Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A project ecosystem is a distinct type of ecosystem, consisting of a broad set of interdependent heterogeneous actors, associated with a focal project, who collectively enable value emergence beyond what was contracted. Project ecosystems differ from both project ecologies and project networks in that they only endure for the tenure of the focal project, and their emergent value is instantiated in strategic innovation, knowledge diffusion, and wider economic, social, and environmental impacts. Implications for project complementarities, evolution, and orchestration, with clear and concrete suggestions for future research, are discussed.

Keywords

project ecosystem value emergence project network project ecology project context

Introduction

Projects are not isolated undertakings as they are embedded in a complex set of related interorganizational activities in a changing environment (Fortin & Söderlund, 2023; Roehrich et al., 2023; Sydow & Windeler, 2020). In addition to the core project actors who are contracted for project delivery and their supply chain, there can be other actors such as universities, government, civil society, professional bodies, and other projects that influence project performance (e.g., MacAulay et al., 2023; Pelton et al., 2017). The institutional context also has an influence on projects (Biesenthal et al., 2018; Sydow & Staber, 2002). To date, the project management literature has primarily considered these contextual relationships through the notions of the project ecology (Grabher, 2001, 2004) and the project network (DeFillippi & Sydow, 2016; Manning, 2017; Windeler & Sydow, 2001).

A project ecology draws attention to the ongoing and enduring network of ties and relationships between the people, teams, firms, institutions, and epistemic communities involved in a project in a particular location (Grabher, 2001). For instance, Grabher’s (2002) original insights focused on new media projects in Central London, and subsequent research has investigated television production in Cologne and Berlin (Sydow, 2009) and construction in Stockholm (Hedborg & Gustavsson, 2020). In contrast, a project network is composed of independent, yet operationally interdependent actors, who maintain longer-term collaborative relationships beyond the time limitations of a particular project (Manning, 2010, 2017; Windeler & Sydow, 2001). For instance, Manning’s (2017) exposition focused on such project networks in film and television production and feature the ongoing relationships among actors after an individual project is completed (see also Windeler & Sydow, 2001).

While project ecologies and project networks have provided much needed insight into how project context can shape project outcomes, projects do not necessarily only deliver the value that was initially contracted (Gil & Fu, 2022; Lobo & Whyte, 2017; MacAulay et al., 2023). For instance, increasing digitalization has changed the velocity and nature of knowledge flows, creating new emergent value opportunities (Gradillas & Thomas, 2025). Furthermore, project actors no longer need to be colocated for value to emerge, allowing new types of actors to participate in novel value opportunities. However, project ecologies are location specific, and the modern project often consists of actors from around the world. Project networks, on the other hand, provide a useful approach to understanding the composition of the project itself, but do not systematically incorporate actors that are only indirectly related (if at all) to project delivery.

Seeking to move beyond these limitations, project management scholars have begun to adopt the project ecosystem (see, e.g., Brink, 2020; Jin et al., 2022; MacAulay et al., 2023). In these studies, the project ecosystem is a novel analytical approach to understanding project contexts, and how value emerges from a broader collection of actors than just those involved in the focal project. To do so, these scholars mostly leverage management-related ecosystem research, borrowing concepts and adapting them to temporal organizations (Brunet, 2022; Locatelli et al., 2023; Pinto, 2022). However, the project ecosystem has not been consistently defined or adopted and, as a conceptual abstraction of a phenomenon that cannot be directly observed, the project ecosystem requires clarity to be comprehensible (MacCorquodale & Meehl, 1948). For the project ecosystem to drive cumulative research, it needs clearly defined boundaries (Bacharach, 1989) and to be located among existing constructs so that scholars can “acknowledge the stream of logic on which they are drawing and to which they are contributing” (Sutton & Staw, 1995, p. 372).

Hence, this short article first reviews how the project ecosystem has been used in project management to date and argues that, despite definitional inconsistencies and conceptual conflations, there are similarities that provide the foundation for a theoretically grounded construct. Leveraging existing conceptualizations of ecosystems from management scholarship, a distinctive and coherent definition of the project ecosystem is proposed, followed by a detailed exposition of its main characteristics illustrated through the London Crossrail example. The project ecosystem is then clearly demarcated from other project constructs; its implications for our understanding of project complementarities, evolution, and orchestration are discussed, with clear and concrete suggestions for future research.

Ecosystems in Project Management

Perhaps the earliest mention of a project ecosystem in project management is in the work of Zhou and Zhang (2008, p. 725), who proposed the ‘construction project ecosystem’ as a “unit of various projects and the environment.” Drawing heavily from the notion of the biological ecosystem (Tansley, 1935), this conceptualization focused on how projects are not isolated, but locationally situated and are “connected with the external world [and] exchanges substance, energy and information with the complex ecosystem of nature, society and economy” (Zhou & Zhang, 2008, p. 726).

From this early conceptualization, a stream of project management literature has considered a project ecosystem to be an interdependent group of projects. For instance, Park (2016, p. 117) defined project ecosystems as “a group of projects with the same life cycle within an organization or industry …[whose] …interactions and interrelations impact the sustainability of projects.” Brink (2020), leveraging a triple helix perspective (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000), specifically considered project ecosystems as multiple projects delivering strategic innovations. In particular, Brink (2020, p. 7) included a broad range of heterogenous actors beyond the focal projects, including “industrial private enterprises working on … projects, universities developing new knowledge for innovative activities, and governmental bodies regulating and providing financial support.”

Others have considered the project ecosystem as the specific actors who participate in multiple projects. For instance, Scheepers and Whelpton (2018) considered a project ecosystem to comprise the resource pool (such as software developers) that is shared among multiple projects within an organization. Taking a slightly different perspective, Allf et al. (2022) considered an ‘ecosystem of projects’ as fundamental to understanding the dynamics of volunteer engagement across multiple projects. A similar notion is the ‘project constellation’ introduced by Eckartz et al. (2012) as the pattern of partners and sectors in a group of projects, for which complexity increased as the number of partners and sectors increased.

