Digital ecosystems and their influence on business relationships

Digitalization is a prevailing force in the marketplace and unquestionably a key topic on the strategic agenda of many firms (e.g., Balsmeier and Woerter 2019; Trischler and Li-Ying 2023). Alongside this, research into managing digitalization has also strongly increased in recent years (Svahn et al. 2017; Ritter and Pedersen 2020).

Hofacker et al. (2020, p. 1162) claim “Artificial intelligence, blockchain, data security/integrity, Internet of Things, and big data analytics are just some possible digital trends that can shape how B2B relationships are understood and managed”. The adoption of digital technologies permeates nearly all aspects of modern business and introduces new managerial challenges.

Despite this growing interest, the number of works focusing on business-to-business (B2B) exchanges remains limited (Obal and Lancioni 2013; Pagani and Pardo 2017; Gomes et al. 2022; Matt et al. 2023; Tsytsyna and Valminen 2024) and many phenomena remain unexplored or insufficiently examined.

Our study focuses on digitalization and its effects on business relationships, with a specific emphasis on how the development of digital business ecosystems (DBEs) shapes these relationships. At this point, it is crucial to define the theoretical lens adopted and how relationships and DBEs are conceptualized.

Business relationships have been studied since the 1970s within the scope of a stream of research denominated the IMP (Industrial Marketing and Purchasing) approach, a framework within business-to-business (B2B) marketing where the unit of analysis is primarily relationships established and developed between buyers and sellers (Håkansson 1982; Turnbull and Valla 1986). Relationships can be defined as an “interdependent process of continuous interaction and exchange between at least two actors” (Holmlund and Tornroos 1997, p. 304). Interaction is considered the essence of inter-company relationships, entailing reciprocal behavior between at least two actors involved in the relationship. Moreover, some form of exchange is always present, whether through the transfer of a product, service, communication, etc., encompassing both tangible and intangible entities. The key difference between the transactional and relational modes lies in the assumption of reciprocal interaction and mutual influence among the parties engaged in an exchange (Möller and Wilson 1995).

The development of business relationships is our fundamental unit of analysis that occurs in settings, in business ecosystems, and we build upon the argument that it is essential to examine and understand the relationships between participant firms in ecosystems. Relationships are key strategic assets, essential for the way firms operate, innovate and compete in interconnected industrial networks (e.g., Håkansson and Snehota 1995).

The term “ecosystem” in a business context is relatively recent and was popularized by Moore (1993) in a seminal Harvard Business Review article. It utilizes ecological metaphors to illustrate the evolving interactions and interdependencies among firms, competitors, and partners. It explores similarities between species in natural ecosystems and business environments.

Furthermore, Digital Business Ecosystems (DBEs) have evolved from early business ecosystems to a technology-driven understanding. In this study, we adopt Senyo et al. (2019, p. 53) conceptualization of business digital ecosystems as a “socio-technical environment of individuals, organisations and digital technologies with collaborative and competitive relationships to co-create value through shared digital platforms”. Moreover, we focus on two of the main characteristics of DBEs as defined by these authors, namely: platform and symbiosis (Senyo et al. 2019).

The term symbiosis is used to describe the mutually beneficial relationships among the various actors (companies, individuals, and technological platforms) that interact within the ecosystem. Furthermore, the platformization of industrial processes and structures is an increasing reality (e.g., Barile et al. 2022) and the interdependence between the DBE actors, processes, and technologies are tackled in this study through the ARA (Actors, Resources, and Activities) model (Hakansson and Snehota 1995).

The ARA model provides a robust framework for analyzing B2B industrial networks and suggests that business relationships and interconnections can be described in terms of activity links, resource ties and actor bonds (Hakansson and Snehota 1995). Activity links refer to the technical, administrative, commercial, and other operational processes of a firm, which may be linked to those of another firm as their relationship develops. Resource ties connect various resource factors (technological, material, knowledge resources and other intangibles) between firms, emerging as an outcome of their relationship’s development and serving as a resource for each company. Actor bonds represent the connections between individual or corporate actors, shaping their perceptions of others and themselves within the relationship. Through interaction, bonds are formed, allowing the nature of the relationship to evolve.

As such, the profile of a relationship in terms of activity links, resource ties and actor bonds inserted in a Digital Business Ecosystem (DBE) leads to the formulation of this study’s research questions as follows: (1) How does the development of digital business ecosystems enhance collaboration and influence the activities of participating companies? (2) How does the development of digital business ecosystems influence the combination of resources among companies? (3) What is the role of IoT, Big Data, and Digital Platforms in the interaction among actors involved in a digital business ecosystem?

Thus, within the research setting of DBEs, the nature of business relationships as described through the ARA framework constitutes our primary unit of analysis. As argued, how digitalization affects relationships, particularly within the B2B realm is the main concern of this study. The actors in the ARA Model help explain the relationships, interactions, and behaviors within the DBE context. By studying their activity links, resource ties, and actor bonds, we gain insights into the social dynamics, information flow, resource distribution, influence, and overall network structure. This understanding is valuable for identifying key actors, predicting behaviors, improving collaboration, and optimizing relationship outcomes. Additionally, we extend the traditional ARA construct by exploring how it evolves within DBEs, offering new insights into the IMP theoretical interaction approach.

It is contended that the use of the ARA Model and the grasping of relationships, emphasizing its role as key strategic assets, within the setting of DBEs is a main contribution of this study. We underscore that studying business relationships between actor participants of a DBE, analyzing their activities and resources is still a challenge, both theoretically—within the scope of the IMP Group realm—and empirically. Although extant studies conceptualize business ecosystems, they have paid limited attention to the relationships among participants (Tsujimoto et al. 2018).

