← Every exhibit

Table Figure 1 Go-to-market & pricing

The ecosystem alignment structure map

Map the structure that a focal value proposition needs before counting or recruiting partners.

Value-proposition stepSynthetic actorPositionRequired linkDependencyFailure signal
Create the core offerFocal firmOffer ownerProduct to deliveryCapability is availablePromise cannot be delivered
Add a complementary serviceComplementor AService providerOffer to serviceInterface and timing alignUser receives an incomplete bundle
Reach the userChannel actorAccess positionService to accessIncentive and information alignDemand is present but unreachable
Support the experienceSupport actorRecovery positionUser to supportEscalation path is clearFailure has no accountable response

Swipe or scroll horizontally if the table is wider than your screen.

Cite Embed

Reference & Evidence

Source: Author's synthetic strategy framework grounded in Adner (2017), Gawer and Cusumano (2014), and Tiwana et al. (2010). The actors, activities, and failure signals are illustrative and do not identify a current ecosystem.

Each line is a claim from the register this journal publishes against, resolved from the register at build time.

  • A The definition, verbatim: an ecosystem is "the alignment structure of the multilateral set of partners that need to interact in order for a focal value proposition to materialize" Adner. (2017) · ADN17-C1
  • A Interdependence is the unit: the definition turns on "the multilateral set of partners that need to interact in order for a focal value proposition to materialize", so activities and positions are described relative to that proposition Adner. (2017) · ADN17-C2
  • A Alignment is the strategic problem, not a by-product: an ecosystem IS "the alignment structure of the multilateral set of partners", which makes getting partners aligned the thing to be managed Adner. (2017) · ADN17-C3
  • A Two types, and the paper says only two: "there are two predominant types of platforms internal or company specific platforms and external or industry wide platforms" Gawer & Cusumano. (2014) · GC14-C1
  • A Both definitions are the authors' own: an internal platform is "a set of assets organized in a common structure from which a company can efficiently develop and produce a stream of derivative products", an external one "a foundation upon which external innovators organized as an innovative business ecosystem can develop their own complementary products technologies or services" Gawer & Cusumano. (2014) · GC14-C2
  • A What the review actually offers: "we summarize from the literature general propositions on the design economics and strategic management of platforms", illustrated through "the case of Intel and other examples" rather than tested Gawer & Cusumano. (2014) · GC14-C3
  • A The subject, from the title itself: "platform evolution coevolution of platform architecture governance and environmental dynamics" Tiwana, Konsynski & Bush. (2010) · TKB10-C1
  • A A research agenda, not a result: "we identify five broad research questions stemming from this tripartite coevolution perspective", studiable at ecosystem or module level Tiwana, Konsynski & Bush. (2010) · TKB10-C2
  • A Design and governance, ongoing: "the coevolution of the design governance and environmental dynamics of such ecosystems influences how they evolve", presented with "five broad research questions" Tiwana, Konsynski & Bush. (2010) · TKB10-C3

Grades: A, verified against the printed page of the primary source · B, primary source, text layer only · C, authoritative secondary · D, reported.

Related exhibits