Digital platforms are often characterized as enablers of new ecosystems. However, platforms are sometimes introduced into pre-existing ecosystems, where a platform's ability to harmonize with the ecosystem is critical for its success. This article draws on the case of digital healthcare platforms and introduces the concept of platform grafting, which denotes the process of integrating a new platform into a pre-existing ecosystem, leading to a coevolutionary process of adapting both the platform and the surrounding ecosystem. Dynamic capabilities are critical for successfully integrating the platform into the ecosystem, and this article provides a capabilities framework for understanding platform grafting.

Multi-sided platforms (MSPs) are becoming increasingly important in contemporary economies. This special issue of California Management Review aims to stimulate collective discussion among researchers and practitioners on advancing diverse types of MSPs and on better understanding their future development. This article analyzes five contributions to this special issue and explores the growth trajectories of MSPs. There are three types of platforms: born-platform, platform-born adjacent, and incumbent-born. And they rely respectively on three market entry strategies: market creation, market broadening, and market deepening. This article also spotlights the coopetition dynamics of the platforms.

During the last decade, MedTech companies started to invest in building digital healthcare platforms to maintain their competitiveness in the Digital Economy. However, launching a new digital platform business revealed several challenges that MedTech incumbents must overcome, including value impedance. This is caused by digital transformation gaps, which, when left unmanaged, can stall digital healthcare platforms' growth and even lead to their demise. This article distills four dynamic capabilities: sensing the internal environment, value-capturing through connectedness, orchestrating silos, and transforming organizational boundaries. These mitigate value impedance and bestow competitive advantage to MedTech incumbents' digital platform business.

Whether it's mobile phones or autonomous cars or telemedicine, a well-functioning robust 5G ecosystem will require licensing executives to have a deep understanding of the need for timely licensing to support technology development and adoption. It is important that the parties to patent licensing agreements understand that value doesn't depend on the numerosity of patent portfolios, but on use value. The ecosystem is impaired when parties to licensing transactions are recalcitrant and advance bogus indicia of value. The 5G stakes are sufficiently high that top management oversight is likely required.

Resilient companies go beyond traditional forecasting and risk-assessment exercises when formulating strategy. They actively sense threats and opportunities early on, organize in response, capture value by revising business models and restructuring relationships, and renew the organizational capabilities needed to create and capture value.

Open innovation has become well established as a new imperative for organizing innovation. In line with the increased use in industry, it has also attracted a lot of attention in academia. However, understanding the full benefits and possible limits of open innovation still remains a challenge. We draw on strategic management theory to describe some of these benefits and limits. More specifically, we develop a dynamic capabilities framework as a way to better understand the strategic management of open innovation, which can then help to better explain both success and failure in open innovation. With this background, as guest editors we introduce select papers published in this Special Section of California Management Review that were originally presented at the fifth annual World Open Innovation Conference, held in San Francisco, California, in December of 2018.

The world in which today's businesses operate has become not only riskier but also more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA). Organizations that hew too closely to traditional ways of operating will be hampered in their ability to succeed. In contrast, those that focus on new product and process developments coupled with business model innovation will leverage their dynamic capabilities. An essential overlay is entrepreneurial leadership from top management teams. Strong dynamic capabilities are impossible without it. This article examines how business model innovations, dynamic capabilities, and strategic leadership intertwine to help organizations thrive in VUCA worlds.

"Organizational agility" is often treated as an immutable quality, implying that firms need to be in a constant state of transformation. However, this ignores that such transformations, while often essential, come at a cost. They are not always necessary, and may not even be possible. This article explores agility at a more fundamental level and relates it more specifically to dynamic capabilities. It demonstrates that it is first essential to understand deep uncertainty, which is ubiquitous in the innovation economy. Uncertainty is very different from risk, which can be managed using traditional tools and approaches. Strong dynamic capabilities are necessary for fostering the organizational agility necessary to address deep uncertainty, such as that generated by innovation and the associated dynamic competition. This article explores the mechanisms by which managers may calibrate the required level of organizational agility, deliver it cost effectively, and relate it to strategy.

This special issue draws on a range of intellectual roots-ranging from financial economics to organization theory, to design theory, and to human cognition. The goal of this special issue is to bring scholars from different disciplines together with practitioners who have had success applying the framework so as to help other managers lead their organizations to higher levels of performance.

The systematic integrated management of intellectual property (IP) is a recent phenomenon. This is despite the fact that intellectual property has been around for several centuries. Today, matters are more complicated, and integrated IP management is required. By integrated IP management we mean not only that the various forms of intellectual property (patents, trade secrets, trademarks, copyright) are managed together, but that intellectual property management is in turn integrated with overall business model design and corporate strategy. Integrated management is more than simply establishing a licensing model, or manufacturing a product that incorporates new invention.

