Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134150

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Organising direction of innovation ecosystems for extended clean

energy production
Tove Brink a, b, *
a
University of Southern Denmark, Degnevej 14, 6705, Esbjerg, Denmark
b
Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics, Denmark

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

Handling Editor: M.T. Moreira This study aims to reveal how innovation ecosystems can organise value creation without a focal firm or a
platform during the pre-phases of innovation. This has been scarcely researched hitherto; therefore, a partici­
patory action research approach is used to reveal essential phenomena emerging in collaboration with research
participants. An extended approach for innovation ecosystems to create value in society is hereby revealed
beyond the coordination done by a focal firm or a platform, as noted in previous research. The study was
conducted from September 2017 to June 2018 in a port in the Baltic Sea. Four enterprises participated in rep­
resenting complementary activities for value creation in the pre-phases of establishing a new offshore wind park
within the wind-energy innovation ecosystem.
The findings are summarised using in the ‘EcoValue BMI’ model. The findings highlight the essential role of
value proposition in innovation ecosystems in focusing and structuring the direction of complementary inde­
pendent initiatives for value creation, as noted in the middle of the model. All participating enterprises could
identify the overall ecosystem value proposition.
This insight into the overall value proposition is realised by organising collaborative business model inno­
vation (BMI) to set horizontal innovation directions for exploration and exploitation of interfaces and flow
among ecosystem participants for cleaner energy production.
Further research is required to verify and enhance the ‘EcoValue BMI’ findings through new research con­
ducted in similar large innovation ecosystems without a focal firm or a platform to coordinate the innovation
ecosystem for value creation in society.

1. Introduction uses third party participants, and creates and appropriates new value
through innovation’ (Autio and Thomas, 2014: 205). Hitherto, literature
Recent global initiatives highlight the need for cross-organizational streams on ecosystems have focused on the need for connection to a
innovation collaboration, stressing global innovation collaboration on focal firm or platform for innovative value creation (Möller et al., 2020;
net zero CO2 emissions to stabilise global surface temperature increase, Konietzko et al., 2020:3). However, in practice, many independent and
as shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) interdependent enterprises work on infrastructural projects without a
(UN, 2021:1–28). In general, the need for innovation collaboration to focal firm or platform to span the ecosystem; therefore, collaboration is
overcome challenges in society has been noted in the literature (George called for (WEC – World Economic Forum, 2020). This leads to the
et al., 2016). Enterprises are urged to engage all stakeholders in following research question:
collaborative sustainable value creation (WEC – World Economic
How can innovation ecosystems organise direction for value creation
Forum, 2020). Enterprises’ understanding then changes from indepen­
without a focal firm or platform in pre-phases of innovation?
dent to an interdependent collaborative innovation ecosystem to create
value in society. This calls for extended insights into ecosystems of en­ The empirical context of this research is based on an offshore wind
terprises, which represent ‘a network of interconnected organisations park energy innovation ecosystem. Offshore wind parks represent
connected to a firm or a platform that incorporates both production and innovative ecosystems as complementary and competing enterprises

* University of Southern Denmark, Degnevej 14, 6705, Esbjerg, Denmark.

E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134150
Received 9 May 2022; Received in revised form 9 August 2022; Accepted 13 September 2022
Available online 27 September 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
T. Brink Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134150

engage in the production side of energy, enterprises and energy users actors (temporal dimension) (Ritala and Almpanopoulou, 2017: 41).
engage in the demand side, and third party enterprises engage in This holistic perception of innovation ecosystems is suggested to provide
offshore wind energy by e.g., providing port facilities. A business innovation opportunities for value creation in Knightian uncertain
ecosystem then exists with a set of actors—producers, suppliers, service contexts (Knight, 1921), where neither outcomes nor probabilities can
providers, end users, regulators, and civil society organisations—that be estimated ex ante, as events cannot be known and addressed be­
contribute to a collective outcome’ (Konietzko et al., 2020:3). Offshore forehand due to multiple interdependencies (Elmquist et al., 2019;
wind energy innovation ecosystems do not have a focal firm or platform Ritala and Almpanopoulou, 2017: 40).
(Brink et al., 2015). Möller et al. (2020) highlight in their literature review that ecosys­
Adner (2017) stresses ‘value-as-structure’ to guide the innovation tems in general are nested and layered for bridging the traditional di­
ecosystem to pursue direction of collaborative innovation for value chotomy of macro (structural institutional phenomena) and micro
creation in contradiction to hitherto literature of ‘ecosystem-as affilia­ perspectives (actor behaviour and interaction) (Möller et al., 2020: 384).
tion’, which perceive ecosystems as ‘communities of associated actors Additionally, the literature review conducted by Granstrand & Hol­
defined by their networks and platform affiliations’ (Adner, 2017; 40). gersson (2020) on specific innovation ecosystem definitions underpins
Adner (2017) suggests that ‘value-as-structure’ is more actionable and the often used words of ‘actors’ and ‘complements’ and less used words
increases readiness to open new and distinctive questions to enable of ‘competition’, ‘substitutes’ and ‘artefact components’, (e.g., products
collaborative innovation. Following Adner’s (2017) suggestion, litera­ and technologies) and ‘activities’ leading to asymmetrical definition and
ture focusing on values such as business model innovation (BMI) (Foss understanding of innovation ecosystems. It means that the literature
and Saebi, 2020; Massa et al., 2017) is suggested to lend support to more definitions do not reflect the empirical phenomenon of innovation
thorough insights and understanding of progressive initiatives to create ecosystems (Granstrand and Holgersson, 2020:2), which notes the
value creation in innovation ecosystems. The BMI literature has had importance of ‘substitutes’, ‘artefact components’, and ‘activities’ to be
limited contribution to complex innovation ecosystems with many ac­ present in innovation ecosystems. Möller et al. (2020) suggested the
tors involved (Foss and Saebi, 2020). Additionally, Konietzko et al. general need for organising ecosystems, which can transcend the present
(2020) called for enhanced action and design research to successfully gap between theoretical research and innovation ecosystem practices.
understand innovation ecosystems for cleaner production. This means a ‘much broader conceptualisation of value, as co-created
First, a literature review was conducted to reveal the existing with a multitude of actors not only by the firm and for the customer,
knowledge. Then, the research context and methods are explained. The and recognition of forms of value creation other than revenue genera­
findings are analysed and highlighted in a summarised illustration to tion for firms and meeting functional or hedonic needs or wants for
contribute to the conceptual understanding. Finally, a discussion of the customers’ (Möller et al., 2020: 381). In short, innovative ecosystems
conclusions ends the article. should create value for society beyond their own self-interest.
In summary, the literature on innovation ecosystems is divided in
2. Literature review relation to the usefulness of the concept. Further empirical research is
required for a more thorough elaboration. Additionally, the innovation
The research question posed calls for a literature review to integrate ecosystem concept is multidimensional, making it difficult for a focal
knowledge domains to understand the innovation ecosystem concept, firm or platform to span the entire innovation ecosystem to address
innovation for value creation, and BMI for the collaborative direction of innovation direction for value creation among interdependent and yet
value. independent enterprises in the ecosystem. Extended research on the
organisation of innovation ecosystems is required to transcend the
2.1. The innovation ecosystem concept present gap between theoretical research and innovation ecosystem
practices for innovation to create value in society.
The ecosystem concept in general enhances the notion of a value
chain to ‘a system that includes any organisation that contributes to the 2.2. Innovation for value creation
shared offerings’ (Autio and Thomas, 2014: 207). Adner’s (2006) sem­
inal article originally defined the more specific innovation ecosystem Amabile et al. (1996) defined innovation as ‘the successful imple­
concept as ‘the collaborative arrangements through which firms mentation of creative ideas within an organisation. In this view, crea­
combine their individual offerings into a coherent, customer-facing so­ tivity by individuals and teams is a starting point for innovation; the first
lution’ (Adner, 2006: 2). Many other definitions along this path have [creativity] is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the second
since been developed, such as Autio and Thomas’ (2014:205) and [innovation]’ (Amabile et al., 1996: 1154–1155). It follows that inno­
Konietzko et al.’s (2020:3) definitions of innovation ecosystems and vation spans creativity and the ability to implement the new ideas by
business ecosystems, respectively, cited in the introduction. These def­ organisational actors for successful value creation. Innovation requires
initions focus on innovative collaborative solutions among different combinations of heterogeneous knowledge domains and behaviours that
actors to create value for the participants and society. A coordinated enable new ideas with the aim of reaching new goals and trustful
collaborative direction for innovation for value creation is required. engagement and the use of detailed information to control resources and
Hitherto literature streams are focused on a focal firm and/or a platform capabilities for successful innovation implementation to create value
as revealed in the literature review conducted by (Möller et al., 2020) to (Brink, 2016). The integration of heterogeneous knowledge and be­
pursue collaborative direction for innovation. haviours to pursue innovation supports value creation.
The literature on innovation ecosystems has expanded rapidly, as The literature review on value conducted by Eggert et al. (2019)
shown in Granstrand and Holgersson’s (2020) literature review. How­ reveals two approaches to value creation, namely, ‘value-in-exchange’
ever, discussions among researchers have been related to the usefulness emerging in the buyer-seller process (Smith, 1776) and ‘value-in-use’
of the innovation ecosystem concept. Concerns have been raised that the emerging in actual innovation practices. Additionally, Eggert et al.
concept, among others, lacks rigor and provides a flawed analogy to (2019) note that the literature focuses on both individual and collective
natural systems as indicated through the ‘eco’ issue (Oh et al., 2016:1). values. In the innovation ecosystem context, the definition of ecosystem
Support has been provided by other researchers emphasising the use­ sets focuses on value-in-use at the collective level beyond individual and
fulness of the innovation ecosystem concept, because a holistic system organisational self-interests. The literature notes the perception of value
reality is shown, which focuses on innovation activities (goal or pur­ as inherently subjective as stated by Vargo and Lusch (2016:18) high­
pose), involves the logic of actor interdependence within a particular lighting that value is always uniquely and phenomenologically deter­
context (spatial dimension), and addresses the inherent co-evolution of mined by the beneficiary. Therefore, the value perception of innovation

