Content uploaded by Luca Gastaldi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Luca Gastaldi on Sep 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Academics as Orchestrators of Innovation Ecosystems: The
Role of Knowledge Management
Luca Gastaldi
*
and Mariano Corso
†
Politecnico di Milano, Via Lambruschini 4b
20156 Milan, Italy
*
luca.gastaldi@polimi.it
†
mariano.corso@polimi.it
Received 9 January 2015
Accepted 29 August 2015
Published 21 April 2016
Organizations are increasingly shifting from innovation initiatives centered on internal
resources to initiatives centered on sharing resources, knowledge and expertise in ecosystems.
In these settings, most innovation e®orts have to be designed and accomplished at an inter-
organizational level to produce outcomes. Drawing on the experience of an applied research
center in Italy, we explain why academics are in one of the best positions to orchestrate
innovation ecosystems. Two main rationales support this key role. The ¯rst is associated with
the fact that academics are in an independent position, which is neutral and represents a middle
ground between the di®erent organizations that share knowledge to ignite and sustain inno-
vation at an ecosystem level. The second rationale is associated with the levels of compliance
and complementarity that academics have with the main purposes for which knowledge within
an innovation ecosystem is created and leveraged. Two design choices seem necessary to ma-
terialize the potential key orchestrator role of academics: (i) the extensive use of multiple
approaches of collaborative research; (ii) the creation and maintenance of a knowledge platform
allowing academics to progressively di®use and leverage the ecosystem-based learning mecha-
nisms underlying each innovation e®ort.
Keywords: Innovation ecosystems; orchestration; knowledge management.
1. Introduction
One of the reasons why most innovation initiatives fail is that organizations often
lack a coherent ecosystem around them that is able to support and complement their
innovation e®orts [Adner (2011)]. In fact, in the current hyper-connected world,
¯rms are increasingly embedded in networks of interdependent activities carried out
by external agents [Adner and Kapoor (2010)]. On the one hand, these inter-
dependencies underlie ¯rms' ability to appropriate returns from investments in
innovation [Adner and Kapoor (2010)]. On the other hand, ¯rms can exploit these
interdependencies to sustain e®orts of interorganizational innovation [Stadler et al.
(2014)].
*
Corresponding author.
International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management
Vol. 13, No. 5 (2016) 1640009 (24 pages)
#
.
cWorld Scienti¯c Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S0219877016400095
1640009-1
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
It is therefore important to understand how to orchestrate innovation ecosys-
tems communities made up of multiple entities that collectively interact as
unique systems to produce interorganizational streams of innovation [Kapoor and
Lee (2013)].
This paper draws on the experience of an applied research center in Italy to
suggest a potential orchestrator role for academics within these settings. We begin
by describing the research center, the collaborative research processes through which
it accomplishes its activities, how it funds them, and the interorganizational results
that it has achieved in seven years of practice. Re°ecting on the experience of this
research center, we underline not only the key role that academics can play as
knowledge management experts, but also the speci¯c research design allowing them
to be e®ective in orchestrating ecosystem innovation.
2. The ICT in Healthcare Observatory
Healthcare is a paradigmatic example of an industry in which most of the innovation
e®orts have to be extended at an interorganizational level to be e®ective [Angst et al.
(2010)]. Moreover, in healthcare there is no single actor able to create and extract
value from the ecosystem around it [Dougherty and Dunne (2011)].
Within these settings, the ICT in Healthcare Observatory (IHO) is one of the
largest success stories in the relationship between academics and the Italian health-
care stakeholders. Started in 2008 by a Full Professor of Politecnico di Milano and an
Ex-Chief Information O±cer of one of the most important healthcare organizations in
Italy, the IHO is currently composed by academics only: two scienti¯c directors (15þ
years of experience in the ¯eld, one with a managerial background and the other with
an informatics one), one project manager, two senior researchers (10þyears of ex-
perience in the ¯eld, both with a managerial background) and four junior researchers
(having both a biomedical and managerial backgrounds).
Through its activities, the IHO has created a virtuous loop among research,
training, consultancy and communication, that in few years has allowed it to:
(i) align the di®erent perspectives on ICT's role within the Italian healthcare
domain; (ii) transfer the urgency of collaboratively working on ICT-driven innova-
tion in healthcare; (iii) legitimate IHO as the leading partner to be involved in
projects of ICT-based innovation in healthcare; (iv) enhance the collaboration
between the supply- and the demand-side of the Italian healthcare industry; and
(v) become a reference point for all the healthcare decision-makers regarding ICT
issues. Table A.1, in the Appendix, outlines the main innovation initiatives insti-
tuted and led by the IHO from 2008–2013. As depicted in the table, most of these
initiatives (22 out of 32) have an interorganizational nature. Table A.2 outlines the
main deliverables that the IHO produced as a result of its orchestrator initiatives in
the same timeframe.
The IHO conducts its activities according to the process depicted in Fig. 1.
A longitudinal approach is framed into a set of annual research projects, with public
presentations of achieved results each year [Pettigrew (1990)].
L. Gastaldi & M. Corso
1640009-2
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
Every year, the IHO weaves two mainstreams of collaborative research [Pasmore
et al. (2008)]. The ¯rst is a semi-qualitative research (SQR) led by IHO's researchers,
and enriched with the involvement of the practitioners in the gathering and analysis
of the data pertaining to the research problem. In the second, the Italian healthcare
stakeholders themselves are the change agent [Schein (2008)], and in the process
of seeking help they engage in a re°ective clinical inquiry research (CIR) with the
help of the IHO.
As depicted in Fig. 1, research-driven SQR is more focused on formally inserting
the tackled issues into the global discourse with the aim of gradually switching
from an exploratory (theory generation) to an explanatory (theory con¯rmation)
perspective. The practitioner-driven stream is more focused on e®ectiveness during
the practical implementation of the developing models, and aims to progressively
expand its focus from problem solving to change management.
2.1. Clinical inquiry research stream
CIR is a well-de¯ned collaborative form of research developed by Schein [2008].
Clinical refers to the role that academics must play in helping a healthcare stake-
holder to Coghlan and Brannik [2005]: (i) emphasize in-depth observations of change
processes; (ii) emphasize the e®ects of change interventions; (iii) benchmark the
¯ndings; and (iv) build theory and empirical knowledge through developing concepts
that capture the real dynamics of the system. Gummensson [2000] recognizes that
research conducted in this manner potentially enables the total solution to be
studied rather than particular parts. Moreover, CIR can be used to initiate change
and generate insights from theory development [Stebbins and Shani (2009)].
Second annual
research
Third annual
research
First annual
research
Collaborative research
framework
Longitudinal
approach
Researcher-
driven SQR1SQR2SQR3
Practitioner-
driven
CIR1CIR2CIR3
Semi-Qualitative
Research (SQR) Explanatory Exploratory
Clinical Inquiry
Research (CIR)
Change
management
Problem
solving
Start Public
present.
Public
present.
Public
present.
…
…
Fig. 1. IHO process to orchestrate the innovation ecosystems in Italian healthcare industry.
Academics as Orchestrators of Innovation Ecosystems
1640009-3
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
A distinguishing characteristic of CIR is in the setting of the activity. Unlike most
other collaborative research approaches, with CIR the learning opportunity arises in
a situation led by the client who needs help and, because of this, is more likely to
reveal important data [Schein (2008)]. Acting as process facilitators, the researchers
of the IHO help \clients" release resources through self-diagnosis and self-interven-
tion [Stebbins and Shani (2009)]. In order to attain a more suitable and sustainable
research, the CIR stream of the IHO is framed into annual projects (CIR
1
, CIR
2
, etc.;
see Table A.1 in the Appendix) that end with the presentation of the achieved
results not only to the actor who needed help, but also in broader research contexts
such as during speci¯c SQR meetings between academics and healthcare stake-
holders, called advisory boards (see Sec. 2.2.3).
