A Systematic Mapping-Driven Framework for Vetting Participation in Business Ecosystems

Abstract

A key strategic option for many organizations across the globe is to examine whether and how business ecosystems can help them survive and thrive amidst continuous changes in business realities. Joining a business ecosystem, though, is not a straightforward decision. Current research efforts are falling short of fully identifying a concise and practical set of decision-making factors that potential ecosystem participants can meaningfully use. To address this limitation, the authors developed a framework of decision-making factors (motivations, prerequisites, ecosystem attractiveness), based on (a) their findings of a systematic mapping study they conducted and (b) their parallel research efforts in business ecosystems operations. The proposed framework encompasses a concrete “vocabulary” of decision-making factors that can enable complex “dialogs” between existing and new business ecosystem stakeholders. As a result, this research effort (a) offers a clear and unambiguous categorization of previously overloaded and ambiguous decision-making factors; (b) captures relationships between the three core components of the proposed framework, thus considering upfront any synergies or conflicts among them; and (c) makes the candidate organization’s decision-making process pragmatic, i.e., misalignment among the proposed factors should be considered a ‘red flag’ that may drive the candidate organization to pivot its decision-making process towards another business ecosystem.

1. Introduction

The concept of business ecosystems has become central to contemporary management in both academic and industry settings. Research by Shin et al. [1] shows that publications on business ecosystems have increased from none in 1990 to over 50 annually by 2021. What is more, a recent global survey by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) revealed that 90% of multinational corporations expressed their intentions to broaden their ‘ecosystem strategy’ [2], either by creating their own business ecosystems or by joining existing and emerging ones [3]. Another recent research study by PwC examined top-performing organizations and found that firms operating within ecosystems are “more than twice likely to generate greater than 60% of their revenues from ecosystems and expect that percentage to increase in the future” [4].

Business ecosystems refer to interconnected organizations that collectively contribute to the creation, delivery, and capture of value in a specific industry or market. The concept of business ecosystems has recently gained prominence as a strategic approach to collaboration, innovation, and adaptability to stay competitive in dynamic business environments. It is not a new concept, though. It was introduced a few decades ago by James F. Moore [5]. Moore drew parallels between biological ecosystems and the competitive dynamics of business, highlighting that business ecosystems can be an alternative to monolithic, vertically integrated organizational structures for firms seeking to thrive in complex and interconnected markets.

Moore’s observations remain valid and most relevant in today’s business realities. Digital transformation, evolving customer needs, and industry disruptions are accelerating the shift from traditional firm- and industry-based strategies to competition among digitally enabled ecosystems [6]. As Jacobides [6] argues, firms must now focus on cross-industry collaborations to develop integrated product-service offerings.

Despite their potential, business ecosystems pose significant strategic and operational challenges [7]. The reality is that many ecosystems fail—research from the BCG Henderson Institute estimates that only 15% prove viable in the long term [8]. Hence, the strategic choice of launching or joining a business ecosystem is not an easy one. Upon identifying a compelling market opportunity, an evaluation must take place of whether an ecosystem strategy is the optimal method for developing and delivering relevant value propositions.

If we focus on the simpler of the two aforementioned strategic choices (i.e., joining instead of launching a business ecosystem), a basic question has emerged among researchers in the business ecosystems realm: “for an organization, what constitutes an effective decision-making process for joining a business ecosystem?”. Unfortunately, relevant research activities have reached either generic or inconsistent outcomes that further complicate this research question. For example, several researchers refer to fundamentally similar decision-making factors by using different terminology. Such overloading results in conceptual ambiguity and distortion of the actual quantity of factors that a candidate organization can use to decide about its potential ecosystem strategy. Other researchers analyze decision-making factors by mainly referring to a particular type of ecosystem [9] or they simply consider operational benefits of a business ecosystem as ‘good enough’ incentives [3,10,11].

Hence, there is a gap in the business ecosystem research with regard to addressing the aforementioned research question. This gap points towards (a) a lack of clarity about what factors an organization should consider and (b) a lack of a structured interpretation of these factors to leverage potential synergies or conflicts among them, which, in turn, can have a significant impact on the candidate organization’s decision-making process.

Addressing this gap is the goal and major contribution of this research effort, driven by the following hypothesis: “increasing the number of perspectives of an organization about the benefits of joining a business ecosystem will increase the quality/quantity of decision-making factors for the candidate organization”. Based on the findings of a systematic mapping study conducted by the authors to explore this hypothesis, as well as on their parallel research efforts in business ecosystems operations, the authors developed a framework as a system of decision-making factors (see Figure 1):

• Core components—three types of factors (motivations, prerequisites, ecosystem attractiveness);
• Guiding logic—the decision-making process must ensure that (a) the motivations of an organization that wants to join a business ecosystem must be filtered through the ecosystem’s minimum requirements for the successful operation of its activities and (b) the motivations must be aligned with the overall strategic appeal and favorable operational environment of a business ecosystem;
• Relationships—prerequisites often lead to refinement of an organization’s motivations; refined motivations are matched against ecosystem attractiveness to highlight strategic/operational fit.

The proposed framework aims to turn its three core components into a holistic decision-making ‘vocabulary’ for potential ecosystem participants, as well as for the ecosystem itself, to assess the ‘best fit’. Organizations are driven to join a business ecosystem because of the relationships among the three core components: ecosystem attractiveness aligns with the candidate organization’s motivations, expressed as strategic goals and operational needs. Prerequisites act as gatekeepers of ecosystem attractiveness: potential participating organizations that choose and are selected to join the ecosystem must be capable of contributing to and benefiting from the ecosystem.

