Skip header Section
Skip Bibliometrics Section
Platform Ecosystems: Aligning Architecture, Governance, and StrategyNovember 2013
- Author:
- Amrit Tiwana
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
-
Understand how technical choices and strategy are inseparably intertwined and how to transform products and services into platforms.
-
Make platform architecture choices rich in strategic "real options" and amplify these choices by aligning how the platform ecosystem is governed.
-
Evolve platforms, app portfolios, and entire ecosystems into vibrant successes and envision emerging platform opportunities in almost any industry.
- Adner, R., 2012. The Wide Lens. Portfolio, New York.Google Scholar
- Adner, R., Kapoor, R., 2010. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strateg. Manag. J. 31 (3), 306-333.Google Scholar
- Adner, R., Levinthal, D., 2001. Demand heterogeneity and technology evolution: implications for product and process innovation. Manag. Sci. 47 (5), 611-628. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Adner, R., Snow, D., 2010. Bold retreat. Harv. Bus. Rev. 88 (March), 1-7.Google Scholar
- Agarwal, R., Bayus, B., 2002. The market evolution and sales takeoff of product innovations. Manag. Sci. 48 (8), 1024-1041. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anderson, S., Dekker, H., 2005. Management control for market transactions. Manag. Sci. 51 (12), 1734-1752. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anderson, P., Tushman, M., 1990. Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Adm. Sci. Q. 35, 604-633.Google Scholar
- Andreessen, M., 2011. Why software is eating the world. Wall Street J. August 20th. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460.html.Google Scholar
- Ang, S., Straub, D., 1998. Production and transaction economies and IS outsourcing: a study of the U.S. banking industry. MIS Q. 22 (4), 535-552. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Argyres, N., Bigelow, L., 2010. Innovation, modularity, and vertical deintegration: evidence from the early US auto industry. Organ. Sci. 21 (4), 842-853. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Armstrong, M., 2006. Competition in two-sided markets. RAND J. Econ. 37 (3), 668-691.Google Scholar
- Armstrong, M., Wright, J., 2007. Two-sided markets, competitive bottlenecks and exclusive contracts. Econ. Theory. 32 (2), 353-380.Google Scholar
- Arthur, B., 2009. The Nature of Technology. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Arthur, B., 2011. The second economy. McKinsey Q. (October), 1-9.Google Scholar
- Athey, S., Roberts, J., 2001. Organizational design: decision rights and incentive contracts. Am. Econ. Rev. 91 (2), 200-205.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Baldwin, C., 2008. Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms. Ind. Corp. Change. 17 (1), 155-195.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Baldwin, C., Clark, K., 2000. Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Baldwin, C., Clark, K., 2006. The architecture of participation: does code architecture mitigate free riding in the open source development model? Manag. Sci. 52 (7), 1116-1127. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Baldwin, C., von Hippel, E., 2011. Modeling a paradigm shift: from producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organ. Sci. 22 (6), 1399-1417. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Baldwin, C., Woodard, J., 2009. The architecture of platforms: a unified view. In: Gawer, A. (Ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 19-44.Google Scholar
- Banker, R.D., Kauffman, R.J., Kumar, R., 1992. An empirical test of object-based output measurement metrics in a computer aided software engineering (CASE) environment. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 8 (3), 127-150. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Banker, R.D., Kauffman, R.J., Wright, C., Zweig, D., 1994. Automating output size and reuse metrics in a repository-based computer-aided software engineering (CASE) environment. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 20 (3), 169-187. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Barnett, W., Hansen, M., 1996. The Red Queen in organizational evolution. Strateg. Manag. J. 17 (1), 139-157.Google Scholar
- Bernheim, B., Whinston, M., 1998. Incomplete contracts and strategic ambiguity. Am. Econ. Rev. 88 (4), 902-932.Google Scholar
- Bester, H., Krähmer, D., 2008. Delegation and incentives. RAND J. Econ. 39 (3), 664-682.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bollen, N., 1999. Real options and product life cycles. Manage. Sci. 45 (5), 670-684. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Boudreau, K., 2010. Open platform strategies and innovation: granting access vs. devolving control. Manag. Sci. 56 (10), 1849-1872. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bradach, J., Eccles, R., 1989. Price, authority, and trust: from ideal types to plural forms. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 15 (1), 97-118.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., 2006. Making design rules: a multidomain perspective. Organ. Sci. 17 (2), 179-189. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Burrows, P., 2011. How apple feeds its army of app makers. BusinessWeek. (June 13-19), 39-40.Google Scholar