Business process analysis and mapping [Womack and Jones (2003)], face-to-face
interviews and multi-participant interactive dialogues [Mikaelsson and Shani (2004)]
are the main collaborative mechanisms utilized in each CIR of the IHO. Moreover,
many data are obtained through the involvement of the organization assisted in the
SQR process. Periodical meetings are performed in order to progressively share the
achieved knowledge with the healthcare organization, orient the SQR process
toward more interesting goals, and discuss the empirical as well as theoretical
implications of the achieved ¯ndings.
2.2. Semi-qualitative research stream
Every year, the IHO uses a combination of a quantitative panel of dynamic elec-
tronic surveys, several qualitative case studies, a series of focus groups called advi-
sory boards, and an online community. The overall process of their utilization is
depicted in Fig. 2.
2.2.1. Electronic survey
Every year, the IHO creates and delivers an electronic survey to a sample of more
than 500 Italian healthcare CIOs from representative organizations of varying types,
sizes and geographical areas. A response rate higher than 15% is always achieved
(e.g. in the research process of 2012, 127 healthcare CIOs answered the survey see
Fig. 2).
The survey is always designed with semi-closed questions, in order to balance
usability and speed with the possibility of expounding on each question. After
positive results from pilot respondents and further re¯nement with the advisory
board, the survey is made available via web in a form allows CIOs to nominate a
collaborator able to answer a speci¯c question (and to then review the answer given),
and see speci¯c sections of the survey only if speci¯c threshold answers are provided.
These dynamic features are responsible for higher response rates even when using
an extensive survey (e.g. 30 questions in 2012).
From a researcher viewpoint, the delivery through an electronic platform gives
the possibility to analytically work on closed questions throughout data collection.
The IHO is thus able to identify anchors to guide future data gathering, and detect
connections between data for further theory generation [Forza (2002)]. These
L. Gastaldi & M. Corso
1640009-4
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
preliminary concepts can be brought to the advisory board's attention, together with
all the answers given to open questions.
Every year, the IHO delivers a second set of surveys to the Strategic Board
CEO, CFO and CMO of the same healthcare organizations of responding CIOs,
in order to cross-validate given responses. National and international healthcare
associations, as well as technology suppliers in healthcare support IHO's research,
and actively participate in its activities [Mohrman and Mohrman (2011)]. Their
contributions aim to not only economically sustain the research, but also push for a
timely response on the part of the strategic board of the sample. The brevity of the
survey given to CEOs, CFOs and CMOs allows a greater number of organizations to
be used as a basis for conducting longitudinal research.
Starting from the annual research of 2012, the IHO has developed a partnership
with Doxapharma, the branch focused on the healthcare sector of Doxa, the leading
Italian institution in opinion pools, market research and statistical analysis. This
partnership allows the IHO to run two yearly surveys on statistically-signi¯cant
samples of general physicians (637 respondents in 2012) and citizens (1001 respon-
dents in 2012). The idea is that of progressively considering a comprehensive per-
spective on the topics tackled by the IHO.
2.2.2. Case studies
The IHO performs a comparative analysis of more than 40 case studies every year
(e.g. 66 in 2012). The selection of the healthcare organizations to be studied is based
on: (i) the size of their ICT department (measured through the surveys, using the
Online community
Italian Ministry
of Health
Regional healthcare
directorate
General physician
(with Doxapharma)
Citizen
(with Doxapharma)
Healthcare organization
CEO
CFO
CMO
CIO
Electronic
surveys
Case
studies
Annual kick off of the activities of the IHO
223
127
637
1,001
1
6
59
Advisory board meeting
Advisory board meeting
Public presentation of annual findings
Fig. 2. Semi-qualitative research process adopted by IHO in the annual research of 2012.
Academics as Orchestrators of Innovation Ecosystems
1640009-5
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
rate of full-time equivalents in the ICT direction over the total number of organi-
zation employees); (ii) ICT strategic importance (measured through the surveys in
budget terms); (iii) ICT projects both those developed and those in progress ;
(iv) advisory board suggestions.
Data is gathered through a series of semi-structured interviews given to the CIO
of healthcare organizations of particular interest. A team of an experienced and a
junior researcher of the IHO leads every interview, which is based on a consistent
protocol, constructed according to survey responses, as well as an a priori analysis of
the healthcare organization. All the interviews are digitally recorded, transcribed
verbatim, summarized and interpreted through periodic meetings of the IHO in
order to test concept reliability, share visions, as well as to formally group and
compare key issues. If any information remains unclear and/or more data is needed,
interviewees are re-contacted for additional clari¯cations. Finally, all interviewees
are involved in reviewing the summarized interpretation.
A second panel of interviews is delivered to the strategic board of the same
healthcare organizations of responding CIOs, in order to cross-validate the given
responses [Yin (2003)]. Moreover, the IHO analyzes multiple sources of evidence:
healthcare organizations' internal documents, ICT schemes, websites, white papers,
etc. Due to the speci¯c nature of the Italian healthcare industry in which many
decisions are taken at a supraorganizational level [Scalzo et al. (2009)] the IHO
performs case studies on the directorate of important and representative regional
healthcare systems (six cases in 2012) and on the Italian Ministry of Health (see
Fig. 2). When the combination of these sources does not add particular insights to
data interpretation, the IHO stops their collection.
2.2.3. Advisory board and online community
The IHO bene¯ts also from an advisory board: a multidisciplinary focus group that
advises and helps in directing the focus of SQR, in interpreting data, in anticipating
future research issues and con¯rming results via social feedback [Mirvis (2008)]. The
group counts more than 50 representatives including: (i) C-levels of the main Italian
healthcare organizations; (ii) national and international healthcare technology
suppliers; (iii) professionals from national and international healthcare associations;
and (iv) healthcare experts. The advantages of working with this heterogeneous
group are not only the ability to gain a clear perspective of real sector problems, but
also the creation of a community of interest formed around the study with unique
opportunities to bring together the industry supply and demand, and stimulate
innovation initiatives.
From a research viewpoint, the advisory board helps in improving both construct
validity and dependability of the ¯ndings [Yin (2003)]. The annual contribution
brought to the research by the advisory board is organized around three face-to-face
meetings (Fig. 2). The ¯rst one deals with informal discussion about annual research
objectives and priorities in the data gathering process. In the second meeting, initial
results are discussed, and the advisory board suggests potential best practices on
which to perform the annual case studies. In the last meeting, overall results and
L. Gastaldi & M. Corso
1640009-6
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
explanations are discussed to test, review and con¯rm them. In all meetings a couple
of cases of e®ective ICT management are presented to share best practices and
discuss how to concretize the potential of speci¯c ICT-based solutions.
With the aim of o®ering further opportunities to discuss ICT's role in the Italian
healthcare industry, the IHO has started an online community, which is used not
only to discuss preliminary research ¯ndings, but also to share experiences, links and
news on the topics of ICT and innovation in healthcare. The community helps the
IHO in exploring new languages and new channels to be used in order to connect it to
practitioners.
3. Academics as Orchestrators of Innovation Ecosystems
The IHO recognizes that the interorganizational initiatives of innovation entail
complex phenomena, which exceed the capacity of individuals and organizations to
accomplish them [Porter and Powell (2006)]. In this scenario, the IHO shows that
academics can play an important role as \orchestrators of innovation ecosystems".
There are two rationales supporting this consideration:
.The independence of academics within the innovation ecosystem.
.The compliance and complementarity that academics have with the main
purposes for which knowledge within an innovation ecosystem is created and
leveraged.
