A digital ecosystem as an institutional field: curated peer production as a response to institutional voids revealed by COVID‐19

This paper investigates the ecosystem dynamics of the Open‐source [COVID‐19] Medical Supplies network that arose to fill the institutional void revealed by state and private sector failures to stockpile and supply enough personal protective equipment. Theoretically, the paper adds correctives to extant institutional theory accounts of entrepreneurship filling institutional voids, showing that these can be filled rapidly and normatively by digital entrepreneurial ecosystems allied with peer production networks. These were able to transform the boundary conditions of a routinized system, refixing its autopoiesis innovatively. The COVID‐19 epidemic galvanized hundreds of thousands of volunteer “makers” around the world to cooperate to meet urgent demand for medical supplies. A digital entrepreneurial ecosystem arose in response to the problem of critical equipment shortages, connecting global, expert‐curated know‐how with local production equipment. We contribute to the theory of institutional voids by documenting and analyzing how the formation and emergent processes that created and sustained a Digital Peer Production Ecosystem based on self‐organization, expert curation and scalability, successfully catalyzed local initiatives worldwide. Institutional voids are not just barriers to entrepreneurship; they are also opportunities.

[1]  Ward Ooms,et al.  Ecosystem types: A systematic review on boundaries and goals , 2022, Journal of Business Research.

[2]  S. Clegg,et al.  ‘Open Purpose’: Embracing Organizations as Expressive Systems , 2021, Organization Theory.

[3]  Emilio Passetti,et al.  Coping with the COVID-19 pandemic: the technical, moral and facilitating role of management control , 2021, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.

[4]  Massimo Di Nicolantonio,et al.  Design Contributions for the COVID-19 Global Emergency (Part 2): Methodological Reflections and Future Visions , 2021, Strategic Design Research Journal.

[5]  Giulio Ferrigno,et al.  Innovating and transforming during COVID‐19: insights from Italian firms , 2021, R&D Management.

[6]  A. Beltagui,et al.  Accelerated innovation through repurposing: exaptation of design and manufacturing in response to COVID‐19 , 2021, R&D Management.

[7]  Ana Fernández-Laviada,et al.  The Influence of the Ecosystem on the Motivation of Social Entrepreneurs , 2021, Sustainability.

[8]  David Cuartielles,et al.  Makers against Covid-19: Face shields as the international solidarity KPI , 2020 .

[9]  J. Moultrie,et al.  Frugal innovation in a crisis: the digital fabrication maker response to COVID‐19 , 2020, R&D Management.

[10]  F. Anseel,et al.  COVID‐19 and Its Impact on Management Research and Education: Threats, Opportunities and a Manifesto , 2020, British Journal of Management.

[11]  C. Araujo,et al.  The healthcare supply network: current state of the literature and research opportunities , 2020, Production Planning & Control.

[12]  H. Chesbrough,et al.  To recover faster from Covid-19, open up: Managerial implications from an open innovation perspective , 2020, Industrial Marketing Management.

[13]  Joshua M. Pearce.  A review of open source ventilators for COVID-19 and future pandemics , 2020, F1000Research.

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

[15]  Paavo Ritala,et al.  Waking the Sleeping Beauty: Swarovski's Open Innovation Journey , 2019, R&D Management.

[16]  Suntje Schmidt,et al.  In the making: Open Creative Labs as an emerging topic in economic geography? , 2019, Geography Compass.

[17]  Abraham K. Song.  The Digital Entrepreneurial Ecosystem—a critique and reconfiguration , 2019, Small Business Economics.

[18]  J. Macke,et al.  The role of government and key non-state actors in social entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review , 2019, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[19]  M. Wright,et al.  Entrepreneurial Co‐Creation: Societal Impact Through Open Innovation , 2019, R&D Management.

[20]  Tina P. Kruse.  Social Entrepreneurship , 2019, Making Change.

[21]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  Entrepreneurial ecosystems: economic, technological, and societal impacts , 2018, The Journal of Technology Transfer.

[22]  Agnieszka Radziwon,et al.  Innovation, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and business ecosystems: Old wine in new bottles? , 2017, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[23]  S. Nambisan.  Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship , 2017 .

[24]  Erik Stam,et al.  The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach , 2017 .

[25]  Kaveh Abhari,et al.  Co-innovation platform affordances: Developing a conceptual model and measurement instrument , 2017, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[26]  Ron Boschma,et al.  A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: towards a future research agenda , 2017 .

[27]  Z. Ács,et al.  The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem , 2017, Small Business Economics.

[28]  Eric von Hippel,et al.  Free Innovation by Consumers-How Producers Can Benefit: Consumers' Free Innovations Represent a Potentially Valuable Resource for Industrial Innovators , 2017 .

[29]  Elizabeth A. Mack,et al.  The evolutionary dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems , 2016 .

[30]  Param Vir Singh,et al.  The small-world effect , 2010, ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol..

[31]  Donald O. Neubaum,et al.  A Typology of Social Entrepreneurs: Motives, search Processes and Ethical Challenges , 2009 .

[32]  H. Chesbrough.  Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape , 2006 .

[33]  T. Khanna,et al.  Emerging Giants: Building World-Class Companies in Developing Countries , 2006 .

[34]  J. Mair,et al.  Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight , 2006 .

[35]  Petter Johansson,et al.  Failure to Detect Mismatches Between Intention and Outcome in a Simple Decision Task , 2005, Science.

[36]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem1 , 2005, American Journal of Sociology.

[37]  J. Elliott.  Using Narrative in Social Research , 2005 .

[38]  C. Hardy,et al.  Institutional Entrepreneurship in Emerging Fields: HIV/AIDS Treatment Advocacy in Canada , 2004 .

[39]  V. Latora,et al.  Efficient behavior of small-world networks. , 2001, Physical review letters.

[40]  M. Carney,et al.  The Competitiveness of Networked Production: The Role of Trust and Asset Specificity , 1998 .

[41]  F. Geyer,et al.  Sociocybernetic paradoxes : observation, control and evolution of self-steering systems , 1988 .

[42]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[43]  Massimo Menichinelli.  Mapping the structure of the global Maker laboratories community through Twitter connections , 2016 .

[44]  R. Vanderstraeten.  The autopoiesis of social systems , 2014 .

[45]  C. Morrill,et al.  Power Plays: How Social Movements and Collective Action Create New Organizational Forms , 2000 .

[46]  E. Ostrom.  Self-governance and forest resources , 1999 .

[47]  L. Zucker.  Institutional patterns and organizations : culture and environment , 1989 .

[48]  Paul DiMaggio.  Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory , 1988 .