actors who “inhabit” it [MUE 13] through four key examples.
Chapter 2 focuses on the evolution of the innovation ecosystem and the

combination of the three ecosystems – scientific, technological and
commercial – that compose it.
Chapter 3 presents a modeling of the innovation ecosystem. It shows the

relationships between the three ecosystems and its articulations via
the iterative network, the integrated value chain and the deployment of the
innovation process.
Chapter 4 is devoted to the actors of the innovation ecosystem, their

roles, their activities and the links they create to develop innovation.
Chapter 5 relates to the search for coherence between the situations of

design and actors’ capacities. It deals with the construction of pool and
reciprocal interdependencies that they develop to innovate.
xvi The Innovation Ecosystem as a Source of Value Creation
Chapter 6 focuses on the emergence of the iterative network anchored in

collaboration. It shows how actors overcome the barriers of collaboration to
create “small worlds” that will open up a typology of collaborations
orchestrated by pooling and reciprocal interdependencies. This chapter
discusses the dimensions and extension of the iterative network within the
innovation ecosystem.
Chapter 7 studies the transfers of material assets and knowledge that take
place within the innovation ecosystem and between the three ecosystems via
an integrated value chain. This chain is anchored in the knowledge borne and
developed by the various actors in the innovation ecosystem. It highlights
the transfer processes, both in terms of content and context, at work in the
innovation ecosystem, as well as the roles of the actors in this integrated
value chain.
Chapter 8 returns to innovation and the challenges that actors face in

terms of orientation and strategic choices.
Chapter 9 discusses the balancing act between opportunism and

reciprocity. It shows the limits of the focal firm and the diversity of value
creation fostered by collaboration. It shows how this value creation
is articulated between decontextualization of knowledge and its
recontextualization in order to generate value shared by all the actors of the
innovation ecosystem.
1
Innovation Ecosystem: Definitions
The mysteries of the trade become no mysteries; but are as it were in the air…
Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics, Macmillan, London, 1920
1.1. Introduction
The innovation ecosystem is becoming a feature of the literature of

practitioners and researchers. Sometimes equated with the innovation cluster
or business ecosystem, definitions proliferate. They are difficult to reconcile
because the concept is used in many contexts [AUT 14] without a consensus
between researchers and practitioners on its definition [OH 16]. The purpose
of this chapter is to present innovation and then the conceptual definitions of
three types of ecosystems, and then to refine the understanding of the
innovation ecosystem through four concrete examples.
The characteristics of the innovation ecosystem, extracted from these four

examples, are analyzed in a second section to define what an innovation
ecosystem is and its major attributes. The strengths, weaknesses and
boundaries of the innovation ecosystem conclude this chapter.
1.2. Definitions of innovation
Considered for several decades as the key to the economic growth of

nations and companies, innovation plays a central role in value creation and
The Innovation Ecosystem as a Source of Value Creation: A Value Creation Lever for Open Innovation,
First Edition. Odile de Saint Julien.
© ISTE Ltd 2022. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2 The Innovation Ecosystem as a Source of Value Creation
competitive advantage. The latter depends on the organization’s ability to

create more value than its competitors [POR 85]. Increases in value creation
depend, in turn, on the organization’s ability to innovate successfully
[ADN 06].
Over time, the definition of innovation introduced by Schumpeter in 1934

has developed considerably [KHA 15] and takes on different definitions
depending on the discipline. For the majority of authors, innovation is an
engine of growth: “Innovation is widely considered as the life blood of
corporate survival and growth” [ZAH 94].
In a broader sense, innovation encompasses such elements as products,

services, organizational structure, strategic plans and technologies:
Innovation is conceived as a means of changing an

organization, either as a response to changes in the external
environment or as a pre-emptive action to influence the
environment. Hence, innovation is here broadly defined to
encompass a range of types, including new product or service,
new process technology, new organization structure or
administrative systems, or new plans or program pertaining to
organization members [DAM 98].
For some authors, innovation is a positive change process for

organizations:
Innovation represents the core renewal process in any

organization. Unless it changes what it offers the world and the
way in which it creates and delivers those offerings, it risks its
survival and growth prospects [BES 05].
For others, innovation is at the heart of knowledge:
Innovation is the creation of new knowledge and ideas to

facilitate new business outcomes, aimed at improving internal
business processes and structures and to create market driven
products and services. Innovation encompasses both radical and
incremental innovation [PLE 07].
Innovation Ecosystem: Definitions 3
Whatever the definition of innovation, in terms of the discipline of these

authors, all agree that:
Innovations result from a complex, interactive, and

interdependent process involving multiple actors and influences
within dynamic systems, rather than arising exclusively from
the internal research and development activities of commercial
enterprises [PEL 16].
The ability to generate innovations, for society, individuals and

companies alike, is crucial for the improvement of everyone’s well-being
and for the growth of both the nation and the organizations. However,
innovation cannot be improvised. To innovate, actors mobilize, associate,
group, cooperate and collaborate in different forms, such as innovation
clusters, business ecosystems or innovation ecosystems, to generate
continuous innovation, more quickly, in a less costly and less risky manner.
1.3. Innovation clusters, business ecosystems, innovation

ecosystems: what are the differences?
1.3.1. The innovation cluster: in favor of continuous innovation
Innovation clusters are a specific form of innovation ecosystem [POR

09]. They are defined as private and public agglomerations of companies,
universities and institutions geographically and economically located in a
territory [SMO 17]. The innovation cluster is made up of a group of
heterogeneous actors, anchored in a given territory, who work in a specific
or related sector of activity and who share the same field of competence with
a view to producing related or complementary goods [DAI 11].
Interactive network collaboration is formalized in pairs between these

three types of actors. These interactions, known as “triple helix” interactions
[ETZ 00], allow for unique economic effects resulting from collaborative
synergies that act upon the dynamics and sustainability of productivity
through continuous innovation of goods and services [POR 90].
The actors, members of the cluster, engage in price competition and

product differentiation. They are thus in competition. They may cooperate,
for example, in the acquisition of supplies or in R&D. Competition policy is
imposed as a unified framework that defines and constrains innovation
[RAV 20]. External actors, such as universities, bring knowledge of new

technologies to the cluster. Business associations create a favorable business
environment for the diffusion of innovations.
Interrelationships between the different actors of the cluster are vertical,

such as vendor–buyer relationships. They are also horizontal, such as
relationships between providers of similar services or users of similar
technologies. These interrelationships encompass economic and social
relations. Territoriality favors geographical proximity, which in turn favors
communication and value creation [GUI 17].
Continuous co-creation of innovations and their dissemination are