2
T. Brink Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134150

ecosystem participants can be different, although value initiatives are creation with innovation direction for value creation among interde­
similar and collaboratively created among participating enterprises and pendent and yet independent actors.
actors. When no focal firm spans the innovation ecosystem, loosely
coupled connections provide distorted governance in many directions 2.4. Overall summary of hitherto knowledge
for collaborative innovation and value creation. Adner (2017: 40) em­
phasises the perception of value in ecosystems-as-structure, which views Research on innovation ecosystems has hitherto scarcely addressed
ecosystems as configurations of activity defined by their value propo­ the situation without a focal firm or platform to span the innovation
sition. This notion of interdependent value creation among independent ecosystem for the coordination of value creation. Thus, the potential
enterprises stresses value proposition as a foundation for the innovation limits for value creation in society are hitherto underdeveloped. The
direction of value creation in the ecosystem. Adner (2017: 50) underpins literature highlights the following:
the need for conceptualisations of strategy in the context of indepen­
dence and notes that this has been outside the focus in hitherto • The innovation ecosystem concept supports a multidimensional
ecosystem innovation research. However, the literature on BMI (Foss framework for a more holistic approach to creating value in society.
and Saebi, 2016; Massa et al., 2017) focuses on value as essential for the • Innovation for value creation is combined and requires the integra­
direction of innovative business activities. Support can be provided from tion of heterogeneous knowledge domains and behaviours that
a review of the literature regarding BMI to contribute to innovation enable innovation at the ecosystem level.
ecosystems. • BMI for collaborative innovation direction is suggested to support
In summary, the notions of innovation and value creation are collaborative innovation directions for ecosystem value creation.
inherently combined and call for the integration of heterogeneous
knowledge domains and behaviours that enable innovation at all levels. Research should investigate whether the suggestions made in the
Collaborative development of value-in-use contributes to the direction literature review stemming from integration of the mentioned literature
of innovation among participants, although value is subjective and from different knowledge domains can be seen in innovation ecosystem
perceived differently with derived distorted governance. The literature practices, such as, the ability of ecosystem participants to identify value
on BMI is suggested to support collaborative innovation directions for creation at the ecosystem level beyond their own enterprise value cre­
value creation. ation and to specify collaborative direction of innovation for value
creation. Thus, the following questions must be investigated during the
2.3. BMI for collaborative innovation direction research process:

Business models are defined in literature (Massa et al., 2017: 73) as a 1. How can ecosystem participants identify innovation for value crea­
description of an organisation and how that organisation functions in tion at the ecosystem level?
achieving its goals (e.g. profitability, growth, and social impact) and 2. How can ecosystem participants collaboratively select and enhance
hereby creates value. The focus of this definition is on individual orga­ innovation for value creation at the ecosystem level?
nisations and their value proposition (Massa et al., 2017). However, the
BMI concept reaches out to create value for other individuals and or­ The answers to these questions contribute to the research question on
ganisations in the environment, as highlighted by Nailer and Buttriss how innovation ecosystems can organise the direction of value creation
(2020: 671), as BMI aims to develop individual firms in a value-creating without a focal firm or platform in the pre-phases of innovation.
activity system.
In contrast to the usual strategic literature, BMI integrates both the 3. Research context and method
supply side and the demand side of innovation ecosystems for the stra­
tegic direction of innovation to create value. Nailer and Buttriss (2020) The empirical field of offshore wind energy and port spaces has
highlight that research is scarce on business models as practiced with scarcely been researched at the innovation ecosystem level (Brink et al.,
continuous evolvement over time driven by interactions for mutually 2015). Additionally, the literature review highlights that research at the
interdependent actors to realise value (Nailer and Buttriss, 2020: 671). innovation ecosystem level without a focal firm or platform is scarce.
Reviews of BMI literature development highlight very disperse ap­ Both empirical and theoretical knowledge domains are underdeveloped,
proaches (Andreini et al., 2021; Foss and Saebi, 2020). The reviews note which calls for qualitative research to understand emerging phenomena
that sporadic research has developed in many directions. However, in-depth in both domains and contribute to the literature and in practice
many authors have found tight interconnections between cognitive (Eisenhardt, 1989; Gioia et al., 2013; Yin, 2018).
processes for BMI and strategizing processes (Andreini et al., 2021: 11).
Massa et al. (2017), in their literature review, note the four proposed 3.1. Research context
dimensions present in business model literature for innovation: who are
the customers, what is value proposition, how is the value proposition Many stakeholders from different countries are involved in the
created (activities and capabilities), and what is the description of actual construction, production, installation, commissioning, operation and
value creation? maintenance (O&M), and decommissioning of offshore wind parks for
In the literature is discussed whether business models are extensions wind energy production at sea. Offshore wind parks and port contexts
of the strategic literature or a new separate field for the development of are intertwined as wind park actors, and the equipment passes through
direction (Massa et al., 2017). The BMI approach relaxes assumptions in nearby ports. The port forms a corridor for activities to be conducted
the strategic literature of all participants having perfect information, from land to sea and vice versa (Brink et al., 2015). The installed ca­
unlimited cognitive abilities, no externalities on third parties, and pacity of offshore wind energy and actors at the end 2020 is shown in
competitive advantage as single-sourced on the supply side only (Massa Table 1 to illustrate the scope of activities and dispersion of actors.
et al., 2017: 92ff). This research suggests that BMI can address both Table 1 shows a total capacity of 25 GW in the EU at the end of 2020.
innovation ecosystem direction for value creation and BMI ecosystem The EU aims to reach renewable 300 GW by 2050 (EWEA, 2021:9). The
practices with neither focal firm nor platform to support collaborative first offshore wind park in Europe was installed in 1991, in the Danish
innovation direction for value creation. Sea. Although the installed capacity has increased considerably in the
In summary, BMI enhances the direction for value creation at the past period, the installation rate must rise rapidly to reach the target in
innovation ecosystem level, containing many different participants. This 2050. As shown in Table 1, the fragmentation of the offshore wind en­
suggestion is based on the BMI concept of combining ecosystem value ergy innovation ecosystem with many actors is high, comprising large

3
T. Brink Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134150

Table 1 are interdependent through the space occupied by the operations of

Installed GW Capacity in offshore wind parks and actors involved in Europe at enterprises in the port (de Langen and Haezendonck, 2012). This em­
the end 2020. phasises the need for extended collaborative innovation in the port
European Installed Capacity of MWh Total end 2020 context. However, this development is highly contrasted by the hostile
production from wind (EWEA, 2021) and competitive approach to other enterprises often seen among enterprises
Important actors working in ports (De Martino and Morvillo, 2008; Hollen, 2015).
Total capacity end 2020: 25 GW
Total capacity objective in 2050: 300 GW 3.2. Research method
In offshore wind parks 116
Ingrid connected turbines 5.402
In European countries 12 The research is based on a social construction approach evolving
- Respectively, mostly done in UK, 99.00% among research participants, who construct their realities as knowl­
Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and edgeable agents, and researchers contribute to the role of ‘glorified re­
Denmark
porters’ (Gioia et al., 2013: 17). Thus, extended knowledge development
- With many different actor roles as shown
in the following
is aimed at contributing to the existing gap between the literature and in
Offshore wind park owners/developers representing: practice.
⋅ Ørsted 17.00% Literature notes ‘action research as particularly appropriate for
⋅ RWE Renewables 10.00% developing theory that relates closely to practice and is concerned with
⋅ Vattenfall 6.00%
the process of managing’ (Huxham and Vangen, 2003: 399). Therefore,
⋅ Macquire Capital 6.00%
⋅ Iberdrola Renewables 4.00% the participatory action research (PAR) approach is used in this research
⋅ Global Infrastructure partners 4.00% (Creswell and Poth, 2018) to reveal and understand emerging essential
⋅ Northland Power 4.00% phenomena. This research uses recursive dialectical dialogs for new
Wind turbine Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) representing:
actions among participating actors and researchers (Creswell and Poth,
⋅ Siemens Gamesa 68.00%
⋅ Vestas Wind Systems 24.00%
2018: 25). PAR is ‘focused on helping individuals free themselves from
⋅ Senvion 4.00% constraints’, and is ‘practical and collaborative because its enquiry is
Additional activities in offshore wind parks: Many Larger Enterprises (LEs) & conducted “with” others rather than “on” or “to” others’ (Creswell and
Substructures, foundations, cables, vessels Small and Medium Sized Enterprises Poth, 2018: 25). The recursive dialectical dialogs in PAR are grounded in
and OEMs producing other related (SMEs)
the Weick and Quinn (1999) notion of a reversed Lewin, which means to
components and financers and regulators.
turn Lewin’s (1946) seminal thinking of unfreeze-rebalance-freeze to
change behaviour into the reversed freeze-rebalance-unfreeze when
wind park owners and developers from utility enterprises. However, discussions are locked in the same arguments. First, attention was drawn
none of them dominates the offshore wind energy ecosystem. Two of the to the current locked situation–freeze awareness. Then, needed change
wind turbine original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) dominate more was discussed among participants to find solutions–rebalance for new
than wind park owners do; however, offshore wind turbine OEMs from suggestions. Finally, participants continued the collaborative innovation
the US and China are present in the European market. Additionally, aims–unfreeze for new initiatives. The voice of participants is critical in
wind turbines are not the only basic components. This means that many the research process to shed light on insights and understandings to
other OEMs that provide components and services are necessary during highlight essential findings.
the energy life of offshore wind parks (EWEA, 2021; Brink et al., 2015). The research team comprised two senior researchers and a student
These companies work within substructures, foundations, cables, ves­ assistant for data collection, transcription, and analysis of the research
sels, and ports (EWEA, 2021). Many different enterprises are thus material. Discussion and analyses among the research team participants
forming an offshore wind innovation ecosystem, from both the supply- were conducted during the research for the continuous triangulation of
and demand-side and third parties. Here, due to fragmentation, neither a findings in the PAR approach.
focal firm nor a platform spans the offshore wind park energy innovation This research was conducted from September 2017 to June 2018 in a
ecosystem. port situated in the Baltic Sea. The research team had access to the
Offshore wind energy must compete with other energy sources to empirical field in the pre-phases of innovation before the innovation
reduce the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCoE) and support the sustain­ ecosystem established a new offshore wind park in the Baltic Sea. The
ability of wind energy (Crown Estate, 2012). All energy sour­ research began with individual meetings to reveal needed innovation
ces–renewable and traditional–are measured and compared with each that create value at the ecosystem level with the park owner/developer,
other regarding LCoE. Shortly defined: ‘LCoE is the sum of the dis­ a logistics partner operating on land, and a logistics partner operating on
counted lifetime generation costs (€) divided by the sum of discounted sea and the nearby port. Individual interviews were conducted for
lifetime electricity output (MWh)’ (Crown Estate, 2012). According to approximately a day with each enterprise research participant before
the definition of LCoE, the reduction can be achieved by increasing the the three collaborative PAR meetings lasting one day were conducted.
production of MWh of the offshore wind park, through reduction of Two managers from each participating enterprise attended these meet­
costs, and/or a combination of both. Many different actors in the ings. Table 2 presents an overview of the anonymized participants.
ecosystem then contribute to the reduction of LCoE through their in­ The participating enterprises slightly overlap in their business ac­
dependent activities, all of which provide interdependent impacts on tivities, and, therefore, compete with each other in the innovation
LCoE (Brink et al., 2015). This creates an overall interdependency of ecosystem to a limited extent. They primarily performed complementary
independent actors in the offshore wind park innovation ecosystem who activities. The collaborative processes in PAR meetings aim to demon­
compete with other energy sources. strate the value-creation potential among these complementary research
Ports contribute as third parties to LCoE, as they provide space and participants. The research process is presented in Table 3.
equipment for activities such as logistics, production, mounting, and Table 3 shows the research process consisting of individual PAR
O&M activities to offshore wind parks. However, port authorities meetings and three collaborative PAR workshops for innovation to in­
traditionally perceive themselves as regulators and not facilitators of crease value creation at the innovation ecosystem level. A summary of
innovation and value creation (Hollen, 2015). The role of ports has the discussions and insights developed from the individual PAR meet­
slowly been changing. Port spaces have been acknowledged to comprise ings was presented by a manager from each participating organisation in
intertwined supply chains with independent operations; however, they the first collaborative PAR workshop. This developed a thorough un­
derstanding of further PAR elaborations to unfold in the first PAR

