Business Fields
Goals for describing and theorizing the environment	To understand the social power structure and evolution of the business field; the rules – and their formation, which is the institutionalization – guiding actor behavior; and the competition to influence those rules. Importantly, organizations are seen as more than productive and economic systems; they are also cultural and social systems (Scott, 2014).
Disciplinary basis and core constructs	The Business Fields approach draws on economic sociology and on the social construction of reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). The construction occurs in a subjective way through a complex interaction of institutional conditioning processes, and vice versa collective individual efforts to construct the social field. Two perspectives stand out: traditional field theory (Bourdieu, 2005; Fourcade, 2007) and neo-institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983, DiMaggio and Powell, 1991; Thornton & Ocasio, 1999). • Traditional field theory views markets or business environments as competitive arenas of social interaction for exchange of goods and services. Competition is thus a constitutive element and causes indirect conflict between market participants. Also central is actors' relative power, and consequently position in the field, which depends how much they hold of various capitals: financial, technological, cultural, commercial, social, and symbolic. The field is mainly regarded as a game, whose rules the actors by turns tacitly abide by and try to alter. Interest attaches to the actors' ability to influence and create social structures that, directly or indirectly, may “modify the prevailing rules of the [economic] game to their advantage” (Bourdieu, 2005, p. 81). • Neo-institutional theory shifts the emphasis to the institutionalization process. The field is defined by the community of purpose or business. In DiMaggio and Powell's (1983) definition, “By organizational field we mean those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations that produce similar services or products” (pp. 64–65). The interest lies in the processes whereby certain features of markets and organizations come to acquire an “objective”, natural and taken-for-granted character – a culture, in short – that makes them hard to challenge (Fourcade, 2007).
Structural and process descriptions	Institutionalization processes and the means or mechanisms to influence institutionalization play a core role. Taking a wide interpretation, institutionalization means the process of embedding some conception (for example, a belief, norm, social role, particular value or mode of behavior) within an organization, social system, or society as a whole. As such institutionalization is basic to grasping how new business fields get constructed and how existing fields function. Generally, three elements are considered fundamental in constituting institutions (Carvalho, da Cunha, de Lima, & Carstens, 2017). According to Scott and Davis (2007)), “institutions are made up of cultural-cognitive, normative and regulative elements, which together with associated activities and resources offer stability and meaning to social life” (p. 258, emphasis added). •The regulative or coercive elements are generally established by government bodies holding regulative power (local, national and global authorities); they manifest in rules, regulations, and sanctions, and are obeyed because of the coercive power behind the regulative element. •The normative element (social norms and values) emerges through complex interaction among the actors in the field including such NGOs as chambers of commerce and industry associations. These norms and values are seen as social obligations embodied in written and unwritten rules of conduct, and as sources of credibility and socially accepted behaviors. •The cultural-cognitive element (previously known as mimetic) is based on socialization processes producing meanings and taken-for-granted beliefs about the field, its constituting actors, behaviors and traditions. It involves beliefs about effective firm behaviors and the various logics whereby the (business) field operates and should operate. One business manifestation is the “recipes of successful behavior in the industry” examined by Spender (1989). As the cognitive structures are constituted by the internalized understanding of each actor, the actor's roles in the field quite evidently influence how he or she interprets the field (Scott, 2014).