The rest of this article is structured as follows: first, findings from various academic and industry activities on business ecosystems are provided that highlight the emergence of the research question. This sets the context for a systematic mapping study that investigated a key hypothesis relevant to the stated research question. The main results are then discussed, leading to the description of the proposed framework. Finally, the theoretical and practical lessons learned are presented, along with recommendations and plans for further research.

2. Theoretical Background

The concept of ecosystems in the realm of business and strategic management originated from biology and has been applied to emphasize intricate collaborations among organizations [12]. As early as three decades ago, ref. [5] suggested that companies should not be seen in isolation within a single industry but as integral parts of a broader network that may be shaping multiple industries, as well as driving competitive dynamics beyond traditional industry boundaries [13]. This perspective has captured the attention of both scholars and practitioners [14], with McKinsey estimating that by 2035, approximately one-third of the global GDP will be directed by cross-industrial ecosystems [15]. Additionally, USD 8 trillion has reportedly flowed into ecosystem-driven players over the past two years, reflecting the growing economic impact [15].

To account for such developments, a revised definition of an ecosystem was recently proposed by Bogers et al. [16] as “a network of self-interested actors that are interdependent and collaborate to create value collectively”. This definition comprises three key elements: interdependence, network, and self-interested actors. These components are connected to the primary success criterion of an ecosystem, which is the collaborative creation of value in a manner that no individual actor could achieve alone [17]. An ecosystem can thus be identified by a distinct value proposition and a group of participants with varied roles but constant focus on resource exchange and value co-creation [18,19,20,21,22,23]. Recent research efforts expand this view by incorporating sustainability and responsible business practices within ecosystems, driven by environmental concerns, social expectations, and regulatory requirements [24,25,26,27].

Beyond academic interest, practitioners and industry experts are highlighting the importance of ecosystems in delivering value [28,29]. Major consulting firms have been trying to develop benefit-driven frameworks for the adoption of business ecosystems [30,31], highlighting how ecosystem partnerships enhance innovation, market reach, and financial returns [32,33,34]. This growth-focused mindset has prompted organizations to consider business ecosystems as a new strategic vehicle for accessing underserved markets [34], securing long-term competitive positioning [35,36,37], and co-exploiting technological advancements [38,39,40].

Hence, it comes as no surprise that both academics and practitioners increasingly discuss that competition may shift from an individual-organization basis to a battle of ecosystems. This, in turn, may put significant pressure on organizations to engage in a business ecosystem as a defensive strategy [37,41,42,43,44,45,46,47].

As inevitable as it may be, though, launching or joining a business ecosystem is not necessarily a straightforward strategic decision for an organization. Dependencies on other ecosystem participants, potential loss of control over key functions (e.g., pricing, distribution), and challenges related to strategic alignment and exit options introduce significant risks [7,43,48]. Potential participants have to assess whether the ecosystem’s values, processes, and objectives align with their own priorities before committing to participation. Some studies suggest that such an assessment is influenced by more general strategic imperatives, e.g., adjusting to market shifts, promoting innovation, and attaining long-term success [6,7], while others argue that involvement is driven by operational efficiency or access to complementary assets [9,33,49].

Beyond these generic viewpoints, the decision-making factors for joining a business ecosystem are still underexplored, despite the rising discourse around ecosystems. Indeed, current research efforts typically either use operational benefits of business ecosystems as decision-making factors [1,4,50] or examine them within certain specific types of business ecosystems [9,10,11]. Given these limited outcomes, the authors formulated and explored the following hypothesis: “increasing the number of perspectives of an organization about the benefits of joining a business ecosystem will increase the quality/quantity of decision-making factors for the candidate organization”. The next section describes the steps of the systematic mapping study methodology that the authors implemented to explore this hypothesis.

3. Materials and Methods

A systematic mapping study (SMS) conducts a comprehensive examination of a research area, aiming to identify the quantity and nature of related research studies and their outcomes [51]. It categorizes research reports and findings, often presenting a visual summary, or map, of the results. Mapping studies pose broad research inquiries to uncover trends [52] and can reveal these trends by analyzing publication frequencies over time [53]. Typically, the process includes defining a research question and hypotheses, searching for relevant papers, screening, keywording, and data extraction and mapping [52,54,55].

Moreover, SMS adheres to rigorous, objective, and transparent processes similar to systematic literature reviews, ensuring the capture of relevant evidence for a particular topic and avoiding potential biases found in the traditional literature reviews, such as reviewer and publication bias. Systematic maps are crucial in evidence syntheses due to their ability to cover a wide range of scientific content [56].

Systematic mapping was chosen for its rigorous approach to exploring often under-researched or broad scientific realms. Although frequently used in software engineering, it was originally developed in social sciences to address the limited empirical data and the need for a method to describe literature across a broad subject [55]. To our knowledge, a limited number of mapping studies have focused on business ecosystems in the last decade [43,57,58,59], and this study is one of the authors’ contributions to this research field (see Figure 2 for the implemented methodology steps).

3.1. Plan

Based on a first-level, generic literature review, as well as on parallel research efforts by the authors on the operational aspects of business ecosystems [47], the main research question was selected: “for an organization, what constitutes an effective decision-making process for joining a business ecosystem?”.

3.2. Conduct Search

3.2.1. Create Keywords, Search Strings, and Search Studies

The initial search was conducted by using search strings in scientific databases or browsing manually through journal publications; a preliminary search was conducted in Google Scholar and Science Direct, using the keywords “incentive” and “business ecosystems”. Based on these identified keywords, sets of keywords were then formulated (see

Table 1. Sets of keywords for initial search in Google Scholar and Science Direct.

