Value-creating ecologies: understanding
next generation business systems
Greg Hearn and Cassandra Pace
Greg Hearn is the acting
director of the Creative
Industries Research and
Applications Centre
(CIRAC), Queensland
University of Technology.
Cassandra Pace is a
research associate at
CIRAC.
DOI 10.1108/14636680610647147
Abstract
Purpose This paper sets out to describe and illustrate an emerging shift in the conceptualisation of
value creation in business, namely the emergence of value ecology thinking.
Design/methodology/approach This paper examines shifts in the understanding of value creation in
key business, economic and innovation literature and focuses on developments in creative industries at
the forefront of technology and innovation film, TV, computer games, e-business, mobile phones to
illustrate how business increasingly creates value through ecologies.
Findings This paper identifies five important shifts in the conceptualization of value creation by
highlighting a growing prevalence in the literature of several ecological metaphors used to explain
business processes, namely: the shift from thinking about consumers to co-creators of value; the shift
from thinking about value chains to value networks; the shift from thinking about product value to network
value; the shift from thinking about simple co-operation or competition to complex co-opetition; and the
shift from thinking about individual firm strategy to strategy in relation to value ecologies.
Originality/value This paper synthesizes emerging trends in the literature in relation to value creation
and defines the concept of a value-creating ecology. In the process it sheds light on the structure of next
generation business systems.
Keywords Innovation, Business policy
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to illuminate an emerging shift in the conceptualisation of value
creation in business. I refer to these developments as the emergence of value ecology
thinking. This shift is demonstrated by a growing prevalence in the literature of several
ecological metaphors used to explain business processes. Nested in this overall shift in
thinking are five component shifts, namely:
1. the shift from thinking about consumers to thinking about co-creators of value;
2. the shift from thinking about value chains to thinking about value networks;
3. the shift from thinking about product value to thinking about network value;
4. the shift from thinking about simple co-operation or competition to thinking about complex
co-opetition; and
5. the shift from thinking about individual firm strategy to thinking about strategy in relation to
the value ecology as a whole.
Although these shifts are occurring in all industries, the leading sectors are in the creative
industries film, TV, computer games, e-business, mobile phones everything that is digital
and creative. This is because we now live in a world where everything is connected and where
innovation is the key to survival. The creative digital sectors are the canaries in the mine as it
were the first signs of the wave that is moving through all industries. So the examples and
case studies throughout the article are based on the creative digital industries.
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2006, pp. 55-65, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1463-6689 j foresight j PAGE 55
 The core idea: from supply chain to value ecology
The central concept of a supply chain is encapsulated by Sahay (2003, p. 76) who suggests
the traditional focus of firms has been on the flows within the organisation or flows over
which the organisation has direct control. Simply put, the term supply chain describes the
necessary steps a product takes from origin to consumption. Efficient supply chains
emphasise utilisation, system costs, and inventory turnover rate (Rainbird, 2004). That is, the
idea of a supply chain reinforces distribution rather than product enhancement, with each
stage merely a cost to be minimised. A value chain however, as Porter first pointed out,
suggests that each phase in the chain may create and add value to the product. In other
words, where the key emphasis in supply chains is on cost minimisation, value chains
emphasise cost optimisation and value maximisation (Walters and Lancaster, 2000).
Although the idea of a value chain has been widely applied in many industries such as the
grocery, personal computer, automobile, fast food, and retail industries (Lee, 2002), the core
metaphor of a chain creates a number of limitations, particularly when applied to emerging
digital industries such as interactive software, and other creative industries. For example it:
B suggests a single linear process with one stage leading to the next;
B does not analyse the fact that value chain creation may be a competitive as well as a
cooperative process;
B lends itself to mechanistic linear thinking. It suggests static rather than dynamic
processes (Gossain and Kandiah, 1998; Rainbird, 2004);
B suggests the chain exists in isolation and ignores the environment as well as the effect of
processes or factors that are not strictly part of the chain but are important enablers,
catalysts or context setters for the chain (Rainbird, 2004);
B rests on a simplified notion of value. For example, it assumes value remains in the
product ignoring externalities (i.e. product value derived from the relationship of the
product to a system or other products); and
B does not adequately capture the close symbiotic relationship between a company and its
customers, suppliers, and partners (Gossain and Kandiah, 1998).
Thus, like many metaphors, the idea of a value chain is at once useful (e.g. because it
clarifies key processes of product delivery and emphasises value creation), and limiting,
because it hides the dynamism of value creation.
In response, several terms have been coined to overcome the limitations of a value chain.
For example, Jeffcutt (2004, p. 81) prefers the term value circuit because it foregrounds
the dynamism and complexity of these, not necessarily linear, relationships in a knowledge
economy. Moore (1996, p. 70) uses the concept of value chaining to emphasise the
active generation of new value chains. Stabell and Fjeldstad (1998) use the terms value
shop and value network to emphasise firm-level value creation. Lorenzen and
Frederiksen (2003, p. 15) suggest the term value soup where the configuration of
networks of specialised agents . . . are not stable value chains, but rather a value soup,
floated with projects. In addition, Lorenzen and Frederiksen (2003, p. 15) further suggest
that contrary to a value chain, in such a value soup with shifting configurations of agents in
networks, value is added in constantly shifting places.
And so to the core idea of this paper the value ecology. This idea is not without precedent.
A number of theorists have used the metaphor of an ecosystem to describe business
relationships which could include supply, value chains and networks. Notably, Moore (1998)
coined the term business ecosystem to describe an extended system of mutually
supportive organisations. He defined it as communities of customers, suppliers, lead
producers, and other stakeholders interacting with one another to produce goods and
services (Moore, 1998, p. 168)[1]. Gossain and Kandiah (1998, p. 29) developed the
business ecosystem concept further to recognise the importance of creating value for
customers through the provision of additional information, goods, and services and the use
of the Internet and other enabling technologies. More recently, the term industrial ecology

