Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100473

Journal of Innovation
& Knowledge
ht t p s: // w w w . j our na ls .e l se vi e r .c om /j ou r na l -o f - in no va t i on -a n d- kn owl e dg e

Peer innovation as an open innovation strategy for balancing competition

and collaboration among technology start-ups in an innovation
ecosystem
Simonetta Primarioa, Pierluigi Rippaa, Giustina Secundob,*
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, University Federico II, Piazzale Tecchio, N° 80 80125 Napoli, Italy
b
Department of Engineering, University LUM Giuseppe Degennaro, Strada Statale 100, 70100 Casamassima, BA, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article History: Start-ups, as small, new companies, suffer from liabilities of size and lack of experience when entering mar-
Received 6 January 2023 ket competition. Research has suggested that relationships with other organisations might be a solution to
Accepted 11 March 2024 balance such liabilities. While several studies underline the importance of relationships between start-ups
Available online xxx
and large organisations within an Innovation ecosystem, few still analyse the relevance of coopetitive rela-
tionships among start-ups. Coopetitive relationships describe “hybrid activity” of simultaneous cooperation
Keywords:
and competition among firms while focusing on value creation within an innovation ecosystem. Moving
Innovation ecosystem
from a case study review, we analyse how start-ups manage the balance between cooperation and competi-
Peer innovation
Open innovation
tion among peers when belonging to an innovation ecosystem. We call this peer innovation. Our findings pro-
Coopetition Strategy pose a framework for evidence about innovative start-ups’ primary motivations, managerial mechanisms,
Cooperation and peer innovation strategy practices. Implications for theory define a novel paradigm that start-ups estab-
Start-ups lish to cooperate and compete at the same time while being part of an incubator.
© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. This
is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Introduction technology development and innovation.” Other scholars defined

innovation ecosystem as all the joint value creating activities per-
Innovative start-ups, often characterized as young, high-tech formed by an evolving network of actors integrating their products
firms with significant growth potential (Passaro et al., 2020), repre- and services on a digital technology platform (Dedehayir et al., 2018;
sent pivotal actors in shaping the future landscape of economic activ- Jacobides et al., 2018; Romano et al., 2014). Since innovation ecosys-
ity. Paradoxically, they are also among the most vulnerable actors in tems’ central focus is value creation, efforts need to be made to
any economy (Walsh & Cunningham, 2016). When start-ups navigate understand what different players can bring in terms of complemen-
an environment characterized by uncertainty and instability, such as tary resources and capabilities, ensuring that everyone derives bene-
economic crises or global pandemics, they need to develop relation- fit from being part of that ecosystem (Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke,
ships to react promptly and adapt their business models in response 2019). These phenomena are increasingly frequent, becoming the
to the evolving market dynamics and emergent consumer needs “normal” context in which companies and start-ups compete
(Ahn et al., 2018; Cerchione et al., 2022). The knowledge required to (Cerchione et al., 2022; Passaro et al., 2020; Romano et al., 2014).
solve a particular problem is often located outside a firm. The costs of Start-ups’ resilience and adaptability in this turbulent innovation
tapping external knowledge digital technologies are rapidly declining ecosystem can be linked to the collective behaviours observed in
(Konietzko et al., 2020; Pushpananthan & Elmquist, 2022; Yaghmaie flocks of birds in flight, a concept inspired by the pioneering studies
& Vanhaverbeke, 2019). of Craig Reynolds (1987). Reynolds emphasizes, in a flock, the direc-
Therefore, innovation ecosystems have emerged as desirable, or tion of movement results from each bird slightly adjusting its posi-
even necessary organisational forms. Jackson (2011, p. 2) defines an tion in response to nearby birds. No bird is the leader, and no bird is a
innovation ecosystem as consisting of “complex relationships formed follower. Each interacts with its nearest neighbours, and the entire
between actors and entities whose functional goal is to enable group responds to those interactions. Thus, cooperation and competi-
tion become fundamental mechanisms for survival, a means to
reduce the predatory risk posed by bigger and more powerful actors,
* Corresponding author.
much as smaller birds flock together to evade predators. This delicate
E-mail address: secundo@lum.it (G. Secundo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100473
2444-569X/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
S. Primario, P. Rippa and G. Secundo Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100473

balance between cooperation and competition offers an important few of them become the great companies of the future. In addition to
lesson for innovative start-ups, which can benefit from strategic having limited access to the resources needed to grow and expand
cooperation with other start-ups, while competing for resources and (i.e. capital, physical assets, capabilities, and technology), start-ups in
market opportunities despite their vulnerability due to their youth the early development stage lack credibility and visibility. They
and size (Corvello et al., 2023; Inekwe, 2019; Margherita et al., 2020). encounter difficulties in acquiring customers and scaling rapidly (Lar-
This could be a promising opportunity for applying Open Innovation kin & O’Halloran, 2018). Start-ups are inherently agile, innovative,
(OI) strategies to analyse collaborations organised between large and flexible, with the ability to change by demonstrating resilience
companies and start-ups. Over the years, they have generated differ- and business agility (Margherita et al., 2020).
ent types of programs such as accelerators, incubators, contamination Scholars note that start-ups, more than other forms of organisa-
Labs, innovation hubs, and the venture capital model (Giglio et al., tions, by definition need to open their innovation processes to incor-
2023; Kohler, 2016; Rippa & Secundo, 2019; Steiber & Al€ange, 2020; porate knowledge flows. These may originate from or be co-
Secundo et al., 2020, 2021). These models are continuously evolving, produced with external stakeholders who interact in specific social,
giving rise to emerging types of (sustainable) innovation ecosystems economic, and cultural contexts (Chesbrough & Bogers, 2014; Hui-