Incentive	Business Ecosystems
Motives	Ecosystem stakeholders
Reason	Organizational ecosystems
Goals	Joining business ecosystems
	Ecosystem participation

).

During the course of the initial search, a key hypothesis was formulated that guided the implementation of the research method in use: “increasing the number of perspectives of an organization about the benefits of joining a business ecosystem will increase the quality/quantity of decision-making factors for the candidate organization”.

It was further observed that the key concepts that form the basis of this hypothesis are significantly interrelated, and the need to clarify them and their connections emerged. Thus, new key-phrases were introduced later (business ecosystem attractiveness, business ecosystem prerequisites, needs, business ecosystem readiness, business ecosystem resilience), as well as several related papers. The specific steps for searching were as follows:

• The hypothesis is broken down into individual facets (i.e., population, outcomes), as Kitchenham suggests [51];
• A list of synonyms is created;
• Search terms are identified;
• To obtain a complete list of research artifacts, a backward and forward search is performed;
• While performing the search, various inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied.

The following table (

Table 2. Sample list of search strings.

Search Strings

“reason” or “goals” and “business ecosystems” “incentive” and “business ecosystems” “business ecosystem” and “needs” “reason” or “goals” and “ecosystem stakeholders” “incentives” and “ecosystem stakeholders” “business ecosystem” and “readiness” “reason” or “goals” and “organizational ecosystems” “incentives” and “organizational ecosystems” “business ecosystem” and “resilience” “reason” or “goals” and “joining business ecosystems” “incentives” and “joining business ecosystems” “reason” or “goals” and “ecosystem participation” “incentives” and “ecosystem participation”

) highlights the key search strings that were developed and used during the execution of these steps.

3.2.2. Study Selection (Inclusion–Exclusion Criteria)

The outcome of the previous step was a large number of articles (592 articles), which were then filtered based on titles and abstracts, as well as on full text reading, as suggested by Petersen et al. [52]. The relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in

Table 3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Books or book chapters that provide information on ecosystem participants, their relationships, and what drives them to join a business ecosystem.	Studies without empirical findings Duplicates MSc theses Studies not available in full text
Reports describing empirical studies on the topic of ecosystem participants’ intentions and business ecosystems.	Written in a language other than English
Empirical studies with results based on observed and measured phenomena and derived knowledge from actual experience rather than from theory or beliefs.	Studies that cover the topic of business ecosystems in general, but do not concern the stakeholders and what drives them to join an ecosystem
Papers that provide scientific research findings or reviews of research on the topic of business ecosystems and stakeholder theory (opinion papers, validation papers, evaluation papers, case studies).
Time frame: 2015–2024. The topic of business ecosystems is mostly described after 2008 [60]. However, a previous mapping study has revealed that earlier studies do not explore relationships among business ecosystem participants. Rather, they just refer to their importance for the ecosystem’s long-term wealth [61].
Industry reports and thought leadership articles from top management consultancies (McKinsey, Bain, BCG).

.

3.2.3. Classification of the Selected Studies

The result of the application of the inclusion/exclusion criteria was a pool of 142 papers. A classification step followed, based on a topic-related classification scheme, as proposed by Petersen et al. [52].

Initially, the abstracts of these papers were analyzed and examined to identify keywords and concepts indicating a paper’s contribution and context. Subsequently, keywords were merged from multiple papers to gain a comprehensive understanding of the different concepts discussed. When abstracts did not provide sufficient information, the authors opted to delve deeper into the introduction and/or conclusion sections of the respective papers. The result was a list of 30 papers selected from the aforementioned pool of papers.

3.2.4. Data Extraction

In this step of the methodology, articles were organized according to the scheme developed in the previous step. A table was employed to document the data extraction process, encompassing every category of the classification scheme. For each paper included in the scheme, a brief explanation was given as to why it belonged to a specific category. Once the table was fully populated, the publication frequencies in each category were computed. This enabled the authors to discern the areas that have received significant attention in previous studies, pinpointing gaps and potential avenues for future research. The objective of this stage is to use data extraction forms to accurately record the information obtained from the primary studies [62]. The data extracted from each study were as follows:

• Title;
• Author;
• Publication date;
• Main topic area;
• The source (journal/conference, etc.).

The table with the studies included can be found at the end of this article (see

Table A1. Data extraction with included studies.

