Ida Strömfors 

Employee Barriers that Impact the Implementation of 
New Ways of Working in an Innovation Ecosystem 

A Case Study of a Finnish Multinational Corporation 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Vaasa 2020 

School of Management  
Master’s Thesis in International Business 



2 

 

UNIVERSITY OF VAASA 

School of Management  

Author:    Ida Strömfors 

Title of the Thesis: Employee Barriers that Impact the Implementation of New 

Ways of Working in an Innovation Ecosystem : A Case Study of a 

Finnish Multinational Corporation 

Degree:    Master of Science in Economics and Business Administration 

Programme:   Master's Degree Programme in International Business 

Supervisor:   Vesa Suutari 

Completion Year:  2020 Number of Pages: 134 

  ABSTRACT: 

 

The research on innovation ecosystems have received increasing interest in the past decade. In 

addition, value creation in the arrangement of innovation ecosystems has gained popularity. 

Innovation ecosystems are initiated for value co-creation and consist of a variety of actors that 

are interdependent and interconnected. However, the temporary initial stage of innovation 

ecosystem creation is still a rather under-researched. Moreover, innovation ecosystems from 

the perspective of individuals have not yet received adequate attention. Change in organizations 

is nothing new, yet companies face challenges when new kinds of changes are implemented. 

The study examines a single case, which is an organization that has initiated the change of 

establishing an innovation ecosystem. Therefore, the study examines the research gap on 

innovation ecosystems in the initial phase of creation from an employee perspective. More 

specifically, the study explores the barriers that employees face in this specific change process, 

and why. A qualitative research method was chosen for the study and the empirical data was 

collected by conducting ten semi-structured interviews from the employee point of view. The 

study followed an abductive research approach and was conducted cross-sectionally. The 

findings reveal that the main barrier point in the change is in the knowledge stage, which 

represents the information, training and education on how to actually change. The findings 

indicate that the barrier is related to factors, such as an unclear understanding of the new way 

of working, skills and behaviors. Also, the barrier exists due to lack of accessible information on, 

for example, processes, techniques, systems, tools, roles and responsibilities. Lack of resources, 

such as facilitators and trainers, is also an impacting factor. The underlying reasons, for this 

barrier point, are a lack of personalized information and a lack of consolidated information. 

Other barriers were also discovered in the findings, but they were of a smaller scale.  

 

 

KEYWORDS: innovation ecosystems, organizational changes, change management, resistance 

to change, AKDAR change management model 

  



3 

 

Contents 

1 Introduction 7 

1.1 Background of the Study 7 

1.2 Justification for the Study 9 

1.3 Research Purpose, Question and Objectives 13 

1.4 Delimitations 14 

1.5 Key Concepts 15 

1.6 Structure of the Thesis 17 

2 Organizational Change and Change Management 19 

2.1 Organizational Change 19 

2.2 Characteristics of Change Management 20 

2.2.1 Change Management Formula 21 

2.2.2 Change is a Process 22 

2.2.3 Senders and Receivers 25 

2.2.4 Comfort and Resistance to Change 26 

2.2.5 Role of Leaders in the Change Process 28 

2.2.6 Value Systems 28 

2.2.7 Size and Type of Change 29 

2.3 ADKAR Change Management Model 30 

2.3.1 Awareness 30 

2.3.2 Desire 33 

2.3.3 Knowledge 35 

2.3.4 Ability 37 

2.3.5 Reinforcement 39 

2.4 Summary 41 

3 Innovation Management and Innovation Ecosystems 43 

3.1 Characteristics of Innovation Ecosystems 44 

3.1.1 Ecosystem Lifecycle 46 

3.1.2 Ecosystem Strategy 47 



4 

 

3.1.3 Actors and Roles 48 

3.1.4 Multi-Partner Collaboration 51 

3.1.5 Governance Mechanisms 53 

3.1.6 Value Co-Creation 54 

3.1.7 Success Factors and Challenges 56 

3.2 Summary and Framework of the Study 58 

4 Research Methodology 62 

4.1 Research Philosophy and Approach 62 

4.2 Research Design 63 

4.2.1 Case Company 66 

4.3 Research Methods 68 

4.3.1 Sampling 68 

4.3.2 Data Collection 70 

4.3.3 Data Analysis 71 

4.4 Trustworthiness and Ethics of the Study 73 

5 Findings and Discussion 76 

5.1 Awareness 76 

5.1.1 General Awareness 76 

5.1.2 Information Sources 79 

5.1.3 Purpose of the Change 81 

5.1.4 Validity of the Change 84 

5.1.5 Risks with the change 85 

5.2 Desire 87 

5.2.1 Personal Benefits 88 

5.2.2 Motivation and Personal Circumstances 90 

5.2.3 Discouragement and Personal Circumstances 92 

5.2.4 History and Change Culture 95 

5.3 Knowledge 100 

5.3.1 Skills and Behaviors 100 

5.3.2 Specific Information on How to Change 103 



5 

 

5.3.3 Availability of Resources for Education and Training 104 

5.4 Ability 105 

5.4.1 Challenges in Implementation 106 

5.4.2 Availability of Resources for Implementation 108 

5.5 Reinforcement 109 

5.6 Improvement Suggestions 112 

6 Summary and Conclusion 115 

6.1 Theoretical Contributions 117 

6.2 Managerial Implications 119 

6.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research 120 

References 122 

Appendix. Interview Guide 133 

  



6 

 

Figures 

 

Figure 1 Structure of the study 18 

Figure 2. Formula for change management (Pucik et al., 2017) 22 

Figure 3. Alignment of ADKAR with business change (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012) 23 

Figure 4. The change transition process (Adapted from Burke & Barron, 2014) 24 

Figure 5. ADKAR change elements (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012) 30 

Figure 6. Collaborative forms in organizational groups (Davis, 2016) 52 

Figure 7. The value co-creation process (Ketonen-Oksi & Valkokari, 2019) 55 

Figure 8. Framework of the study (Adapted from Hiatt, 2006; Hiatt & Creasey, 2012) 61 

Figure 9. Summary of change barriers and underlying reasons 116 

 

 

Tables 

 

Table 1. Change phases and change barriers (Adapted from Hiatt, 2006) 42 

Table 2. Information regarding informants and interviews 69 

 

 

Abbreviations 

 

EVP  Ecosystem Value Proposition 

HRM  Human Resource Management 

IPR  Intellectual Property Rights 

MNC  Multinational Corporation 

NGO  Non-governmental organization 

R&D  Research and Development 

SME  Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise  



7 

 

1 Introduction 

The aim of this master’s thesis is to examine the barriers that employees face in the 

process of initiating and organizing the start of an innovation ecosystem within a 

multinational corporation. Change management is a well know phenomenon, yet 

companies still face challenges when implementing new types of change initiatives. 

Moreover, this specific strategic change initiative of starting an innovation ecosystem has 

received little attention previously in the strategy and management literature. In this 

chapter, the background and justification of the study are discussed, then the research 

purpose, question and objectives are explained. Afterwards, the delimitations and key 

concepts are presented. The structure of the thesis is outlined at the end of the chapter. 

1.1 Background of the Study 

A new buzzword surfaced in the beginning of 1990s, namely, globalization. Economic 

barriers of trade and investment became gradually less relevant when governments 

started to dismantle them. When regulations and restrictions between national boarders 

started to decrease, new opportunities for international business increased. (Pucik, 

Evans, Björkman, & Morris, 2017, p. 6) Globalization is one of the most distinct trends 

that intensifies competition worldwide, and it has enabled dramatic advances in 

information and communication technologies and new organizational forms (Entrekin & 

Scott-Ladd, 2014). Due to the intensified global competition multinational corporations 

must change the way they are doing business around the world to stay competitive, and 

this includes the way they manage their own employees (Pucik et al., 2017, p. 8). 

A challenge for global companies today is to respond rapidly to changes in the 

environment, such as strategic opportunities and threats (Pucik et al., 2017, p. 297). It is 

one thing to agree on the need for organizational change, but implementing it is another 

matter. Implementing a change requires both a thorough analysis of the situation and 

building acceptance around the decision. Managers tend to focus more on what needs 

to be done and less on how to actually do it, namely, building acceptance inside the 

organization. (Pucik et al., 2017, p. 299) 



8 

 

Change barriers and resistance against change cannot be completely avoided and 

therefore building and managing acceptance of change is not an easy task. This is 

especially challenging in large companies that have been successful in the past, because 

the company culture and traditions have been formed by past success. (Pucik et al., 

2017, p. 301) One of the leading factors why change transformations fail is due to the 

employees’ resistance to the change (Maurer, 1996, p. 56; Galbrait, 2018), and when 

employees do not understand why organizational change is happening it is likely to result 

in employee resistance. (Galbrait, 2018) 

Challenges when implementing change can be linked to getting employees out of their 

comfort zone, not having a clear vision, or not communicating the vision appropriately 

(Kotter, 1995). New situations and changes in the organization are putting pressure on 

employees to adapt and develop, which can lead to resistance and barriers that the 

employees must overcome. Resistance to change does not have to be all negative, if the 

nature of the resistance is diagnosed it can instead be utilized for improvement of the 

change process (Waddell & Sohal, 1998, p. 546).  

In the past decade, another buzzword that has emerged and received increasing interest 

in the strategy and management literature is the term ecosystem. This term has been 

popularly used as a new way to describe the competitive environment. (Jacobides, 

Cennamo, & Gawer, 2018, p. 2256) The term business ecosystem, which is borrowed 

from the biology field, first appeared in the strategy and management field in the work 

of Moore (1993), but the concept has been booming in the last few years (Jacobides et 

al., 2018, p. 2256). Also, innovation has become a more significant method for economic 

growth due to the growth of information communication technologies and globalization 

(Mercan & Göktaş, 2011, p. 103). Moreover, the term innovation ecosystem, built on the 

business ecosystem literature, has received increasing attention (Adner, 2006), and 

according to Adner (2017, p. 56) interdependent value creation in the arrangement of 

innovation ecosystems will gain popularity and importance in the coming years. 