(Avila-Robinson et al., 2022). zingh, 2011) to develop new solutions and prototypes.
Although several studies underline the importance of relation- Within a competitive paradigm (Porter, 1985, 1980), companies
ships between start-ups and large organisations within an innovation focus on maximizing their interests and outperforming other market
ecosystem, few studies still analyse the relevance of the coopetitive players at their expense (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000). Value chain activi-
relationships among start-ups in the Innovation ecosystem. These are ties are considered the cost drivers that can influence the firm’s rela-
considered significant since they describe simultaneous cooperation tive cost position, hence the potential of a competitive advantage. In
and competition among start -ups while focusing on value creation the transaction cost theory, Williamson (1985) assumed that the
(Secundo et al., 2019). Therefore, it thus becomes relevant to under- mechanism of competition reduces transaction costs between par-
stand and analyse the factors that allow start-ups to be resilient and ties. Barney (1991) explained that firms’ performance depends on
react in situations of uncertainty and instability, collaborating while their resource-base and that the accumulation of rare, valuable, non-
maintaining their aim to be competitive even if they are part of the substitutable, and hard-to imitate resources is the basis of the com-
same innovation ecosystem. petitive advantage.
Framed in the above premise, our research attempts to provide an In the global competitive scenario, collaboration or cooperation,
answer to the following question: RQ: What motivations, managerial such as alliances, joint ventures, networks, and buyer-supplier rela-
mechanisms, and practices allow start-ups to cooperate and compete at tionships, are crucial in enhancing a company’s performance
the same time, following an open innovation approach within an inno- (Bouncken et al., 2021). Working together can either enhance or
vation ecosystem? diminish the capabilities necessary for global competitiveness
Adopting a qualitative research approach, specifically in a case (Hamel, 1991) Engaging in collaborative endeavours, such as strategic
study design as outlined by Yin (2017)), we propose a framework to alliances with external partners, offers an opportunity to assimilate
demonstrate how start-ups manage the balance between cooperation external knowledge and expertise. Khanna et al. (1998) introduced a
and competition when establishing relationships among peers. In an comprehensive framework that simultaneously encompasses both
innovation ecosystem context where an Incubator acts as orchestra- competitive and cooperative behaviours exhibited by companies.
tor of innovation, we call this peer innovation. Findings will propose Collaboration among rivals serves as a means to gain access to novel
a framework to demonstrate innovative start-ups’ primary motiva- technologies and skills, share expenses and risks, and swiftly regain
tions, managerial mechanisms, and practices of a peer innovation competitiveness with moderate effort (Hamel et al., 1989). Despite
strategy. Implications for theory defines a novel paradigm that start- the potential benefits of collaborating with competitors, firms face
ups establish to cooperate and compete at the same time while being the challenge of balancing the transfer of knowledge, skills and com-
part of an incubator. petencies derived from the relationship (Hamel et al., 1989). Disad-
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, it will vantages deriving from collaboration or cooperation can be ascribed
review the literature about cooperation and collaboration with a to partners’ diverging or misaligned interests (Gulati et al., 2012). To
focus on start-ups. Then, Section 3 presents the research method; reduce the opportunism of self-interest, formal and relational gover-
Section 4 and Section 5 describe findings and the novel conceptuali- nance structures are proposed as remedies to control collaboration/
sation of peer innovation as a suitable approach to OI for start-ups. cooperation risks.
Finally, section 6 concludes the paper with implications for theory The collaboration/cooperation strategy presents many advantages
and practice. and benefits as well as disadvantages and risks. It starts from the four
principles summarized by Hamel et al. (1989) (Collaboration is a
Background competition in a different form; Harmony is not the most important
measure of success; Cooperation has limits, companies must defend
Cooperation and collaboration among start-ups within innovation against competitive compromise; Learning from partners is para-
ecosystems mount). Accordingly, Brandenburger and Nalebuff (1997) opened the
door to a new concept of cooperation between competitors: the coo-
A start-up is a small business at an embryonic stage of its life cycle petition strategy.
that foresees achievement of profits through a promising innovative
capability (Scott & Bruce, 1987). Start-ups are an essential engine of Start-ups’ coopetition strategy for value creation within innovation
economic systems’ industrial change and growth and a strategic ecosystems
source of job creation and technological innovation (Davidsson et al.,
1994). The creation of a start-up is not a single event but a process The coopetition strategy (Bengtsson & Kock, 2014) is an emerging
that can take many years to occur. It can be divided into phases: birth strategy that simultaneously addresses cooperative and competitive
(pre-seed and seed), early stage and growth, expansion and exit (or elements. Coopetition can be considered a crucial pillar for start-ups’
decline). This life cycle only results in success (Passaro et al., 2020) competitive advantage (Morris et al., 2007). Furthermore, the simul-
for few start-ups. While many start-ups do not survive beyond their taneous conditions of competition and cooperation can offer a new
first few years (globally, more than 60 % of start-ups fail in their early way of sharing ideas, integrating external capabilities, or combining
stages) (Mukti et al., 2019), others continue to grow, although only a complementary resources (Gast et al., 2019). The role of the social
2
S. Primario, P. Rippa and G. Secundo Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100473

dimension of creativity is particularly relevant; it reflects the produc- expertise. Until now, many studies have investigated collaboration
tion of new ideas, approaches, or actions of a group of actors involved and cooperation strategies between small and large firms, neglecting
in the OI process through exchanging, sharing, generating, and com- collaboration among start-ups (Giglio et al., 2023). In addition to lim-
bining knowledge (Westlund et al., 2014). ited access to the resources needed to grow and expand (i.e. capital,
Start-ups are typically included in an innovation ecosystem where physical assets, capabilities, technology, etc.), start-ups in early devel-
knowledge management flows among firms affect the start-up com- opment stages lack credibility and visibility, encountering difficulties
pany’s internal strategic decisions. The benefits of belonging to an in acquiring customers and scaling rapidly (Larkin and O’Halloran,
innovation ecosystem become more evident when the market 2018). For facing these difficulties, start-ups choose to involved
changes at an unprecedented rate and large companies respond within an incubator of technology-intensive companies. Therefore it
slowly to environmental changes (Prashantham & Kumar, 2019). becomes pivotal to effectively understanding the motivations of
With complementary characteristics, start-ups are characterized by start-ups for their participation in the incubator, how knowledge
limited financial, organisational, and human resource availability moves across the boundaries created by specialized knowledge
(Inekwe, 2019). domains characterizing each start-up (Carlile & Rebentisch, 2003)
One valuable aspect of the ecosystem perspective is the focus on and which managerial systems behind such processes are activated
optimisation of value created and distributed among several partici- to allow start-ups to cooperate and compete at the same time to cre-
pants (Ritala et al., 2013). Researchers typically distinguish between ate a suitable environment for innovative start-ups (Zobel, 2017).
value creation and value capture (Lepak et al., 2007). Value creation This represent the research gap behind our study.
is linked to collaboration, sharing, and creativity, while value capture
is related to competition, closeness, and control. In the innovation
ecosystem, according to the OI perspective, the value firms generate
is divided by pecuniary and non-pecuniary, in line with the organisa- Research method
tion’s business model (Chesbrough & Bogers, 2014). This is based on
the presence or absence of financial resources (Dahlander & Gann, To understand the motivations, managerial mechanisms, and practi-
2010). OI processes are instrumental in network relationships (West ces that allow start-ups to cooperate and compete at the same time, fol-
& Gallagher, 2006), both for the acquisition of resources (Soetanto & lowing an open innovation approach while belonging to an innovation
van Geenhuizen, 2015) and for introduction of new products in the ecosystem, we decided to use an exploratory methodology based on a
market (Lundberg, 2013). case study design outlined by Yin (2017)). This methodology moves
Independently from the value strategy, the virtuous processes of from the reasons behind and the methods employed by start-ups when
knowledge exchange and transfer occurring in an innovation ecosystem embracing OI, making the case study an ideal choice for exploring the
through the collaboration of different actors require integration of diverse “how” and “why” aspects (Yin, 2017). Furthermore, case studies serve
perspectives, experiences, competencies, and technologies of internal and as a valuable means of empirical inquiry, allowing researchers to exam-
external partners who are motivated to contribute to the development of ine a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context (Yin, 2017,
novel ideas, concepts, and technologies (Enkel et al., 2009). p. 13). They offer a platform for theory building (Eisenhardt & Graebner,
These aspects are clearly evident when start-ups are included in a 2007) and enable in-depth investigations into complex subjects, offering
business incubator. There, the incubator’s intermediation role acts as rich and detailed insights (Miles & Huberman, 1994). While a single-
a catalyst and orchestrator of the innovation ecosystem for the incu- case study is inherently linked to its specific context, it remains a well-
bates. An incubator’s primary purpose is to support start-ups in their established method for providing in-depth, theoretical insights into
early stages with different strategies and managerial practices (Gri- exploratory phenomena (Flyvbjerg, 2006), such as the emerging field of
maldi & Grandi, 2005; Mian et al., 2016). Business models adopted by OI (Remneland Wikhamn & Styhre, 2023).
incubators supporting incubates’ growth are varied and may oscillate Once we defined the scope of our research based on the relevant
based on the incubator’s focus: specialisation vs. generalisation academic literature at the intersection of OI and start-ups, we adopted a
(Mian et al., 2016). Specialist incubators may focus on start-ups in research protocol for collecting, analysing, and validating data that
specific technological domains, while generalists are more encom- allowed us to deduce an interpretative theoretical framework of peer
passing and include a variety of technological fields. innovation. Fig. 1 provides an overview of the research steps.
The ecosystem perspective of OI is opposed to the firm-centric
approach (Chesbrough, 2003), which has dominated the OI field Case selection & data collection
(Bogers et al., 2017). An ecosystem perspective highlights the innova-
tion process as involving cross-boundary interactions between a For the case selection, we adhered to the principles outlined by
diverse set of actors (Bogers et al., 2017). One valuable aspect of the Flyvbjerg (2006) regarding information-oriented selection. This
ecosystem perspective is the focus on optimisation of the value cre- method is aimed at maximizing the utility of information derived
ated and distributed among multiple participants (Ritala et al., 2013). from small samples and single cases. Our case selection process aligns
A typical academic differentiation involves distinguishing between with critical cases where the overarching goal is to obtain informa-
value generation and retention (Lepak et al., 2007). The former is tion that allows for logical deductions of the type, “If this is (not) valid
associated with elements like innovation, cooperation, and sharing, for this case, then it applies to all (no) cases.” (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 230).
while the latter pertains to control, exclusivity, and competitive In this regard, we selected the incubator “012 Factory” as a repre-
behaviours. In OI ecosystems, these two different logics must be sentative case study; it holds exceptional informational value due to
addressed and maintained over time (Chesbrough et al., 2018), even its unique characteristics among incubators. Indeed, 012 Factory is
if they are challenging to manage simultaneously (Remneland among the 45 Italian incubators certified as innovative by the Italian
Wikhamn, 2020). Ministry of Economic Development.1 It recently announced three
important facts: 1) the creation of a consortium by the incubates, 2)
Research gap
1
The concept of certified incubator was introduced by Article 25, paragraph 5 of Law
The complexity and interrelationships among these factors raise Decree 179/2012 and is defined in detail by the Ministerial Decree of December 22,
2016. Companies meeting the requirements can access certified incubator status
critical questions about start-ups’ opportunities when collaborating through self-certification by the legal representative and enjoy the related benefits by
and interacting with other start-ups to share and transfer their expe- registering in the dedicated special section of the Business Register at the Chambers of
riences, technological and intangible assets, knowledge and Commerce throughout the national territory.

