[Douglas P. Hannah and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt were recognized as a runner up for the 2019 Ralph Gomory Best Industry Studies Paper Award.]

Research Summary Despite a wealth of research on competitive and cooperative strategy, gaps remain with respect to how firms successfully navigate cooperation and competition over time. This is especially true in ecosystems, in which firms depend on one another to collectively provide components and create value for consumers. Through an in‐depth multiple case study of five firms in the U.S. residential solar industry from 2007 to 2014, we induct a theoretical framework that explains how firms navigate nascent ecosystems over time. We identify three strategies, each with a distinct balance of cooperation and competition, as well as unique advantages, disadvantages, and required capabilities. Overall, we contribute to research on ecosystem strategy, crystallize the pivotal role of bottlenecks, and shed light on the dynamic interplay of cooperation and competition. Managerial Summary Competition and cooperation are fundamental to strategy, and often closely intertwined. But how firms navigate and balance cooperation and competition over time, especially in ecosystems where firms depend on one another to deliver value to consumers, is unclear. In this article, we conduct an in‐depth multiple‐case study of five firms in the U.S. residential solar industry to examine how firms can successfully navigate nascent ecosystems over time. We identify three distinct strategies, each with a distinct balance of cooperation and competition, and examine the unique advantages, disadvantages, and required capabilities of each. In doing so, we also contribute novel insights into the evolution of ecosystems and bottlenecks.

[Research Summary: Despite a wealth of research on competitive and cooperative strategy, gaps remain with respect to how firms successfully navigate cooperation and competition over time. This is especially true in ecosystems, in which firms depend on one another to collectively provide components and create value for consumers. Through an in-depth multiple case study of five firms in the U.- S. residential solar industry from 2007 to 2014, we induct a theoretical framework that explains how firms navigate nascent ecosystems over time. We identify three strategies, each with a distinct balance of cooperation and competition, as well as unique advantages, disadvantages, and required capabilities. Overall, we contribute to research on ecosystem strategy, crystallize the pivotal role of bottlenecks, and shed light on the dynamic interplay of cooperation and competition. Managerial Summary: Competition and cooperation are fundamental to strategy, and often closely intertwined. But how firms navigate and balance cooperation and competition over time, especially in ecosystems where firms depend on one another to deliver value to consumers, is unclear. In this article, we conduct an in-depth multiple-case study of five firms in the U.S. residential solar industry to examine how firms can successfully navigate nascent ecosystems over time. We identify three distinct strategies, each with a distinct balance of cooperation and competition, and examine the unique advantages, disadvantages, and required capabilities of each. In doing so, we also contribute novel insights into the evolution of ecosystems and bottlenecks.]

Abstract Research summary Analytic models are a powerful approach for developing theory, yet are often poorly understood in the strategy and organizations community. Our goal is to enhance the influence of the method by clarifying for consumers of modeling research how to understand and appreciate analytic modeling and use modeling results to enhance their own research. Our primary contribution is a guide for reading analytic models. Using comparisons with other methods and exemplar analytic models, we explore key features as well as counterintuitive aspects and common misconceptions. We also add by illuminating strengths and weaknesses of analytic modeling relative to other theory‐building methods. Finally, we identify under‐exploited opportunities for pairing analytic models with complementary methods. Overall, our aim is enhancing the influence of analytic modeling by better‐informing consumers. Managerial summary In this paper, we explore the use of analytic (mathematical) models for developing strategy and organizations theory. Analytic modeling is common in related fields like economics but is often poorly understood among the broader of strategy and organizations community. Whereas existing resources on analytic modeling are geared towards modelers, our aim is to enhance understanding and appreciation of the method among potential consumers of modeling research. We offer three specific contributions in this regard. The first is a guide for reading analytic models, including key features, counterintuitive aspects, and common misconceptions. Second, we clarify the strengths and weaknesses of analytic modeling relative to other theory‐building methods. Finally, we discuss promising opportunities for pairing methods.