The first learning is that innovation is a multi-player process and a collective endeavor which requires time. The process of gathering knowledge from these actors and establishing personal contacts with them, tapping into their intrinsic knowledge, is a powerful means which can provide an advantage, albeit often neglected because of the pressure to innovate fast. Indeed, the inclusion of multiple stakeholders drives a mosaic of inputs and resources enriching the idea or concept underlying the innovative effort.
The second learning is that such inclusion is not reached effortless but should be stimulated by creating an open arena where people feel free to discuss, question, suggest, converse and play with ideas. In this regard, an orchestrating figure is crucial for directing the dialogue, treasuring the contributions and steering the trajectory based on those.
The third learning is that an individual effort cannot succeed in arousing collective sensitivity and initiative. A bedrock of supporting altruism, trustful relationships, creativeness and an engaged attitude deeply shapes the behaviors and aspirations of the collective towards a fruitful and conscious solution.
The fourth learning is that responsibility as the result of a series of actions rather than a single moment encourages a constant and careful contemplation of the innovation and its unfolding. Such insight implies the scrutiny of the innovation domain, source of threats and opportunities, a practice that aids in addressing the unpredictability of innovation.
All of these learnings show that doing responsible innovation has the potential to guide a multiplicity of businesses to favorable conditions. The collective effort emerging out of responsible innovation is crucial and, as an intrinsic feature of society, it should also rule the business domain, where it has also proved to be beneficial. Especially in the reality of business ecosystems, where firms share a common faith and are interdependent, this logic becomes an imperative. This recalls a famous line by John Donne, “no man is an island”, which emphasizes the reality that no one is self-sufficient and everyone relies on others.
To conclude, the answer to the question is that a business ecosystem can be healthy through responsible innovation by adopting a very complex mix of behavioral and analytic interventions.
5.2 Recommendations
Practical implications of this dissertation and its learnings entail how in a business context the findings can benefit the practitioners. For practitioners, this research provides insights on how to enforce the health of a business ecosystem by going through the practice of doing responsible innovation. Specifically, the researchers provide managers with insights into the set of activities they should undertake to benefit the business ecosystem they are embedded in. In general, managers should pay particular attention to the value of inclusion when setting the goals, which means to take into account the actors influencing the innovation as well. Also, they should enforce a continuous communication within the members of the ecosystem to ensure a constant alignment. Additionally, they should ensure a flexibility that allows them to respond to changes in the external environment and to adjust the innovation trajectory over time. Finally, because the outcome of a business ecosystem is the result of a collective effort, managers guiding the business ecosystem should encourage the dissemination of responsible thinking among the members, through seminars, courses, or informative material to be delivered to all firms of a business ecosystem.
5.3 Limitations of the Study
Despite the efforts that the researchers have made to ensure the conceptual and methodological adequacy of the study contribution, some limitations have affected the research. Some of these limitations can provide practical guidelines for future research. The first limitations of this study are based partly on the use of a qualitative approach and partly on the focus of the paper on a single case study. Concerning this, as mentioned before in the paper, qualitative research encounters limits when it comes to generalizing the results, since this kind of research provides in-depth and detailed information regarding a specific population or case. The second limitation of the study is the communitarian logic of the innovation in the case, which in its nature is already very collective and hence facilitates a responsible approach. This might have an impact on the outcomes of the research. Therefore, it is not certain to get the same perspectives of the phenomenon in the case of another innovation. The third limitation of the study is the fact that it was conducted on a small Danish island. The geographical configuration and the local culture could potentially affect the results, aiding the hypothesis that in another context the collaboration could be different. The fourth limitation of the study is due to the life-stage of the business ecosystem. The ecosystem studied is believed to be at an expansion stage, which could affect the factors needed for enhancing the ecosystem health, and consequently their relationship with responsible innovation enablers.
5.4 Implications for Future Research
The study suggests some issues to be considered in future studies. In light of the limitations above mentioned, future research should focus on the generalizability of these results. It would be interesting to conduct a multiple-case study based on different types of innovations as well as on different settings of business ecosystems. This might lead to a more complete consideration of the different factors that may have an impact on the relationship between doing responsible innovation and the health of business ecosystem. Another suggestion is to further investigate this relationship over different stages of an ecosystem life, to reveal if this relationship is still valid.
Finally, it could be useful to employ quantitative methodologies, in order to measure the ecosystem health, instead of looking only at the factors enhancing it. Finally, in light of the lack of previous research on the topic, its complexity and its relevance, there are still multiple angles that can be considered when approaching it, hence further research is welcome.