3
S. Primario, P. Rippa and G. Secundo Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100473

Fig. 1. Overview of the research steps.

market stock entry, and finally 3) acquisition of the benefits deriving Data analysis & validation
from the company title.
These distinctive features position 012 Factory as a critical case, The rich data collected over the four-year period required a struc-
where insights drawn from its operations can have broader implica- tured data analysis process. In the pursuit of a rigorous data analysis
tions and permit logical deductions applicable not only to this spe- process, we implemented a collaborative approach to coding and cat-
cific situation but potentially to all cases within the domain of start- egorisation. Each author embarked on individual coding endeavours,
up and OI. generating suggested categorisations based on their interpretation of
The data collection process then consists of two key steps: the transcribed interview data.
Subsequently, we convened for intensive discussions and deliber-
 Step 1: Interviewing Incubator Managers. In the initial step, we con- ations, bringing together the individual coding outputs. These discus-
ducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with the managers of sions served as a platform for refining and integrating the diverse
012 Factory, who are the primary architects behind the con- coding perspectives into a unified categorisation framework. This col-
sortium’s formation. These interviews collectively spanned laborative effort was instrumental in harmonizing individual inter-
approximately two hours. All researchers engaged in the analysis pretations and ensuring the categorisation system’s cohesiveness.
participated in these interviews, and a diverse range of questions Through this iterative and collaborative process, we arrived at a
was posed. The interviews took place in a conducive and confi- final categorisation structure that encapsulated the essence of the
dential setting within the premises of 012 Factory. The interview recurring themes and patterns identified within the qualitative data-
questions covered a wide array of topics, including the historical set.
evolution of the incubator, its transformation from an entre-
preneurship academy to a business incubator, the rationale Deduction of an interpretative framework
behind creating the consortium, and the specific steps taken to
establish it. These semi-structured interviews aimed to elicit com- In the final phase of our research methodology, we engaged in the
prehensive insights into the incubator’s journey, motivations, and deductive process of constructing a novel innovation model. “Innova-
strategies related to formation of the consortium. After the inter- tion models” are conceptual frameworks which provide a stylised
views, the recorded files were meticulously transcribed. This was representation of the way innovation is generated. They describe the
executed with utmost care and attention to detail to ensure the reality ‘out there’ and act as lenses to view and interpret this reality.
data’s accuracy and completeness. Each interview was transcribed When they are widely shared they play a performative role (Joly et
verbatim, capturing not only the spoken words but also non-ver- al., 2010).
bal cues that may hold valuable insights. To begin, we undertook the systematic task of construct identifi-
 Step 2: Data Collection from Consortium Members. In the second cation. This process involved recognizing and naming emerging con-
step, we shifted our focus to the consortium’s founding members, structs within the qualitative dataset. These constructs represented
collecting pertinent information. To achieve this, we administered pivotal concepts and recurrent themes that surfaced during the data
a web survey to these members. The survey aimed to gather analysis phase. Thus, building upon the identified constructs, we
insights about motivations and expectations that drive start-ups developed an interpretative framework where our research findings
to become consortium members. Additionally, we sought to are organized and contextualized. Within this framework, we synthe-
acquire data that would enable us to investigate the managerial sized the emerging constructs into a cohesive structure, facilitating
mechanisms and OI practices adopted by the consortium. the integration of multifaceted insights.

