The Influence of Digitalization on Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Emergence

The Influence of Digitalization on Emergent

Processes of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems –
a Complexity Science Perspective
Short Paper

Tim Haarhaus Jan-Martin Geiger

TU Dortmund University TU Dortmund University
Dortmund, Germany Dortmund, Germany
tim.haarhaus@tu-dortmund.de jan-martin.geiger@tu-dortmund.de

Andreas Liening
TU Dortmund University
Dortmund, Germany
andreas.liening@tu-dortmund.de

Abstract
Recent literature conceptualizes digitalization as an important enabler of
entrepreneurial activity. However, the understanding of how digitalization influences the
broader entrepreneurial landscape remains limited. In this context, there have been
approaches lately that suggest to investigate potential effects of digital technologies and
infrastructures on entrepreneurial ecosystems. Despite growing research on the
intersection between digitalization and entrepreneurial ecosystems, the vast majority of
extant work in the literature is of conceptual nature. The present short paper refers to a
study that intends to provide empirical evidence on how the availability of different sets
of digital technologies facilitates emergent processes of entrepreneurial ecosystems. To
better comprehend the non-linear interactions and emergent processes within such
systems, we apply a complexity science perspective. We plan to perform Qualitative
Comparative Analysis, representing a configurational approach to comprehend complex
phenomena. Thereby, we aim to reveal under which conditions digitalization influences
emergent processes of entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Keywords: Digitalization, Digital Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurial Ecosystems, Complexity

Science, Theory of Synergetics

Introduction
Recent literature conceptualizes digitalization, i.e., “the sociotechnical process of applying digitizing
techniques to broader social and institutional contexts that render digital technologies infrastructural“
(Tilson et al. 2010, p. 749), as an important enabler of entrepreneurial activity (Nambisan 2017; von Briel
et al. 2018; Autio et al. 2018). As an example, digital technologies and infrastructures provide start-ups with
new methods to shape their processes of value creation, delivery, and capture (Autio et al, 2018), thus
facilitating business model innovation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2003). Moreover, digitalization affects
venture creation processes in that it allows for more fluid boundaries and more dispersed agency
(Nambisan 2017). However, while existing literature acknowledges the role of digitalization as an enabler
of new venture creation processes (von Briel et al. 2018), the understanding of how digitalization influences
the broader entrepreneurial landscape remains limited (von Briel et al. 2018; Autio et al. 2018; Sussan and
Acs 2017).

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 1

 The Influence of Digitalization on Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Emergence