j j
PAGE 56 foresight VOL. 8 NO. 1 2006
 has been introduced to help understand the management of material and information flows
along life cycles or supply chains for industrial companies (Seuring, 2004). Industrial
ecology seeks to optimise the total industrial material cycle from virgin material, to finished
product, to ultimate disposal of waste (Ayres and Ayres cited in Seuring, 2004, p. 309). It
focuses on groups of firms and their stakeholders that interact to achieve sustainable
development (Korhonen et al., 2004, p. 296).
Using a value ecology metaphor is useful to describe how value is generated in business
because it:
B emphasises the idea of networks or webs of relationships;
B suggests a holistic dynamic view rather than a static linear view;
B suggests that the generation of value does not just reside in the product itself;
B argues both competitive and cooperative processes are in interaction with each other;
B encompasses the idea of an environment of factors that engender and create value
without necessarily being part of the first order factors of productivity; and
B opens the door to evolutionary metaphors to analyse change and development of the
context of businesses.
Table I shows the essential differences between the supply chain, value chain and value
ecology paradigms.
Building on this, the value ecology metaphor provides five shifts in direction for the creative
industries which are important, specifically the shift:

1. from consumers to co-creators of value;

2. from chain to network;
3. from product value to network value;

Table I Comparing key strategy elements for different conceptions of value creation
Strategy elements Supply chain Value chain Value ecology

Customers Consumers Consumers Consumers, suppliers, competitors

etc.
Environment Static/stable Static/stable Chaotic/uncertain
Focus Supply side or demand side, not Supply and demand sides Supply and demand sides
both
Value creation Limited emphasis on value creation Emphasises a value creation Emphasises a holistic approach to
approach which adds value at value creation throughout the
every node ecosystem
Relationship type Vertical integration Timid teaming Dynamic and evolving
Risk Low Medium High
Profit focus Increase own profits Increase own profits Increase ecosystem profits
Cost focus Minimise own cost Optimise own cost Share costs
Knowledge leverage Within the enterprise Within the enterprise Across the ecosystem
Knowledge approach Storing Hoarding Sharing
Resource approach Defending Guarding Sharing
Time orientation Short-term Long-term Long-term
Key driver Cost Revenue Knowledge

Source: Andrews and Hahn, 1998; Rainbird, 2004

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2006 foresight PAGE 57
 4. from simple co-operation or competition to complex co-opetition; and
5. from firm level thinking to total value ecological system thinking.
These transitions perhaps represent an emerging paradigm shift of thinking about the way
value creation in business works.