Title	Authors	Year	Source	Topic
1. A business ecosystem architecture modeling framework	Wieringa R.J., Engelsman W., Gordijn J., Ionita D. [68]	2019	IEEE 21st Conference on Business Informatics (CBI)	Ecosystem benefits
2. Analysis of stakeholders within IoT ecosystems	Kar S., Chakravorty B., Sinha S., Gupta M.P. [65]	2018	Advances in Theory and Practice of Emerging Markets	Stakeholders’ motivations, IoT ecosystems
3. An analytical framework for an m-payment ecosystem: A merchants’ perspective	Guo J., Bouwman H. [97]	2016	Telecommunications policy	Engagement in a particular ecosystem (m-payment)
4. An ecosystem view on third party mobile payment providers: a case study of Alipay wallet	Guo J., Bouwman H. [98]	2016	Info	Engagement in a particular ecosystem (Alipay wallet)
5. A systematic literature review for digital business ecosystems in the manufacturing industry: prerequisites, challenges, and benefits	Suuronen S., Ukko J., Eskola R., Semken S. and Rantanen H. [48]	2022	CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology	Ecosystem prerequisites, benefits
6. Business ecosystem research agenda: more dynamic, more embedded, and more internationalized	Rong K., Lin Y., Li B., Burstrom T., Butel L., Yu J. [19]	2018	Asian business management	Attraction of stakeholders (ecosystem’s perspective)
7. Digital platform ecosystems	Hein A., Schreieck M., Riasanow T., Soto Setzke D., Wiesche M., Bohm M., Krcmar H. [99]	2019	Electronic markets	Significance of stakeholders in an ecosystem (relationships, value co-creation)
8. Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial process	Elia G., Margherita A., Passiante G. [76]	2020	Technological forecasting and social change	Aspects of ecosystems- motivations
9. Digital empowerment in a WEEE collection business ecosystem: A comparative study of two typical cases in China	Sun Q., Wang C., Zuo L., Lu F. [100]	2018	Journal of cleaner production	Activities- positions in an ecosystem- empowerment of suppliers and customers
10. Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem as a new form of organizing: the case of Zhongguancun	Li W., Du W., Yin J. [101]	2017	Frontiers of business research in China	Reward distribution as motivation
11. Digitalization of Business Processes of Enterprises of the Ecosystem of Industry 4.0: Virtual-Real Aspect of Economic Growth Reserve	Kraus K., Kraus N., and Manzhura O. [102]	2021	WSEAS transactions on business and economics	Prerequisites for digital business ecosystems- I 4.0
12. Do you need a business ecosystem?	Pidun U., Reeves M., Schüssler M. [3]	2019	BCG	Ecosystem benefits
13. Ecosystem Value Creation and Capture: A Systematic Review of Literature and Potential Research Opportunities	Khademi B. [35]	2020	Technology innovation management review	Ecosystem attractiveness
14. Entrepreneurial growth in digital business ecosystems: an integrated framework blending the knowledge—based view of the firm and business ecosystems	Chen A., Lin Y., Mariani M., Shou Y., Zhang Y. [69]	2023	The journal of technology transfer	Using knowledge as motivation- ecosystem perspective
15. How to Develop a Digital Ecosystem: a Practical Framework	De Leon O.V. [11]	2019	Technology innovation management review	How to attract (motivate) participants- ecosystem perspective
16. Innovation ecosystems	Thomas L. and Autio E. [67]	2020		Ecosystem dynamics (resilience)
17. Innovation ecosystems as a service: Exploring the dynamics between corporates & start-ups in the context of a corporate coworking space	Aumüller-Wagner S. and Baka V. [103]	2023	Scandinavian journal of management	Value co-creation- attraction of stakeholders
18. Knowledge transfer in open innovation A classification framework for healthcare ecosystems	Secundo G., Toma A., Schiumma G., Passiante G. [67]	2019	Business process management journal	Motivations leading to activities-healthcare ecosystems
19. Motives and resources for value co-creation in a multi-stakeholder ecosystem: A managerial perspective	Pera R., Occhiocupo N., Clarke J. [9]	2016	Journal of business research	Stakeholders’ motivations
20. Open innovation in SMEs: Exploring inter-organizational relationships in an ecosystem	Radziwon A., Bogers M. [16]	2019	Technological forecasting and social change	Drivers for collaboration- innovation (motivations can be excluded and are not stated clearly)
21. Orchestrating ecosystems: a multi-layered Framework	Autio E. [67]	2022	Innovation: organization and management	Ecosystem orchestration- ecosystem benefits
22. Prospecting non-fungible tokens in the digital economy: Stakeholders and ecosystem, risk and opportunity	Wilson K.B., Karg A., Ghaderi H. [104]	2022	Business horizons	Stakeholders relationships
23. Platform ecosystems as meta-organizations: Implications for platform strategies	Kretschmer T., Leiponen A., Schilling M., Vasudeva G. [105]	2020	Strategic management journal	Ecosystem motivations versus traditional organizations
24. Strategies for creating and capturing value in the emerging ecosystem economy	Davidson S., Harmer M., Marshall A. [70]	2015	Strategy and leadership	Complexity and orchestration as ecosystem motivations
25. The Nature of the Co-Evolutionary Process: Complex Product Development in the Mobile Computing Industry’s Business Ecosystem	Liu G., Rong K. [76]	2015	Group and organization management	Value co-creation benefits (co-vision, co-design, co-creation- > innovation)
26. The resource-based view in business ecosystems: A perspective on the determinants of a valuable resource and capability	Gueler M.S., Schneider S. [106]	2021	Journal of business research	Value co-creation and resource acquisition as motivations
27. The role of social platforms in transforming service ecosystems	Letaiafa S.B., Edvardsson B., Tronvoll B. [63]	2016	Journal of business research	Emotional motivations (social ecosystems)
28. The Sharing Economy Globalization Phenomenon: A Research Agenda	Parente R.C., Geleilate J.M.G., Rong K. [71]	2018	Journal of international management	Internationalization as motivation
29. The Transformational Impact of Blockchain Technology on Business Models and Ecosystems: A Symbiosis of Human and Technology Agents	Schneider S., Leyer M. and Tate M. [107]	2020	IEEE transactions on engineering management	Ecosystem attractiveness
30. What Is an Ecosystem? Incorporating 25 Years of Ecosystem Research	Bogers M., Sims J., West J. [16]	2019	Meeting of the academy management	Goals of ecosystem members, the network of relations between these members, and the interdependence of their respective goals

).

4. Results

The analysis of the selected body of academic and industry artifacts uncovered several insights with regard to the hypothesis of this research effort.

