Search

Objective: Entrepreneurs are responsible for innovation, but they do not act in the vacuum, the greater the support for their action, the improve the chances of success. Startups - technology-based companies with high potential for growth and impact - are associated with the existence of entrepreneurial ecosystems that facilitate entrepreneurial action. This paper goal is to provide evidence that help to explain why startups fail in an emerging entrepreneurial ecosystem. Method: We perform exploratory research in which entrepreneurs whose startups failed in the emerging entrepreneurial ecosystem of Porto Alegre, Brazil, were interviewed. We complement the analysis with the collection of secondary data. Results: Building on Isenberg’s (2011) six domains, we generate ideas on how each of them in emergent entrepreneurial ecosystem may influence startup mortality. Our results indicate that emerging entrepreneurial ecosystem could be much better in avoiding the premature failure of startups. Policy and Finance are the most problematic domains, while culture, support, and markets are the three middle-ground dimensions. These last three need improvement, but they are not as critical as the first two. Contributions: This paper contributes to the entrepreneurial ecosystems literature by exploring how emergent ecosystems contribute for discontinuity of promising startups. Originality: Besides entrepreneurial mistakes, problems that are out of the entrepreneur control can also cause a venture's death (Cardon et al., 2011). Building on this, we use Isenberg's (2010; 2011) model for understanding the influence of the entrepreneurial ecosystem on the circumstances that entrepreneurs faced that determined their startup failure (Jenkins & McKelvie, 2016). Social Contributions: by better understanding why startups fail in emerging entrepreneurial ecosystems, we support policymakers in their focus on possible improvements of the features that seem most relevant to entrepreneurs. The public agents can then work to provide a better environment for future entrepreneurial endeavors.

Purpose – Innovation ecosystems can emerge and grow organically, but the process can also be managed through conscious intervention. Therefore, this study observes different motivations and expectations for each group of actors. The lack of alignment between actors could have a negative influence on the development of innovation ecosystems. This study aims to analyze the coordination strategies of the actors throughout the life cycle of innovation ecosystems. Design/methodology/approach – This study develops and proposes a model for coordinating innovation ecosystems based on the theoretical backgrounds of the ecosystem life cycle and ecosystem coordination. Findings – This study argues that each stage of an innovation ecosystem’s life cycle – inception, launching, growth and maturity – demands different coordination strategies. Initially, networks are simpler and thus the coordination issues are less difficult. However, as the ecosystem evolves and the complexity of the networks increases, a more sophisticated strategy, such as orchestration or choreography, is needed. Research limitations/implications – This is a theoretical study that recommends further research to test this model. Practical implications – The understanding of coordination and stages of the life cycle of an innovation ecosystem can guide actors in the design of strategies for developing of ecosystems. Social implications – The proposed framework could support strategies to engage civil society in actions to develop innovation ecosystems. Originality/value – This study presents a framework to understand the coordination strategies better, considering the stages of an innovation ecosystem’s life cycle.