DBEs, as technology-driven business ecosystems, seek to establish sustainable growth through complementary relationships between participants. Key benefits include cost reduction, lower network latency, greater flexibility in forging new connections within shorter time frames, and accelerated time-to-market. Furthermore, this study highlights that as industries continue digitalization, interconnection increasingly depends on digital business ecosystems. Similar to biological ecosystems, DBEs emphasize symbiotic relationships and the central role of keystone actors, herein termed “magnet actors.” These entities—such as multitenant data centers—constitute the technological infrastructure that interconnects other actors and facilitates digital flows. A notable conclusion is that these magnet actors serve as essential “building blocks” that deliver value to customers and ensure their competitive positioning in the market.

In essence, DBEs are not just a technological shift—they represent a fundamental change in how businesses interact, innovate, and compete. Thus, a brief review on digital ecosystems and digital business ecosystems (DBEs) is first outlined. Further, since studying their effects on business relationships helps organizations to thrive in this new digital landscape, a section of business relationships and networks is presented. Herein, the ARA model is selected as the most adopted on business relationships stressing effective collaboration (Håkansson and Snehota 1995). Finally, a section presenting our research framework is put forward providing an argument that links DBEs and the ARA Model. As stated by Pagani and Pardo (2017, p. 186) “as far as we know, the network approach of markets has not been discussed with a purpose of reporting on the general transformation of markets due to digital technologies”, thus literature still lacks studies exploring the role of digital technologies and their influence on interaction.

2.1 Digital ecosystems and digital business ecosystems (DBE)

The ecosystem construct was proposed by Moore’s (1993, 1996) seminal contributions as a metaphor for joint value creation by firms (Gomes et al. 2022). As stated by Barile et al. (2022, p. 468) corporate ecosystems are “economic communities that produce goods and services of value for customers who are members of the ecosystem”. However, the diffusion of the term ecosystem in the management literature has faced criticism due to a range of factors, such as the lack of elaboration on the similarities and distinctions between natural and business ecosystems or the use of the prefix “eco” (e.g., denoting the study of ecosystems and their interrelationships, focusing on the interactions between organisms and their environment)—e.g., Oh et al. (2016).

Thus, it is relevant, as in Barile et al. (2022), to emphasize the parallelism and differences between natural and business ecosystems. Both natural and business ecosystems enclose: “(i) a plurality of nested actors with interdependent behaviours and purposes that coevolve through complex (i.e., sometimes unpredictable and nonlinear) interactions; (ii) the leverage of both competitive and collaborative mechanisms for regulating the relationships between the actors; and (iii) the emerging nature of the ecosystem itself, which is a phenomenon whose characteristics are not possessed by any of its constituent elements and that manifest themselves only by virtue of the interaction between the elements.” (Barile et al. 2022, p. 468). However, by the presence and actions of human beings, two differentiating characteristics prevail: technology and institutions. Technology is used to analyze and transform the environment. In contrast, natural ecosystems do not involve technology, and their evolution and functioning are shaped by natural processes rather than by deliberate human intervention. Institutional structures are also a main difference when human beings are present through the existence of human-made rules such as “formal rules, informal constraints, and their enforcement characteristics rooted in human beliefs that play a crucial role in economic performance” (Ibid).

While the issue of interdependence is essential in ecosystems, when introducing the term DBE the significance of digitalization is overwhelming in the ecosystem. Digital business ecosystems are networks of interconnected companies or products that collaborate to offer a wide range of services and products. In accordance to Pattinson and Johnston (2015) the B2B digital business ecosystem (DBE) encloses three layers: the Internet of Things (IoT) Networks, Big Data Networks, and Information Service Platforms.

Senyo et al. (2019) define a digital ecosystem as a socio-technical environment in which individuals, organizations, and digital technologies develop collaborative and competitive relationships to create value for their end customers through shared digital platforms. Value co-creation is one of the domains highly influenced by digitalization in business-to-business relationships (Hofacker et al. 2020). Also, in management studies, and according to Barile et al. (2022, p. 469) platform is defined as “a central element (core product, service or technology) around which a series of complementary products, services, and technologies can be developed”. Enclosing digitalization we refer to online frameworks or infrastructures that enable and simplify the exchange of information, services, or goods between different parties. Two main characteristics of a DBE are the existence of digital platforms and symbiosis (“interdependence between DBE partners, processes and technologies” - Senyo et al. 2019, p. 53).

More recently, authors such as Laudien et al. (2024) highlight that digital technologies, such as IoT, AI, and data analytics, lead to shorter business lifecycles, increased competition, and higher environmental dynamism. Additionally, digitalization fosters opportunities for collaboration and innovation and necessitates frequent business model adaptations. Companies are compelled to reconfigure their value propositions, resources, and customer engagement strategies to stay competitive in a rapidly changing digital landscape.

Moreover, contemporary insights into the evolving role of DBEs in business performance and innovation are provided by Felicetti et al. (2024) and Fernández-Portillo et al. (2024). The former authors clarify the role of digital innovation within entrepreneurial ecosystems, offering new paths for interdisciplinary and multi-level research. The article’s insights contribute to a better understanding of how entrepreneurial firms drive and adapt to digital innovation within broader digital business ecosystems. Fernández-Portillo et al. (2024) highlight the difference between digitalization and digital transformation (i.e., a broader, more comprehensive change that involves rethinking and redesigning business strategies and operations to leverage digital technologies more fully). Thus, digitalization involves integrating technology into specific business processes, whereas digital transformation involves incorporating technology throughout the entire business ecosystem.

In short, the rapid advancement of digital technologies has introduced complex challenges for both managers and academics. Martín-Peña et al. (2024) argue for a holistic understanding of the complex interrelationships between digital platforms, business ecosystems and new and sustainable business models.