supported. This cluster is qualified as an innovation ecosystem because the
grouping of companies within it becomes a self-managed and self-sufficient
network that generates strong synergies [NAP 14]. Shaped by partners with
varied profiles, free to join or leave the network, the cluster is considered the
most practical model of formalized innovation ecosystem to implement
[MAR 11].
Like an innovation ecosystem, the members of a cluster combine and

recombine their resources and skills with agility. These reconfigurations,
which are permanent, help them to adapt to markets and allow the
deployment of large-scale, high-risk collective innovation projects [HUH 11].
These clusters function as growth poles for the regions in which they are
located [DEL 14]. In mature clusters, made up of actors deeply rooted in the
network, it is not uncommon for some key companies to reinvest money in
new innovation projects led by the cluster [LIN 13].
1.3.2. The business ecosystem: an anchor in the value

proposition
Moore defines the business ecosystem as “an economic community

supported by a foundation of interacting organizations and individuals – the
organisms of the business world” [MOO 96].
Studies on business ecosystems focus on building competitive advantage

for companies [ADN 12]. The focus is on collaborations between customers
and suppliers [IAN 04]. Analyses focus on the focal firm and the partner
enterprise specialized in a field of activity [SMI 13].
The business ecosystem integrates different levels of commitment of the

partner actors to the core business. The nucleus of the ecosystem, the core
business1 [MOO 96], is formed by the focal firm, around which suppliers,
distributors and customers gravitate.
The author defines the focal firm as “an ecosystem leader which brings
value to the community by engaging members to act with a shared vision to
adapt their investments and find mutually supportive roles” [MOO 93].
Unlike the innovation cluster, the business ecosystem is a grouping of

heterogeneous actors from various sectors of activity [HEI 12]. They
develop new collaborative practices to promote and bring out new forms of
innovation [DAI 17], mainly customer-oriented solutions2 [APP 17]. This
customer-oriented strategy means that, in many cases, the business
ecosystem boils down to a strategic partnership between a focal firm and
complementary asset providers [VAL 15]. In this approach, on the model of
business networks, the business ecosystem is a grouping of companies
specializing in different fields of activity that simultaneously creates and
captures value for the focal firm, partners and customers by combining their
diversified resources.
Given the diversity of the partners, the business ecosystem can develop
around several focal firms. Each will have a determining influence on the
process of co-evolution of the partner enterprises [DAI 11]. The actors share
a “common destiny” [IAN 04] where the individual performance of the
actors, enrolled in the ecosystem, is dependent on the overall performance of
the business ecosystem. However, partner enterprises do not systematically
follow cooperative strategies alone: “They must maintain their ability to
alternate between collective and competitive strategies […] putting in place
and maintaining a particular strategy can only stabilize the company’s
environment for a very limited period of time” [PEL 05].
This leads the actors in the business ecosystem to combine cooperative

and competitive strategies within the ecosystem in order to, by example,
occupy the place of a focal firm [MIR 12]. Teece considers that in building a
perennial competitive advantage, the dynamic capacities of the actors are
affected [TEE 07]. The author invites actors to be vigilant in terms of
1 Main activity.
2 Customer-oriented solution: solution adapted to the needs and expectations of the customer.
monitoring the ecosystem so that it can react with agility and adapt to
changes in the environment.
To increase this monitoring and coordination of actors, focal firms rely

on digital platforms [DAI 11]. The challenge of these platforms is to share
resources and skills between all the actors in the ecosystem. As we will see
in Chapter 4, they participate in the creation and capture of value. The
disparity of actors, a shared destiny [IAN 04], the presence of one or more
focal companies, a common objective, shareable resources and skills, and
“coopetition” strategies mean that these ecosystems represent strong
economic and territorial issues [GER 12]. Business ecosystems have a strong
impact at both the micro and macro levels. They are essential actors in
sustainable economic development [PIL 14].
1.3.3. The innovation ecosystem: co-creation for innovation
In an era of nonlinear innovation processes and exponential development

of digitalization [BAL 17], innovation becomes open [CHE 14]. It favors
co-creation through collaborative strategies [SMO 17].
Since 2000, the concept of co-creation has been gaining momentum. It

focuses on two major axes: the co-production of value and use value [ROS
09]:
– in terms of use value, co-creation is a form of collaborative creativity
[ROS 09];
– in terms of co-production of value, the concept is associated with
business strategies where the interactive relationships between value
producers and value users are studied [SMO 17].
Here, value co-creation is understood as “an active, creative and social

process based on collaboration between producers and users, which is
initiated by the firm to generate value for customers and compete to pass
others in the category” [ROS 09]. From a business perspective, users benefit
from increased customization. Companies strengthen their competitive
advantage by transforming the knowledge of these users into value. The
concept of co-creation is used to study the frequency and quality of
relationships between the organization and its customers or between the
focal firm and its partners to understand how knowledge is created, shared
and transferred from one entity to another [RAN 16].
The innovation ecosystem evolves “as networks of sustainable linkages

between individuals and organizations, which emerge from a shared vision
of desired transformation and provide an economic context to catalyze
innovation and growth” [RUS 15]. According to this definition, innovation
ecosystems are oriented towards the co-creation of innovation, which is then
possible if the context is favorable to its development [WES 05].
Innovation ecosystems are places of co-creation of value [ADN 17]

involving a wide variety of actors. It is likened to a network of
interconnected organizations. The network creates a context conducive to
innovation. It integrates both production actors and users. The objectives are
based on the creation and appropriation, by the actors, of the value generated
by the innovation [AUT 14].
The ecosystem is organized around a value proposition driven by the

focal firm [ADN 10]. To co-create innovation, the actors are interconnected
to a shared digital platform [CUS 02] developed by the focal firm. These
actors actively participate in the development of the use of the innovation in
order to make it their own. This inclusion of actors in the use of innovation
differentiates the innovation ecosystem from other ecosystems centered on
networks such as clusters or industrial networks, both of which are focused
on production [GAW 08].
The innovation ecosystem covers upstream (production) and downstream