3.1. First rationale:Independent position
Academics have an independent position, which is neutral and represents a middle
ground between the di®erent organizations that have to cooperate in order to ignite
and sustain interorganizational e®orts of innovation. In fact, the IHO is composed of
academics, and as opposed to other stakeholders present in the healthcare in-
dustry academics tend not only to have no hidden agendas related to the pro-
motion of a speci¯c ecosystem con¯guration, but also to hold signi¯cant expertise in
building trust and in serving as secure intermediaries between the di®erent actors.
Literature has repeatedly shown that, instead of writing lengthy contracts and
exercising litigation options, it is better to rely on social interactions to coordinate
the activities of an ecosystem and activate streams of joint problem solving within it
[Dhanaraj and Parkhe (2006)].
Conscious of these peculiarities, the IHO has invested in being progressively
perceived as an impartial and autonomous entity to be consulted in case of fact-
checking and evidence-based decision-making. Almost all the interorganizational
initiatives listed in Table A.1 have been activated and led by the IHO thanks to its
reputation as an independent accumulator of data able to manage privacy issues and
help practitioners in accomplishing their innovation decisions. For instance, a big
region in Northern Italy asked the IHO for help in developing the guidelines with
which to orient and govern the implementation of the electronic medical records of
all the 33 public healthcare organizations operating within it (refer to CIR
5
in
Table A.1).
Academics as Orchestrators of Innovation Ecosystems
1640009-7
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
3.2. Second rationale:Compliance to innovation
ecosystems' knowledge
The second rationale is associated with the levels of compliance and complemen-
tarity that academics have with the main purposes for which knowledge within an
innovation ecosystem is created and nurtured. Leveraging on the works of Docherty
et al. [2003], it is possible to identify four types of innovation ecosystems to which
academics can contribute as knowledge management experts: professional, learning,
transformational and strategic. In the rest of the paragraph we describe these eco-
systems, why the IHO's experience suggests that academics can be valuable orches-
trators of interorganizational initiatives of innovation within them, and the key role
of knowledge management.
3.2.1. Academic compliance to professional innovation ecosystems
Professional innovation ecosystems periodically bring together practitioners who
gain some bene¯t from exchanging knowledge with like-minded peers in order to
keep abreast of the latest developments in their ¯elds [Docherty et al. (2003)]. In-
directly, these knowledge exchanges catalyze collective re°ections on how accom-
plishing organizational and interorganizational initiatives of innovation, and provide
opportunities to realize them. There are many professional innovation ecosystems in
the Italian healthcare industry. Associations, consultants, and developers of ICT-
based solutions organize several meetings to encourage debates among healthcare
stakeholders around innovation. However, these meetings tend to be over-focused on
speci¯c topics, which are connected to the application domain of the meeting or-
ganizer. Moreover, the participants in these meetings tend to share the same beliefs,
the same values, the same experiences and the same perspective of the future. Thus,
it is often necessary to ¯nd incentives of thinking \outside the box", in order to really
keep up the pace with the multiple opportunities available to practitioners.
In this respect, the IHO shows that academics can be helpful in: (i) o®ering
opportunities to share knowledge and expertise; (ii) initiating e®ective collaborative
discussions about individual experiences; (iii) summarizing and formalizing the
knowledge generated through peer interactions; (iv) guiding and bringing value to
discussions; (v) helping to think outside the box; and (vi) maintaining the focus on
mutual organizational interests. As an example of these capabilities consider the
advisory boards periodically organized within the annual semi-qualitative research of
the IHO (SQR
1
–SQR
6
in Table A.1). These meetings are exploited not only to orient
the research process of the IHO, but also to provide the Italian healthcare industry
with unique opportunities to bring together its supply- and demand-side, and create
moments to stimulate interorganizational initiatives of innovation.
3.2.2. Academic compliance to learning innovation ecosystems
The organizations in a learning innovation ecosystem aim to increase their knowl-
edge by focusing on innovative sources of inspiration within the ecosystem to which
they belong. Usually they interact through private/public meetings, purposefully
re°ecting on theirs' and others' knowledge to identify learning opportunities related
L. Gastaldi & M. Corso
1640009-8
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
to organizational and interorganizational innovation issues. Progressively, formal
and informal consortia emerge from this continuous re°ection. These consortia in-
°uence existing knowledge management systems by creating a safe psychological
climate that allows the learning anxiety behind the resistance to change to be
overcome [Schein (2002)]. The Italian healthcare industry can be seen as a com-
pound set of learning innovation ecosystems. It is su±cient thinking to the several
work groups through which the Italian Ministry of Health coordinates the sharing of
best practices among its regional healthcare systems.
The IHO suggests not only that academics are natural enablers of the learning
processes underlying these groups, but also that the higher the moderation of aca-
demics, the more e®ective the activation of multiple streams of unbiased re°ection
around the practitioners' knowledge at both the organizational and the interorga-
nizational level. With reference to the semi-qualitative research streams activated by
the IHO, the number of participants in its workshops and public presentations
(Table A.2) emphasizes IHO e®ectiveness in rendering as salient the learning po-
tential related to the cases discussed within these events.
Practitioners can organize and lead learning innovation ecosystems as well
especially consultants and the supraorganizational entities like the Ministry of
Health. However, the learning atmosphere that they create is less of a safe psycho-
logical climate than the one created by academics, who, in addition, are particularly
e®ective in understanding the idiosyncrasies of the speci¯c reality being addressed, in
embracing a broad perspective, and producing more e®ective interorganizational
knowledge. The advisory boards of the IHO are so e®ective in capitalizing on the
past to better shape the orientation of IHO thanks to the safety perceived by the
participants of these \closed events", which are progressively exploited to present
organizational and interorganizational cases of innovation in order to freely discuss
them without the risk of public judgments.
3.2.3. Academic compliance to transformational innovation ecosystems
Transformational innovation ecosystems aim to transform their participants, whose
development in terms of innovation is seen as integrally linked to the development of
the ecosystems of which they are a part and/or with which they interact. Thus, the
ecosystem acts as a tightly-coupled peer system, in which participants collaborate on
directing, developing and deploying the knowledge that is necessary to enable the
transformation processes. In Italy, all regional healthcare systems establish them-
selves as ecosystems of players focused on developing joint transformational pro-
cesses of innovation. These processes are of course oriented toward sharing
professional knowledge (Sec. 3.2.1) and/or obtaining learning outcomes (Sec. 3.2.2),
but their main emphasis is put on having the best conditions to ignite and sustain
interorganizational initiatives of innovation.
The IHO shows that, in these cases, the healthcare stakeholders form transfor-
mational innovation ecosystems, and that academics can play key orchestrating roles
within these ecosystems as knowledge management experts. For instance, the sur-
veys that each year are delivered to all Italian healthcare C-levels, provide the IHO
Academics as Orchestrators of Innovation Ecosystems
1640009-9
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
with updated data regarding the overall priorities in ICT investments. During 2010,
these priorities represented a common base for the development of an ICT-driven
innovation plan for a regional healthcare system in Northern Italy (see CIR
6
in
Table A.1). This plan has been developed with the healthcare directorate of the
region, and the IHO provided this last one with critical interorganizational knowl-
edge regarding how to e®ectively enable and sustain the progressive digitalization of
the whole regional healthcare system through: (i) the de¯nition of the functional ICT
areas and governance initiatives to be kept under control; (ii) a prioritization of the
main interventions; and (iii) a set of indicators to monitor the impact of each in-
tervention on the objectives of the regional healthcare system.
Academics are e®ective in leading an interorganizational transformation because
they have strong competences in systematically identifying potential directions
along which to guide any joint transformational paths of the innovation ecosystem.