2.2 Business relationships and networks

One stream of research that has largely contributed to the understanding of interfirm relationships in business markets is the IMP (industrial marketing and purchasing) group’s interaction approach (e.g. Håkansson 1982; Turnbull and Valla 1986). A core premise of this approach concerns business relationships as its unit of analysis and the assertion of these “dyadic processes as part of a wider ´network of interdependencies’” (cf. Ford and Mouzas 2010, p. 956).

The IMP group researches primarily marketing, purchasing and technological development in a business-to-business context. The IMP Group emphasizes interaction, relationships, and networks in industrial markets, shifting away from traditional models that focus on transactional or isolated buyer-seller interactions. Over time, the IMP Group has developed key models and frameworks that have profoundly influenced the study of industrial markets, relationships, and networks (e.g., Håkansson 1982; Håkansson and Snehota 1995; Ford et al. 2011).

Theoretically, we adopt the ARA model that captures how companies get connected. This model suggests that business relationships and interconnections can be described in terms of activity links, resource ties, and actor bonds (Håkansson and Snehota 1995). Thus, as companies engage in relationships, these activity links can assume different forms depending on their purpose. It can include sharing resources, knowledge, or expertise to achieve common goals. Moreover, it can be activities like procurement, distribution or logistics, information exchange, and communication, financial transactions, etc. The nature of these activity links will always depend on the relationships, their level of interdependence, and the context in which they take place.

Resources can be tangible or intangible. Tangible resources include raw materials, components, equipment, machinery, facilities, operating systems, products, and infrastructure. Intangible resources include human capital, knowledge, and expertise. Resources in general are understood as elements—whether material or symbolic—that may be used for attaining specific purposes (Hakansson and Snehota 1995). They are basic in supporting activities, and in relationship contexts, resource elements from various actors can be combined. Thus, “resources sustain activities” (Pagani and Pardo 2017, p. 186) and within relationships, resource elements from actors can be tied together. These relationships create resource ties, which then become a valuable asset for the companies.

Finally, actors, in the context of business relationships are the companies that are involved in that relationship. Bonds rise in relationships between actors as interaction grows. As stated by Hakansson and Snehota (1995, p. 192) “the actor dimension goes beyond those of activities and resources. Companies and individuals as actors in business networks are bounded in their perceptions, knowledge, and capabilities and therefore different from each other”.

In short, “actors interact with others to combine resources and link activities” (Pagani and Pardo 2017, p. 186). The study by these authors explores how digital technologies, particularly big data and analytics, influence relationships within business networks. The study highlights how digitalization transforms interactions among firms by changing the nature of information exchange, transparency, and collaboration. Furthermore, digital technologies reshape the structure and dynamics of business networks and improve efficiency and connectivity. The authors also argue that digital tools create new forms of resource interdependencies and value co-creation that have consequences for how firms can develop and manage relationships in an increasingly interconnected and data-driven business landscape.

2.3 Research framework on DBEs and business relationships

As referred, technology and institutions are building blocks of business ecosystems (Barile et al. 2022) and digitalization in B2B digital business ecosystem (DBE) encloses three layers: the Internet of Things (IoT) Networks, Big Data Networks, and Information Service Platforms (Pattinson and Johnston 2015). Companies involved in business and digital ecosystems can interact and exchange values, services, ideas, processes, and activities through Big Data and IoT technologies, with digital platforms serving as the infrastructure for these interactions to take place. These technologies play a crucial role in connectivity and the exchange of information between companies, enabling them to leverage real-time collected and generated data.

In this context, digital platforms play a crucial role by providing the necessary infrastructure to facilitate these interactions. These platforms allow companies to share data, collaborate, and efficiently combine resources. This enables companies to harness the capabilities of Big Data for analysis and strategic decision-making.

The ARA model, developed by Håkansson and Snehota (1995), is also selected as a reference framework for analyzing the interactions between companies. This model emphasizes the differentiation of actors, resources, and activities, providing a structure to understand how these elements combine and interact within a digital business ecosystem (DBE).

The following Fig. 1 highlights this study’s conceptual framework:

Research conceptual framework

Full size image

3.1 Research design

This research aims to understand how the development of DBEs influences business relationships, captured through the dimensions of activities, resources, and actors. Given limited theoretical and (particularly) empirical insights and the involvement of complex processes of interaction to be understood, we conducted an exploratory qualitative study. Thus, the qualitative research approach was selected for a number of reasons: (1) the investigation of a complex phenomenon is at stake; (2) the frame of reference reveals that a nested approach and the study of ambiguous, complex variables is required; (3) the interpretation of phenomenon based on the meanings that participants assign to it is deemed ats the most suitable. Hence, this aligns with the core objectives of qualitative research (Denzin and Lincoln 1994; Marshall and Rossman 1999).

Methodologically, we adopted a case study research strategy (Stake 1995; Yin 2018) given the nature of the “How” and “What” process research questions, the purpose of apprehending a dynamic, contemporary, and complex phenomenon inserted in its’ real-life context. As stated by Eisenhardt (1989, p. 534), “case study is a research strategy which focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings.” Case studies are defined as an exploration of a bounded system, limited by time and place, examined over time through detailed, in-depth data collection using multiple sources of information rich in context. One key advantage of case study research is that it allows for the detailed observation of multiple aspects of a phenomenon, examining their interrelations within the broader environment. This method leverages the researcher’s ability to interpret and understand complex processes (e.g., Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007; Langley 1999; Yin 2018). Our setting is a digital business ecosystem (DBE) and the unit of analysis of business relationships therein. Entailed are the embedded units of analysis of activities, resources, and actors—as adopted and defined in our conceptual framework.

As such, case studies offer a unique opportunity to gain a comprehensive view of this specific research subject. Additionally, case research enables the researcher to disentangle a complex set of factors and relationships, making it particularly suitable for capturing the dynamic nature, interdependencies, and complexity of relationships (Eisenhardt 1989). This approach was therefore chosen as the most appropriate research strategy for this study.