Managerial frameworks or tools	Agency – freedom of strategic movement A key strategic issue concerns the agency or strategic freedom and independence of firms. Actors' (firms, managers) behaviors and actions, including sensemaking, are constrained by the collectively held culture and norms of the business field. Actors can, however, also act to change the institutional rules of the field (the “paradox of embedded agency”); actors can envision and pursue institutional change despite being embedded in an institutional status quo (Garud, Hardy, & Maguire, 2007). As mentioned, actors' relative power depends on their financial, technological, cultural, commercial, social and symbolic capitals and the importance of their functions for performing and renewing the field. This aspect can serve to extend the resource- and capability-based view of the firm. The functional roles and positions a firm can pursue are further affected by their perceived legitimacy and embeddedness (being in the center, on the periphery or “outsiders”) in the business field. Actors influencing fields The institutional line of research has offered theory-driven ideas for influencing the field. Competition drives firms to increase their various forms of capital subsequently increasing their power and position in the field and enabling them to influence the institutions and norms of the field. A single example will serve. Drawing on institutionalism but also collective action, stakeholder theory, and strategic network studies, Van Bockhaven and Matthyssens (2017) propose a comprehensive toolkit for influencing an emerging business field, consisting of: (1) recognizing and prioritizing stakeholders (stakeholder power and salience for the target issue, stakeholder self-interest); (2) assessing stakeholder dispositions (stakeholder group identity, stakeholder mapping); (3) mobilizing collective action (gaining resonance among a critical mass of stakeholders for the target issue, attracting resources and relationships that mobilize/influence wider actors, influencing political actors); (4) motivating targeted cross-sector participation to co-construct a new value-creating system (VCS), by recognizing various actor dispositions towards the targeted VCS, reducing actor uncertainty about the elements of the VCS, the mobilizer firm, the actors' expected role in the new VCS and field, and motivating actors with divergent mental models to converge on the new mental model). Diffusion of innovations New value-creation practices, rules of conducting production and commerce, and technologies emerge, diffuse, and become legitimated over time and at varying rates in a social system (Christenson, 1997; Fligstein, 1991; Rogers, 2010). The diffusion focus raises several questions for managers. For managers of an innovator: how to influence the diffusions process and boost the chance of a positive result, and how to influence the pace of diffusion and the targeted adoption? For a potential co-innovator: whether to join a specific innovation community, or a competing one? For a potential adopter: how to assess the risks of proposed innovation, and how to time potential adoption? One key take on innovation within the Business Fields Approach is dominant design theory. Whether about products or processes, or any aspects of a VCS – organizational forms, managerial innovation – this inquires how certain innovations become what are called dominant designs (Anderson & Tushman, 1990). Plainly, the stakes of that inquiry are high for both innovators and adopters, and the managerial questions posed above are relevant for dominant designs, too. Again, competition to achieve rapid innovation diffusion (Moore, 1999) or establish a dominant design forms a significant driver of firm behavior and field evolution. Since all major innovations are systemic, involving different types of actors and often major changes in the business field, the institutional theory of business fields provides significantly more comprehensive conceptual understanding and tools for innovation management than the traditional New Product Development (NPD) approach common in marketing. The Van Bockhaven and Matthyssens (2017) toolkit also works for innovation management.

Business Networks
Goals for describing and theorizing the environment	•The overarching goal of Business Networks research is to examine and describe firm environments (industries, markets) as interorganizational networks constituted by actor relationships. •To assess the characteristics of strategic networks and derive effective capability and organizational solutions. •To assess a firm's collaborative & competitive behaviors and management solutions in networks.
Disciplinary basis and core constructs	The Business Networks approach (not to be confused with social network theory from sociology) is an eclectic tradition influenced by resource interdependence theory, social exchange theory, transaction cost economics, and later by dynamic capability and cognitive management studies (Möller, 2013). Three streams can be identified: • Markets-as-Networks (sometimes called industries-as-networks, or industrial network) stream, concentrating on business networks as emergent structures. • Strategic Networks (sometimes called nets/valuenets) stream, addressing intentionally designed networks and their management (Möller & Halinen, 2017). • Innovation Networks - some authors identify networks focusing on the co-construction of innovations as a separate third stream, and we adopt this view.