In this context, there have been approaches lately that suggest to investigate potential effects of digital
technologies and infrastructures on entrepreneurial ecosystems (Autio et al. 2018; von Briel et al. 2018).
The concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems has drawn considerable attention from researchers, policy and
practitioners in recent years (Spigel and Harrison 2018). Following the complexity-based conceptualization
by Roundy et al. (2018, p. 5), an entrepreneurial ecosystem can be defined as “a self-organized, adaptive,
and geographically bounded community of complex agents operating at multiple, aggregated levels,
whose non-linear interactions result in the patterns of activities through which new ventures form and
dissolve over time.” More recently, entrepreneurial ecosystems have been conceptualized as a form of
cluster that specializes in exploiting the technological potential afforded by digitalization to facilitate new
venture creation (Autio et al. 2018). In addition, scholars highlight the centrality of digital technologies and
infrastructures in the conception of entrepreneurial ecosystems and call for further investigations into the
influences of digitalization on the processes and structures that shape entrepreneurial ecosystems (von
Briel et al. 2018; Autio et al. 2018).
Although research on the intersection between digitalization and entrepreneurial ecosystems is growing,
the vast majority of extant work in the literature is of conceptual nature. The present short paper refers to
a study that intends to offer empirical evidence on the influence of digitalization on entrepreneurial
ecosystems. Moreover, current literature provides only limited guidance with respect to the issue that, with
digitalization, entrepreneurial initiatives become less bounded and entrepreneurial agencies becomes less
predefined, resulting in more complex and dynamic dependencies between entrepreneurial processes and
outcomes (Nambisan 2017). Since traditional theories and concepts in entrepreneurship have assumed
rather stable boundaries around entrepreneurial initiatives (e.g. Honig and Karlsson 2004) as well as
predefined sets of founders (e.g. Shane and Eckhardt 2003), alternative conceptualizations of
entrepreneurship are required that incorporate the increasing complexity infused by digital technologies
(Nambisan 2017) in order to develop more accurate explanations of the influence of digitalization on
entrepreneurial ecosystems.
As pointed out above, it is suggested that digital technologies and infrastructures create technological
affordances that shape the processes and structures comprising entrepreneurial ecosystems (Autio et al.
2018). However, the complex and emergent phenomena underlying entrepreneurship in a digitalized world
are yet to be explained, and scholars propose to examine how the availability of different sets of digital
technologies influences the evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems (von Briel et al. 2018). Thus, we seek
to address the following research question:
How does digitalization influence the emergent processes of entrepreneurial ecosystems?
To answer this research question, we intend to examine the influence of digitalization on entrepreneurial
ecosystem emergence from a complexity science perspective, with emergence being defined as “the creation
of new ‘order’ – structures, processes, and system-wide properties that come into being within and across
system levels” (Lichtenstein 2011, p. 486). Entrepreneurial ecosystems have already been conceptualized
as complex adaptive systems to better understand the dynamic relationships and emergent processes within
such systems (Roundy et al. 2018; Arikan 2010).
We will address our research question through performing Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA),
representing a configurational approach to comprehend complex phenomena (Ragin 1987). This
methodology is appropriate for our intended research project because it implies non-linear interrelations
and complex causality instead of assuming linear relationships and singular causation (Fiss 2007). Building
on the extant concept of digital affordances by Autio et al. (2018), we seek to inductively elaborate the
complexities of the causal relationships inherent in theories at the intersection between digitalization and
entrepreneurial ecosystems. We intend to assemble a sample of 20 to 30 examples of effective
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Qualitative data will be collected in the form of in-depth-interviews, while
quantitative data will be drawn from secondary data sources and surveys. This rich, exploratory research
design will allow us to reveal under which conditions and circumstances digitalization influences emergent
processes of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
In the next section we elaborate on the influence of digital technologies and infrastructures on
entrepreneurial ecosystem emergence and the contribution of complexity theory to study the emergent
processes of such systems. Based on this theoretical dissection we propose a conceptual model that
illustrates how digitalization enables emergent processes of entrepreneurial ecosystems. We then outline

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 2

 The Influence of Digitalization on Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Emergence

our proposed research design and the intended research steps. In the discussion we provide an outlook on
the anticipated theoretical and empirical contributions of our research.