There has also been critique raised on the usage of the term innovation ecosystem. Oh, 

Phillips, Park and Lee (2016) claim that adding ”eco-” to the term innovation systems 



9 

 

brings very little additional value, and at present the litterature on innovation ecosystem 

and innovation systems seem to be identical. The analogy to biological ecosystems is 

seen as flawed, since biological ecosystems are evolved, while innovation ecosystems 

are designed. However, the concept of innovation ecoysystems brings some useful 

contributions, but these contributions does not rely on the ”eco” prefix. (Oh et al., 2016, 

pp. 2-4)  

Ritala & Almpanopoulou (2017, p. 39) point out that currently there is no general 

consensus on a definition, boundaries, or scope of the concept of innovation ecosystem. 

However, given the interest and rapid growth of the concept, is seems beneficial to bring 

more clarity to it. Furthermore, it is pointed out that borrowing terms from biology can 

be useful for research in other fields, and the borrowed terms do not always have to be 

fully replicated to bring value. (Ritala & Almpanopoulou, 2017, p. 39) For example, 

Moore (1993) used the analogy between natural ecosystem and business ecosystem to 

explain the interdependency between ecoysystem actors and how they co-evolve over 

time. 

1.2 Justification for the Study 

Even though change management has been studied extensively over past decades, 

companies still face challenges when implementing changes in new and unfamiliar 

situations. Many researchers have the opinion that more often than not change efforts 

fail (Kotter, 1995; Maurer, 1996; LaClair & Rao, 2002; Maurer, 2010). A study conducted 

of change programs in 40 organizations, in banking, health, and utility sectors, found that 

58 percent of the organizations failed to meet their objectives. Furthermore, companies 

with the lowest return on their investments also has inadequate change management 

capabilities. (LaClair & Rao, 2002) Another study found that only 47 percent of the 

employees involved in change initiatives in their organization felt that their needs were 

considered in the process, and only 29 percent felt that the needs of all employees were 

taken into account (Rosenberg & Mosca, 2011). This indicates that a greater focus on the 

individuals in the change process could be beneficial.  



10 

 

There is a strong foundation of research related to change management (Kotter, 1996; 

Hiatt, 2006; Carnall, 2007; Murthy, 2007; Hiatt & Creasey, 2012; Pucik et al., 2017) and 

resistance to change (Waddell & Sohal, 1998; LaClair & Rao, 2002; Pardo del Val & 

Fuentes, 2003; Ford, Ford & D'Amelio, 2008; Ford & Ford, 2010; Rosenberg & Mosca, 

2011; Burke & Barron, 2014), which will provide a base for achieving the purpose of this 

study. One of the earlier models of change was the three-stage change model by Kurt 

Lewin in 1947. The three stages are called unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. (Carnall, 

2007, p. 70) This model inspired and set the foundation for other researchers, for 

example, the research of Kotter (1996). Kotter’s eight-stage model is one of the most 

popular models for managing change (Carnall, 2007, p. 70) and the stages are: 

“establishing a sense of urgency, creating a guiding coalition, developing a vision and 

strategy, communicating the change vision, empowering employees for broad-based 

action, generating short term wins, consolidating gains and producing more change, and 

anchoring new approaches in the culture.” (Kotter, 1996).  

Lewin’s three-stage model is seen as simple and effective, especially for project teams 

and large organizations. However, a disadvantage is that the model does not provide any 

detail on how to deal with the human side of the change. On the other hand, Kotter’s 

model includes the human aspect of change, but mainly from a top-down managerial 

approach where employees have little opportunity to provide input. (Galli, 2018, pp. 

128-129)  

Another model for change is the ADKAR change management model. This model focuses 

on the people aspect of change, and ADKAR is an acronym for the stages that an 

individual has to pass through for the change to be successful. The stages are awareness, 

desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement. (Hiatt, 2006; Hiatt & Creasey, 2012). The 

advantage of this model is that the focus lies on the employees (Galli, 2018, p. 129). The 

ADKAR model will be utilized as a base for this study, since it will aid in identifying where 

the employee barrier points in the change lie. This model is also appropriate to use in 

the study since it focuses on individual change in organizations rather than just high-level 

organizational change. 



11 

 

The ADKAR model have been applied in several contexts. For example, Kazmi and 

Naaranoja (2013) used the ADKAR change management model to determine the 

employee barrier points for a health care change initiative in northern Finland. 

Furthermore, a recent study was conducted by Al-Alawi, Abdulmohsen, Al-Malki, and 

Mehrotra (2019) on educational institutions in the public sector in Bahrain with the aim 

of identifying barriers to change management. In this study the ADKAR change 

management model was used as a basis for their research. It was chosen because it 

distinguishes the different parts of the change process, which makes it easier to identify 

where the barrier points are. (Al-Alawi et al., 2019, p. 112) Another study was conducted 

by Kliewe, Davey and Baaken (2013) where the ADKAR change management model was 

applied on a successful innovation program in a large enterprise in Australia. However, 

ADKAR has not been applied in the setting of an innovation ecosystem. 

In the literature on ecosystems in the strategy and management field, several types of 

ecosystems have been present. These types of ecosystems are business ecosystems, 

knowledge ecosystems, platform ecosystems, and innovation ecosystems (Valkokari, 

2015; Jacobides et al., 2018; Gomes, Facin, Salerno, & Ikenami, 2016; Autio & Thomas, 

2014). Distinctions are made between business ecosystems, knowledge ecosystems, and 

innovation ecosystems. The focus of business ecosystems is to create present customer 

value, knowledge ecosystem focus on creating new knowledge, and innovation 

ecosystems focus on the integration of the two, namely, exploring new knowledge and 

exploiting that knowledge for value co-creation in the ecosystem. (Valkokari, 2015, p. 20) 

Gomes et al. (2016, pp. 31-45) also makes a similar distinction between business 

ecosystems and innovation ecosystem, where the former focuses on capturing value and 

the latter more on creating value.  

Jacobides et. al. (2018, p. 2257) distinguishes a stream of the management litterature 

which focuses on platform ecosystems, where different actors gather and organize 

themselves around a platform. The platform can take the form of shared or open-source 

technologies (Jacobides et al., 2018), but also physical places where collaborators can 

connect face-to-face (Ketonen-Oksi & Valkokari, 2019). Innovative platforms should be 



12 

 

collaborative, where internal and external parties can co-create and merge ideas that 

bring shared- and organizational value. (Lee, Olson, & Trimi, 2012, p. 829)  

Autio and Thomas (2014, p. 205) point out that the innovation ecosystem construct is 

different from networks and clusters, since innovation ecosystems include both actors 

from the production side and user side. Furthermore, clusters have a regional focus and 

are usually defined by a specific geographical location. Innovation ecosystems on the 

other hand are not bound by a geographical location (Dedehayir, Mäkinen, & Ortt, 2016). 

Moreover, innovation ecosystems can be distinguished from value chains and supply 

chains in the sense that they includes both vertical and horizontal relationships between 

actors (Autio & Thomas, 2014, p. 206). Vertical connections are the ones between seller 

and buyer, while horizontal connections are those relationships between organizations 

that provide similar services, uses comparable technologies and utilizes similar suppliers 

(Mercan & Göktaş, 2011, p. 107).  

Innovation ecosystems have received increasing attention in the past decade, and 

researchers have looked at, among other things, innovation strategies for innovation 

ecosystems (Adner, 2006), value creation in innovation ecosystems (Adner & Kapoor, 

2010), elements of innovation ecosystems (Mercan & Göktaş, 2011), and how to utilize 

the advantage of partners in ecosystems (Williamson & De Meyer, 2012). Furthermore, 

success factors that support the implementation of innovation ecosystems (Durst & 

Poutanen, 2013), roles during the birth of an innovation ecosystem, (Dedehayir, 

Mäkinen, & Ortt, 2016), and why ecosystems emerge (Jacobides et al., 2018) have also 

been researched topics. How to collaborate with multiple partners (Davis, 2016), 

collaboration strategies between research organizations and firms (Schroth & 

Häußermann, 2018), and how companies handle both competition and cooperation 

(Hannah & Eisenhardt, 2018) are also recently researched topics in the innovation 

ecosystem setting. Other researched topics are, how to map, analyze and design 

innovation ecosystems (Talmar, Walrave, Podoynitsyna, Holmström, & Romme, 2018), 

the construct of ecosystems and the implications for ecosystem strategy (Adner, 2017), 

and value co-creation in innovation ecosystems (Ketonen-Oksi & Valkokari, 2019). 



13 

 

The initial stage of innovation ecosystem creation has received little attention in the 

literature, since practitioners and researchers tend to make the assumption that 

ecosystems exist already. Therefore, the temporary initial phase is still rather under 

researched. (Valkokari, 2015, p. 22; Autio & Thomas, 2014, p. 219) Some researchers 

have addressed the initial phase of the creation of innovation ecosystems. For example, 

Dedehayir et al. (2016) looked at the different actor roles in the birth stage of an 

innovation ecosystem and Hannah & Eisenhardt (2018) addressed cooperation and 

competition in emerging ecosystems. Yet, there is a clear research gap with regard to the 

initial stage of innovation ecosystem creation. 

Durst & Poutanen (2013, p. 36) point out that that innovation ecosystems from a people 

perspective is an area that needs more consideration and development. Innovation 

ecosystems consist of a variety of actors that have different attitudes, expectations and 

objectives. Therefore, a deeper understanding of the implementation of innovation 

ecosystem from the point of view of individuals would be beneficial (Durst & Poutanen, 

2013, pp. 36-37). Furthermore, the ADKAR change management model has not yet been 

applied in the innovation ecosystem setting as already mentioned earlier. Therefore, a 

clear research gap is present in the literature on innovation ecosystems in the initial 

phase from the perspective of individuals. 

1.3 Research Purpose, Question and Objectives 

This study aims to increase the knowledge regarding innovation ecosystems in their 

initial stage of creation, from the perspective of individuals. Moreover, the purpose of 

this study is to identify the barriers employees face when new ways of working are 

implemented in the workplace, and more specifically in the situation where employees 

need to work with multiple collaborators in an innovation ecosystem. This results in the 

following research question:  

“What are the employee barriers that impact the implementation of new ways of 

working in an innovation ecosystem, and why?” 