4
S. Primario, P. Rippa and G. Secundo Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100473

Furthermore, we formulated an emerging research agenda as part finance the consortium through donations). The consortium is cur-
of our contribution. This agenda delineated key areas warranting fur- rently composed of nine start-ups admitted into the consortium as
ther scholarly exploration and investigation within the context of OI level A members.
practices and start-up incubation. Additionally, we generated propo- A central part of the consortium’s regulation is customer acquisi-
sitions for theory development, offering conjectural statements with tion. The customer is managed on behalf of the consortium, even if
the potential to advance theoretical understanding in the field. the acquisition results from a single company’s effort. The customer
acquired through the Consortium will be entrusted to the Consortium
companies through a Project Manager appointed by the Board of
Findings Directors. They will assign a customer’s project to Consortium mem-
bers more suitable for the regulatory conditions concerning the proj-
The case study: incubator “012 factory” ect as well as for the competencies and resources needed.
The consortium acts with a wide hi-tech services portfolio, oper-
012 Factory is among the 45 incubators recognized as “certified” ating with a business-to-business (B2B) model serving national and
by Italian law. The incubator started acting as an entrepreneurship international markets by providing digital transformation and digital
education academy about ten years ago, devoted to inspiring and services solutions for a wide range of companies in every sector.
educating people to start new businesses. Table 1 reports the identikit of the 9 start-ups involved within the
The academy concept turned into a business incubator about 012 consortium.
7 years ago, aiming to support new companies (also born thanks to
the academy by offering consultancy services, facilities, and know-
Motivations, managerial mechanisms and practices for peer innovation
how). The growth of the incubator and the success obtained by the
within the innovation ecosystem
incubates prompted the managers to plan to strategically create a
consortium of start-ups. The idea is founded on the incubator manag-
In this section, based on the research questions guiding the analy-
ers’ ability to catch an opportunity. Incubates faced a huge amount of
sis, we explore the motivations, managerial mechanisms, and practi-
difficulties in searching for new customers and benefitting from local
ces that allow start-ups to be part of the innovation ecosystem (the
and international financial opportunities. The decision to start the
consortium) while at the same time cooperating in the consortium
consortium resulted from the idea to build a new form of organisa-
and competing in the market.
tion upon this opportunity. Nine start-ups decided to accept this
challenge and become founding consortium members. The consor-
tium established an egalitarian set of rules where all the start-ups Motivations
collaborate and cooperate to increase the market power. The rela-
tions between the Consortium members must be based on loyalty A typical problem that start-ups are called to solve every day is
and correctness. the search for the combination of knowledge in a search space (Knud-
There are three different kinds of members within the consor- sen & Srikanth, 2014). Technological domains, industry classifications
tium: level A is the founders’ partners; level B is constituted by ordi- or scientific fields can represent knowledge categories. Being part of
nary members who can access the consortium upon admission a consortium helps start-ups overcome the liability of newness and
request. Finally, level C represents the supporting members (they scarcity of resources (typical of start-ups) and open engaging search

Table 1
General Information about the nine start-ups that participate in the consortium.

ID Sector Education/position of founders Mission Size/markets Stage Financing Round

1 IT 1 PhD./CTO Promote the dissemination of digital culture in 12 employees/5 consultants G Self-financing

organisations as an opportunity for change. International Market
2 IT 1 Degree/CEO Develop innovative solutions for remote control 5 employees/1 consultant E Self-financing, VC, Public funds
1 Diploma/CFO and monitoring in the areas of safety, efficiency National Market
1 Diploma /- and sustainability.
3 Service 1 Diploma/CIO COO Offer a Virtual Inspection service to promote sus- 4 employees/1 consultant G Public funds
1 Bachelor/CMO tainable practices in public procurement and National Market
compliance with national policies and priori-
ties.
4 IT 1 Master/CFO Create web applications to provide rationalisa- 8 employees/4 consultants ES Incubators/ Accelerators
1 Master/CEO tion and digitisation of production processes National Market
dedicated to micro and small businesses.
5 Consulting 1 Master/CFO CIO Support and drive growth of new companies with 5 employees/1 consultant G Self-Financing/ Bootstrapping
1 Master/COO high innovative potential, starting from the Regional and Local Market
1 Master/CTO idea of a start-up to its actual transformation
into an innovative company active on the mar-
ket.
6 Consulting 1 Master/COO Stimulate and promote the demand for innova- 4 consultants S Bootstrapping
1 Master/CMO tion of companies’ productive systems in the Regional and Local Market
paradigm of Industry 4.0.
7 IT 1 Master/CEO Create immersive solutions with a high techno- 10 Consultants ES None
logical profile to support services, experiences National Market
and sales in the building sector
8 Consulting 1 Master/CEO CIO Supporting the development of new technologi- None G None
1 Master/COO CFO cal-based firms. Regional and Local Market
9 Consulting 1 Master/CMO CIO To achieve online success, provide all the recom- 1 employee/5 consultants PS Self-financing
1 Master/CFO COO mended actions (SEO, UX/UI, Tracking, Website International Market
Maintenance).
Stage = PS (Pre-seed), Seed (S), ES (Early stage), G (Growth), E (Expansion).
Position = CEO (executive), F (finance), O (operations), T (technology), M (marketing and communications), I (innovation).

5
S. Primario, P. Rippa and G. Secundo Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100473

scenarios for local knowledge in the proximity of the firm’s current translation of knowledge, and negotiation of common meanings
knowledge. Companies belonging to the same technological domain among heterogeneous parties. In this consortium, unlike situations
(software and IT) and industry classification (consultancy) find the where innovation intermediaries such as Innocentive (www.inno-
right motivation to participate in the OI process in the consortium. centive.com) act as catalysers of boundary spanning processes, start-
On the other side, searching for external knowledge is a complex task ups go outbound as a unique organisation, sharing knowledge and
to be pursued by a single start-up. Distant search entails knowledge technologies for external technological solutions and new market
recombination (Fleming & Sorenson, 2004) that helps companies iden- opportunities. As the consortium members mentioned, the main rea-
tify disruptive innovations to achieve a competitive advantage. The con- son to enter the consortium is for “collaborative purposes.” Analysing
sortium, on the whole, empowers each single knowledge domain of the the documents and the acts of the consortium, and also the transcript
start-ups, enriching the internal knowledge domain and opening to sol- of the interviews with the incubators’ managers, we can derive the
utions unrelated to the firms’ current knowledge base. following managerial mechanisms of the consortium typical of an
As the CEO of the 012 Consortium mentioned, “We observed, after innovation ecosystem:
several years of professional activities supporting new businesses, how
start-uppers declared difficulties with entering a new market with new  Strategical alliances: Start-ups can create formal partnerships
products, .” From the start-up side, the main problem is that they “do where they outline specific objectives, roles, and responsibilities,
not have much power to negotiate. We need a wider portfolio of often with the intent of jointly entering new markets or offering
products to be competitive.” After that, incubator managers observed integrated solutions.
how every single start-up owned a little piece of knowledge and  Intellectual property and legal agreement: Start-ups can license
competencies that together could have opened new market opportu- each other’s intellectual property, patents, or proprietary technol-
nities.” One start-upper declared, “There were a lot of hurdles in finding ogies to enhance their offerings or reduce development time.
new clients. Talking with other incubates at that time, we discovered Establishing legal agreements and contracts that outline the
that some clients were searching for IT solutions we were able to solve. terms of coopetition, including dispute resolution mechanisms,
We observed how we could acquire new clients by searching in the inter- can help start-ups avoid misunderstandings and conflicts.
nal domain of clients already acquired by start-ups operating in the  Knowledge sharing: Creating mechanisms for sharing knowledge,
same physical domain of 012 Factory.” best practices, and industry insights can help start-ups learn from
Based on the interviews analysed by the authors, we deduced a each other and innovate more effectively.
set of reasons that led the companies to participate in establishment
of the consortium:
Practices
 Market expansion: in a coopetition strategy, start-ups can enter
new markets or expand their customer base more quickly and A coopetition strategy involves collaborating with start-ups or
efficiently. Collaborating with other start-ups who have presence small companies to foster innovation, share knowledge, and develop
or expertise in a specific market can be a strategic advantage. new products or services jointly. This approach can lead to faster
 Visibility: Collaborative efforts can increase the visibility of all par- innovation cycles and reduced costs. The main reason behind the
ticipating start-ups. Joint marketing campaigns, partnerships, and consortium’s creation lies in the difficulties young enterprises
shared events can draw more attention from customers, investors, encounter when entering the market and searching for new techno-
and the media. logical opportunities.
 Economy of scale: Combining forces with other start-ups can lead As the Consortium CEO states, “the start-ups decide to be part of the
to economies of scale, reducing the per-unit costs of production consortium to share their knowledge and intangible assets with their
or operation. This can make products or services more affordable peers, to identify complementary areas of collaboration. In some cases,
and competitive in the market. they feel like competitors with references to the external market, while
 Access to complementary expertise: Start-ups may not have all the within the consortium, they can share the knowledge assets and operate
necessary expertise in-house. Partnering with other start-ups can in strict collaboration.”
provide access to complementary skills, knowledge, and experi- In the case study analysis, practices that start-ups employed to
ence. This can lead to the developing more innovative and com- promote peer innovation were:
petitive products or services.
 Risk mitigation: Start-ups face high levels of uncertainty and risk.  Joint market initiatives: Start-ups in the same industry or related
By cooperating with other start-ups, they can spread and share niches can collaborate in marketing campaigns, co-host webinars,
risks associated with research and development, market entry, or or run joint social media promotions. This can help start-ups reach
new product launches. This shared risk can make it easier to a wider audience and share the costs associated with marketing
weather challenges and setbacks. efforts.
 Access to funding: Investors may be more willing to support start-  Co-design, Co-development, Co-funding: Start-ups can pool their
ups engaged in coopetition because they see the potential for syn- resources and expertise to co-develop products or solutions that
ergy and market advantage. Coopetition can also facilitate access benefit both parties. This can be particularly useful when
to larger funding opportunities for joint projects. tackling complex challenges that require diverse skill sets.
Start-ups can co-fund initiatives, such as industry conferences
or research projects. They can also jointly approach investors
Managerial mechanisms or venture capitalists to secure funding for mutual projects.
 Data sharing: Start-ups can exchange non-sensitive data to
A mechanism adopted in the consortium is oriented to balance improve their products or services. For instance, sharing anony-
the local-distance search space of knowledge. When searching for mized user data can help both parties gain insights into customer
the local domain, a specific technology need is satisfied. However, behaviour and preferences.
going distant through boundary spanning helps to identify new ways  Cross promotion: Start-ups can promote each other’s products or
to solve problems (Rosenkopf & Nerkar, 2001). The boundary span- services to their customer bases. This cross-promotion can intro-
ning mechanism enables information processing, interpretation and duce each start-up to a new set of potential customers.