In contrast, another stream of project management literature has considered project ecosystems as the collection of interdependent actors centered on a focal project. For instance, Leviäkangas et al. (2016) introduced the ‘public–private project ecosystem,’ focusing on the financial and economic positioning of actors in specific public–private projects. For Leviäkangas et al. (2016, p. 223), a project ecosystem harnesses the “synergies of different companies and public actors together towards a common innovation [where there] is the shared fate of the involved actors and the need to understand an organization’s own role in the ecosystem.” A narrower view is from Lavikka et al. (2018) who, specifically considering the adoption of prefabrication techniques, suggested project ecosystems occur when project actors engage in systemic innovation that is broader than the specific project.

More recently, Jin et al. (2022, p. 646) introduced the ‘megaproject innovation ecosystem’ as “an equilibrating structure of multilateral sets of actors which are organized around a focal megaproject and embedded within suitable environmental conditions, in order to create and appropriate value through innovation.” Relatedly, MacAulay et al. (2023) introduced the ‘project innovation ecosystem,’ defined as a “formally designed temporary form of ‘meta-organization’ that is tightly coordinated by a focal project organization with the aim of using innovation to create new value to be captured by new members” (MacAulay et al., 2023, p. 3). Both these more recent approaches leverage the strategic management-focused innovation ecosystem (for recent reviews, see Jacobides et al., 2018; Thomas & Autio, 2020), analyzing how a focal project organization in conjunction with “organizations participating in the project as well as other collaborating organizations (e.g., professional institutions and universities)” (MacAulay et al., 2023, p. 14) can “create value through innovation” (Jin et al., 2022, p. 646).

A challenge for an ecosystem construct in project management is that these two streams of literature are inconsistent, with one considering a project ecosystem as group of projects (e.g., Brink, 2020; Park, 2016), and the other a project ecosystem as a group of actors centered on a focal project (e.g., Jin et al., 2022; MacAulay et al., 2023). There are also conceptual conflations, with Zhou and Zhang’s (2008) definition of a project ecosystem essentially identical to that of a project ecology, and some conceptualizations of project ecosystems are essentially extended or evolved project networks (e.g., Lavikka et al., 2018). Further complicating conceptual clarity, this earlier scholarship considers the project ecosystem to be both intraorganizational (e.g., Allf et al., 2022; Scheepers & Whelpton, 2018) and interorganizational (e.g., Brink, 2020; Jin et al., 2022).

However, both streams also present some commonalities. The first similarity is an emphasis on a broader collection of actors than those who are specific to the delivery of a focal project. For example, both Brink (2020) and MacAulay et al. (2023) explicitly identified universities and professional institutions as actors who enable value but are not necessarily part of the focal project. A second similarity is an emphasis on outcomes that are greater than the focal project itself. For instance, Lavikka et al. (2018), Jin et al. (2022), and MacAulay et al. (2023) consider strategic innovation as an outcome beyond the focal project. A third similarity is an emphasis on complementarity between the various heterogenous actors, a feature of almost all exemplars above (e.g., Jin et al., 2022; Leviäkangas et al., 2016; MacAulay et al., 2023; Zhou & Zhang, 2008).

Taken together, these inconsistent definitions and conflated conceptualizations of the project ecosystem suggest that for conceptual clarity and theoretical cumulativeness (Bacharach, 1989; MacCorquodale & Meehl, 1948; Sutton & Staw, 1995), a robust and coherent project ecosystem construct is required. The good news is that the commonalities among these conceptualizations provide the foundation for a theoretically grounded project ecosystem construct that leverages existing management conceptualizations of ecosystems (see, e.g., Jacobides et al., 2018; Thomas & Autio, 2020).

A Project Ecosystem Construct

In biology an ecosystem is a biotic community and its related physical environment (Tansley, 1935). Biological ecosystems focus on the processing, partitioning, and dissipation of energy among ecosystem actors in a particular location and their consequent interdependence (Golley, 1993). Consequently, the biological conception of the ecosystem has been adopted by scholars in engineering and the social sciences who have also been interested in interdependence. For instance, industrial ecosystems focus on flows of energy and materials among industrial organizations within specific geographic regions (Korhonen, 2001), which echoes the early conceptualization of Zhou and Zhang (2008). Similarly, urban ecosystems consider the interdependencies among actors in urban environments (Decker et al., 2000).

In management, the ecosystem has been adopted by a wide variety of scholarly perspectives, perhaps because of the attractiveness of the ecosystem metaphor in describing collectives of heterogeneous, yet complementary, actors who collectively generate some kind of ecosystem-level outcome (Thomas & Autio, 2020). Each management perspective has differing phenomenological and conceptual emphases such as the level of analysis, nature of ecosystem-level outcome, spatial specificity, and variety of actors (Autio & Thomas, 2022). This has resulted in significant construct confusion, resulting in numerous reviews seeking to provide conceptual clarity (e.g., Jacobides et al., 2018; Scaringella & Radziwon, 2018; Thomas & Autio, 2020). However, aligned with their interest in interorganizational economic communities, in general management scholars have considered ecosystems from the perspectives of flows of value and flows of knowledge (Autio & Thomas, 2022).

The flows of value perspective has been particularly prevalent in strategy, with scholars adopting the innovation ecosystem to address multi-actor venues, which result in coproduction of a product or a service (e.g., Adner & Kapoor, 2010; Jacobides et al., 2018), as well as the platform ecosystem where actors coproduce value around a shared resource (e.g., Gawer & Cusumano, 2014; Thomas et al., 2014). General management scholars use the business ecosystem construct to consider the flows of value in the “broader economic context which a focal firm must monitor and react to” (Thomas & Autio, 2020, p. 13).¹ In contrast, the flows of knowledge perspective is often adopted by entrepreneurship scholars, with the entrepreneurial ecosystem used to consider how ecosystem actors can cultivate a shared knowledge base regarding what works in harnessing advances in digital technologies and infrastructures (e.g., Autio et al., 2018; Spigel, 2017). Similarly, innovation scholars are increasingly adopting the open innovation ecosystem (and at times the knowledge ecosystem) to consider the creation of research-based knowledge and associated applications, reflecting the increasingly open processes of R&D and innovation (e.g., Clarysse et al., 2014; Thomas & Ritala, 2025; West & Olk, 2024).

