Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems

• Published date: 01 March 2018
• Author: Erkko Autio,Satish Nambisan,Mike Wright,Llewellyn D. W. Thomas
• Date: 01 March 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1266

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the

genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems

Erkko Autio

1,2

| Satish Nambisan

3

| Llewellyn D. W. Thomas

1

|

Mike Wright

1,4

1

Department of Innovation and

Entrepreneurship, Imperial College Business

School, London, U.K.

2

Tilburg University School of Economics and

Management, Tilburg, The Netherlands

3

Weatherhead School of Management, Case

Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

4

Department of Entrepreneurship, ETH,

Zurich, Switzerland

Correspondence

Erkko Autio, Imperial College Business School,

Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, U.K.

Email: erkko.autio@imperial.ac.uk

Research Summary: Entrepreneurial ecosystems command

increasing attention from policy makers, academics, and practi-

tioners, yet the phenomenon itself remains under-theorized. Spe-

cifically, the conceptual similarities and differences of

entrepreneurial ecosystems relative to, for instance, clusters,

“knowledge clusters,”regional systems of innovation, and “innova-

tive milieus”remain unclear. Drawing on research on industrial dis-

tricts and agglomerations, clusters, and systems of innovation, we

suggest that entrepreneurial ecosystems differ from traditional

clusters by their emphasis on the exploitation of digital affor-

dances; by their organization around entrepreneurial opportunity

discovery and pursuit; by their emphasis on business model inno-

vation; by voluntary horizontal knowledge spillovers; and by

cluster-external locus of entrepreneurial opportunities. We high-

light how these distinctive characteristics set entrepreneurial eco-

systems apart from other cluster types, propose a structural model

of entrepreneurial ecosystems, summarize the articles in this spe-

cial issue, and suggest promising avenues for future research.

Managerial Summary: Entrepreneurial ecosystems command

increasing attention from policy makers, academics, and practi-

tioners. We suggest that entrepreneurial ecosystems differ from

traditional clusters by their emphasis on the exploitation of digital

affordances; by their organization around entrepreneurial opportu-

nity discovery and pursuit; by their emphasis on business model

innovation; by voluntary horizontal knowledge spillovers; and by

cluster-external locus of entrepreneurial opportunities. We high-

light how these distinctive characteristics set entrepreneurial eco-

systems apart from regional cluster phenomena discussed in

received economic geography and innovation literatures. We sug-

gest policy makers need to adopt novel approaches to stimulate

entrepreneurial ecosystems that differ from those in place to

Received: 10 July 2017 Accepted: 14 July 2017 Published on: 04 January 2018

DOI: 10.1002/sej.1266

Copyright © 2017 Strategic Management Society

72 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sej Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. 2018;12:72–95.

develop industrial clusters or support already established small-

and medium-sized companies.

KEYWORDS

architectural knowledge, business model innovation, digital

affordance, entrepreneurial ecosystem, spatial affordance,

start-up

1|INTRODUCTION

The idea that regional entrepreneurial landscapes can be usefully viewed as complex, evolving ecosystems has rap-

idly gained traction in the entrepreneurship practitioner and policy literatures (Acs, Autio, & Szerb, 2014; Auerswald,

2014; Drexler et al., 2014; Feld, 2012; Isenberg, 2010, 2016; Spigel, 2017). This phenomenon coincides with the

rapid global diffusion of new entrepreneurial practices and related organizational innovations such as the lean

entrepreneurship movement (Blank, 2013; Reis, 2011), new venture accelerators (Miller & Bound, 2011; Pauwels,

Clarysse, Wright, & Van Hove, 2016), and the proliferation of venturing festivals such as the annual Slush event in

Finland and the StartmeupHK festival in Hong Kong (Hixon, 2015; StartmeupHK, 2017). However, while the entre-

preneurial ecosystems phenomenon commands considerable policy and practitioner attention, the literature in this

area remains largely practitioner centric, and theoretical treatments of the phenomenon are few. We explore the

theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of the entrepreneurial ecosystem phenomenon and propose directions for

further research.

As an object of study, the phenomenon (and concept) of entrepreneurial ecosystems resembles concepts previ-

ously explored by economic geographers and innovation researchers—such as “clusters,”“knowledge clusters,”

“industrial districts,”“innovative milieus,”and regional and national systems of innovation (Arıkan & Schilling, 2011;

Crevoisier, 2004; Delgado, Porter, & Stern, 2010; Doloreux, 2002; Marshall, 1890; Piore & Sabel, 1984; Pyke,

Becattini, & Sengenberger, 1990; Tallman, Jenkins, Henry, & Pinch, 2004). Therefore, we ask: Does the concept and

phenomenon of entrepreneurial ecosystems differ meaningfully from what came before and, if so, how? Exploring

the theoretical contours of the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept is important to establish both the concept’s the-

oretical distinctiveness and to provide guidance for researchers and policy makers alike regarding relevant research

questions and policy approaches. Therefore, we systematically compare the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept

against theoretical constructs evoked in the economic geography, innovation, and management literatures.

Broadly characterizing, the economic geography tradition has sought to understand economic (and sometimes

also social and institutional) rationales that might explain regional agglomeration patterns of businesses and indus-

tries (Camagni, 1995; Crevoisier, 2004; Maskell, 2001; Maskell & Kebir, 2006; Pinch, Henry, Jenkins, & Tallman,

2003; Hervas-Oliver et al., 2005). The “systems of innovation”literature seeks to explain the capacity of national

and regional economies to generate “innovation”(Cooke, 2001; Cooke, Uranga, & Etxebarria, 1997; Lundvall, John-

son, Andersen, & Dalum, 2002). The management tradition has sought to explain mechanisms that underpin firm-

and cluster-level competitive advantage (Arikan, 2009; Porter, 1998; Tallman et al., 2004). Entrepreneurs and small-

and medium-sized businesses feature in each of these traditions, albeit in diverse ways. However, although some

work in these traditions assigns entrepreneurs a significant role (Delgado et al., 2010; Feldman & Francis, 2004;

Feldman, Francis, & Bercovitz, 2005; Glaeser, Kerr, & Ponzetto, 2010; Zahra & Nambisan, 2011), none of the previ-

ous frameworks have treated entrepreneurial opportunity pursuit as the defining aspect of the cluster dynamic.

AUTIO ET AL.73