4
T. Brink Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134150

Table 2 essential phenomena emerged based on convergent evidence (Yin, 2018:

Overview of research participants. 86), and the essential citations were selected, which showed a summary
Role Enterprise Information (EU definition on size of enterprise) of the ability of participants to create value at the ecosystem. Addi­
tionally, it showed the ability of participants to develop collaborative
Port Enterprise - owned by the Municipal Community with
compliance to the Port Law of the country. Medium size BMI processes that provide the foundation for the developed conceptual
enterprise Two managers on offshore wind. & port activities model for collaborative innovation direction for value creation in
participating. ecosystems.
Wind park owner Enterprise – owned privately. Medium size enterprise Two
managers on offshore wind commercial & technical issues.
Logistic partner at Enterprise – owned privately. Larger size enterprise Two 4. Findings
sea managers on offshore wind business development & port
activities This study aims to contribute to the research question by considering
Logistic Partner at Enterprise – owned privately. Larger size enterprise Two the gap in existing literature regarding the ability of research partici­
land managers on offshore wind business development & port
activities
pants to identify value creation at the ecosystem level beyond the en­
terprise and the ability of collaborative innovation direction among
interdependent and yet independent enterprises to create value in the
ecosystem.
Table 3
First, the ability of participants in the innovation ecosystem to
Overview of PAR process.
identify value creation at the ecosystem level is highlighted.
Research project Content
Phases

0. Phase Initial individual PAR meetings with the enterprises in

4.1. Value creation at the innovation ecosystem level
September–October 2017
1. Phase First collaborative PAR workshop in end October 2017 The potential value proposition at the innovation ecosystem level
2. Phase Second collaborative PAR workshop in start of March 2018 was first revealed through the lenses of the research participants. This
3. Phase Third collaborative PAR workshop in end May 2018
was done in the first individual PAR meetings with each participant.
Participants often mentioned a reduction in the LCoE to increase the
workshop and the subsequent PAR workshops held in October 2017, value proposition of the offshore wind park energy innovation
March 2018, and May 2018. The local business association was invited ecosystem. Participants stressed the following underlying ecosystem
to participate for consultation on questions about the local business aims for value creation:
environment during the collaborative meetings. Two invited university
professors provided examples of an innovation ecosystem development • Early and persistent utilisation of wind sources for increased MWh
in other ports and explained the role of small- and medium-sized en­ production.
terprises (SMEs) as many SMEs are present in the port’s hinterland. • Reduction of direct costs of re-work, waiting, claims, and reduction
The first collaborative PAR workshop resulted in a mutual decision of indirect costs and inconveniences for society.
for port activities to be further elaborated on in a physical simulation
model containing 3D printed wind turbine components, vessels, cranes, The overall value proposition at the innovation ecosystem level
etc. situated within the frames of the participating port. Then, the developed from a patchwork of different experiences and knowledge
simulation was conducted by research participants in the second PAR held by individual participating enterprises. It was revealed that insights
workshop, and in the third PAR workshop, in-depth debates regarding and understanding of value creation reached beyond one’s own enter­
suggestions on enhancing and verifying value creation occurred. The prise into other ecosystem participants’ activities and into the ecosystem
third PAR workshop evolved to focus on the investments required in the level. All participants provided suggestions for value-creating activities
port. Additionally, presentation of the value creation concept developed at the ecosystem level, but none had an overall overview or knowledge
in the port was presented to a wind turbine OEM to collect comments of value-creating activities at the ecosystem level, as they missed details
and further suggestions for value creation. on how value creation could be achieved at the ecosystem level. How­
All research meetings were transcribed and analysed continuously ever, all participants had suggestions for value creation and perceived a
during the research to contribute to the PAR process and to the research considerable need to contribute to value creation at the ecosystem level,
question posed in this article. An academically trained outside as stressed by participants in the quotations below:
interviewer-journalist conducted a semi-structured interview with a N1: ‘CO2 neutrality needs to be reached in society. We are far from this
manager from each participating enterprise about the experience of now. It cannot be accomplished without ecosystem participants’ knowl­
value creation. The aim of these interviews was to obtain independent edge and experience contribution’
information from the participants for triangulation in addition to the
data collected during the PAR process. The interviews were transcribed N2: ‘Collaborative asset management will create value. The sharing of
and analysed. assets will mean less investments requirements and more expertise in using
It was discovered that the usual coding conducted in qualitative the assets, e.g. large cranes’
research (Gioia et al., 2013) in short first- and second-order rubrics was Here, the overall aim is to stress CO2 neutrality for the benefit of
too superficial to give meaning to the underlying constructs. Hereby, society (N1) and the need for innovation ecosystem participants to
meaning was lost resulting in destruction of meaning as also found by contribute to society for UN SDG 7 on affordable and clean energy
other researchers in other contexts (Gioia et al., 2013: 25). Therefore, through collaboration and utilisation of their knowledge and experi­
longer citations were used to highlight the meaning with a selection of ences obtained from practice. Additionally, N2 highlights the need for
3–5 essential words in large font to reveal the first order direct voice of the innovation ecosystem to collaborate on using shared assets to reduce
research participants (Creswell and Poth, 2018; Gioia et al., 2013: 20). costs and increase knowledge for more professional use of assets to in­
This first-order process was independently performed three times to crease value creation in society—to contribute to society UN SDG 17 on
inspire and challenge the previously selected citations for second-order collaborative knowledge partnerships.
sorting and selection for this article. Due to long-term illness during the In particular, the underutilisation of knowledge and experience ob­
COVID 19 period, the research process was interrupted and delayed for tained by ecosystem enterprises addressed enhanced value contributions
more than a year. From the second-order sorting of the material, at the ecosystem level. This emphasises that the logistics domain and