First, the number of articles that were focused on the factors affecting the decision-making process of an organization for joining a business ecosystem is extremely low (two articles). This does not come as a surprise given that (a) the field of business ecosystems has received consistent attention mostly in the last 5 years, and (b) most research efforts are currently focused on exploring the run-time, operational challenges for business ecosystems.

Second, increasing the number of perspectives of an organization about the benefits of joining a business ecosystem uncovered additional decision-making factors. These perspectives are captured in

Table 4. Mapping of the number of articles and their content.

Various Perspectives of an Organization About the Benefits of Joining a Business Ecosystem	Number of Articles
Focus on decision-making factors	2
Existing relationships	7
Attracting ecosystem participants—from the ecosystem’s perspective	11
Generic business ecosystem benefits	12

. Certain studies (seven articles) reverse-engineered the identification of such factors based on relationships that an organization develops after joining a business ecosystem. Another set of articles (11 in total) focused solely on the perspective of a business ecosystem that aims to attract organizations to join it. There were also several articles (12 in total) that considered generic benefits of participation in business ecosystems as decision-making factors for joining an ecosystem.

Third, these perspectives are of single focus: either relate to the candidate organization or to the business ecosystem. As a result, the decision-making factors described in these articles lack the wider context—a decision to join a business ecosystem may need to balance the joint interests of at least two entities (the candidate organization and an organization that represents the business ecosystem).

Fourth, several authors refer to fundamentally similar concepts by using different ways or different terms. For instance, “shared cognition” was identified by four distinct papers as a decision-making factor, under different terminologies: Valdez-de-Leon [11] referred to it as creating a community and exchanging ideas and fostering collaboration; Pera et al. [9] described it as communication and shared identity; Letaifa et al. [63] mentioned it as an emotional shared resource; and Bogers et al. [16] termed it the intrinsic motivation of co-operative relationships.

The above observations partially support the tested hypothesis. Indeed, the quantity of decision-making factors can be increased as more perspectives on why organizations join ecosystems are identified. Unfortunately, current research efforts in this realm exhibit two important drawbacks that affect the quality of the identified factors: (a) different terms are used for similar or identical factors, resulting in conceptual ambiguity and distortion of the actual quantity of decision-making factors; (b) focusing only on the interests of a candidate organization or a business ecosystem without considering potential synergies or conflicts among them may result in biased factors.

The authors believe that the above explains the important limitations of current research activities in terms of (a) identifying isolated decision-making factors that an organization can consider for joining a business ecosystem and (b) falling short of developing frameworks that can provide a structured analysis, interpretation, and practical use of such factors.

5. Discussion

To address these limitations and contribute to research in this field, the authors’ activities have been focusing on balancing the needs of (a) organizations to make better decisions when considering joining a business ecosystem and (b) a business ecosystem to select the ‘best fit’ organizations that align with its strategic intent and can contribute to its operational excellence. The result is the creation of a framework for vetting participation in business ecosystems, comprising three core components: motivations, prerequisites, and ecosystem attractiveness. In order to make sure that participation would fit with their strategic objective, organizations must first determine their own “motivations” for joining. They also need to determine if they fulfill the “prerequisites” needed to successfully fit into the strategic and operational framework of the ecosystem. Organizations also need to take into account “ecosystem attractiveness”, comparing several ecosystems to see which best suits their requirements. It is important to note that this is a bi-directional process: a business ecosystem needs to ensure that an organization can deliver on “prerequisites” while promoting its own “ecosystem attractiveness” to potential participants.

5.1. Motivations

One key step of the decision-making process for a firm considering joining a business ecosystem is assessing its own motivations to join it, i.e., its ambitions, goals, and needs for value creation that cannot be met by its intrinsic capabilities alone.

Table 5. Extracted motivations and grouped motivations from included papers.

Papers	Motivations	Essential Motivations
Valdez-de-Leon O., 2019 [11]	Reputation	Reputation enhancement
Pera et al., 2016 [9]	Reputation enhancement
Autio E., 2022 [64]	Indirect network effects (reputation)
Kar et al., 2018 [65]	➢ Social motivations	Social impact
Elia et al., 2020 [66]	➢ Socially relevant initiatives
Letaifa et al., 2016 [63]	➢ Social and humanitarian motivations
Secundo et al., 2019 [67]	➢ Social motivations
Kar et al., 2018 [65]	Diversification	Diversification
Elia et al., 2020 [66]	New digital solutions
Kar et al., 2018 [65]	Standardization
Valdez-de-Leon O., 2019 [11]	➢ The better the ecosystem, the more difficult it is to be replicated	Driving consistency
Wieringa et al., 2019 [68]	➢ Access new customers
Autio E., 2022 [64]	➢ Access a large customer audience
Valdez-de-Leon O., 2019 [11]	➢ Monetize developments
Valdez-de-Leon O., 2019 [11]	Create a community: exchange of ideas and fostering collaboration	Shared cognition
Pera et al., 2016 [9]	Communication shared identity
Letaifa et al., 2016 [63]	Emotional shared resource
Bogers et al., 2019 [16]	Intrinsic motivations/co-operative relationships
Secundo et al., 2019 [67]	➢ Improve research activities	Experimentation
Pera et al., 2016 [9]	➢ Experimentation
Chen et al., 2023 [69]	Access to knowledge- knowledge sharing	Mapping practices
Pera et al., 2016 [9]	Encounter mapping practices
Davidson et al., 2015 [70]	Level of complexity
Valdez-de-Leon O., 2019 [11]	Open door for feedback
Pera et al., 2016 [9]	➢ Formalized shared processes	Formalized processes
Davidson et al., 2015 [70]	➢ Level of orchestration
Pera et al., 2016 [9]	Relationship	Networking
Parente et al., 2018 [71]	Internationalization
Wieringa et al., 2019 [68]	➢ Stay up to date, be competitive	Continuous learning
Pera et al., 2016 [9]	➢ Develop individual characteristics

captures the variety of motivations that were identified in the above-described systematic study. The first column presents the selected papers, and the second column lists the terms referring to motivations in the context of each selected paper. As stated before, some terms represent, in essence, the same motivation. For this reason, the authors distilled the motivations of the second column into 10 essential motivations, shown in the third column of the table.