Given that the project management literature tends to borrow concepts from general management and adapt them to temporal organizations (Brunet, 2022; Locatelli et al., 2023; Pinto, 2022), it should be no surprise that the nascent project ecosystem literature reflects this confusion of management-related ecosystem constructs. For instance, the project innovation ecosystem of MacAulay et al. (2023) and megaproject innovation ecosystem of Jin et al. (2022) directly reference the flows of value perspective. However, both these studies lack a clear statement of an ecosystem-level value proposition, which is a core characteristic of this approach (Jacobides et al., 2018). Similarly, the strategic innovation outcomes of Brink (2020) and the broader know-how outcomes of Lavikka et al. (2018) reflect the flows of knowledge perspective of the open innovation ecosystem. However, in contrast to the emerging open innovation ecosystem literature (Thomas & Ritala, 2025), these studies lack a clear focus on a focal firm to drive the innovation outcomes. Indeed, confusingly, both MacAulay et al. (2023) and Jin et al. (2022) also refer to innovation as an outcome that leads to value.

Taken together, these conceptualizations of interorganizational interdependence in project contexts suggest that project ecosystems can be considered as a distinct construct. By clearly defining a project ecosystem, we can “distill [the] phenomena into sharp distinction that is comprehensible to a community of researchers” (Suddaby, 2010, p. 346). As such, building upon earlier conceptualizations of project ecosystems, and the increasingly voluminous ecosystem research in management addressing interorganizational communities, a project ecosystem is defined as: the broad set of interdependent heterogeneous actors, associated with a focal project, who collectively enable the emergence of value beyond what was contracted.

This definition aligns with the generalized strategic view of a business ecosystem (Jacobides et al., 2018; Thomas & Autio, 2020), in that it considers the “broader economic context” (Thomas & Autio, 2020, p. 13) and “the economic community of interacting actors that all affect each other through their activities, considering all relevant actors beyond the boundaries of a single industry” (Jacobides et al., 2018, p. 3). It also aligns with the open innovation ecosystem (Thomas & Ritala, 2025; West & Olk, 2024) in that it considers actors ranging “from universities, public research institutions, bridging and brokering organizations, open-source consortia, standard setting bodies, through for-profit firms collaborating, to specific individuals and the crowd” (Thomas & Ritala, 2025, p. 4). Importantly, reflecting the management constructs from which it is derived, it is anchored on a focal project. This removes colocation dependencies from specific geographic locations, reflecting the increasingly globalized nature of project actors and clearly differentiating the construct from project ecologies.

Importantly, in contrast to the flow of value ecosystems (e.g., innovation and business ecosystems), the project ecosystem does not have an ecosystem value proposition as the system-level outcome. Similarly, in contrast to the flow of knowledge ecosystems (e.g., open innovation and knowledge ecosystems), the project ecosystem does not have innovation or knowledge as the system-level outcome. Instead, the project ecosystem system-level outcome is emergent value beyond what was contracted. This value is instantiated as strategic innovation (e.g., Brink, 2020; Jin et al., 2022; MacAulay et al., 2023), as knowledge dissemination (e.g., Lavikka et al., 2018; Leviäkangas et al., 2016), or as wider economic, social, and environmental impacts. For instance, the London Crossrail project ecosystem enabled the creation of a new intermediary organization called i3P whose “membership was composed of major infrastructure client and supply chain organizations whose mission was to improve the coordination of innovation across the infrastructure project ecology in the UK” (MacAulay et al., 2023, p. 13).

By integrating these two management-oriented ecosystem constructs in the context of the temporary organizations that typify project management (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995; Sydow & Windeler, 2020), the project management construct is complementary, yet distinct, to existing management-related ecosystem constructs. The project ecosystem construct is complementary as it includes a broad heterogenous set of actors, an emphasis of interdependency, and a system-level outcome (see Thomas & Autio, 2020). It is distinct in that the project ecosystem is temporary, existing only for the duration of the project, and that the emergent value beyond what was contracted is instantiated in strategic innovation; knowledge diffusion; and wider economic, social, and environmental impacts. In doing so it is also distinct to MacAulay et al. (2023, p. 3), as project ecosystems do not necessarily need to be “tightly coordinated by a focal project organization.” This is not to say that project ecosystems cannot be orchestrated—it is just that they can emerge naturally around a focal project without active agency from a project organization.

Broad Heterogenous Participation

Project ecosystems are composed of a heterogenous set of actors associated with a focal project, including both the actors that are directly contracted to deliver the project and also those collaborating actors beyond the core project delivery. Hence, project ecosystems are interorganizational constructs and, similar to business ecosystems, include the loose networks of suppliers, distributors, outsourcing firms, makers of related products or services, technology providers, and others (Jacobides et al., 2018; Jin et al., 2022). Furthermore, similar to open innovation ecosystems from the flow of knowledge perspective, a project ecosystem can also include nonmarket actors such as universities and public research institutions (e.g., Brink, 2020; Leviäkangas et al., 2016; Thomas & Ritala, 2025).

For instance, the London Crossrail project ecosystem involved many actors from both within and outside the project, including more than 20 Tier 1 contractors, 75 supporting companies, and collaborators from universities and other small to medium-sized businesses (DeBarro et al., 2015). In contrast to a project ecology, these actors were globally located and were not necessarily colocated in the London (or United Kingdom) region. Indeed, by broadening the boundary of the project ecosystem beyond the core contractors and their supply chains, London Crossrail was able to generate at times significant unprompted strategic innovation (DeBarro et al., 2015; MacAulay et al., 2023).