These competences are the results of incessant literature analyses and of the expo-
sure to other sectors' practices.
3.2.4. Academic compliance to strategic innovation ecosystems
Strategic innovation ecosystems are formed to add value to business processes
through mutual dependence on exchange relationships. As part of the strategic
ecosystem, organizations engage in goal-oriented activities around shared problems,
with the aim of dynamically achieving innovation objectives through the reduction of
transactional problems. Starting from this viewpoint, it is possible to think of Italian
healthcare also in terms of as a set of inter-related strategic ecosystems aiming to ¯nd
an overall con¯guration that allows the whole industry to disrupt its services without
compromising the quality o®ered to patients. The complexity of the decisions taken
within a strategic innovation ecosystem necessitates the creation of ecosystem
knowledge by: (i) decoding the choices made by each actor; (ii) assessing their e±-
ciency and e®ectiveness; and (iii) integrating it to the interorganizational knowledge
system of the ecosystem. The process is oriented to the production of explicit evi-
dence, valuing mutual dependence during interorganizational relationships.
The experience of the IHO shows that academics can play key orchestrator roles
within these settings. For instance, and with reference to CIR19 in Table A.1, the
IHO leveraged on its unique knowledge of all the 33 public healthcare organizations
operating within a big region in the North-Western Italy to assess the maturity of
their information systems according to a model jointly developed with the healthcare
directorate of the region (CIR13Þ, and based on a systematic literature review. The
assessment has provided both the region and its public healthcare organizations not
only with information regarding speci¯c intra- and interorganizational ICT-based
functional areas requiring further development, but also with the joint objectives of:
(i) progressively homogenizing the ICT-based solutions present in the healthcare
system; (ii) reducing the costs of ICT management; and (iii) improving the quality of
the regional healthcare system through an ICT-based integration of its di®erent care
pathways. These ecosystem objectives are the result of an innovation process that
academics easily activated and sustained thanks to their capabilities of realizing
L. Gastaldi & M. Corso
1640009-10
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
systematic literature review, maintaining a continuous relationship with di®erent
actors, and supporting the whole strategic innovation ecosystem in knowledge
creation, extension, conversion and integration.
3.2.5. Potential orchestrator roles of academics
The experience of the IHO demonstrates that academics can play several orches-
trator roles in all innovation ecosystem types. More speci¯cally, the main orches-
tration role of academics within an innovation ecosystem tends to change according
to its nature:
.In professional innovation ecosystems academics provide meeting occasions for
ecosystems actors, and help them in recognizing the innovation opportunities
available within the ecosystem by enhancing the di®usion of ecosystem knowledge.
.In learning innovation ecosystems academics reduce the learning anxiety behind
the resistance to change that each actor of the ecosystem tends to manifest, and
help in arranging knowledge in order to better framing innovation opportunities at
an ecosystem level.
.In transformational innovation ecosystems academics support the di®erent inno-
vation processes activated in the ecosystem through the constitution of the best
conditions necessary to accomplish them and the systematization of interorgani-
zational knowledge.
.In strategic innovation ecosystems academics orient each innovation process toward
common valuable objectives, and contribute in actualizing each synergy present
among all ecosystem actors by constituting an independent \knowledge hub".
4. Two Prerequisites for an E®ective Academics' Orchestration
Even if academics have a tremendous potential to orchestrate innovation ecosys-
tems, most of their initiatives are neither oriented toward achieving this goal
[Knights et al. (2008)], nor e®ective in attaining it [Bartunek and Schein (2011)].
In fact, industries and universities are governed by di®erent belief systems, practices,
and institutional logics, which comprehensively tend to ignite several tensions be-
tween academics and practitioners who try to jointly realize innovation. The basic
step to manage these tensions is the nurturing of a continuous knowledge exchange
between the two actors. However, this exchange is di±cult to initiate and maintain
due to the presence of diverse goals, motivations, and planning horizons. According
to the experience of the IHO, two design choices seem necessary to materialize the
potential key orchestrator role of academics:
.The extensive use of multiple approaches of collaborative research, not only to in-
crease the in°uence of academics in practice, but also (and especially) to support
knowledge creation and exchange at both organizational and ecosystem levels.
.The creation and maintenance of a knowledge platform allowing academics
to progressively di®use and leverage the ecosystem-based learning mechanisms
underlying each interorganizational e®ort of innovation.
Academics as Orchestrators of Innovation Ecosystems
1640009-11
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
The next two paragraphs deepen these choices, and start outlining a framework
for clarifying the orchestrator role that academics can play within an innovations
ecosystem.
4.1. Extensive use of multiple collaborative research approaches
The IHO shows that the orchestration of innovation ecosystems requires academics
a relentless exposure to large number of practitioners coming from di®erent domains.
In these complex, inter-related settings, the generation of knowledge no longer oc-
curs as historical happen [Christensen et al. (2009)] only in the academic
domain, but rather in a more distributed manner [Mohrman and Lawler (2011)].
Thus, IHO researchers are increasingly becoming just one of the many players
through which the actors of the Italian healthcare seek to ¯nd actionable knowledge
to govern innovation initiatives.
The experience of the IHO suggests that an extensive use of multiple approaches
of collaborative research allows the achievement and maintenance of a dynamic
equilibrium providing academics with the capabilities to orchestrate innovation at
an ecosystem level.
4.1.1. Why collaborative research?
Collaborative research implies research e®orts that include an active involvement of
practitioners in Van de Ven [2007]: problem formulation, theory building, research
design and problem solving. The engagement of practitioners in all these phases
forces academics to extensively deal with them throughout the research process, not
only providing opportunities to legitimize academics' orchestrator role, but also
allowing them to aspire of having an impact on reality. For instance, the IHO
started its online community to increase its dialogue with practitioners, gather
research interests from a broad group of stakeholders, periodically stress the im-
portance of following the suggestions derived from its ¯ndings, and provide tailored
answers to the practitioners willing to adopt the models developed in its research
processes.
Moreover, pushing academics outside themselves to obtain and be informed
by the perspective of practitioners collaborative research fosters the generation
and the validation of actionable knowledge, which not only provides a solid theo-
retical background through which supporting the development of an innovation
ecosystem, but also simpli¯es the alignment with practitioners that is necessary to
in°uence their actions toward common goals.
Finally, collaborative research is based on the value that knowledge production
and action are not set apart as two separate processes, but synergistically support
each other. In fact, collaborative research aims to understand the in°uence in
complex systems of behaviors, actions, and purposeful design choices that are
intended to manage the systems toward intended outcomes [Pasmore et al. (2008)].
Thus, academics can use collaborative research in multi-stakeholder settings to
orchestrate innovation ecosystems (see Table A.1).
L. Gastaldi & M. Corso
1640009-12
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
4.1.2. Why multiple approaches of collaborative research?
Collaborative research contemplates a wide variety of approaches characterized by
di®erent degrees of collaboration. At one extreme, collaboration may be limited to
access to an organization for data collection. At the other extreme is research that
seeks not only to produce knowledge but also to transform a system. In-between
these extremes there are several forms of collaboration that can be exploited by
academics to orchestrate innovation ecosystems.
From this viewpoint, the IHO shows that multiple levels of collaboration are
necessary, and that the more di®erent approaches of research are combined and
simultaneously pursued, the greater the orchestration of interorganizational e®orts
of innovation. In order to explain why, it is necessary to generalize Van de Ven
[2007], and classify the collaborative research approaches depicted in Table A.1
according to their purposes and perspectives. The intersection of these two dimen-
sions generates four di®erent approaches of research (Table 1), which the IHO
concurrently uses to orchestrate innovation ecosystems.