The shift from consumers to co-creators of value

A value chain implies traffic throughout the chain is one way, a fixed path, with choice
points. Traditionally, many products are distributed in this way but increasingly companies
are depending less on a fixed supplier at each stage of product or service development as
the value chain is more susceptible to breakdown. Increasing the options at each stage of
the chain production introduces competition choice and lower costs. This kind of
disintermediation, away from vertical integration of supply with one company, became the
dominant model of delivery in the last decades of the twentieth century.
Unlike supply and value chains, the value ecology model maintains value creation is not a
simple one-way, linear process but involves processes of reiteration and feedback. In
particular, consumers are challenging the traditional corporate logic of value creation.
Spurred by the consumer-centric culture of the internet with its emphasis on interactivity,
speed, individuality, and openness the consumers influence on value creation has never
been greater, and it is spreading to all points in the value chain (Prahalad and Ramaswamy,
2002, p. 52). In this consumer-centric view of value creation Prahalad and Ramaswamy
(2002) suggest the consumer:
B is an integral part of the system for value creation;
B can influence where, when, and how value is generated;
B need not respect industry boundaries in the search for value;
B can compete with companies for value extraction; and
B can co-create value with the company at multiple points of exchange.
In other words, in the knowledge-based economy the notion of value is inherently different.
The customer becomes primarily a co-producer or co-creator rather than a target and can be
involved in the entire value chain (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). As Vargo and Lusch (2004, p. 1)
argue:
Marketing inherited a model of exchange from economics, which had a dominant logic based on
the exchange of goods, which usually are manufactured output. The dominant logic focused on
tangible resources, embedded value, and transactions. Over the past several decades, new
perspectives have emerged that have a revised logic focused on intangible resources, the
co-creation of value, and relationships.

Emerging sectors such as computer games development exemplify these principles

strongly.
Humphreys et al. (2005) focus on fan based or third party content creation in a case study of
Trainz, a train simulation game released by Australia based electronic-games developer
Auran. Game developers such as Auran routinely release sophisticated content creation
and distribution tools as downloads from their web sites and include them with their retail
game software (Humphreys et al., 2005). This allows Auran to utilise its existing fan
community throughout the development phases of Trainz and essentially outsource value
creation to consumers. Formal relationships with fans are created through the official Trainz
third-party creators program which allows users to share ideas, know-how, and art content.
The benefits of this type of approach are numerous. In particular, Auran facilitates innovation
at a low cost and Trainz fans are provided with software they want and in which they have
ownership, all of which enhance the value of the program in other words the willingness to
purchase the product.
In general it can be argued there has been a shift in the role of the customer from isolated,
unaware, and passive to connected, informed, and active (Prahalad and Ramaswamy,

j j
PAGE 58 foresight VOL. 8 NO. 1 2006
2004). Companies can on longer act autonomously in the value creation process. As
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) maintain, the co-creation experience itself, and not the
product per se, has become the very basis of value. This in part reflects an increasing
engagement by companies in understanding and developing markets by working with
customers through mechanisms such as focus groups.

The shift from value chain to value network

Another term for ecology is the web of life and another term for web is network. Therefore,
implicit in the value ecology model is a dynamic, multi-directional cluster of networks. From
an information science perspective, at least two reasons could be suggested for the growing
importance of networks. First, networks are ideal information resource allocation/information
flow mechanisms. Structurally networks facilitate rapid information transfer by providing
horizontal links cutting across institutional boundaries to put people in direct contact with
each other. Networks also help create information as well as transmit it. As each person in the
network receives information, it is synthesised and new ideas may spring forth information
easily builds on information. Networks thus share new ideas and help create them. The
network is an ideal learning organisation for acquiring relevant, effective information.
Second, new value creation is achieved through manipulation of information and the
characteristics of information are very different from ordinary goods. One of the economic
characteristics of information, namely that the cost of information production is independent
of its scale of use, implies increasing returns to the use of information. This factor has
traditionally conferred benefits to large organisations in information intensive industries. But
more recently, it underlies the operation of value ecologies.
This transition in thinking about network structures has accelerated over the last decade with
the development of detailed mathematical studies of scale free networks (Barabasi, 2002;
Watts, 2003). Scale free networks are so-called because their fundamental properties do not
change as more focal points of activity, nodes, are added. They have an important
characteristic, namely, that the number of connections in the networks are not distributed
evenly or as a normal curve, but as a power curve. That is, the number of nodes with a small
number of links is very large and the number of nodes which may link is small. Scale free
networks look like a map of air routes (i.e. a few concentrated hubs with many sparse
pathways). As well, such networks grow and change in a dynamic way. The consistent
features of scale free networks are evidence of the self-organising processes at work in such
networks. In business:
The most visible element of this remaking is a shift from a tree to a web or a network organisation,
flat with lots of cross-links between the nodes. As valuable resources shift from physical assets to
bits and information, operations move from vertical to virtual integration, the reach of business
expands from domestic to global, the lifetime of inventories decreases from months to hours,
business strategy changes from top-down to bottom-up, and workers transform from employees
to free agents (Barabasi 2002, p. 202).