14 

 

Research objectives are set in order to provide a direction of the study and to show how 

the research process will be structured. The research objectives help to operationalize 

the research question and purpose of the study. (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2019, p. 

45) The following empirical research objectives have been set for this study: 

1. To identify where the most significant change barriers for the employees lie in 
the change process. 

2. To identify the underlying reasons that hinders the employees progress in the 
change process. 

1.4 Delimitations 

This study is a single case study of a large multinational corporation (MNC) that is 

headquartered in Finland. A single case study is appropriate when the nature of the case 

is unique, typical or critical (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 199). Single case studies cannot be 

used to make statistical generalizations. However, the purpose of conducting a case 

study is rather to generalize and expand on existing theories. (Yin, 2014, p. 21) In this 

case study, the situation of the organization is rather unique in the specific research 

context of a Finnish MNC, namely, initiating and organizing the start of an innovation 

ecosystem. It would have been interesting to investigate the perspective of other kinds 

of partners and collaborators in the innovation ecosystem, such as start-ups or SMEs. 

Nevertheless, the study has been limited to a single case study due to reasons of 

manageability, accessibility of data and the time constraint of a master’s thesis.  

This study focuses on the perspective of individual employees, and the business side of 

the change will not be the focus of the study. The ADKAR change management model 

(Hiatt, 2006; Hiatt & Creasey, 2012) was chosen as a base for this study, since it focuses 

on five stages of individual change: 1) awareness, 2) desire, 3) knowledge, 4) ability, and 

5) reinforcement. Furthermore, the lifecycle of an innovation ecosystem can be divided 

into four phases: birth, expansion, leadership, and self-renewal or death (Moore, 1993; 

Dedehayir et al., 2016). This study will focus on the first phase, birth, since the case 

company is only in the beginning of initiating and organizing the innovation ecosystem. 



15 

 

The data collection method chosen for this study is semi-structured interviews. Where a 

qualitative research strategy is used by conducting in-dept or semi-structured interviews, 

a limitation is that such a study cannot be used to make statistical generalizations about 

the whole population (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 451). However, semi-structured 

interviews provide more in-dept information compared to data collection through 

questionnaires. Moreover, semi-structured interviews can be used to describe the 

relationship between variables (Saunders et al., 2019, p. 443). In this study, it will aid in 

answering the research question by explaining the relationship between employee 

barriers and the reason why these barriers are present. 

1.5 Key Concepts 

The key concepts used in this thesis include change barriers, resistance to change, 

organizational change, change management, innovation ecosystem, and multinational 

corporation. The concepts will be defined and explained in this subchapter. 

According to the Cambridge University Press (n.d.), barrier is defined as: “anything used 

or acting to block someone from going somewhere or from doing something, or 

to block something from happening.” Another way of defining barrier is “something that 

prevents something else from happening or makes it more difficult” (Cambridge 

University Press, n.d.). In this thesis, the focus will be specifically on change barriers, and 

a barrier to change is when something blocks an individual from embracing a specific 

change. An individual can reach different barrier points during the change process, which 

can occur in the awareness stage, desire stage, knowledge stage, ability stage, or the 

reinforcement stage (Hiatt, 2006). 

Resistance to change, on the other hand, has been defined as the action taken by people 

when a change is perceived as a threat to them (Burke & Barron, 2014, p. 117). Change 

resistance has also been viewed as a negative attitude towards a change, including the 

affective dimension, the behavioural dimension, and the cognitive dimension. The 

affective element defines how an individual feel about the change, the behavioural 

element describes how an individual acts as a response to the change, and the cognitive 



16 

 

element is how the individual thinks about the change. (Oreg, 2006, p. 76) Although 

resistance to change has been viewed as a negative phenomenon, it can influence the 

outcomes of a change in both a negative or positive way (Waddell & Sohal, 1998, p. 547). 

Lastly, resistance to change can act as a strong barrier to change, but all barriers to 

change do not have to take the form of resistance. 

Change Management entails managing the process of a change, with the help of a set 

of tools, processes and mechanisms, in order to achieve a more beneficial result in the 

end (Murthy, 2007; Kotter, 2012; Hiatt & Creasey, 2012). On the one hand, change 

management is said to be connected to the implementation of large-scale changes, such 

as changes in organizational structures, business processes, information technology or 

job assignments. Also, the purpose of change management is to reduce costs and risks. 

(Murthy, 2007, p. 22) On the other hand, Hiatt and Creasy (2012, p. 9) point out that 

change management can be used to manage the human side of a change, by 

transitioning individuals from the current state to a new desired future state with the 

purpose of achieving the expected results. The perspective of transitioning people 

through the change process will be the definition used in this thesis. 

Innovation Ecosystems have been defined and described in various ways. Currently there 

is no consensus on a single definition of innovation ecosystems. Gomes et al. (2016, p. 

45) maintain that innovation ecosystems are initiated for the co-creation of value and 

consists of actors that are interdependent and interconnected. Moreover, ecosystems 

are evolving communities that consist of relationships between actors that are built on 

collaboration and trust (Gobble, 2014; Autio & Thomas, 2014). Also, innovation 

ecosystem can be seen as collaborative agreements where firms can combine their 

specific offers into one solution towards the customer (Adner, 2006). In addition, 

innovation ecosystems can be seen as a structure where a multilateral group of partners 

conduct activities guided by a specific value proposition (Adner, 2017, pp. 42-43). This 

last definition will be the definition followed in this thesis.  

Multinational corporation, abbreviated as MNC, is a corporation that delivers services or 

produces goods in more than one country. MNCs have their headquarters usually in one 



17 

 

country (the home country) and operates in other countries (the host countries). MNCs 

can also be called multinational enterprise, international corporation, or just 

multinational. (European Commission, 2019) In this study the term multinational 

corporation will be used.  

1.6 Structure of the Thesis 

The first chapter of this research consists of the introduction. In the introduction, the 

reader is introduced to the background of the study and the justification for choosing 

this specific focus area. The research purpose, question, and objectives of this study are 

also explained in this chapter. Then, the delimitations and key concepts are presented in 

order to explain the scope that will be studied. Lastly, the structure of the study is 

outlined. 

The second and third chapter present the results of the in-dept literature review. These 

chapters introduce the reader to the different theoretical concepts included in the study 

and helps the reader to gain an understanding of the chosen concepts. The second 

chapter focuses on organizational change, characteristics of change management, and 

the ADKAR change management model. The third chapter explores the characteristics 

of innovation ecosystems and research conducted in the innovation ecosystem setting. 

The fourth chapter presents the research methodology of this study. The research 

philosophy, research approach, research design and methods are presented and 

discussed in this chapter. Also, sampling, data collection and data analysis are explained 

thoroughly to improve the transparency of the research. Lastly, the trustworthiness and 

the ethics of the study are discussed. 

The fifth chapter is the findings and discussion chapter. This chapter includes the 

description, analysis and evaluation of the empirical material. The empirical findings are 

presented and connected to previously discussed theoretical frameworks and concepts.  

The sixth chapter is the conclusion of the research. In this chapter, a summary of the 

finding is presented. Then, the theoretical contributions and the managerial implications 





19 

 

2 Organizational Change and Change Management 

This chapter first discusses and defines organizational change and its implications. Then, 

key characteristics of change management are presented, followed by a presentation of 

the ADKAR change management model together with the contributions of other 

researchers. Finally, a summary of the literature will conclude the chapter. 

2.1 Organizational Change 

Change is something that happens every day, but it is not the every-day changes that 

usually catches the attention of those in charge in an organization. In organizations there 

must be a certain level of change to push stakeholders and leaders to take action. (Mills, 

Mills & Dye, 2009, p. 4) Changes in the business environment have always been occurring, 

but according to Hiatt and Creasey (2012, p. 7), the saturation of change is at its peak.  

Organizational changes have a certain degree of impact on the way people think about 

their organization. The changes may affect people’s jobs and the way people perform 

those jobs. (Mills et al., 2009, pp. 4, 9) 

A simple definition of organizational change is “new ways of organizing and working” 

(Dawson, 2002, p. 16). However, this definition does not provide any scope or scale of 

the change that occurs and can range from an individual’s decision to change their own 

way of working to an organization-wide change (Dawson, 2002, p. 16). Organizational 

change is defined by Mills et al. (2009) as “an alteration of a core aspect of an 

organization’s operation.” (p. 4). Core aspects in this definition refers to technology, 

culture, structure, leadership, goals, or the personnel of an organization (Mills et al., 

2009, p. 4), and the definition refers to changes on a larger scale in an organization. 

Examples of large scale organisational changes are restructurings, leadership transitions, 

regulatory changes, or merger and acquisitions (Galbrait, 2018). What is important when 

it comes to organizational change is how its impact is acknowledged inside the 

organization. The scale of the organizational change is of less importance. (Mills et al., 

2009, pp. 4,9) 



20 

 

Companies are continuously changing and re-inventing themselves by adapting to new 

market trends, solving problems that occur, and taking advantage of opportunities that 

arise. In reality, it is not the company that is changing, but rather the individual people 

in the company. (Prosci Inc., 2019a) This means that individual change is required for 

organizational change, and organizational results are the aggregate outcome of 

individual change (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, pp. 4, 7). 

2.2 Characteristics of Change Management 

The concept of organizational change has now been addressed, but how do 

organizations manage these types of changes? There are various definitions of change 

management and these can be seen from different perspectives. For example, from an 

organizational perspective, a project perspective or an individual perspective. The 

following definition is a general definition that can apply to changes on any level or 

situation: 

The world basically uses change management, which is a set of processes and a 
set of tools and a set of mechanisms that are designed to make sure that when 
you do try to make some changes, A, it doesn't get out of control, and B, the 
number of problems associated with it... doesn't happen. (Kotter, 2012) 
 

According to Murthy (2007), “change management is managing the process of 

implementing major changes in information technology, business processes, 

organisational structures and job assignments to reduce the risks and costs of change 

and optimise its benefits.” (p. 22). This is another definition of change management that 

focuses on the perspective of business and the organization in general. An alternate 

definition that focuses to a greater extent on the individual and project point of view of 

change management is provided by Hiatt and Creasey (2012):  

Change management is the application of processes and tools to manage the 
people side of the change from a current state to a new future state so that the 
desired results of the change (and expected return on investment) are achieved. 
(p. 9).  
 

