Abstract
This conceptual paper organizes and advances existing knowledge on the management practices of inter-organizational innovation networks by developing an orchestration profile approach. We utilize the principle of alignment to connect orchestration practices with the management requirements of different types of innovation networks. We explain that while goals and underlying value-creation logics differ in different types of innovation networks and, consequently, practices vary from network to network, generally applicable dimensions of orchestration can be identified that provide a useful analytical tool. By addressing the network types and orchestration dimensions simultaneously, we propose three innovation-network orchestration profiles, which we label translative, transformative, and transcending. These profiles are suggested to be generic and, as such, provide managerial heuristics for creating effective orchestration solutions for various innovation networks.
Highlights
We develop and introduce an integrative framework that utilizes the principle of align ment to combine orchestration practices with the management requirements of different types of innovation networks
We argue that the effective orchestration of various types of purposefully designed innovation net works is achieved by utilizing an orchestration profile approach and describe how orchestration profiles refer to the specific ways in which orchestration approaches and practices align with the value-creating logic of the focal network
We suggest that the network orchestration dimensions are applicable to all kinds of innovation networks, but the actual practices can vary between networks comprising different businesses and firms (e. g., large corporations vs start-ups, or commercial actors and non-profit organizations)
Summary
The shift of the locus of value creation from individual organizations to networks, ecosystems, and platforms has challenged the processes and practices of approaching, constructing, and managing networks (Adner, 2017; Ahuja, Soda, & Zaheer, 2012; Dagnino, Levanti, & Mocciaro Li Destri, 2016; Henneberg, Naude, & Mouzas, 2010; Jacobides, Cennamo, & Gawer, 2018; Moller & Halinen, 2017). The various innovation networks impose different requirements on management (Adner, 2017; Adner & Kapoor, 2010; Dagnino et al, 2016; Hagedoorn & Duysters, 2002; Hou, Cui, & Shi, 2020; Moller & Svahn, 2009; Raab & Kenis, 2009; Reypens, Lievens, & Blazevic, 2021; Sydow, Windeler, Schubert, & Mollering, 2012), and recently, network orches tration has come to be accepted as a useful construct when addressing related approaches (Dagnino et al, 2016; Dessaigne & Pardo, 2020; Paquin & Howard-Grenville, 2013) To quote Dagnino et al (2016, 369), “...we recognize that a long way needs yet to be travelled to forge a fully-fledged dynamic theory of whole network governance.” To un derstand the benefits of advancing a common and coherent framework, it is useful to briefly examine the key limitations and advances in the current research.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
