ECIS 2026 (2026) AI Processed Human Approved
ORCHESTRATION PARADOXES IN NATIONAL QUANTUM COMPUTING INNOVATION ECOSYSTEMS
This study explores how ecosystem orchestrators navigate paradoxical tensions within national quantum computing innovation (QCI) ecosystems. Using an explorative, interpretive case study of the Finnish QCI ecosystem, the authors analyze qualitative data gathered from 15 semi-structured interviews with diverse ecosystem stakeholders.
Problem
While ecosystem orchestration is vital for technological innovation, existing research has primarily focused on industry-led, single-firm B2B ecosystems. Consequently, there is a lack of understanding regarding how paradoxical tensions manifest and challenge orchestration in cross-sector, government-led ecosystems like those in the emerging quantum computing sector.
Outcome
- Organizing tensions were identified as the most frequent paradox, specifically focusing on the trade-offs between collaboration vs. resource competition and guidance vs. flexibility.
- Performance tensions emerged regarding resource allocation between software vs. hardware development and building a shared vision vs. individual firm survival.
- Belonging tensions highlighted a 'godfather' paradox, where the ecosystem must balance the state's role as a major supportive funder and customer with the ultimate goal of corporate independence.
- Learning tensions were characterized by the challenge of managing multi-talent knowledge development versus narrow technology specialization.
- The study is limited by its single qualitative case context in Finland with a small sample of 15 informants, requiring caution when applying these findings to other national contexts.
- Performance tensions emerged regarding resource allocation between software vs. hardware development and building a shared vision vs. individual firm survival.
- Belonging tensions highlighted a 'godfather' paradox, where the ecosystem must balance the state's role as a major supportive funder and customer with the ultimate goal of corporate independence.
- Learning tensions were characterized by the challenge of managing multi-talent knowledge development versus narrow technology specialization.
- The study is limited by its single qualitative case context in Finland with a small sample of 15 informants, requiring caution when applying these findings to other national contexts.
What it means for you
- CIO / IT Executive: Schedule a 9:00 AM meeting with your lead enterprise architect to audit your current quantum-readiness roadmap, establishing a formal policy that divides software development and hardware access investments 50/50 to hedge against the performance tension of committing prematurely to a single unproven hardware stack.
- IT Manager: Create a bi-weekly 1-hour 'Quantum Cross-Training' slot in your team's calendar starting this Friday, pairing your specialized quantum physics PhDs with your generalist cloud engineers to address the learning tension between narrow technical specialization and broad-based systems integration.
- Business Strategist: Perform a revenue dependency audit to calculate the percentage of your quantum business unit's funding derived from state grants versus commercial clients, and draft a pitch deck for two private-sector pilots to actively transition away from 'godfather' state-funding reliance.
- Researcher: Draft a pre-competitive collaboration agreement template to send to a peer researcher at a competing institution, outlining a shared framework for baseline algorithm testing while clearly defining IP boundaries to manage the tension of collaboration versus resource competition.
- Policymaker: Draft a revision for the upcoming national quantum funding round guidelines that introduces a 'co-investment requirement,' mandating that state-funded consortia secure at least 25% of their budget from private corporate buyers to counter the 'godfather' dependency paradox.
Transcript
Host: Welcome to A.I.S. Insights - Turning IS Research into Business Action. I am your host, Aaron Ivan Sterling. Today, we are discussing a study titled "ORCHESTRATION PARADOXES IN NATIONAL QUANTUM COMPUTING INNOVATION ECOSYSTEMS." Joining me to break this down is our expert analyst, Ava Irene Solis. Welcome, Ava.
Expert: Thank you, Aaron. It is great to be here to discuss this study.
Host: To start us off, Ava, could you give us a brief overview of what this study is about?
Expert: Of course. This study explores how ecosystem orchestrators navigate contradictory but interrelated demands—what researchers call paradoxical tensions—within national quantum computing innovation ecosystems. It specifically uses an explorative, interpretive case study of the Finnish quantum ecosystem to understand these dynamics.