Structural and process descriptions	Markets-as-Networks The Markets-as-Networks stream claims that the network perspective describes firm environments more aptly than the market and industry view (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995). There are two main areas of interest: the emergence processes and structure of boundaryless “macro networks”, and the emergence and functioning of focal business networks with limited participants (Möller, 2013). The focus is on reciprocal relationships among all kinds of actors (firms, government agencies, individuals, and so on) controlling all kinds of resources (financial, knowledge, technical and so forth) exchanged through actor relationships. Relationships are vehicles for actors to access and control resources, and for the co-creation of new resources. The environment is seen as comprising networks of actor relationships (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995). This stream places special emphasis on collaboration, based on mutuality and trust, as shaping network relationships, and thus on focal networks. Collaboration is seen as essential in creating new resources, technical and business solutions, and systemic market offerings. Competition for resources and network positions, however, also drive firm behavior. Actor behavior is environmentally embedded. That is, actions cannot be understood out of their local and historical context. Actors learn and construct their environment through enactment; the actor–environment relationship is reciprocal, and environment is non-transparent. Actors are considered organic and adaptive (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995). Moreover, actors, their resources and activities (the A-R-A framework, Håkansson & Snehota, 1995) are interdependent in the network; network ties both constrain and enable the behavior of actors. Resource control and actor ties define an actor's network position and potential influence (Håkansson & Ford, 2002). Strategic Networks The Strategic Networks stream focuses on governance and management of business networks. Strategic networks (or value-nets, strategic nets) are regarded as intentionally constructed organizational forms which firms initiate or join in order to pursue such goals and gains which are beyond the reach of a single firm (Möller & Halinen, 2017). Such networks may include supplier and marketing or distribution networks, technological-innovation and product-development networks, and different competitive coalitions used, for example, for establishing industry standards and for competing against other networks or a specific dominant player (Jarillo, 1988; Frels, Shervani, & Srivastava, 2003; Möller & Svahn, 2006). Key goals include identifying different types of strategic networks; assessing their management requirements and modes of organization; and developing a normative theory of network management. The strategic networks stream has strong links to the dynamic capabilities and knowledge-based views in strategic management (Möller & Rajala, 2007; Möller, Rajala, & Svahn, 2005). A significant issue is how the value-creating system underlying the network impacts its construction, organization, and maintenance. Notably Möller and colleagues argue that the construction and management of the network is significantly influenced by the level and orientation of the uncertainty (technological versus market) related to the business goals of the network. In high uncertainty contexts emphasis is on explorative behaviors targeting the co-creation of new solutions, in established business fields the network seeks to increase its efficiency and competitiveness through coordinated exploitation of each partner's key competences (Möller & Svahn, 2006). While the emphasis is on understanding collaborative network processes and practices, competition between strategic networks is a notable force. Availability and competition about resources and partners form a link to an extended dynamic capability view (involving collaborative forms) and through resource competition to the resource-advantage theory (Hunt, 1997; Wittmann, Hunt, & Arnett, 2009). Innovation Networks The Innovation Networks stream research focuses on the emergence and orchestration of networks pursuing co-construction of innovations and their commercialization (Aarikka-Stenroos, Jaakkola, Harrison, & Mäkitalo-Keinonen, 2017); Aarikka-Stenroos, Sandberg, & Lehtimäki, 2014; Möller & Rajala, 2007; Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996). The key goals are to provide conceptual tools for understanding the emergent and intentional construction of innovation networks, and managerial guidelines for influencing/orchestrating them (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006; Möller & Svahn, 2009; Pisano & Verganti, 2008). This stream has close ties with the Business Ecosystems approach, and, beyond our four selected approaches, with innovation and technology studies (Adner & Kapoor, 2010; Autio & Thomas, 2014; Möller & Halinen, 2017). The more systemic an innovation (involving various technologies and fields of knowledge, and actors mastering these), the more actors and networked collaboration it takes.