What all these definitions have in common is that change management is managing the 

process of a change in order to reach a more beneficial result. According to Pucik et al. 



21 

 

(2017, p. 300) effective change management can have a considerable positive effect, 

because when financial markets judge the value of a corporation, they look mainly on 

how well a company has managed to implement their plans and strategies. Also, studies 

show that organizations’ ability to implement strategy is a highly valuable intangible 

capability (Pucik et al., 2017, p. 300). Furthermore, companies that have high change 

management capabilities are likely to outperform their competitors by three and a half 

times (Galbrait, 2018). Moreover, executives know that the employee’s ability to 

embrace change is crucial in the implementation phase, and employees can determine 

the success or failure of a change (LaClair & Rao, 2002).  

There are several aspects related to change that are beneficial to acknowledge, since 

they will have an impact on how effective the change management activities will be. The 

aspects are change management formula, change is a process, senders and receivers, 

comfort and resistance to change, role of leaders in the change process, value systems, 

and size and type of change. (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, p. 15) These aspects are presented 

in the following sections. 

2.2.1 Change Management Formula 

Change management requires both quality of the recommended change and acceptance 

of the decision by the people (Pucik et al., 2017, p. 300). It is not enough to design a 

high-quality solution if employees do not use it, or carefully design an action plan if 

employees do not follow it. Results can only be achieved if employees change their 

behaviors and work processes accordingly. Therefore, managers must remember that 

employees do not automatically use a new technical solution or platform just because 

its ready and available. Hence, it is important to understand how well the change has 

been embraced by the affected employees. This explains why change management has 

an important role, since it creates a structure for managing the people side of change. 

Finding the correct answer to a problem is not sufficient to implement change effectively, 

and do not help much in mitigating resistance. (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, pp. 30-40)  





23 

 

of the change initiative should progress simultaneously as illustrated in figure 3. (Hiatt & 

Creasey, 2012, p. 37) 

 

 

Figure 3. Alignment of ADKAR with business change (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012) 

The business aspect of the change initiative can be divided into the following steps: 

identification of a business need, definition of project scope and objectives, designing 

the solution, developing the new systems and processes, and implementing the 

solutions in the organization. (Prosci Inc., 2019b, pp. 6-7) The phases of change for the 

employees can be found in the ADKAR Model, namely, the stages of awareness, desire, 

knowledge, ability and reinforcement (Hiatt, 2006). This model is described in-dept in 

chapter 2.3.  

Another model that focuses on the individual’s emotional responses during the change 

is the model of the change transition process. The foundation for this model was 

provided by Kubler-Ross (1969). It was later developed into the change transition process 

by Beer, Eisenstat and Spector (1990). This model proposes that during times of change 

the feelings and moods of individuals vary, which also affect their behaviors. These 



24 

 

moods and feelings are illustrated in figure 4. The figure also indicates how self-esteem 

and performance can vary over time. (Burke & Barron, 2014, p. 124) 

 

 

Figure 4. The change transition process (Adapted from Burke & Barron, 2014) 

First, the individual is made aware of the change and the process starts. Then 

performance and self-esteem increase and the individual progresses from denial to 

realization. After the realization of the personal implications of the change, emotions 

such as anger can occur which can be translated into resistance. In the first part of the 

change, the language is focused on the past and it can take time to reach the point of 

letting go. Then the individual starts to look forward and start dealing with the change 

by searching for ways to cope and learn new skills. When the individual’s performance 

and self-esteem start to improve, it can lead to acceptance and internalization of the 

change. (Burke & Barron, 2014, p. 124)  

In conclusion, change must be treated as a process that takes time, and change 

management activities must be adapted to the different stage in the process. Also, for 



25 

 

the change process to be effective, individual change should be aligned with the business 

change. Lastly, individuals go through a process of emotional responses related to the 

change and these emotions can explain the actions of individuals in times of change. 

2.2.3 Senders and Receivers  

All changes can be seen from the point of view of the sender or the receiver. The sender 

is a person that gives information of a change and the receivers are the people that 

receives information of a change (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, p. 16). The change process 

consists of two components, namely, leaders and followers. The leaders send out signals 

that change is needed and the followers receive those signals. Without followers the 

change will not be successful because the leaders cannot manage everything on their 

own. (Carnall, 2007, p. 64) Senders and leaders refer to the same element, and receivers 

and followers as well. In this study, the terms senders and receivers are used. 

In the beginning, it is common that the senders and the receivers are not in dialogue and 

the message is one-sided. (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, p. 16) The interpretation of a situation, 

that is seen from the perspective of the receiver, might not align with the intention of 

the organization or even the perspective of other individuals. (Burke & Barron, 2014, p. 

118) In this stage, the sender may focus on the business issues and the need for the 

change, while the receiver processes the personal risks and implications related to the 

change. (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, p. 16)  

Managers and change agents must understand that what the senders mean and the 

receivers interpret are not always consistent (Burke & Barron, 2014; Hiatt & Creasey, 

2012). To bridge the gap, managers must be clear when communicating and listen to the 

employees to understand how the message is received. Communication about a change 

is effective when the receivers have internalized the message and can start the change 

process. (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, p. 19)   



26 

 

2.2.4 Comfort and Resistance to Change 

“Resistance remains to this day a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon that continues to 

affect the outcomes of change, both negatively and positively.” Waddell & Sohal (1998, 

p. 547) 

There is no consensus on one common definition for the concept of resistance to change 

in the literature. Resistance have been talked about in several ways, such as criticism, 

workarounds, push-back and ‘not buying in’ (Ford & Ford, 2010). Nevertheless, there 

have been attempts at defining resistance and Oreg (2006) suggest the definition of 

resistance as “a tridimensional (negative) attitude towards change, which includes 

affective, behavioural and cognitive components.” (p. 76). The affective element 

considers the persons feelings about a change, the cognitive element considers how a 

person thinks about change, and the behavioural element considers how a person acts 

as a response to a change (Oreg, 2006, p. 76). According to Burke and Barron (2014), 

resistance is “The action taken by individuals and teams when they perceive that a 

change that is occurring is a threat to them” (p. 117). 

Resistance can also be defined from the point of view of the observer, rather than it 

being an objective phenomenon (Ford et al., 2008; Ford & Ford, 2010). This means that 

resistance to change depends on, for example, a managers’ own point of view on what 

resistance is. It could be anything from an eye roll to openly displayed sabotage. Simply, 

it depends on what that manager or change agent concerned views as resistance. (Ford 

& Ford, 2010, p. 25) Moreover, resistance can come in many forms. For example, it can 

be individual, organized, active, passive, aggressive, timid, concealed, or openly 

displayed. (Burke and Barron, 2014, p. 117) 

The concept of change resistance has been viewed dominantly as a negative 

phenomenon in the literature, but some researchers have brought the positive sides of 

resistance to light (Waddell & Sohal, 1998; Ford et al., 2008). Maurer (1996) said that: 

“Resistance keeps people in the organization from attaching themselves to every 

boneheaded idea that comes down the pike.” (p. 57) Utility can also be found in 



27 

 

resistance and individuals do not resist change as such, but they resist the potential 

outcomes and uncertainties in connection to the change. Therefore, resistance can shed 

light on aspects of the change that is inaccurate or not thought through properly 

(Waddell & Sohal, 1998, p. 545). In addition, resistance could be a viewed as a resource 

in the change process. For example, resistance can keep the discussion of the change 

initiative alive, it can be viewed as a form of engagement that in some cases requires 

highly commitment individuals, and if the resistance is addressed properly by the change 

agents it can strengthen the commitment to the change. (Ford et al., 2008, pp. 368-370)  

New changes in an organization aim at bringing benefits, but when employees have to 

move from something well-known and comfortable towards something unfamiliar, 

feelings of confusion, distrust (Burke & Barron, 2014, p. 119), uncertainty, and worry can 

occur (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, p. 20; Maurer, 1996, p. 58). In addition, the envisioned 

future state of the change is not usually clearly defined, and employees can be fearful of 

what is to come (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, p. 20). Resistance to change occurs when 

individuals perceive a potential threat, even if the threat is not real (Dawson, 2002, p. 

19; Burke & Barron, 2014, p. 118). Hence, the perception of a threat is enough for 

individuals to change their behaviors (Burke & Barron, 2014, p. 118). 

So, what are the underlying factors that make individuals resist change? There are 

several factors that can contribute to change resistance, for example, the individual’s 

personal situation or the organizations history and culture related to previously 

implemented, or failed, change initiatives (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, pp. 20-22). These 

factors along with other reasons for resistance will be discussed in-dept in chapter 2.3.  

To build commitment around a change one must first know what is potentially blocking 

it (Maurer, 1996, p. 60) and the people in charge of a change should assume that 

resistance is a natural and legitimate response when change occurring. Also, it is 

essential to support employees through change and be prepared to manage resistance. 

(Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, pp. 20-22; Ford & Ford, 2010, p. 35) 



28 

 

2.2.5 Role of Leaders in the Change Process 

It is a common understanding that a person, or a group of people, is needed to enable 

and make decisions about change. For example, leadership is needed to establish a vision, 

to solve problems, and to guide us in the right direction. Leaders are present everywhere 

in our community, such as in families, companies and governments (Hiatt & Creasey, 

2012, pp. 22-23). In the change management literature, a person leading change has 

been titled, change champion (Kotter, 1995), change agent (Maurer, 1996, p. 57), change 

leader, or just sponsor (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012). 

For change to be implemented successfully there should be an active leader to advocate 

the change. Visible and active leadership, or sponsorship, is one factor for successful 

change that is mentioned most frequently in change management literature (Kotter, 

1996; Hiatt, 2006; Hiatt & Creasey, 2012; Pucik et al., 2017). The role of the change leader 

is to be active and present throughout the process, to create alignment between the 

business leaders, and to communicate the need for the change directly with the 

employees (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, p. 23). 