(use) activities. This holistic vision is consistent with the original biological
meaning of the term ecosystem [MOO 96]. It integrates both horizontal and
vertical relationships that distinguish it from the constructions of the
industrial value chain or the supply chain [IAN 04]. Here, it contains a set of
collaborative and cooperative arrangements [DAI 17]. The actors combine
product/service offerings into a coherent, end-user-oriented solution
[APP 17]. They co-create value that no single actor could generate alone
[ADN 06]. The concept of the value chain is thus extended to that of the
innovation ecosystem. It includes any actor contributing to the value
proposition [IAN 04].
Innovation
Cluster Business ecosystem
ecosystem
Groupings of Focal firm Places of
actors or digital platform co-creation
geographically Value proposition of value where
and economically Various partners actors and material
located in a given assets and
territory Varied and knowledge are
complementary grouped together
Specific or related sectors of activity
sector of activity Network of
Networks of interconnected
Definition Self-managed, organizations, organizations
self-sufficient of suppliers
network and/or individuals,
of complements, communities
Production of of technologies
related or User networks
Customer networks
complementary Actors grouped
goods Common destiny around a focal firm
or a digital
platform
Private companies Focal firm(s) Focal firm(s)
Public companies Partner enterprises that Entrepreneurs,
Entrepreneurs, revolve around the focal industrialists, R&D
artisans firm laboratories,
Universities Customers, suppliers, technology
industrialists, suppliers,
Governmental- customers, users,
economic entrepreneurs,
Key actors various agencies, individuals,
institutions communities,
governments,
Associations, associations, financial
commercial institutions,
companies Commercial enterprises
commercial
companies
Government
agencies
Price competition Customer satisfaction Co-creation
and oriented strategy through open
product/service Strategic partnership innovation strategy
differentiation between core business Set of collaboration
“Triple helix” and partners agreements
Collaboration/strategy interactions around the value Combining
Set of proposition individual offers
“coopetition” Set of “coopetition” into a customer-
agreements agreements oriented solution
Monitoring/coordination
via digital platform
Co-creation, Development of new Upstream activities

co-development innovation practices (production)
Continuous to generate customer- Downstream activities
innovation and oriented solutions (users)
sustained Creation and capturing Value co-creation based
Logic of dissemination of value for core on open innovation
action Strong synergies business and partners strategies with the
Permanent Performance inclusion of stakeholders
reconfigurations of each partner linked to in the use as opposed to
of assets the overall performance appropriation
Agile adaptation to of the ecosystem of innovation
markets
Table 1.1. Differentiation between clusters, business and innovation ecosystems
In addition to the traditional value chain of suppliers and distributors

[MOO 96], the innovation ecosystem integrates, in a non-exhaustive way,
entrepreneurs, customers, financial institutions, industrialists, commercial
enterprises, research laboratories, technology suppliers, competitors, any
actor creating value for the ecosystem and the market. The innovation
ecosystem presents itself as the widest construction based on networks.
However, unlike value networks or value constellations [NOR 93], it is

distinguished from other forms of ecosystems by the emphasis placed on
open innovation strategies [CHE 14] and on the appropriation of innovation
by all actors [AUT 14]. Table 1.1 summarizes the main characteristics that,
according to studies, differentiate clusters, business ecosystems and
innovation ecosystems.
These differentiating features show that innovation ecosystems share

many characteristics with business ecosystems. We propose to refine our
understanding of innovation ecosystems through four concrete, deliberately
simplified examples.
1.4. Towards an understanding of the innovation ecosystem

through four concrete examples
1.4.1. The university innovation ecosystem
This first example focuses on an academic discovery issuing from energy

research laboratories. In 2004, the team of André Geim and Konstantin
Novoselov, researchers at the University of Manchester, successfully

extracted graphene from graphite. These two physicists, who won the Nobel
Prize in Physics in 2010 for their “innovative experiments on the
two-dimensional material called graphene”, have paved the way for research
in this field. Graphene is a single monoplane of carbon atoms forming a
honeycomb structure [NET 09]. It is the finest natural crystal in the world.
Its high resistance and remarkable electrical conductivity make it a material
of the future in many fields such as energy or nanoelectronics.
Scientists from Columbia University in the United States, Seoul National

University in Korea, and the Korean Research Institute of Standards and
Science have come together around graphene technology. They pooled their
knowledge to co-create a new light source [KIM 15]. To achieve this
discovery, the scientists “suspended” graphene filaments on a silicon
substrate, which they connected to electrodes to feed energy to each
graphene atom [KIM 15]. From this discovery of graphene filaments came
the graphene light bulb. This invention-product was made possible by this
collaboration between academics.
Columbia
University Seoul
(US) University
Korean Research
Institute of
Standards and
Science
Invention-product:
graphene bulb
Figure 1.1. University innovation ecosystem

The graphene bulb3 displays a powerful and inexpensive luminous energy

that makes it promising for the future, especially in the energy field where it
may well develop into an innovation for the lighting of tomorrow. Figure 1.1
illustrates this university innovation ecosystem.
We present, in Table 1.2, its characteristics.
“Graphene” university innovation ecosystem

Scientists from Columbia University
Key actors Scientists from the Korean Seoul National University
Scientists from the Korean Research Institute of Standards and Science
Co-development of graphene filaments as a light source
Collaboration/
Invention-product co-creation: graphene bulb
strategy
Collaborative strategies
Integration of the knowledge about graphene developed by the two Nobel
Prize winners to advance scientific discoveries in graphene
Logic of Production of new material assets: graphene filaments (discovery) and the
action graphene bulb (product invention)
Production of new knowledge about graphene and its applications in the
field of clean and sustainable energy
Table 1.2. Characteristics of the “graphene” innovation ecosystem
IMPORTANT.– First definition of innovation ecosystem: an innovation

ecosystem is a group of scientists belonging to different research
laboratories; they share their knowledge and scientific know-how in order to
make a discovery and then an invention-product; the creation of a twofold
value. It is expressed in the form of a scientific discovery: graphene
filaments and a product-invention materialized in the form of a graphene
bulb; at this stage, we are in the presence of a discovery and an invention-
product resulting from this discovery. There is no innovation yet.
This first definition shows the absence of the focal firm with a value
proposition for innovation around which various partners gravitate. Here, the
innovation ecosystem is rooted in discovery. We note the absence of a digital
platform as an “actor” in the coordination of the actors. It exists, but its
3 https://techventures.columbia.edu/news-and-events/latest-news/worlds-thinnest-light-bulb%
E2%80%94graphene-gets-bright-columbia-engineering.
objective is to promote the sharing of scientific knowledge to support

collaboration between the actors of this research project. We note that the
actors of the discovery and those of the invention-product are the same.
There was no recourse to other external actors to design the invention-
product. We also note the absence of individual contributions from the
partners to develop a customer-oriented solution. At this stage, there is
neither a customer nor a market because there is no innovation in the sense
of an invention that meets its market [ROG 95].
1.4.2. The university–industrialist innovation ecosystem
This second example focuses on the co-creation of an invention-product

in the field of innovative materials based on a scientific discovery. Based on
earlier work on carbyne [CHA 10], scientists at the University of Vienna, led
by Thomas Pichler, developed a new process to stabilize carbon chains.
They produced a chain with a record length of over 6,400 atoms [SHI 16].
Like all carbon allotropes, such as graphene, nanotubes or fullerenes,

