Table 1 Summary of the service ecosystem...

Table 1

Summary of the service ecosystem dynamics literature

Author(s) (Year)	Concept	Definition/description	Research context	Key components of service ecosystem dynamics
As'ad et al. (2024)	Service ecosystem dynamics	“Behavioral patterns of service ecosystems over time” (p. 160)	Conceptual	Service ecosystem dynamics: (1) reproduction (i.e. existing institutional arrangements are re-enacted); (2) reconfiguration (i.e. instability and institutionalized change of rules and norms), and (3) transition (i.e. behavioral patterns and perceptions the ecosystem is new/different) Explanatory dimensions: Alternating dominance of adaptation and coordination in self-adjustment processes and leverage of intervention points
Beckett (2023)	Sustainable development goal realization dynamics	Co-creating value via affordable innovation and diffusion, a “complex adaptive process” (p. 141)	Case study (Affordable energy transitions)	Evolutionary pathways to realize goals develop over time Value co-creation via innovation development and diffusion Interactions among multiple ecosystem actors Learning at different evolutionary stages Emergence associated with ‘tipping points’
Beirão et al. (2017)	Dynamics of value cocreation in service ecosystems	Service ecosystems' “learning, adapting, and evolving properties” (pp. 229–230)	Case study (Health care)	Value co-creation factors enabling dynamic resource integration Value co-creation outcomes (e.g. population well-being) Dynamic, simultaneous, and interdependent interactions among multiple actors Exchanges within nested systems influencing each other and resource integration
Brodie et al. (2021)	Dynamics of a healthcare system	A complex multi-actor, multilayered, dynamic and interactive process of value cocreation	Conceptual with illustrative case (Health care)	Shifting from an initial to an improved ecosystem state Drivers of ecosystem practices (ultimately resulting in an improved state) Moderators of ecosystem practices supporting or disrupting ecosystem wellbeing
Brozovic and Tregua (2020)	Service ecosystems flexibility	“The ability of service ecosystems to adjust to changes” (p. 1)	Case study (Museum)	Flexibility of actors and their interactions, resource integration, service exchange, and institutions
Carida et al. (2022)	Service ecosystem dynamics	Systemic dynamism, multi-actor value co-creation, and emergence	Case study (Hospitality and tourism)	Service ecosystem orchestration supporting value creation Resource orchestration as a coordination mechanism for resource integration
Chandler et al. (2019)	Emergence of innovation	A process by which an idea may disturb, create, or maintain institutions in a service ecosystem	Case study (Internet-of-Things)	Plasticity, including fluidity (i.e. capacity to take form/be molded) and stability (i.e. capacity to retain form) Institutional reconciliation (i.e. actors adapt to or converge ideas) Reconciling institutional dissonance and stabilization
Fehrer and Bove (2022)	Complex adaptive systems	Systems that “emerge and change over time” (p. 490)	Conceptual	Positive and negative feedback loops Actors can influence feedback loops to change and stabilize service ecosystems
Fehrer et al. (2024)	Circular service ecosystem transitions	“Distinctive features of value co-creation processes, institutional arrangements, and dynamisms [are] inherent to service ecosystem transitions” (p. 8)	Empirical (Analysis of blog posts)	Three key components of circular service ecosystem transitions: (1) emergent properties, (2) processes of de- and re-institutionalization, and (3) reflexivity and intentional shaping Transitions comprise three phases: (1) ad hoc novel outcomes emerge, incumbent institutions stabilize, and niches are shaped; (2) novel patterns emerge, new institutions stabilize, and network structures are shaped; (3) new orders and structures emerge, and path dependencies redirect emerging new institutions to the status quo, and circular representations and norms are shaped
Finsterwalder and Kuppelwiesser (2020)	Service ecosystem transformational capability	Ability to adapt/change to altered or new requirements and, if necessary, reconfigure via new actor and resource combinations	Conceptual	Balancing challenges and resources within and across system levels to achieve equilibrium Achieving equilibrium via new actor and resource combinations Adapting to critical incidents Establishing safe value co-creation spheres which ensure the boundaries of behavior are clear
Finsterwalder and Tombs (2021)	Relational and regenerative service ecosystem	A transformational capability to balance resources and challenges within and across ecosystem levels to achieve equilibria and wellbeing via regenerative cycles of reciprocity	Conceptual	Key factors to maintaining a state of well-being and equilibrium via a long-term, cyclical perspective harmonizing challenges and resources, include Reciprocity: rebalancing with positive acts Retaliation: negative reciprocity Restorative justice: repairing a negative instance (e.g. act or tension) through the mutual involvement of all actors Psychological ownership: sense of possession over personal and ecosystem wellbeing