2.2.6 Value Systems 

There has been a shift in organizational culture and values over the past five decades. 

Organizations used to be more hierarchical and values such as predictability, control, and 

consistency were in the center. Also, the decision-making approach was mainly top-

down. Then a shift occurred in the value systems due to new business improvement 

initiatives, such as organizational development and total quality management. These 

types of initiatives passed on new values to employees, such as empowerment, 

accountability and continuous improvement. (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, pp. 25-26) 

These values have improved productivity and the ability to adapt to customer needs 

faster. However, these values have also led to a more complex process when change 

needs to be implemented. Now, employees are more likely to question the decision from 

the top and resist change that they do not agree with. Therefore, change management 

is needed now more than ever. Nowadays, organizations have a more diverse workforce 



29 

 

that originate from various cultures due to globalization. The culture factor further 

impact how employees react to change. (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, pp. 26-28) In conclusion, 

value systems and culture have an impact on the employee’s reaction to a proposed 

change. 

2.2.7 Size and Type of Change 

All changes are unique and the amount of change management efforts needed depend 

on the size and type of change (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, p. 28). Change can be placed on 

a continuum, ranging from low-scope to high-scope changes (Pardo del Val & Fuentes, 

2003, p. 148). On the low-scope side it can be called an incremental (Hiatt & Creasey, 

2012) or an evolutionary change (Pardo del Val & Fuentes, 2003; Pucik et al., 2017). High 

scope changes can be called radical (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012; Pucik et al., 2017) or strategic 

change (Pardo del Val & Fuentes, 2003). Evolutionary change and radical change are the 

terms that will be used in this paper. 

In the case of evolutionary change, the process of changing happens gradually and over 

a longer period of time. These types of changes are not usually driven by crisis or an 

immediate need for improvement, but the focus is to improve performance in general 

or the change is happening due to an anticipated future challenge. (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, 

pp. 28-29; Pucik et al., 2017, p. 302) In the case of radical change, there is a dramatic 

and immediate change required that normally happens over a short period of time. The 

reason for these types of changes could be a crisis where the survival of the organization 

is in danger or there is a significant opportunity present that requires immediate action. 

(Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, pp. 29; Pucik et al., 2017, p. 302) Examples of radical changes 

could be regulatory changes, mergers and acquisitions, or business process reenginering. 

(Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, p. 29) 

For evolutionary change employees can change gradually, while for radical change 

employees are required to change faster. Also, for radical changes employees has to 

move further away from their comfort zone to a state that is uncertain to a greater extent. 

Therefore, evolutionary change requires less change management and radical change 





31 

 

includes information on the reason for the change, namely, what are the external and 

internal drivers for the change. Another important aspect of the awareness milestone is 

for people to understand “what’s in it for me?” (Hiatt, 2006). If individuals cannot answer 

this question or if they do not understand the organization’s intention for the proposed 

change, resistance is likely to occur (Rosenberg & Mosca, 2011, p. 141; Burke & Barron, 

2014, p. 119). A survey done on over half a million employees in the U.S indicated that 

one third did not understand why the changes were happening (Galbrait, 2018). This 

indicates a large awareness gap that should be addressed in the early stages of a change. 

Building awareness is not just a matter of successful communication, but there are 

multiple factors that can act as barriers to achieving the awareness milestone. The 

factors affecting a person’s perception of the need for change can be comfort with the 

current state, the individual’s perception of problems, the trustworthiness of the sender, 

rumors and misinformation, and debatable reasons for the change. (Hiatt, 2006) 

Employees that strongly support the current state may at first deny or doubt the reasons 

for the change, this is the first factor that can impact awareness building. Employees that 

have invested strongly in the current state with money, time, or effort are more likely to 

want to maintain the status quo. A typical response could be “If it’s not broke, don’t fix 

it”. (Hiatt, 2006) At times, executives underestimate the effort it takes to bring people 

out of their comfort zones (Kotter, 1995) and when there is fear of losing something of 

value it is more likely that resistance will occur (Burke & Barron, 2014, p. 119). Rosenberg 

and Mosca (2011, p. 141) point out that a major factor for resisting change depends on 

the persons mindset and attitude towards the change. Therefore, the reaction to the 

communication in the awareness stage and the resistance that a person expresses is 

stongly related to the persons perspective on the current situation. (Hiatt, 2006) 

The second factor that may affect the viewpoint on the need for change in the awareness 

stage is related to how an individual internalizes new information, and their cognitive 

style. Every individual have their own way of perceiving and resolving problems, and this 

implies that broad communications alone may not always be enough to create 

awareness around a specific change. (Hiatt, 2006) Rosenberg and Mosca (2011, p. 143) 



32 

 

also present a similar standpoint, namely, in order to mitigate the personal factors for 

resisting change it is essential for management to conduct personal communication, in 

addition to formal communication methods. Finally, some employees may be more 

aware of changes deriving from inside the organisation, while some are more perceptive 

to external factors driving change decisions (Hiatt, 2006). 

The third factor that influences how a person internalizes a message is the senders 

credibility and trustworthiness. Depending on how respected and trusted the sender is, 

the receiver of the message will either view the sender as credible or unreliable. In a 

workplace setting, employees have certain expectations when it comes to change 

communications. For example, if it is a message communicating why a change is occuring 

employees expect it to come from top management, while if it is a message that informs 

how a change will impact an employee personally, it is expected to come from a direct 

manager or supervisor. (Hiatt, 2006) 

A fourth factor that could impact the effectiveness of the awareness stage is the 

presence of rumors and misinformation. Incorrect information circulating in the 

background may create barriers to establish awareness of the change. For instance, if 

managers have concealed information, employees are more likely to hear false 

information from rumours. It could be challenging for an employee to determine what 

information is correct and what is not. In the end, it could lead to more work for the 

manager to correct false information than it would have been telling the correct 

information from  the beginning. (Hiatt, 2006) 

The fifth factor in the awarenss stage that could have an impact is if the reasons for the 

change is debatable. This factor is closely depending on if the change is happening due 

to external or internal circumstances. External circumstances, such as new regulations 

that require compliance or declining revenues in the marketplace are observable and 

rather difficult reasons to argue against (Hiatt, 2006). Declining business results can be 

positive, in the sence that it catches peoples attention (Kotter, 1995). In these instances, 

the risk of not changing could be fines for not complying with the law, lay offs, or perhaps 

even bankrupcy. The internal reasons for change may not always be as observable and 



33 

 

obvious as the external ones. The internal reasons for change may be completely valid, 

such as effectivising operations or creating wider collaborations between different 

groups in the organisation. However, internal reasons for change can be more easily 

debated than external reasons, and if a reason is debatable it takes longer time to build 

awareness. (Hiatt, 2006) Longer awareness building presents a barrier to implementing 

the change, and the change process is extended.  

2.3.2 Desire 

The second milestone of the ADKAR model is desire. This second step of creating desire 

to change can be initiated after initial awareness has been built. The individual’s decision 

to participate in the ongoing change happens in this stage of the process. Executives and 

managers cannot decide that individuals should to support the change, but they can still 

influence the decision. Factors that can influence a person’s desire to be a part of the 

change initiative are the change initiatives’ nature, organizational history and context in 

implementing change, the employee’s personal circumstances, and the individual’s 

personal motivators and values. (Hiatt, 2006) The factors that influences a person’s 

decision to support the change can also naturally act as barriers that prevents an 

individual to embrace the change. 

The desire to support and be a part of change is depending on the nature of the change, 

which is an influencing factor in the desire stage of the model. When the nature of the 

change is assessed questions, such as “What is the change?”, “How will the change 

impact me?”, and “What’s in it for me?” will arise. If a person obtains the answers to 

these questions, he or she can conclude if the change will be a threat or opportunity. 

(Hiatt, 2006) If the change serves a person’s self interest, and the change is not a threat 

to job security, personal expertise, or social status it is more likely that the change will 

be supported (Traider-Leigh, 2002, pp. 146-148). However, a perceived loss of status, 

control or security is one major personal factor for resisiting change (Rosenberg & 

Mosca, 2011, p. 141). 



34 

 

The second factor affecting this stage is the organizational context and company’s history 

in implementing change. This factor represents a person’s view on the organisation in 

changing situations. The assessment of the environment will vary since it is an unique 

experience for every person. In a workplace environment, the context that is assessed is 

success of previous changes, amount of ongoing changes, rewards and reinforcement of 

implemented changes, the corporate culture, and where the organisation is headed in 

the future. These elements should not be underestimated, since the organisation’s 

culture and history will play an important part in creating desire to participate in a 

change. (Hiatt, 2006) 

There is a connection between organizational context and culture to the organizations 

ability of implementing changes. On one side of the spectrum, there are behaviours such 

as exclusive decision-making, micro management, fear to speak up, and non-

transparency. These behaiours charactarises an organization that is not likey to engage 

employees. On the other side of the spectrum, there are behaviours such as inclusive 

decision making, delegation, trust, and transparency. These behaviours are more likely 

to foster a culture where employees are respected and treated with dignity. This type of 

culture is more ideal for changes that needs engaged employees. (Maurer, 2010, pp. 36-

37) 

An in dept case study showed that organisations can use their history as a basis to 

empower or disenpower certain strategic opportunities or to influence specific 

organizational change processes (Brunninge, 2009, p. 8). Therefore, if an organization 

has been successful in the past with certain change initiatives, it could increase an 

individuals desire to be a part of a change. However, if an organisation has poor track 

record in following through with started change initiatives, it could present a barrier for 

employees desire to change. (Hiatt, 2006) 

The third factor that can create a desire to support change, or not, is the individuals 

personal situation. Personal context and current life situation, such as health, age, family 

situation, family and work relationships, financial situation, education, mobility, career 

aspirations, and past career success play important roles in the decision-making stage. 



35 

 

For example, health or financial situation could impact how an individual makes a 

decision about participating in a change or not.  The decision might not seem logical at 

first, but when the underlying reasons come to light the decision could make more sense.  