- Caillaud, B., Jullien, B., 2003. Chicken and egg: competition among intermediation service providers. RAND J. Econ. 34 (2), 309-328.Google Scholar
- Cardinal, L.B., 2001. Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: the use of organizational control in managing research and development. Organ. Sci. 12 (1), 19-36. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chui, M., Loffler, M., Roberts, R., 2010. The Internet of things. McKinsey Q. 2, 1-9.Google Scholar
- Coff, R.W., 1999. When competitive advantage doesn't lead to performance: the resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organ. Sci. 10 (2), 119-133. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Courtney, H., 2001. 20/20 Foresight. Harvard, Boston.Google Scholar
- de Weck, O., Roos, D., Magee, C., 2011. Engineering Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Dekleva, S., Drehmer, D., 1997. Measuring software engineering evolution: a Rasch calibration. Inf. Syst. Res. 8 (1), 95-104.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dhanaraj, C., Parkhe, A., 2006. Orchestrating innovation networks. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31 (3), 659-669.Google Scholar
- Dougherty, D., 1992. A practice-centered model of organizational renewal through product innovation. Strateg. Manag. J. 13 (1), 77-92.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dougherty, D., Dunne, D., 2011. Organizing ecologies of complex innovation. Organ. Sci. 22 (5), 1214-1223. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Economist, 2010a. Bigger and better than Wi-Fi. Economist. www.economist.com/node/17647517 (accessed 9.08.2012).Google Scholar
- Economist, 2010b. Power from thin air. Economist. www.economist.com/node/16295708 (accessed 25.10.2012).Google Scholar
- Economist, 2012a. Make your own angry birds. Economist. (July 21), 55.Google Scholar
- Economist, 2012b. Outsourcing is so last year. Economist. www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/05/future-customer-support (accessed 12/6/2012).Google Scholar
- Eick, S., Graves, T., Karr, A., Marron, J., Mockus, A., 2001. Does code decay? Assessing evidence from change management data. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 27 (1), 1-12. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eisenhardt, K., 1989. Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14 (1), 57-74.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., van Alstyne, M., 2006. Strategies for two-sided markets. Harv. Bus. Rev. 84 (10), 1-10.Google Scholar
- Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., 2011. Platform envelopment. Strateg. Manag. J. 32 (12), 1270-1285.Google Scholar
- Ethiraj, S., Levinthal, D., 2004a. Bounded rationality and the search for organizational architecture: an evolutionary perspective on the design of organizations and their evolvability. Adm. Sci. Q. 49 (3), 404-437.Google Scholar
- Ethiraj, S., Levinthal, D., 2004b. Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Manag. Sci. 50 (2), 159-173. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ethiraj, S., Levinthal, D., Roy, R., 2008. The dual role of modularity: innovation and imitation. Manag. Sci. 54 (5), 939-955. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Evans, D., Schmalensee, R., 2007. Catalyst Code. Harvard Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
- Evans, D., Hagiu, A., Schmalensee, R., 2006. Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms Drive Innovation and Transform Industries. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Farrell, J., Saloner, G., 1985. Standardization, compatibility, and innovation. RAND J. Econ. 16 (1), 70-83.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Farrell, J., Saloner, G., 1986. Installed base and compatibility: innovation, product preannouncement, and predation. Am. Econ. Rev. 76, 940-955.Google Scholar
- Farrell, J., Saloner, G., 1992. Converters, compatibility, and the control of interfaces. J. Ind. Econ. XL (March), 9-35.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fenton, N., Neil, M., 1999. Software metrics: successes, failures and new directions. J. Syst. Softw. 47 (3), 149-157. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fichman, R., 2004. Real options and IT platform adoption: implications for theory and practice. Inf. Syst. Res. 15 (2), 132-154. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fichman, R., Keil, M., Tiwana, A., 2005. Beyond valuation: real options thinking in IT project management. Calif. Manage. Rev. 47 (2), 74-96.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fichman, R., Moses, S., 1999. An incremental process for software implementation. Sloan Manage. Rev. (Winter), 39-52.Google Scholar