Actor Interdependence

All ecosystem constructs focus on the interdependence between actors (Jacobides et al., 2018; Thomas & Autio, 2020), and the project ecosystem is no different (e.g., Brink, 2020; Jin et al., 2022; Lavikka et al., 2018; MacAulay et al., 2023). For instance, in project ecosystems as well as other ecosystem constructs, the heterogenous actors are linked through interdependencies such as physical interconnection, spatial proximity, technological complementarities, economic links, shared cognitive templates, technical interconnectedness of products and services, and the mutual codependence on direct and indirect network effects (Henisz et al., 2012; Thomas & Autio, 2020).

One type of interdependence is technological, in that the heterogeneous ecosystem actors are cospecialized around the focal project and sometimes also around a unique resource, shared platform, or a common modular architecture (see, e.g., Hellström & Wikström, 2005). Often this interdependence coincides with role interdependence, where the roles are organized around the project delivery. For instance, value emergence in the London Crossrail project ecosystem was dependent on technological interdependence among such diverse expertise as building services, costing, energy, fire, hydrogeology, geotechnics, material, mechanical and electrical engineering, structures, risk management, tunneling, and ventilation engineering (MacAulay et al., 2023). In contrast to a project network, how these technological interdependencies were complementary and value generative was not foreseen in the original project planning.

A second type of ecosystem interdependence is economic, in that the value that each member receives from participating in the project ecosystem is dependent on the simultaneous availability of compatible inputs by others (see, e.g., Henisz et al., 2012). Economic interdependencies can occur when an ecosystem enables economies of scale and scope and when there are externalities “when the actions of one agent affect the interests of another agent other than by affecting prices” (Davis & North, 1970, p. 134). For instance, the London Crossrail project ecosystem had economic interdependences beyond those in the project network and project ecology. While there was a baseline economic alignment between actors for project delivery (reflecting the project network), these were enhanced with innovation incentives to encourage emergent value (Pelton et al., 2017), with these counterbalanced through pain/gain share mechanisms within the NEC3 Engineering and Construction Contract used throughout the project (DeBarro et al., 2015).

A third type of interdependence is cognitive, in the sense that ecosystem actors have a set of “socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules … which provide the formal and informal rules of action, interaction, and interpretation that guide and constrain decision makers” (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999, p. 804). Cognitive interdependence is particularly important in promoting ecosystem cohesion when the ecosystem actors are heterogeneous, and each actor may adhere to specific social and economic views that are not necessarily widely shared with others within the ecosystem (e.g., Eckartz et al., 2012; Henisz et al., 2012). For instance, to drive actor alignment the London Crossrail project ecosystem featured a range of institutional and social mechanisms distinct to the London project ecology. This included a league table promoting specific innovative projects and an innovation program that drove broader actor engagement and a collective recognition of the value in collaborating (DeBarro et al., 2015; Pelton et al., 2017).

Collective Value Emergence

Project ecosystems facilitate the collective emergence of value beyond what was contracted for the project. This means that the project ecosystem actors are interacting not only to deliver the specific project value (cf. Jacobides et al., 2018), but that these interactions have the effect of enabling the emergence of value that was not initially anticipated (Peltoniemi, 2006). This occurs due to the interdependencies between the individual project ecosystem actors, and because “the long-term systemic outcomes are unpredictable” (Smith & Stacey, 1997, p. 83). This is quite distinct to the more defined interdependencies and outcomes of the focal project itself, and its project network. This renders the ongoing debate regarding the agency of projects in value creation (e.g., Laursen, 2018; Whyte & Mottee, 2022) irrelevant for project ecosystems, as the theoretical and analytical focus is on how value emerges from collective action, not the actions of a focal project actor.

The emergence value in project ecosystems is knowledge oriented, in that there are “cross-boundary knowledge flows that results in new innovations” (Thomas & Ritala, 2025, p. 1; see also MacAulay et al., 2023). However, distinct to the conceptualization of Jin et al. (2022) and that of the open innovation ecosystem (Thomas & Ritala, 2025), innovation is not the purpose of the project ecosystem. Innovation and knowledge are instead how emergent value is instantiated, along with wider economic, social, and environmental impacts. As such, the emergent value in project ecosystems may not be embodied in defined products, services, or even business models, but instead are the varied outcomes of distributed activities by ecosystem actors (Brink, 2020; Lavikka et al., 2018; MacAulay et al., 2023; see also Thomas & Tee, 2022 for the related notion of generativity). For instance, in the London Crossrail project ecosystem a contractor identified an opportunity to reduce the operational energy consumption at the stations under construction. Significant activity then ensued, involving a wide range of other actors, as well as significant project activity in developing the opportunity. While ultimately this particular opportunity was not implemented in the London Crossrail project, value did emerge subsequently with the opportunity taken up by other projects (MacAulay et al., 2023).

Implications

The project ecosystem joins several existing constructs in project management that also consider the project context, in particular the project ecology (Grabher, 2002) and the project network (DeFillippi & Sydow, 2016; Manning, 2017; Windeler & Sydow, 2001). Figure 1 presents a typology that illustrates the difference between the constructs.

Figure 1.

Project ecosystems in context.

Project ecologies differ from project ecosystems as they draw attention to the ongoing and enduring network of ties and relationships such as the people, teams, firms and institutions, and epistemic communities involved in a project (Grabher, 2002, 2004; Hedborg & Gustavsson, 2020). Similarly, project networks differ from project ecosystems as they consist of individuals and organizations who maintain longer-term collaborative relationships beyond the time limitations of particular projects (Manning, 2010, 2017; Windeler & Sydow, 2001). Put differently, the project ecology and the project network encompass the relational space between a project and participating actors throughout its life cycle and beyond (Grabher, 2004; Manning, 2010), whereas project ecosystems are temporally constrained to the focal project. However, while project networks and project ecosystems are not location-specific, project ecologies are limited to the cluster of project-based activities in a geographical area. For project ecologies, these local personal layers provide the pool of resources, capabilities, and relationships that can be mobilized to support current and future projects (Grabher, 2001, 2004).