According to the experience of the IHO, the greater the concurrent presence and
the balance among these research approaches, the greater the possibilities of
exploiting the synergies among the relative orchestration modes. In fact, the inter-
play among the di®erent collaborative research approaches provides multiple ways
and levels to engage with practitioners in a comprehensive manner, which triangu-
lates the relative knowledge according to the speci¯c emphasis of the innovation
ecosystem. For instance, most of the orchestration e®orts of the IHO are placed not
in enabling but rather in supporting interorganizational initiatives of innovation. To
successfully support these initiatives, each year the IHO weaves semi-qualitative and
clinical inquiry research streams. The combination of these di®erent forms of re-
search allows the progressive assembling of a transformational innovation ecosystem
able to jointly assess, investigate and realize the strategic role of ICT within
healthcare.
Adopting multiple collaborative research approaches, the IHO gradually under-
stands the right emphasis to place on these di®erent research activities, in order to
combine their strengths and avoid their weaknesses based on the speci¯c domain
under consideration. The end result is a combination of real-time observations and
retrospective analysis, which not only maximizes the probabilities of discovering
short-lived factors that have a signi¯cant in°uence on the orchestration perfor-
mance, but also provides the advantages of: (i) getting the \big picture" of the
innovation ecosystem; and (ii) avoiding overcomplication and oversimpli¯cation
during knowledge orchestration [Van de Ven (2007)].
4.2. A platform to manage the network-based learning mechanisms
The IHO suggests that the con¯guration of a knowledge platform allowing aca-
demics to manage and progressively di®use the ecosystem-based learning mecha-
nisms underlying each interorganizational innovation increases the e®ectiveness of
academics in orchestrating an innovation ecosystem.
Academics as Orchestrators of Innovation Ecosystems
1640009-13
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
Table 1. Typologies of collaborative research's approaches utilized by the IHO.
Collaborative research Informed research Insider/outsider researchDesign/evaluation research Action/intervention research
Description Academics conduct and control
research activities with
advice of practitioners
Teams composed of insiders
and outsiders co-produce
knowledge
Academics develop and
evaluate policies or
programs for/with
practitioners
Academics implement change
to solve a practitioner's
problem
Purpose Describing Describing Controlling Controlling
Perspective Dethatched outsider Attached insider Dethatched evaluator Immersed change agent
IHO's examples All surveys and case studies in
SQR1–SQR6
All advisory boards in
SQR1–SQR6
CIR5,CIR
6, CIR8, CIR13,
CIR21,CIR
22
CIR14,CIR
19
Van de Ven called this typology of research \collaborative"; we have preferred the terms \insider/outsider research" not only to avoid a potential terminological
confusion, but also because it captures the real aims of these research e®orts: developing joint teams, in which one or more members are relative insiders to a
setting and one or more members are relative outsiders, to conduct a collaborative study [Bartunek (2008)].
Focus on whether the collaborative research is being undertaken to describe or control the innovation ecosystem.
Refers to the degree to which academics relate to the research domain as external observers or internal participants.
Refer to Sec. 2for a description of the speci¯c semi-qualitative research (SQR) and clinical inquiry research (CRI) streams.
L. Gastaldi & M. Corso
1640009-14
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
4.2.1. Why a platform?
The collaborative approaches adopted by IHO are highly di±cult to control in an
experimental sense [Bartunek et al. (2011)]. In fact, the research accomplished in
multi-stakeholder settings tends to exceed individual research capabilities, and asks
for multiple research perspectives, researchers, methods and resources [Mohrman
et al. (2008)].
From this viewpoint, a promising avenue that the IHO is exploring is the con-
stitution of a knowledge platform a socially-engineered knowledge framework
[Stebbins and Valenzuela (2004)] able to: (i) constitute a critical mass of researchers
to convey several perspectives on the same innovation stimuli; (ii) jointly overlap
di®erent theoretical and empirical frameworks to successfully tackle these stimuli;
(iii) manifest a unique identity during the interaction with practitioners; (iv) push
academics out of their comfort zone, which tends to be over-focused on peer citation
logics; (v) engage academics with practitioners in each phase of the collaborative
research processes underlying an orchestration e®ort; and (vi) convey the innovation
initiatives present within an ecosystem at a systemic level.
The IHO suggests three motivations to establish a knowledge platform in the
context of orchestrating innovation ecosystems. The ¯rst motivation is related to the
fact that a knowledge platform strengthens the e®ectiveness of collaborative research
in supporting any academic orchestration. In fact, a knowledge platform allows to
easily work on the six motors proposed by Tenkasi and Hay [2008] to foster aca-
demic–practitioner collaboration (Table 2), collects in a meaningful, circumscribed
niche of inquiry the e®orts of academics, allows to e±ciently allocate their resources,
prioritize the di®erent interventions, seize all exploitable synergies, and easily convey
the innovation e®orts at a systemic level.
A second motivation for exploiting a knowledge platform concerns the possi-
bility to increase the dialogue between academics and practitioners. Periodically,
the IHO brings the two together to discuss research ¯ndings and their practical
implications, to identify key emergent problems, and to facilitate networking, so
that healthcare stakeholders can share their experiences and learn from one an-
other. The IHO serves as a hub, providing a structure and a process by which
practitioners and academics can continuously co-interpret interorganizational
issues. By adhering to the IHO, practitioners and academics agree on committing
to attending regular meetings, confronting on a periodical basis, and cyclically
re°ecting on interorganizational innovation issues. Literature [Van de Ven (2007)]
suggests that this form of collaboration is especially e®ective: (i) in learning from
past experiences; (ii) in adopting a shared vocabulary for capturing multiple
dimensions of a phenomena; and thus (iii) in orchestrating interorganizational
innovation ecosystems.
A ¯nal motivation for establishing a platform to orchestrate innovation ecosys-
tems is related to the creation of an adequate research rhythm. The IHO shows that
if academics aim to play a substantive role as interorganizational orchestrators they
have to undertake rapid research processes, which balance rigorousness and timeli-
ness. A platform like the one established by each IHO substantially helps in truly
Academics as Orchestrators of Innovation Ecosystems
1640009-15
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
excelling at both these competing demands. In fact, on the one hand, a platform
provides academics with resources and time to collectively re°ect on interorganiza-
tional issues, compare alternative network solutions, and explore di®erent orches-
tration strategies. On the other hand, it forces academics to train their capabilities of
conducting collaborative research more quickly, and in a way that addresses the
changing realities faced by practitioners.
Table 2. Motors used by the IHO to engage practitioners and orchestrate CI ecosystems.