(Hiatt, 2006) 

The fourth factor that will have an impact on the desire stage is personal motivation. For 

example, personal motivators could be eagerness to help others, desire to make a 

difference, instinctly avoiding negative consequences or pain, career advancement, 

getting respect or power, or financial security. The spectrum of motivators is broad and 

unique to every person. Personal motivators also say something about the indviduals 

beliefs and values. (Hiatt, 2006) 

2.3.3 Knowledge 

The third milestone is knowledge. This milestone represents the information, education 

and training needed to know how to actually change. To implement this milestone every 

individual needs to know the new skills and behaviors. Also, the individual must learn 

about the new tools, systems and processes. Furthermore, the person needs to know 

the new responsibilities and roles needed in the future state of the change. The 

knowledge stage is only effective if the first two stages are in place, namely, awareness 

and desire. This makes sense because if you do not now know much about the change 

and you do not have a desire to participate, it will lead to ineffective education and 

training. There are four factors that influence whether the knowledge stage can be 

successfully achieved, namely, current level of knowledge, learning capability and 

capacity, availability of resources for training and education, and access to knowledge. 

(Hiatt, 2006) 

The first factor in the knowledge stage that has an impact on the implementation of the 

change is the current level of knowledge of individuals. The level of knowledge could 

present itself in the form of work experience or education. In some cases, individuals 

already have the necessary knowledge, while in other cases the knowledge gap may be 

large. The larger the knowledge gap, the bigger the barrier is to achieve the knowledge 



36 

 

milestone for the change. The level of knowledge is directly related to the likelihood of 

success for the change initiative. (Hiatt, 2006) 

The second factor is related to a person’s capability of learning. In the school systems it 

is recognized that students have different capacity of learning. Similarities in adults’ 

learning capacity can be observed in their processes of gaining new knowledge. Some 

individuals can learn quickly and with ease, while some have a harder time learning how 

to use new tools and processes. For example, one person might learn a new concept 

easily, another might struggle with technical skills, and someone else might have a hard 

time memorizing new information. (Hiatt, 2006) One major personal factor for resisting 

change is the fear of failing. If a person has a hard time learning new things, this fear can 

become apparent in this stage of the process or later on in the ability stage. (Rosenberg 

& Mosca, 2011, p. 141) 

The third factor that has implications for the knowledge stage is the availability of 

resources that can aid people in acquiring new knowledge. The resources available can 

vary considerably from one organization to another. For example, some organizations 

have extensive capital and resources when it comes to delivering training, while others 

struggle to provide any kind of organized training. Resources that should be available to 

support a change are general financial resources for the training program, experts in 

specific topics, trainers, facilities, materials and books, and equipment that can aid the 

student’s learning. (Hiatt, 2006) Lack of these resources can hinder the change process. 

The fourth factor in the knowledge stage that will have an impact on the change is the 

access to knowledge. Such access can depend on the geographic location of the 

organization. For example, in some parts of the world there may not be access to experts 

on a specific subject, or even access to educational institutions. For some types of 

changes, there may not be existing knowledge of the subject, or the knowledge is not 

yet developed fully. For example, technical knowledge may be required for a certain 

change, but it might not be readily available. The changes may therefore be initiated 

when the technical knowledge is further developed. (Hiatt, 2006) 



37 

 

2.3.4 Ability 

The fourth milestone is ability. This is the milestone where the outcomes of the change 

effort materialize. Ability is the stage where the gained knowledge from previous stage 

is turned into action. Even if an employee has knowledge about how to change, it does 

not mean that the employee can immediately master the needed ability. It takes time to 

demonstrate proficiency, and some employees may never establish the required skills. 

There are various factors that can act as barriers for a person’s ability to implement 

change, for example, psychological barriers, physical or intellectual capability, limited 

time frame, available resources to support ability building (Hiatt, 2006), and strong 

current habits (Prosci Inc., 2019c, p. 8).  

The first factor in the ability stage is psychological barriers. A common psychological 

barrier that exists in the work environment is the fear of public speaking. The fear of 

public speaking can become apparent when an employee must give a presentation or 

speak during a large meeting. This barrier can be frustrating to many, since the real 

potential of a person may not become apparent. (Hiatt, 2006) 

Physical ability is the second factor that has an impact on the ability stage. Physical 

limitation that could become apparent in the workplace is, for example, hand-eye 

coordination, physical size, physical agility, strength, or manual dexterity. A simple task, 

such as keyboarding, could take an enormous effort to people with arthritis or dexterity. 

Depending of the performance required by the change, the physical abilities of a person 

might not be adequate. (Hiatt, 2006) 

The third factor that influences the ability stage is the intellectual capability to perform. 

The intellectual capability of an individual has an impact on the ability to learn new 

things. For example, some people can learn matters related to math and finance quickly, 

while others are better at being creative and finding innovative solutions. Furthermore, 

some individuals are simply good writers, while other people have a hard time putting 

their ideas into words. This means that some individuals may have mental barriers to 

implement a change, depending on the type of change required. (Hiatt, 2006) 



38 

 

The fourth factor that influences a person’s ability to develop a new skill is time. Time 

available for implementation has an impact on many kinds of changes. It may be the case 

that a person has the potential to develop a required skill, but simply cannot do it within 

the given time frame. (Hiatt, 2006) One reason why resistance can occur is because 

employees cannot keep up with the pace of the change (Burke & Barron, 2014, p. 119). 

If the skills cannot be developed in the time available, it is possible that the change will 

fail. In many cases in the business world, change is depending on external factors and 

the supervisors or managers cannot control the schedule of the change themselves. 

(Hiatt, 2006) Furthermore, in today’s challenging business pace competing priorities may 

also control the employee’s work schedule. (Prosci Inc., 2019c, p. 9) Lastly, for employees 

to develop new skills, time, patience, and focused attention is required (Gilley, Godek, & 

Gilley, 2009, p. 7)  

As in the knowledge stage, resource availability also plays a role in the ability stage. The 

resources available to support a person in their development of new skills are essential. 

Resources could refer to access to experts and mentors, personal couching, appropriate 

material and tools, or simply financial aid. A person’s process of learning new skills can 

be improved if resource support is present. Furthermore, if the resource support is 

present the potential knowledge gap can also be addressed in this stage. (Hiatt, 2006) 

The sixth factor influencing the ability to develop new skills is the mental capability of 

breaking old habits. People are wired to follow their habits and psychologically people 

have the tendency to follow known processes and routines. For a person to break old 

routines and develop new abilities, the brain has to create new neural pathways. If 

current habits and the new required competences are opposites, the barrier to develop 

the new competence is greater. Battling old habits can be frustrating and people may 

even revert back to their old habits. To foster ability, managers must be patient, be 

prepared for a temporary decline in efficiency and give people time to create new habits. 

(Prosci Inc., 2019c, p. 8) Disruption of routines and increased workload are two major 

personal reasons behind resistance to change (Rosenberg & Mosca, 2011, p. 141).  



39 

 

2.3.5 Reinforcement 

The final milestone of the ADKAR model is reinforcement. This milestone is critical for 

sustaining the change. The reinforcement stage is often overlooked when a change 

initiative is seen as complete (Prosci Inc., 2019d, p. 3). The hardest part is to sustain 

change over a longer time period, because if reinforcements are not in place people in 

the company will revert back to old and comfortable ways of working. According to 

Rosenberg and Mosca (2011, p. 141), one of the major personal factors for resisting 

change is lack of rewards for a successfully achieved change. When the desired outcome 

has been met, reinforcement will aid in integrating the change into the organizational 

culture (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012), and the change can be seen as integrated into the 

organizational culture when people say that it is “the way we do things around here” 

(Kotter, 1995). There are four factors that influence the effectiveness of this stage, 

namely, meaningful reinforcement, reinforcement connected to achievements, 

consequences in the wrong direction, and accountability that supports the change. 

(Hiatt, 2006) 

The first factor that contributes to the reinforcement stage is if the reinforcement is 

meaningful to the concerned person. From an individual perspective, recognition can be 

meaningful if the reward or recognition is directly connected to that specific person. For 

example, if the reward directly applies to the work that the employee is performing. In 

addition, the recognition becomes meaningful if the individual respects the person 

delivering the recognition. (Hiatt, 2006) Usually, the direct manager of an employee is 

the best person to deliver the message (Prosci Inc., 2019d, p. 5).  Also, for the recognition 

to be meaningful it has to provide value and be relevant to the receiver. (Hiatt, 2006) 

The second factor that contributes to effective reinforcement is the reinforcements’ 

connection to individual achievements. This means that people want to be recognized 

when they have contributed with something meaningful to the organization. Most of the 

time employees can already recognize when they have succeeded with implementing a 

change, but reinforcement will just inform them that the change is still important and 

that people in the organization still care about it. The opposite scenario will create a 



40 

 

barrier to change, for example, when an individual struggle with implementing a change 

and later realize that nobody cares about it. In this case, the change will probably not be 

sustained (Hiatt, 2006) and the individual will probably not have the desire to continue 

working on the change in the future (Prosci Inc., 2019d, p. 5). 

The third factor influencing reinforcement is consequences in the wrong direction. This 

means that a person displays the desired behaviors but encounter negative 

consequences due to it. A good example of this is peer pressure. In the workplace, some 

employees take steps to participate in the change, while others continue doing as they 

have been before, and also pressuring other colleagues to do the same. Therefore, if 

peer pressure is displayed in a negative way, it becomes a barrier to embrace change. 

(Hiatt, 2006) 

The fourth factor is one of the strongest methods of reinforcement, namely, systems for 

accountability. In a work environment, this type of reinforcement is visible through 

performance measurement- and accountability systems. These systems allow 

transparency and visibility of results and job performance. If goals and achievements are 

connected to rewards and recognitions, it is more likely that the change will be sustained. 