Existing Research on the Interplay Between Digitalization and

Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
Digitalization is increasingly viewed as an objective, actor-independent factor that enables entrepreneurial
activity (Nambisan 2017). Nambisan’s initial call to begin “theorizing the role of specific aspects of digital
technologies in shaping entrepreneurial opportunities, decisions, actions, and outcomes” (2017, p. 2) was
answered by several studies at the nexus of digitalization and entrepreneurship research. For instance, von
Briel et al. (2018) describe digital technologies as external enablers of venture creation. Sussan and Acs
(2017) developed a digital entrepreneurial ecosystem framework to conceptualize entrepreneurship in the
digital age. Autio et al. (2018) perceive entrepreneurial ecosystems “as a digital economy phenomenon that
harnesses technological affordances to facilitate entrepreneurial opportunity pursuit by new ventures
through radical business model innovation” (p. 74).
To describe digitalization and illustrate its impact on the emergent processes of entrepreneurial ecosystems,
we build on Autio et al’s (2018) concept of digital affordances. Following Autio et al. (2018), digitalization
supports entrepreneurial ecosystems in facilitating entrepreneurial opportunity pursuit by providing three
key affordances, with the noun “affordance” indicating the potentiality to execute existing or novel functions
more efficiently. First, the inherent flexibility of digital technology, which is due to a digital technology’s re-
programmability and reducibility to the form of bits, allows for a decoupling between form and function
(Autio et al. 2018). In consequence, preexisting assets can be transformed for alternative applications and
by different users (De Vita et al. 2011), while local resource dependency decreases (Autio et al. 2018).
Second, digitalization drives disintermediation, referring to the capacity of the internet to enable direct
interactions among end users and service providers (Bakos 1998), thereby diminishing the dependency of
start-ups on local intermediaries and increasing the flexibility to adjust and align the capabilities that are
needed to deliver the ventures’ products or services (Autio et al. 2018). Lastly, digitalization promotes
generativity, i.e., “a function of a technology’s capacity for leverage across a range of tasks, adaptability
to a range of different tasks, ease of mastery, and accessibility” (Zittrain 2006). For instance, the internet
enables a new venture to generate spontaneous innovative feedback from enormous, uncoordinated
audiences that are situated outside the venture’s original local cluster, thus facilitating the dynamic
emergence of entrepreneurial opportunities (Autio et al. 2018; Nambisan 2017). Taken together,
digitalization creates digital affordances that promote a new form of emergent and dynamic processes in
entrepreneurial ecosystems, which is due to a reduced dependency of start-ups on their local environment
as well as more opportunities for business model experimentation and innovation (Autio et al. 2018).
However, whereas digitalization enables more dispersed agency and more fluid boundaries in
entrepreneurial processes, it also increases the nonlinearity and unpredictability of how such processes
evolve (Nambisan 2017; Huang et al. 2017). While higher degrees of nonlinearity and unpredictability of
entrepreneurial processes could also result in unfavorable outcomes or a loss of control, it should be noted
that in our intended study we concentrate on the positive effects of digitalization, i.e., its enabling
mechanisms. More specifically, new forms of digital infrastructures, including social media platforms and
crowdfunding systems, facilitate the involvement of a broader, evolving set of actors in the entrepreneurial
process, thus shifting the locus of entrepreneurial agency from a predefined agent to a dynamic collection
of actors, such as customers or investors, who are now able to interact and form social ties with peer
entrepreneurs (Nambisan 2017). Furthermore, the utilization of digital tools and corresponding processes
in product design was found to enable the connection of previously disassociated actors, resulting in
unintended design outcomes and higher variability in entrepreneurial processes (Bailey et al. 2012;
Nambisan 2017). Summarizing the above arguments, we propose that the availability of digital technologies
and infrastructures, on the basis of their function as platform for bottom-up emergence of innovations and
catalyst of self-organizing system behavior (Zorina and Karanasios 2017), is crucial for facilitating the
emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Having discussed the key affordances provided by digitalization as well as their complexity traits, it is
important to outline the theoretical foundation of entrepreneurial ecosystems in order to build a clear
understanding of the concept. To date, literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems has concentrated primarily
on the identification of the core elements of established ecosystems (Roundy et al. 2018). In this context, a

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 3

 The Influence of Digitalization on Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Emergence

range of studies has focused on examining prominent ecosystems resulting in a profound understanding of
essential elements and attributes of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Core elements include, among other
factors, entrepreneurial actors, institutions (e.g. public sector agencies and universities) and
entrepreneurially-oriented organizations (e.g. start-ups and venture capitalists) (Mason and Brown 2014).
Although these findings are crucial for the understanding of entrepreneurial ecosystem structure, current
literature has been criticized for applying a rather static framework to study entrepreneurial ecosystems,
hence ignoring that ecosystems are continually evolving (Alvedalen 2017). Moreover, research tended to
describe entrepreneurial ecosystems as being composed of completely or partially disconnected elements
and as characterized by causal or linear interactions among agents (Roundy et al. 2018), while in fact
entrepreneurial ecosystems “emerge from nonlinear and dynamic combinations of sets of variables”
(Roundy et al. 2018, p. 7). Thus, there is growing consensus among scholars that future research should
investigate the complex interrelations among the system’s elements in order to shed light on the facilitating
mechanisms and emergent processes of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Autio et al. 2018).
Since complexity theory provides an appropriate conceptual lens to examine systems characterized by non-
linear interactions as well as self-organizing behavior (Anderson 1999) and entrepreneurial ecosystems
have already been conceptualized as complex adaptive systems (Roundy et al. 2018; Arikan 2010), we take
a complexity science perspective to investigate how digitalization influences the emergent processes of
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Adopting a complexity perspective also corresponds with the call for
“theoretical concepts and methodological approaches that reflect the incremental and nonlinear paths
that digital artifacts and platforms facilitate in entrepreneurial initiatives” by Nambisan (2017, p. 14).