Frow et al. (2016)	Dynamic service ecosystem	An ecosystem's “ability to adapt to changes in the environment” (p. 26)	Conceptual	Co-creation practices, such as providing an ecosystem with a shared language and shaping actors' mental models, shape a dynamic service ecosystem and occur through diverse actor relationships
Kijima et al. (2016)	Systemic innovation model of service ecosystem	“A complex system that follows the adaptive cycle […] that accounts for both stability and change” (p. 56)	Conceptual	Value co-creation cycles Adaptive transitions: Adjustments in response to internal and external changes Phase transitions: Qualitatively different states and significant shifts in ecosystem structure Coevolution: Paradigmatic shifts occur due to bottom-up and top-down innovation drivers
Meynhardt et al. (2016)	Dynamics of service ecosystem evolution	“Mechanisms of self-organising, complex, and adaptive systems” (p. 2982)	Conceptual	Self-organization when equilibrium/stability is challenged Fluctuations among subsystems influencing emergences Emergences depending on existing internal parameters Self-organization following nonlinear dynamics caused by feedback loops Phase transitions from one stable state to another New orders realized after establishing emergence as an order parameter Chaotic process outcomes not predictable beyond the short term System development understood based on developmental history
Nenonen et al. (2018)	Service ecosystem change	Emerging and going through profound changes over time	Empirical (Primary sector)	Dynamic capabilities, including sensing opportunities and influencing institutions, applied to conduct institutional work
Nuutinen et al. (2024)	Co-evolution in service ecosystems	“System-based features of constant dynamism and evolution” (p. 79).	Empirical (Forestry and smart building sectors)	Three characteristics enhancing resource integration of actors in service ecosystems to co-evolve Accomplishment: Shared area of mastery with practices focused on new or better value. Attractiveness: Providing a nexus of practices that invite participation from new actors Actionability: Collaboration and continuously “doing and getting done” (p. 91)
Polese et al. (2021)	Service ecosystem dynamics	Emergence, phase transitions, and their interrelationships	Conceptual	Phase transition: “large-scale step change” when an ecosystem is dislodged from a state of stability into de-institutionalization and re-institutionalization (p. 29) Emergence: “phenomenon of new properties arising” (p. 27)
Sebastiani and Anzivino (2022)	Service ecosystem evolution	The process of an ecosystem emerging and developing	Empirical (Health care)	Drivers of evolution Actor empowerment: Promoting solutions to empower actors to contribute to outcomes. Actor-network engagement: Collaborative relationships and new interactions Resource reconfiguration: Changing and reshaping the implementation of resources Inhibitors of evolution Inter- and intra-actor misalignment: Lack of mutual understanding and common worldview. Resource myopia: Short-sighted use of technological resources Platformisation gap: : Lack of a “virtual context” or network coordinating actors
Simmonds et al. (2018)	Change and stability in service ecosystems	The characteristics of conflict, change and evolution in social-economic systems	Conceptual	Three periods evident in morphogenetic cycles Structural conditioning, including structure formation, including constraints and enablements. Social interaction, including actor interactions through resource integration within structures Structural elaboration/reproduction, including the influence on the state of the system's structure, and the respective change and stability within, forming the next cycle's context
Skylar et al. (2019)	Service ecosystem transformation	The nature of change and ability to reconfigure resource integration patterns within the ecosystem	Empirical (Digital solutions – Maritime)	Digital transformation is key to service ecosystem transformation by increasing The importance of digital technology in mediating actor interactions The number and importance of interactions among actors with weak ties Complexity of resource integration patterns Actors’ ability to effectively navigate this complexity
Taillard et al. (2016)	Service ecosystem dynamics	“Processes by which the macro level emerges from the micro and meso levels (i.e. upward movement and causation) and, in turn, how the macro level provides feedback to and influences the micro and meso levels (i.e. downward movement and causation” (p. 2978)	Conceptual with illustrative case (Non-profit organization)	Five levels of emergence based on a social emergence paradigm Individual level: properties of individual actors such as their intentions, agency, and attitudes. Interaction level: interactions among actors such as conversations and negotiations Ephemeral emergent: structure – such as roles and interactional frame–to levels i and ii Stable emergents: social properties such as shared intentions, norms, and rules Social structure: formalized institutional arrangements (e.g. contracts and laws) Key factors facilitating emergence in service ecosystems include Shared intentions and collective agency. Continuous feedback loops between two complementary processes: an upward process towards greater interdependence and downward process toward greater individual commitment