Motor De¯nition Relating theory to practice Relating practice to theory
Sca®olding Identifying problems of
double relevance by
including a platform
that, while leading
practical actions,
ensures theoretical
outcomes
Development of an annual
research agenda de-
rived from a detailed
literature analysis
Adding practical elements
exceeding the needs of
the stakeholders helped
through each CIR
project to increase
theoretical outcomes
Framing Using theory to give direc-
tion to a broadly
expressed innovation
mandate, and practice
to frame a niche in
which to test/develop a
theoretical model
Considering ICT as a lever
that a healthcare sys-
tem can use to over-
come the con°ict
between quality im-
provement and cost
rationalization
Slight adaptation of the re-
search agenda according
to practitioner needs
(mostly in terms of fo-
cusing on speci¯c ICT-
based solutions)
In°uencing and
legitimizing
Using theory to in°uence
and legitimize the need
for certain kinds of
actions, and using prac-
tice to legitimize a cer-
tain kind of theoretical
model
Fostering the usage of ICT
as a lever to dynami-
cally balance explora-
tion and exploitation
within healthcare
Leveraging the idiosyncra-
sies of the di®erent re-
gional healthcare
systems in Italy to study
the variables modera-
ting the signi¯cance of
ICT
Sensemaking Using theory to make sense
of practice, and practice
to re-inform theory
Paradoxical thinking to
explore the necessity of
balancing exploration
and exploitation in
healthcare
Necessity to switch from an
organizational to a net-
work-based unit of
analysis to not conduct
an abstract research
Demonstrating Using theoretical rigor to
demonstrate that a
solution is empirically
successful, and practical
impacts to provide
evidence supporting the
veracity of a theoretical
model
Quanti¯cation of the ben-
e¯ts (in terms of qua-
lity and cost)
associated with the
investments in ICT in
healthcare
Application of an ICT
adoption model deve-
loped through a group of
cases on another group
of healthcare organiza-
tions in order to re¯ne
the model and test its
veracity
Turns Reframing a theoretical ele-
ment to make it more
palatable to a practi-
tioner audience; and
reframing an empirical
element with similar
aims for an academic
audience
Graphical and interactive
presentation allowing
healthcare practi-
tioners to understand
the frameworks of
paradoxical thinking
Legitimizing the methods
used by IHO with a
speci¯c emphasis on the
collaborative and quali-
tative ones (e.g. de¯ni-
tion of the strategies to
reduce informant bias)
L. Gastaldi & M. Corso
1640009-16
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
4.2.2. Why ecosystem-based learning mechanisms?
Learning, in one or more variations, is an integral part of any innovation initiative.
Starting from this consideration, each innovation ecosystem underlines the com-
prehensive character of the learning endeavors, which academics can foster and use.
More precisely, it is possible to distinguish between learning \in" and \from" an
innovation ecosystem [Huzzard and Gregory (2008)]. In fact, this last one can ac-
quire not just the declarative knowledge of its speci¯ed learning target, but also
procedural knowledge about the management of the ecosystem itself: its setup,
maintenance and survival. For instance, the IHO generates insights of interest for
the entire Italian healthcare industry both through the data collected by its surveys/
cases as well as thanks to its events, which provide opportunities to jointly re°ect on
the best way to collaborate on shared innovation issues.
The IHO suggests that the e®ectiveness of a knowledge platform in orchestrating
innovation ecosystems is connected to its capability to design, implement, spread,
and leverage mechanisms through which to learn \in" and \from" the ecosystems
themselves. In fact, the learning issues are often not formally given a clear priority on
the management agenda in most organizations, and since interorganizational
learning is e®ective if its conditions and process are systematically designed and
implemented [Shani and Docherty (2003)] academics are among the best
designers and developers of \learning mechanisms".
At the most basic level, learning mechanisms are formalized strategies, policies,
guidelines, methods, tools, routines, and any other arrangement that is designed to
promote and facilitate learning [Lipshitz et al. (2007)]. Although learning mecha-
nisms can apply at individual, group, organizational and ecosystem levels, most of
the literature on the topic assumes an organizational perspective, and identi¯es three
main learning mechanisms: cognitive, structural, and procedural [Fredberg et al.
(2011)]. Starting from this viewpoint, it is possible to talk about three ecosystem-
based learning mechanisms (ELMs), which the IHO concurrently uses in orches-
trating innovation ecosystems (see Table 3for some examples).
.Cognitive ELMs: Language, symbols, theories, values and concepts for creating an
understanding among all innovation ecosystem on the character, need, and pri-
ority of a new ecosystem status as well as the changes required to realize it
[Docherty and Shani (2008)].
.Structural ELMs: Interorganizational infrastructures that encourage practice-
based learning within an innovation ecosystem —housing and enabling the
knowledge exchange required for interorganizational innovation [Shani and
Docherty (2006)].
.Procedural ELMs: Institutionalized procedures, routines, and methods that fa-
cilitate ecosystem knowledge exchange, and establish the core routines to e®ect
innovation.
The experience of the IHO emphasizes that a knowledge platform that focuses on
nurturing a tapestry of di®erent types of ELMs has greater possibilities to ignite and
sustain ecosystem innovation. The higher the inter-relatedness of the ELMs, and
Academics as Orchestrators of Innovation Ecosystems
1640009-17
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
their coherence to the speci¯c purpose of the innovation ecosystem, the more
e®ective the orchestration by academics.
5. Conclusions, Limits and Further Research
Organizations are increasingly shifting from innovation initiatives centered on in-
ternal resources to those that are centered on sharing resources, knowledge and
expertise in ecosystems [Adner (2011)]. In these settings, most innovation e®orts
have to be designed and accomplished at an interorganizational level to produce
outcomes. The experience of the IHO suggests that academics can e®ectively or-
chestrate these initiatives. In order to concretize their orchestration role, academics
have to extensively engage with practitioners, and leverage on their independence/
compliance to the di®erent types of innovation ecosystems.
The best way to accomplish these tasks seems to be the organization of a
knowledge platform combining multiple approaches of collaborative research. This
platform: (i) increases academic possibilities of activating virtuous cycles between
research, communication and community management; (ii) allows academics to ef-
fectively serve as knowledge management experts; and (iii) conveys the di®erent
innovation e®orts at a systemic level.
Of course these are just preliminary results, which have to be deepened through
further research. For instance, it would be interesting to understand if IHO's ap-
proach works also in industries characterized by the presence of other actors with the
willingness and the capability to orchestrate interorganizational innovation e®orts.
In this way it would be possible to understand if academics have really peculiar
characteristics setting them apart in any orchestration e®orts, or if IHO's approach
Table 3. Examples of ecosystem-based learning mechanisms (ELMs) enabled and led by the IHO.
Ecosystem typeCognitive ELMs Structural ELMs Procedural ELM
Professional Report with quanti¯ca-
tion of healthcare ICT
budgets (derived from
surveys) ½FROM
Online community
and public
presentations ½IN
Benchmarking among hospitals
and among regional health-
care systems ½FROM
Learning Report with investment
priorities of healthcare
CIOs (derived from
surveys) ½FROM
Advisory boards and
annual public
presentations ½IN
Regional guidelines for EMR
implementation ½IN
Transformational ICT-driven innovation
plan for a regional
healthcare system ½IN
Public presentations
and online
community ½IN
Regional guidelines for health-
care information system
homogenization ½IN
Strategic Regional governance
model of the shared
healthcare services ½IN
Advisory boards
(and their safety
climate) ½IN
Maturity model of healthcare
information systems ½IN
For each EML we have emphasized if it has realized its potential through an analysis of the actors/
dynamics characterizing the innovation ecosystem (learning FROM the ecosystem) or through an inter-
action with it (learning IN the ecosystem).
L. Gastaldi & M. Corso
1640009-18
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
and the idiosyncrasies of Italian healthcare are the main reasons explaining the
e®ectiveness of IHO's academics in orchestrating innovation ecosystems.
Moreover, this paper focus on the orchestration of the processes through which
several actors adopt ICT-based solutions that are already fully developed. The logics
and the mechanisms making e®ective IHO's platform could not work if one focus on
the preliminary phase in which these solutions are actually developed and prelimi-
nary tested. In this phase, due to intellectual property issues, the perspectives of
practitioners and academics change dramatically, and the latter could no more be
perceived as an independent player within the innovation ecosystem. Further re-
search is necessary to understand if and how academics can orchestrate interorga-
nizational e®orts of innovation in these settings.
Finally, IHO's experience emphasizes that interorganizational orchestration is
e®ective only if there are mechanism \forcing" all ecosystems actors both aca-
demics and practitioners to exit from their comfort zones to explore alternatives
and indirect approaches of value generation. More research is needed to understand
how managing these approaches, as well as the underlying con°icts. IHO shows that
academics can play a key role in this game.
