Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 156 ( 2014 )

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 156 ( 2014 ) 365 370 19th International Scientific Conference; Economics and Management 2014, ICEM 2014, 23-25 April 2014, Riga, Latvia Comparison of different analogies: the main economic determinants and levels of impact a * b a, b -44029 Kaunas, Lithuania Abstract The term is mostly noticed in the science of biology; nonetheless it frequently appears in economy related literature, as well. The following terms can be found throughout particular writings: business, entrepreneurship, an innovation, digital business and industrial. The aim of this research is to compare these analogies. Every analogy has different actors, its environment and various interactions between them; furthermore every is a community of subjects that interact as a complete system. Biological analogies have a distinctive effect on their entities and the environment, moreover they have different key determinant affecting the performance of the whole system. 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier by Elsevier Ltd. This Ltd. is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the Kaunas University of Technology. Peer-review under responsibility of the Kaunas University of Technology. Keywords: Business ; entrepreneurship ; innovation ; digital business ; industrial. 1. Main text The term is a relatively new concept in the field of business research. Researchers suggest various matches that are related to the economy such as following: industrial (Frosch & Gallopoulos, 1989; Korhonen 2001), digital business (Nachira, 2002), business (Iansiti & Levien, 2004; Moore, 1993), an innovation (Adner, 2006; Wessner, 2007; Yawson, 2009), entrepreneurship (Isenberg, 2010). The goal of this article is to compare different analogies by identifying the main * Corresponding author. Tel.: +37068672720. E-mail address: vaida.pilinkiene@ktu.lt. 1877-0428 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the Kaunas University of Technology. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.204

366 Vaida Pilinkienė and Povilas Mačiulis / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 156 ( 2014 ) 365 370 economic determinants and levels of impact for. Methods used in this article were such as general scientific research methods, systematic methods also comparative and logical analysis has been applied. It is significant to take into consideration the main differences between analogies and effect on interacting entities and the environment, because these s could cause impact to micro and macro levels. 2. Understanding of What is the and why this term is useful in economic fields, as well? Peltoniemi (2005) specifies that the biological is a system that consists of different organisms living on the same area. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993) defines as a system of organisms occupying a habitat, together with those aspects of the physical environment with which they interact. One of the first biological analogies in an economic field was used by Rothschild (1990) and it called Economy as an Ecosystem. Rothschild (1990) equates the global economy with biological : both of them are a system in which there is an interaction amongst the participants. In the biological way, every living organism is defined by its genes, relationships to its prey and predators. Moore (1993) mentioned, that innovative businesses can t evolve in a vacuum. They must attract resources of all sorts, drawing in capital, partners, suppliers, and customers to create cooperative networks (p. 75). In the economic context, entrepreneur is depending on its customers, competitors and suppliers, moreover every organization is defined by its technology and innovation level (Rothschild, 1990). Industrial Ecosystem. The term industrial was originally presented by Frosch & Gallopoulos (1989) and has been advanced by Korhonen (2001). Frosch & Gallopoulos (1989) specify that in an the consumption of energy and materials is optimized, waste generation is minimized and the effluents of one process whether they are spent catalysts from petroleum refining, fly and bottom ash from electric-power generation or discarded plastic containers from consumer products serve as the raw material for another process (p. 144). Aim of an industrial is to minimize the input of energy and virgin material in industrial operations. This means that, in industrial, key points are environmental protection and sustainable development. (Peltoniemi, 2005). Also, for manufacturers and consumers could operate as a solution of waste management at individual or collective consumption level (Galateanu & Avasilcai, 2013). Korhonen (2001) specifies three major objectives of an industrial : 1) minimum input of virgin material; 2) efficient use of virgin material; 3) minimum and harmless waste. Korhonen (2001) argues: the question in industrial ecology will always be about implementation, to change and redirect the routine behaviour of economic activity" (p. 258). This ecology analogue must be identified and valued not only by manufacturers and consumers, but also by policy makers and media. It is hard to achieve an ideal industrial in practice, but every actor "must change their habits to approach it more closely if the industrialized world is to maintain its standard of living and the developing nations are to raise theirs to a similar level without adversely affecting the environment" (Frosch & Gallopoulos, 1989, p. 144). Industrial analogue is similar to a biological one, but also has a difference - it includes aspects of sustainable development. This means that concept of an industrial is to focus on principles of sustainable development into all kinds of industrial operations. (Peltoniemi & Vuori, 2004; Galateanu & Avasilcai, 2013) Innovation Ecosystem. There are a plenty theories and frameworks to explain innovation which come from many various fields as economics, business, design, technology, sociology, and others. In response to global social, technological, environmental and financial changes, businesses and policy-making groups are looking for measures to stimulate innovation (Rubens, Still, Huhtamaki, Russell, 2011). The base of an innovation is the concept of a National innovation system. (Wessner, 2007). Stanford University s Innovation Ecosystem Network, defines an innovation as the inter-organizational, political, economic, environmental, and technological systems through which a milieu conducive to business growth is catalyzed, sustained, and supported. Adner (2006), describes innovation s as the collaborative arrangements through which firms combine their individual offerings into a coherent, customer-facing solution (p. 98). In a healthy innovation interactions between various institutions can combine entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and other participants to fulfill the national objectives (Wessner, 2007). Ecosystems analogies are not a matter of individual actors, but of interacting

Vaida Pilinkienė and Povilas Mačiulis / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 156 ( 2014 ) 365 370 367 populations of subjects residing in the same environment and creating value that no single firm could make alone (Durst, Poutanen, 2013). Wessner (2007) specifies that an innovation captures the complex synergies among a variety of collective efforts involved in bringing innovation to market (p. 5). Innovation comprises the knowledge of economy and commercial economy and evolves for the purpose of enhanced competitiveness (Jackson, 2011; Wessner, 2007) The successful implementation of these analogies depends on synergy of factors, which can be found in the areas of governance, strategy and leadership, organizational culture, resources, human resources management, people, partners, technology and clustering (Durst & Poutanen, 2013) Business Ecosystem. Business researchers started to use the concept of a biological in the analysis of business relationships and strategies. The term of business s was suggested by Moore (1993), who specifies that a company can be viewed not as a member of a single industry but as part of a business that crosses a variety of industries (p. 76). In a business actors work cooperatively and competitively to create new products, satisfy customer needs, coevolve capabilities around innovation. Business covers the company itself: customers, competitors, market intermediaries, companies selling complementary products and suppliers (Moore, 1996). Iansiti & Levien (2004) specify that the also comprises entities like regulatory agencies and media outlets that can have a less immediate, but just as powerful, effect on your business (p. 69). Ecosystem even includes the actions between competitors and customers, which affect the development of business processes (Iansiti & Levien, 2004). The life-cycle of is divided into four stages: birth, expansion, leadership, and self-renewal or, if not self-renewal, death. These stages have different competitive but at the same time collaborative challenges (Moore, 1993). Iansiti & Levien (2002) conceptualized health of a business : in a healthy the interactions between its actors can contribute to business development. Iansiti & Levien (2002) argue that a healthy should form a market for innovative technological components, and each firm will need to learn how to play this market and leverage components in its internal offerings (p. 56) There are three critical success factors of a business : robustness, productivity, and niche creation. Digital business. With reference to socio-economic development catalyzed by information and communications technologies, the term digital business was constructed by connecting digital in front of James Moore business (Stanley & Briscoe, 2010; Nachira, 2002). This was made by the convergence of information and communications technology networks, social networks, and knowledge networks. Digital business as a self-organizing business community could help to achieve the objectives set for the European Union at Lisbon Council: higher growth, more and better jobs, and greater social inclusion (Nachira, Dini, Nicolai, 2007). Isherwood & Coetzee (2011) define digital business as a decentralized environment where enterprises interact and establish collaborations with each other. The main goal of this is to support its actors to co-evolve in collaborative and competitive These actors interact with each other through buyer-seller relationships (Petrou, Gautam, Giannoutakis, 2006). According to Wang & Wilde (2008), digital business intends to provide an open source distributed environment, where software components, services, applications and also business models are regarded as digital species that can interact with each other, reproduce and evolve according to laws of market selection (p. 618). Nachira, Dini, Nicolai (2007) argue, that s initiative aims at helping local economic actors become active players in globalization, valorizing their local culture and vocations and enabling them to interact and create value networks at the global level (p. 7). Entrepreneurship. By economic theoreticians entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs are recognized as important drivers of economic growth, employment, innovation and productivity. Isenberg (2010) highlights that entrepreneurship consists of a set of individual elements - such as leadership, culture, capital markets, and open-minded customers - that combine in complex ways (p. 3). These elements integrated into a holistic system could turbocharge growth and venture creation in a specific location (Isenberg, 2010). Ahmad & Hoffman (2008) specify the of entrepreneurship as the combination of three factors: opportunities, skilled people and resources. These factors describe six key determinants affecting entrepreneurial performance: regulatory framework, market conditions, access to finance, R&D and technology, entrepreneurial capabilities and culture (Ahmad & Hoffman, 2008). The Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project categorizes their framework into these domains: policy, finance, culture, supports, human capital and markets. Policy covers government regulations and