5
T. Brink Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134150

project management should include collaboration among enterprises, as ecosystem level, as shown in Table 4.
shown in the following quotes: Table 4 shows overlapping and individual suggestion for value
proposition at ecosystem level supporting SDG no. 7 and no. 17. The
N3: ‘The flow of components through the port can be considerably
analyses of these suggestions showed both short-term considerations
improved. Engineers decide on logistic activities and they do not have
from 0 to 5 years highlighting the need for new unknown activities based
enough experience. It can be done much faster.’
on hitherto known activities and long-term considerations from 5 to 50
N4: ‘Alternative logistic solutions could be used, which limit damages of years highlighting unknown activities based on hitherto unknown ac­
components with less rework required in the port and at the wind farm tivities resulting in excessive uncertainty (Knight, 1921). Additionally,
site.’ the participants went beyond the offshore wind park to suggest the
opportunity of a unifying hub port in the Baltic Sea to provide value at
N3 and N4 emphasise the need for increased utilisation of logistic
the innovation ecosystem level. The hub-port-suggestion increases un­
knowledge and experience. A call for alternative logistic solutions (N4)
certainty in Knightian terminology (Knight, 1921), even more for
is highlighted as logistic activities are typically context dependent,
collaborative elaboration of unknown unknowns to reveal the potential
which means continuous development of standards for sharing practice-
of this suggestion as shown in more detail in section 4.2.
knowledge from the hinterland of the port and developing flexible al­
The overlapping suggestions for ecosystem value creation all
ternatives for cost reduction and safe handling to increase MWh pro­
emphasized the need for collaborative development to succeed in
duction in offshore wind park projects. Here, logistics knowledge
developing improved sustainability, standards, logistic in hinterland,
beyond technical specifications and focus on project management to
and flexibility for everyone to follow and support. The individual sug­
emphasise collaborative alternative solutions was required.
gestions for ecosystem value creation were anchored on individual
Surprisingly, participants often highlighted the same issues on
perspectives; however, they supported the entire ecosystem on value
increasing the innovation ecosystem value proposition, as shown in
creation. For example, for the port to facilitate as a neutral partner, the
Table 4. This means that individual enterprises independently share an
logistic enterprise on land should overcome bottlenecks and show
interdependent perception of value creation at the ecosystem level.
transparent flow; logistic enterprise at sea should develop integrated
Simultaneously, the research participants had different suggestions
opportunities between sea and land; and the offshore wind park owner
developed through their own perspective for value creation at the
should focus on a more holistic project management for collaboration on
uncertainties. Surprisingly, the participating enterprises were aware of
Table 4 and able to identify value creation at the ecosystem level beyond their
Overview of value proposition at the innovation ecosystem level. own enterprise from both the ecosystem and its own perspective.
Value creation of Value creation of Horizon/ Summarised In summary, value creation at the innovation ecosystem level is
overlapping Individual suggestions Uncertainties selection of relatively easy to identify for interdependent and yet independent en­
suggestions among among participants concepts/ terprises with surprisingly similar value proposition suggestions. Some
participants projects - to
of these suggestions were short-term, but also long-term suggestions for
create value
value creation at the ecosystem level were revealed. The findings show
Improved Port: Short-term: Offshore wind
that research participants could independently select value-creating
sustainability - park
SDG’s Simulation in
initiatives and contribute to overlapping distinct value creation based
the port on their own hitherto knowledge and experiences. This means that the
⋅ Reduction of LCoE ⋅ Neutral partner. 0–5 years research participants were able to transcend micro-enterprise activities
– SDG no. 7 – to address the macro overall value proposition at the innovation
‘affordable and
ecosystem level. The answer to the first question in Section 2.4 regarding
clean energy’
⋅ Collaborative use ⋅ Avoid Unknown the ability of research participants to identify required value creation at
of knowledge inconveniences for knowns the ecosystem level is then revealed as a well-developed current ability
partnerships – public activities and with a potential for considerable impact on value creation in innovation
SDG no. 17 well-being
ecosystems in the short- and long-term.
Development of Logistic enterprise
standards: on land:
⋅ Standard ⋅ Overcome 4.2. Organising of BMI for direction of value creation at the ecosystem
technologies. bottlenecks to level
reduce total costs.
⋅ Improve sharing ⋅ Transparency of
of everything e.g. flow.
Organising BMI considers the point of departure in the value prop­
equipment, osition, as revealed in Section 4.1. Moreover, the starting point of value
cranes, vessels creation relates to the BMI essential elements (Massa et al., 2017) in the
and labour. business innovation ecosystem (Konietzko et al., 2020) of supply side
Development of Logistic enterprise Long-term: Hub Port
key activities, key resources, and demand-side customer relationships,
logistics in at Sea: simulation for
hinterland the Baltic Sea channels, customers, and third-party key partners, which means that the
⋅ Easier and less ⋅ Utilize 5–50 years research participants now focus on how to create value at the ecosystem
uncertainty opportunities seen level.
contained in from the sea Participants first focused on key activities stemming from their own
logistics perspective.
⋅ Enough space and ⋅ Develop an Unknown
experiences. Often, the participants during the collaborative network
competences integrated concept unknowns meetings lacked their own knowledge, which created gaps in their un­
accessible in the for offshore wind. derstanding of how the aimed value could be created. These gaps in
port. knowledge often emerged in situations in which the participants came to
Development of Offshore wind park
terms as ‘interfaces’. The participants defined an interface during the
flexibility: owner:
⋅ Both radical and ⋅ Improve project research process as a point of transfer between ecosystem partner or­
incremental management for ganisations, for example, activities with transfer of components and/or
innovation to coordinated employees from land to sea, and vice versa. Gaps also emerged on the
improve LCoE collaboration on general transfer of wind turbine equipment through the port corridor
continuously. uncertainties.
often termed as flow by the participants. The insights on interfaces and