Given that project ecosystems are distinct to both project ecologies and project networks, this poses the question of how project ecosystems, networks, and ecologies interact. Although these three constructs are presented as conceptually distinct, they are mutually consistent. One does not exclude the others, and a focal project may have all three. A focal project will be located within its local project ecology, as well as having a project network. A focal project can also have a project ecosystem where interactions among a broad collection of actors result in value emergence. However, project organizations, project networks, project ecosystems, and project ecologies are not nested (cf. Davies & Mackenzie, 2014; Naderpajouh et al., 2020), as there is neither common context nor clear demarcation to suggest discrete embedded levels of analysis.

Taken together, this implies that conceptual clarity will be a major challenge for project management scholars seeking to understand project context. That said, it also suggests a range of fascinating research opportunities, both for differentiating among the different project contexts of networks, ecosystems, and ecologies, as well as for the specifics of project ecosystems. For instance, how does a location-specific project ecology shape the emergent value dynamics in a project ecosystem? How do preexisting relationships in project networks influence the composition of a project ecosystem? Do the differing institutional and social environments of project networks, ecosystems, and ecologies interact? If so, how and in what ways?

Beyond the important interaction of the project ecosystems, networks, and ecologies, ecosystems in general are typified by complementarity, evolution, and orchestration, each of which has an important role in the generation of a collective outcome (e.g., Jacobides et al., 2018; Thomas & Autio, 2020). As such, the following three sections develop the research implications of each in more detail in the context of project ecosystems.

Project Ecosystem Complementarities

Of particular interest in ecosystem research is complementarity among the various actors (e.g., Jacobides et al., 2018; Thomas et al., 2024). Ecosystems feature actor complementarity, and it is this complementarity that gives rise to an ecosystem-level outcome. In general, complementarity refers to the relationship between two actors, where the value of one actor is increased through its relationship with the other (Baldwin, 2024; Ennen & Richter, 2010).² While complementarity has important implications for organizations in general (e.g., Helfat & Lieberman, 2002; Jacobides et al., 2006; Teece, 1986), it has particular importance in ecosystem contexts (e.g., Jacobides et al., 2018; Thomas et al., 2024). From the perspective of project ecosystems, it is complementarities that give rise to the emergent value (see, e.g., Jin et al., 2022; MacAulay et al., 2023).

Key to understanding ecosystem complementarities is the nature of the interdependencies that underpin them (Thomas et al., 2024). While the above section has detailed the differences among technological, economic, and cognitive interdependencies, it is not clear if there are systematic differences among complementarities in project networks, project ecosystems, and project ecosystems. For instance, given that project ecosystems are more temporary than project networks and project ecologies, how do the more enduring technological, economic, and cognitive interdependencies of project networks and ecologies shape complementarities in ecosystems? Are there differences among technological, economic, and cognitive interdependencies in project ecosystems compared to project networks and project ecosystems? Does the location-specificity of project ecologies influence how technological, economic, and cognitive interdependencies shape ecosystem complementarities?

Recently, Thomas et al. (2024) differentiated between vertical and horizontal complementarities, with vertical complementarities those that exist between a focal actor and other ecosystem actors, and horizontal complementarities those that exist between the broader ecosystem actors independent of the focal actor. While Thomas et al. (2024) originally focused on platform ecosystems, this differentiation also has relevance to project ecosystems. In particular, it is the complementarities between the broader set of heterogeneous actors (horizontal complementarities) that leads to the emergence of value beyond what was contracted. This opens up some interesting research directions. For instance, how do differing complementarities between the core and broader project ecosystem actors lead to strategic innovation or knowledge dissemination? Do technological, economic, and cognitive interdependencies enable different types of complementarities? Do distinct industries have differing complementarities in project ecosystems? Do the complementarities in different project ecosystems interact? If so, how?

Project Ecosystem Evolution

A second key aspect of ecosystems is how their interdependencies evolve over time. In biology, ecosystems exhibit a “mutual adjustment of their components” that tends toward the “perfect dynamic equilibrium that can be attained in a system developed under given conditions and with the available components” (Tansley, 1935, p. 300). In the language of ecosystem scholars, ecosystems coevolve (Moore, 1993; Thomas & Autio, 2020) through a process where environmental changes and changes in ecosystem actors mutually influence each other, prompting mutual adjustments (Lewin & Volberda, 1999; Merry, 1999). Given that project ecosystems feature collective value emergence—a process that is innately temporal—understanding how project ecosystems change will be a fruitful research direction (Gil & Fu, 2022).

While there is some early theoretical ecosystem scholarship (e.g., legitimacy, see Thomas & Ritala, 2022), there are relatively few studies documenting how ecosystems, let alone project ecosystems, evolve over time. Given that project ecosystems are more temporary than project ecologies and project networks, understanding if different project ecosystems evolve at different rates is of interest (for instance, see the notion of ecosystem clockspeed, Dedehayir & Mäkinen, 2011, 2014). Relatedly, how does the coevolution of project networks and project ecologies shape the coevolution of the other, as well as of related project ecosystems? Another interesting aspect is actor behavior. As in project ecologies, project ecosystem actors may deliberately change their behaviors and resist the temptation to become locked into routines of past success (e.g., Grabher, 2002, 2004). Are the processes of coevolution specific to project ecosystems, or do project networks and project ecologies exhibit similar processes and coevolve in a similar manner?

There are also some interesting research opportunities to understand how the emergent value in project ecosystems evolves. For instance, do project phases shape value emergence in a project ecosystem? If so, how? How do the practices adopted by a single or lead actor in one phase benefit other actors who take up the lead in the next phase (Bahadorestani et al., 2020)? How do changes in the dyadic relationships between ecosystem actors shape emergent ecosystem value? Does emergent ecosystem value shape focal project value? If so, how? Who appropriates the emergent value from a project ecosystem? An assumption is that the emergent value from project ecosystems is beneficial (e.g., Jin et al., 2022; MacAulay et al., 2023). However, while it may be beneficial to some actors, it may not be to all or even detrimental to the focal project itself.³ What happens if the emergent value is negative or subtractive to the contracted project value?