3.2 Sampling and data collection

A main concern in this study was to attain the perspective of a main player within the digitalization realm, namely a major digital infrastructure company (a multitenant data center provider where leading networks come together, hereafter named OCTOPUS). The case of the DBE was selected due to its revelatory potential (Siggelkow 2007) and privileged access to primary data. Hence, the case selection was purposeful (Miles et al. 2014) based on opportunity to collect data tailored to our study and, also importantly, have access to a large amount of secondary data regarding the company (e.g., industry reports, archival records, company reports, web data).

Extensive interviews were conducted with the country general manager, a senior global solution architect, and the head of the marketing department of OCTOPUS. Furthermore, two main relationship partners were also interviewed, namely a key account manager of a data center equipment manufacturer (hereafter EQUIP) and a senior manager of a telecommunications network (hereafter TELCOM).

The criteria for choosing these relationships were the strategic relevance of these relationships in the DBE and the intrinsic know-how of the interviewees. Thus, three IT and business ecosystem experts from OCTOPUS (the mentioned country general manager, the senior global solution architect, and the head of the marketing department), an industry representative from TELCOM, and a representative from EQUIP, participated in the investigation. The selection of OCTOPUS employees is justified by their minimum of 15 years of experience in Information Technology and Data Centers. TELCOM was chosen as an operator in the telecommunications sector, which plays an essential role in facilitating data traffic from applications to Data Centers, where companies’ data is stored for subsequent analysis and data collection. Lastly, EQUIP was selected as a multinational company specializing in the sales of equipment for Data Centers.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with a research script structured according to the conceptual framework in four main sections: (1) establishment of generic information and characterization of DBE; (2) activities; (3) resources; (4) actors. We phrased questions based on insights from prior literature, hence, initially a deductive approach is adopted. However, an inductive approach is greatly embraced since respondents were given the possibility to freely discourse about the questioned themes. Altogether five semi-structured interviews were conducted in a flexible, conversational style. The duration of these semi-structured interviews is as follows: country general manager (60 min), global solution architect (30 min), and head of marketing department (60 min)—for OCTOPUS; key account manager of EQUIP (45 min) and senior manager of TELECOM (30 min). Moreover, several informal interviews (more than 10) were held with the named OCTOPUS employees due to the proximity and collaboration with the company held by one of the researchers, thus enhancing pre-understanding which is valuable for conducting research (Gummensson 1988).

Secondary data was also a main source of evidence in this research. Confidential internal and external documents, industry reports, and internet-based companies’ information were used as means to enhance validity through triangulation (Yin 2018). Reliability was based on a thorough case study protocol and conceptual chain of evidence (Yin 2018).

Regarding data analysis, a within-case analysis (Miles and Huberman 1994) was conducted, meaning that the empirical evidence was organized according to the embedded units of analysis (as defined at the outset in our conceptual framework, i.e., the generic information and characterization of DBE, activities, resources, and actors). Results are outlined and discussed according to these sub-units of analysis and comparisons are made towards referenced theoretical studies. Finally, it was important to return to the study’s setting (DBE) and the relationships therein. Thus, based on the patterns and/or explanations arising from the within-case analysis at the embedded units of analysis level, an interpretative analysis at the case level was conducted (Miles and Huberman 1994).

To finalize, we enumerate a number of case study tactics we employed to better secure this study’s quality criteria: (1) construct validity through the usage of multiple sources of evidence and having the respondents review the case study report; (2) external validity by usage of theory in a single-case study; (3) reliability by use of case study protocol and maintaining a chain of evidence organized along the embedded-units of analysis throughout (Yin 2018).

The case description is organized, as mentioned, according to the proposed framework. Thus, we first present the main player of the DBE (OCTOPUS) that shapes relationships with other entities (such as EQUIP and TELCOM). Relationships are analyzed through the lens of activities, resources and actors. First, we provide a brief introduction to the companies involved. Then, we present the results, focusing on how digitalization impacts activities, resources, and actors, using primarily an inductive approach. Citations are used throughout and are presented in italic form.

OCTOPUS connects the world’s leading companies to their customers, employees, and partners in over 52 markets, while providing access to the world’s top cloud providers. OCTOPUS interconnection platform includes more than 200 data centers in 25 countries and hosts a business ecosystem with over 9800 companies worldwide. Thanks to its platform, OCTOPUS offers an advanced portfolio of interconnection services and solutions, allowing businesses to securely scale their digital infrastructure, regardless of their location.

EQUIP is a global specialist in energy management and automation, operating in more than 100 countries and offering integrated solutions for various market segments. The group operates in the fields of energy and infrastructure, industrial processes, automation, data centers, and networks, and has a strong presence in residential applications.

TELCOM is a leading mobile telecommunications provider in an African country with a GSM system, a technology solution that has proven to be highly viable for national expansion. TELCOM has over 8 million customers and serves as a hub for telecommunications between African and European countries.

4.1 Digital business ecosystems context

With the increasing digitalization of business relationships, digital business ecosystems are gaining prominence in the technology industry. In this context, when the interviewees were asked about what they consider to be a digital business ecosystem, the definitions varied, and different characteristics were addressed. According to OCTOPUS Solutions’ Architect, it means “a set of digitally native companies that have joined together and have a presence in a particular location.” OCTOPUS Marketing Director defined it as follows:

“(…) it is a link that exists between different entities and the synergy that can exist among these actors belonging to the same ecosystem. In other words, it is a group of companies belonging to the same field of activity that need to work together to provide their services.”

The country General Director of OCTOPUS shares a similar viewpoint to the one expressed by the Marketing Director, defining it as “a point of interconnection where various players and stakeholders come together and interact with each other to form and provide simple, fast digital businesses with an associated time-to-market advantage.”