368 Vaida Pilinkienė and Povilas Mačiulis / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 156 ( 2014 ) 365 370 support. Finance domain includes the full spectrum of financial services available to entrepreneurs. Culture covers societal norms and success stories that help to inspire people to become entrepreneurs. Support domain includes non-governmental institutions, infrastructure and the professionals support such as investment bankers, technical experts and advisors. Markets cover entrepreneurial networks and customers. Finally, human capital includes education system and the skill level of the workforce (Isenberg, 2010). Isenberg (2011) argues that successful entrepreneurship thus has broad spillover effects on the entrepreneurship, strengthening all of its domains (p.5). 3. Results This literature analysis led to compare biological analogies. Table 1 shows distinctive features such as environment, actors, key determinants affecting system performance and impact to micro and macro levels. Ecosystem analogies Table 1. Correlation coefficients of country of origin and project management maturity level by assessment area. Industrial Innovation Business Digital business Entrepreneurship Authors Frosch & Gallopoulos, 1989; Korhonen, 2001. Adner, 2006; Wessner, 2007; Yawson, 2009. Iansiti & Levien 2004; Moore, 1993 Nachira, 2002. Isenberg, 2010. Environment Local; Industrial From local to global; Interorganizational, political, economic and technological From local to global; Interconnected business From local to global; Digital Local; Specific location. Actors Manufacturers and consumers. Entrepreneur; Large and small enterprises; Educational institutions; Research institutes and laboratories; Venture capital firms; Financial markets; Government institutions. Large and small enterprises; Suppliers; Customers; Competitors; Owners; Investors; Government institutions; Other organizations. Research and education organizations; Innovation centers; Small and large enterprises with their associations; Local government and public administration. Financial capital; Educational institutions; Culture; Support measures; Human capital; Markets; Government institutions; Nongovernment institutions; Entrepreneur; Large and small enterprises; Micro level impact Waste generation; Minimize the input of energy and virgin material in industrial operations. Value and innovation creation; The level of firms productivity; Influence to innovation performance. Effect on business processes; Create cooperative networks. Provides the digital support for the economic development of enterprises; Effect on business processes; Affecting entrepreneurial activity; Encourages business creation and development. Macro level impact Sustainable development; Effect on environmental problems. Enhance competitiveness; Effect on innovation index; The level of productivity; Enhance competitiveness; Enhance competitiveness; Improve entrepreneurship level. Key determinants affecting performance Industry and environment interaction. Interaction between actors. Resources, governance, strategy and leadership, organizational culture, technology; Interaction between actors. Robustness, productivity, and niche creation; Interaction between actors. Services and technological solutions, business and knowledge; Interaction between actors. Opportunities, skilled people and resources; Interaction between actors.

Vaida Pilinkienė and Povilas Mačiulis / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 156 ( 2014 ) 365 370 369 The study shows that in the scientific literature there are different levels of investigations of analogies. It is difficult to list all results of the study in one table, because there is no general unit of measurement to assess the effects of internal actor, environmental impact and efficiency of the system. There is also a significant contrast to compare and evaluate the health of the individual analogies. Business can be distinguished from other analogies, because it has a comprehensive method that allows to show how healthy is the system. In other words, it opens up the opportunities to answer the question - does the specific business model work well enough in particular countries? Every analogy has different actors, its environment and various interactions between them; furthermore every have different scopes and objectives. For example, industrial is focusing on how to minimize the input of energy and virgin material in industrial operations, meanwhile digital business provides the digital support for the economic development of enterprises. The analogies have a distinctive effect on their entities and the environment, moreover they have different key determinant affecting the performance of the whole system. 4. Conclusion This paper discusses the concept of biological analogies in economic fields. These analogies are a relatively new concept in the field of business research, which reveals individual elements working as an entire system and interactions between internal actors. As in a biological, isolation of one actor can cause negative consequences, including the effect on health of the system. Each component of the system cannot work successful separately; synergy is achieved only through a relationship, which operates in a competitive and cooperative There are some findings of the study: 1. Ecosystem analogies have different scopes and objectives. Analogies operate in distinctive environments: from local territory (e.g. entrepreneurship ) to peer-to-peer computer networks (e.g. digital business ). 