There are also other interesting research opportunities concerning the emergence of project ecosystems themselves. In fact, there are surprisingly few studies that explore the antecedents and processes of ecosystem emergence in general (for exceptions, see Dattée et al., 2018; Fang et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2022). How do project ecosystems emerge from a de novo focal project? Do all projects have an ecosystem? Or are there specific antecedents that predispose ecosystem emergence? Extant management studies suggest that ecosystem emergence should focus on collective emergence processes (e.g., Thomas et al., 2022), where an ecosystem gradually takes shape through multipolar interactions and negotiations among multiple heterogeneous actors (e.g., Dattée et al., 2018; Gil & Fu, 2022). If so, are particular project ecosystem roles required to enable value emergence? What influence do institutional contextual factors (e.g., Fortin & Söderlund, 2023; Sydow & Windeler, 2020) have on project ecosystem value emergence? Beyond these early questions, there will be many interesting research opportunities to understand the processes of how project ecosystems emerge from the original focal project organization.

Project Ecosystem Orchestration

A final important aspect is ecosystem orchestration, or what is also called governance. One of the core features that distinguishes ecosystems (Schmidt & Foss, 2023; Thomas & Autio, 2020; Wareham et al., 2014) is that they are structured so that actors can specialize in specific roles that are not necessarily defined by formal contracts (Gulati et al., 2012; Jacobides et al., 2018; Thomas & Autio, 2020). Instead of formal, relationship-specific contracts that uniquely define each relationship, what would be typical for the contracted value of a focal project, in a project ecosystem the emergent system-level outcome is not necessarily specifically contracted or directly orchestrated. While orchestration is possible and at times likely (see MacAulay et al., 2023), project ecosystems most probably will feature a spectrum of centralized coordination to decentralized activity. This echoes the open innovation ecosystem (Thomas & Ritala, 2025) and the dynamics of outside-out open innovation, where the actions of the community collectively enable innovation independent of a focal actor (e.g., Vanhaverbeke & Gilsing, 2024; West & Olk, 2024).

There is voluminous literature in project management that has considered the orchestration of the project organization itself, as well as of how project network orchestration can drive performance (e.g., Oliveira & Lumineau, 2017; Roehrich et al., 2023). For instance, Oliveira and Lumineau (2017) show how the use of specific actors and coordination instruments, such as system integrators and contracts, either enables or hampers coordination and, in turn, the performance of a project network. What would be of interest is seeing if these coordination instruments have the same effect in project ecosystems. Does project network orchestration shape project ecosystems? Similarly, how does project ecology–level orchestration, or the lack of it, shape ecosystem orchestration? Do project ecosystems require project orchestrators, or can a project ecosystem emerge spontaneously without a coordinating project organization?

There are also intriguing research opportunities in understanding if and how emergent value in project ecosystems can be orchestrated. For instance, while ecosystems in management generally focus on how value emerges without formal, one-to-one supplier contracts that define delivery obligations (Thomas & Autio, 2020), what range of informal and formal coordination mechanisms would feature in project ecosystems (Roehrich et al., 2023)? How is the emergent project value shaped by the balance of formal and informal coordination? More specifically, how does emergent value vary with the intensity of active or passive coordination and level of fit with shared or lead organization governance (Roehrich et al., 2023)? More fundamentally, can complementarities in project ecosystems even be orchestrated?

Conclusion

In this article the project ecosystem has been argued as key to understanding the emergence of value in projects beyond that initially foreseen. A project ecosystem is defined as the broad set of interdependent heterogeneous actors, associated with a focal project, who collectively enable value emergence beyond what was contracted. Project ecosystems are clearly demarcated from project ecologies and project networks, as well as from other management constructs such as the innovation ecosystem and the open innovation ecosystem. As such the project ecosystem offers interesting research opportunities considering how these different constructs interact, the nature of complementarities in project ecosystems, project ecosystem dynamics, and project ecosystem orchestration. I hope this article galvanizes scholars and practitioners to communicate productively and inspires theoretical, empirical, and practical creativity in what promises to be a fascinating construct.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

I would like to give a huge thank you to Sam MacAulay for both suggesting this article as well as providing valuable insight,feedback,and enthusiasm during its gestation. Thanks also go to Jonas Söderlund,Jörg Sydow,Susanna Hedborg,and Alessandro Paravano for their thoughtful and insightful feedback on an early draft.

ORCID iD

Llewellyn D. W. Thomas

Author Biography

Llewellyn D. W. Thomas is an associate professor at the University of Sydney Business School and a visiting professor at Imperial College Business School. His research interests lie in the co-evolutionary processes that lead to successful innovation,with a particular interest in ecosystem creation,evolution,and dynamics in digital economy contexts. He has published in such journals as Academy of Management Review,Journal of Management,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,Journal of Management Studies,Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,International Journal of Management Reviews,Industrial and Corporate Change,Technovation,Harvard Business Review,Californian Management Review,and Academy of Management Perspectives . He holds a PhD from Imperial College London,an MBA (with Distinction) from Cass (now Bayes) Business School,United Kingdom,and both LLB(Hons) and BA(Hons) degrees from the University of Sydney,Australia. He can be contacted at llewellyn.thomas@sydney.edu.au

References

Adner

Kapoor

. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306–333.

Allf

B. C.

Cooper

C. B.

Larson

L. R.

Dunn

R. R.

Futch

S. E.

Sharova

Cavalier

. (2022). Citizen science as an ecosystem of engagement: Implications for learning and broadening participation. Bioscience, 72(7), 651–663.

Autio

Nambisan

Thomas

L. D. W.

Wright

. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72–95.

Autio

Thomas

L. D. W

. (2022). Researching ecosystems in innovation contexts. Innovation & Management Review, 19(1), 12–25.

Bacharach

S. B

. (1989. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515.

Bahadorestani

Naderpajouh

Sadiq

. (2020). Planning for sustainable stakeholder engagement based on the assessment of conflicting interests in projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, 118402.

Baldwin

C. Y

. 2024. Design rules, volume 2: How technology shapes organizations. The MIT Press.

Biesenthal

Clegg

Mahalingam

Sankaran

. (2018). Applying institutional theories to managing megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 43–54.