Further, EQUIP’s key account manager views digital ecosystems as involving complex interactions between various companies, whether they are startups or medium to large entities, where each participant has a specific role in the success of the system. This system brings together actors and jointly serves the market, achieving a level of success that would not be possible if they were operating in isolation.

Regarding the characteristics, they vary according to the ecosystem in question, and since each company has different needs, they will belong to different ecosystems, according to all the interviewees. However, there are some common characteristics present in all ecosystems for two of the interviewees. According to OCTOPUS Marketing Director and Solutions Architect, some actors are more sensitive and critical than others within the same ecosystem and act as magnets, attracting more participants to the ecosystem. The Solutions Architect cited the example of the financial ecosystem formed within the New York Stock Exchange, where NASDAQ plays a fundamental role in the existence and maintenance of this ecosystem, and mentioned that “in addition to being a player capable of attracting new companies, any entity that wants to operate in that ecosystem necessarily needs to join in that location,” and concluded by stating that “each ecosystem has its particularities, protocols, and distinct needs.”

According to the Solutions Architect, for some companies, such as in the financial ecosystem, where banks and stock exchanges operate, network latency within this ecosystem is the most important factor. For example, “news published by a media outlet can impact the stock values of various companies, and fast data processing is crucial in this type of ecosystem for quick decision-making.”

For other ecosystems, the needs may vary. OCTOPUS Marketing Director complements the previous opinion and states that for some ecosystems, critical factors may include costs, performance, security, and even regulatory compliance for certain actors. Finally, for OCTOPUS country General Director, “the fact that ecosystems increasingly encompass cross-industry sectors allows for the exchange of the largest possible amount of information with speed, resilience, and involvement of actors from various industries.” EQUIP’s representative also emphasizes other essential factors, stating “trust and clear rules, are the foundation for the proper functioning of an ecosystem.”

To illustrate an example of a company and the importance of the digital ecosystem it belongs to, OCTOPUS’s Solutions Architect mentioned the example of a clothing store that used to manage all its processes manually and in-person in a physical store. He stated that when this store decided to migrate its processes to the digital realm:

“All of its processes became digitized, and now its customers can choose the size, define the shipping method, and make online payments, while the business owner can manage all relationships with suppliers and organize raw materials online.”

Therefore, due to the complex process of integrating information required in a digital business, companies often cannot manage everything in isolation and on their own, needing to rely on other digital actors to deliver excellent service. The Solutions Architect stated that “many times, these companies will need a cloud provider to store customer data, a telecommunications operator to connect to servers, and card processors to handle their payments.”

Considering the advantages of ecosystems, still using the example of the clothing store, he mentioned that “for efficient process management, it is necessary to have integrated and close communication with suppliers in the textile, transportation, card machine, and delivery areas.” Other advantages mentioned generally by all the interviewees were greater agility, the ability to scale quickly, and the possibility of making processes more dynamic through digital ecosystems.

Regarding the challenges in building these ecosystems, companies need to ensure that the flow of information is secure and that there is no misuse of data. Therefore, topics such as cybersecurity and information security were identified as the main challenges, according to the TELCOM senior manager. TELCOM’s interviewee also mentioned the challenge of orchestrating external partners, as “there is no hierarchical control within an ecosystem.”

Regarding the exchange of value between companies in a digital ecosystem, OCTOPUS’s Marketing Director mentioned the possibility of data exchange among companies. For OCTOPUS’s Solutions Architect and Country General Manager, digital ecosystems enable network effects, meaning that the more participants are present in an ecosystem, the greater the value generation. According to the latter, “unlike a product life cycle that has a period of maturity and decline, digital ecosystems generate more value for all actors involved as the ecosystem thrives.”

Concerning partnerships and their importance within ecosystems, each interviewee emphasized different characteristics. For EQUIP’s representative, the success of partnerships is proportional to the advantages offered to customers. She stated that:

“In the past, business relationships were conducted solely on a transactional basis, where suppliers delivered complete solutions to customers. Nowadays, the construction of solutions needs to involve multiple companies, with extensive customer interaction and much greater complexity.”

EQUIP’s interviewee concluded by stating that “digital business ecosystems are responding to the need for the digital transformation of companies, where each entity contributes with its solution, creating a complex solution. In these solutions, companies need to have the ability to modify processes almost just in time, as well as anticipate market changes and adapt to existing processes.”

OCTOPUS’s General Director complemented this view and stated that “previously, relationships between companies and customers were unidirectional, but with the evolution of digital ecosystems, all actors generate and consume information simultaneously, and the flow of information has become bidirectional.”

The relationship between digital ecosystems and digital transformation was explained by the Solutions Architect using an analogy of a journey, classifying digital transformation not as the final destination but as a journey where digital ecosystems are fundamental companions for achieving success. With a similar viewpoint, OCTOPUS’s General Manager stated that one is a result of the other, and both contribute to the existence of value within digital ecosystems. He concluded by stating that “digital transformation is the reason we are seeing digital ecosystems emerge, to create a fully interconnected world in a vast network of communication and data exchange among different actors.”

When asked about the importance of digital platforms, the Marketing Director defined them as “a place where actors can easily connect to make the system real and functional, and as a result, it becomes efficient for companies, creating an environment conducive to ecosystem growth and communication among all companies.”

For OCTOPUS’s Country General Manager, “the digital platform is a foundation for interconnection capacity between companies, where immediate access to players is possible whenever needed.” In contrast, the Solutions Architect defines it as “a set of buyers and sellers who can purchase computing services.”

According to all the interviewees, IoT and Big Data have tremendous potential and impact processes in different industries nowadays and increasingly in the future. According to OCTOPUS’s country general manager:

Big Data influence the paradigms of new businesses, although it is not just a futuristic topic, as companies from different sectors are already using it to analyze and extract information from collected data. It will influence not only current businesses but also new ones, many of which we cannot anticipate today.