Host: Quantum computing is certainly a major focus for many nations right now. But what is the specific problem or challenge that this study addresses?
Expert: The problem is that most of our existing knowledge about ecosystem orchestration is based on industry-led, single-firm B2B environments—think of platforms led by massive companies like Apple or Google. However, emerging technology sectors like quantum computing do not operate that way. They are cross-sector, highly science-focused, and heavily led or funded by governments. We have lacked a clear understanding of how orchestration works when you do not have a single dominant firm in charge, and when multiple public and private actors must work together.
Host: That makes sense. The dynamics must be entirely different when the state is heavily involved. How did the researchers go about studying this?
Expert: The authors conducted an explorative case study focusing on the Finnish quantum computing innovation ecosystem. They collected qualitative data through 15 semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of stakeholders, including representatives from ministries, funding agencies, research institutions, and private quantum hardware and software firms. They analyzed this data using paradox theory as an analytical lens to identify the tensions that challenge ecosystem orchestration.
Host: And what did the study find? What are these key paradoxical tensions?
Expert: The study identified several distinct types of tensions across four main categories. The first is organizing tensions, which were the most frequent. This involves the trade-off between the need for collaboration and actual resource competition, particularly for scarce talent. It also includes the tension between wanting strong guidance or governance and maintaining flexibility and a self-organizing structure.
Host: I can see how that would be a tricky balance. What about the other categories?
Expert: Next are performance tensions. Here, actors must balance resource allocation between software and hardware development. There is also a tension between building a shared ecosystem vision and the daily reality of individual start-up survival. Many smaller firms simply do not have the resources to help build a shared roadmap because they are focused on staying solvent.
Host: That is a very practical constraint. What else did the study highlight?
Expert: There are belonging tensions, which the authors describe through a "godfather" paradox. In this scenario, the ecosystem relies on the state as a major supportive funder and early customer to share risks, yet the ultimate goal is for these companies to achieve corporate independence and not remain permanently dependent on public subsidies. Finally, there are learning tensions, which involve deciding whether to develop a broad, multi-talent knowledge base across multiple quantum domains or to focus on narrow, specialized technology areas.
Host: These are complex, interrelated issues. Before we talk about how businesses can use this information, are there any limitations to keep in mind?
Expert: Yes, absolutely. The study is limited by its single qualitative case context in Finland and its relatively small sample size of 15 informants. Therefore, we must be cautious when applying these findings directly to other national contexts with different structures or funding models.
Host: That is an important qualification. So, looking at these findings, what is the practical value here? What can business leaders and technology practitioners actually do with this knowledge?
Expert: For businesses, especially start-ups in emerging tech, recognizing these paradoxes can help them align their strategies. For instance, understanding the "shared vision versus survival" tension means companies can better negotiate their involvement in national initiatives while securing their immediate operational needs. It also highlights the importance of transitioning plans. If a company relies on a government "godfather" role early on, it needs a clear pathway toward market independence.
Host: And what about public sector orchestrators or policymakers?
Expert: For policymakers, the study suggests using national quantum strategies and roadmaps as practical tools to balance survival behaviors with collective goals. They can design funding rules that help address the talent bottleneck by defining how specialized or broad the training should be. Most importantly, government orchestrators must plan to gradually transfer power to industry actors to foster a self-sustaining, market-driven ecosystem.
Host: It sounds like success is not about eliminating these tensions, but learning how to balance them continuously. Thank you, Ava, for sharing these insights with us today.
Expert: My pleasure, Aaron.
Host: And thank you to our listeners for tuning in to A.I.S. Insights. We hope these research-backed strategies help you navigate your own business and technology ecosystems. Join us next time for more actionable insights from the world's leading information systems research.
Expert: Thank you, Aaron. It is great to be here to discuss this study.
Host: To start us off, Ava, could you give us a brief overview of what this study is about?