2. All analogies have an impact on a micro-level associated with actions of internal actors. Ecosystems promote the level of productivity, influencing innovation performance and can have an effect on business processes like in business or digital business s. Industrial change habits of both consumers and manufacturers and that helps to maintain a standard of living without devastating the environment, meanwhile efficient entrepreneurship encourages business creation and development in specific areas. 3. The levels of competitiveness, productivity and entrepreneurship are affected by healthy analogies, and it shows that the system can be a significant determinant of sustainable economic growth. This is a good example for the public institutions which are focusing on measures to increase economic development. Selfsustaining analogies operate in a natural environment as well as the biological. Artificial measures and concentration of resources to only one element on the entire system may not give the intended effect or even can have a negative impact. In other words, the impact of analogies to micro and macro levels depends on the effective interaction of system actors in a natural This study has a few limitations, which provide opportunities for further research. There are other biological matches which could be found in the scientific literature: social, venture capital, startup. Due to the limited length, these analogies are not mentioned in this study. However, the analogies also have a relationship with the economy and competitiveness, and should be considered in the overall context. References Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation. Harvard Business Review, 84, 98 110. Ahmad, N.; Hoffman, A. (2008). A framework for addressing and measuring entrepreneurship. OECD Statistics Working Paper No. 2. Durst, S.; Poutanen, P. (2013). Success factors of innovation s: a literature review. In R. Smeds & O. Irrmann (eds.) CO-CREATE 2013: The Boundary-Crossing Conference on Co-Design in Innovation, 27-38. Frosch, R.A.; Gallopoulos, N.E. (1989). Strategies for manufacturing. Scientific American, 261, 144-152. Galateanu, E.; Avasilcai, S. (2013). Business s architecture. Annals of the Oradea university, 79-84. Iansiti M.; Levien R. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 68-78. Iansiti, M.; Levien, R. (2002). Keystones and dominators framing the operational dynamics of business. Working paper. Isenberg, D. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review.

370 Vaida Pilinkienė and Povilas Mačiulis / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 156 ( 2014 ) 365 370 Isenberg, D. (2011). The entrepreneurship strategy as a new paradigm for economic policy: principles for cultivating entrepreneurship. The Babson entrepreneurship project. Retrieved from http://www.wheda.com/root/uploadedfiles/website/about_wheda/ Babson%20 Entrepreneurship %20Ecosystem%20Project.pdf Isherwood, D.; Coetzee, M. (2011). Enhancing digital business trust and reputation with centrality measures. Information Security South Africa (ISSA), 1-8. Yawson, R.M. (2009). The ecological system of innovation: a new architectural framework for a functional evidence-based platform for science and innovation Policy. XXIV ISPIM 2009 Conference: The Future of Innovation, Vienna, Austria, 1 16. Jackson, D.J. (2011). What is an innovation? National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://ercassoc.org/sites/default/files/topics/policy_studies/djackson_innovation%20e cosystem_03-15-11.pdf Korhonen, J. (2001). Four principles for an industrial. Journal of Cleaner Production 9, 253 259. Moore, J.F. (1993). Predators and prey: the new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71, 75-83. Moore, J.F. (1996). The death of competition: leadership & strategy in the age of business s. New York, Harper Business. Nachira, F. (2002). Towards a network of digital business s fostering the local development. European Commission Discussion Paper, Bruxelles. Nachira, F.; Dini, P.; Nicolai, A. (2007). A network of digital business s for Europe: roots, processes and perspectives. European Commission, Information Society and Media. Peltoniemi, M. (2005). Business. A conceptual model of an organisation population from the perspectives of complexity and evolution. E-Business Research Center. Research Reports 18 Tampere. ISSN 1459-0166. Peltoniemi, M.; Vuori, E. (2004). Business as the new approach to complex adaptive business environments. Proceedings of ebusiness Research Forum, Tampere. Petrou, M.; Gautam, S.; Giannoutakis, K.N. (2006). Simulating a digital business. Computational Finance and its Applications II, Southampton, UK: WIT Press, 43, 277-287. Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review Reprint, 7, 77 90. Rothschild, M. (1990). Bionomics: economy as. New York, Henry Holt and Company. Rubens, N.; Still, K.; Huhtamaki, J.; Russell, M.G. (2011). A network analysis of investment firms as resource routers in Chinese innovation. Journal of software, 6, 1737-1745. Stanley, J.; Briscoe, G. (2010). The ABC of digital business s. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1005/1005.1899.pdf Wang, J.; Wilde, P. D. (2008). Evolution-generated communications in digital business. Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems. 2008 IEEE Conference on, 618-623. Wessner, C. W. (2007). Innovation policies for the 21st century. Report of a symposium. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press.