The authors then explored the existence of potential relationships among the essential motivations. As the latter can be considered relevant to organizational needs, the authors drew parallels with Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs [72].

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a motivational theory in psychology comprising a five-tier model of human needs, often depicted as hierarchical levels within a pyramid. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs includes physiological needs, the needs for safety and security, the need for belongingness, the need for self-esteem, and the need for self-actualization [72]. Linking Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to the motivations for joining a business ecosystem can provide valuable insights into the various reasons that drive organizations to become part of such ecosystems. The result is the development of a three-tiered pyramid of motivations (see Figure 3). The bottom tier comprises motivations that reflect an organization’s desire to join a business ecosystem to ‘test the waters’, a complementary strategy to its existing portfolio of strategic options. The middle tier includes motivations for boosting an organization’s capabilities to contribute to the execution of a collaboration-based strategy with other organizations. Finally, the top tier can be linked to an organization’s fundamental strategic goals that can be realized by its participation in a business ecosystem, such as diversification or making an impact on society. It is important to note that the three tiers do not represent a strict hierarchy of dependencies among motivations. It is rather a map that can help an organization assess its ambition and readiness, as part of its decision-making process to join a business ecosystem.

The ambidexterity tier comprises the following motivations:

Experimentation: Multi-actor co-creation is motivated by the desire to experiment and create new products or services within a business ecosystem, as well as extending beyond its boundaries. Participants aim to blend solutions and tools from other actors and apply them in their specific context [9]. Additionally, value co-creation exposes participants to diverse perspectives and ideas that can foster creativity and provide access to resources for testing new ideas [67].

Continuous learning: Multi-actor value co-creation provides opportunities for skill development and learning from experienced professionals and organizations within the ecosystem [9,68].

Driving consistency: Business ecosystem participants bring along their (unique) capabilities as resources/products/services/solutions that they can contribute to the business ecosystem. To gain wider acceptance, they may aim to transform these capabilities into de facto standards. This push for standardization can work in their favor, helping them gain access to a broader customer base. Access to information, a key component of value co-creation, plays an important role in enabling this standardization process [64,65,68].

The Collaboration Agility tier comprises the following motivations:

Networking: Co-creation in a business ecosystem is driven by the opportunities to connect and collaborate with potential suppliers, customers, and investors. The process of building relationships can open doors to new partnerships, alliances, and even access to other business ecosystems. Stronger connections between ecosystem participants increase the likelihood of exchanging information, sharing expectations, forming coalitions, and offering mutual support, sharing resources during challenging times [9].

Shared cognition: Effective multi-centered communication allows actors to establish a collective identity within a business ecosystem [11]. This shared identity further serves as a foundation for consensus and coordination [73].

Mapping practices: Due to the potentially diverse background of participants in a business ecosystem (e.g., different values and goals), conflicts in business ecosystems are inherent. By mapping conflicting elements, the diverse capabilities of ecosystem participants can be organized into resource integration processes, leading to increased collaboration and higher quality value creation [9,69].

Formalized processes: Multi-stakeholder co-creation is facilitated through structured shared processes, overseen by specialized teams, and guided by a designated decision-maker. Implementation involves regular interactions among ecosystem participants, encouraging both structured and informal engagement [9]. Access to shared services, such as marketing, logistics, and customer support, can also reduce operational costs, offer opportunities to scale operations more efficiently, and reduce individual risks by sharing risks and responsibilities [71].

The strategic leverage tier comprises the following motivations:

Reputation enhancement: The positive reputation of a business ecosystem may boost the recognition of each participant, serving as a motivation for collaboration [9] and driving the relevant decision-making process [73]. Furthermore, being associated with a reputable ecosystem enhances the credibility, trustworthiness, and visibility of a participating organization, leading to increased exposure to potential customers, investors, and collaborators [67].

Social impact: Business ecosystem participants can be driven by their deeper goal of community improvement and development. For example, they may be motivated to adopt sustainable business practices and environmentally friendly initiatives. Finally, business ecosystems might provide the opportunity to participate in social impact projects [63,65,66,67].

Diversification: Business ecosystem participants aim to tap into unexplored market opportunities by creating specialized solutions across different industrial sectors [65]. To achieve this, organizations joining a business ecosystem must possess specialized knowledge and skills, which are crucial for leveraging these opportunities. The creation and integration of diverse resources play a significant role in enabling participating organizations to accomplish this goal.

In conclusion, the proposed approach to an organization’s motivations as a decision-making factor expands upon previous studies in the following ways:

(a)

It offers a clear and unambiguous categorization of previously overloaded decision-making factors;

(b)

It captures relationships among motivations as a unique three-tiered pyramid of motivations, based on the logic of Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs.

From a practitioner’s viewpoint, the proposed approach on motivations can be used as a map to help an organization clarify its intentions on whether to join a business ecosystem, based on a manageable, unambiguous set of motivations.