Framing Digitalization-Induced Emergent Processes of

Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
Generally, the field of complexity science concentrates on the underlying dynamics that generate a broad
range of outcomes in all social systems (Anderson 1999), whereby complex systems are composed of
interdependent, heterogeneous agents who create emergent structures that cannot be explained by their
individual constituent parts (McKelvey, 2004a). Moreover, complexity science seeks to explain the
emergence of new order (McKelvey, 2004b), a topic that is also at the core of entrepreneurship scholarship
(Roundy et al. 2018).
Due to the common focus on the concept of emergence and a conceptual fit between both fields of research,
complexity science has been applied to study the emergence of new ventures and entrepreneurial behaviors
(Lichtenstein 2011; Autio et al. 2018). As stated above, entrepreneurial ecosystems have already been
described as complex systems to better understand the dynamic relationships and emergent processes
within such systems. In addition, Roundy et al. (2018) identified three factors that facilitate the emergence
of entrepreneurial ecosystems. First, it is suggested that entrepreneurs’ intentionality to achieve certain
goals functions as a driving force of emergence in entrepreneurial ecosystems (Muñoz and Encinar 2014).
The same effect applies to entrepreneurs’ adaptive tensions which result from the founders’ desire to create
a business or pursue a perceived opportunity (Lichtenstein et al. 2007). Second, the agents in an
entrepreneurial ecosystem need to display a certain degree of coherence in terms of collective goals, values,
behaviors and methods, so that a coherent group, i.e., an interconnected system, can be formed (Roundy et
al. 2018; Lichtenstein et al. 2007). Lastly, injections of resources from outside the entrepreneurial
ecosystem’s open boundaries can drive a system’s emergence (Roundy et al. 2018). These injections, also
referred to as control parameters, have the potential to push the system’s and its agents’ behavior into a
certain direction, thus giving rise to rules, values, actions and, ultimately, structuration of the
entrepreneurial ecosystem (Roundy et al. 2018; Rickles et al. 2007). In this short paper, we introduce
digitalization as a specific type of injection of resources (originating from outside the system) that facilitates
emergent processes of entrepreneurial ecosystems. This notion is in line with Davidsson’s (2015) and von
Briel et al’s (2018) conception of digital technologies as external enablers of entrepreneurial processes. In
the next section, we propose a conceptual model that illustrates the influence of digitalization on
entrepreneurial ecosystem emergence by utilizing the theory of synergetics which explains self-organization
and emergent processes of complex systems.

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 4

 The Influence of Digitalization on Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Emergence

Conceptual Framework: Synergetics

Before we present the conceptual model, the fundamental assumptions of the theory of synergetics are
briefly outlined to establish a shared perception of the fundamental principles. The theory of synergetics
addresses issues relating to the emergence and examination of complex patterns of order (Liening 2014).
As suggested by Schiepek et al. (1997, p. 122), it “(...) describes a self-organized order establishment within
systems through the behavior of system components. It refers to systems that are characterized by
openness, dynamics, and complexity.”
Figure 1 depicts the synergetic entrepreneurial ecosystem model that conceptualizes an entrepreneurial
ecosystem as a complex system and illustrates the role of digitalization as a control parameter, representing
an injection of resources that facilitates emergent processes of entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Figure 1. Synergetic Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Model

As displayed in Figure 1, the theory of synergetics is concerned with order parameters, control parameters,
the microscopic system level, the macroscopic system level, system constraints and the environment
(Liening et al. 2016). Based on the theory of synergetics, emergent processes in entrepreneurial ecosystems
begin with an external activation that is initiated by a control parameter (Liening et al. 2016). In this study,
we conceptualize digitalization as a specific type of control parameter, which could also be referred to as
an injection of resources (Roundy et al. 2018) or an external enabler of entrepreneurial processes
(Davidsson 2015). The availability and application of technologies add energy to an existing micro-system
consisting of startups, established firms, customers etc. Since the system is open towards external
influences, it is exposed to the control parameters that provide the system with energy, representing a
nonspecific natural control (Liening et al. 2016). In the context of digitalization, control parameters such
as computer software and mobile devices (representing digital technologies) or social media platforms and
crowdfunding systems (representing digital infrastructures) create digital affordances that promote a new
form of emergent processes in the entrepreneurial ecosystems, which is due to a reduced dependency of
start-ups on their local environment as well as more opportunities for business model experimentation and
innovation (Autio et al. 2018). For instance, digital platforms facilitate common value creation by
interconnected groups of actors and digital makerspaces enable individuals with shared interests to pursue
entrepreneurial opportunities (Nambisan 2017). Thus, digital technologies act as a platform for bottom-up
emergence of innovations and promote self-organizing system behavior (Zorina and Karanasios 2017). In
consequence, the impulse originating from the control parameter, i.e., digitalization, ignites an undirected
change process in the agents operating on the microscopic system level, including individual entrepreneurs
or ventures. Then, system elements on the microscopic level, including heterogeneous agents such as
entrepreneurs, ventures or institutions, perform actions and interactions which facilitate the emergence of