Brink

. (2020). The triple helix frame contributes to strategic innovation in Nearshore Wind Park ecosystems. Triple Helix, 6(1), 1–35.

10.

Brunet

. (2022). On the relevance of theory and practice in project studies. International Journal of Project Management, 40(1), 22–24.

11.

Clarysse

Wright

Bruneel

Mahajan

. (2014). Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy, 43(7), 1164–1176.

12.

Dattée

Alexy

Autio

. (2018). Maneuvering in poor visibility: How firms play the ecosystem game when uncertainty is high. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 466–498.

13.

Davies

Mackenzie

. (2014). Project complexity and systems integration: Constructing the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games. International Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 773–790.

14.

Davis

North

. (1970). Institutional change and American economic growth—First step towards a theory of institutional innovation. Journal of Economic History, 30(1), 131–149.

15.

DeBarro

MacAulay

Davies

Wolstenholme

Gann

Pelton

. (2015). Mantra to method: Lessons from managing innovation on Crossrail, UK. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil Engineering, 168(4), 171–178.

16.

Decker

E. H.

Elliott

Smith

F. A.

Blake

D. R.

Rowland

F. S

. (2000). Energy and material flow through the urban ecosystem. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25(1), 685–740.

17.

Dedehayir

Mäkinen

S. J

. (2011). Measuring industry clockspeed in the systemic industry context. Technovation, 31(12), 627–637.

18.

Dedehayir

Mäkinen

S. J

. (2014). Business ecosystems evolution: An ecosystem clockspeed perspective. In Adner

Oxley

J. E.

Silverman

B. S.

(Eds.), Collaboration and competition in business ecosystems, vol. 30 (pp. 99–125). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

19.

DeFillippi

Sydow

. (2016). Project networks: Governance choices and paradoxical tensions. Project Management Journal, 47(5), 6–17.

20.

Eckartz

Katsma

Daneva

. (2012). Exploring the business case development process in inter-organizational enterprise system implementations. Information Resources Management Journal, 25(2), 85–102.

21.

Ennen

Richter

. (2010). The whole is more than the sum of its parts—Or is it? A review of the empirical literature on complementarities in organizations. Journal of Management, 36(1), 207–233.

22.

Etzkowitz

Leydesdorff

. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.

23.

Fang

T. P.

Clough

D. R

. (2021). Platform diffusion at temporary gatherings: Social coordination and ecosystem emergence. Strategic Management Journal, 42(2), 233–272.

24.

Fortin

Söderlund

. (2023). So many projects, so little result: The self-perpetuating cycle of inter-institutional projects. International Journal of Project Management, 41(4), 102478.

25.

Gawer

Cusumano

M. A

. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417–433.

26.

Gil

. (2022). Megaproject performance, value creation, and value distribution: An organizational governance perspective. Academy of Management Discoveries, 8(2), 224–251.

27.

Golley

F. B

. (1993). A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology: More than the sum of the parts. Yale University Press.

28.

Grabher

. (2001). Ecologies of creativity: The village, the group, and the heterarchic organisation of the British advertising industry. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 33(2), 351–374.

29.

Grabher

. (2002). The project ecology of advertising: Tasks, talents and teams. Regional Studies, 36(3), 245–262.

30.

Grabher

. (2004). Temporary architectures of learning: Knowledge governance in project ecologies. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1491–1514.

31.

Gradillas

Thomas

L. D. W

. (2025). Distinguishing digitization and digitalization: A systematic review and conceptual framework. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 42(1), 112–143.

32.

Gulati

Puranam

Tushman

. (2012). Meta-organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 571–586.

33.

Hedborg

Gustavsson

T. K

. (2020). Developing a neighbourhood: Exploring construction projects from a project ecology perspective. Construction Management and Economics, 38(10), 964–976.

34.

Helfat

C. E.

Lieberman

M. B

. (2002). The birth of capabilities: Market entry and the importance of pre-history. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 725–760.

35.

Hellström

Wikström

. (2005). Project business concepts based on modularity—Improved manoeuvrability through unstable structures. International Journal of Project Management, 23(5), 392–397.

36.

Henisz

W. J.

Levitt

R. E.

Scott

W. R

. (2012). Toward a unified theory of project governance: Economic, sociological and psychological supports for relational contracting. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 2(1–2), 37–55.

37.

Jacobides

M. G.

Cennamo

Gawer

. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276.

38.

Jacobides

M. G.

Knudsen

Augier

. (2006). Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures. Research Policy, 35(8), 1200–1221.

39.

Jin

Zeng

Chen

Shi

J. J

. (2022). Creating value from diverse knowledge in megaproject innovation ecosystems. International Journal of Project Management, 40(6), 646–657.

40.

Korhonen

. (2001). Four ecosystem principles for an industrial ecosystem. Journal of Cleaner Production, 9(3), 253–259.

41.

Laursen

. (2018). Project networks as constellations for value creation. Project Management Journal, 49(2), 56–70.

42.

Lavikka

R. H.

Chauhan

Peltokorpi

Seppanen

(2018). Fostering prefabrication in construction projects-case MEP in Finland. In J. Karlshoj & R. Scherer (Eds.), eWork and eBusiness in architecture, engineering and construction. Presented at the 12th European Conference on Product and Process Modelling (ECPPM), Copenhagen, Denmark, 12–14 September 2018.

43.

Leviäkangas

Kinnunen

Aapaoja

. (2016). Infrastructure public–private partnership project ecosystem—Financial and economic positioning of stakeholders. European Journal of Finance, 22(3), 221–236.

44.

Lewin

A. Y.

Volberda

H. W

. (1999). Prolegomena on coevolution: A framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 519–534.

45.

Lobo

Whyte

. (2017). Aligning and reconciling: Building project capabilities for digital delivery. Research Policy, 46(1), 93–107.

46.

Locatelli

Ika

Drouin

Müller

Huemann

Söderlund

Geraldi

Clegg

. (2023). A manifesto for project management research. European Management Review, 20(1), 3–17.

47.