References
Adner, R. (2011). The Wide Lens: A New Strategy for Innovation. Portfolio Penguin,
New York.
Adner, R. and Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems. Strategic Man-
agement Journal,31, 3: 306–333.
Afuah, A. (2009). Strategic Innovation. New York, Routledge.
Angst, C. M., Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V. and Kelley, K. (2010). Social contagion and
information technology di®usion. Management Science,56: 1219–1241.
Bartunek, J. M. (2008). Insider/outsider team research: The development of the approach and
its meanings, in Handbook of Collaborative Management Research, eds. A. B. Shani
(Rami), S. A. Mohrman, W. A. Pasmore, B. Stymne and N. Adler, pp. 73–92. SAGE,
Thousand Oaks.
Bartunek, J. M., Balogun, J. and Do, B. (2011). Considering planned change anew. Academy
of Management Annals,5,1:1–52.
Bartunek, J. M. and Schein, E. H. (2011). Organization development scholar-practitioners:
Between scholarship and practice, in Useful Research: Advancing Theory and Practice,
eds. S. A. Mohrman and E. Lawler, pp. 233–250. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.
Coghlan, D. and Brannik, T. (2005). Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization.
SAGE, London.
Dhanaraj, C. and Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Man-
agement Review,31, 3: 659–669.
Docherty, P., Huzzard, T., de Leede, J. and Totterdill, P. (2003). Home and Away: Learning
in and Learning from Organizational Networks in Europe. INNOFLEX. Available at
http://j.mp/InnoFlex.
Docherty, P. and Shani, A. B. (Rami) (2008). Learning mechanisms as means and ends in
collaborative management research, in Handbook of Collaborative Management Research,
eds. A. B. Shani (Rami), S. A. Mohrman, W. A. Pasmore, B. Stymne and N. Adler,
pp. 163–182. SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Dougherty, D. and Dunne, D. D. (2011). Organizing ecologies of complex innovation. Orga-
nization Science,22, 5: 1214–1223.
Academics as Orchestrators of Innovation Ecosystems
1640009-19
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
Forza, C. (2002). Survey research in operations management: A process-based perspective.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management,22, 2: 152–194.
Fredberg, T., Norrgren, F. and Shani, A. B. (Rami) (2011). Developing and sustaining change
capabilities via learning mechanisms, in Research in Organizational Change and Deve-
lopment, eds. A. B. Shani (Rami), R. W. Woodman and W. A. Pasmore, pp. 117–161.
Emerald, Bingley.
Gummensson, E. (2000). Qualitative Methods in Management Research. SAGE, Thousand
Oaks.
Hodgkinson, G. P., Herriot, P. and Anderson, N. (2001). Re-aligning the stakeholders in
management research: Lessons from industrial, work and organizational psychology.
British Journal of Management,12: S41–S48.
Huzzard, T. and Gregory, D. (2008). Collaborative research and the trade unions, in Hand-
book of Collaborative Management Research, eds. A. B. Shani (Rami), S. A. Mohrman,
W. A. Pasmore, B. Stymne and N. Adler, pp. 315–339. SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Jick, T. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.
Administrative Science Quarterly,24, 4: 602–611.
Kapoor, R. and Lee, J. M. (2013). Coordinating and competing in ecosystems. Strategic
Management Journal,34, 3: 274–296.
Knights, D., Alfero®, C., Starkey, K. and Tiratsoo, N. (2008). Bridging the academic-prac-
titioner divide: A case study analysis of business schools collaboration with industry, in
Handbook of Collaborative Management Research, eds. A. B. Shani (Rami), S. A. Mohr-
man, W. A. Pasmore, B. Stymne and N. Adler, pp. 405–421. SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Lipshitz, R., Friedman, V. J. and Popper, M. (2007). Demystifying Organizational Learning.
SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Mikaelsson, J. and Shani, A. B. (Rami) (2004). Rethinking and transforming product deve-
lopment, in Collaborative Research in Organizations, eds. N. Adler, A. B. Shani (Rami)
and A. Styhre, pp. 181–196. SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Mirvis, P. H. (2008). Academic-practitioner learning forum: New model for interorganiza-
tional research, in Handbook of Collaborative Management Research, eds. A. B. Shani
(Rami), S. A. Mohrman, W. A. Pasmore, B. Stymne and N. Adler, pp. 201–224. SAGE,
Thousand Oaks.
Mohrman, S. A. and Lawler, E. (2011). Research for theory and practice: Framing the chal-
lenge, in Useful Research: Advancing Theory and Practice, eds. S. A. Mohrman and
E. Lawler, pp. 9–33. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.
Mohrman, S. A. and Mohrman, A. M. Jr. (2011). Collaborative organization design research
at the center for e®ective organizations, in Useful Research: Advancing Theory and
Practice, eds. S. A. Mohrman and E. Lawler, pp. 57–80. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.
Mohrman, S. A., Pasmore, W. A., Shani, A. B. (Rami), Stymne, B. and Adler, N. (2008).
Toward building a collaborative research community, in Handbook of Collaborative
Management Research, eds. A. B. Shani (Rami), S. A. Mohrman, W. A. Pasmore, B.
Stymne and N. Adler, pp. 619–637. SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Pasmore, W. A., Stymne, B., Shani, A. B., Mohrman, S. A. and Adler, N. (2008). The promise
of collaborative management research, in Handbook of Collaborative Management Re-
search, eds. A. B. Shani (Rami), S. A. Mohrman, W. A. Pasmore, B. Stymne and N. Adler,
pp. 7–31. SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Pettigrew, A. (1990). Longitudinal ¯eld research on change: Theory and practice. Organiza-
tion Science,1, 3: 267–292.
Porter, K. A. and Powell, W. W. (2006). Networks and organizations, in The SAGE Handbook
of Organization Studies, eds. S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence and W. R. Nord, 2nd
edn., pp. 776–800. SAGE, London.
Scalzo, A. L., Donatini, A., Orzella, L., Cicchetti, A., Pro¯li, S. and Maresso, A. (2009). Italy:
Health system review. Health Systems in Transition,11,6:1–243.
Schein, E. H. (2002). The anxiety of learning. Harvard Business Review,80, 3: 100–106.
L. Gastaldi & M. Corso
1640009-20
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
Schein, E. H. (2008). Clinical inquiry/research, in The SAGE Handbook of Action Research,
eds. P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 2nd edn., pp. 266–279. SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Shani, A. B. (Rami) and Docherty, P. (2003). Learning by Design. Blackwell, Malden.
Shani, A. B. (Rami) and Docherty, P. (2006). Learning by design, in Handbook of Organi-
zation Development, ed. T. G. Cummings, pp. 499–518. SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Stadler, C., Rajwani, T. and Karaba, F. (2014). Solutions to the exploration/exploitation
dilemma: Networks as a new level of analysis. International Journal of Management
Reviews,16, 2: 172–193.
Stebbins, M. and Valenzuela, J. L. (2004). Structural learning mechanisms in collaborative
research, in Collaborative Research in Organizations: Foundations for Learning, Change,
and Theoretical Development, eds. N. Adler, A. B. Shani (Rami) and A. Styhre, pp. 149–
166. SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Stebbins, M. and Shani, A. B. (Rami) (2009). Clinical inquiry and re°ective design in a
secrecy-based organization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,45,1:59–89.
Tenkasi, R. V. and Hay, G. W. (2008). Following the second legacy of Aristotle, in Handbook
of Collaborative Management Research, eds. A. B. Shani (Rami), S. A. Mohrman, W. A.
Pasmore, B. Stymne and N. Adler, pp. 49–71. SAGE, Thousand Oaks.
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged Scholarship. Oxford University Press, New York.
