Resource allocation in healthcare entrepreneurial ecosystems: the strategic role of entrepreneurial support organizations

PurposeInnovation management in the healthcare sector has undergone significant evolutions over the last decades. These evolutions have been investigated from a variety of perspectives: clusters, ecosystems of innovation, digital ecosystems and regional ecosystems, but the dynamics of networks have seldom been analyzed under the lenses of entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs). As identified by Cao and Shi (2020), the literature is silent about the organization of resource allocation systems for network orchestration in EEs. This article investigates these elements in the healthcare sector. It discusses the strategic role played by entrepreneurial support organizations (ESOs) in resource allocation and elaborates on the distinction between sponsored and nonsponsored ESOs in EEs. ESOs are active in network orchestration. The literature explains that ESOs lift organizational, institutional and cultural barriers, and support entrepreneurs' access to cognitive and technological resources. However, allocation models are not yet discussed. Therefore, our research questions are as follows: What is the resource allocation model in healthcare-related EEs? What is the role played by sponsored and nonsponsored ESOs as regards resource allocation to support the emergence and development of EEs in the healthcare sector?Design/methodology/approachThe article offers an explanatory, exploratory, and theory-building investigation. The research design offers an abductive research protocol and multi-level analysis of seven (sponsored and nonsponsored) ESOs active in French healthcare ecosystems. Field research elaborates on semi-structured interviews collected between 2016 and 2022.FindingsThis article shows explicit complementarities between top-down and bottom-up resource allocation approaches supported by ESOs in the healthcare sector. Despite explicit originalities in each approach, no network orchestration model prevails. Multi-polar coordination is the rule. Entrepreneurs' access to critical technological and cognitive resources is based on resource allocation modalities that differ for sponsored versus nonsponsored ESOs. Emerging from field research, this research also shows that sponsored and nonsponsored ESOs manage their roles in different ways because they confront original issues about organizational legitimacy.Originality/valueBeyond the results listed above, the main originalities of the paper relate to the instantiation of multi-level analysis operated during field research and to the confrontation between sponsored versus nonsponsored ESOs in the domain of healthcare-related innovation management. This research shows that ESOs have practical relevance because they build original routes for resource allocation and network orchestration in EEs. Each ESO category (sponsored versus nonsponsored) provides original support for resource allocation. The ESO's legitimacy is inferred either from the sponsor or the services delivered to end-users. This research leads to propositions for future research and recommendations for practitioners: ESO managers, entrepreneurs, and policymakers.

[1]  P. Cohendet,et al.  Centech, a world-class business incubator based in the Montréal innovation district, inspired by Barcelona 22@ , 2022, Journal of Evolutionary Studies in Business.

[2]  Sarfraz A. Mian,et al.  Science parks as key players in entrepreneurial ecosystems , 2022, R&D Management.

[3]  P. Cohendet Architectures of the commons: collaborative spaces and innovation , 2022, ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography.

[4]  Travis Howell Coworking spaces: An overview and research agenda , 2022, Research Policy.

[5]  David W. Versailles,et al.  The role of organization intermediaries in science-/techno-push versus user-centric approaches in health care innovation , 2021, European Journal of Innovation Management.

[6]  Jeffery S. McMullen,et al.  Helping Entrepreneurs Help Themselves: A Review and Relational Research Agenda on Entrepreneurial Support Organizations , 2021, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.

[7]  F. Schiavone,et al.  Digital transformation in healthcare: Analyzing the current state-of-research , 2021, Journal of Business Research.

[8]  K. Brown,et al.  Putting the entrepreneur back into entrepreneurial ecosystems , 2020, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research.

[9]  C. Vandenberghe,et al.  Organizational Legitimacy, Reputation, and Status: Insights from Micro-Level Measurement , 2020 .

[10]  J. Sieweke,et al.  Advancing the Measurement of Organizational Legitimacy, Reputation, and Status: First-order Judgments vs Second-order Judgments—Commentary on “Organizational legitimacy, reputation and status: Insights from micro-level management” , 2020 .

[11]  Xianwei Shi,et al.  A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and emerging economies , 2020, Small Business Economics.

[12]  Frank J. van Rijnsoever Meeting, mating, and intermediating: How incubators can overcome weak network problems in entrepreneurial ecosystems , 2020, Research Policy.

[13]  O. Blin,et al.  Health research and innovation: Can we optimize the interface between startups/pharmaceutical companies and academic health care institutions or not? , 2019, Therapie.

[14]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  The emergence of the maker movement: Implications for entrepreneurship research , 2019, Journal of Business Venturing.

[15]  Erik E. Lehmann,et al.  The governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems , 2019 .

[16]  Antonio Ghezzi,et al.  Entrepreneurial ecosystem research: present debates and future directions , 2018, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal.

[17]  Sarah R. Davies,et al.  Characterizing Hacking , 2018 .

[18]  J. Potts Governing the innovation commons , 2017, Journal of Institutional Economics.

[19]  Philip E. Auerswald,et al.  The adaptive life cycle of entrepreneurial ecosystems: the biotechnology cluster , 2017 .

[20]  Martin French,et al.  Organizing the entrepreneurial hospital: Hybridizing the logics of healthcare and innovation , 2016 .

[21]  B. Spigel Developing and governing entrepreneurial ecosystems: the structure of entrepreneurial support programs in Edinburgh, Scotland , 2016 .

[22]  A. McGahan,et al.  How Open System Intermediaries Address Institutional Failures: The Case of Business Incubators in Emerging-Market Countries , 2016 .

[23]  Andrey Ostrovsky,et al.  Accelerating change: Fostering innovation in healthcare delivery at academic medical centers. , 2014, Healthcare.

[24]  Teppo Felin,et al.  The (Proper) Microfoundations of Routines and Capabilities: A Response to Winter, Pentland, Hodgson and Knudsen , 2011 .

[25]  Teppo Felin,et al.  The endogenous origins of experience, routines, and organizational capabilities: the poverty of stimulus , 2010, Journal of Institutional Economics.

[26]  G. Thomas Doing Case Study: Abduction Not Induction, Phronesis Not Theory , 2010 .

[27]  Ilkka Niiniluoto,et al.  Structural Rules for Abduction , 2009, THEORIA.

[28]  Andrew N Garman,et al.  Barriers to Entrepreneurship in Healthcare Organizations , 2006, Journal of health and human services administration.

[29]  B. Flyvbjerg Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research , 2006, 1304.1186.

[30]  I. Niiniluoto,et al.  Defending Abduction , 1999, Philosophy of Science.

[31]  David W. Versailles,et al.  Unpacking the Constituents of Dynamic Capabilities: A Microfoundations Perspective , 2019, Management international.

[32]  Alex Bitektine,et al.  The “Macro” and the “Micro” of Legitimacy: Toward a Multilevel Theory of the Legitimacy Process , 2015 .

[33]  Alex Bitektine Toward a Theory of Social Judgments of Organizations: The Case of Legitimacy, Reputation, and Status , 2011 .

[34]  D. Isenberg How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution , 2010 .

[35]  Torgeir Knag Fylkesnes Abducing Abduction , 2006, Log. J. IGPL.

[36]  David Blumenthal,et al.  Inside the triple helix: technology transfer and commercialization in the life sciences. , 2004, Health affairs.

[37]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  Fools Rush in? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation , 1994 .