Regarding IoT, according to the Marketing Director, it will depend on the industry being discussed, but one industry that will undoubtedly benefit from its advantages is the automotive industry, which is already being impacted by smart vehicles. He stated, “In the future, cars will not only be a means of transportation but also a tool for data collection and even efficient service provision.”

As an example of a digital ecosystem, the Marketing Director presented the E-payment ecosystem, illustrating the complexity involved and the dependencies among actors. When an online payment needs to be made using a card, six categories need to process the transaction quickly: payment method, payment gateway, data collection, data analysis, acquirer, and financial institution. He then stated:

Many times, we think that when a payment is not authorized, the bank is responsible for the decision, but that is not actually what happens. It is the acquirer who is responsible for authorizing or not authorizing a payment. The companies operating in this sector are large corporations that bear the risk on behalf of the banks.

According to the same interviewee, “the mentioned categories need to be fully interconnected for the process to occur through the cloud and integration of IT platforms.”

Finally, OCTOPUS’s Marketing Director stated:

A comprehensive analysis of a digital ecosystem requires four steps: identifying the actors that belong to the ecosystem, classifying them in order of importance, understanding the dependencies, and identifying the players who exchange critical information. In the case of E-payment, the payment method, payment gateway, and acquirer were identified as the most sensitive and critical actors within this ecosystem, and therefore, it makes sense for them to be together in the same data center, as there is a need for quick responses between these players to authorize or decline a payment within seconds. This does not mean that financial institutions cannot be close to these critical actors, but it is not strictly necessary because when the acquirer authorizes the payment, the transfer of funds to the financial institution can take 3–4 h without any harm, but the payment authorization needs to be instantaneous.

4.2 Activities

Business activities are undergoing various changes with the digitalization of companies. Both internal activities and external activities (between business actors) are affected. Communication between clients and suppliers, and overall information exchanges between companies are done through digital platforms. In this regard, the processes of buying and selling, product development, and information sharing are linked to the exchange of data between companies within digital ecosystems.

The main benefit of this is the ability to collaborate in a faster and simpler manner in real time, impacting all activities and entities participating in a specific ecosystem. This fact justifies the growing importance of IT professionals, as they are responsible for all data exchange within different industries. According to the OCTOPUS country General Manager, the greatest benefit of activities within ecosystems is the ability to collaborate in a faster, simpler, more intuitive, and real-time manner. This affects the activities of all companies participating in the ecosystem. Furthermore, according to the same collaborator, the sales processes have changed and are now using digital platforms that require interaction with all partners within an ecosystem.

When asked about adaptation, the country General Manager stated:

(…) it is a mandatory factor for companies that wish to survive in the long term, and nowadays, there is a new component, which is the speed at which businesses need to adapt to new realities. Consumption models that were once lengthy processes are now changing to one-click distance consumption models.

According to this same respondent, digital ecosystems can improve performance and profit by enabling faster and lower-cost process implementation, automatically impacting financial results instantly. Further, in the opinion of EQUIP’s Key Account Manager, another important factor for activities is the long-term trust relationship between suppliers and customers and loyalty to create competitive advantages that consequently affect the financial performance of companies.

4.3 Resources

The utilization of resources within digital ecosystems was perceived differently by the interviewees. According to the country General Manager of OCTOPUS, in the past, businesses were primarily linked to intangible resources. However, in today’s context, with new consumption models, tangible and intangible resources are interconnected within a digital ecosystem. He states: “Today, resources are partly intangible, such as the intellectual knowledge associated with consumed services. However, these resources also have a tangible infrastructure behind them that supports digital ecosystems. Further, the ease of access to different suppliers within ecosystems simplifies processes, creating the perfect environment for innovation.”

Stressed by OCTOPUS’s Marketing Director is the fact that the exchange of resources within digital ecosystems is solely limited by the law. As referred: “Nowadays, there are various ways to innovate. However, human beings are at the center of all these processes, and nothing can be done against people’s freedom. Thus, there is always a limit between what technology is capable of and the freedom of individuals.”

He concludes by stating that over time, the discussion surrounding technology usage has expanded beyond strictly technical IT matters. It is now debated in different fields of study such as psychology, philosophy, and regulation, making it a multidimensional resource for the business decision-making process.

4.4 Actors

Actors are companies, individuals, networks, or groups of companies that engage in activities typically by combining resources with other actors—as referred by our study’s respondents. Actors in a DBE should regard themselves as peers that deliver value to customers and nurture each other’s place in the market. However, the role of the detainer of the tangible resource of technological infrastructure, i.e. OCTOPUS was emphasized. This actor allows, through the layers of digitalization, the establishment of connections between actors that were not connected before. Digital resources support new bonds between actors.

Further, according to the country General Manager of OCTOPUS, technologies always bring new opportunities for businesses, and this will be no different with e.g., IoT and Big Data. He states:

In the future, new actors will emerge, adding capacity, resilience, and different ways of operating and interacting at the enterprise level with all actors sharing a specific digital platform. Regarding collaboration between machines and humans, new challenges will arise, and various functions will become more collaborative with information originating from IoT. All this proximity will lead humans to better understand themselves.

Also, for the Marketing Director of OCTOPUS, “there will be increased interaction between people and objects.” An example is the rise of smart devices that proactively detect new diseases in the healthcare sector. In the future, when a patient exhibits symptoms of a disease, a smart device will send an alert, prompting the individual to seek medical attention.

5.1 Digital business ecosystems context

Definitions of DBEs converge among this study’s respondents all somewhat emphasizing “the existence of links or points of interconnection where actors come together and seek synergies to form their ecosystem” (OCTOPUS’s Marketing Director). Aligned with theory, technology, and institutions (actors) are key in every DBE (Senyo et al. 2019), however, it was also stressed that some actors are more sensitive and critical than others within an ecosystem. The role of “magnet” actors was stressed by both OCTOPUS’s Marketing Director and Solutions Architect. These “magnet” actors attract others to the DBE since the need to operate in that DBE requires connections with the magnet (e.g., NASDAQ in a financial ecosystem). Further, this “attraction” potential to the DBEs contributes to the relative importance of the ecosystem and symbiotic power.