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 5

 The Influence of Digitalization on Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Emergence

novel behavior and non-linear feedback cycles (Liening et al. 2016). In a process of self-organization, these
elements give rise to new or modified artifacts (e.g. novel system behavior, new ventures or devices) which
are observable in the form of an order parameter at the macroscopic level of the entrepreneurial ecosystem
(Liening et al. 2016). The hitherto dominant order is broken up in this way and new business models as well
as forms of competition characterize the ecosystem.
Since we focus on the study of emergent processes of entrepreneurial ecosystems in this short paper, we do
not explain other processes inherent in entrepreneurial ecosystems. It should be noted, though, that it is
also necessary to consider the influence of the environment, because entrepreneurial ecosystems possess
permeable boundaries and are interacting with adjacent elements (Liening et al. 2016). The theory of
synergetics functions as an appropriate framework to study the influence of digitalization on the emergent
processes of entrepreneurial ecosystems because it is capable of integrating both digitalization as a control
parameter and conceptualizing entrepreneurial ecosystems as complex systems.
Building on the concept of digital affordances outlined by Autio et al. (2018), we propose that digital
technologies and infrastructures provide affordances that enable emergent processes of entrepreneurial
ecosystems. This is in accordance with the notion by von Briel et al. (2018) who suggest that their
conceptualization of six mechanisms of digital technologies giving rise to start-up activity also applies to
the context of entrepreneurial ecosystems. More specifically, we argue that the three digital affordances
identified by Autio et al. (2018) represent causal conditions for the emergence of entrepreneurial
ecosystems: (1) decoupling between form and function increases the flexibility and re-programmability of
digital devices which enables an asset to be redeployed to new types of uses by different users, thus
transforming the modalities of where and how entrepreneurial activity in clusters arises (Autio et al. 2018);
(2) disintermediation allows service providers to directly interact with different stakeholders, hence
opening new ways for seamless communication and value-creating interactions (Autio et al. 2018) which
could lead to the evolution of new networks of entrepreneurial activity; (3) generativity enables diverse and
uncoordinated audiences to recombine the elements of offerings and resources accessible on digital
platforms (Nambisan 2017). The possibility to assemble, extend and redistribute the functionalities of
digital artifacts connects different actors in shaping entrepreneurial opportunities (Yoo et al. 2010), thus
facilitating emergent processes of entrepreneurial ecosystems. In the following section, we outline the
intended research design.

Proposed Research Design

Research Method
Following Ketchen Jr. et al. (2008), the empirical verification of new theories often needs new
methodologies. This is particularly true for the investigation of complex phenomena such as
entrepreneurial ecosystems, since traditional research methods, which are typically based on a linearity
supposition, are not suitable to study the emergent, dynamic and non-linear processes inherent in complex
systems (Berger and Kuckertz 2016). Thus, methodologies are required that are able to take into account
these complexity-related properties of entrepreneurial ecosystems as well as the increasing complexity
infused by digital technologies. QCA represents a configurational approach to comprehend complex
phenomena (Ragin 1987) that can be characterized “as clusters of interconnected structures and practices,
rather than as modular or loosely coupled entities whose components can be understood in isolation“ (Fiss
2007, p. 1180). Hence, we follow the recommendation of Roundy et al. (2018) to apply the method of QCA
to the study of entrepreneurial ecosystems. As von Briel et al. (2018) state, configurational approaches are
also appropriate for examining how digitalization gives rise to start-up activity. In addition, QCA appears
to be particularly suitable for the mode of inquiry of our intended study, i.e., to inductively elaborate the
complexities of the causal relationships inherent in extant theories at the intersection between digitalization
and entrepreneurial ecosystems. By using QCA, we aim to investigate how the availability of different sets
of digital technologies facilitates emergent processes of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
QCA is a comparative approach that provides a combination of extensive within-case investigation and
formalized cross-case comparisons (Legewie 2013). Since QCA perceives cases as specific configurations of
causal conditions and allows to systematically compare cases (Misangyi et al. 2017) this research method is
particularly well suited to identify the specific features of different entrepreneurial ecosystems. The method
describes cases as sets of attributes and examines each case integrally, hence capturing its causal complexity