6
T. Brink Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134150

flow were constantly challenged during the collaborative PAR work­ N4: ‘The market is large enough for all of us, more so when offshore wind
shops. All participants perceived both as very important issues con­ energy can compete with other energy sources’
tained in key activities that enable value creation at the innovation
N4 directly addresses the balance stressed in the literature review of
ecosystem level.
complementarity and competition (Granstrand and Holgersson, 2020).
Interfaces and flow were emphasized in the following way:
The long-term view of offshore wind energy competitiveness high­
N2: ‘The interfaces, where components are transferred from one port lighted by N4 resolves the challenge of balancing the complementarity
actor to another actor, are very important and should be managed and competition. However, increased value creation in the short-term
carefully. Often accidents happen here.’ means fewer activities to invoice, therefore, reduced costs and faster
flow in the port to the offshore wind park. Consequently, a negative
N3: ‘It is important to have safe handling in the interfaces for both
impact on revenues for the participating enterprises in the short-term
avoiding accidents for people and safeguarding against damages for
and a positive impact in the long-term due to the competitive advan­
components’.
tage obtained from LCoE compared to other energy sources occur. The
N4: ‘There is a need to share risk and uncertainties in the interfaces. This understanding of short- and long-term impacts led research participants
means taking responsibility for the total flow through the port’ to elaborate on customers in the innovation ecosystem. End users and
MWh production knowledge were predominantly held by the wind park
N1: ‘There is a need to collaborate on solutions to reduce risk and un­
owner, as knowledge about these issues stems from their activities. The
certainties in the activities performed.’
participants discussed the information provided and extended the
Both N2 and N3 emphasise the safety aspect as a challenge in the collaborative insight into value creation in the innovation ecosystem.
transfer between different actors in the innovation ecosystem. Further­ The wind park owner launched an in-depth debate on the following
more, N4 and N1 suggest sharing risks and uncertainties to overcome the question:
challenges emerging in the interfaces. Here, upfront collaboration on
‘Who will be interested in the offshore wind park for investment and use of
concepts to reduce the uncertainty present in these interfaces is sug­
the MWh’s produced?’
gested by N4 and N1. N4 stresses the risk and uncertainties in interfaces
that need overall responsibility of total flow. Thus, the two terms of risk This provoked enhanced suggestions for investors in offshore wind
and uncertainty are perceived as interrelated with different degrees of energy parks. It also made awareness of the reduction of LCoE even more
predictability, as suggested by Knight (1921). focused than before in the research process.
The key resources frequently mentioned by participants to support Finally, the key partners were discussed. Initially, partners in the
value creation at innovation ecosystem level were found in own innovation ecosystem were not perceived as important. Thereafter,
knowledge domains and in other-participant-knowledge domains, with when legal and IT challenges emerged as important for interface and
requirements for collaboration on development of new knowledge flow solutions, the perception of partners’ importance changed. The
within. participants thus acknowledged that improvements of flow’ and in­
terfaces require proper support from legislation. Furthermore, IT sys­
• IT data collection and computing tems can effectively support the reliability of interfaces and simulations
• Funding access of flow to reduce uncertainties and transparency of actions. Conse­
• Project management to develop broader overview for collaboration quently, the participants stated the following:
and knowledge creation
N3: ‘IT-tools can considerably help us in relation to both interfaces and
• Port spaces and equipment that are more flexible
flow’
Enhanced collaborative insights regarding these key resources were N2: ‘There are legal issues about flexible and easy solutions.
developed during PAR meetings. Discussions were conducted on how to
N3 and N2 emphasise the need for digital and legal innovation for
organise resources to increase value creation at the innovation
easy conceptual solutions in the offshore wind innovation ecosystem to
ecosystem level, with input provided as follows by the research
increase value. Specific solutions were not discussed, as knowledge was
participants:
required from digital and legal enterprises to proceed with discussions
N3: ‘A system to show the flow of equipment and actors in the port can on the viable solutions.
support the simulation of the flow to be as fast as possible’ In general, the research process provided intense discussions among
the participants. This means that rich and in-depth data elaborated
N1: ‘Improved project management experience can support safe interfaces
among participants could be collected for analysis. At the beginning of
and fast flow. Some of the project managers do not have enough experi­
the first collaborative PAR workshop, much information was requested
ence as evidenced by the performance of their projects.
regarding logistical, technical, and maritime data. Thereafter, questions
N3 and N1 emphasise IT system innovation and improve broader regarding goals aimed at increasing value creation were posed. This
project management knowledge to increase the value proposition at the raised debates on the impact on humans, society, and the participating
innovation ecosystem level. The IT system resource could develop into a enterprises, and prompted development of new ideas during collabora­
requirement for a platform in the ecosystem; however, participants did tive PAR workshops. This led to the active organising of collaboration on
not acknowledge the platform issue to span the ecosystem. Research supportive and hindering BMI key activities, resources, customers, re­
participants’ perspectives were enhanced through elaboration of the lationships, and partners, as summarised in Table 5.
different resources owned by research participants for ecosystem value Table 5 shows that both supporting and hindering processes for
creation. organising of collaboration emerge among all BMI key factors, which
Customers, customer relationships, and channels were discussed in cause serious drawbacks during discussions, however, many new ideas
the first collaborative workshop, in which actors focused on a typical on collaborative discussions and elaboration emerge. The summarised
delay in the payment of invoices for their work in the ecosystem. The findings on organising both overlap and supplement each other to a high
discussions evolved during the first collaborative workshop to contain extent among BMI factors for direction of innovation of value creation as
the larger potential for managers to understand value creation for cus­ highlighted in further detail in the following organising process
tomers, customers-customers and partners in the macro-ecosystem unfolding on the hub-port suggestion:
context. Finally, the research participants agreed with N4, who In the first collaborative PAR workshop, the port was suggested as a
announced the following: hub-port (strategic main port for offshore wind park operation