Expert: Of course. This study explores how ecosystem orchestrators navigate contradictory but interrelated demands—what researchers call paradoxical tensions—within national quantum computing innovation ecosystems. It specifically uses an explorative, interpretive case study of the Finnish quantum ecosystem to understand these dynamics.
Host: Quantum computing is certainly a major focus for many nations right now. But what is the specific problem or challenge that this study addresses?
Expert: The problem is that most of our existing knowledge about ecosystem orchestration is based on industry-led, single-firm B2B environments—think of platforms led by massive companies like Apple or Google. However, emerging technology sectors like quantum computing do not operate that way. They are cross-sector, highly science-focused, and heavily led or funded by governments. We have lacked a clear understanding of how orchestration works when you do not have a single dominant firm in charge, and when multiple public and private actors must work together.
Host: That makes sense. The dynamics must be entirely different when the state is heavily involved. How did the researchers go about studying this?
Expert: The authors conducted an explorative case study focusing on the Finnish quantum computing innovation ecosystem. They collected qualitative data through 15 semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of stakeholders, including representatives from ministries, funding agencies, research institutions, and private quantum hardware and software firms. They analyzed this data using paradox theory as an analytical lens to identify the tensions that challenge ecosystem orchestration.
Host: And what did the study find? What are these key paradoxical tensions?
Expert: The study identified several distinct types of tensions across four main categories. The first is organizing tensions, which were the most frequent. This involves the trade-off between the need for collaboration and actual resource competition, particularly for scarce talent. It also includes the tension between wanting strong guidance or governance and maintaining flexibility and a self-organizing structure.
Host: I can see how that would be a tricky balance. What about the other categories?
Expert: Next are performance tensions. Here, actors must balance resource allocation between software and hardware development. There is also a tension between building a shared ecosystem vision and the daily reality of individual start-up survival. Many smaller firms simply do not have the resources to help build a shared roadmap because they are focused on staying solvent.
Host: That is a very practical constraint. What else did the study highlight?
Expert: There are belonging tensions, which the authors describe through a "godfather" paradox. In this scenario, the ecosystem relies on the state as a major supportive funder and early customer to share risks, yet the ultimate goal is for these companies to achieve corporate independence and not remain permanently dependent on public subsidies. Finally, there are learning tensions, which involve deciding whether to develop a broad, multi-talent knowledge base across multiple quantum domains or to focus on narrow, specialized technology areas.
Host: These are complex, interrelated issues. Before we talk about how businesses can use this information, are there any limitations to keep in mind?
Expert: Yes, absolutely. The study is limited by its single qualitative case context in Finland and its relatively small sample size of 15 informants. Therefore, we must be cautious when applying these findings directly to other national contexts with different structures or funding models.
Host: That is an important qualification. So, looking at these findings, what is the practical value here? What can business leaders and technology practitioners actually do with this knowledge?
Expert: For businesses, especially start-ups in emerging tech, recognizing these paradoxes can help them align their strategies. For instance, understanding the "shared vision versus survival" tension means companies can better negotiate their involvement in national initiatives while securing their immediate operational needs. It also highlights the importance of transitioning plans. If a company relies on a government "godfather" role early on, it needs a clear pathway toward market independence.
Host: And what about public sector orchestrators or policymakers?
Expert: For policymakers, the study suggests using national quantum strategies and roadmaps as practical tools to balance survival behaviors with collective goals. They can design funding rules that help address the talent bottleneck by defining how specialized or broad the training should be. Most importantly, government orchestrators must plan to gradually transfer power to industry actors to foster a self-sustaining, market-driven ecosystem.
Host: It sounds like success is not about eliminating these tensions, but learning how to balance them continuously. Thank you, Ava, for sharing these insights with us today.
Expert: My pleasure, Aaron.
Host: And thank you to our listeners for tuning in to A.I.S. Insights. We hope these research-backed strategies help you navigate your own business and technology ecosystems. Join us next time for more actionable insights from the world's leading information systems research.