Increasingly, commercializing new technological innovations means drawing on multiple inventions spread across various firms. In multi-invention contexts (such as smartphones), a single person or company rarely invents and patents all the components of a commercially viable product. Success requires that companies choose the right business model, manage their patent strategies, and align their business model and company strategies. Firms must choose between integrated business models (assembling as many complementary technologies and commercialization assets as possible within the firm) and non-integrated business models (combining inventions with those of others through component or licensing market relationships). <br><br>After selecting a business model, firms need to implement a patent strategy, which can be broadly categorized as either a) proprietary, where the firm seeks to stake out and defend a proprietary market advantage; b) defensive, where the firm may not wish to use patents to gain a competitive advantage, but needs to not be put at a competitive disadvantage by other firms’ patents; and c) leveraging, where the firm relies on using a patent’s power to prevent others from using the invention, thus enabling the firm to collect revenue, influence a technology, or close business deals. The article concludes by highlighting the importance of firms developing and aligning patent strategies with business models from the beginning, not merely on an ad hoc basis.

More than ever, commercializing new patent-based products requires drawing on multiple inventions typically spread among a variety of organizations. Success requires overcoming the organizational barriers and transaction costs involved with accessing intellectual property. Innovators must also evaluate how best to appropriate value from the unique combinations that they create. This article presents a framework that provides ways of approaching both these challenges. These include a set of guidelines to assist managers in choosing from among three types of commercialization arrangements: licensing, componentization, and integration. This article then explores three strategies for appropriating the value of the innovator's own patent(s): proprietary, defensive, and leveraging. The choice of a strategy determines the scope of the intellectual property portfolio that needs to be assembled to best capture value. Four case studies demonstrate the application of the key theoretical concepts in real-world situations.

This article presents the Dynamic Capabilities Framework, which gives a prominent intellectual infrastructure for both theoretical and applied analyses of strategic management and other issues facing business makers. The popular management theory outlined here discusses the growing importance of intangible assets, the differences between intangible and physical assets, and the three clusters of activities and adjustments that define dynamic capabilities — sensing, seizing, and transforming — as illustrated with the example of various Apple products.

Although unknown to most CEOs, at least until his recent recognition by the Nobel Economics Prize Committee, Oliver Williamson has had a large impact on management theory and practice. There are many organization and strategy questions where his research is highly relevant. Williamson has spent much of his career trying to understand how things ought to be organized to promote efficiency, minimize manageable contractual risk, and achieve profitability. He developed transaction cost economics as a framework to assist managers in making critical strategic decisions.

Capturing value from innovation requires innovators to figure out how to blunt inroads into the profit stream by imitators, customers, suppliers, and other providers of complementary products and services. In making strategic decisions around technology commercialization, managers often assume that the intellectual property environment and the architecture of the industry are beyond their control. This need not be so. Shows how managers can shape both the appropriability regime and the architecture of the industry in ways that can benefit the innovator by blunting the actions of others who may endeavor to tap into the stream of profits generated by innovation. Even small firms can play important roles. Tools include putting information into the public domain, helping to shape standards, and promoting modularity.

Champions of virtual corporations urge managers to subcontract anything and everything. And because several high-profile corporate giants have been outperformed by more nimble, "networked" competitors, the idea of the virtual organization is tantalizing. Many executives have come to believe that a company that invests in as little as possible will be more responsive to a changing marketplace and more likely to attain global competitive advantage. But is that really the best way to organize for innovation? In this HBR article from 1996, Henry Chesbrough and David Teece argue that the virtual corporation has been oversold. Innovation is not monolithic. For some innovations, joint ventures, alliances, and outsourcing can play a useful role. But for others, they are inappropriate--and strategically dangerous. The authors present a framework to help managers determine when to innovate by going virtual, when to form alliances, and when to rely on internal development. They provide a range of cases to illustrate how to match organizational strategy to the type of innovation being pursued. Long-term success requires considerable and sustained investment within a company.

The increasing liberalization of markets coupled with the creation of new markets for intermediate products is stripping firm-level competitive advantage back to its fundamental core: difficult to create and difficult to imitate intangible assets. This article explores these developments and elucidates implications for the management of intellectual capital inside firms.

Innovation and the management of intellectual capital are playing an increasingly important role in competition in high-technology industries. To operate in markets where innovation is cumulative, such as in electronics and semiconductors, firms frequently need to engage in extensive licensing and cross-licensing. This need is amplified by recent increases in the strength of patent protection and by the more active licensing stance of intellectual property owners. A high-quality patent portfolio not only reflects the firm's inventive capacity, but may significantly increase its cross-licensing bargaining ability and reduce royalty payments. In addition, it may directly contribute to its product and process innovation.