carbyne has strong characteristics that make it a light material and 40 times
stronger than diamond. Carbyne4 has properties of high capacity of
acoustic absorption, preventing the propagation of sonar’s vibratory signals.
It is undetectable, which is particularly important for the defense sector
[CHA 10].
Recognizing the potential of their discovery, the scientists know that it

could be incorporated into the design of innovative new materials. However,
they did not have the resources to carry out this design work. So, they turned
to industrialists in the field of innovative materials who work with the
defense industry. Faced with this promising discovery, in terms of
innovation in light and resistant materials, scientists and industrialists joined
forces to share their knowledge and diverse know-how in order to develop
an invention-product: an innovative material, light, resistant and
undetectable to sonar waves.
This collaboration, between scientists and industrialists, has favored

the valorization of this scientific discovery by giving birth to the first
4 https://fr.sputniknews.com/sci_tech/201604141024224886-production-carbyne-autriche-
scientifiques/; https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1801/1801.07670.pdf.
applications of carbyne in the field of materials. Figure 1.2 illustrates this

university–industrialist innovation ecosystem.
Figure 1.2. University–industrialist innovation ecosystem
We present, in Table 1.3, the characteristics of this university–

industrialist innovation ecosystem.
IMPORTANT.– Second definition of the innovation ecosystem: an innovation

ecosystem is a grouping of scientists belonging to a research laboratory and
industrialists specialized in particular sectors such as innovative materials;
they all share their scientific and industrial knowledge to integrate this
discovery on carbyne into the design of an invention-product: a light,
resistant material undetectable by sonar; the creation of value is twofold. It
is expressed in the form of a scientific discovery: stabilization of carbon
atom chains, and a product-invention materialized in the form of a new light,
resistant and undetectable material; at this stage, we are in the presence of a
discovery led by scientists and an invention-product led by industrialists in
collaboration with scientists. There is no innovation yet.
“Carbyne” university–industrialist innovation ecosystem

Scientists from the Austrian laboratory
Manufacturers specializing in innovative lightweight and resistant
Key actors
materials
Industrialists specialized in materials undetectable by sonar
Discovery by the Vienna laboratory of the stabilization of carbon atom
chains (carbyne)
Collaboration/
Co-creation of invention-product: light, resistant material undetectable by
strategy sonar
Integrating prior knowledge of carbyne to advance scientific discovery
Production of new material assets: stabilization of carbyne (discovery) and
Logic of action innovative material (product invention)
Generation of new knowledge on carbyne and its applications in the field
of innovative materials
Table 1.3. Characteristics of the “carbyne” innovation ecosystem
This second definition still shows the absence of the focal firm with a
value proposition for innovation around which partners gravitate. Here, the
innovation ecosystem is also rooted in discovery. There is still no digital
platform to coordinate the actors. It is present to promote the sharing of
scientific and industrial knowledge between the actors in the research
project.
Unlike the “graphene” innovation ecosystem, here the actors in the

discovery and those in the invention-product are not the same. The scientists
called upon external “collaborators”, the industrialists, to carry out the
design of the applications of carbyne. As before, the industrial partners did
not bring individual contributions to develop a customer-oriented solution.
Here, the collaboration is based on the technological challenge at hand. At
this stage, there is not yet innovation in the sense of a marketable invention
in a given market.
1.4.3. The university–industrialist–commercial innovation

ecosystem
This third example focuses on valorization by industrialists, in the form

of invention-products designed on the basis of the scientific discoveries on
graphene and carbyne. The properties of graphene and carbyne offer
opportunities for remarkable industrial products [BAR 19] for the

manufacture of polymers. Commonly referred to as plastics, polymers are
used in the manufacture of many products.
Graphene and carbyne, by virtue of their properties of high strength,

conductivity and flexibility [MIR 20], fall into three main categories of
polymers: thermoplastics, thermosets and elastomers. Thermoplastics are
food containers, the various preservation containers for medicines,
cosmetics, household products and detergents, etc. Thermosets include
vehicle bumpers, electrical boxes (electrical switchboards, circuit breakers),
automotive or military body parts, airplane wings, carbyne-based submarine
hulls, electronic components such as transistors, etc. Thermosets also include
solid polymers used in the manufacture of amorphous organic glass and
semi-crystalline polymers used in the manufacture of materials that can
withstand high temperatures without deforming. Elastomers are used in the
automotive, aeronautics, aerospace, transportation and many other industries.
Elastomers include industrial rubbers, seals of all types, plastic food wraps,
packaging, etc.
Figure 1.3. University–industrialist–commercial innovation ecosystem
In view of the multiple opportunities offered by graphene and carbyne

[NES 20], industrialists, who are also marketers, are gathering around these
technologies to design and market disruptive innovations by integrating
graphene and/or carbyne into polymers. These innovations enhance the

physical and mechanical properties of existing polymers in order to market
new products that are lighter, stronger and better adapted to users’ needs.
Figure 1.3 illustrates the university–industrialist–commercial innovation
ecosystem that has been formed to exploit these graphene and carbyne
technologies.
We present, in Table 1.4, the characteristics of this university–

industrialist–commercial innovation ecosystem.
“Polymer” university–industrialist–commercial innovation ecosystem

Scientists from the graphene and carbyne laboratories
Industrialists specializing in thermoplastic polymers, thermosets,
Key actors
elastomers
All these industrialists have commercial-marketing departments
Contribution of laboratories to the knowledge of graphene and carbyne
Collaboration/
Invention-product co-creation: thermoplastics, thermosets, elastomers
strategy
Integration of scientific knowledge on graphene and carbyne to design
marketable invention-products
Production of new material assets: food storage boxes, electrical boxes,
vehicle bumpers, body parts for all sectors of activity (automotive,
Logic of action
aerospace, submarines, etc.), tires, industrial gaskets, sealing, plastic food
wraps, packaging, organic glass, etc.
Generation of new knowledge on the applications of graphene and
carbyne to industrial fields specialized in polymers
Table 1.4. Characteristics of the “polymer” innovation ecosystem
IMPORTANT.– Third definition of the innovation ecosystem: an innovation