(Hiatt, 2006) 

 

 

 

 

 

 



41 

 

2.4 Summary 

The scale of organizational change can range from change on an individual level to large 

scale strategic organisational changes. However, the bottom line is that individual 

change is needed for organisational change to manifest (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, pp. 4, 9), 

even though the initial decision for the change may come from the top of the 

organization. In order to manage the change initiatives that have been chosen for 

implementation, successful organizations use change management processes, tools, or 

mechanisms in order to reach a more beneficial end result (Murthy, 2007; Kotter, 2012; 

Hiatt & Creasey, 2012).  

There are different underlying aspects to recognize when it comes to change 

management. First of all, for a change to be effective, the business-, economic- and 

analytic thinking of a change, and acceptance of the change in the organization is 

necessary (Pucik et al., p. 300). Secondly, changes do not occur overnight, but is a process 

that takes time. Thirdly, senders of a change message and the receivers of that message 

may not be in sync, therefore, the senders must communicate effectively and examine if 

the message was received in the intended way. (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012, pp. 16, 19)  

Resistance to change is a normal response when changes occur in an organization, and 

especially if an individual is comfortable with the current state. (Ford & Ford, 2010; Hiatt 

& Creasey, 2012) Also, active and visible change leadership is an essential factor for a 

successful change (Kotter, 1996; Hiatt, 2006; Hiatt & Creasey, 2012; Pucik et al., 2017). 

Furthermore, value systems in an organization will have an impact on how changes are 

perceived and embraced, and the size and type of change will determine how much 

change management is needed. (Pardo del Val & Fuentes, 2003; Hiatt & Creasey, 2012)  

The factors that can impact the change vary depending on where in the change process 

the individual and organization are. A summary of the different barriers and phases in 

the change process from the ADKAR model is summarized in table 1. 



42 

 

Table 1. Change phases and change barriers (Adapted from Hiatt, 2006) 

Phases Elements impacting the change process 

Awareness 

• Comfort with the current state 

• The perception of problems 

• Trustworthiness of the sender 

• Rumors and misinformation 

• Debatable reasons for the change 

Desire 

• The change initiatives’ nature 

• Organizational context and past successes in implementing change 

• The employee’s personal circumstances 

• The individual’s personal motivators and values 

Knowledge 

• Current level of knowledge 

• Learning capability 

• Available resources for education and training 

• Accessible and existing knowledge 

Ability 

• Psychological barriers 

• Physical limitations 

• Intellectual abilities 

• Time limits and competing priorities 

• Available resources that can support ability building 

• Strong current habits 

Reinforcement 

• Meaningful reinforcement 
• Reinforcement connected to achievements and progress 

• Consequences going in the wrong direction 

• Systems for accountability 

 

In the next chapter, literature on innovation management and innovation ecosystems 

will be introduced to increase the readers understanding of the current change initiative 

that the case company is implementing, and to describe the new work environment that 

the employees will be situated in. 



43 

 

3 Innovation Management and Innovation Ecosystems 

In this chapter, innovation and managing innovation will be shortly introduced to provide 

background information for the strategic change initiative that the case company has 

undertaken, namely, establishing the foundation for an innovation ecosystem. The next 

subchapter will present innovation ecosystems, including, characteristics of innovation 

ecosystems, ecosystem lifecycle, ecosystem strategy, actors and roles in an ecosystem, 

multi-partner collaboration, governance mechanisms, value co-creation, and success 

factors and challenges in an innovation ecosystem. The final subchapter summarizes the 

literature on innovation management and innovation ecosystems and the framework of 

the study is presented.   

Baregheh, Rowley, & Sambrook (2009) defines innovation as “the multi-stage process 

whereby organizations transform ideas into new/improved products, service or 

processes, in order to advance, compete and differentiate themselves successfully in 

their marketplace.” (p. 1334). Furthermore, Pisano (2019) points out that innovation 

involves change by definition. This means that innovations require change, and change 

is a central part of innovation in organizations. 

In turn, “Innovation management is the management of innovation processes.” 

(Bajenescu, 2017, p. 45). Innovation management includes all the decisions, practices 

and activities that move an idea to fulfillment with the purpose of creating business 

value. It includes all the activities operated by an organization, such as making decisions 

to promote and support the emergence of innovative ideas and projects, deciding which 

projects should be selected, commercializing new innovative products, implementing 

new business processes, or increasing competitiveness. (Bajenescu, 2017, p. 40)  

Innovation is not an easy task, but there are three essential leadership tasks that help to 

build innovative capacity in an organization. First, create an innovation strategy, then 

design an innovation system, and finally build an innovative culture. The innovation 

strategy should specify how the organization intends to create and capture value 

through innovation. Furthermore, the strategy explains how the organization intends to 



44 

 

prioritize different innovation opportunities. An innovation system should accomplish 

three basic tasks, enable search for new and valuable problems and solutions, aid in the 

synthesis of ideas into a coherent concept, and guide the selection of innovation 

opportunities. An innovative culture does not look the same for all organizations, but 

there are some beliefs and behaviors that support innovation, namely, tolerance for 

failure, willingness to experiment, psychological safety, collaboration, organizational 

flatness, high discipline, brutal honesty, and individual accountability. (Pisano, 2019) 

Even though these beliefs and behaviors discussed refers to single organizations, 

supporting these behaviors and beliefs in an innovation ecosystem could also be 

beneficial. 

3.1 Characteristics of Innovation Ecosystems  

“As companies grapple with uncertainty and change, they must collaborate in new ways 

with unlikely partners.” (Furr & Shiplov, 2018) 

An innovation ecosystem is “the collaborative arrangements through which firms 

combine their individual offerings into a coherent, customer-facing solution (Adner, 

2006). According to Gobble (2014), “Innovation ecosystems are dynamic purposive 

communities with complex interlocking relationships built on collaboration, trust, and 

co-creation and specializing in exploitation of a shared set of complementary 

technologies or competencies.” (p. 55). Autio and Thomas (2014, p. 208) point out that 

ecosystems are evolving communities that are devoted to detecting, developing, 

delivering, and expanding new applications. In another definition, innovation ecosystem 

is characterized with the following features:  

An innovation ecosystem is set for the co-creation, or the jointly creation of 
value. It is composed of interconnected and interdependent networked actors, 
which includes the focal firm, customers, suppliers, complementary innovators 
and other agents as regulators. (Gomes et al. 2016, p. 45) 
 

Another recent definition of ecosystems in management research is proposed by Adner 

(2017), who states: “The ecosystem is defined by the alignment structure of the 

multilateral set of partners that need to interact in order for a focal value proposition to 



45 

 

materialize.” (p. 42) A value proposition in an innovation ecosystems setting means the 

introduction of a new service or product, or the introduction of a new or modification of 

an existing business model in order to create value for customers in a new way. 

(Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2019, p. 284) 

There is a distinction between two point of views on the ecosystem construct, namely, 

ecosystem as an affiliation and ecosystem as a structure. In the ecosystem as an 

affiliation perspective, ecosystems are seen as a community of actors defined by the 

affiliation of networks and platforms. On the other hand, ecosystems as a structure sees 

ecosystems as arrangements of activities guided by a value proposition. The first 

perspective focuses on the actors as a starting point, while the latter is focuses on 

activities. (Adner, 2017, pp. 40, 43) 

In addition, there are four fundamental components that jointly describe the features of 

the activity arrangements and actors that are needed for the value proposition in an 

innovation ecosystem to be realized: activities, actors, positions, and links. Activities are 

the discrete actions that needs to be undertaken for the value proposition to happen. 

Actors are the entities that take on these activities. Moreover, one actor can engage in 

several activities or multiple actors can undertake only one activity. Positions specify 

where actors are located in the flow of activities in the system. Also, positions 

characterize who takes over the responsibility where another actor has left off. Lastly, 

links describe the transfer across actors, which may involve the focal actor or not. The 

substance of the transfers can differ, for example, it could consist of material, 

information, influence or funds. (Adner, 2017, pp. 43-44) 

Members of the ecosystem face both cooperation and competition (Valkokari, 2015, p. 

20; Gomes et al., 2016, pp. 31-45). Competition can occur on two levels, namely, within 

and across ecosystems. Competition within the ecosystem relates to securing activities, 

roles, and positions that will affect the capture and distribution of value across actors 

and their positions. Competition across ecosystems refers to creating and capturing 

value compared to rival ecosystems and their actors. (Adner, 2017, p. 49) Competition 

and cooperation can happen at the same time or at different times on different levels, 



46 

 

namely, within components, between firms in the ecosystem, or between rival 

ecosystems. (Hannah & Eisenhardt, 2018, p. 3164) 

3.1.1 Ecosystem Lifecycle  

A business ecosystem starts off as a collection of random elements that gradually 

progress towards a more organized community. Ecosystems are said to progress through 

four separate evolutionary phases, namely, birth, expansion, leadership, and self-

renewal or potentially death. (Moore, 1993, p. 76) Ecosystems can evolve through self-

organization or even through an unplanned occurrence, but there may also be a leading 

firm that mobilize the emergence and development of the ecosystem (Williamson & De 

Meyer, 2012, p. 25).  

In the first phase, birth, the ecosystem actors focus on the customer need, namely, the 

value that the new product of service will bring, and how to deliver it in the best way. 

During this stage cooperation is essential, and a leader should emerge in order to aid 

ongoing improvement of the whole community. In the second phase, expansion, the 

ecosystem expands into new territories. For this phase to be successful, it is necessary 

to have a business concept that is valuable to a broad number of customers, and that 

this concept have the potential to scale up to reach larger markets. (Moore, 1993, pp. 

76-80)  

In the third stage, leadership, the lead companies should provide a vision that compels 

and encourages customers and suppliers to collaborate and to continue to improve the 

core offer. It is also relevant to maintain bargaining power in relation to the other 

ecosystem actors. In the final stage, the mature ecosystem can go in two directions, 

either towards self-renewal or towards dissolution. This occurs when the business 

ecosystem is exposed to new ecosystems and innovations, or unexpected new 

environmental conditions, such as changes in buying patterns of customers, government 

regulations, or macroeconomic conditions. For self-renewal the actors have to work 

together to bring new innovation ideas to the current ecosystem. (Moore, 1993, pp. 80-

84) 



47 

 

The business ecosystem lifecycle has also been used as a basis in research on innovation 

ecosystems. Dedehayir, Mäkinen, & Ortt (2016) used Moore´s (1993) model of 

ecosystem stages as a base to describe the actor roles that are present in birth stage of 

an innovation ecosystem. This indicates that that the stages of a business ecosystem are 

comparable to the stages of an innovation ecosystem to some extent.   