6
S. Primario, P. Rippa and G. Secundo Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100473

Discussion: toward a peer innovation approach 2018; Williamson & De Meyer, 2012). Finally, the Incubator’s role
confirms that in an innovation ecosystem, the entry and exit of actors
The case study revealed several triggers that instigated the emer- is coordinated by a keystone organisation, which decides what actors
gence of novel strategy of Open innovation involving start-ups when can enter the network (Pushpananthan & Elmquist, 2022) to sustain
part of an innovation ecosystem led by a keystone organisation such the value creation process.
as an Incubator: the first trigger is related to start-ups’ motivations to
take part in an innovation ecosystem; the second refers to the mana- Practices for open innovation among start-ups
gerial and organisational mechanism coordinating all the actors
while competing and cooperating at the same time; the third factor Promoting the Consortium activities as led by the 012 Factory
is focused on the practices that create a novel form of coopetition incubator was vital for the start-ups belonging to the ecosystems,
strategy within the ecosystem. These triggers are discussed in the thanks to the collaborative value creation processes that allowed a
next sections. competitive advantage. This is in line with previous work on ecosys-
tems.
Motivations for open innovation among start-ups Findings revealed that in this ecosystem, Internet-based platforms
could also serve as intermediaries or network orchestrators linking
The first was the need for resources and competence that moti- start-uppers among them or connecting start-ups with potential fun-
vated the firm to engage in several alliances. By leveraging the coope- ders. Peer Innovation, unlike open innovation, primarily relies on the
tition strategy, the Consortium of start-ups plans to implement a “wisdom of the crowd.” In some cases the competition strategy
significant shift in its value creation and culture through creation of arises, while in other situations, cooperation strategy happens in
an Open Innovation platform working as a hub and acting as a bridge screening new start-ups offering complementary capabilities, tech-
between the company and the external environment. This approach nologies, and IP. New ventures and start-ups face difficulties exploit-
reinforces the Jacobides et al. (2018, p. 2264) definition according to ing in-house capabilities in an effective and efficient way to create
which “an ecosystem comprises a set of actors with varying degrees revenue streams and manage cost structures. They face the same dif-
of multilateral, non-generic complementarities that are not fully hier- ficulties when exploring new innovations to overcome the exponen-
archically controlled.” Start-ups’ motivations to be part of the Consor- tial development of new technology and the short life cycle of many
tium led by the 012 Factory Incubator are based on the following technology products and services (Hughes et al., 2020; Rippa et al.,
principles: a) To be effective as a consortium of start-ups, a central 2019; Secundo et al., 2019). The peer innovation approach can help
actor will engage all the start-ups as the Incubator. Its participation is start-ups overcome the difficulties of acting with an innovation ambi-
in addition to their existing workload, so the platform must be com- dexterity strategy (Voss et al., 2008; Voss & Voss, 2013), defined as
pelling and rewarding. b) To maximize effectiveness, the peer inno- the high-quality, simultaneous balance of exploration and exploita-
vation strategy must be easily customisable to conform to start-ups tion activities.
processes with the established systems of review and communica-
tion. c) Beyond generation of ideas, a key component of innovation Defining the peer innovation strategy for coopetition strategy among
success for each start-up is the right balance between the simulta- start-ups
neous competition and collaboration strategy.
We found this principle in line with the literature in which an The Ecosystem Effectuation model (Radziwon et al., 2022) affirms
innovation ecosystem enables the actors to access resources and that the ecosystem orchestrator identifies the best next step by
complementary assets. These are beyond the scope and capabilities assessing the available resources that could help to achieve the eco-
of a single firm (Adner & Kapoor, 2010; Gawer & Cusumano, 2014; system’s goal. Hence, we refer to this strategy as a peer innovation
Iansiti & Levien, 2004). approach requiring specific strategic decisions that a neutral organi-
sation, the incubator, should orchestrate and coordinate. Adopting
Managerial mechanisms for open innovation among start-ups this approach requires specific action by the orchestrator. All the
motivations, managerial mechanisms and practices revealed during
Findings reveal that the Incubator 012 factory adopts specific the case study lead to deducing a novel open innovation strategy that
organisational mechanisms to guarantee the presence of start-ups we named peer innovation. It is interpreted as a relevant strategy
that could be competitors and collaborators simultaneously to aimed at improving the coopetition and collaboration of the start-ups
improve their performance, thus overcoming difficulties generated belonging to an innovation ecosystem to overcome complex business
by the lack of resources. The selective promotion of actors and defini- dynamics, high uncertainty, aggressive market competition, lack of
tion of specific roles and procedures for the start-ups highlights the funds and needs for complementary resources. Peer innovation
Incubator 012 Factory’s position as the keystone and orchestrator in describes the strategy of the start-ups that are in the simulta-
the emerging innovation ecosystem. We therefore conclude that neous condition of competition and cooperation when belonging
Incubator 012 Factory’s ability to orchestrate the network of actors is to an innovation ecosystem where an incubator acts as catalyst,
indicative of an emerging innovation ecosystem. This is coherent offering novel way of sharing ideas, integrating external capabili-
with the ecosystem literature that acknowledges the importance of a ties, or combining complementary resources. Start-uppers use
keystone firm to coordinate activities and ensure the ecosystem’s peer innovations individually, or in combination, to exploit
overall health (Iansiti & Levien, 2004; Jacobides et al., 2018). The opportunities they identify but for which traditional resources
presence of the 012 Factory Incubator also highlights the importance and technologies are not readily available. This is especially true
of certain actors for the overall ecosystem, and the need (for a key- due to the continuous compression of the technology life cycle
stone firm) to promote these key actors (Rietveld & Eggers, 2018; (Phillips et al., 1999) and to the increasing costs to develop com-
Rietveld et al., 2019). Clarysse et al. (2014, p. 1166) suggest that the plementary products and services requiring a single start-up to
“keystone firms create platforms such as services, tools, or technolo- develop these complementarities.
gies, which are open for other players in an ecosystem to enhance A summary overview of the concept of peer innovation is depicted
their own performance.” Moreover, a keystone firm is responsible for in Fig. 2.
the ecosystem’s overall ‘health’ and ensures that value is shared Peer innovation can be an opportunity that allows start-ups to
amongst the ecosystem participants (Adner, 2017; Clarysse et al., acquire new necessary knowledge to speed up the innovation pro-
2014; Corvello et al., 2023; Iansiti & Levien, 2004; Jacobides et al., cess. The incubator adopts the mechanisms to share each start-up’s
7
S. Primario, P. Rippa and G. Secundo Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100473