7
T. Brink Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134150

Table 5 activities) in the Baltic Sea. This opportunity had not been previously
Overview on organising of BMI for direction of innovation in ecosystems. suggested and was not perceived as an opportunity by the port. This
BMI at ecosystem Organising of collaboration: Summarised findings on means that stretched value creation was aimed at by participants to
level Supporting: + organising innovation radically increase the value creation of the innovation ecosystem. This
Hindering: - direction of value creation suggestion was debated several times in all three collaborative PAR
Key activities + Focus on activities to workshops. Technical details regarding activities and resources were
improve: explored first, and then the goals for an offshore hub port in the Baltic
Safe handling of components ⋅ Flow Sea. The research participants discussed what requirements would be
Share uncertainties contained ⋅ Interfaces
in activities.
framed for a Baltic Sea wind energy hub to enhance attraction of cus­
Collaboration to reduce to overcome uncertainties. tomers, relationships, and partners, and agreed that it would be essential
uncertainties in general. to answer the following question:
Take responsibility for the
total flow. ‘How many simultaneous offshore wind parks can be handled in the
- port?’
Gap in own activities and
practice experiences to The answers were elaborated, which led to further exploitation of the
overcome challenges. effects that this could have on value creation in the offshore wind energy
Unforeseen events coming up, innovation ecosystem. Details and necessary process activities were
what to do?
Key resources þ Focus on knowledge to
debated upon regarding required investments and resources for a hub-
improve function in the Baltic Sea. Thereafter, extended ideas were explored
Development of ⋅ Flow on the hub port function to enhance customers and partners attraction.
⋅ own knowledge domains to ⋅ Interfaces Then, the impact on employees and local suppliers from the port’s
be more thorough and
contribution to the offshore wind energy innovation ecosystem was
innovation based.
⋅ new knowledge domains to overcome lack of debated. A continuous discussion shifted between the exploration of
within IT, finance and overview, transparency and new ideas and goals and the exploitation of the impact on detailed
project management funding. functional activities and resources of employees and suppliers to support
Development of facilities – Use this knowledge to value creation in the innovation ecosystem. These debates were framed
spaces/equipment on both increase ecosystem value
in loose elaborations originating from the research participants’ own
standards & flexibility proposition.
- organisation of BMI exploration and exploitation to provide direction for
Lack of own knowledge to innovation to increase value creation. At the end of the PAR workshop
overcome challenges. two, a concept was developed on the offshore wind park establishment
Lack of funding.
at hand with spillover of knowledge developed from the hub port dis­
Key Customers & þ Focus on innovation to
Relationships improve cussion, which reduced the original estimate for investments by 50%
Understand value creation for ⋅ Exploitation compared to the initial estimate. Additionally, the concept could
customers and end users to considerably support faster flow through the port with fewer challenges
reduce LCoE. in interfaces and inconveniences and more value creation for society.
Exploitation of incremental ⋅ Exploration
These early pre-phase discussions among ecosystem participants created
new innovation initiatives.
Exploration of radical new to overcome lack of value organizational ecosystem knowledge for considerably increased value
innovation initiatives creation for long term creation in the offshore wind park at hand and for dissemination and use
competitive advantage. in other offshore wind energy parks.
-
In summary, the loose organising of BMI among participants resulted
Competition hindering
collaboration.
in explorative and exploitative improvements of interfaces and flow,
Lack of reduction in short consistent with less investment required in the port, faster flow, and
term invoicing can hinder safer interfaces. The direction of innovation among participants was
long term increase in thus obtained for increased value creation, answering question 2 in
invoicing from competitive
Section 2.4, and showing the ability of ecosystem participants to
advantage of the ecosystem.
Key Partners þ Focus on improvements of: collaboratively organise innovation direction to create value in the
Collaborative development of ⋅ Flow ecosystem.
activities adding resources
from heterogeneous
4.3. Overall summary of the findings
knowledge domains,
facilities, equipment and
funding for The analyses conducted support the suggestion of Adner (2017) to
⋅ Legal regulation in easy ⋅ Interfaces focus on the innovation ecosystem value proposition to pursue strategic
solutions. innovation for value creation in innovation ecosystems. Additionally,
• IT tools to support To overcome lacks of
transparency and overview, transparency and
the empirical findings extend the understanding of innovation
overview. funding to overcome ecosystem practices and BMI practices stated by researchers (Granstrand
uncertainties. and Holgersson, 2020; Möller et al., 2020) to support insights and en­
- hancements of value creation in the pre-phases of innovation.
New partners coming with
Fig. 1 provides a parsimonious graphical illustration of the findings
new knowledge and new
activities means change in highlighted in research and summarised in the conceptual EcoValue BMI
basic business for all – means model.
new standards and new Fig. 1 highlights the essential focus on the innovation ecosystem
flexibility required. value proposition developed by complementary participants beyond
their own enterprises. This value proposition provides a point of origin
for BMI organising among participants to integrate the exploration and
exploitation of strategic direction in interfaces and flow for value crea­
tion in innovation ecosystems without a focal firm or a platform to span

8
T. Brink Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134150

Fig. 1. Summarisation of findings in the ‘EcoValue BMI’ model.

the innovation ecosystem. innovation ecosystems according to the citation from N1 in section 4.3;
The integration of the knowledge domains of ecosystem literature however, if this derivative impact will succeed, it must be verified
and BMI literature has been shown to complement each other in inno­ further.
vation ecosystem value creation. N1 commented on this integration as The focus on LCoE, which provides a long-term measure for the
follows: success of the innovation ecosystem, can be perceived as, especially,
logical and beneficial for innovation energy ecosystems. However,
N1: ‘This process opens new ways to understand value creation in offshore
research has revealed that this measure is often neglected in daily short-
wind parks. This is interesting for us and it will get even more interesting
term management operations, causing considerable sub-optimization
when we can use the insight and understanding in the specific subsequent
(Brink et al., 2015; Autio and Thomas, 2014). The participating man­
activities.’
agers should reach beyond their individual vertical organizational
Organising BMI can provide support for value creation at the structures and embrace horizontal innovation ecosystem activities
ecosystem level through enhanced insights and understanding of inte­ regarding interfaces and flow to increase value creation in the
grating exploitation and exploration in the horizontal direction of long-term. This causes challenges in balancing the ‘ability to protect
innovation in interfaces and flow to create value. one’s (own firm) sources of profit, while enabling “complementors” to
make an adequate profit and protect their own proprietary knowledge’
5. Discussion (Gawer and Cusumano, 2015; 70). Further research is needed to
demonstrate the ability to support this balance, which will probably be
In general, long-term innovation leadership is required in the even more important when competing enterprises participate in value
important overall role of value proposition of ecosystems (Adner, 2017: proposition discussions. Further research in ecosystems is needed to
48), stressing that ‘successful leadership is contingent on willing reveal comprehensive empirical evidence on the impact of this
followership’ and can be done as shared leadership. Additionally, the long-term measure in competitive context.
innovation ecosystem literature highlights the need for a stabilising The concept of the EcoValue BMI model aims to provide a parsi­
logic of ‘ecosystem members, as organisations or collectives, influence monious overview of organising value creation at the innovation
the norms, regulations, and beliefs, which define how the business field ecosystem level. The findings show empowered horizontal innovation
is perceived’ (Möller et al., 2020). The value proposition of the overall initiatives go beyond their own organisations for value creation in the
ecosystem is empirically shown in this research to provide stabilising innovation ecosystem (Adner, 2017). Further research is required on the
logic for organising BMI to contribute to innovation direction. However, horizontal leadership of managers and employee training in the inte­
literature on the ability of the ecosystem value proposition to provide gration of knowledge domains to overcome functional silos and organ­
this logic is scarce; therefore, the findings of this research cannot be isational knowledge distances (Brink, 2018) for organising collaborative
compared to those of similar studies. Further research on the stabilising innovation for value creation. In summary, further research on stabil­
logic of value proposition in ecosystems is needed to reveal and shed ising logic, derivative innovation, a long-term measure, and horizontal
enhanced empirical light on potential value creation in ecosystems. leadership is needed.
The different lenses among innovation ecosystem participants show
the ability to develop innovation leadership for value creation in the pre- 6. Conclusion
phases of innovation. However, will this be sustainable during the life­
time of the offshore park energy innovation ecosystem? Future research This study sheds light on the research question of how innovation
must investigate this question. Supposedly, the research participants ecosystems can organise value creation without a focal firm or a plat­
wanted to utilize their knowledge throughout their lifetime and in other form in the pre-phases of innovation. Participatory action research was

