Table 1
Inclusion criteria and their characteristics.
| Type of inclusion criteria | Characteristic of inclusion criteria |
|---|---|
| Document type | Articles and research papers |
| Time period | Until December 2023 |
| Language | English |
| Geography | Worldwide |
| Databases | Scopus, WOS, Google Scholar |
Source: Authors' contribution.
Figure 1
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of the literature selection stages.
Source: Authors' elaboration based on Page et al., 2021.
Figure 2
Distribution of the articles by years of publication.
Source: Authors' contribution.
Figure 3
Distribution of the articles by country.
Source: Authors' contribution.
Table 2
Distribution of selected articles by source and publication year.
| Journal | ‘11 | ‘12 | ‘13 | ‘14 | ‘15 | ‘16 | ‘17 | ‘18 | ‘19 | ‘20 | ‘21 | ‘22 | ‘23 | Tot. | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Agricultural Systems | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Business Process Management Journal | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Frontiers in Psychology | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| IEEE Access | 2 | 2 | 4.6 | ||||||||||||
| IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Information and Organization | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Intereconomics | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| International Journal for Innovation Education and Research | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| International Journal of E-Entrepreneurship and Innovation | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| International Journal of Information Management | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Journal of Cleaner Production | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Journal of Electronics and Information Science | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Journal of Strategic Information Systems | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| KYBERNETES | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Managerial and Decision Economics | 2 | 2 | 4.6 | ||||||||||||
| MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| PLOS ONE | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Project Management Journal | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Research Policy | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research | 2 | 2 | 4.6 | ||||||||||||
| Sensors | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Studies of Transition States and Societies | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Sustainability | 3 | 3 | 7 | ||||||||||||
| Technological Forecasting and Social Change | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Technology Analysis & Strategic Management | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Conference proceedings | ‘11 | ‘12 | ‘13 | ‘14 | ‘15 | ‘16 | ‘17 | ‘18 | ‘19 | ‘20 | ‘21 | ‘22 | ‘23 | % | |
| 2023 IST-Africa Conference (IST-Africa) | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| 22nd Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| 27th European Conference on Information Systems | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| 31st International Business Information Management Association Conference | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| 40th R&D Management Conference “R&Designing Innovation: Transformational Challenges for Organizations and Society” | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| 8th International Conference on P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| International Congress and Conferences on Computational Design and Engineering | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Russian Conference on Digital Economy and Knowledge Management | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises | 1 | 1 | 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| Total | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 43 | 100 |
Source: Authors' contribution.
Table 3
DIE definitions in the literature.
| Paper | Definition of DIE |
|---|---|
| Kolloch and Dellermann (2018) | “an innovation ecosystem as a social technological system (actor network) consisting of two inseparable parts: a social system (human actor network) and a technological system (non-human actor network)” |
| Suseno et al. (2018) | “digital innovation ecosystem models the interactions and relationships between organisations and stakeholders, in creating new products and services using digital technologies in order to create value” |
| Wang (2018) | “a special type of sociotechnical system” |
| Chae (2019) | “a complex arrangement of technologies, methodologies, concepts, business application areas, organizations, and institutional contexts”; “a network of heterogeneous social and technical elements, which co-evolve over time” |
| Beltagui et al. (2020) | “digital innovation ecosystems account for industry-spanning co-operative and competitive dynamics among firms related to innovations that combine physical and digital elements” |
| Cvar et al. (2020) | “a complex system of various actors having different roles, interacting in mutual interdependence, constantly learning how to interact effectively” |
| Wang (2019) | “as a special type of sociotechnical systems, a digital innovation ecosystem is a dynamic collective of interdependent actors and the resources they draw on to innovate with digital technology” |
| Xu (2020) | “a complex network of collaborative and competitive relationships among individuals, organizations and digital technologies that jointly create value for innovation” |
| Wang (2021) | “a loosely coupled set of autonomous actors (people and organizations who interact without hierarchical fiat) involved in the development and implementation of innovations enabled by digital technologies” |
| Li et al. (2022) | “a complex economic structure in which organizations and individuals interact with each other". "The digital innovation ecosystem not only introduces data as a factor of production, but also enhances the connections between subjects, promotes synergy among elements, and finally causes changes in the system logic” |
| Ji et al. (2023) | “loosely interconnected networks formed by firms and other innovation agents” |
| Liu et al. (2023a) | “a complex system of symbiotic competition and collaborative evolution comprising several interconnected, interacting and proactive digital innovation subjects. It has a complex internal network, communicating the interaction between subjects, and its development is driven by the knowledge-sharing and cooperation needs between subjects” |
Source: Authors' contribution.