Managerial frameworks or tools	Markets-as-Networks stream The Actors-Resources-Activities (ARA) framework furnishes the key descriptive language for analyzing business networks. Networks are formed by actors who carry out various value-creating activities using resources they control. Actors can thus be described in terms of •their resource collection and activity structure; •a relationship via the resource ties, activity links, and actor bonds; and •a network via activity patterns, resource constellation, and the webs of actors constituting the network (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995). The Four Resources framework refines the resources element of the ARA framework. Resources are categorized as respectively: •products (any artefacts); •facilities (any kind of value-creating equipment for transforming and exchanging “products”); •business/ organizational units (governing and creating other resources); and •relationships (Håkansson & Waluszewski, 2002). “Network pictures” offer a cognitive view of how actors make sense of their networks, their mental mapping, and maps of networks and network relationships (Henneberg, Mouzas, & Naudé, 2006). Maps are postulated as guiding actors' strategic choices. Network change – process view. Social interaction/exchange, resource exchange and co-creation, and adaptation form the key processes for analyzing interorganizational and network change. Change is assumed to be progressive but often iterative (Medlin & Törnroos, 2014). Strategic Networks stream Levels of networks and network management - two frameworks: •A four-level solution involving different managerial capabilities: industries as networks (network visioning), firms in a network (network management, creation of network position), relationship portfolios (portfolio management), and exchange relationship (relationship management) (Möller & Halinen, 1999). •A three-layer framework (Möller & Halinen, 2017): fields; focal ecosystems and strategic networks; and actors (organizations). Two-way influence is postulated: each upper layer conditions and enables the formation and behaviors in the next layer down, and lower layers construct and constitute upper ones through their activities. Types of strategic networks and their management. Based on the degree of determination of the value-creating-system (VCS) underlying a strategic network, three archetypes (with subsystems) have been presented: • Current business networks (vertical demand-supply nets, horizontal market nets); • Business renewal networks (business renewal nets, customer solution nets); and • Emerging new business networks (science networks, dominant design nets, application nets). Each network is seen to require a specific set of management capabilities and organizational solutions (Möller & Rajala, 2007). Möller and Halinen (2017) enumerate the following generic capabilities: •visioning and sensemaking and sensegiving; •agenda development, conceptualizing; •mobilizing and creating network constellations – influencing, motivating, legitimizing; •goal construction and organizing – governance creating; •effectiveness seeking – value-system and solution development, market creation, production and dissemination; •efficiency seeking – coordination, performance controlling; and •network maintenance – renewing, updating. Innovation Networks stream Types of networked innovation. This framework asks how the complexity of innovation relates to its construction and commercialization through collaborative networks. The more, and more complex, technologies/knowledge bases the innovation requires, and the less compatible the innovation and the required technology/knowledge base are with the existing value-system of producers and customers, the more complex – in other words, multi-actor – the innovation network required. Vice versa, incremental and autonomous innovations, or “plug and play” networks are the easiest to mobilize (Möller & Svahn, 2009). Phases in innovation network emergence and co-construction and network orchestration. Radical systemic innovation, and a new business field, are postulated to emerge over three main phases: “exploring for future business, mobilization for applications, coordination for dissemination” (Möller & Svahn, 2009). The first phase is dominated by exploration, sensemaking, and sensegiving – reducing the inherent uncertainty – and involves flexible network collaboration. In the latter phases networks focus on exploiting member capabilities in a more coordinated way, as competition pushes them to commercialize innovation (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006; Möller, 2010; Möller and Svahn, 2006, Möller and Svahn, 2009).

Business Ecosystems
Goals for describing and theorizing the environment	The Business Ecosystems approach draws originally on biological ecosystems and aims to describe differences between industries (Moore, 1993, Moore, 1996), and especially collaborative forms of constructing innovations and business coalitions in general (Adner & Kapoor, 2010; Autio & Thomas, 2014; Frow, McColl-Kennedy, & Payne, 2016). The popular ecosystem metaphor enjoys wide use: e.g., business/innovation ecosystems, entrepreneurial ecosystems, platform ecosystems, and service ecosystems (Aarikka-Stenroos & Ritala, 2017).