3.1.2 Ecosystem Strategy 

As discussed in the beginning of this chapter, for an organization to build capacity to 

innovate one of the essential leadership tasks is to create an innovation strategy, which 

specifies how to create and capture value via innovation (Pisano, 2019). Furthermore, if 

an organization is a part of an innovation ecosystem the firm also needs to define an 

ecosystem strategy. Even if an ecosystem consists of multiple actors, every firm will 

define its own strategy from their own perspective. (Adner, 2017, p. 47) An ecosystem 

strategy can also be designed jointly by the different actors in the ecosystem. In this case, 

the ecosystem actors could explore common innovation opportunities and by jointly 

creating an ecosystem strategy they could guide sensitive topics, such as risk, 

dependence, or misalignments (Talmar et al., 2018, p. 9). 

Talmar et al. (2018) developed a strategy tool called the ecosystem pie model in order 

to guide managers decision-making and analysis regarding the ecosystem strategy. The 

aim of the tool is to be able to map, analyze, and design an innovation ecosystem. The 

ecosystem pie model includes constructs and relationships on two levels, the actor level 

and the ecosystem level. On the ecosystem level there are three constructs: the value 

proposition of the ecosystem, the user segments that are targeted by the value 

proposition, and the overall picture of all the actors included in the ecosystem. On the 

actor level, the following constructs are included: resources, activities, value addition, 

value capture, dependence and risk. An actor supports to the ecosystem value 



48 

 

proposition (EVP) by its access to resource that can be used for activities aiding the 

overall ecosystem. (Talmar et al., 2018, pp. 3-4) 

In some cases, it may not be the optimal strategy to build an ecosystem, and other 

strategies might be more beneficial to pursue. The cases of Intel’s business model of 

vertical integration, and Apple’s strongly controlled way in which they develop and 

design their core hardware platforms, are examples of other successful strategies. 

However, in the right context, where customers demand integrated and complex 

solutions, where knowledge is essential, and where that knowledge is scattered among 

organizations located around the world, ecosystem strategies can offer advantages. 

(Williamson & De Meyer, 2012, pp. 28-29) 

3.1.3 Actors and Roles 

The actors in innovation ecosystems that have received most focus in research are for-

profit organizations, namely, multinational corporations, small- and medium sized 

enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups (Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2019, p. 285; Gobble, 

2014, p. 56) The main focus in the literature has still been on larger firms. Furthermore, 

non-profit organizations, such as, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and charities 

could be potential actors. Also, research centers, universities, and regulatory agencies, 

municipal and regional governments are potential actors that could take part in the 

innovation ecosystem. (Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2019, p. 285; Gomes et al., 2016, p. 

45) If ecosystem actors are defined from the perspective of a single firm, actors can also 

be identified as suppliers, distributors, customers, complementary innovators, 

outsourcing companies or competitors (Autio & Thomas, 2014, p. 207; Gomes et al., 

2016, p. 45). Moreover, the actors could be financial institutions or technology providers 

(Autio & Thomas, 2014, p. 207). 

A ‘role’ in the ecosystem setting can be defined as a set of distinctive activities or 

behaviors undertaken by the actors in the ecosystem (Dedehayir et al., 2016, pp. 18, 20). 

Also, roles in an ecosystem environment has been defined as the interactions, 

communication patterns, and activities that one single organization performs in order to 



49 

 

complete the goals set in the collaborative context (Davis, 2016, p. 641). The key roles, 

in the emergence of an innovation ecosystem can be sorted into four groups: leadership 

roles, direct value creation roles, entrepreneurial ecosystem roles, and value creation 

support roles. Innovation ecosystems do not have formal organizational structures, and 

therefore informal roles are central in the initial stage of forming an innovation 

ecosystem. (Dedehayir et al., 2016) 

The leadership roles, in the emergence of an innovation ecosystem, are present in an 

significant amount of the litterature on ecosystems (Dedehayir et al., 2016, p. 22). The 

leadship roles have also been named ecosystem leader (Moore, 1993), keystone leader 

(Iansiti and Levien, 2004), lead firm (Williamson & De Meyer, 2012), hub firm, or 

orchestrator (Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2019, p. 285). This indicates that the leadership 

role is vital in the initial phase of establishing an innovation ecosystem. There are 

activities that define the role of the ecosystem leader, which goes under the labels of 

governance, partnership building, platform management, and value management.  

The ecosystem governence is the first activity that the ecosystem leader will engage in, 

and this includes forming the roles of the other ecosystem actors, and coordinating the 

communication and cooperation between them. The second activity is to build 

partnerships. This leadership task includes attracting actors to join the ecosystem and 

forming connections between the new actors to build an alliance. (Dedehayir et al.,2016, 

pp. 22) The third activity, is platform management. If the ecosystem is built around a 

platform, the ecosystem leader has to first design and build the platform. Then, the 

platform will be opened to all actors who will use it to create value and to improve their 

own work (Iansiti & Levien, 2004, pp. 69, 74; Dedehayir et al., 2016, pp. 23). The fourth 

activity is value management. The ecosystem leader both creates and captures value, 

but also aggregates the value creation of the other actors and makes sure that the value 

capture for them are fair. (Dedehayir et al., 2016, p. 23) All in all, the leaders has to make 

sure that all the members of the ecosystem stay in good health (Iansiti & Levien, 2004, 

pp. 73-74). 



50 

 

In the group of direct value creation roles four roles were identified: the supplier, the 

assembler, the complementor, and the user. The role of the supplier is to deliver key 

materials, serivces and technologies that the other actors in the ecosystem can use. 

Thus, any actor can be in the role of the supplier as long as these types of activites are 

undertaken. The role of the assmebler is to undertake the actions of aggregating 

components, services and materials, but also the transformation of information 

produced by other actors. The purpose of the complementor role is to extend the core 

value produced by suppliers and assemblers by offering complementary value that is 

compatible with the core offering. The final role in the group of direct value creation 

roles is the user role. The users contribute to the ecosystem by defining the need to be 

satisifed or the problem to be solved. This can be the trigger for the ecosystem to emerge 

in the first place. (Dedehayir et al., 2016, pp. 23-24) 

In the group of entrepreneurial ecosystem roles three roles were identified: the 

entrepreneur, the sponsor and the regulator. The role of the entrepreneur is often held 

by start-ups or individuals, who identify potential new ventures due to the network of 

actors present in the ecosystem. Also, the entrepreneur is often a intermediator 

between actors doing research (e.g. universities) and those actors that aim to 

commercialise products or services. The sponsor role contributes to the ecosystem by, 

for example, providing financial assistance and the regulator role contributes to the 

ecosystem by creating favorable, political, regulatory, and economic conditions. 

(Dedehayir et al., 2016, pp. 24-25) 

For the group of value creation support roles two distinct roles were identified: the 

expert and the champion (Dedehayir et al., 2016, p. 24). In the litterature, the expert role 

corresponds with actors, such as research organizations and universities, which create 

new knowledge, discoveries and inventions. (Clarysse et al., 2014; Dedehayir et al., 2016) 

The activites of the expert role usually entails providing expertise and consultation. The 

champion role can already be included in the ecosystem leader role, but since the task 

of building bridges between actors is critical, it may be carried out by additional actors. 

The champion role is usually undertaken by one or several individuals rather than whole 



51 

 

entities, and the role can also extend beyond the borders of one organization. The 

champion could also be the one that facilitate the transitioning of a new product or 

service idea to the stage of commercialisation. (Dedehayir et al., 2016, p. 24) 

The intensity of participation for one role will vary over time, and different actors may 

also take on different roles as time progresses. It is valuable for the stakeholders to 

recognize the informal roles in the initial stage of an ecosystem, since it is important to 

ensure that these roles are filled by actors that can undertake the necessary activities. 

(Dedehayir et al., 2016, p. 20) Also, the ecosystem should be flexible in the sense that 

new actors can join and other actors can exit. The ecosystem can also evolve by actors 

making extra investments, others reducing their engagement, or by some actors re-

focusing their activities in the ecosystem. (Williamson & De Meyer, 2012, p. 28) 

Furthermore, Adner (2017, p. 44) states that the actors in an ecosystem can be directly 

linked to a focal actor, or there may also be actors with whom the focal actor has no 

direct contact or control.  

3.1.4 Multi-Partner Collaboration 

A multipartner approach to create collaborative innovations with three or more partners 

has started to gain interest by scholars (Adner & Kapoor, 2010; Davis, 2016). For 

collaborations to be successful, the objectives of all involves parties must be considered. 

This becomes even more important in innovation ecosystems since there are more 

parties involved. (Yaghmaie & Vanhaverbeke, 2019, p. 284) Davis (2016) describes three 

approaches to collaboration in groups called parallel dyads, unified triad and group 

cycling (figure 7). In figure 7, the dashed lines mean that there is a strong relationship 

between the partners, while the solid lines represent the form of collaboration. 



52 

 

 

Figure 6. Collaborative forms in organizational groups (Davis, 2016) 

Parallel dyads are collaborative arrangement where the partners collaborate in pairs 

roughly at the same time. The reasons for forming parallel dyads are to avoid conflicts 

that can occur in arrangement with multiple partners, and to conduct projects that could 

possibly be constrained by the third partners involvement. However, the study showed 

that collaborating in parallel dyads reached a low innovative performance in the end, 

and also problems of trust occurred that restricted the access to vital resources of the 

third party. Furthermore, conflicts of participation occurred in the cases studied. (Davis, 

2016, pp. 632-633) 

In unified triads three organizations collaborate jointly with common governance by all 

involved partners and towards common objectives. The reason for forming unified triads 

is because it is seen as an inclusive and effective way of combining resources, knowledge, 

and technologies to create innovations. However, the study showed that the 

collaboration ended with a low performance regarding innovation du