ecosystem is a grouping of scientists specialized in graphene and carbyne
and industrialists specialized in the manufacture of polymers and their
commercialization; all share their scientific and industrial knowledge to
integrate these discoveries around graphene and carbyne into the design of
numerous “polymer” invention-products; the value creation is twofold. It is
expressed in the form of multiple invention-products in the field of polymers
and marketable innovations in all sectors that use polymers; here, we are
faced with invention-products led by industrialists in collaboration with
scientists. These inventions are immediately transformed into marketable
innovations by the marketing departments.
This third definition still shows the absence of the focal firm and a value
proposition for innovation. Here, the innovation ecosystem is anchored on
the exploitation of scientific discoveries. The digital platform is developed to
foster the sharing of scientific, industrial and business knowledge between
all these heterogeneous actors. Unlike the first two innovation ecosystems,
the discoveries have already been made. Industrialists, specialized in
polymers, have private R&D centers to develop product inventions. Most of
these industrialists also have departments in charge of transforming these
invention-products into innovations that will be rapidly diffused over the
various targeted markets.
In the absence of a commercial department, industrialists partner with

commercial companies specialized in transforming invention-products into
innovations and their diffusion over targeted markets. As before, the
industrial partners do not bring individual contributions to develop a
customer-oriented solution. Here, the collaboration is based on the
technological challenge and the diffusion of innovations. Unlike the two
previous innovation ecosystems, here we are dealing with innovations that
can be commercialized in markets identified upstream.
1.4.4. The start-up–industry–financier innovation ecosystem
This fourth example focuses on the invention-product developed, in the

medical field, by a start-up and an industrialist. A French researcher-
entrepreneur, Professor Carpentier, the famous cardio surgeon and inventor
of artificial heart valves, is at the origin of the invention-product of the
Carmat5 artificial heart. This project, which began in the 1990s, is driven by
Carpentier’s aim to “help the thousands of heart failure patients who cannot
receive a transplant because of the lack of available human organs”.
This start-up project builds on Carpentier’s medical expertise and his

successful experience in inventing cardiac biovalves made of pig cartilage to
treat patients with valvular insufficiency, for which he received the Lasker
Prize in 2007. In view of the complexity of the artificial heart, the
5 www.carmatsa.com and www.carmatsa.com/produit/.

entrepreneur quickly realized that in order to make this artificial heart work
in a similar way to a biological heart, a system of mini-pumps was needed to
pump the stale blood from one side, purify it and return it to the body. Not
having the skills in the design of these mini-pumps, against all odds,
Carpentier turned to the French industrialist EADS (European Aeronautic
Defense and Space) and more precisely to Matra-Défense.
EADS? Why is the Carmat team turning to the aerospace and defense
giant? According to Piet Jansen, Carmat’s medical director, just like EADS:
“NASA has already been involved in the development of implantable
medical devices. It’s pretty logical to collaborate with aerospace specialists
when you want to make an extremely sophisticated product that requires
significant miniaturization.”
In 2008, the Carmat company, short for Carpentier-Matra, was created.

Its project is the design of the first self-regulating bioprosthetic artificial
heart that, due to its animal tissues, is as close as possible to the human
heart.
Various actors who have provided capital finance, including Carmat:

– the Carpentier Foundation supports the project of the professor and his
team;
– Truffle Capital, a European investment fund, finances disruptive
innovations in the fields of life sciences and information technology6;
– in 2009, Bpifrance7 (formerly OSEO), which finances innovative
projects, provided 33 million euros to support the development of the
Carmat heart.
Figure 1.4 illustrates this start-up–industry–financier innovation

ecosystem.
We present in Table 1.5 the characteristics of this start-up–industry–

financier innovation ecosystem.
6 www.truffle.com/.
7 https://partenaire-bpi.sudouest.fr/premiere-greffe-mondiale-de-coeur-artificiel-carmat-
retour-sur-le-financement-de-lentreprise/.
Start-up:
Matra- Professor
Défense Carpentier
Financers
Invention-product:
Carmat artificial heart
Figure 1.4. Start-up–industry–financier innovation ecosystem
“Carmat” start-up–industry–financier innovation ecosystem

Researcher-entrepreneur Carpentier
Key actors Industrial: Matra-Défense, a subsidiary of EADS
Financiers: Carpentier Foundation, Truffle Capital, Bpifrance
Open and collaborative innovation strategies
Collaboration/
Co-creation of the Carmat mini-pumps by Matra-Défense in collaboration
strategy
with Professor Carpentier
Production of new material assets: miniaturization of Carmat mini-pumps
Numerous prototypes of the artificial heart
Logic of action Production of new knowledge around miniaturization in the field of
aeronautics and about the artificial heart through prototyping and clinical
trials (heart transplantation)
Table 1.5. Characteristics of the “Carmat” innovation ecosystem
IMPORTANT.– Fourth definition of an innovation ecosystem: an innovation

ecosystem is a grouping of a researcher-entrepreneur specialized in
cardiology and an industrialist specialized in aeronautics; both share their
knowledge and their medical and industrial know-how to develop an
invention-product: the miniaturization of the Carmat artificial heart’s
mini-pumps; value creation is twofold. It is expressed in the form of
invention-products for the Carmat heart and numerous prototypes; here, we
see a product-invention, led by an entrepreneur and an industrialist, and

supported by financial investors. There is no innovation yet because the
clinical trials do not allow, as yet, commercialization of the Carmat heart.
This fourth definition shows a grouping of actors who are in totally

different and unrelated fields: cardiology, aerospace and finance. While links
between entrepreneurs and financiers are well known, those between a
professor specialized in cardiology and a giant in the aerospace industry are
difficult to imagine a priori. Here, the innovation ecosystem has emerged to
advance product inventions related to the design of an artificial heart that is
as close as possible to the human organ. In view of the results of the various
clinical trials of the Carmat artificial heart, the objectives are not to profit
from these product-inventions. The challenge, for the researcher-
entrepreneur and the industrialist, is to overcome all the difficulties that
hinder the design of the artificial heart.
For these partners, the innovation, an artificial heart that once implanted
plays the role of a human heart over the long term, will be a medical and
technical success rather than a commercial success as is seen in many
collaborations.
1.4.5. Towards a non-universal definition of the innovation

ecosystem
While there are common features between the innovation cluster, the
business ecosystem and the definitions of the innovation ecosystem by
practitioners and researchers, the four examples presented in this chapter
show that there is no universal definition of the innovation ecosystem.
In light of these four examples, we can ask ourselves whether a universal

definition of the innovation ecosystem is useful, given its complexity and its
strong links with the innovation situation in which its actors are involved.
Each example provides elements that help us understand the innovation
ecosystem. We note that its definition is related to the actors who make it up,
their strategies and their logic of action. The grouping of actors is not
systematically motivated by the profits generated by the innovation, as in the
innovation cluster or the business ecosystem.
Remember that, in the cluster, the actors are grouped together by similar
or related field of activity in order to reconfigure their assets to adapt their
products to the markets with agility, with a view to continuous innovation
and financial profitability. Similarly, in the business ecosystem, the focus is
on the focal firm with a value proposition, around which suppliers,
distributors and customers are grouped in a logic of business profitability.
In the four examples studied, innovation ecosystems are not