Disciplinary basis and core constructs	The proliferation of uses involves conceptual ambiguity; ecosystem constructs closely resemble such other system-level approaches as fields, clusters, networks, and platforms (Adner, 2017; Ritala & Gustafsson, 2018). Most of the management-oriented ecosystem literature is very pragmatic, borrowing mainly from strategy, technology management, and innovation literatures (e.g., Adner, 2012; Gawer & Cusumano, 2002; Iansiti & Levien, 2004). Following Möller and Halinen (2017), within this overall approach we distinguish two main uses of, or perspectives on, the ecosystem construct: •The Macro Ecosystems perspective, or ecosystems as extensive “ecologies” describing industries/sectors/clusters/business fields; and •The Focal or Strategic Ecosystems perspective, or ecosystems as purposeful coalitions of actors. This perspective draws on micro- and evolutionary economics, institutional theory, networks research, and organization theory. Actors are generally seen as boundedly rational decision makers, restricted and influenced primarily by their resource base and the modes of interdependence (types of complementarity). A few authors also use institutional theory and ideas from value creating systems, as well as business network theory and strategy to make suggestions for ecosystem orchestration, notably Autio and Thomas (2014).
Structural and process descriptions	Macro Ecosystems Perspective The Macro Ecosystems perspective says economic and social domains comprise interrelated actors in competitive and collaborative relationships with various aims for influencing and even directing the co-evolution of the domain. These larger ecologies may refer to national level “innovation systems” (Lundvall, 2007) or regional systems like Silicon Valley (Engel, 2015) but more generally apply to industries or business fields. For example, the mobile services field could be depicted as a complex ecosystem. The overarching goal of this perspective is to describe the business environment's structural properties. However, we do not find this perspective much more informative than the Business Fields and the Business Networks approaches. The Focal or Strategic Ecosystems Perspective This more commonly employed, and often organization-centric, perspective sees ecosystems as purposeful coalitions or “the collaborative arrangements through which firms combine their individual offerings into a coherent, customer-facing solution” (Adner, 2006, p. 98), and more specifically as “the alignment structure of the multilateral set of partners that need to interact in order for a focal value proposition to materialize” (Adner, 2017, p. 40). Jacobides, Cennamo, and Gawer (2018) specify the perspective further. They argue the distinguishing features of ecosystems are the modularity of resources and their complementarity (unique per actor, requiring collaboration, and supermodular, i.e., providing extra gains by collaborative use), which are not hierarchically governed. Accordingly, “an ecosystem is a set of actors with varying degrees of multilateral, nongeneric complementarities that are not fully hierarchically controlled” (p. 2264). The nestedness perspective On a more general level, the Business Ecosystems approach sensitizes us to the nested character of business ecosystems (and fields). For example, the mobile services ecosystem/field comprises several focal ecosystems, e.g., Apple/iPhones/iTunes system and Google's Android system, which may further involve sub-ecosystems with their own organizational and/or technological platforms. Nestedness is also reflected in Thomas, Autio and Gann's (2014,) view of platform ecosystems: “For the platform ecosystem stream, the platform is a set of shared core technologies and technology standards underlying an organizational field that support value co-creation through specialization and complementary offerings” (p. 201). That definition ties platform ecosystems to not only the Business Ecosystems approach but also the conceptualization known as organizational fields.
Managerial frameworks or tools	As the theoretical research on business ecosystems overlaps significantly with the Business Networks Approach, we submit only a few extra observations. Innovation ecosystem emergence Dattée, Alexy, and Autio (2018) propose a three-phase process for analyzing and influencing from an orchestrator perspective the emergence of radically new innovations in contexts characterized by uncertainty, opaqueness, and flux: • Creating a “protovision” (sensemaking of enabling technologies and identifying potential futures); • Constructing an envisioned blueprint (clarifying the envisioned value system and its control points); and • Developing “enacted resonance” (orchestrating external and internal momentum to realize the blueprint among key actors/members). Business ecosystems construction – systemic elements Talmar, Walrave, Podoynitsyna, Holmström, and Romme's (2018) distinguishes two levels, ecosystem and actor, and offers a key two-part construct summary: • Ecosystem-level constructs: value-offering and value system, customer segments, actors; and • Actor-level constructs: resources, activities, value-addition, value-capture, actor dependence, and risk. Analysis and co-construction first identify value-systems then analyses the roles and risk of actors carrying out the necessary actions through their resources. Note the great similarity to the value-system perspective, A-R-A framework, and capabilities-based logic of constructing strategic networks, c.f., Partanen and Möller (2012); and to the management book by Adner (2012) addressing the “down-stream and up-stream interdependencies” and value-creation logics of participating actors in the ecosystem development. Modularity and complementarity Jacobides et al. (2018) advise managers to examine the types of complementarity of modules/resources brought by the ecosystem members and ask whether these are unique per actor, requiring collaboration, and/or supermodular, e.g., providing extra gains by collaborative use. This affects actors' relative power position and value-capture potential; see also Partanen and Möller (2012).

