Ecosystem-Based Organisational Transformation: A PRISMA-ScR Review of Business Ecosystem Theory, Dynamic Capabilities, and Open Innovation

Ecosystems are increasingly adopted in the context of organizations to increase their adaptability, innovation and value creation, but evidence that connects Business Ecosystem Theory, Dynamic Capabilities Theory and Open Innovation is still disorganized. This PRISMA-ScR mapped theoretical integration, pattern of theoretical transformation, mechanisms, outcomes and gaps in the literature. A total of 813 records were found in the SciSpace and Google Scholar databases with the period of 2017-2025; 691 were found to be unique records, and 11 sources from 2021-2025 were included after screening. There was a focus on large organisations in China, Europe, South Korea, Japan, Brazil and Australia, while little was discussed about SMEs, public organizations, emerging markets and low-income contexts. Five patterns of transformation were found, which are platform ecosystem transformation, open innovation ecosystem transformation, digital entrepreneurial ecosystem transformation, innovation ecosystem leadership, sustainability ecosystem transformation. The linkage between ecosystem orchestration and reconfiguration of ecosystem capabilities and inter-organizational knowledge flows was established. The outcomes reported were agility, innovation, market creation, sustainability and competitive advantage but a small evidence base, predominantly qualitative, precludes generalization. Future research should draw on more extensive databases, dual screening, quantitative, and longitudinal research, and more in-depth research on governance, failure, hierarchy, and AI-powered orchestration.

business ecosystem theory; dynamic capabilities; open innovation; entrepreneurial ecosystem; ecosystem orchestration; organizational transformation; PRISMA-ScR

1. Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Banka, K., & Uchihira, N. (2021). Dynamic capability in business ecosystem: How to obtain new capabilities from existing environment. In 2021 IEEE Technology and Engineering Management Conference-Europe (TEMSCON-EUR) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMSCON-EUR52034.2021.9488652 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Dal Mas, F., Ndou, V., Massaro, M., & Bagnoli, C. (2024). Combining deep and digital technologies as a path towards twin transition: The future farming case study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2024.3444592 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Evaristo, M. S., & Fleury, M. T. L. (2025). Platform-based banking ecosystems: A comparative analysis between incumbents and challenger banks from a dynamic capabilities perspective. Management Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-11-2024-1626 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Götz, F. (2021). Ecosystems in the business environment: Investigating competitive advantages of the firm [Doctoral dissertation, University of Bayreuth]. https://doi.org/10.15495/epub_ubt_00005866 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Gupta, R., Mejia, C., Sadreghazi, S., Sano, Y., dos Muchangos, L. S., Sekiguchi, T., Nakamura, H., & Kajikawa, Y. (2024). Traders as ecosystem orchestrators for sustainable foods supply chain transformation. Business Strategy and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3695 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Haki, K., Blaschke, M., Aier, S., Winter, R., & Tilson, D. (2022). Dynamic capabilities for transitioning from product platform ecosystem to innovation platform ecosystem. European Journal of Information Systems, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2022.2136542 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Heaton, S., & Min, J. (2025). Open innovation in ecosystems: Exploring how the affiliation of an ecosystem partner impacts the benefits of collaboration in open innovation. Research Policy, 54(2), Article 105168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2024.105168 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68–78. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kim, J. S., Paek, B., & Lee, H. (2022). Exploring innovation ecosystem of incumbents in the face of technological discontinuities: Automobile firms. Sustainability, 14(3), 1606. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031606 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, Article 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Shen, L., Shi, Q., Parida, V., & Jovanovic, M. (2024). Ecosystem orchestration practices for industrial firms: A qualitative meta-analysis, framework development and research agenda. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114463 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Steiber, A., & Alvarez, S. (2024a). AI-driven digital business ecosystems: A study of Haier's EMC model. European Journal of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2024-0076 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Steiber, A., & Alvarez, S. (2024b). AI-driven digital business ecosystems: A study of Haier's model and implications for innovation management. European Journal of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2024-0076 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of sustainable enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., . . . Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. West, J., & Gallagher, S. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36(3), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00436.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Role of Value and Growth Stocks in Portfolio Returns: Insights From the Nigerian Stock Market
• The Impact of Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) and Profitability on Firm Value Moderated by Firm Size
• Assessment of the Impact of Environmental Operating Costs on Return on Assets: Evidence from Listed Breweries in Nigeria
• Mobile Money and Digital Financial Services Ecosystem in Adamawa State
• A Quantitative Approach of Professional Skepticism and Fraud Detection among Malaysian Internal Auditors