systematically organized around a focal company. The grouping of actors is
motivated by the discovery and/or co-creation of an invention. It can be
focused on new technologies for innovation, as in the example of polymers.
Collaborative open innovation strategies are not always market-oriented.
They can be technological challenges to be met, such as the graphene bulb,
the carbyne, the Carmat heart or disruptive innovations in polymers. In the
innovation ecosystem, these strategies integrate discovery and invention
activities. The cluster and the business ecosystem, focused on the market,
obscure these two phases insofar as these activities are defined as follows:
Co-design, co-creation, co-production are approaches that

emerged at the beginning of the 2000s that have since
developed greatly. They have been adopted by many companies
from various sectors. All of them refer – to different degrees –
to a collaborative, collective and interdisciplinary dimension.
They are more in line with a market pull logic that favors
the integration of market needs and end-user expectations,
rather than the technology push logic that has long prevailed8
[DAI 17].
In this market pull logic, the innovation process of the cluster and the
business ecosystem is solution-customer-oriented. Consequently, there is no
room for discovery and little room for invention. Yet, in the innovation
process, these precede innovation. The definition of innovation ecosystems,
oriented towards producers, users and customer-centric solutions, is
incomplete. The discovery and invention phases, where there are no
competitors, producers or users yet, are not always well integrated into the
innovation process. Chapter 2 will discuss how to take the latter into
account.
8 Market pull logic refers to innovation “driven” by the market, the demand, whereas
technology push logic characterizes innovation “driven” by technology, the invention.
Understanding innovation ecosystems is complex. They have undeniable

advantages for innovation as well as disadvantages linked to heterogeneous
actors. This complexity is increased by the fact that its boundaries are
porous. They go beyond those of organizations, institutions and the
innovation ecosystem itself.
1.5. Strengths, drawbacks and boundaries of the innovation

ecosystem
1.5.1. The strengths of the innovation ecosystem
The innovation ecosystem has several advantages that serve innovation. It

creates a framework for innovation, particularly disruptive innovation. This
innovation is based on a discovery or an invention, and favors open
innovation strategies that are essential to its development [CHE 14]. These
strategies invite a pool of diversified actors specialized in various fields.
They also invite the sharing of resources and skills around a new technology
or an invention-product with high innovation potential. They lead to the
sharing of the high risks inherent in disruptive innovations.
The innovation ecosystem promotes the finalization of innovation

through mutual support and encouragement throughout the innovation
process. It generates favorable environments where innovators synchronize
their resources to co-create sustainable value [IAN 04]. This value is co-
produced by different actors such as universities, R&D laboratories, start-
ups, industrialists and commercial companies.
1.5.2. The drawbacks of the innovation ecosystem
The innovation ecosystem has major drawbacks related to the

configurations of the actors, their activities and the systemic approach [ADN
06]. Each actor is always interested in their own survival, even if ecosystem
strategies are a way to increase the resilience of the ecosystem [AUT 20]. In
innovation ecosystems, similar problems appear in multidisciplinary teams.
The actors have divergent interests while pursuing the common objective
they have set. These divergent interests are endogenous to the nature of the
actors involved and their objectives. For example, an industrial company
will not necessarily have the same interests as a research laboratory, a
start-up or a commercial company. The industrialist, or entrepreneur, will

seek to finalize an invention-product with a view to marketing it. A research
laboratory or an R&D center focuses on the technological challenge rather
than on the diffusion of the innovation. The multiplicity of actors, their
different nature and their divergent interests make the coordination of these
actors within the innovation ecosystem more complex. Chapter 4 discusses
these concepts in detail.
The innovation ecosystem is not a formal theory insofar as cause and

effect relationships do not prevail between the main elements that constitute
it [MER 11a]. Finally, the boundaries of the innovation ecosystem are not
clearly defined, which means that it is not clear what should be included or
excluded from it.
1.5.3. The porous boundaries of the innovation ecosystem
The configuration of actors and activities, the links that form and dissolve
between the various elements of the innovation ecosystem, and the
regulations and laws that change as a result of the globalization of
innovation [OKS 15] make its borders open and permeable [GUL 00]. Open
innovation strategies accentuate this phenomenon because resources and
skills essential to the development of innovation processes emerge and
disappear at different phases of the process [ZOB 17]. Moreover, studies on
innovation ecosystems, focused on regional or local actors, neglect the
international dimension of innovation [VAL 15].
There is debate about the definition of the boundaries of the innovation

ecosystem. Some authors assert that the boundaries of the ecosystem are
specific to the focal firm. They can be identified if the actors who gravitate
around this focal firm are well identified [IAN 04]. These boundaries are
then wider than those involving market efficiency [SAN 05]. Other authors
claim that the innovation ecosystem is limited to its participants and the
target customer [ADN 10] or that the ecosystem community marks its
boundaries. In this context, these are then traced by identifying its
participants [VII 16].
The diversity of actors and the fact that innovation processes do not stop
at community boundaries and engage complementary participants makes it
difficult to define the boundaries of an innovation ecosystem. It is clear that
the boundaries of the innovation ecosystem are not the same as traditional
industry boundaries. These are defined by a specific set of products, services
and their producers.
1.6. Conclusion
Chapter 1 shows that the innovation ecosystem is complex and difficult

to define in a few words. It requires the consideration of many variables: the
actors, their objectives, their strategies, their logic of action, the processes,
etc.
As we have seen from the four definitions derived from the four
examples of innovation ecosystems, the characteristics of these ecosystems
depend on the nature of the actors, which we will explore in more detail in
Chapter 4, their collaborative strategies and the production of new material
and knowledge assets that emerge from the activities of these heterogeneous
actors.
Each of the four definitions, taken from the examples analyzed in this
chapter, reveals the absence of the focal firm as the keystone of the
innovation ecosystem. As we have seen, the value proposition is not
systematically the origin of the grouping together of actors or of the
innovation. Unlike many works on ecosystems, the innovation ecosystem is
also distinguished by the absence, by partner companies, of the offerings
they bring to co-create an innovative end-customer-oriented solution to
generate profits for the focal firm and themselves.
We have just seen that the motivations of the actors in creating an

innovation ecosystem are not automatically based on the search for financial
profits. Actors have divergent interests that they seek to satisfy. Scientists
and technology development specialists try to meet real challenges through
discoveries and product inventions. The search for financial profit is
confined to commercial enterprises whose specialty is to transform these
inventions into profitable innovations in the markets.
Innovation ecosystems are a response to actors seeking to escape the

incremental trap [CHR 97] by co-creating radical innovations. The following
chapter examines the links between innovation ecosystems and the
innovation process, which have been little studied by researchers and
practitioners alike.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
21 Août 1914.
Les Engagements volontaires

des étrangers
Appel aux amis de la France,
L’heure est grave.