5.2. Prerequisites

Motivations capture an organization’s own incentives to join a business ecosystem. The latter, though, may have certain minimum requirements with regard to fundamental ecosystem activities for its successful operation. A further examination of the included studies from the systematic mapping study revealed two such activities [7,26,69,74,75], which the authors refer to as prerequisites: value co-creation and resource capitalization. It is important to note that a key step in the decision-making process of an organization for joining a business ecosystem is to align motivations with prerequisites. If that is not feasible, the organization may have a clear negative sign about engaging in such a shift in its strategy.

Regarding the aforementioned key activities, value co-creation refers to shared vision and collaboration with other ecosystem participants (a) to develop and deliver innovative products and services [76,77] and (b) to systematically gain insights about dynamic and complex customer needs [78]. These benefits must be balanced against potential risks, such as dissatisfaction with sharing revenues across participants.

Historically, the concept of “value” has been associated with the creation and distribution of tangible goods [60]. However, there has been a shift from supplier-driven value chains to value networks [79]. This broader, more systemic and transdisciplinary perspective on value co-creation defines it as “the joint, collaborative, concurrent, peer-like process of producing new value, both materially and symbolically” [80]. In practical terms, the value co-creation process is initiated when ecosystem participants converge around shared interests in innovation [81]. Refs. [79,82] in their seminal work on service systems introduced the service-dominant (S-D) logic: value is always co-created through reciprocal and joint interactions between providers and beneficiaries, involving the integration of resources and the application of competences. Service, in this context, refers to the application of knowledge and skills by one entity for the benefit of another, with value being collaboratively created through interactive exchanges [82]. In this context, customers and business ecosystem participants co-create value: ecosystem participants contribute their knowledge and skills to the production and branding of services and/or goods, while customers apply their own knowledge and skills in utilizing these goods within their personal or organizational context [83].

The second fundamental activity within a business ecosystem that was identified by the authors’ systemic mapping study is resource capitalization, i.e., the reciprocal use and exchange of resources. In order to (a) give the ecosystem a competitive advantage and (b) guarantee its long-term sustainability, this activity entails both providing and gaining access to resources [84]. In general, resources can be “anything that could be considered a strength or capability of a given firm” [85], encompassing both assets and capabilities. According to resource-advantage theory [86], resources include both tangible and intangible entities available to the organization, aiding in the effective and efficient production of a value proposition. Resources can be categorized into financial (e.g., cash reserves), physical (e.g., production equipment), legal (e.g., copyrights), human (e.g., skills and knowledge), organizational (e.g., culture), informational (e.g., market research), and relational (e.g., supplier relationships [87].

For firms, acquiring new resources is essential, e.g., exploiting technological breakthroughs can provide access to global markets. As a result, many organizations are becoming more and more interested in investigating novel techniques for acquiring resources [88]. Business ecosystems provide organizations with new ideas, knowledge, skills, and technologies from their external environment. In particular, knowledge and technology transfer are facilitated through value co-creation processes and ecosystem development [89].

In this context, the resource capitalization activity can be understood in two stages:

Stage 1—resource acquisition: An organization seeking to participate in a business ecosystem identifies the specific requirements for a needed resource [90]. From a value perspective, resource acquisition involves traditional value-in-exchange transactions [60].

Stage 2—resource integration: An ecosystem participant integrates the acquired resources with its own to develop value propositions. This process improves the participant’s overall situation, indicating that service value has been co-created [78].

It is important to note that an organization does not need to own a resource to benefit from it; access is sufficient, although resource acquisition and integration are two common processes. Business ecosystems are thus created to allow participating organizations to gain access to each other’s resources and to co-create value [91]. In turn, the intensity of value co-creation combined with resource capitalization determines the role that each ecosystem participant will be allocated for optimizing its contribution to the operational excellence of the ecosystem [78].

From the framework’s design viewpoint, this is a key observation that defines the relationship between two of the proposed framework’s core components: the motivations of an organization to join a business ecosystem must be aligned with prerequisites, integrating the latter into its decision-making process and potentially refining its motivations.

In conclusion, introduction of prerequisites in the proposed framework enriches previous studies as follows: (a) it brings certain key requirements of common interest to both a candidate organization and a business ecosystem into the decision-making process of the candidate organization, instead of accounting for these requirements as afterthoughts; (b) it makes the candidate organization’s decision-making process realistic; misalignment of motivations and prerequisites should be considered a ‘red flag’ that may drive the candidate organization to pivot its decision-making process towards another business ecosystem; and (c) both (a) and (b) improve the quality of the decision-making process by accounting early for potentially conflicting decision-making factors.

5.3. Ecosystem Attractiveness

The alignment of motivations and prerequisites may lead to a refinement of an organization’s motivations to join a business ecosystem. A final decision will require the matching of the refined set of motivations against specific characteristics of one or more business ecosystems of interest to the organization.

These ecosystem-specific characteristics are defined by the authors as ecosystem attractiveness: the overall appeal and favorable conditions of a business ecosystem for organizations to operate within. At a strategic level, ecosystem attractiveness may refer to the ecosystem’s vision and its potential for sustainable, long-term value creation. At an operating level, it may encompass functional characteristics of a business ecosystem’s modus operandi.

The attractiveness of a business ecosystem is primarily linked to its strategic attributes, which collectively shape its capacity for future readiness. Key strategic attributes, such as strategic agility, not only enhance the ecosystem’s current appeal to potential ecosystem participants but also position it to effectively anticipate and respond to future market dynamics [92].