Fig. 2. The Peer Innovation strategy.

knowledge and competencies in the whole innovation ecosystem. Implications for theory and practices
The knowledge is transferred smoothly from one start-up to another,
allowing the consortium to collaborate faster and more efficiently. Firstly, this study contributes to the literature about OI for start-
Intangible assets such as competencies, trademarks, and IP Intellec- ups, developing a novel approach called peer innovation interpreted
tual Property are shared to support each firm’s innovation pro- as a relevant strategy aimed at improving the coopetition and collab-
cess, providing a suitable ecosystem for the start-ups to prosper. oration of start-ups belonging to an innovation ecosystem. This ena-
In this way, the OI mechanisms developed within the Innovative bles them to overcome complex business dynamics, high
ecosystem are based on support and collaboration among peers uncertainty, aggressive market competition, lack of funds and needs
that receive a number of relevant services to increase the innova- for complementary resources. Here, the concept of peer innovation
tion practices. Furthermore, some scholars state that the emer- pertains to the approach adopted by start-ups that are involved in
gence of an ecosystem can take place in multiple ways (Romano simultaneously competitive and cooperative engagements. These
et al., 2014; Thomas et al., 2014). This is in line with the tradi- start-ups operate within an innovation ecosystem that facilitates the
tional literature model related to the emergence phases of an sharing of novel ideas, integrates external capabilities, and combines
innovation ecosystem. According to Dedehayir et al. (2018), it complementary resources with an incubator that acts as a catalyst.
may involve activities related to acquiring resources, developing Secondly, this study contributes to the literature about the evolv-
a technology, implementing rules of engagement and framing ing phase of an innovation ecosystem where peer innovation pro-
regulations. Extant literature somewhat explains the conditions cesses happen among start-ups. This is based on the idea that
(such as a new technology, changes in regulations or shifting cus- integrating internal and external sources of knowledge creates a
tomer behaviours) that prevail during the pre-formation phases combination of activities that allow start-ups in an incubator to col-
of innovation ecosystems. laborate and compete simultaneously while maintaining their
uniqueness and innovation capabilities. The joint introduction of
internal and external sources of knowledge forms synergistic and
CONCLUSION and implications complex interrelationships that are challenging to imitate. They thus
contribute to improving a firm’s competitive advantage, recognized
How start-ups approach collaboration strategies and OI in the resource base view, producing an inimitable system that
approaches in innovation ecosystem is still an open question improves itself, and creating a unique configuration that sustains and
(Spender et al., 2017). Several academic studies have proposed part- develops start-ups’ innovation capabilities (Peteraf et al., 2013; Stie-
nerships between large companies and start-ups as a means to miti- glitz & Heine, 2007).
gate the dilemmas of both parties (Giglio et al., 2023; Kurpjuweit & Thirdly, this study provides insights for policymakers. To best cap-
Wagner, 2020; Prashantham & Kumar, 2019; Weiblen & Chesbrough, ture innovation in start-ups, policymakers need to be aware of the
2015). For the same reason, start-ups face the risk of misappropria- differing types of innovators among start-ups; heterogeneity is a cru-
tion of innovation results, requiring adoption of effective knowl- cial aspect. All the start-ups belonging to an incubator have the final
edge protection mechanisms (Fierro & Pe rez, 2018). In this paper, aim to become more innovative in their industries. The critical point
we propose peer innovation as an open innovation approach to is how start-ups innovate differently, developing distinct internal
realize a coopetitive strategy while start-ups take part in an inno- and external activities. One-size-fits-all policies for stimulating start-
vation ecosystem. A peer innovation approach can be activated by up innovation do not consider the distinct array of innovation typolo-
start-ups under certain conditions of simultaneous competition gies and the associated collaboration activities. Product and process
and collaboration within an innovation ecosystem to improve innovation, separately, require different knowledge assets, knowl-
their performance in terms of competitive advantage. edge sharing, tools and initiatives for each innovation strategy.
8
S. Primario, P. Rippa and G. Secundo Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100473