Tout homme digne de ce nom doit aujourd’hui agir, doit se défendre de rester
inactif au milieu de la plus formidable conflagration que l’Histoire ait jamais pu
enregistrer. Toute hésitation serait un crime. Pas de paroles, donc des actes.
Des étrangers amis de la France qui, pendant leur séjour en France, ont appris à
l’aimer et à la chérir comme une seconde patrie, sentent le besoin impérieux de lui
offrir leurs bras.
Intellectuels, étudiants, ouvriers, hommes valides de toute sorte, nés ailleurs,
domiciliés ici, nous qui avons trouvé en France la nourriture de notre esprit ou notre
nourriture matérielle, groupons-nous en un faisceau solide de volontés mises au
service de la plus grande France.
Signé: Canudo, Blaise Cendrars, Léonard Sarlius, Csaky, Kaplan, Beer, Oznotsky,
Doubrowski, Isbizcki, Schoumoff, Roldireff, Kozline, Essen, Lioschitz, Frisendahl,
Israilevitch, Vertepoff.
24 Août 1914.
Les Allemands envahissent la

France
Tous les Français déploreront l’abandon momentané des portions du territoire

annexé que nous avions occupées. D’autre part, certaines parties du territoire
national souffriront malheureusement des événements dont elles seront le théâtre.
Épreuve inévitable, mais provisoire. C’est ainsi que les éléments de cavalerie
allemande, appartenant à une division indépendante opérant à l’extrême droite ont
pénétré dans la région de Roubaix-Tourcoing qui n’est défendue que par des
éléments territoriaux.
Le courage de notre vaillante population saura supporter cette épreuve avec une
foi inébranlable dans le succès final qui n’est pas douteux. En disant au pays la vérité
entière, le Gouvernement et les autorités militaires lui donnent la plus forte preuve de
leur absolue confiance dans la victoire qui ne dépend que de notre persévérance et
notre ténacité.
Communiqué officiel du 25 août.
25 Août 1914.
Évacuation des villages du nord

de la France
Dans certaines régions du Nord, les populations de quelques villes et villages se

sont effrayées à la vue d’éclaireurs ennemis. Ces incursions passagères, qui peuvent
se produire dans toute guerre à une distance parfois très grande des opérations
importantes, ne doivent pas alarmer, car elles n’indiquent pas du tout une occupation
imminente de l’ennemi.
Note officielle communiquée à la Presse.
Je vous invite, de la façon la plus formelle, à n’abandonner votre poste que sur
ordre du Gouvernement ou de l’autorité militaire. Vous devez donner aux populations
l’exemple du calme et du sang-froid. Tous les fonctionnaires doivent rester à leur
poste. Les mesures les plus rigoureuses seront prises contre ceux qui manqueraient
à leur devoir.
Instructions pour les fonctionnaires adressées par M. Malvy, ministre de
l’Intérieur, aux préfets et sous-préfets des départements frontières.
29 Août 1914.
Appel au
pays
Le Gouvernement nouveau vient de prendre possession de son poste d’honneur

et de combat.
Le Gouvernement sait qu’il peut compter sur le pays. Ses fils répandent leur sang
pour la patrie et la liberté. Aux côtés des héroïques armées belges et anglaises, ils
reçoivent sans trembler le plus formidable ouragan de fer et de feu qui ait jamais été
déchaîné sur un peuple. Et tous se tiennent droits. Gloire à eux! Gloire aux vivants et
aux morts! Les hommes tombent. La nation continue.
Pendant ce temps, nos alliés russes marchent d’un pas décidé vers la capitale de
l’Allemagne.
Face à la frontière! Nous avons la méthode et la volonté. Nous aurons la victoire.

René Viviani, président du Conseil; Aristide Briand, ministre de la Justice, vice-
président du Conseil; Delcassé, ministre des Affaires étrangères; Malvy, ministre de
l’Intérieur; Ribot, ministre des Finances; Millerand, ministre de la Guerre; Augagneur,
ministre de la Marine; Sarraut, ministre de l’Instruction publique; Marcel Sembat,
ministre des Travaux publics; Thomson, ministre du Commerce, des Postes et des
Télégraphes; Doumergue, ministre des Colonies; David, ministre de l’Agriculture;
Bienvenu-Martin, ministre du Travail; Jules Guesde, ministre sans portefeuille.
29 Août 1914.
Mise en état du camp retranché de

Paris
Dans le Nord, les lignes franco-anglaises ont été légèrement ramenées en arrière.
La résistance continue.
La situation de notre front, de la Somme aux Vosges, est restée aujourd’hui ce

qu’elle était hier. Les forces allemandes paraissent avoir ralenti leur marche.
Hier matin, parmi les questions examinées, on s’est occupé spécialement de la

mise en état du camp retranché de Paris. Les travaux, déjà très avancés sur la
périphérie, vont être poursuivis particulièrement en ce qui concerne les dégagements
prévus.
Note officielle communiquée à la
Presse.
30 Août 1914.
Un Avion allemand jette des

bombes sur Paris
Des forces allemandes progressent dans la direction de La Fère.

Parisiens, l’armée française a été battue à La Fère. Rendez-vous.

Lettre jetée avec une oriflamme aux couleurs allemandes par l’aviateur
allemand qui survola Paris.
Mon cher Président,
Au moment de quitter les fonctions de gouverneur militaire de Paris, je tiens à

vous exprimer ma reconnaissance pour la collaboration précieuse et dévouée que
vous et MM. les membres du Conseil municipal de Paris vous avez bien voulu me
donner. Jamais je n’oublierai l’attitude calme et résolue de la population parisienne
que vous représentez, alors que l’ennemi s’approchait de la capitale.
Veuillez agréer, mon cher Président, l’assurance de mes sentiments
profondément dévoués.
Gallieni.
Lettre adressée le 30 octobre 1915 par le général Gallieni à M. Adrien