In short understanding value creation as a networked process opens up a whole new

language for analysing how it works. This allows us to ask questions such as: How do new
entrants to a network survive? How do the members of a network react to the new entrant?
And how can do the hubs of a network gain and lose dominance?

The shift from product value to network value

An important dimension of network value creation within the value ecology model is the idea
of externalities. Externalities have been used by economists to describe situations where the
value of a product derives from anything outside the product itself. The best example of
network externalities is the telephone; its value increases with the number of connections it
allows. Watts (2003) describes three types of externalities:
1. information externalities;
2. coercive externalities; and
3. market externalities.

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2006 foresight PAGE 59
 Information externalities occur when product or service choices are affected substantially by
information outside the product (for example the buzz about a movie). Coercive
externalities occur when firms must make particular choices of products or suppliers under
threat of withdrawal of investment, partnerships or other inducements. Market externalities
operate when the value of a product increases in proportion to the number of people who use
it, as in the earlier telephone example. Implied in this shift is that value lies in the ability of the
product to connect us to others. When connection happens early, through various
externalities, a snowballing or increasing returns effect may be generated. Moreover, it
becomes increasingly difficult for the system to change even though individuals might prefer
a different product or service. The cost of the disconnect to the individual and the
impossibility of collective opt-out means certain product classes become de facto
monopolies or at least are dominated by the large hubs in the network of connections
(Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996).
When connection occurs a snowballing or increasing returns effect is generated. Information
cascades and similar network externalities facilitate this connection by helping consumers
lock-in to the new product. In general, Arthur (1996, p. 100) argues that as the shift toward
the new economy has occurred, the underlying mechanisms that determine economic
behaviour have shifted from ones of diminishing to ones of increasing returns. Arthur (1996)
then goes on to suggest there are several reasons why increasing returns eventuate
including:
B up-front costs (i.e. unit costs fall as sales increase);
B network effects (i.e. the more a product gains prevalence, the more likely it will emerge as
standard); and
B customer groove-in (i.e. as more market is captured, it becomes easier to capture future
markets).
These reasons are particularly pertinent to the high tech industries of computers, aircraft,
and telecommunications amongst others. However, Arthur (1996) further suggests service
industries evidence a hybrid old-new dynamic because demand is limited within a given
region and this demand is met by a low-tech processing model; but at the same time
increasing returns accrue via brand loyalty for example, so that market leaders have some
advantage merely because of their market position.
Furthermore while completely locked in monopolies are absent, network externalities are
very real in the dynamic creative industries sector. The scale-free network structure of a few
large hubs and many smaller connected centres of activity does manifest itself in for
example, the movie and music industry distribution models. Generally the value of a cultural
product or service depends on its ability to connect us to human creative concepts,
reflective observations, other people and our culture. This might explicitly be the case when I
discuss movies or songs, or implicitly, when I connect my identity to cultural themes explored
and exploited in a cultural product. Indeed, if one modelled the intertextuality of cultural
products, that is, the degree to which they reference each other as theme, plot or
characterisation, one can imagine a scale free network emerging consisting of central hubs
(blockbusters) that everyone relates to with a myriad of less well interconnected but related
activity. The popularity of Hollywood actors has in fact been analysed in terms of scale free
network modelling (see Barabasi, 2002). More generally, any language or genre can
connect and therefore creates the possibility of network externalities.
An important corollary is that in an age of connected products and services, personal
engagement is required as a member of the network to be a player at all. This means the
individual must take on certain features or operating standards to compete as a
value-adder and that the number of competitors may be quite different in a value network to
those in a value chain. In the emerging bio-tech industry for example, studies have shown
how major hub companies bring together a large number of smaller companies, seamlessly
subjugating all players into an evolving free scale economy (Barabasi, 2002). This
connection of players is in part based on the role of co-opetition in networks.

j j
PAGE 60 foresight VOL. 8 NO. 1 2006
The shift from simple co-operation or competition to complex co-opetition
The fourth shift involves engaging simultaneously in co-operation and competition with
members of an ecosystem:
Business ecosystems span a variety of industries. The companies within them coevolve
capabilities around the innovation and work cooperatively and competitively to support new
products, satisfy customer needs, and incorporate the next round of innovation (Moore, 1996,
p. 15).

