Orchestration Processes in Network-Centric Innovation: Evidence From the Field

By Satish Nambisan, Mohanbir S. Sawhney. 2011

431 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management of Technology and Innovation, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7c7923f44ce1c4c6630179761f4b2b931cd2ddb7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship (2017, background): “…2014; Tiwana et al., 2010) Layered modular architecture of digital platforms (Yoo et al., 2010) Innovation asset leverage (Ian-siti & Levien, 2004; Nambisan & Sawhney, 2011) Technology affordances and constraints theory (Leonardi, 2011; Majchrzak & Markus, 2013) Architecture of participation in…”
Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing Innovation Management Research in a Digital World (2017, background): “…studies on innovation networks and ecosystems have suggested the concept of orchestration, wherein one or more firms (or entities) assume the responsibility for coordinating value cocreation and value appropriation (e.g., Dhanaraj and Parkhe 2006; Nambisan and Sawhney 2007, 2011; Wind et al. 2009).”
On open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship (2018, background): “…able to incentivize the creation of entire ecosystems—that includes the platform leader, who defines the architecture of participation and structures the direction of innovative activities (Nambisan & Sawhney, 2011), and the complementary innovators, including customers (Lusch & Nambisan, 2015).”
Planned Luck: How Incubators Can Facilitate Serendipity for Nascent Entrepreneurs Through Fostering Network Embeddedness (2020, background): “…focus on value creation over value appropriation, it differs from leadership in traditional goal- driven innovation networks (Khanna & Palepu, 1997; Nambisan & Sawhney, 2011; Provan & Kenis, 2008) and company- driven innovation communities (Fleming & Waguespack, 2007), and instead focuses on…”
Maneuvering in poor visibility : How firms play the ecosystem game when uncertainty is high (2017, background): “Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. by established innovation ecosystems (e.g., Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006; Nambisan & Sawhney, 2011; Wareham, Fox, & Cano Giner, 2014), much less work has addressed how prospective ecosystem stakeholders commit resources toward a de…”
Global platforms and ecosystems: Implications for international business theories (2019, background): “5 Prior studies (e.g., Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006; Nambisan & Sawhney, 2011) have identiﬁed constituent elements of such ecosystem orchestration highlighting their underlying processes (e.g., knowledge mobility, innovation coherence) and their ante-cedents (e.g., member diversity, embeddedness, and…”
Institutional Work as Logics Shift: The Case of Intel’s Transformation to Platform Leader (2013, background): “These platform leaders adopted new practices such as sharing intellectual property on some technologies for little or no fee, as well as adopting the role of a neutral industry broker and benevolent orchestrator of industry innovation (Gawer & Cusumano 2002; Nambisan & Sawhney, 2011).”
Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation (2013, background): “In particular, recent work by Nambisan and Sawhney (2011), building on Dhanaraj and Parkhe (2006), develops explicitly the link between platform leadership and orchestration processes in network-centric innovation.”
Platform Competition: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review of the Literature (2020, neutral): “…Pierce, 2009), modularity theory (e.g., Jacobides, Cennamo, & Gawer, 2018; Yoo, Henfridsson & Lyytinen, 2010), social network theory (e.g., Abrahamson & Rosenkopf, 1997; Afuah, 2013; , 2011; Suarez, 2005), transaction cost economics (e.g., Lehdonvirta et al., 2019; Niedermayer, 2013), and more.”
A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation (2017, positive): “…several strategies that a focal venture can pursue in creating such an alignment, including defining the respective modularity in the ecosystem (Nambisan and Sawhney, 2011), coordinating value creation activities across actors (Williamson and De Meyer, 2012), establishing technological…”