As to the layers of digitalization (Pattinson and Johnston 2015), IoT, Big Data Networks, and digital platforms are all regarded as key to all DBE’s evolvement. Furthermore, according to the interviewees, digital ecosystems are more complex and involve other elements and characteristics whose main objective, according to the country General Manager of OCTOPUS, is the “ability to create simpler, faster businesses with a shorter time-to-market.” Each IT ecosystem has distinct protocols, needs, and particularities, and what may be an important variable in one ecosystem is not necessarily the most important element in others. For instance, latency in a payment ecosystem may be considered the most important factor, but in another ecosystem, it could be security or performance.

5.2 Activities

Digital ecosystems empower collaboration and influence business activities through their capacity for real-time communication and information sharing among diverse actors. This collaboration spans entities across various industries and relies on digital platforms as the foundation for all interactions, seamlessly integrating data between different companies in real-time.

One notable advantage of this paradigm shift is the ability to foster real-time collaboration in a faster and more streamlined manner, profoundly impacting all entities and activities involved within a given ecosystem. Thus, an excessive number of connections that could be detrimental as it may hinder the swift reconfiguration of activities when the situation calls for rapid changes (according to Håkansson and Ford 2002), no longer applies within this DBE realm. Main benefits arising from these activities include increased performance and profitability (through the rapid implementation of processes with reduced costs), thereby instantaneously impacting financial outcomes.

In line with the relevance given to adaptation and trust as key characteristics of business relationships (Håkansson and Snehota 1995), findings corroborate that both remain crucial factors for effective ecosystem functioning. As affirmed by the Key Account Manager of EQUIP: “The presence of trust among actors involved in an ecosystem, as well as customer loyalty, are ways to create competitive advantages, which consequently enhance company revenues.”

5.3 Resources

Considering that resources underpin activities and are a combination of tangible and intangible elements (Ford et al. 2008), within a digital ecosystem, there are interconnections between resources. The country General Manager of OCTOPUS provides the example of intellectual knowledge as an intangible resource and IT infrastructures (which support ecosystems) as tangible resources. As stated by Håkansson and Snehota (1995), the combination of resources can be a source of innovation, which aligns with the interviewees’ opinions. According to OCTOPUS’s Marketing Director, there are different ways to innovate within a digital ecosystem, but no process should infringe upon people’s freedom, and he emphasizes that the law sets the limits for technological advancements.

Lastly, as stated by Håkansson and Ford (2002), an excess of connections between resources can be detrimental to business relationships when new combinations with different actors are required. However, DBE’s realm, characterized by flexibility and seamless communication among diverse actors in one place, can be the perfect environment for the almost instant sharing of resources and, consequently, the ideal environment for innovation.

5.4 Actors

Actors within a network of relationships are characterized by their control over certain resources as well as access to others, and through interaction, they can combine, develop, exchange, or destroy resources (Lenney and Easton 2009). In digital ecosystems, due to the ease of connectivity among diverse actors in one place, these characteristics remain consistent. Still, the role of the player that detains the main technological infrastructure (e.g., OCTOPUS) holds the foundation of DBE. Further, layers of digitalization such as IoT, Big Data, and digital platforms play a pivotal role in facilitating interaction among businesses.

According to Pattinson and Johnston (2015), IoT will not only transform networks but also the relationships among actors due to increased process automation and reduced dependence on humans. On the other hand, Big Data has emerged as a significant strategic tool for marketing, as data analysis provides valuable insights that can serve as a basis for innovation (Antons and Breidbach 2018). Digital platforms can facilitate transactions between different types of organizations and enable buyers and suppliers to interact in the market, even when they may not have otherwise connected.

The opinions of the interviewees align with the theory previously studied. The country General Manager of OCTOPUS affirms that in the future, “with the world of things communicating with all other things, the amount of information and insights from every area of human activity will be truly astonishing, impacting different sectors such as mobility, healthcare, and food.” According to the same interviewee, new actors will emerge, and IoT and Big Data will be such valuable resources that “companies that lack the capability to extract value from these new technologies are at risk of extinction.”

Finally, according to Håkansson and Ford (2002), an excessive interconnection between the same organizations can be detrimental when creating connections with different actors and greater flexibility is required. Digital ecosystems, due to their ability to form simpler and faster business relationships with a shorter time-to-market, are highlighted by OCTOPUS’s country General Manager as attributes that enable companies to have a greater potential for change and adaptation. These are important attributes for the digital transformation of companies.

6.1 Conclusions and main findings

As industries accelerate digitalization, the growth of interconnection increasingly relies on digital business ecosystems (DBEs).

Using a construction-based metaphor, the essential foundations of digital business ecosystems comprise major players such as OCTOPUS, with relationships therein functioning as a network of interdependent “building blocks” that deliver value to customers and reinforce their respective positions in the market. In other words, digital business ecosystems (DBEs) require a robust technology infrastructure led by key players that provide the underlying foundation to interconnect actors/participants and facilitate digital flows. Metaphorically, we use the denomination OCTOPUS to identify such a player in our researched DBE.

We underscore the centrality of OCTOPUS as an actor that creates and manages interdependencies through technology and, hence, becomes the host and establishes a commensalism^{Footnote 1} relationship with other actors in the DBE. Moreover, a successful DBE operates on a comprehensive technology stack that enables collaboration across multiple layers of digitalization.