Lundin

R. A.

Söderholm

. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437–455.

48.

MacAulay

S. C.

Davies

Dodgson

. (2023). From “lonely projects” to orchestrating project innovation ecosystems. In Davies

Lenfle

Loch

Midler

(Eds.), Handbook on innovation and project management (1st ed.) (pp. 294–307). Edward Elgar Publishing.

49.

MacCorquodale

Meehl

P. E

. (1948). On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review, 55(2), 95–107.

50.

Manning

. (2010). The strategic formation of project networks: A relational practice perspective. Human Relations, 63(4), 551–573.

51.

Manning

. (2017). The rise of project network organizations: Building core teams and flexible partner pools for interorganizational projects. Research Policy, 46(8), 1399–1415.

52.

Merry

. (1999). Organizational strategy on different landscapes: A new science approach. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 12(3), 257–278.

53.

Moore

J. F

. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86.

54.

Naderpajouh

Matinheikki

Keeys

L. A.

Aldrich

D. P.

Linkov

. (2020.) Resilience and projects: An interdisciplinary crossroad. Project Leadership and Society, 1, 100001.

55.

Oliveira

Lumineau

. (2017). How coordination trajectories influence the performance of interorganizational project networks. Organization Science, 28(6), 1029–1060.

56.

Park

(2016). Project ecosystem competency model. Serpell

Ferrada

, Eds., In Proceedings of the 29th IPMA World Congress WC2015. Presented at the 29th IPMA World Congress (WC), Panama.

57.

Pelton

Brown

Reddaway

Gilmour

Phoon

Wolstenholme

Gann

. (2017). Crossrail project: The evolution of an innovation ecosystem. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers—Civil Engineering, 170(4), 181–190.

58.

Peltoniemi

. (2006). Preliminary theoretical framework for the study of business ecosystems. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8(1), 10–19.

59.

Pinto

J. K

. (2022). Avoiding the inflection point: Project management theory and research after 40 years. International Journal of Project Management, 40(1), 4–8.

60.

Porter

M. E

. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.

61.

Roehrich

J. K.

Kalra

Squire

Davies

. (2023). Network orchestration in a large inter-organizational project. Journal of Operations Management, 69(7), 1078–1099.

62.

Scaringella

Radziwon

. (2018). Innovation, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and business ecosystems: Old wine in new bottles? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 59–87.

63.

Scheepers

C. B.

Whelpton

. (2018). Stakeholders’ different perspectives of critical success and risk factors in a case of large-scale system implementation across Africa. South African Journal of Business Management, 49(1), 1–13.

64.

Schmidt

Foss

N. J

. (2023). Modularity, adaptation problems, and the governance and problem-solving capabilities of core firms in ecosystems. Journal of Management, 51(4), 1484–1513.

65.

Smith

M. Y.

Stacey

. (1997). Governance and cooperative networks: An adaptive systems perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(1), 79–94.

66.

Spigel

. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72.

67.

Suddaby

(2010). Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 346–357.

68.

Sutton

R. I.

Staw

B. M

. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384.

69.

Sydow

. (2009). Path dependencies in project-based organizing: Evidence from television production in Germany. Journal of Media Business Studies, 6(4, SI), 123–139.

70.

Sydow

Staber

. (2002). The institutional embeddedness of project networks: The case of content production in German television. Regional Studies, 36(3), 215–227.

71.

Sydow

Windeler

. (2020). Temporary organizing and permanent contexts. Current Sociology, 68(4), 480–498.

72.

Tansley

A. G

. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16(3), 284–307.

73.

Teece

D. J

. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.

74.

Thomas

L. D. W.

Autio

. (2020). Innovation ecosystems in management: An organizing typology. In M. A. Hitt (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of business and management (pp. 1–35). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.203.

75.

Thomas

L. D. W.

Autio

Gann

D. M

. (2014). Architectural leverage: Putting platforms in context. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 198–219.

76.

Thomas

L. D. W.

Autio

Gann

D. M

. (2022). Processes of ecosystem emergence. Technovation, 115(4), 102441.

77.

Thomas

L. D. W.

Ritala

. (2022). Ecosystem legitimacy emergence: A collective action view. Journal of Management, 48(3), 515–541.

78.

Thomas

L. D. W.

Ritala

(2025). Open innovation ecosystems. In Eriksson

Montonen

Laine

P.-M.

Heikkinen

(Eds.), Elgar encyclopedia of innovation management. Edward Elgar. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374746481_Open_Innovation_Ecosystems

79.

Thomas

L. D. W.

Ritala

Karhu

Heiskala

. (2024). Vertical and horizontal complementarities in platform ecosystems. Innovation: Organization & Management. DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2024.2303593

80.

Thomas

L. D. W.

Tee

. (2022). Generativity: A systematic review and conceptual framework. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24(2), 255–278.

81.

Thornton

P. H.

Ocasio

. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.

82.

Vanhaverbeke

Gilsing

. (2024). Opening up open innovation: Drawing the boundaries. In Chesbrough

Radziwon

Vanhaverbeke

West

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of open innovation (1st ed.) (pp. 51–64). Oxford University Press.

83.

Wareham

Fox

P. B.

Cano Giner

J. L

. 2014. Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4): 1195–1215.

84.

West

Olk

P. M

. (2024). Open innovation, innovation in ecosystems, and innovation beyond the firm. In Chesbrough

Radziwon

Vanhaverbeke

West

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of open innovation (1st ed.) (pp. 287–307). Oxford University Press.

85.

Whyte

Mottee

. (2022). Projects as interventions. International Journal of Project Management, 40(8), 934–940.

86.

Windeler

Sydow

. (2001). Project networks and changing industry practices collaborative content production in the German television industry. Organization Studies, 22(6), 1035–1060.

87.

Zhou

Zhang

(2008). Research on basic framework of construction project ecosystem for engineering ecology. In Y. Wang, K. Xia, & Q. Shen (Eds.), Proceedings of 2008 International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management, Volumes 1 and 2. Presented at the International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management 2008, Toronto, Canada.