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 6

 The Influence of Digitalization on Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Emergence

(Ceric and Krivokapic-Skoko 2016). Boolean algebra is applied to identify sets of interrelated conditions
which clarify the findings obtained from a set of exemplary cases (Ceric and Krivokapic-Skoko 2016),
therefore enabling QCA to explain how a particular outcome is created. Being a configurational approach,
QCA implies non-linear interrelations and complex causality, instead of assuming linear relationships and
singular causation (Fiss 2007).

Data Collection
QCA is focused on “examining complexity through the intensity of in-depth investigation of a moderate
number of cases, while maintaining rigor, replicable procedures and the use of formal logic” (Ceric and
Krivokapic-Skoko 2016, p. 351). To address the research question of the presented study, we intend to
assemble a sample of 20 to 30 examples of effective entrepreneurial ecosystems located in Europe, because
QCA can be utilized to examine small to medium numbers of cases (Misangyi et al. 2017). As the method
allows the combination of qualitative and quantitative data, we will use different types of data sources: (1)
in-depth interviews; (2) secondary data collected from three different sources to identify combinations of
digital affordances facilitating entrepreneurial activity; and (3) survey data obtained from key informants
located in entrepreneurial ecosystems.
In-depth interviews with key agents operating in the respective entrepreneurial ecosystems are the first
data source. Interviews will be semi-structured, utilizing a specified guideline. Questions will address issues
such as which digital technologies and infrastructures are applied by new ventures and how digital
affordances enable agents to interact with other agents operating in the system. Insights generated from
the interviews will also be used to identify key constructs and variables relevant for the quantitative analysis.
In order to measure the digital affordances (decoupling, disintermediation and generativity) representing
the conditions that could facilitate start-up activity, secondary data will be drawn from three different
databases. These sources include the European Digital City Index (Nesta 2016), the Digital Economy and
Society Index (European Commission 2018) as well as the ICT Development Index (International
Telecommunication Union 2017) and contain a large number of information and communication
technology variables as subsets of the three digital affordances, reflecting the degree of digitalization on the
regional and national level. These variables include, e.g., uptake of CRM, social media uptake, cloud uptake,
e-commerce turnover, etc. Start-up activity in entrepreneurial ecosystems constitutes the outcome variable
and will be indicated by appropriate variables (e.g., new-business density) drawn from the European Digital
City Index (EDCI 2016). Survey data collected from key informants will be used to provide further measures
of digital network utilization of entrepreneurial ecosystems, drawing on a digitalization measurement
instrument proposed by Sabbagh et al. (2012).

Data Analysis
QCA requires that data analysis integrates cases or practices with either positive or negative outcomes as
well as conditions that could lead to such outcomes. In the context of this intended study, a positive outcome
would be the facilitation of emergent processes of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Relevant conditions are
represented by the three identified digital affordances, namely decoupling, disintermediation and
generativity. After the collected quantitative data are integrated into a data table, values will be transformed
into so-called set membership scores (Berger 2016). Then, a truth table is established that generates a
compilation of all conditions that initiate positive outcomes (Ragin 2008). Results can be presented in
various ways, such as written statements or solution formulas. By applying this methodology, we intend to
reveal how, i.e., under which conditions and circumstances, digitalization influences emergent processes of
entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Conclusion
This short paper aims to expand the understanding of how digitalization affects the broader entrepreneurial
landscape. More specifically, we intend to explore the influence of digital technologies and infrastructures
on the emergent processes of entrepreneurial ecosystems. By applying a complexity science perspective, we
are able to incorporate the increasing complexity infused by digital technologies in order to develop more
accurate explanations of the influence of digitalization on entrepreneurial ecosystems. In our view, adding
a new theoretical perspective that particularly considers the complexity traits of digital technologies and
infrastructures represents an important theoretical contribution, since extant literature provides only