Tronvoll and Edvardson (2024)	Dynamic service ecosystems	The “emergent qualities of complex, adaptive systems” (p. 60)	Conceptual	Key features based on a recursive philosophical perspective A systemic, adaptive and entangled ontological perspective. An evolving and complex analytical framework Institutions and intersubjectivity determined by interdependencies between structure and agency Value (re)created by actors through institutional arrangements in an evolving environment
Tuominen et al. (2020)	Change in service ecosystems	“Processes of institutional change” (p. 575) and involves “complex and evolutionary [processes], involving multiple actors and sub-processes” (p. 576)	Conceptual	Assemblages of institutions conditioning ecosystems Value co-creation practices understood as collective routines Change activities, including practice-based change (i.e. actors introduce new resources and perform routines differently) and planned change (i.e. intentional change projects) Dialectical process, including cycles of change activities opposing or building on one another, with solutions emerging when contradictions are resolved Actors' coordination of dialectics of institutional change
Vargo et al. (2023)	Emergence in service ecosystems	“A phenomenon that arises from the relationships among existing system's elements but that is qualitatively different from and irreducible to them” (p. 3)	Conceptual	Different dynamics contribute to emergent outcomes in service ecosystems, including First-order: Novel outcomes from ad-hoc resource integration and service exchange. Second-order: Patterns from recurrent resource integration and service-for-service exchange Third-order: Ecosystem properties resulting from reactively reproduced resource integration and service-for-service exchange Fourth-order: Envisioned ecosystem properties resulting from reflexively shaped resource integration and service-for-service exchange
Vargo et al. (2020)	Complex adaptive systems	Systems that “interact with their environments, are subject to resulting feedback effects, evolve over time, and adaptively adjust” (p. 528)	Conceptual	Diffusion in innovation that evolves over time and contributes to the evolution and change of broader sociotechnical structures
Vellesalu et al. (2023)	Dynamics of service ecosystems	“Stability of and changes to the system” (p. 3)	Empirical (Circular product development)	Key factors contributing to change in the ecosystem include Interdependencies between institutional re-configuration patterns. Interrelatedness between different ecosystem levels (micro, meso, and macro) and different levels impacting one another with influencing actors' ideation of value co-creation opportunities

Author(s)(Year)	Concept	Definition/description	Research context	Key components of service ecosystem dynamics
As'ad et al. (2024)	Service ecosystem dynamics	“Behavioral patterns of service ecosystems over time” (p. 160)	Conceptual	Service ecosystem dynamics: (1) reproduction (i.e. existing institutional arrangements are re-enacted); (2) reconfiguration (i.e. instability and institutionalized change of rules and norms), and (3) transition (i.e. behavioral patterns and perceptions the ecosystem is new/different) Explanatory dimensions: Alternating dominance of adaptation and coordination in self-adjustment processes and leverage of intervention points
Beckett (2023)	Sustainable development goal realization dynamics	Co-creating value via affordable innovation and diffusion, a “complex adaptive process” (p. 141)	Case study (Affordable energy transitions)	Evolutionary pathways to realize goals develop over time Value co-creation via innovation development and diffusion Interactions among multiple ecosystem actors Learning at different evolutionary stages Emergence associated with ‘tipping points’
Beirão et al. (2017)	Dynamics of value cocreation in service ecosystems	Service ecosystems' “learning, adapting, and evolving properties” (pp. 229–230)	Case study (Health care)	Value co-creation factors enabling dynamic resource integration Value co-creation outcomes (e.g. population well-being) Dynamic, simultaneous, and interdependent interactions among multiple actors Exchanges within nested systems influencing each other and resource integration
Brodie et al. (2021)	Dynamics of a healthcare system	A complex multi-actor, multilayered, dynamic and interactive process of value cocreation	Conceptual with illustrative case (Health care)	Shifting from an initial to an improved ecosystem state Drivers of ecosystem practices (ultimately resulting in an improved state) Moderators of ecosystem practices supporting or disrupting ecosystem wellbeing
Brozovic and Tregua (2020)	Service ecosystems flexibility	“The ability of service ecosystems to adjust to changes” (p. 1)	Case study (Museum)	Flexibility of actors and their interactions, resource integration, service exchange, and institutions
Carida et al. (2022)	Service ecosystem dynamics	Systemic dynamism, multi-actor value co-creation, and emergence	Case study (Hospitality and tourism)	Service ecosystem orchestration supporting value creation Resource orchestration as a coordination mechanism for resource integration