Networks are often claimed to be inherently more cooperative and egalitarian than
hierarchies. However, networks can be highly competitive and the evolution of hub size (firm)
may well involve strong competitive activity. Indeed, networks are both cooperative and
competitive. This combination of cooperative and competitive processes has been termed
co-opetition (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1996).
A game theoretic approach is commonly used in explanations of co-opetition. For example,
Nalebuff and Brandenburger (1997) use game theory to describe value networks,
introducing the idea of co-opetition to describe this state of affairs. They suggest four player
classifications operate in value networks which are customers, suppliers, competitors, and
complementors. Bengtsson and Kock (1999) extend this model suggesting there are four
types of relationships between players in a value network which are coexistence,
co-operation, competition, and co-opetition.
Included in game theory models of co-opetition is the need for the coevolution of
organisations and networks and the bundling of complementary functions and
companies. Moore (1998) emphasises the notion of coevolution where for any company
to really evolve its capabilities, others must evolve in support. The relationship between Intel,
IBM, and Microsoft is a case in point. Without the appropriate hardware and software
upgrades Intels latest microprocessor chips are rendered useless as there is no demand for
the product. Furthermore, Nalebuff and Brandenburger (1997) suggest the idea is to employ
your value net to create added-value for consumers by bundling complementary products.
The core idea is how can I add value to the overall size of the pie and thus increase the size
of each slice? Feldmann (2002) suggests bundling is gaining momentum in the mobile
technologies industry. For example, mobile phones are no longer used for just voice-to-voice
communication. New features are increasingly being added such as SMS, ring tones, photo
messaging, video messaging, music downloads, directory assistance, and Internet access.
Providers are engaging in co-opetition to pool resources and increase their offering to
consumers. Once again, the idea is that you are not just selling a product but a web of
products that creates an experience. This suggests mutual interdependence in the interests
of all those involved to maintain and generate business and sell more.
However, arising from this is a shift from company-to-company to ecosystem-to-ecosystem
conflict (e.g. VHS versus Betamax or more topically, music distribution systems). As a
product, music fits into the idea of self-service adopted by numerous other organisations
and industries (e.g. banking ATMs and petrol stations) (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004).
With the advent of the internet, electronic technology, and digital technology a wealth of
software and hardware components have been created to facilitate self-service in the music
industry (i.e. downloading music). However, the traditional industry as a whole has so far
failed to fully embrace the music download phenomenon. This is surprising when you
consider that the major record companies are part of much larger entertainment and
electronics conglomerates:
If you are Sony, and you are making $4.6 billion in music sales but taking in $40 billion in sales
from electronics, who are you going to listen to; the music industry complaining about people
downloading music without authorisation, or the electronics executives trying to make better,
more expensive CD burners and MP3 players? (Strauss, 2002).

Sony has failed to embrace its ecosystem and as a result is faced with
ecosystem-to-ecosystem conflict. This example illustrates the requirement for firms to
think beyond previous notions of the firm or network, as the next shift expands.

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2006 foresight PAGE 61
 The shift from thinking about individual firm strategy to thinking about strategy in
relation to the value ecology as a whole
The foundational implication of this shift is the need to consider the whole of the value
ecosystem when developing a strategy. One important principal is that the overall health of
the ecosystem will determine the fate of individual players. For example, Iansiti and Leiven
(2004, p. 69) suggest each member of the ecosystem ultimately shares the fate of the
network as a whole, regardless of that members apparent strength. In addition, in his
analysis of knowledge economy strategy Arthur (1996) suggests the key question for firms to
ask is:
Which ecologies am I in? Technologies exist not alone but in an interlinked web or ecology. It is
important to understand the ecologies a companys products belong to. Success or failure is
often decided not just by the company but also by the success or failure of the web it belongs to
(Arthur, 1996, p. 108).