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 7

 The Influence of Digitalization on Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Emergence

limited guidance with respect to the issue that, with digitalization, entrepreneurial initiatives become less
bounded and entrepreneurial agency becomes less predefined (Nambisan 2017). Moreover, the proposed
synergetic entrepreneurial ecosystem model enables a better understanding of how the different
stakeholders of entrepreneurial ecosystems interact.
We believe that the anticipated results of QCA could provide organizations with valuable insights into how
digital technologies and infrastructures can be utilized to facilitate business model innovation and enhance
the interactions with other stakeholders of the respective entrepreneurial ecosystem. Moreover, we think
that policy makers who want to understand the underlying drivers of entrepreneurial ecosystem emergence
could benefit from our findings.

References
Alvedalen, J., and Boschma, R. 2017. "A Critical Review of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Research:
Towards a Future Research Agenda," European Planning Studies (25:6), pp. 887-903.
Anderson, P. 1999. "Perspective: Complexity Theory and Organization Science," Organization science
(10:3), pp. 216-232.
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D., and Wright, M. 2018. "Digital Affordances, Spatial Affordances,
and the Genesis of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems," Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (12:1), pp. 72-
95.
Bailey, D. E., Leonardi, P. M., and Barley, S. R. 2012. "The lure of the virtual," Organization Science
(23:5), pp. 1485-1504.
Bakos, Y. 1998. "The Emerging Role of Electronic Marketplaces on the Internet," Communications of the
ACM (41:8), pp. 35-42.
Berger, E. S. 2016. "Is Qualitative Comparative Analysis an Emerging Method?—Structured Literature
Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Qca Applications in Business and Management Research," in
Complexity in Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Technology Research. Springer, pp. 287-308.
Berger, E. S., and Kuckertz, A. 2016. "The Challenge of Dealing with Complexity in Entrepreneurship,
Innovation and Technology Research: An Introduction," in Complexity in Entrepreneurship,
Innovation and Technology Research. Springer, pp. 1-9.
Ceric, A., and Krivokapic-Skoko, B. 2016. "Applying Qca and Cross-Impact Analysis to the Study on Ict
Adoption and Use by Croatian Smes," in Complexity in Entrepreneurship, Innovation and
Technology Research. Springer, pp. 349-370.
Cohen, B. 2006. "Sustainable Valley Entrepreneurial Ecosystems," Business Strategy and the
Environment (15:1), pp. 1-14.
Davidsson, P. 2015. "Entrepreneurial Opportunities and the Entrepreneurship Nexus: A Re-
Conceptualization," Journal of Business Venturing (30:5), pp. 674-695.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. "Building Theories from Case Study Research," Academy of management review
(14:4), pp. 532-550.
European Commisson (2018). "The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2018". Retrieved July 12,
2018, from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi.
Fiss, P. C. 2007. "A Set-Theoretic Approach to Organizational Configurations," Academy of management
review (32:4), pp. 1180-1198.
Haken, H. 1978. "Synergetics-an Introduction: Nonequilibrium Phase Transition and Self-Organization
in Physics," Chemistry and Biology.
Honig, B., and Karlsson, T. 2004. "Institutional forces and the written business plan," Journal of
Management, 30:1, pp. 29-48.
Huang, J., Henfridsson, O., Liu, M. J., and Newell, S. 2017. "Growing on Steroids: Rapidly Scaling the
User Base of Digital Ventures Through Digital Innovation," MIS Quarterly (41:1), pp. 301-314.
International Telecommunication Union 2017. "Measuring the Information System Report 2017,"
Geneva. Retrieved 10 July, 2018, from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
D/Statistics/Pages/publications/mis2017.aspx.
Ketchen Jr, D. J., Boyd, B. K., and Bergh, D. D. 2008. "Research Methodology in Strategic Management:
Past Accomplishments and Future Challenges," Organizational Research Methods (11:4), pp. 643-
658.
Legewie, N. 2013. "An Introduction to Applied Data Analysis with Qualitative Comparative Analysis,"
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (14:3).