Overall, the specific activities, both internal and external, that each innovation strategies. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research,
start-up can successfully implement are of great importance for poli- 28(9), 219–241.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting
cymakers. Product-oriented innovators that carry out R&D and rely from technology. Ed: Harvard Business Press.
on knowledge from markets can be stimulated with R&D voucher Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: clarifying an emerg-
funds to create an R&D activity for market intelligence, whereas ing paradigm for understanding innovation keywords. New Frontiers in Open Inno-
vation, 1–37. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2427233.
equipment renewal may be useless. On the contrary, process-ori- Chesbrough, H., Lettl, C., & Ritter, T. (2018). Value creation and value capture in open
ented innovators basically require equipment renewal to access innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(6), 930–938.
embodied knowledge, while scientific-based incentives for R&D or doi:10.1111/JPIM.12471.
Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J., & Mahajan, A. (2014). Creating value in ecosystems:
access to scientific sources are useless due to their low internal capa-
Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy,
bilities to innovate. 43(7), 1164–1176.
Fourthly, for scholars, the study of OI requires a more complete Corvello, V., Felicetti, A. M., Steiber, A., & Ala€nge, S. (2023). Start-up collaboration units
as knowledge brokers in Corporate Innovation Ecosystems: A study in the automo-
understanding of the complex taxonomy of start-ups belonging to an
tive industry. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8,(1) 100303.
incubator heterogeneity, introducing innovation typologies. Thus, Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6),
studying start-ups requires considering complex interrelationships 699–709. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013.
among internal sources, as well as external ones and technological Davidsson, P., Lindmark, L., & Olofsson, C. (1994). New firm formation and regional
development in Sweden. Regional Studies, 28(4), 395–410. doi:10.1080/
innovation types. The start-up innovation map from our results may 00343409412331348356.
provide a better orientation to pursue research questions more com- Dedehayir, O., Ma €kinen, S. J., & Ortt, J. R. (2018). Roles during innovation ecosys-
prehensively, avoiding fragmentation and generalisation of biased tem genesis: A literature review. Technological forecasting and social change,
136, 18–29.
empirical designs. Put differently, start-ups studied as SMEs should De Marco, C. E., Martelli, I., & Di Minin, A. (2020). European SMEs’ engagement in open
not be conceptualized or approached using a one-size-fits-all per- innovation when the important thing is to win and not just to participate, what
spective, but recognizing their heterogeneity, as recent studies have should innovation policy do? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 152.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119843.
just started to do (De Marco et al., 2020; Leckel et al., 2020). Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities
Limitations and future research. This paper is not without its limita- and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. doi:10.5465/
tions. First of all, the sample is limited to Italy and to a small sample AMJ.2007.24160888.
Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation:
of start-ups incubated within an Incubator. For future studies, a more
Exploring the phenomenon. In R and D Management, 39(4), 311–316. doi:10.1111/
in-depth analysis of the differing types of innovation strategies in j.1467-9310.2009.00570.x John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Italy should be conducted by explicitly comparing more countries Fierro, J. J. C., & Perez, L. (2018). Value creation and appropriation in asymmetric alli-
ances: The case of tech startups. M@n@gement, 21(1), 534. doi:10.3917/man-
within Europe, thus evaluating the generalisation of this study’s
a.211.0534.
results. Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic
Management Journal, 25(8−9). doi:10.1002/smj.384.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative
Acknowledgments Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. doi:10.1177/1077800405284363.
Gast, J., Kallmu € nzer, A., Kraus, S., Gundolf, K., & Arnold, J. (2019). Coopetition of small-
And medium-sized family enterprises: Insights from an IT business network. Inter-
This research has been financed within the framework of the PRIN national Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 38(1−2), 78–101.
− PNRR 2022 Project INSPIRE: Digital INnovation EcoSystem Devel- doi:10.1504/IJESB.2019.102493.
oPment for the CIRcular Economy: the startups’ perspective, Project’s Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417–433.
CODE E53D23016450001. SH1_9 Industrial organisation; entre-
Giglio, C., Corvello, V., Coniglio, I. M., Kraus, S., & Gast, J. (2023). Cooperation between
preneurship; R&D and innovation. large companies and start-ups: An overview of the current state of research. Euro-
pean Management Journal. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2023.08.002.
Grimaldi, R., & Grandi, A. (2005). Business incubators and new venture creation: An
References assessment of incubating models. Technovation, 25(2), 111–121. doi:10.1016/
S0166-4972(03)00076-2.
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal Gulati, R., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zhelyazkov, P. (2012). The two facets of collaboration:
of Management, 43(1), 39–58. Cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. Academy of Management
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the struc- Annals, 6(1), 531–583. doi:10.5465/19416520.2012.691646.
ture of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and interpartner learning within inter-
generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306–333. national strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S1), 83–103.
Ahn, J. M., Minshall, T., & Mortara, L. (2018). How do entrepreneurial leaders promote doi:10.1002/smj.4250120908.
open innovation adoption in small firms? Researching Open Innovation In SMEs, Hamel, G., Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C. (1989). Collaborate with your competitors and win.
137–177. doi:10.1142/9789813230972_0005. Harvard Business Review, 67(1), 133–139.

Avila-Robinson, A., Islam, N., & Sengoku, S. (2022). Exploring the knowledge base of Hughes, P., Hodgkinson, I. R., Morgan, R. E., Hughes, M., & Hughes, C. H. L. (2020). Prod-
innovation research: Towards an emerging innovation model. Technological Fore- uct-market planning capability and profitability. Industrial Marketing Management,
casting and Social Change, 182, 121804. 90, 370–379. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.08.007.
Barney, J. (1991). Special theory forum the resource-based model of the firm: origins, Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives.
implications, and prospects. Journal of Management, 17(1), 97–98. doi:10.1177/ Technovation, 31(1), 2–9. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.10.002.
014920639101700107. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Keystones and dominators: Framing operating and tech-
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). Coopetition” in business networks—to cooperate and nology strategy in a business ecosystem. Harvard Business School, Boston, 3, 1–82.
compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411–426. Inekwe, J. N. (2019). Lending risk in MFIs: The extreme bounds of microeconomic and
doi:10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00067-X. macroeconomic factors. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(2), 538–558.
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition—Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and doi:10.1111/JSBM.12401.
future challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 180–188. doi:10.1016/J. Jackson (2011). What is an innovation ecosystem. Arlington, VA: National Science Foun-
INDMARMAN.2014.02.015. dation.
Bogers, M., Zobel, A. K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. The
Dahlander, L., et al. (2017). The open innovation research landscape: Established Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276.
perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Industry and Joly, P. B., Rip, A., & Callon, M. (2010). Re-inventing Innovation. In M. J. Arentsen,
Innovation, 24(1), 8–40. doi:10.1080/13662716.2016.1240068. W. Van Rossum, A. E. Steenge (Eds.), Governance of innovation. Cheltenham:
Bouncken, R. B., Kraus, S., & Roig-Tierno, N. (2021). Knowledge- and innovation-based Edward Elgar Publisher.
business models for future growth: Digitalized business models and portfolio con- Khanna, T., Gulati, R., & Nohria, N. (1998). The dynamics of learning alliances: Competi-
siderations. Review of Managerial Science, 15(1), 1–14. doi:10.1007/s11846-019- tion, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 193–
00366-z. 210. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199803)19:3<193::AID SMJ949>3.0.CO;2-C.
Carlile, P. R., & Rebentisch, E. S. (2003). Into the black box: The knowledge trans- Knudsen, T., & Srikanth, K. (2014). Coordinated exploration: Organizing joint search by
formation cycle. Management Science, 49(9), 1180–1195. doi:10.1287/ multiple specialists to overcome mutual confusion and joint myopia. Administra-
MNSC.49.9.1180.16564. tive Science Quarterly, 59(3), 409–441. doi:10.1177/0001839214538021.
Cerchione, R., Centobelli, P., Esposito, E., PASSARO, R., & QUINTO, I. (2022). The undigi- Kohler, T. (2016). Corporate accelerators: Building bridges between corporations and
tal behaviour of innovative startups: Empirical evidence and taxonomy of digital startups. Business Horizons, 59(3), 347–357. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2016.01.008.