Ecosystem attractiveness is also intertwined with the ecosystem’s operational activities, which are fundamental in determining its efficiency and reliability. From the viewpoint of a potential ecosystem participant, the ecosystem’s operational characteristics demonstrate its ability to foster cooperation, innovation, and scalability, while managing the intricacies of multi-actor collaboration [37]. The authors have identified a number of these characteristics in a parallel research effort on role-based management of business ecosystems [78]. Certain characteristics can be redefined in the context of the proposed vetting framework to provide baseline, benchmark characteristics of ecosystem attractiveness, as described below.

Enterprise processes refer to the form of knowledge that an organization is capable of utilizing to operate efficiently. An attractive ecosystem ensures that these processes are streamlined and interoperable across participants [93,94], helping them to adjust to shifting market conditions. From an ecosystem viewpoint, the ability to coordinate and apply enterprise process knowledge is essential for sustaining its competitiveness and for promoting its innovation capacity. From the viewpoint of a potential ecosystem participant, the ecosystem’s capacity to provide value reliably at scale can be shown by its management and coordination of enterprise processes.

The latter are specifically dependent on the availability of collaboration knowledge and skills within the business ecosystem to facilitate cooperation. Participants must be able to collaborate across organizational boundaries, exchange insights, and jointly generate value. By providing them with the tools they need to succeed in a multi-actor setting, an ecosystem that supports training, knowledge-sharing platforms, and collaborative tools may enhance its attractiveness. In general, ecosystem attractiveness can be greatly influenced by how much an ecosystem leverages its participants’ capacity to use their respective expertise to collaboratively turn resources into unique value propositions [21]. Hence, participants may find a business ecosystem more appealing as a result of its emphasis on collaborative resource mobilization and configuration to satisfy the changing demands of its participants and customers.

To achieve the above, basic infrastructure must be provided by a business ecosystem in terms of procedures that regulate active participation, what the authors define as engagement. Engagement refers to the existence of benefit-sharing contractual agreements, as well as performance metrics for evaluating and continuously enhancing each participant’s contributions [78]. It may also include moral and legal frameworks that dictate how ecosystem resources can be accessed, shared, and utilized. By providing an internally regulated environment, an ecosystem signals to potential participants that they can have transparency on what will be required from them, what will be enforced, and what is deemed ‘fair’ within the ecosystem. Hence, a well-regulated ecosystem that maintains fairness and transparency can communicate to potential participants that it values trust, equity, and inclusion as key pillars of collaboration within it.

At the same time, the focus on collaboration within a business ecosystem cannot be maintained without extensive use of technology, what the authors define as collaborative IT platforms. Data transparency, application-level integration, and shared information flows are important dependencies of the ecosystem attractiveness characteristics described above and a key success factor for a business ecosystem’s successful operation [95,96]. Hence, the provision of a collaboration-enhancing digital infrastructure within a business ecosystem can act as a loyalty magnet for potential participants.

In conclusion, defining ecosystem attractiveness as a combination of strategic and operational elements of a business ecosystem extends previous studies as follows: (a) it helps candidate organizations to appreciate upfront not just alignment of interests with a business ecosystem but also the realities of operating within that ecosystem before it joins it; (b) it captures a ‘match against’ relationship between motivations and ecosystem attractiveness, thus creating further interconnections among the three core components of the proposed framework.

6. Conclusions

Understanding an organization’s decision-making factors with regard to joining a business ecosystem is essential for both the ecosystem’s welfare as well as for the benefit of the candidate organization. The latter must carefully evaluate how ecosystem participation fits into their long-term objectives, taking into account both the benefits and the requirements for a successful integration. At the same time, business ecosystems must set clear standards and expectations in order to attract and retain participants who support their operational and strategic goals.

Addressing this challenge has been an ongoing focus of several research efforts, but the results are underwhelming. The authors followed a systematic mapping study (SMS) approach to define and refine a research hypothesis related to the quantity/quality of factors that an organization needs to consider before joining a business ecosystem. The results of this approach were twofold: (a) the research hypothesis was partially supported, raising, however, further questions on the quality of the resulting factors; (b) to address the latter, a framework was developed by the authors to capture a systems viewpoint on decision-making factors and their relationships.

The overall result is a number of contributions to the stated research question and related hypothesis, as discussed throughout this article. In particular, this research effort (a) adds to a limited number of systematic mapping studies about business ecosystems; (b) captures relationships among motivations as a unique three-tiered pyramid of motivations, based on the logic of Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs; (c) makes the candidate organization’s decision-making process realistic, i.e., misalignment of motivations and prerequisites should be considered a ‘red flag’ that may drive the candidate organization to pivot its decision-making process towards another business ecosystem; (d) captures a ‘match against’ relationship between motivations and ecosystem attractiveness, thus creating further interconnections among the three core components of the proposed framework; and (e) captures requirements of all entities involved in a ‘dialog’ for ecosystem participation.

Future Directions

It is important to note that the proposed framework (the ‘vocabulary’) is not by itself enough to enable the aforementioned complex ‘dialogs’. It needs to be accompanied by a structured way for developing ‘sentences’, thus establishing a full-blown ‘language’/vetting mechanism for business ecosystem participation. This is part of ongoing and future research work by the authors on developing a match-making mechanism between a business ecosystem and potential participating organizations, based on the proposed framework. The end goal is to develop a suite of practical tools that can guide business ecosystems to handle not just fairly fixed ‘dialogs’ when a joining is negotiated, but also dynamic ‘dialogs’ at ecosystem’s run time, e.g., when a reconfiguration occurs (a participant leaves or is replaced by a new one). Such real-life events can affect the remaining participating organizations and their original decision to join, thus raising important new research questions on the re-evaluation of motivations, prerequisites, and/or ecosystem attractiveness.