Table 4
Distribution of the literature by system levels.
| System level | Actors | Papers | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| System level | Meta level | Papers | Vasin et al. (2018); Wang (2018); Chae (2019); Nepelski (2019); Wang (2019); Xu (2020); Wang (2021); Kewen and Junji (2022); Kindermann et al. (2022); Liu et al. (2023a); Liu et al. (2023b) | Macro level | Supranational organizations, Nations, cities, regions | Misséri (2013); Pistorio et al. (2018); Whyte (2019); Baumane-Vītoliņa and Dudek (2020); Cvar et al. (2020); Filatova et al. (2020); Ruohomaa et al. (2020); Maurer, (2021); Purbasari et al. (2022a); Purbasari et al. (2022b); Chen and Cai (2023); Mutegi et al. (2023); Purbasari et al. (2023) |
| Meso level | Local ecosystems, industrial networks | Kolloch and Dellermann (2018); Gorecky et al. (2019); Beltagui et al. (2020); Cui et al. (2022); Li et al. (2022); Liao et al. (2023); Wolfert et al. (2023); Wu and Negassi (2023); Xu et al. (2023) | ||||
| Micro level | Companies, consumers | Rao and Jimenez (2011); Suseno et al. (2018); Rocha et al. (2018); Rocha et al. (2019); Yin et al. (2020); Raabe et al. (2021); Rocha et al. (2021); Zou et al. (2022); Ji et al. (2023); Li and Liu (2023) | ||||
Source: Authors’ contribution.
Figure 4
DIE conceptual framework.
Source: Authors’ contribution.
Figure 5
The most frequent words related to the topic of DIE.
Source: Authors’ contribution.
Figure 6
Scree plot. The ten most contributing principal components.
Source: Authors’ contribution.
Figure 7
PCA. The correlation of active variables with the first two dimensions. Note: cos2 denotes the quality of the representation of variables on the axes. For better presentational clarity, only variables with cos2 > 0.1 are reported.
Source: Authors’ contribution.
Figure 8
Cluster dendrogram projected on the first two PCA dimensions.
Source: Authors’ contribution.
Table 5
Ten most contributing keywords (t-scores) within the clusters (p < 0.05).
| Cluster 1 – keywords | Cluster 1 – contributions | Cluster 2 – keywords | Cluster 2 – contributions | Cluster 3 – keywords | Cluster 3 – contributions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organization | 3.14 | Game | 4.45 | Development | 4.77 |
| Business | 3.11 | Co-creation | 3.65 | Industry | 3.84 |
| Product | 3.07 | Enterprise | 3.25 | Environment | 3.13 |
| Firm | 2.7 | Strategy | 2.79 | Financial | 2.94 |
| Service | 2.7 | Platform | 2.77 | Smart | 2.8 |
| Design | 2.66 | Knowledge | 2.37 | Technology | 2.61 |
| Actor | 2.65 | Transformation | 2.01 | Manufacture | 2.5 |
| Information | 2.52 | Improve | 1.47 | Economic | 2.45 |
| Ecosystem | 2.02 | Technological | 2.32 | ||
| Market | 1.2 | Company | 2.24 |
Source: Authors’ contribution.