- Gamba, A., Fusari, N., 2009. Valuing modularity as a real option. Manag. Sci. 55 (11), 1877-1896. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., 1993. Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: an exploration of sun microsystems' open systems strategy. Strateg. Manag. J. 14, 351-369.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gawer, A., Cusumano, M., 2008. How companies become platform leaders. Sloan Manag. Rev. 49 (2), 28-35.Google Scholar
- Gulati, R., Singh, H., 1998. The architecture of cooperation: managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Adm. Sci. Q. 43, 781-814.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hagui, A., 2006. Pricing and commitment by two-sided platforms. Rand J. Econ. 37 (3), 720-737.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Heller, M., 2008. The Gridlock Economy: How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation, and Costs Lives. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
- Henderson, R., Clark, K., 1990. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Adm. Sci. Q. 35, 9-30.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hibbs, C., Jewett, S., Sullivan, M., 2009. The Art of Lean Software Development. O'Reilly, Sebastopol, CA. Google Scholar
- Hilhorst, C., Ribbers, P., van Heck, E., Smits, M., 2008. Using Dempster-Shafer theory and real options theory to assess competing strategies for implementing IT infrastructures: a case study. Decis. Support Syst. 46 (1), 344-355. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hoetker, G., 2005. How much you know versus how well I know you: selecting a supplier for a technically innovative component. Strateg. Manag. J. 26, 75-96.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hoetker, G., 2006. Do modular products lead to modular organizations? Strateg. Manag. J. 27 (6), 501-518.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Huchzermeier, A., Loch, C.H., 2001. Project management under risk: using the real options approach to evaluate flexibility in R&D. Manage. Sci. 47 (1), 85-101. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Iansiti, M., Levien, R., 2004. Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability. Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
- Jackson, N., 2011. Infographic: the Internet of things. Atlantic. www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/07/infographic-the-internet-of-things/242073/ (accessed 21.9.2012).Google Scholar
- Jacobson, D., Brail, G., Woods, D., 2012. APIs: A Strategy Guide. O'Reilly, Sebastopol, CA. Google Scholar
- Jensen, M., Meckling, W., 1992. Specific and general knowledge and organizational structure. In: Werin, L., Wijkander, H. (Eds.), Contract Economics. Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp. 251-274.Google Scholar
- Kamel, R., 1987. Effect of modularity on system evolution. IEEE Softw. (January), 48-54. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kapoor, R., Adner, R., 2012. What firmsmake vs. what they know: how firms' production and knowledge boundaries affect competitive advantage in the face of technological change. Organ. Sci. 23 (5), 1227-1248. http://dx.doi. org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0686. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Katz, M., Shapiro, C., 1994. Systems competition and network effects. J. Econ. Perspect. 8 (2), 93-115.Google Scholar
- Kim, S., Mcfarland, R., Kwon, S., Son, S., Griffith, D., 2011. Understanding governance decisions in a partially integrated channel: a contingent alignment framework. J. Market. Res. 48 (3), 603-616.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kirsch, L.J., 1997. Portfolios of control modes and IS project management. Inf. Syst. Res. 8 (3), 215-239.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Langlois, R., 2002. Modularity in technology and organization. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 49, 19-37.Google Scholar
- Langlois, R., Garzarelli, G., 2008. Of hackers and hairdressers: modularity and the organizational economics of open-source collaboration. Ind. Innov. 15 (2), 125-143.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Levin, R., 2013. Driving the top line with technology: an interview with the CIO of Coca-Cola. McKinsey Q. (March), 1-4.Google Scholar
- MacCormack, A., Rusnak, J., Baldwin, C., 2006. Exploring the structure of complex software designs: an empirical study of open source and proprietary code. Manag. Sci. 52 (7), 1015-1030. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Macher, J., Boerner, C., 2012. Technological development at the boundaries of the firm: a knowledge-based examination in drug development. Strateg. Manag. J. 33 (9), 1016-1036.Google ScholarCross Ref
- McGrath, R., 1997. A real options logic for initiating technology positioning investments. Acad. Manage. Rev. 22 (4), 974-996.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Meadows, D., 2008. Thinking in Systems. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT.Google Scholar
- Messerschmitt, D., Szyperski, C., 2003. Software Ecosystem. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Meyer, M., Selinger, R., 1998. Product platforms in software development. Sloan Manag. Rev. 40 (1), 61-74.Google Scholar