9
S. Primario, P. Rippa and G. Secundo Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 9 (2024) 100473

Konietzko, J, Bocken, N, & Hultink, EJ (2020). Circular ecosystem innovation: An initial Rippa, P., & Secundo, G. (2019). Digital academic entrepreneurship: The potential of
set of principles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, 119942. digital technologies on academic entrepreneurship. Technological Forecasting and
Kurpjuweit, S., & Wagner, S. M. (2020). Startup supplier programs: A new model for managing Social Change, 146, 900–911.
corporate-startup partnerships. California Management Review, 62(3), 64–85. doi:10.1177/ Ritala, P., Agouridas, V., Assimakopoulos, D., & Gies, O. (2013). Value creation and cap-
0008125620914995/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_0008125620914995-FIG1.JPEG. ture mechanisms in innovation ecosystems: A comparative case study. Interna-
Larkin, M., & O’Halloran, D (2018). Collaboration between start-ups and corporates a tional Journal of Technology Management, 63(3−4), 244–267. doi:10.1504/
practical guide for mutual understanding. World Economic Forum, 1–22. IJTM.2013.056900.
Leckel, A., Veilleux, S., & Dana, L. P. (2020). Local Open Innovation: A means for public Romano, A., Passiante, G., Del Vecchio, P., & Secundo, G. (2014). The innovation ecosys-
policy to increase collaboration for innovation in SMEs. Technological Forecasting tem as booster for the innovative entrepreneurship in the smart specialisation
and Social Change, 153. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119891. strategy. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 5(3), 271–288.
Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2007). Value creation and value capture: A Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, explora-
multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 180–194. tion, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4).
doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.23464011. doi:10.1002/smj.160.
Lundberg, H. (2013). Triple Helix in practice: The key role of boundary spanners. Euro- Scott, M., & Bruce, R. (1987). Five stages of growth in small business. Long Range Plan-
pean Journal of Innovation Management, 16(2), 211–226. doi:10.1108/ ning, 20(3), 45–52. doi:10.1016/0024-6301(87)90071-9.
14601061311324548. Secundo, G., Toma, A., Schiuma, G., & Passiante, G. (2019). Knowledge transfer in open
Margherita, A., Elia, G., Baets, W. R. J., & Andersen, T. J. (2020). Corporate “Excelerators”: innovation: A classification framework for healthcare ecosystems. Business Process
How organizations can speed up crowdventuring for exponential innovation. Management Journal, 25(1), 144–163.
International Studies in Entrepreneurship, 45, 71–91. https://link.springer.com/chap Secundo, G., Mele, G., Sansone, G., & Paolucci, E. (2020). Entrepreneurship Education
ter/10.1007/978-3-030-42538-8_6. Centres in universities: Evidence and insights from Italian “Contamination Lab”
Mian, S., Lamine, W., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Technology Business Incubation: An over- cases. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(6), 1311–
view of the state of knowledge. Technovation, 50−51, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.techno- 1333.
vation.2016.02.005. Secundo, G., Mele, G., Del Vecchio, P., & Degennaro, G. (2021). Knowledge spillover cre-
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. ation in university-based entrepreneurial ecosystem: The role of the Italian “Con-
https://books.google.it/books?hl=it&lr=&id=U4lU_-wJ5QEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA10&dq= tamination Labs. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 19(1), 137–151.
Miles+and+Huberman,+1994&ots=kFUG_IOWVR&sig=wqiILX- Soetanto, D., & van Geenhuizen, M. (2015). Getting the right balance: University net-
4iarWuhCPDRLf4gU5F4A works’ influence on spin-offs’ attraction of funding for innovation. Technovation,
Morris, M. H., Kocak, A., & Ozer, A. (2007). Coopetition as a small business strategy: 36−37, 26–38. doi:10.1016/J.TECHNOVATION.2014.10.008.
Implications for performance. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 18(1), 35–56. Spender, J. C., Corvello, V., Grimaldi, M., & Rippa, P. (2017). Startups and open innova-
Mukti, I. Y., Wibowo, A. P. W., & Galih, S. (2019). Lessons learned to increase the digital tion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Innovation Management, 20(1),
startupssuccess rate. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Sys- 4–30. doi:10.1108/EJIM-12-2015-0131.
tems, 11(3), 322–329 [Special Issue]. Steiber, A., & Ala€nge, S. (2020). Corporate- Start-up collaboration: Effects on large firms’
Passaro, R., Quinto, I., Rippa, P., & Thomas, A. (2020). Evolution of collaborative net- business transformation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(2), 235–
works supporting startup sustainability: Evidence from digital firms. Sustainability 257.
(Switzerland), 12(22), 1–20. doi:10.3390/su12229437. Stieglitz, N., & Heine, K. (2007). Innovations and the role of complementarities in a stra-
Peteraf, M., Di Stefano, G., & Verona, G. (2013). The elephant in the room of dynamic tegic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 28(1). doi:10.1002/smj.565.
capabilities: Bringing two diverging conversations together. Strategic Management Voss, G. B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z. G. (2008). The effects of slack resources and
Journal, (12), 34. doi:10.1002/smj.2078. environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Man-
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior perfor- agement Journal, 51(1), 147–164. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2008.30767373.
mance. Ed: Free Press. Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. (2013). Strategic ambidexterity in small and medium-sized
Porter, Michael. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. techniques for analyzing industries and enterprises: Implementing exploration and exploitation in product and market
competitors. Ed: Free Press. domains. Organization Science, 24(5), 1459–1477. doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0790.
Prashantham, S., & Kumar, K. (2019). Engaging with startups: MNC perspectives. IIMB Walsh, G. S., & Cunningham, J. A. (2016). Business failure and entrepreneurship: Emer-
Management Review, 31(4), 407–417. doi:10.1016/j.iimb.2019.01.003. gence, evolution and future research. In Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneur-
Pushpananthan, G., & Elmquist, M. (2022). Joining forces to create value: The emer- ship, 12(3). doi:10.1561/0300000063.
gence of an innovation ecosystem. Technovation, 115, 102453. West, J., & Gallagher, S (2006). Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm
Radziwon, A., Bogers, M. L. A. M., Chesbrough, H., & Minssen, T (2022). Ecosystem effec- investment in open-source software. R and D Management, 36(3), 319–331.
tuation: Creating new value through open innovation during a pandemic. R and D doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00436.x.
Management, 52(2), 376–390. doi:10.1111/radm.12512. Westlund, H., Andersson, M., & Karlsson, C. (2014). Creativity as an integral element of
Remneland Wikhamn, B. (2020). Open innovation change agents in large firms: How social capital and its role in economic performance. In Handbook of research on
open innovation is enacted in paradoxical settings. R and D Management, 50(2), entrepreneurship and creativity (pp. 60−96). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
198–211. doi:10.1111/radm.12389. doi:10.4337/9781781004432.00010.
Remneland Wikhamn, B., & Styhre, A. (2023). Open innovation ecosystem organizing Weiblen, T., & Chesbrough, H. (2015). Engaging with startups to enhance corporate
from a process view: A longitudinal study in the making of an innovation hub. innovation. California Management Review, 57(2), 66–90. doi:10.1525/
R&D Management, 53(1), 24−42. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12537 CMR.2015.57.2.66.
Reynolds, C. W. (1987). Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model. In Williamson, P. J., & De Meyer, A. (2012). Ecosystem advantage: How to successfully
Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive harness the power of partners. California Management Review, 55(1), 24–46.
Techniques (pp. 25−34). doi:10.1145/37401.37406. Williamson, R. A. (1985). International cooperation and competition in civilian space
Rietveld, J., & Eggers, J. P. (2018). Demand heterogeneity in platform markets: Implica- activities. Space policy, 1(4), 409–414. doi:10.1016/0265-9646(85)90007-4.
tions for complementors. Organization Science, 29(2), 304–322. Yaghmaie, P., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2019). Identifying and describing constituents of
Rietveld, J., Schilling, M. A., & Bellavitis, C. (2019). Platform strategy: Managing ecosys- innovation ecosystems: A systematic review of the literature. EuroMed J. Bus..
tem value through selective promotion of complements. Organization Science, 30 Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). I.
(6), 1232–1251. SAGE Publications. Ed https://www.amazon.it/dp/B07C66LQX2/ref=dp-kindle-redi
Rippa, P., Ponsiglione, C., Bocanet, A., Capaldo, G., & Zollo, G. (2019). Do new ventures rect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1.
explore, exploit or both? A case-based analysis of six innovative Italian start-ups. Zobel, A. K. (2017). Benefiting from open innovation: A Multidimensional model of
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 25(7), 1515–1536. absorptive capacity*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(3), 269–288.
doi:10.1108/IJEBR-12-2018-0817/FULL/HTML. doi:10.1111/JPIM.12361.

10