Therefore, this perspective argues that even if a company is successful, this success is less
likely to continue without the ongoing success of the ecosystem and sensitivity to the
operational environment. In other words it can be argued that a robust ecosystem will
continue regardless of the individual failure of participants. The robustness of a value
network is related to the topology, with smaller businesses more likely to fail, with little affect
on the overall supply network because supply can be quickly re-routed. Even failure of a
single large creative business is recoverable from. Barabasi (2002) in fact suggests that all
of the major hub-like companies in a business network must be destroyed to destabilise the
network as a whole.
Taking the ecological metaphor a step further, by examining robustness from another
perspective, we may be able to apply complex systems considerations to analyse value
creation:
Complexity theory argues that organisations that mirror the function of natural (organic) systems
are better suited for turbulent business environments because of their ability to create and adapt.
Firms that structure themselves as complex adaptive systems are able to operate in complex
contexts with a high degree of flexibility, without degenerating into chaos (Sawhney and Prandelli,
2000, p. 32).

Rooney et al. (2003) note the complex systems approach draws attention to the three key
processes of ecological sustainability including processes that maintain stability and
continuity of the existing system (that is the self-referencing processes); the processes
which introduce novelty and variety into the ecology (the self-transforming processes); and
processes by which the system adapts to this novelty (the self-organising processes of the
system).
This approach to strategy reinforces the importance of networks, and winners can be
defined as the firms with the most connections. These networks and the relationships
change and the whole value ecology can be seen as constantly evolving and growing. At the
same time, the key features of the networks and ecology are the large hubs of creative
business activity. These hubs benefit from the momentum of early success; the previously
discussed dynamic of increasing returns. However, there is also a genuine fitness
component in their success, that is, the quality of the product new entrants does come into
play. New entrants can supplant older hubs if they demonstrate some sufficiently innovative
and attractive features. The same applies to all ecosystems big and small.
Building on this idea, value ecologies which are operating at equilibrium will be operating
according to stable value propositions that is, according to a standard business model that
defines how value is created and appropriated (Walters and Lancaster, 2000). Therefore to
compete in a stable ecological system would mean, for example, producing better creative
product, and finding ways to infiltrate the existing value ecology through improved
promotion.
The alternative competitive mechanism is through innovation; by producing novelty in the
value ecology (e.g. in terms of product genre, technology, distribution, or business model) to

j j
PAGE 62 foresight VOL. 8 NO. 1 2006
realise what might be called an innovative value proposition. That is business models are
introduced which create and capture value. Kretschmer et al. (1999) suggest technology
can be a frame boat breaker in this regard. In terms of consolidating these general
principles, Arthur (1996) suggests four strategies for competing in knowledge intensive
industries which evidence to some degree the dynamic of increasing returns:
1. Understand the self-negating and self-reinforcing feedbacks in the market which operate
at different levels and in different time-frames.
2. Success of individual firms is often linked to success of the broader web it is in.
3. Never underestimate the resources required even to be a player.
4. Technology comes in waves. Position for the next wave.
The value ecology argument developed in this paper suggests the following additional
strategic factors are needed:
B Firms need to understand whether their value ecology will become a major hub in an
international ecosystem, or an important lesser hub, so as to appropriately position
themselves in the national and international operational environment.
B In general, because of the highly connected nature of the ecology, relationship building is
critical to product development.
B Distinguish between stable value and innovative value strategies.
B Examine how novelty is generated, selected and supported in your value ecology.

Conclusion
The value ecology metaphor encapsulates emerging understandings of the knowledge
economy operates and how business strategy can be derived from this understanding.
Thinking of a business system as a value creating ecology helps us understand how value is
understood, identified, and/or created. It directs us to understand the vitality of a system not
just in terms of its inherent characteristics but also in terms of its relationship to other
ecologies, both material and ideational. The population dynamics of a value creating
ecology tell us about strategies that succeed.
Moreover, although not explicated here, the shifts described in the paper also align
economic and business strategy paradigms derived from complex systems thinking more
generally(see Potts, 2000; Stacey, 1996). Finally, if firms can learn to apply ecological
models metaphorically to analyse their business processes, they might also come to see
their business outcomes in terms of ecology in actuality and this might be an even more
important shift in thinking.