- Mezias, J.M., Mezias, S.J., 2000. Resource partitioning, the founding of specialist firms, and innovation: the American feature film industry, 1912-1929. Organ. Sci. 11 (3), 306-322. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Moneverde, K., 1995. Technical dialog as an incentive for vertical integration in the semiconductor industry. Manag. Sci. 41 (10), 1624-1638. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Monteverde, K., Teece, D., 1982. Supplier switching costs and vertical integration in the automobile industry. Bell J. Econ. 13 (1), 206-213.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nault, B., 1998. Information technology and organization design: locating decisions and information. Manag. Sci. 44 (10), 1321-1335. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ostrovsky, M., Schwarz, M., 2005. Adoption of standards under uncertainty. RAND J. Econ. 36 (4), 816-832.Google Scholar
- Ouchi, W., 1979. A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Manag. Sci. 25 (9), 833-848.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ouchi, W., 1980. Markets bureaucracies and clans. Adm. Sci. Q. 25 (1), 129-141.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., 2005. Two-sided network effects: a theory of information product design. Manag. Sci. 51 (10), 1494-1504. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Parnas, D., 1972. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Commun. ACM. 15 (9), 1053-1058. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Parnas, D., 1979. Designing software for ease of extension and contraction. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 5 (2), 128-137. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Parnas, D., Clements, P., Weiss, D., 1985. The modular structure of complex systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 11 (3), 259-266. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Penrose, E., 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Pil, F., Cohen, C., 2006. Modularity: implications for imitation, innovation, and sustained advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31 (4), 995-1011.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Prentice, C., 2010. The washers and dryers that talk back. BusinessWeek. (August 9), 23-24.Google Scholar
- Rochet, J., Tirole, J., 2003. Platform competition in two-sided markets. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 1 (4), 990-1029.Google Scholar
- Rochet, J., Tirole, J., 2006. Two-sided markets: a progress report. RAND J. Econ. 37 (3), 645-667.Google Scholar
- Rogers, E., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, fourth ed. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Rohfls, J., 2003. Bandwagon Effects in High-Technology Industries. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Rysman, M., 2009. The economics of two-sided markets. J. Econ. Perspect. 23 (3), 125-143.Google Scholar
- Saloner, G., Shepard, A., 1995. Adoption of technologies with network effects: an empirical examination of the adoption of automated teller machines. RAND J. Econ. 26 (3), 479-501.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sanchez, R., 1995. Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strateg. Manag. J. 16, 135-159.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sanchez, R., Mahoney, J., 1996. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product organization and design. Strateg. Manag. J. 17 (1), 63-76.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schilling, M., 2000. Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 25 (2), 312-334.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schilling, M., 2005. Strategic Management of Technological Innovation. McGraw Hill, Boston, MA. Google Scholar
- Schrage, M., 2000. Serious Play. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
- Shy, O., 2001. Economics of Network Industries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Google Scholar
- Simon, H., 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 106 (6), 467-482.Google Scholar
- Simon, H., 1978. Rationality as process and as product of thought. Am. Econ. Rev. 68 (2), 1-16.Google Scholar
- Simon, H., 2002. Near decomposability and the speed of evolution. Ind. Corp. Change. 11 (3), 587-599.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sosa, M., Eppinger, S., Rowles, C., 2004. The misalignment of product architecture and organizational structure in complex product development. Manag. Sci. 50 (12), 1674-1689. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Strietfeld, D., 2012. As boom lures app creators, tough part is making a living. New York Times (November 17). www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/business/as-boom-lures-app-creators-tough-part-is-making-a-living.html.Google Scholar
- Tadelis, S., 2002. Complexity, flexibility, and the make-or-buy decision. Am. Econ. Rev. 92 (1), 433-437.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thompson, A., 2010. Good morning, this is your coffeemaker calling. BusinessWeek. (September 20), 41-42.Google Scholar