Market Systems
Goals for describing and theorizing the environment	The common denominator to this loosely coupled and evolving research approach is the conceptualisation of “market”: markets are viewed as parts of a wider socio-technical-material systemic context for value creation. This implies that markets are socially constructed human artefacts, created by actors who populate a specific context and engage in various practices (Araujo, 2007; Callon, 1998; Fligstein, 2001). As markets are socially constructed, they are also consciously re- constructible, or malleable. A systemic view forces firms to look beyond the blinders of the seller–buyer dyad and see it as part of a larger system of actors who contribute to value creation (Mele et al., 2015).
Disciplinary basis and core constructs	Research investigating systemic markets (c.f., Araujo, Finch, & Kjellberg, 2010; Kjellberg et al., 2015; Kjellberg and Helgesson, 2006, Kjellberg and Helgesson, 2007; Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011a) draws both on the above-described research traditions and various streams of economic sociology, management, complexity theory and evolutionary economics. There are several classifications of theoretical approaches to the study of systemic markets, such as that put forward by Geiger, Kjellberg, and Spencer (2012) using the dimensions of socialization and materialisation. For the purposes of this paper, we adopt the classification proposed by Mele et al. (2015), who drew on the etymology of the word “market” and identified two overarching dimensions: market-as-verb and market-as-noun. In our nomenclature these become the two perspectives of our overall Market Systems approach. The verb perspective on market systems highlights processes and activities, whereas the noun perspective illuminates entities and outcomes (Kjellberg & Helgesson, 2007; Mele et al., 2015).
Structural and process descriptions	Market-as-Verb: market practices and market work Markets are enacted as actors engage in three types of market practices (Andersson, Aspenberg, & Kjellberg, 2008; Kjellberg and Helgesson, 2006, Kjellberg and Helgesson, 2007): • Exchange practices relate to consummating individual economic exchanges; • Representational practices portray markets and the way they work and thus produce shared images of the market; and • Normalizing practices relate to the formation of norms and rules guiding the actions of market actors. Under this worldview, markets are always in the making: markets are not, they become (Kjellberg et al., 2012). Markets evolve in a perpetual, reciprocal process because of the constant, evolving translation between actors' market practices (Andersson et al., 2008; Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011b;). This yields many co-existing markets (Kjellberg & Helgesson, 2006), which take on multiple forms as actors perform market practices guided by their subjective perceptions of the market. Besides performing markets through market practices, actors do market-related work to make or shape market systems. Drawing on institutional work (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence, Suddaby, & Leca, 2011; Michel, Saucède, Pardo, & Fenneteau, 2018), Nenonen, Storbacka, and Frethey-Bentham (2019, p. 251) define market work as “purposeful efforts by a focal actor to perform and transform markets”. Mason et al. (2017) focus on marketization and market-making and identify three forms of conceptualization work necessary for new markets to emerge: conceptualizing actors' roles; conceptualizing markets; and conceptualizing goods. Baker and Nenonen (2020), on the other hand, focus on how existing market systems transform. They put forward twelve forms of collective market work, from selectively enrolling collaborators to negotiating rules and demonizing opposition. Market-as-Noun: market system elements, devices, and infrastructures Albeit recognizing the irreducibility of socio-technical-material systems, i.e., that they cannot be exhaustively reduced to their constituent parts, scholars have tried to map the entities or elements comprising market systems. Nenonen, Storbacka, & Frethey-Bentham, 2019, Nenonen, Storbacka, & Windahl, 2019) suggest three categories of shapeable market system elements: • Exchange by which the focal firm connects with customers (e.g., offering, price and pricing mechanism, channels and matching methods); • Actor network that supports the exchange and customers' use practices (e.g., focal firms' own supply network, network of competitors, customer