This study has evidenced that digital ecosystems enhance collaboration and influence the activities and resource ties of companies through their ability to communicate and share information in real time between different actors. This collaboration encompasses entities from different industries and digital platforms, which integrate data across firms in real time. Many advantages are also attained by the actors inserted in digital ecosystems, such as cost reduction, less network latency (due to the proximity between the actors), flexibility in building new connections in a reduced time, faster time to market (due to the availability of several actors in the same place). The actors also seek to foster cooperative and competitive relationships between participating companies, where each entity can purchase or transact the services that suit them in a much simpler and easier way.

Actors add up to business relationships and can be used to assess, predict or explain the importance of the relationship. Further, as referred previously, the role of keystone species (biological ecosystems) and its’ parallel in DBEs lead to the identification and denomination of “magnet actors” (OCTOPUS) that stand as building blocks that deliver value to customers and secure the DBE - the relative importance of the ecosystem and its symbiotic power.

In sum, this study’s identification of a primary actor (OCTOPUS, a global multitenant data center) as a key strategic asset within DBEs, and its significant impact on business relationships, constitutes a major contribution. This finding has not been previously documented within the IMP literature—to the best of our knowledge.

To conclude, main findings, in connection to the study’s research questions, are:

• The development of DBEs primarily fosters collaboration rather than competition since dependency (even symbiosis) is stressed through technology influencing the activities of the actors. Real-time collaboration in a streamlined manner is made possible in the DBE realm. Within this setting, adaptation and trust remain crucial elements in the development of business relationships, ultimately contributing to positive outcomes, such as increased performance, higher profitability, and the establishment of competitive advantages.

• Resources exchanged among actors in DBEs encompass both tangible (IT infrastructures) and intangible (intellectual knowledge) assets. Seamless communication and enhanced flexibility among diverse actors facilitate the instantaneous sharing of resources, creating an optimal environment for innovation. However, technological advancements must not compromise individual freedoms, and regulatory frameworks must establish appropriate safeguards and boundaries.

• The use of digital technologies, conceptualized in our framework as layers of digitalization (IoT Networks, Big Data Networks, and Information Service Platforms), plays a critical role and must be expanded to incorporate digital transformation (DT). This expansion is necessary because relationships with internal and external actors undergo significant modifications. As process automation increases and human intervention decreases, interactions among actors are substantially altered. This transformation yields numerous advantages, including lower interaction costs, reduced network latency, enhanced flexibility in establishing new connections within shorter timeframes, accelerated time to market, greater agility, improved scalability, and more dynamic processes within digital ecosystems.

6.2 Theoretical implications and further research

The transformative power of digital business ecosystems influences how relationships are established and develop in terms of activities, resources and actors. Accordingly, this exploratory single-case study contributes to understanding the emergent dynamics of business ecosystems and relationships therein.

From a theoretical perspective, we contribute to the study of digitalization and its effects in a B2B context by adopting the IMP theoretical lens and the renowned ARA model for capturing the nature of relationships. It contributes to both researchers and practitioners with insights to navigate and optimize these relationships effectively.

The proposed research framework illustrates layers of digitalization and the differentiating aspects of technology and institutions. Further research is required to examine and expand upon these dimensions, clarifying their respective roles within digital business ecosystems. Additionally, the symbiotic nature of relationships in DBEs warrants deeper investigation.

Given the increasing reliance on automated processes and platform-driven coordination mechanisms, activities within the ARA model must be adapted to reflect this shift. Accordingly, this study contributes to knowledge by demonstrating how platform-driven coordination mechanisms positively influence business activities, ultimately enhancing performance and profitability.

This study also highlights that Digital Business Ecosystems (DBEs) present distinct challenges in governance, including the protection and management of intellectual property, adherence to regulatory requirements, and the addressing of ethical concerns. A deeper understanding of these challenges enables businesses to develop more effective strategies for navigating the complexities of DBEs.

6.3 Managerial implications

Digital ecosystems introduce new types of actors, such as platforms, algorithms, AI systems. This study contributes to the ongoing discourse on the redefinition of traditional actor roles within business networks, expanding the concept beyond firms and organizations to encompass non-human entities. Consequently, the role of these diverse actors, their relative importance, the identification of “magnet” actors, and their relationship dynamics with the technological infrastructure main player are of interest since they can provide important guidelines for managing effective DBEs.

DBEs are a reality and exist across a wide range of industries—at different stages of maturity. Much remains to be tackled in such a challenging interconnected world. The role of these main players and their locus of influence remains to be further investigated, still, this study contributes with some empirical insights—which are so difficult to attain given the inherent complexity of DBEs.

As digital ecosystems rely primarily on intangible resources, such as data and digital platforms, businesses must prioritize the acquisition and management of these digital assets. Developing essential digital competencies—including data analytics, AI, and digital infrastructure—is imperative for securing a competitive advantage. In practical terms, companies must be provided with strategic recommendations to ensure they invest in and manage the right capabilities to thrive within DBEs.

6.4 Limitations

This study is exploratory in nature and deals with underexplored phenomena such as digitalization and its effects on business relationships and development of DBEs within a B2B realm. Some key limitations regard the limited sample, albeit the exploratory nature. Findings are specific to the particular case and may not be representative of multiple contexts, meaning that generalizability is a limitation. Nevertheless, this revelatory case unveils the need to study more deeply the role of “magnet” actors across different DBE contexts. Opportunity and purposeful case selection can also be regarded as a limitation.

The inductive approach—although guided by the deductively derived frame of reference—carries inherent interpretation limitations, such as potential biases from interviewees’ perspectives and/or researcher bias in data interpretation. However, as previously mentioned, a range of specific tactics were employed to uphold the study’s quality standards.

All-in-all, these limitations highlight the importance of cautious interpretation of findings and the need for further research, potentially involving larger samples or additional cases, in order to build a more comprehensive understanding of the topic under investigation. Hence, the next steps in our research will lead to identifying and collecting more data on DBEs and relationships therein.