Note
1. Moores idea of ecosystem does not emphasise the role of value in the ecosystem. Moore (1996)
suggests value is only critical in the establishment phase of the ecosystem however, this paper
argues value is critical throughout its whole life.

References
Andrews, P. and Hahn, J. (1998), Transforming supply chains into value webs, Strategy & Leadership,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 7-11.
Arthur, W.B. (1996), Increasing returns and the new world of business, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 100-9.
Barabasi, A.-L. (2002), Linked: The New Science of Networks, Perseus, Cambridge, MA.

Bengtsson, M. and Kock, S. (1999), Co-operation and competition in relationships between

competitors in business networks, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 178-94.
Brandenburger, A. and Nalebuff, B. (1996), Co-opetition, Doubleday, New York, NY.

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2006 foresight PAGE 63
 Feldmann, V. (2002), Competitive strategy for media companies in the mobile internet, Schmalenbach
Business Review, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 351-71.

Gossain, S. and Kandiah, G. (1998), Reinventing value: the new business ecosystem, Strategy
& Leadership, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 28-33.

Humphreys, S., Banks, J., Fitzgerald, B. and Suzor, N. (2005), Fan based production for computer
games: user led innovation, the drift of value and the negotiation of intellectual property rights (IPRs),
Media International Australia, No. 114, pp. 16-29.

Iansiti, M. and Levien, R. (2004), Strategy as ecology, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 3,
pp. 68-78.

Jeffcut, P. (2004), Knowledge relationships and transactions in a cultural economy: analysing the
creative industries ecosystem, Media International Australia, No. 112, pp. 67-82.

Korhonen, J., von Malmborg, F., Strachan, P. and Ehrenfeld, J. (2004), Management and policy aspects
of industrial ecology: an emerging research agenda, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 13
No. 5, pp. 289-305.

Kretschmer, M., Klimis, G. and Choi, C. (1999), Increasing returns and social contagion in cultural
industries, British Journal of Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. S61-S72.

Lee, H. (2002), Aligning supply chain strategies with product uncertainties, California Management
Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 105-19.

Lorenzen, M. and Frederiksen, L. (2003), Experimental music: product innovation, project networks,
and dynamic capabilities in the pop music industry, paper presented at Industry & Innovation, DRUID
PhD Winter Conference, Aalborg, January.

Moore, J.F. (1996), The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business
Ecosystems, Wiley, Chichester.

Moore, J.F. (1998), The rise of a new corporate form, Washington Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 167-81.

Nalebuff, B. and Brandenburger, A. (1997), Co-opetition: competitive and cooperative business

strategies for the digital economy, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 28-33.

Potts, J. (2000), The New Evolutionary Microeconomics: Complexity, Competence, and Adaptive
Behaviour, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2002), The co-creation connection, Strategy and Business,
Vol. 27, pp. 50-61.

Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004), How to put your customers to work: its getting harder for
companies to sustain growth and create value on their own. Its time to loop customers into the act, CIO,
No. 17, pp. 1-5.

Rainbird, M. (2004), Demand and supply chains: the value catalyst, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 Nos 3/4, pp. 230-50.

Rooney, D., Hearn, G., Mandeville, T. and Richard, J. (Eds) (2003), Public Policy in Knowledge-based
Economies: Foundations and Frameworks, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Sahay, B.S. (2003), Supply chain collaboration: the key to value creation, Work Study, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 76-83.

Sawhney, M. and Prandelli, E. (2000), Communities of creation: managing distributed innovation in

turbulent markets, California Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 24-54.

Seuring, S. (2004), Industrial ecology, life cycles, supply chains: differences and interrelations,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 306-19.

Stabell, C. and Fjeldstad, O. (1998), Configuring value for competitive advantage: on chains, shops,
and networks, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 413-37.

Stacey, R.D. (1996), Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics, Financial Times Pitman,
London.

Strauss, N. (2002), Behind the Grammys: revolt in the industry, New York Times, 24 February, p. 4.

j j
PAGE 64 foresight VOL. 8 NO. 1 2006
Vargo, S. and Lusch, R. (2004), Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Walters, D. and Lancaster, G. (2000), Implementing value strategy through the value chain,
Management Decision, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 160-78.

Watts, D. (2003), Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age, Vintage/Random House, London.

Corresponding author
Greg Hearn can be contacted at: g.hearn@qut.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
VOL. 8 NO. 1 2006 foresight PAGE 65