network); • Institutional transmitters, i.e., the representations used to symbolize the market, and the norms that guide all interactions in it. In order to highlight the importance of inanimate market system elements, various researchers have concentrated on market devices, defined by Muniesa, Millo, and Callon (2007, p. 2) as “the material and discursive assemblages that intervene in the construction of markets”. Research on material market devices has covered topics such as the impact of shopping trolleys (Cochoy, 2009) or crucial infrastructure like barcode scanners (Kjellberg, Hagberg, & Cochoy, 2019) or roads (Burr, 2014). Immaterial market devices are market representations used to conceptualize and communicate systemic markets (Diaz Ruiz, 2013; Diaz Ruiz & Kowalkowski, 2014) such as segmentation models (Harrison & Kjellberg, 2010) or labels for new categories or market systems (Azimont & Araujo, 2007; Granqvist, Grodal, & Woolley, 2013). Other examples are the value propositions and business models of focal market actors (Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011b). Despite their inanimate character, market devices have performative power: by influencing market actions they accomplish the market and hence manipulate its development path (MacKenzie & Millo, 2003; Pollock & Williams, 2009).
Managerial frameworks or tools	Market shaping Viewing markets as malleable value-creating systems widens decisions regarding markets beyond market selection or positioning in an existing space. Markets are not precursors, but outcomes of agent-driven efforts to influence them (Nenonen, Storbacka, & Windahl, 2019). Firms with the right set of capabilities can engage in market-shaping activities (Kindström, Ottosson, & Carlborg, 2018; Nenonen & Storbacka, 2018; Nenonen, Storbacka, & Windahl, 2019). Nenonen, Storbacka, and Windahl (2019) identified two sets of capabilities in market-shaping: • Triggering capabilities directly influence market elements; and • Facilitating capabilities relate to actors' creative ability to decide how to apply triggering capabilities, by informing their purpose, ways of combining activities, and other principles for action. Non-predictive strategy and effectuation Being inherently complex, market systems require replacing traditional “analyze-plan-control” management by non-predictive strategy (Read, Dew, Sarasvathy, Song, & Wiltbank, 2009). This rests on effectuation theory (Sarasvathy, 2008) and suggests adaptive trial/error and rapid pivoting to create market opportunities (Alvarez & Barney, 2007). Business models are externally oriented and manifest in the focal actor's practices, which influence how the focal actor relates to others (Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011b). Hence, all interactions between market actors are in fact interactions between actors' business models. Key to market-shaping strategies is to engage in business model innovation: “designed, novel, and nontrivial changes to the key elements of a firm's business model and/or the architecture linking these elements” (Foss & Saebi, 2017, p. 216). Value propositions and business models as market-shaping devices Research identifies discontinuous value propositions as a key ingredient in market-shaping strategies (Kumar, Scheer, & Kotler, 2000; Nenonen, Storbacka, Sklyar, Frow, & Payne, 2019). Storbacka and Nenonen (2011b) propose that focal actors can offer “market propositions” that engage others in creating a shared market vision, which, in turn, can build the confidence to initiate market-level change involving many market actors (Kindström et al., 2018). Phases and triggers Market shaping takes time and evolves sequentially through an inter-related and overlapping three-phase process (Storbacka and Nenonen, 2011b, Storbacka and Nenonen, 2015): • Origination implies inventing or introducing a new market element or changing an existing one. • Mobilization - the performativity of the new/changed element depends on the scripting actor's ability to mobilize support for the idea or new/changed practice both inside the firm and on a meso level of the market. • Stabilization refers to a state where the proposed changes have solidified into the dominant logic of the market. However, markets are path dependent and characterized by inertia (Nenonen et al., 2014). Therefore, triggering the phases above takes a discontinuous event, a “disorienting dilemma” or “crisis”, best characterized as breakdowns in the flow of actions that forces actors to question current practice (Cope, 2003; Mezirow, 1991).