Chandler et al. (2019)	Emergence of innovation	A process by which an idea may disturb, create, or maintain institutions in a service ecosystem	Case study (Internet-of-Things)	Plasticity, including fluidity (i.e. capacity to take form/be molded) and stability (i.e. capacity to retain form) Institutional reconciliation (i.e. actors adapt to or converge ideas) Reconciling institutional dissonance and stabilization
Fehrer and Bove (2022)	Complex adaptive systems	Systems that “emerge and change over time” (p. 490)	Conceptual	Positive and negative feedback loops Actors can influence feedback loops to change and stabilize service ecosystems
Fehrer et al. (2024)	Circular service ecosystem transitions	“Distinctive features of value co-creation processes, institutional arrangements, and dynamisms [are] inherent to service ecosystem transitions” (p. 8)	Empirical(Analysis of blog posts)	Three key components of circular service ecosystem transitions: (1) emergent properties, (2) processes of de- and re-institutionalization, and (3) reflexivity and intentional shaping Transitions comprise three phases: (1) ad hoc novel outcomes emerge, incumbent institutions stabilize, and niches are shaped; (2) novel patterns emerge, new institutions stabilize, and network structures are shaped; (3) new orders and structures emerge, and path dependencies redirect emerging new institutions to the status quo, and circular representations and norms are shaped
Finsterwalder and Kuppelwiesser (2020)	Service ecosystem transformational capability	Ability to adapt/change to altered or new requirements and, if necessary, reconfigure via new actor and resource combinations	Conceptual	Balancing challenges and resources within and across system levels to achieve equilibrium Achieving equilibrium via new actor and resource combinations Adapting to critical incidents Establishing safe value co-creation spheres which ensure the boundaries of behavior are clear
Finsterwalder and Tombs (2021)	Relational and regenerative service ecosystem	A transformational capability to balance resources and challenges within and across ecosystem levels to achieve equilibria and wellbeing via regenerative cycles of reciprocity	Conceptual	Key factors to maintaining a state of well-being and equilibrium via a long-term, cyclical perspective harmonizing challenges and resources, include Reciprocity: rebalancing with positive acts Retaliation: negative reciprocity Restorative justice: repairing a negative instance (e.g. act or tension) through the mutual involvement of all actors Psychological ownership: sense of possession over personal and ecosystem wellbeing
Frow et al. (2016)	Dynamic service ecosystem	An ecosystem's “ability to adapt to changes in the environment” (p. 26)	Conceptual	Co-creation practices, such as providing an ecosystem with a shared language and shaping actors' mental models, shape a dynamic service ecosystem and occur through diverse actor relationships
Kijima et al. (2016)	Systemic innovation model of service ecosystem	“A complex system that follows the adaptive cycle […] that accounts for both stability and change” (p. 56)	Conceptual	Value co-creation cycles Adaptive transitions: Adjustments in response to internal and external changes Phase transitions: Qualitatively different states and significant shifts in ecosystem structure Coevolution: Paradigmatic shifts occur due to bottom-up and top-down innovation drivers
Meynhardt et al. (2016)	Dynamics of service ecosystem evolution	“Mechanisms of self-organising, complex, and adaptive systems” (p. 2982)	Conceptual	Self-organization when equilibrium/stability is challenged Fluctuations among subsystems influencing emergences Emergences depending on existing internal parameters Self-organization following nonlinear dynamics caused by feedback loops Phase transitions from one stable state to another New orders realized after establishing emergence as an order parameter Chaotic process outcomes not predictable beyond the short term System development understood based on developmental history
Nenonen et al. (2018)	Service ecosystem change	Emerging and going through profound changes over time	Empirical (Primary sector)	Dynamic capabilities, including sensing opportunities and influencing institutions, applied to conduct institutional work
Nuutinen et al. (2024)	Co-evolution in service ecosystems	“System-based features of constant dynamism and evolution” (p. 79).	Empirical (Forestry and smart building sectors)	Three characteristics enhancing resource integration of actors in service ecosystems to co-evolve Accomplishment: Shared area of mastery with practices focused on new or better value. Attractiveness: Providing a nexus of practices that invite participation from new actors Actionability: Collaboration and continuously “doing and getting done” (p. 91)
Polese et al. (2021)	Service ecosystem dynamics	Emergence, phase transitions, and their interrelationships	Conceptual	Phase transition: “large-scale step change” when an ecosystem is dislodged from a state of stability into de-institutionalization and re-institutionalization (p. 29) Emergence: “phenomenon of new properties arising” (p. 27)