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 8

 The Influence of Digitalization on Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Emergence

Lichtenstein, B. B. 2011. "Complexity Science Contributions to the Field of Entrepreneurship," in The

Sage handbook of complexity and management, P. Allen, S. Maguire and B. McKelvey (eds.), pp.
471-493.
Lichtenstein, B. B., Carter, N. M., Dooley, K. J., and Gartner, W. B. 2007. "Complexity Dynamics of
Nascent Entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Venturing (22:2), pp. 236-261.
Liening, A. 2014. "Synergetics—Fundamental Attributes of the Theory of Self-Organization and Its
Meaning for Economics," Modern Economy (5:08), p. 841.
Liening, A., Geiger, J.-M., Kriedel, R., and Wagner, W. 2016. "Complexity and Entrepreneurship:
Modeling the Process of Entrepreneurship Education with the Theory of Synergetics," in Complexity
in Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Technology Research, E. Berger and A. Kuckertz (eds.), Cham:
Springer, pp. 93-115.
Mason, C., and Brown, R. 2014. "Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth Oriented Entrepreneurship,"
Final Report to OECD, Paris (30:1), pp. 77-102.
McKelvey, B. 2004a. "Complexity Science as Order-Creation Science: New Theory, New Method,"
Emergence: Complexity & Organization (6:4), pp. 2-27.
McKelvey, B. 2004b. "Toward a Complexity Science of Entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Venturing
(19:3), pp. 313-341.
Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., and Aguilera, R. 2017. "Embracing
Causal Complexity: The Emergence of a Neo-Configurational Perspective," Journal of Management
(43:1), pp. 255-282.
Muñoz, F.-F., and Encinar, M.-I. 2014. "Agents Intentionality, Capabilities and the Performance of
Systems of Innovation," Innovation (16:1), pp. 71-81.
Nambisan, S. 2017. "Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of
Entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (41:6), pp. 1029-1055.
Nesta (2016). "European Digital City Index 2016," London. Retrieved 10 July, 2018, from
https://digitalcityindex.eu/
Prahalad, C. K., and Ramaswamy, V. 2003. "The New Frontier of Experience Innovation," MIT Sloan
management review (44:4), pp. 12-18.
Ragin, C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Methods,
Berkeley: University of California.
Ragin, C. C. 2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Wiley Online Library.
Rickles, D., Hawe, P., and Shiell, A. 2007. "A Simple Guide to Chaos and Complexity," Journal of
Epidemiology & Community Health (61:11), pp. 933-937.
Roundy, P. T., Bradshaw, M., and Brockman, B. K. 2018. "The Emergence of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems:
A Complex Adaptive Systems Approach," Journal of Business Research (86), pp. 1-10.
Sabbagh, K., Mourad, M., Kabbara, W., Shehadi, R., Samman, H., and Insight, I. C. 2012. "Understanding
the Arab Digital Generation," Booz & Company.
Schiepek, G., Manteufel, A., Strunk, G., and Reicherts, M. 1997. "Kooperationsdynamik in
Systemspielen," in Selbstorganisation und Dynamik in Gruppen, W. Lanthaler and G. Schiepek
(eds.), Münster: Lit Verlag, pp. 123-162.
Shane, S. and Eckhardt, J. 2003. "The individual opportunity nexus," in Handbook of entrepreneurship
research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction, Z. J. Acs and D. B. Audretsch (eds.),
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 161-191.
Spigel, B., and Harrison, R. 2018. "Toward a Process Theory of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems," Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal (12:1), pp. 151-168.
Sussan, F., and Acs, Z. J. 2017. "The Digital Entrepreneurial Ecosystem," Small Business Economics
(49:1), pp. 55-73.
Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., and Sørensen, C. 2010. "Research Commentary—Digital Infrastructures: The
Missing Is Research Agenda," Information systems research (21:4), pp. 748-759.
von Briel, F., Davidsson, P., and Recker, J. 2018. "Digital Technologies as External Enablers of New
Venture Creation in the It Hardware Sector," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (42:1), pp. 47-
69.
Yin, R. K. 2017. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage publications.
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., and Lyytinen, K. 2010. "The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An
agenda for information systems research," Information Systems Research (21:4), pp. 724-735
Zittrain, J. L. 2006. "The Generative Internet," Harvard Law Review, pp. 1974-2040.

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 9