Womack, J. P. and Jones, D. T. (2003). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in
Your Corporation. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn. SAGE, Thousand
Oaks.
Appendix
Table A.1 contains the main innovation initiatives instituted and led by the IHO.
Table A.2 outlines the main deliverables that the IHO produced as a result of its
orchestrator initiatives since its inception.
Table A.1. Overview of the innovation initiatives initiated and led by the IHO.
Year IdInnovation initiative
2008 CIR1Development of the strategic speci¯cations of an electronic medical record system in a
small (200 employees; 80 beds) private hospital
CIR2Strategic assessment and re-organization of the ICT insourcer of a big (10 million
citizens) region (emphasis on the healthcare practice)
SQR1Nationwide collaborative re°ection of the results of IHP surveys and the case studies
2009 CIR3Assessment and strategic recon¯guration of the ICT department of a large-sized (3450
employees, 1200 beds) general hospital
CIR4Strategic recon¯guration of the ICT department of a medium-sized (170,000 citizens)
local authority
CIR5Development of the guidelines that a big (10 M citizens) region uses to orient and
govern the implementation of the EMRs of all the 33 public healthcare
organization operating within it
SQR2Nationwide collaborative re°ection of the results of IHP surveys and the case studies
2010 CIR6Development of the ICT-driven innovation plan for a big (4.5 M citizens) regional
healthcare system
CIR7Strategic recon¯guration of the ICT department of a large-sized (1100 beds) general
hospital
CIR8Development of the guidelines that a big (10 M citizens) region uses to homogenize
the information systems of all the 33 public healthcare organizations operating
within it
SQR3Nationwide collaborative re°ection of the results of IHP surveys and the case studies
(Continued )
Academics as Orchestrators of Innovation Ecosystems
1640009-21
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
Table A.1. (Continued )
Year IdInnovation initiative
2011 CIR9Design of the ICT-based system used by a large-sized (1000 beds) hospital to interact
with patients
CIR10 Strategic analysis of the bene¯ts associated with the development of a computerized
drug management system in a large-sized (3450 employees, 1200 beds) general
hospital
CIR11 EU project to implement and scale up seven pilots based on the concept of secure and
user-friendly online access by citizens to their health data
CIR12 Comparison of three EE regional healthcare systems to improve the treatments de-
livered in rural areas
CIR13 Development (and pilot test) of a model that a big (10 million citizens) region uses to
assess the maturity of the information systems of all the 33 public healthcare
organizations operating within it
SQR4Nationwide collaborative re°ection of the results of IHP surveys and the case studies
2012 CIR14 Strategic design of an interorganizational community connecting administrations of
¯ve hospitals
CIR15 Joint re°ections on the role of ICT in the support of fragile/elderly patients, and
strategic analysis of the business models of a telemedicine service with a medium-
sized (700 employees) ICT provider
CIR16 Strategic recon¯guration of the ICT department of a large-sized (3800 employees)
general hospital
CIR17 Preparation of the technical speci¯cations of a tender through which developing the
new information system of a medium-sized (1800 employees; 600 beds) general
hospital
CIR18 Pilot (in Italy) of a benchmarking survey that will be run by the JRC of the European
Commission to analyze the eHealth deployment of all the EU countries and
identify good practices to be shared
CIR19 Assessment and benchmarking of the maturity of the information systems of all the 33
public healthcare organizations operating within a big (10 million citizens) region
SQR5Nationwide collaborative re°ection of the results of IHP surveys and the case studies
2013 CIR20 Development of a model to assess the maturity of healthcare business intelligence
systems and tracking of the progress of ¯ve Italian public hospitals over this model
CIR21 Development of a plan that a big (10 million citizens) region uses to centralize and
govern the ICT-based services that can be shared among the 33 public healthcare
organizations operating within it
CIR22 Strategic analysis of the bene¯ts associated with the development of an electronic
medical report in a large-sized (3900 employees, 1100 beds) general hospital
CIR23 Strategic analysis of the bene¯ts associated with the development of a computerized
drug management system in a large-sized (3500 employees, 1700 beds) private
hospital
CIR24 Development of a plan that a big (¯ve million citizens) region in South Italy uses to
centralize and govern the ICT-based services that can be shared among its public
healthcare organizations
CIR25 Strategic analysis and improvement plan of the organizational models and the ICT-
based solutions characterizing the socio-care services delivered by a local health
authority to 340,000 citizens
CIR26 Development of an evolutionary plan of the organizational models and the ICT-based
solutions characterizing the socio-care services delivered by a local health authority
to 1,000,000 citizens
SQR6Nationwide collaborative re°ection of the results of IHP surveys and the case studies
We have underlined the CIR or SQR that have an interorganizational nature.
L. Gastaldi & M. Corso
1640009-22
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
Table A.2. Deliverables and ¯ndings dissemination of the IHO.
Deliverable 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Practitioner-ori-
ented events
1 main conference (326
participants)
1 main conference
(705 partici-
pants)
1 main conference
(352 partici-
pants)
1 main conference (522
participants)
1 main conference
(550 partici-
pants)
1 main conference
(450 partici-
pants)
7 workshops (60þ
participants each)
4 workshops (100þ
participants
each)
9 workshops (50þ
participants
each)
4 workshops (100þ
participants each)
4 workshops (80þ
participants
each)
4 workshops (100þ
participants
each)
Practitioner-
oriented
reports
1 free paper-based re-
port distributed to
all conference parti-
cipants
1 free paper-based
general report
1 free paper-based
general report
1 free paper-based gen-
eral report
1 free paper-based
general report
1 free paper-based
general report
4 electronic reports
on vertical topics
1 electronic reports
with detailed
results
1 electronic reports with
detailed results
1 electronic reports
with detailed
results
1 electronic reports
with detailed
results
General press
articles
6 articles (4 in signi¯-
cant newspapers)
12 articles (5 in
signi¯cant news-
papers)
78 articles (12 in
signi¯cant news-
papers)
86 articles (13 in signi¯-
cant newspapers)
82 articles (25 in
signi¯cant news-
papers)
136 articles (50þin
signi¯cant news-
papers)
CIR projects 2 organizational 2 organizational 1 organizational 2 organizational 3 organizational 2 organizational
1 interorganizational 2 interorganizational 2 interorganizational 1
European
2 interorganizational
1 European
5 interorganizational
Academic-
oriented
publications
1 conference paper 5 conference papers 2 conference papers 6 conference papers 6 conference papers
1 chapter in an
international
book
1 paper in a peer
reviewed journal
2 chapters in inter-
national books
1 chapters in inter-
national books
4 papers in peer
reviewed journals
3 papers in peer
reviewed journals
A newspaper is considered signi¯cant if it has more than 400,000 copies/day.
Academics as Orchestrators of Innovation Ecosystems
1640009-23
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
Biography
Luca Gastaldi is an Assistant Professor at Politecnico di Milano, where he teaches
\Analysis and Design of Managerial Processes". His main research interests involve
digital innovation, eHealth and ambidexterity. He is a Board Member of the
Continuous Innovation Network (CINet), and Director of the Digital Agenda
Observatory of Politecnico di Milano.
Mariano Corso is a Full Professor at Politecnico di Milano, where he teaches
\Leadership and Innovation" and \Business Management and Organization". He is
a Co-Founder and Member of the Scienti¯c Board of the Digital Innovation
Observatories of Politecnico di Milano, and responsible for di®erent observatories
including Cloud and ICT as a service, Smart Working, HR innovation and ICT in
healthcare.
L. Gastaldi & M. Corso
1640009-24
Int. J. Innovation Technol. Management Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO on 04/28/16. For personal use only.
A preview of this full-text is provided by World Scientific.
Content available from International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management
This content is subject to copyright.