Sebastiani and Anzivino (2022)	Service ecosystem evolution	The process of an ecosystem emerging and developing	Empirical (Health care)	Drivers of evolution Actor empowerment: Promoting solutions to empower actors to contribute to outcomes. Actor-network engagement: Collaborative relationships and new interactions Resource reconfiguration: Changing and reshaping the implementation of resources Inhibitors of evolution Inter- and intra-actor misalignment: Lack of mutual understanding and common worldview. Resource myopia: Short-sighted use of technological resources Platformisation gap: : Lack of a “virtual context” or network coordinating actors
Simmonds et al. (2018)	Change and stability in service ecosystems	The characteristics of conflict, change and evolution in social-economic systems	Conceptual	Three periods evident in morphogenetic cycles Structural conditioning, including structure formation, including constraints and enablements. Social interaction, including actor interactions through resource integration within structures Structural elaboration/reproduction, including the influence on the state of the system's structure, and the respective change and stability within, forming the next cycle's context
Skylar et al. (2019)	Service ecosystem transformation	The nature of change and ability to reconfigure resource integration patterns within the ecosystem	Empirical(Digital solutions – Maritime)	Digital transformation is key to service ecosystem transformation by increasing The importance of digital technology in mediating actor interactions The number and importance of interactions among actors with weak ties Complexity of resource integration patterns Actors’ ability to effectively navigate this complexity
Taillard et al. (2016)	Service ecosystem dynamics	“Processes by which the macro level emerges from the micro and meso levels (i.e. upward movement and causation) and, in turn, how the macro level provides feedback to and influences the micro and meso levels (i.e. downward movement and causation” (p. 2978)	Conceptual with illustrative case (Non-profit organization)	Five levels of emergence based on a social emergence paradigm Individual level: properties of individual actors such as their intentions, agency, and attitudes. Interaction level: interactions among actors such as conversations and negotiations Ephemeral emergent: structure – such as roles and interactional frame–to levels i and ii Stable emergents: social properties such as shared intentions, norms, and rules Social structure: formalized institutional arrangements (e.g. contracts and laws) Key factors facilitating emergence in service ecosystems include Shared intentions and collective agency. Continuous feedback loops between two complementary processes: an upward process towards greater interdependence and downward process toward greater individual commitment
Tronvoll and Edvardson (2024)	Dynamic service ecosystems	The “emergent qualities of complex, adaptive systems” (p. 60)	Conceptual	Key features based on a recursive philosophical perspective A systemic, adaptive and entangled ontological perspective. An evolving and complex analytical framework Institutions and intersubjectivity determined by interdependencies between structure and agency Value (re)created by actors through institutional arrangements in an evolving environment
Tuominen et al. (2020)	Change in service ecosystems	“Processes of institutional change” (p. 575) and involves “complex and evolutionary [processes], involving multiple actors and sub-processes” (p. 576)	Conceptual	Assemblages of institutions conditioning ecosystems Value co-creation practices understood as collective routines Change activities, including practice-based change (i.e. actors introduce new resources and perform routines differently) and planned change (i.e. intentional change projects) Dialectical process, including cycles of change activities opposing or building on one another, with solutions emerging when contradictions are resolved Actors' coordination of dialectics of institutional change
Vargo et al. (2023)	Emergence in service ecosystems	“A phenomenon that arises from the relationships among existing system's elements but that is qualitatively different from and irreducible to them” (p. 3)	Conceptual	Different dynamics contribute to emergent outcomes in service ecosystems, including First-order: Novel outcomes from ad-hoc resource integration and service exchange. Second-order: Patterns from recurrent resource integration and service-for-service exchange Third-order: Ecosystem properties resulting from reactively reproduced resource integration and service-for-service exchange Fourth-order: Envisioned ecosystem properties resulting from reflexively shaped resource integration and service-for-service exchange
Vargo et al. (2020)	Complex adaptive systems	Systems that “interact with their environments, are subject to resulting feedback effects, evolve over time, and adaptively adjust” (p. 528)	Conceptual	Diffusion in innovation that evolves over time and contributes to the evolution and change of broader sociotechnical structures
Vellesalu et al. (2023)	Dynamics of service ecosystems	“Stability of and changes to the system” (p. 3)	Empirical (Circular product development)	Key factors contributing to change in the ecosystem include Interdependencies between institutional re-configuration patterns. Interrelatedness between different ecosystem levels (micro, meso, and macro) and different levels impacting one another with influencing actors' ideation of value co-creation opportunities

Source(s): Authors' own work

[ViewLarge]