The development of complex organisational ecosystems that reflect complex adaptive systems (CASs) calls for radically different strategic approaches with respect to the case of classical, stable hierarchical systems. A need for such strategic approaches especially increases in the contexts that lack cooperation traditions and trust and often require an explicit or implicit leadership in order to encourage and maintain development. However, the scientific literature still gives limited attention to strategic approaches to development by emphasising the latter’s dynamism. In order to contribute to filling this research gap, a qualitative, multiple case study of nine Lithuanian clusters representing a variety of industrial settings was conducted to reveal the enablement of the development of complex organisational ecosystems. The performed research enabled to reveal different strategic approaches in two different stages of the development of complex organisational ecosystems. In the initial stage, the experimentation strategic approach, the external agent strategic approach and the strategic approach of the ad hoc clustering of fellow professionals can be distinguished. In later stages, strategies that vary by the degree of involvement of the ecosystem members, such as the strategic approach of self-organisation, the strategic approach of coordinated self-organisation and the strategic approach of active coordination, are more explicit.

The paper explores the key strategic tensions in the development of organizational ecosystems as well as the applied responses. It presents a conceptual overview of the key tension areas faced by the coordinators of complex inter-organizational systems and the results of empirical case studies conducted in knowledge-intensive industrial clusters in Lithuania (in the fields of high-technologies, information and communications technology, medical innovations and wellness products, cinema and game industries, machinery production and tourism). The research presented in the paper identifies eight strategic tensions faced by the leaders responsible for the development of organizational ecosystems: (1) focused interventionism vs. self-organization; (2) hierarchy-based structures vs. network-based (eco)systems; (3) under-connectedness vs. over-connectedness; (4) central rules vs. emerging metanorms; (5) short-term vs. long-term orientation; (6) focus on elements vs. relationships in the system; (7) big wins vs. small wins; and (8) exploitation vs. exploration. Case studies and expert interviews with the coordinators of different industrial clusters revealed the diversity of adopted approaches. The more mature the social and industrial context of the industrial cluster is, the less pronounced are the strategic tensions, and there is less need for focused interventions. In cases where such interventions are needed, the leaders of ecosystems adopt one of the following approaches: (1) take a position on one of the extremes by seeking to leverage the situation; (2) adopt a trade-off approach by seeking a point of balance; (3) capitalize on both extremes at the same time. The adopted approach may vary from one strategic tension to another within the same organizational ecosystem.

This paper presents and analyses the dynamics of the development of knowledge ecosystem, putting more emphasis on interorganisational context, such as industrial clusters or “geographical concentrations of interconnected companies, specialised suppliers, service providers, companies in related industries and associated institutions (trade / industry associations, universities, educational institutions) that compete but also cooperate” (Porter 2000). This paper contributes to scientific efforts to minimise the gap of research on organisational entities whose development reflects the essence of an ecosystem – a network of interacting actors, which compete and cooperate in order to create and apply new knowledge on the grounds of self-organisation. This paper, following a dynamic approach to the development of knowledge ecosystems, analyses four development stages, the preconditions behind the viability of knowledge ecosystems and their interconnections.