Mithouard, président du Conseil municipal de Paris.
30 Août 1914.
Destruction des maisons situées

sur la zone militaire de Paris
Vu le décret du 2 août 1914 ensemble la loi du 5 août 1914 déclarant l’état de

siège;
Vu le décret du 10 août 1914 déclarant les circonscriptions territoriales formant le
gouvernement militaire de Paris en état de guerre;
En raison des circonstances urgentes;
Décide:
1o Dans un délai de quatre jours francs à compter du 30 août, les propriétaires,
usufruitiers, locataires ou occupants à un titre quelconque de tous immeubles situés
dans la zone de servitude des forts détachés anciens et nouveaux devront évacuer et
démolir lesdits immeubles;
2o A défaut par les intéressés d’avoir obéi à la présente prescription dans le délai
imparti, il sera procédé d’office par l’autorité militaire à la démolition des immeubles et
à l’enlèvement des matériaux.
Le Gouverneur militaire de Paris, commandant des armées de
Paris,
Signé: Gallieni.
31 Août 1914.
Les Turcos traversent

Paris
..... L’inflexible fermeté (des armées Lanrezac, de Langle, Ruffey, de Castelnau et

Dubail) va rendre possible notre manœuvre offensive.
Pour préparer cette offensive, nous avons constitué, le 26 août, à notre gauche,
une nouvelle armée commandée par le général Maunoury. Cette armée doit se
concentrer les jours suivants dans la région d’Amiens.
Mais le progrès de l’ennemi, par étapes de 45 kilomètres par jour, est si rapide
que, pour réaliser son plan offensif, le général Joffre doit prescrire la continuation de
la retraite.
On reculera jusqu’à l’Aube, au besoin jusqu’à la Seine.
Tout sera subordonné à la préparation du succès de l’offensive.
Rapport inséré au Journal officiel du 5 décembre 1914.
31 Août 1914.
Les Voies sont détruites sur la

ligne du Nord.
UNE AFFICHE DES CHEMINS DE FER DU NORD LE 31 AOUT 1914
31 Août 1914.
Suppression des sauf-conduits pour

quitter Paris
La situation générale ne s’est modifiée que sur nos ailes.

A notre gauche, les Allemands ont gagné quelque terrain. Au centre, pas de
modification sensible: on ne s’est pas battu. En Lorraine, nous avons remporté de
nouveaux avantages.
Communiqué officiel du 1er
septembre.
Afin de faciliter le déplacement des réfugiés qui traversent Paris, le ministre de la

Guerre vient d’ordonner la suppression des sauf-conduits qui étaient exigés pour
quitter Paris en chemin de fer.
Tous ceux qui voudront s’éloigner de la capitale n’auront qu’à se munir de pièces
d’identité usuelles: livret de mariage, pièces attestant le domicile, etc., etc.
Note officielle communiquée à la
Presse.
1er Septembre 1914.
La Tolérance accordée aux

automobiles pour quitter Paris est
prolongée jusqu’au 3 septembre
Éloge des territoriaux qui gardent les voies
Les hommes de la territoriale et de la réserve de la territoriale chargés de la garde

des voies de communication s’acquittent de leur mission avec une conscience et un
zèle au-dessus de tout éloge.
Ils ont admirablement compris l’importance de leur tâche, surveillent nuit et jour
les voies ferrées et les routes et examinent avec le plus grand soin les laissez-passer
exigibles des personnes circulant en automobile.
Les hommes mobilisés qui passent en chemin de fer reçoivent des postes de
garde, des vivres supplémentaires et des bouquets de fleurs dont ils ornent les
wagons. Ces postes ont, par leur vigilance, très utilement contribué au succès de nos
transports de mobilisation et de concentration.
Officiel.

(PDF Download) The Innovation Ecosystem As A Source of Value Creation: A Value Creation Lever For Open Innovation Odile de Saint Julien Fulll Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(PDF Download) The Innovation Ecosystem As A Source of Value Creation: A Value Creation Lever For Open Innovation Odile de Saint Julien Fulll Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(PDF Download) The Innovation Ecosystem As A Source of Value Creation: A Value Creation Lever For Open Innovation Odile de Saint Julien Fulll Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download test bank at ebook ebookmass.

The Innovation Ecosystem as a

Finance for Executives: Managing for Value Creation 6th

Frugal Innovation and Innovative Creation Paul Bouvier-

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable

New Developments in Evolutionary Innovation: Novelty

Strategic Leadership for Business Value Creation:

Value Creation for Owners and Directors: A Practical

Circular Economy: From Waste Reduction to Value

Engineering Investment Process. Making Value Creation

The Innovation Ecosystem as

A Value Creation Lever

Odile de Saint Julien

ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

© ISTE Ltd 2022

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022936852

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Chapter 1. Innovation Ecosystem: Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 2. Innovation Ecosystem and Innovation Processes . . . . 27

2.2.3. The innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Chapter 3. Modeling: Combination of Three Ecosystems . . . . . . . 53

3.7. Modeling the innovation ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Chapter 4. The Actors of the Innovation Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Chapter 5. Coherence and Interdependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Chapter 6. The Iterative Network: Collaboration and Typology . . . 107

Chapter 7. Asset and Knowledge Transfers: The Integrated Value

Chapter 8. Ecosystems and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Chapter 9. Ecosystems and Value Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

In an ecosystem, you can always intervene and change

Borrowed from biology, the term ecosystem refers to a grouping of

Ecosystems have been present in the economy and management for

Faced with this enthusiasm, work on meta-organizations, such as

according to their field of research. However, two types of ecosystems

The most studied is the business ecosystem. Analyses focus on the

Business and innovation ecosystems have the same objective: to create

The emphasis is on the design of a basic product of the Minimum Viable

Work is intensifying on the coordination of actors and on the way they

In the wake of Adner, the work of Jacobides and colleagues features a

Here, the ecosystem supports the improvement of innovation and its

In parallel with this work, in the tradition of Clarysse and colleagues

R&D centers and technological entrepreneurs play a central role in the

However, as in most of the work on ecosystems, there remains a lack of

Many works focus on performance and customer-oriented value creation

Other studies are interested in the co-evolution of actors’ innovative

The aim of this book is to make a modest contribution to these various

Chapter 1 defines the innovation ecosystem in terms of the nature of the

Chapter 2 focuses on the evolution of the innovation ecosystem and the

Chapter 3 presents a modeling of the innovation ecosystem. It shows the

Chapter 4 is devoted to the actors of the innovation ecosystem, their

Chapter 5 relates to the search for coherence between the situations of

Chapter 6 focuses on the emergence of the iterative network anchored in

Chapter 8 returns to innovation and the challenges that actors face in

Chapter 9 discusses the balancing act between opportunism and

Innovation Ecosystem: Definitions

Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics, Macmillan, London, 1920

The innovation ecosystem is becoming a feature of the literature of

The characteristics of the innovation ecosystem, extracted from these four

1.2. Definitions of innovation

Considered for several decades as the key to the economic growth of