9
T. Brink Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134150

conducted from September 2017 to June 2018 in a port space with four Creswell, J.W., Poth, C.N., 2018. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Choosing
Among Five Approaches, fourth ed. Sage, London.
enterprises participating in the pre-phases of innovation within an
Crown Estate, 2012. Offshore Wind Cost Reduction Pathways Study. https://bv
offshore wind energy innovation ecosystem. gassociates.com/publications/. (Accessed 10 July 2022).
The findings are summarised and illustrated in the conceptual model de Langen, P.W., Haezendonck, E., 2012. Ports as clusters of economic activity. The
named EcoValue BMI, which shows the essential role of the value Blackwell Companion to Maritime Economics 638–655.
De Martino, M., Morvillo, A., 2008. Activities, resources and inter-organizational
proposition in the innovation ecosystem for innovation direction of relationships: key factors in port competitiveness. Marit. Pol. Manag. 35 (6),
value creation. BMI revealed the exploration and exploitation of hori­ 571–589.
zontal interfaces and flow for value creation in innovation ecosystems Eggert, A., Kleinaltenkamp, M., Kashyap, V., 2019. Mapping value in business markets:
an integrative framework. Ind. Market. Manag. 79, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/
without a focal firm or a platform. Further research is needed on sta­ j.indmarman.2019.03.004.
bilising logic, derivative lifetime innovation, one long-term measure, Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev.
and horizontal leadership to reveal enhanced knowledge for contribu­ 14 (4), 532–550.
Elmquist, M., Gawer, A., Le Masson, 2019. Innovation theory and the (Re-)foundation of
tion to the literature, ecosystem, and BMI practices. management: facing the unknown. Eur. Manag. Rev. 16, 379–381. https://doi.org/
10.1111/emre.12308.
CRediT authorship contribution statement EWEA, 2021. Offshore wind in Europe. Key trends and statistics 2020. https://windeuro
pe.org/data-and-analysis/product/offshore-wind-in-europe-key-trends-and-statistics
-2020/. (Accessed 10 July 2022).
Tove Brink: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Foss, N.J., Saebi, T., 2016. Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: how
Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administra­ far have we come, and where should we go? J. Manag. 43 (1), 200–227. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206316675927.
tion, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Foss, N.J., Saebi, T., 2020. Business models and business model innovation: between
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. wicked and paradigmatic problems. Long. Range Plan. 51, 9–21. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lrp.2017.07.006.
Gawer, A., Cusumano, M.A., 2015. How companies become platform leaders. In: Sloan
Declaration of competing interest Select Collection. MIT Sloan Management Review –. http://marketing.mitsmr.
com/PDF/STR0715-Top-10-Strategy.pdf#page=70. (Accessed 10 July 2022).
George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., Tihanyi, L., 2016. Understanding and
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Acad. Manag. J.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence 59 (6), 1880–1895. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4007.
the work reported in this paper. Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., Hamilton, A.L., 2013. Seeking qualita4ve rigor in induc4ve
research: notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ. Res. Methods 16 (1), 15–31.
Granstrand, O., Holgersson, M., 2020. Innovation Ecosystems: a conceptual review and
Data availability new definition. Technovation 90–91, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
technovation.2019.102098.
Hollen, R., 2015. Exploratory Studies into Strategies to Enhance Innovation-Driven
The authors do not have permission to share data. International Port Competitiveness in a Port Context. Erasmus University,
Rotterdam.
Acknowledgement Huxham, C., Vangen, S., 2003. Researching organizational practice through action
research: case studies and design choices. Organ. Res. Methods 6 (3), 383–403.
http://orm.sagepub.com/content/6/3/383.
The author would like to thank first and foremost the participating IPCC, UN, 2021. Climate Change 2021. The Physical Science Basis. Intergovernal Panel
enterprises contributing anonymous to this article, the Danish Ministry of Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_
AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf. (Accessed 10 July 2022).
of Higher Education and Science and the Innovation Network BrandBase Knight, F.H., 1921. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Hart, Schaffner, and Marx Prize Essays,
for financing the research conducted. Additionally, the author would no. 31. Houghton Mifflin, Boston and New York. http://www.econlib.org/librar
like to thank the anonymous reviewers providing valuable input for the y/Knight/knRUP.html. (Accessed 10 July 2022).
Konietzko, J., Bocken, J., Hultink, E.J., 2020. Circular ecosystem innovation: an initial
article. Last but not least, the author would like to thank Associated set of principles. J. Clean. Prod. 253 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Professor Erik Stavnsager Rasmussen and Student Assistant Thit Bast jclepro.2019.119942.
Schmidt for valuable collaboration during research. Lewin, K., 1946. Resolving Social Conflicts. Harper, New York, NY.
Massa, L., Tucci, C.L., Afuah, A., 2017. A critical assessment of business model research.
Acad. Manag. Ann. 11 (1), 73–104. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0072.
References Möller, K., Nenonen, S., Storbacka, K., 2020. Networks, Ecosystems, fields, market
systems? Making sense of the business environment. Ind. Market. Manag. 90,
Adner, R., 2006. Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harv. 380–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.07.013.
Bus. Rev. 84 (4), 98. Nailer, C., Buttriss, G., 2020. Processes of business model evolution through the
Adner, R., 2017. Ecosystem as structure: an actionable construct for strategy. J. Manag. mechanism of anticipation and realisation of value. Ind. Market. Manag. 91,
43 (1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451. 671–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.04.009.
Amabile, T.M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., Herron, M., 1996. Assessing the work Oh, D.S., Phillips, F., Park, S., Lee, E., 2016. Innovation Ecosystems: a critical
environment for creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 39 (5), 1154–1184. examination. Technovation 54, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Andreini, D., Bettinelli, C., Foss, N.J., Mismetti, M., 2021. Business Model Innovation: a technovation.2016.02.004.
review of the process-based literature. J. Manag. Govern. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Ritala, P., Almpanopoulou, A., 2017. In defence of ‘eco’ in innovation ecosystems.
s10997-021-09590-w. Technovation 60–61, 39–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.01.004.
Autio, E., Thomas, L.D.W., 2014. Innovation Ecosystems – implications for innovation Smith, A., 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, first ed.
management. In: Dodgson, M., Cann, D.M., Philips, N. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook (London: W. Strahan).
of Innovation Management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 204–229. Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2016. Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of
Brink, T., 2016. Organising to enable innovation. Int. J. Bus. Innovat. Res. 10 (2/3), service-dominant logic. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 44 (1), 1–19. https://link.springer.
402–433. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIR.2016.074836. com/article/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3.
Brink, T., 2018. Organising of dynamic proximities enables robustness, innovation and WEC – World Economic Forum, 2020. Davos manifesto: the universal purpose of a
growth: the longitudinal case of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in food company in the fourth industrial revolution. https://www.weforum.org/agenda
producing firm networks. Ind. Market. Manag. 75, 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/ /2019/12/davos-manifesto-2020-the-universal-purpose-of-a-company-in-the-
j.indmarman.2018.04.005. fourth-industrial-revolution/. (Accessed 10 July 2022).
Brink, T., Madsen, S.O., Lutz, S., 2015. Perspectives on How Operation & Maintenance Weick, K.E., Quinn, R.E., 1999. Organizational change and development. Annu. Rev.
(O&M) Innovations Contribute to the Reduction of Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) Psychol. 50, 365–386.
in Offshore Wind Parks, vol. 2015. Danish Wind Industry Association. http://ipaper. Yin, R.K., 2018. Case Study Research and Applications. Design and Methods, 6th. Edition.
ipapercms.dk/Windpower/OWDrapport. (Accessed 10 July 2022). Sage.

10