- Tiwana, A., 2008a. Does interfirm modularity complement ignorance? A field study of software outsourcing alliances. Strateg. Manag. J. 29 (11), 1241-1252.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tiwana, A., 2008b. Does technological modularity substitute for control? A study of alliance performance in software outsourcing. Strateg. Manag. J. 29 (7), 769-780.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tiwana, A., 2009. Governance-knowledge fit in systems development projects. Inf. Syst. Res. 20 (2), 180-197. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tiwana, A., Bush, A., 2007. A comparison of transaction cost, agency, and knowledge-based predictors of IT outsourcing decisions. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24 (1), 263-305. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tiwana, A., Keil, M., 2007. Does peripheral knowledge complement control? An empirical test in technology outsourcing alliances. Strateg. Manag. J. 28 (6), 623-634.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., 2010. Complementarities between organizational IT architecture and governance structure. Inf. Syst. Res. 21 (2), 288-304. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., Bush, A., 2010. Platform evolution: coevolution of architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Inf. Syst. Res. 21 (4), 675-687. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Trigeorgis, L., 1993. The nature of option interactions and the valuation of investments with multiple real options. J. Financ. Quant. Anal. 28 (1), 1-20.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Utterback, J., 1996. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Harvard Press, Boston, MA. Google Scholar
- van Schewick, B., 2012. Internet Architecture and Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
- Vazquez, X., 2004. Allocating decision rights on the shop floor: a perspective from transaction cost economics and organization theory. Organ. Sci. 15 (4), 463-480. Google ScholarDigital Library
- von Hippel, E., 1986. Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Manag. Sci. 32 (7), 791-805. Google ScholarDigital Library
- von Hippel, E., 1988. Sources of Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Wernerfelt, B., 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 5, 171-180.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Williamson, O., 1987. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Free Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Williamson, O.E., 1991. Comparative economic organization: the analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Adm. Sci. Q. 36 (2), 269-296.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Williamson, O., 1999. Strategy research: governance and competence perspectives. Strateg. Manag. J. 20, 1087-1108.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Williamson, O., 2010. Transaction cost economics: the natural progression. Am. Econ. Rev. 100 (3), 673-690.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Williamson, P., De Meyer, A., 2012. Ecosystem advantage: how to successfully harness the power of partners. Calif. Manag. Rev. 55 (1), 24-46.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Young-Ybarra, C., Wiersema, M., 1999. Strategic flexibility in information technology alliances: the influence of transaction cost economics and social exchange theory. Organ. Sci. 10 (4), 439-459. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zook, C., Allen, J., 2003. Growth outside the core. Harv. Bus. Rev. 81 (December), 2-9.Google Scholar
- Zweben, S.H., Edwards, S.H., Weide, B.W., Hollingsworth, J.E., 1995. The effects of layering and encapsulation on software development cost and quality. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 21 (3), 200-208. Google ScholarDigital Library
Cited By
- Xue C, Tian W, Zhao X and Huang C (2020). The Literature Review of Platform Economy, Scientific Programming, 2020, Online publication date: 1-Jan-2020.
Isckia T, de Reuver M and Lescop D Digital innovation in platform-based ecosystems Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Management of Digital EcoSystems, (149-156)- Song P, Xue L, Rai A and Zhang C (2018). The ecosystem of software platform, MIS Quarterly, 42:1, (121-142), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2018.
- Helmond A, Nieborg D and van der Vlist F The Political Economy of Social Data Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Media & Society, (1-5)
- Staykova K and Damsgaard J (2016). Adoption of mobile payment platforms, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 11:3, (65-84), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2016.
Recommendations
Fit into work! From formalizing governance of gig platform ecosystems to helping gig workers craft their platform work
AbstractThe current governance model of gig platform ecosystems benefits gig platforms and customers, but puts gig workers in the weakest position of the triangular relationship. Thus, gig workers experience difficulty in addressing hardships related to ...
Highlights- Understand how to build a governance environment to help gig workers craft gig work
- Conceptualize formalization governance of gig platform ecosystems
- Platform formalization governance helps gig workers craft their platform work.